This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is the world Super-deterministic or not?
If there was empirical evidence that showed that the world was indeed "Super-deterministic" (as defined by physicist John S Bell) thus void of free will, would you accept the evidence based on its validity or reject the evidence outright and why?
How significant would the ramifications of such knowledge affect science, philosophy, and theology?
See evidence at: http://temptdestiny.com and at: http://temptdestiny.com/science.html
Manuel Morales
You are thinking in terms of effects causing effects, common mistake. "Causal moments" CANNOT exist prior to itself in order to be causal. Think about it.
Manuel Morales
A: Direct selection (single slit), and indirect selection (double slits).
In the double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), physicists have historically ignored the causal nature of the single and double slits as selection mechanisms. Instead, they focused on the phenomenon (wave-function collapse "effect") that takes place when an observation/measurement is made. Observation/measurement are "effects" of selections, not the cause of selections. So what we have here is the paradoxical interpretation of effects causing effects, not cause and effect.
This tiny detail is at the hart of the matter. I pointed this out in my initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment which is now included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M?
Gail . 50+
In his 1985 radio interview with renowned physicist Paul Davies, Bell said, "
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and
spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in
the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world
is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than
another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than
light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried
out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already
"knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of
states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a
distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a
dilemma."
His words, "there is a way" is not a statement of belief. It is the exposition of a loophole in the explanation of his famous theorem, now proven through a CERN experiment. The experiment that proved Bell's Inequality Theorem was undertaken only five or so years ago. (I think 1997).
Ultimately, there will never be a way to use a double-blind study to know if the world is superdeterministic (that your presence is absolutely meaningless) and that you are just a part of a computer program and have no part in what happens to you.
If a super-deterministic view were to go mainstream, I believe that there would be no way to put dangerous people in jail because they could reasonably argue that the computer program made them do it against their own will.
Manuel Morales
Direct Selection-->of one Potential-->Choice
Indirect Selection-->of more than one Potential-->Choice
Two types of causal agents-->Two types of physical states
... Occam's razor.
Gail . 50+
Tom Preusser
Manuel Morales
Regarding trends that you have mentioned, they all stem from lack of knowledge of causality. Currently all of what we call "knowledge", i.e., epistemology/ontology, is based on effectual causality (guessing). What I mean by that is without knowledge of how causality works, what we now call knowledge is nothing more than speculation.
Case in point: Let's say that you drop a coin "directly" into a cup; the outcome is certain, for there is only one potential selected - coin-in-cup. Conversely, you drop a coin "indirectly" into the cup by dropping the coin onto the rim of the cup; the outcome is uncertain, for there are more than one potential selected - coin-in-cup/coin-not-in-cup. By obtaining certain effects from a direct selection and by obtaining uncertain effects from an indirect selection, you now have addressed all causal possibilities.
You now observe two cups, each with a coin in them; can you tell which coin-in-cup "effect" was generated by an indirect or direct selection?
Without knowing which selection caused the coin-in-cup effect you can only make an assumption of how the effect was made. As demonstrated, if you know what "type" of selection occurred, you will know in advance if the effect of that selection is certain or uncertain for the two acts of selection predetermines both effectual states of existence.
So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it. - See more at: http://temptdestiny.com/
REVELATION - How will this knowledge affect science and religion?
Tom Preusser
Manuel Morales
If you are referring to "How will this knowledge affect science and religion?" then consider this. Although science and religion are of different fields, they both share the same foundation/knowledge of how effects cause effects whether we are talking about a deity (effect) causing our existence (effect) or an observed or measured effect (elementary particle) bringing mass to the universe (effect). We have place causality as an effect of effects. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? ... and so the paradox of effectual causality rages on.
Gail . 50+
You have yet to explain your answer. What is the answer to the question and how did you arrive at it?
If you are arguing in favor of it, you have given discreetly determined beginnings and discreetly determined endings, but you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid explaining the middles as well as the before the beginnings and after the ends.
Manuel Morales
One final note, I am not arguing for the evidence just presenting it. The evidence stands on its own. My opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant to the facts. Hence, the term "absolute" determinism.
Gail . 50+
You are trying to present an argument that it is all mechanical (deterministic - non-sentient cause). I come from the perspective that reality is sentient down to the smallest possible thing - each being sentient while part of a larger whole that is also sentient. (multidimensional)
Hence, I see you ignoring the before the beginnings as well as how the middles relate to that first cause, and you ignore the possibility of after the ends.
