Jun 19 2011: I presume then,that there are no takers to solve the thought experiment.Since the action of "free will" seems indsitinguishable from "forced/ predetermined response", therefore both are infact one and the same.
Jun 19 2011: Dear Matt,
If we re-enacted the big bang with 100% precision (having over come all the difficult), there would be still one catch. One Intial condition would be different..it would not be at the same time t=0 as the orignal and would have an associated history (of an observer recreating the big bang) change the equations. Hence recreating the big bang with the exact initial conditions would not be possible ( even if travelled back in time t=0 to recreate it in a different but identical dimensions). Since creation of initial condition it seems would not be possible, hence replicating the exact same result would elude us. the difference I think between this and the repeatability of the regular experiment we do lies in the R factor.. A 95% factor is good enough to prove say two falling objectsfrom same height falling together. Rest being attributed to shape, wind etc.But to bring out the exact samehigh entrphy state of the universe, from thel ow entrophy state would require an R of 100% and nothing less. and the t>0 would put a varience factor ( however infinitesimally small) which progress geometrically with time.
Therefore primarily, the cause and effect law stays intact but the effort to recreate an event does not.
extending this case beyond t=0, to now. I propose if you could create an R=100% for every thing that happens, it should at first flow follow that the universe must become deterministic and future predictable. However the prediction must take into ints calculation ..pre-knowledge of the first iterative future generated by the model. Thus the calculation for the second iteration would be influenced by the first (which would in most cases now be incorrect). If the second iteration should throw up a future x, it would still risk a variance (caused by the pre-knowledge consideration at every second by every sentient being possessing the model)
Jun 19 2011: pre-knowledge would change the initial conditions, making the initial future determination incorrect.. however if the predictions were made based on pre-knowledge, then the future should as you said be determinable.
Jun 19 2011: I put forth a small thought experiment for consideration. Consider that we decide to test Free Will. So we bring two identical twins to the Lab, Maxime & Chad. They are so alike in every way that their parents cant tell them apart. There is only one difference .. One has no Free Will, but the other does. Now I offer them both a choice in ice-cream: Choclate or Vanilla. Maxime picks Chocolate and Chad picks Vanilla. Now we have to identify which one has free will and which one does not. Since I am unable to make out the difference, I invite all of you to questions aloud (by the way comments) to catch the person with Free Will. Anyone?
Jun 18 2011: I missing element in our scientific development work as humanity is any unifying consious strategy to priortize talent and resources towards key goals. there has never been infact ever a conversation around which problems across the plethora of sciences would give humanity a leap forward. It need not be "the grand theory" but maybe a better measuring principle which would help verify/ falsify some of the existing theories like strings. Frankly, being an Engineer biases me towards backend of science then front end. But it is my hypothesis that more accurate & sensitive clocks and such have led to subsequent theories or atest their proofs. Its tough one but wonder if TED could create a conversation around what problems should Humanity prioritze to take leap.
Feb 11 2011: Good Talk. It opened a new line of thinking for me. Some questions I had was .. do Adjoining colonies treat each other as friends or foes? Is their any social interaction between them. Are the mating places same for all years ? Do Ants from same queen mate?
And can we consider one colony as a single organism by the functions it jointly performs.
Thanks
Mihir
Sep 10 2010: The idea put forth of using principles of physics to interpret marketing situations is good.The analogies used for presenting te same could be pciked better so that it satisfies people's wish to be suprised and see ingenuity. Using Dimensional analysis to figure out the dimensional spaces that a brand operates? It could create a new line of thinking in marketing beyond existing measures of a brand.
TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Do you believe we have true freewill?
A comment on Conversation: Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
If we re-enacted the big bang with 100% precision (having over come all the difficult), there would be still one catch. One Intial condition would be different..it would not be at the same time t=0 as the orignal and would have an associated history (of an observer recreating the big bang) change the equations. Hence recreating the big bang with the exact initial conditions would not be possible ( even if travelled back in time t=0 to recreate it in a different but identical dimensions). Since creation of initial condition it seems would not be possible, hence replicating the exact same result would elude us. the difference I think between this and the repeatability of the regular experiment we do lies in the R factor.. A 95% factor is good enough to prove say two falling objectsfrom same height falling together. Rest being attributed to shape, wind etc.But to bring out the exact samehigh entrphy state of the universe, from thel ow entrophy state would require an R of 100% and nothing less. and the t>0 would put a varience factor ( however infinitesimally small) which progress geometrically with time.
Therefore primarily, the cause and effect law stays intact but the effort to recreate an event does not.
extending this case beyond t=0, to now. I propose if you could create an R=100% for every thing that happens, it should at first flow follow that the universe must become deterministic and future predictable. However the prediction must take into ints calculation ..pre-knowledge of the first iterative future generated by the model. Thus the calculation for the second iteration would be influenced by the first (which would in most cases now be incorrect). If the second iteration should throw up a future x, it would still risk a variance (caused by the pre-knowledge consideration at every second by every sentient being possessing the model)
A reply on Conversation: Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
A comment on Conversation: Do you believe we have true freewill?
A comment on Conversation: Do you have a suggestion for TED? Something we could do better?
A comment on Talk: Kiran Bedi: A police chief with a difference
A comment on Talk: Deborah Gordon: The emergent genius of ant colonies
And can we consider one colony as a single organism by the functions it jointly performs.
Thanks
Mihir
A comment on Talk: Dan Cobley: What physics taught me about marketing