Determinism and Quantum Mechanics: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Determinism and Quantum Mechanics » Determinism and Quantum Mechanics

Determinism and Quantum Mechanics
Is hard determinism invalid?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Determinism and Quantum Mechanics

Ratheius Netheros
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 82

Posted 07/29/06 - 03:36 PM: Subject: Determinism and Quantum Mechanics	#1
Quantum Mechanics has found discovered events where a causation cannot be found and probability seems to exist in a pure form. However, I cannot wrap my head around this. If something is probabilistic, it is not random - it is caused to be probabilistic. In fact, the nature of probability is that more than one outcome can occur. This seems to deny hard determinist view - the exact outcome of an event is caused by prior events. However, the exact circumstance by which the probabilistic event had a result must have had a causation, right. Sure, the evidence points to hard determinism being invalid because of probability, as far as I can see, but doesn't logic also suggest that a hidden variable must exist? Either that or probabalistic events are reconciliable within hard determinist theory? Can anyone help? I am lost.

Ratheius Netheros
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 82

Posted 07/29/06 - 03:59 PM:	#2
Thanks, but I am still confused as to how individuals find the idea of probablistic occurences reasonable? Doesn't that assume the end result of an experiemnt is random? How can something be random when science itself relies on the principle of casuation (to my knowledge)?

SocraticBrian
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2004
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 450

Posted 07/29/06 - 05:22 PM:	#3
Ratheius Netheros wrote: Thanks, but I am still confused as to how individuals find the idea of probablistic occurences reasonable? Doesn't that assume the end result of an experiemnt is random? How can something be random when science itself relies on the principle of casuation (to my knowledge)? You are not confused. You are correct. I'm sure people thought rolling dice was random until newtons laws were discovered. Merely because a cause has not been discovered for a given phenomenon is not proof that one does not exist. Scientists are the confused ones. Since when did science stop insisting that scientific claims be suppoted by scientific evidence?

SocraticBrian
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2004
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 450

Posted 07/29/06 - 07:41 PM:	#4
Thousands of years elapsed before Newton discovered the laws of motion. It would have been wrong to conclude that no such laws exist. Not finding something is not proof that there is nothing to find.

Pablo D
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/29/06 - 11:52 PM:	#5
I wholeheartedly support the notion that quantum mechanics precludes hard determinism, as hard determinism precludes free will. The only other way to preclude hard determinism is supernaturalism (or similar) and I ain't boarding that train RN - just ditch hard determinism and meet your new friend uncertainty

billie
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Location: Bangkok, Thailand; California
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 07/30/06 - 03:50 AM:	#6
Pablo D wrote: I wholeheartedly support the notion that quantum mechanics precludes hard determinism, as hard determinism precludes free will. The only other way to preclude hard determinism is supernaturalism (or similar) and I ain't boarding that train RN - just ditch hard determinism and meet your new friend uncertainty Does it make you feel better to have probabilistic/random free will?

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2992

Posted 07/30/06 - 04:38 AM:	#7
I have never understood why people are upset with the idea that their behaviour may be based on an underlying mechanism. People obviously act towards other people as if the behaviour of others is predictable. Yet for some reason, it is preferrable to choose something for no reason rather than to be some thing with certain preferences. In any case, there is no reason to believe that quantum randomness plays any role in the brain. The majority of quantum mechanics does not display the apparent randomness. The brain does not, to my knowledge, contain any special magnets or half-silvered mirrors.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Pablo D
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/30/06 - 11:56 AM:	#8
billie wrote: Does it make you feel better to have probabilistic/random free will? No, but it makes me feel better that my future is uncertain Kwalish Kid wrote: I have never understood why people are upset with the idea that their behaviour may be based on an underlying mechanism. People obviously act towards other people as if the behaviour of others is predictable. Yet for some reason, it is preferrable to choose something for no reason rather than to be some thing with certain preferences. In any case, there is no reason to believe that quantum randomness plays any role in the brain. The majority of quantum mechanics does not display the apparent randomness. The brain does not, to my knowledge, contain any special magnets or half-silvered mirrors. You're looking at it as if it were a black and white issue, which it isn't. Sure, people's behaviour can be predictable, much like the weather is predictable. But-just like the weather-no matter how much you know about the mechanics of the brain and the mind, and now matter how much you know about the current state of someone's brain/mind, you'll never be able to make 100% successful predictions on what choices that person will make, and taking it one step further you'll never be able to likewise predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the universe no matter how much physical laws we uncover, because the fact is determinism relies on knowing the initial state of something, and once you start analysing somethings state then sooner or later you are going to hit quantum uncertainty no matter what it is you are studying (eg the mind/weather/universe) because all elementary particles operate according to the uncertainty principle-which has been a fact that physicists have been proving for the last 90 years, so feel free to publish a report on why they're all wrong if you claim to know otherwise.

anti-ism-ist
Honest Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 208

Posted 07/30/06 - 01:05 PM:	#9
SocraticBrian wrote: You are not confused. You are correct. I'm sure people thought rolling dice was random until newtons laws were discovered. Merely because a cause has not been discovered for a given phenomenon is not proof that one does not exist. It's not proof that one does exist either.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." --Isaac Asimov.

anti-ism-ist
Honest Thinker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 208

Posted 07/30/06 - 01:07 PM:	#10
Pablo D wrote: I wholeheartedly support the notion that quantum mechanics precludes hard determinism, as hard determinism precludes free will. And why do you believe free wil exists?
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." --Isaac Asimov.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.