So far, you have not presented evidence for your position. You presented an argument that Bell (whom you referenced) found troubling. He said that it was the only way for his theory to be wrong. But Bell's theory was proven right about 5 years ago at CERN labs.
Your evidence does not stand on its own. It is dependent upon explaining a first cause. I can provide an explanation (theory), but can you?
Zman Kietilipooskie
Cause is assumed so effect causes effect
Manuel Morales
Gail . 50+
Zman Kietilipooskie
Cause and effect turning you head is the effect of your brain sending nerve signals from you head to the hand. Your neck turning is an effect.
Manuel Morales
Zman Kietilipooskie
Manuel Morales
Gail . 50+
Manuel Morales
The coin-in-cup experiment clearly demonstrates absolute determinism (see: http://temptdestiny.com) The term determinism simply infers that a physical system behaves the same each time it is "replayed" from its original state, i.e., direct and indirect selection - same results each time. So we have only two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive input variables of selection (cause) which in turn predetermines the two dichotomous output variables of certainty or uncertainty (effect). If everything is either certain or uncertain (absolute) then what else is there?
With the knowledge of how absolute determinism works, we can then obtain "absolute knowledge" of a physical state by knowing which type of selection has been made. If we do not have such knowledge then all we can do is guess. However, this lack of knowledge does not imply that such knowledge does not exist for we have established that for a physical state to exist necessitated that a direct or indirect selection took place prior to the observation or measurement of a physical effect.
... think about it. For further reading on this topic please review the initial findings of the Tempt Destiny experiment at: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571
Gail . 50+
Zman Kietilipooskie
Being that we are the effect of a cause, we can therefore be a cause of an effect. Cause creating an effect which then acts as a cause to another effect. Another layer of effects is made by the first cause.
(Cause)->Effect->(Cause->Effect)
Manuel Morales
No matter how much you wish to try to go around it, nothing can happen without a selection first taking place, including your choice to read my response and then choosing to respond or not. I have found that the simplicity is in the selection for there are only two types of choices that can possibly be made. The complexity you speak of comes from the paradox of effectual causality.
So the challenge I put to you is can you respond (effect) to this message without choosing to do so (cause)?
Zman Kietilipooskie
Manuel Morales
Mechanically speaking, our biological existence is based on our mechanical ability to select without which we cannot survive. Can't get more causal then that.
Gail . 50+
Manuel Morales
Jason Huffman
The only validity we have is our sense experience and when we discount that what we are left with is the condition of servitude to the universe- we are merely robots living out our days with a fated end. BUT, it is less empirically probable that "I am a robot person" than, "I make choices everyday" based off of sense experience. It comes down to a probability and people will decide if they are fated or if they make their own fate based off of sense experience.
I prefer to trust my senses as it simply makes more sense to me that I have choices than that I don't.
Manuel Morales
Actually, you can only choose what can be chosen sense experience or not. On top of that you have no choice but to choose in order to exist. Case in point, beginning tomorrow morning you will choose not to make a choice. This means you cannot get out of bed, move a single muscle, drink water or feed yourself without choosing to do so... and we call this free will?
Jason Huffman
Gail . 50+
THAT is free will.
Zman Kietilipooskie
And to say that it would be somehow possible to hypothesize the effect with a hugely complex predictor (maybe what he means by the universe) is possible but not likely. If this is true however it would simply mean that their is a mixed amount of data needed to know the cause and effect relationship of everything, but I would think that this would be huge in it ramifications effecting the whole of our lives.
However the awareness of our systems in order to calculate this would need to be so massive that we would need a huge leap in technology.
Manuel Morales
Why would the assumption of a "hugely complex predicator" be required? The construction of an atom is simple compared to what it is built from it. It appears you are confusing the complexity of the effectual world with the simplicity of causality. Case in point, when I asked if you are the cause of yourself you replied yes. The problem with such a position is that implies you were never born. I am trying to connect with what you are saying but your logic fails me.
Zman Kietilipooskie
To put it simply, we don't have the ability to prove or disprove this non-argument, partly due to the sheer complexity of everything.
