With Or Without A Creator Does Man Every Have "free Will"

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Most likely this is just my unease with randomness being fundamental to the universe; but I do think it is possible that some assumptions made about those "hidden variables" could be shown to be unnecesary in some way in which we don't currently understand, and thus perhaps QM is governed by some "hiddener variables" or something.

Of course, you're not alone. Einstein fully agreed with you and, though he accepted quantum theory as valid, spent a lot of his life searching for the greater meaning behind quantum mechanics.Right now, though, there is no greater meaning in sight. It works so well and is so self consistent and predictable that any theory trying to be one level higher than quantum mechanics would have A LOT that it would have to perfectly incorporate.Saying that there is some greater force ruling quantum mechanics that knows the outcome of the randomness is no different than claiming the existence of a god.

[brvheart 1,757]

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread.

I was actually being sarcastic... your post was well thought out and full of big words, so I thought that my 'dumbass' comment would be funny/ironic.

[copernicus 0]

I was actually being sarcastic... you're post was well thought out and full of big words, so I thought that my 'dumbass' comment would be funny/ironic.

Apologies...my sarcasm antenna is dulled by other arguments so weakly presented that its hard to tell whether they are serious or ironic.

[BuffDan 0]

Of course, you're not alone. Einstein fully agreed with you and, though he accepted quantum theory as valid, spent a lot of his life searching for the greater meaning behind quantum mechanics.Right now, though, there is no greater meaning in sight. It works so well and is so self consistent and predictable that any theory trying to be one level higher than quantum mechanics would have A LOT that it would have to perfectly incorporate.Saying that there is some greater force ruling quantum mechanics that knows the outcome of the randomness is no different than claiming the existence of a god.

I wasn't saying I necesarily believe that there is an underlying determinism behind QM, but that it can't be completely ruled out. However, given my pop-culture "Barnes and noble" understanding of QM, it does seem most likely from Bell's theorem and other considerations that this probability is here to stay, whether I (or Einstein) like it or not.I find your last comment to be very interesting, and it brings up something I have found to be intriguing about my own belief system. While I have extreme difficulity with belief in God, and would consider myself to be mostly atheist for the time being, I have supreme belief in the existence of numbers and mathematics independent of human though, which I suppose is similar to scientists who are atheist but believe in the rationality of the universe. Why it is "obvious" to me that mathematics is perfect and independent of human thought but not "obvious" that our universe has a creator is an interesting study in psycology, at the very least.

[copernicus 0]

I find your last comment to be very interesting, and it brings up something I have found to be intriguing about my own belief system. While I have extreme difficulity with belief in God, and would consider myself to be mostly atheist for the time being, I have supreme belief in the existence of numbers and mathematics independent of human though, which I suppose is similar to scientists who are atheist but believe in the rationality of the universe. Why it is "obvious" to me that mathematics is perfect and independent of human thought but not "obvious" that our universe has a creator is an interesting study in psycology, at the very least.

Even mathematics cant be shown to be "perfect" (Godels incompleteness theorem). However the belief in its correctness, imo, is because the numbers that math is based on are representations of something physcial and encountered continually in our existence. While the names for the numbers had to be invented in order to communicate math, and do math, even beofre language the physical difference between 1 and 2 (or 3 etc) were of critical importance to us.In fact the counting numbers are so compelling to our experience that attempts to formulate math without a "Zero", because nothingness violated religious beliefs, failed miserably. It is probably one of the first triumphs of reason over religion.The overwhelming "correctness" of math, the rigor with which mathematical theorems can be proven, and the ability to represent the universe we experience mathematically (through physics) is the primary reason that I don't see the need for a "creator" and believe that ultimately all of natures secrets are knowable.Theists will claim that this overwhelming feeling of correctness is exactly the same as "faith". The difference is that there can be no independence of the universe (at least as we experience it) from math, but there can be independence of the universe from a creator.

