TED Conversations

siddhesh vaze

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

who is right, free will or determinism. ?

this is what i know ablout free will , that anything in this world can happen , there is always a free choice for events to occur.
and this is what i know about deterinism . that everything in this world is determined/ pre-planned and it can not be changed , events will occur as they have to .
with taking this knowledge into assumption , who is right free will or determinism.

lets put a hypothesis that determinism is right.
now in the end if we prove that determinism is wrong then the basic assumption contradicts with the result. so if you assume world to be deterministic , it wont allow you to be non-deterministic.

but lets just put a hypothesis that there is free-will in this world. that everything is possible. then if we conclude that the world is deteriministic , then our original assuption dont contradicts with our result. it means that free-will allows the world to be deterministic.
dont this proves free-will to be right?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 26 2012: Given the paradoxical nature of the universe: From sub atomic particles having two distinctive natures at the same time (such as light being both a particle and wave) to how humans can live in a deterministic natural world and yet, with the right training and right attention break free from the chains of conditioning

    I would have to say the answer to your question is both are correct
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2012: convincing.....
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2012: except the universe does not have a paradoxical nature
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2012: Krisztian,

        what many phyicist found out during Einstines time was that the Universe when redueced to its basic sub-atomic elements did indeed have a pardoxical nature. This made Einstine uncomfortable and led him to state "God does not play dice with the universe".

        If you still think I'm full of it I suggest you really look up these:

        EPR experiment (which Einstine took a part of). In this experiment EPR asserted that the univese is at its core phyiscal, thus there is a external world. You should also look up an analysis of the Alice and Bob cart theory.

        Niels Bohr has a reponse to this as well so look up his response to EPR

        John Bell, who created a theorem that validated EPR theory (this is known as Bell's Theorem) set up the theorem in a way (strawman) so if it was to ever be refuted in practice it would shatter the whole notion of EPR. This led Bell to eventually when a nobel prize because his theorem was dispproved which meant EPR was wrong.

        The implications of this are profound because if Bell's theorem is wrong it only states that no physical world exist.

        look it up
        • thumb
          Mar 27 2012: i don't need to look up the EPR thought experiment, which meanwhile have turned into a real experiment. it says nothing about any paradoxons. it just shows that either our world is not "local" (scientific term) or quantum mechanics is not a final theory, just a statistical explanation of the world. einstein believed in the latter possibility. bell is believed to have proved the former, though it has been challenged by arthur fine, and the question is still open. but either way, there is no paradox here. queer is not paradoxical.

          and about the so called dual nature of particles. particles don't have dual nature, they only have one consistent nature, only it sometimes resembles waves, other times resembles flying balls. but that is only a paradox in our perception. particles behave the same every time.
      • thumb
        Mar 28 2012: well sadly I cannot hold a discussion with someone who is unwilling to look at arguments counter to their case.

        Secondly, no science ever claims to have a "final theory" and I never claimed that to be. As of right now and from what I read, studied and have been told, there are many particles that have two distinctive natures at the same time. Being that no on knows what sub-atomic particles look like, we really do not know the true nature of the universe but with the information that we have, it is more paradoxical (this word might not ever come close to what I'm trying to really say here). We are limited here by language but yes, depending on the experiment conducted, sometimes they would come off as wave and sometimes they would come off as particles but this does not suggest that there is one nature to it, it suggest multiple natures.

        Third, when I mentioned paradoxical nature of the world I was talking about everything, from quantum mechanics to consciousness to free-will.

        As humans we are used to describing things in binaries (either/or). This is something that we have been conditioned to do but when you think outside the box, you com to realize things really are in a way paradoxical and if you go to either extreme, you'll run into trouble.

        Here are a few things that I believe to be paradoxes (AS OF RIGHT NOW):

        Absolutism/Relativism (in the moral sense)

        That is all I can think about at the moment
        • thumb
          Mar 28 2012: But Orlando,

          You are missing the main point: particles and waves are what we use to describe the phenomena. That does not mean that there is a double and paradoxical nature to these things. This means that sometimes one model works, sometimes the other model works. Meaning they describe or predict what we see in terms we are already familiar to. But maybe a new model might come later and be the one to describe both situations without having to change the perspective from particle to wave.

          Same goes for other stuff. The math worked to predict interference and whatever else when they decided to pretend that particles go through one slit and the other (and visited the whole universe?), at the same time. But that does not mean that's really what's happening. Just that the math worked. I am aware that the equations seem to work great for a lot of stuff. Lots of precision and such. But I also read that equations (maybe not the same equations, but what the heck), get a cosmological constant quite wrong. orders of magnitude wrong. That would be a signal that should remind us that these are models, and that models try and represent reality, but are not reality themselves ...

          Anyway, for the other paradoxes. You seem to have found your answer. Maybe it would suffice not going to extremes.

          Anyway ...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.