Manuel Morales
1. "we (effect) must be able to comprehend (causal) everything in the universe (effect) just as the universe (effect) understands (causal) itself (effect)." = effect causing effect.
2. "we (effect) must have the ability (causal) to be aware of everything (effect), small scale and large scale." = effect causing effect.
I see you bought into the size paradox having to do with our knowledge of, or absent knowledge of, causality due to size. If something can be observed or measured then we have an effect/existence of something. However, if something is too small to be observed or measured, yet such a thing truly exists, then what caused that something to existence in the first place? Size has nothing to do with our understanding of cause and effect. As you have inadvertently demonstrated, your rational is not based on cause and effect. We are all effectual beings in that we are not the cause of our own existence. As you clearly demonstrated, we inherently think in terms of effects causing effects which blinds us to causality and thus we think effectual reality is reality.
The coin-in-cup experiment at the http://temptdestiny.com home page clearly elucidates our mental blindness.
As far as your assumption of complexity preventing us from understanding this topic, if we remove our blinders perhaps its not so complex after all...
Gail . 50+
Ahhh. After following this conversation this far (backwards), I now see the core problem of your view.
You said, "The problem with such a position is that implies you were never born".
The problem is that according to implications of Bell's Inequality Theorem (and Twin Slit Experiment) and even Schroedinger's Theorem, you WERE never born in an existentialist context but you were born in a localized context. This is not paradox. It is continuum.
Zman Kietilipooskie
Noun:
The relationship between cause and effect.
The principle that everything has a cause.
Manuel Morales
Zman Kietilipooskie
Manuel Morales
Gail . 50+
Barry Palmer 50+
It is not important whether the world is super deterministic. The important quality is that the world is unpredictable.
If it could be demonstrated, that the world is super deterministic, then many philosophers and thinkers will certainly try to give this fact significance. They will question concepts such as free will, justice, responsibility, etc. People will give this "discovery" a great deal of needless attention. Then most people will realize that it will have no effect whatever on their lives. Regardless of whether criminal acts are the result of free will, society must still deal with criminal behavior.
It does not matter whether our choices are directed by free will or by a deterministic process, like the choices made by computers. Suppose someone claimed that a new machine exercises free will. If you could not predict the outputs, It would be impossible to demonstrate that the machine lacks free will.
Humans are in exactly that same situation. To all appearances we are biological machines that are subject to the laws of the universe in exactly the same way as any man made machine. People who see humans in this way understand that our choices are the result of some deterministic process. This does not free us of the necessity to make choices. Understanding that the world is super deterministic has no effect whatsoever.
Manuel Morales
1. Mankind created deities in order to explain causality. Such a discovery, and by that I mean empirical evidence, would affect over one billion people in the world today.
2. The tens of billions of dollars spent on particle research would be affected since it is based on quantum mechanics not on absolute determinism.
3. A perfect (super-deterministic) input/output system would greatly affect the progress of quantum computing and nano technology.
4. DNA and biomedical research would also be greatly affected by such knowledge.
I agree with your understanding that we are biological machines in that we cannot act in violation of our own physical existence. See: http://TemptDestiny.com for more on this topic.
Barry Palmer 50+
2. Some particle research might be affected, but the research budget hardly at all. If you are thinking that super determinism means overturning the uncertainty principle, there is no reason to think so. The uncertainty principle would still hold, but it would be seen as a limitation on what we can know and learn, instead of a fundamental property of the particles.
3. I disagree with this statement also. It is most likely the other way around, that research into quantum computing will result in the discovery of super determinism. In any event, the uncertainty principle will still have to be dealt with. The discovery of super determinism will have no affect on the outcome of past experiments, so "spooky action at a distance" will continue.
4. You may be right. It is possible that super determinism would increase research in areas other than particle physics, and DNA research would most likely be one of these.
I overstated my case, the discovery would affect some research, It would affect the thinking of people who do not fully understand its implications and limitations. Still, from the perspective of society as a whole, these affects will be extremely minor. Most people will still go about their daily lives in the same way as before. Our justice system will continue, unaffected in its actions even if the rationalization behind the actions changes slightly.
My main point is that, regardless of whether the universe is super deterministic, the universe is unpredictable. Unpredictability has huge implications, and is a far more important quality than determinism.