[BuffDan 0]

Even mathematics cant be shown to be "perfect" (Godels incompleteness theorem). However the belief in its correctness, imo, is because the numbers that math is based on are representations of something physcial and encountered continually in our existence. While the names for the numbers had to be invented in order to communicate math, and do math, even beofre language the physical difference between 1 and 2 (or 3 etc) were of critical importance to us.In fact the counting numbers are so compelling to our experience that attempts to formulate math without a "Zero", because nothingness violated religious beliefs, failed miserably. It is probably one of the first triumphs of reason over religion.The overwhelming "correctness" of math, the rigor with which mathematical theorems can be proven, and the ability to represent the universe we experience mathematically (through physics) is the primary reason that I don't see the need for a "creator" and believe that ultimately all of natures secrets are knowable.Theists will claim that this overwhelming feeling of correctness is exactly the same as "faith". The difference is that there can be no independence of the universe (at least as we experience it) from math, but there can be independence of the universe from a creator.

Ahhh Godel's incompleteness theorem, finally we are talking about something I know a thing or two about. All it states is that certain formal axiom systems are incomplete and impossible to prove consistent; it doesn't say anything about the actual "numbers" themselves, just our perceptions of them. And I do think it requires a faith of sorts to believe that (1) numbers exist without a mind to comprehend them and (2) they are consisent, even when we get into the realm of numbers beyond which no human can possibly count to. As the famous quote goes "God exists because math is consistent, and the Devil exists because we can't prove it." I would like to think that this kind of faith is different from religious faith (more "logical" perhaps), but is it? Having gotten in this debate many a time, I am not so sure. Some would say the universe can exist independent of our mathematics, and that other intelligent beings could have different mathematics, so I don't know if your argument holds or not (the flip side is some would also argue the universe can't exist without a creator as well, but I won't get into that arguement). I agree that it seems like once you have the concept of a thing and two things, certainly the integers must all follow, but perhaps a being with a different brain might conceivably see it differently, and thus maybe it is not as ingrained in the universe as well think.I must confess that I do love these philosophy of math debates, and could really get into this discussion, though of course it is off topic (a tangent, if you will, to use a math term) to the thread at hand.

[copernicus 0]

And I do think it requires a faith of sorts to believe that (1) numbers exist without a mind to comprehend them and (2) they are consisent, even when we get into the realm of numbers beyond which no human can possibly count to.

Re: 1) Take our solar system before sentient beings existed. There were a certain number of planets. There was no mind to comprehend them, but there was a certain number of them. It is not the same as the "tree falling in the forest question, because "sound" is ambiguous. If sound means the movement of air, yes it does make a sound. If sound means the movement of air which ultimately strikes an ear (or a recording mechanism similar to the ear), then no, there was no sound.The counting numbers are unambiguosuly defined. 2) the existence and consistency of numbers beyond which we can count does not require faith, their properties are demonstrable through proof by induction.

[timwakefield 68]

It is not the same as the "tree falling in the forest question, because "sound" is ambiguous. If sound means the movement of air, yes it does make a sound. If sound means the movement of air which ultimately strikes an ear (or a recording mechanism similar to the ear), then no, there was no sound.

Just because I feel like being a nitpicker: The tree falling in the forest question is a sort of Western koan and is not meant to be interpreted intellectually. It is actually meant to free your mind from intellectual thought.But I agree that believing in numbers does not require a "leap of faith" any more than believing in apples or sunshine does.

[BuffDan 0]

Re: 1) Take our solar system before sentient beings existed. There were a certain number of planets. There was no mind to comprehend them, but there was a certain number of them. It is not the same as the "tree falling in the forest question, because "sound" is ambiguous. If sound means the movement of air, yes it does make a sound. If sound means the movement of air which ultimately strikes an ear (or a recording mechanism similar to the ear), then no, there was no sound.The counting numbers are unambiguosuly defined. 2) the existence and consistency of numbers beyond which we can count does not require faith, their properties are demonstrable through proof by induction.

Ah, but the solar system just guarantees the numbers 1 through 9, and if the universe is finite, only finitely many numbers can be guaranteed physical existence. Now, I will agree induction takes care of the rest, but belief in induction is a faith of sorts. It is its own axiom in peano's axioms for arithmetic, and it is certainly the most complex. Why should numbers that are far greater than humans can comprehend behave the way smaller numbers do? For that matter, how do we even know that adding 1 to a number always creates a new number? Though this seems absurd, any argument we can give is just based on our knowledge of how smaller numbers work; perhaps for some really large number it ceases to be possible to add 1 to it, in ways I don't even understand. Perhaps this is getting a bit crazy, but everything we know in math is just based on what we can comprehend. This isn't even mentioning the infinite and all the problems we have comprehending that; the axiom of choice, the continuum hypothesis, both statments that "should" be true or false, but because of the weakness of our understanding and our axiom system, we can't decide these questions.Ok, so I got a bit sidetracked. Back the point, note that I am not pointing this out because I don't believe in induction and the existence of numbers and their consistency; I believe in them absolutely, but I do see how some, and even how I at times, view that as faith.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Sometimes it's just easier to accept Axioms.It makes my head hurt less, at least.

[BuffDan 0]

Just because I feel like being a nitpicker: The tree falling in the forest question is a sort of Western koan and is not meant to be interpreted intellectually. It is actually meant to free your mind from intellectual thought.But I agree that believing in numbers does not require a "leap of faith" any more than believing in apples or sunshine does.

I would say that belief in the existence of small numbers we can have physical representations of is the same as belief in apples or sunshine. The problem exists in the infinitude of even the integers; when they get so big that they have no representation either in the universe or in our mind some kind of faith is required, especially in light of Godel's theorem which states that in our finite axiom system we can not even prove that the integers are consistent. Whether this faith is the same as the faith required to believe in an all knowing, all powerful creator is up for grabs.

[copernicus 0]

For that matter, how do we even know that adding 1 to a number always creates a new number?

Google Axiom of Infinity. That should address that question.

I would say that belief in the existence of small numbers we can have physical representations of is the same as belief in apples or sunshine. The problem exists in the infinitude of even the integers; when they get so big that they have no representation either in the universe or in our mind some kind of faith is required, especially in light of Godel's theorem which states that in our finite axiom system we can not even prove that the integers are consistent. Whether this faith is the same as the faith required to believe in an all knowing, all powerful creator is up for grabs.

See my next post which says see the Axiom of Infinity. Edit: damn board ruined that joke!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Also, that's a great signature, BuffDan

[BuffDan 0]

Google Axiom of Infinity. That should address that question.See my next post which says see the Axiom of Infinity. Edit: damn board ruined that joke!

But doesn't that mean you have to take the axiom of inifinity as faith? In fact, in my memory of reading mathematical philosophy, I think that very axiom comes into question. Anyways, eventually, to get from the finite to the infinite you are going to have to take some leap of faith, again is that a big leap or not, I don't know, but its a leap.

Also, that's a great signature, BuffDan

Thanks I wish I could claim it as my own work; it comes from the Steve Martin Play "Picaso at the Lapin Agile," an amazingly cool play about a meeting between Einstein and Picasso at the turn of the twentieth cetury that gets into art and science and really fascinating things.

[copernicus 0]

But doesn't that mean you have to take the axiom of inifinity as faith?

It only been about 35 years since I took set theory, so possibly something has come up since then, but my understanding was that the axiom of infinity is equivalent to "There is a set that contains all natural numbers", and that this was provable by contradiciton. (Ie you can prove that its contra isnt true).

[BuffDan 0]

It only been about 35 years since I took set theory, so possibly something has come up since then, but my understanding was that the axiom of infinity is equivalent to "There is a set that contains all natural numbers", and that this was provable by contradiciton. (Ie you can prove that its contra isnt true).

As it is listed as one of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms (which I think are the standard axioms of set theory), that would lead me to believe that it can't be proved by any of the others (which would make it supurfluous otherwise). I think it is needed as its own axiom to guarantee some infinite set exists. Now I will grant you such a thing is obvious and perhaps this discusion is a bit pointless, but you do need something to get from the realm of the finite to the infinite I guess is the point.