Manuel Morales
2. The uncertainty principle is based on the assumption that everything is uncertain. Uncertainty without certainty makes uncertainty a certainty, i.e., a paradox. Absolute determinism shows that QM is incomplete as Einstein had alluded to decades ago.
3. Super-determinism has been discovered and is now included in the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System: http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/ui/abs/2011APS..APRE13009M? and the manuscript can be found here: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/3571
What has been discovered is that causality is a dichotomy as are its effects and not a singularity as commonly assumed. This overlooked detail compromises all knowledge based on effectual causality for what was assumed certain or uncertain will now need to be reevaluated.
Unpredictability stems from ignorance of causality. Please review the coin-in-cup experiment at http://temptdestiny.com
Gail . 50+
Zman Kietilipooskie
Manuel Morales
Zman Kietilipooskie
Yes everything is effected by cause and effect, the nature of the universe, however to say that everything can be predetermine(I'm assuming long before the action takes place) is not true because life acts against natural law.
Of course natural law still applies however free will can still apply under the laws of cause and effect.
Manuel Morales
The laws that you speak of are based on effectual causality, not true cause and effect.
Gail . 50+
Zman Kietilipooskie
Manuel Morales
Zman Kietilipooskie
But we are dictated by the laws of cause and effect, every action has a reaction, but to compare our reality to the actions of particles is to compare the action of the ocean to that of the fish.
Manuel Morales
george lockwood 20+
Manuel Morales
Gail . 50+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Manuel Morales
Lejan . 30+
And given our incapacity to understand even the 'stock-market' there is much time to come without us worrying. ;o)
Manuel Morales
Lejan . 30+
Manuel Morales
Lejan . 30+
Which does not make any difference to us, as we'll never find out about it.
'It only means we are not aware of what caused the question to begin with.'
I am pretty aware of the cause of my questions because I can not answer the meaning of my very existence to begin with. I don't even know if there is any meaning at all for me to be.
Guesswork is different from knowledge so as long I can not use the concept of 'super-determination' to calculate my very next decisions two steps ahead, it does not make any difference to me if this theory was 'absolute' right or wrong. The impossibility to proof it, makes it irrelevant to claim.
On my desk are two gummi bears. A red and a green one. Both of them can neither be seen nor touched. They are made of hyper-gum which does not interact with any force, energy or matter in this galaxy. I know that both of them exist. So what would be my point? What would be yours? None, as this claim would not make any difference in our daily lifes or knowledge... this claim was plain irrelevant.
'Super-determination' is actually nothing but the good old 'Laplace's demon' escaping the trap of blurriness and randomness of quantum theory once again. This probably makes up for the 'super' part of it... :o)
Yet even the Laplace's demon is plain irrelevant, as we won't even crack its source code as well. This is not even a matter of sheer 'calculating power', on this qantum computer may become pretty handy one day, it is a matter of the sheer number of unknown variables.
We could not even track the position of any grain of sand in a small childrens sandbox, so who sets out to do the rest of the universe? I won't, as I have to watch those silly gummi bears ... ;o)
Manuel Morales
Your gummy bear analogy is totally illogical. You state, "I know that both of them exist. yet you also say "Both of them can neither be seen nor touched." So now you are correlating conjecture of what you think may exist with the concept of physical existence and you claim this to be knowledge? I sorry, but I find your numerous assumptions of assumptions to be more about conjecture than about logic.
Lejan . 30+
If it is not impossible to you to obtain absolute knowledge, why is my gummy bear analogy then totally illogical?
But even without this confusing thought, you understood my gummy bear analogy absolutely right. It is illogical and nonsensical! Just as much as the 'Super-Determination' theory is. This was what I was trying to make you understand!
You claim the 'Super-Determination' to be real, yet you can't proof it. You may assume it, but this is as well conjecture and neither knowledge nor fact.
To me there is no absolute knowledge. It stems from the concept of reason within or simple minds, as we can not cope with anything beyond our imagination.
Give me a good proof that your Super-Determination is real and I will tell you the secret of the gummy bears... ;o)
Manuel Morales
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."
Gail . 50+
If the photons in the Bell experiment are entangled, then they are no longer two particles, but a at least three. or are really one multi-dimensional particle (not a paradox) - the most probable explanation. One of the three aspects of the core identity is not visible from our dimension making the apparent separation a perceptual illusion explained according to individual beliefs..