" If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of the same universe at a succeeding moment."
Henri Poincare
Lets suppose his materialistic determinism is correct.
1. If we knew everything about how a coin will be tossed (wind etc) we could predict with absolute certainty if it would be heads or tails.
2. Therefore, probability is a measure of our ignorance.
3. However, it isn't! Probability is an objective mathematical calculation.
Probability is a measure of our subjective understanding and an objective fact!!! Does simplistic materialistic determinism dove tail with quantum mechanics?
Poincare!

 Posts: 1636
 Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
 Location: trapped inside a hominid skull
Re: Poincare!
If the Hameroff/Penrose thesis is correct (Orchor_OR) thesis is correct then determinism is at odd with free will.raw_thought wrote:" If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of the same universe at a succeeding moment."
Henri Poincare
Lets suppose his materialistic determinism is correct.
1. If we knew everything about how a coin will be tossed (wind etc) we could predict with absolute certainty if it would be heads or tails.
2. Therefore, probability is a measure of our ignorance.
3. However, it isn't! Probability is an objective mathematical calculation.
Probability is a measure of our subjective understanding and an objective fact!!! Does simplistic materialistic determinism dove tail with quantum mechanics?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction
Please note the wiki article doesn't deal with indeterminism per se when it comes to quantum mechanics.
P.S
In my view the implications of the Hameroff/Penrose thesis is the best argument we have to date for free will.
 hammock
 Posts: 232
 Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:21 pm
 Location: Heckville, Dorado; Republic of Lostanglia
Re: Poincare!
raw_thought wrote:"If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of the same universe at a succeeding moment." Henri Poincare
Yes, Henri, there are no anomalies. Scientists have examined all the countless lightyears of space, at all levels from the Planck scale to the macrocosmic scale, throughout time since the Big Bang; and empirically / experimentally demonstrated that every event, no matter how seemingly trivial, is inescapably subsumed under a rigid invisible hand (i.e., regulated by laws and principles which brook no indeterminate options). It was not a mere intellectuallyoutputted presupposition or a working assumption for proceeding. Also: "By gosh, even if FITB was impossible to confirm, we still know it's a fact!"Zeke Imperikal
Harry J. Gensler wrote:Consider empiricists who claim to know this to be true: 'There is no synthetic a priori knowledge.' This statement itself would have to represent synthetic a priori knowledge. For the statement is synthetic (it is not true by virtue of how we defined the terms 'synthetic' and 'a priori'—and it is not selfcontradictory to deny). And it would have to be known a priori (since surely we cannot know it on the basis of sense experience). So the empiricists' claim would be synthetic a priori knowledge—the very thing it rejects." [THE A TO Z OF LOGIC]
 attofishpi
 Posts: 3550
 Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
 Location: Orion Spur
 Contact:
Re: Poincare!
Good post...the three points make sense. Point 3. being an objective mathematical calculation still sits with the prior two points. All we are admitting at point 3. is that we dont have all the prerequisites (all the data) to know what the answer will be...which is more often the case with anything in life, hence probability.raw_thought wrote:" If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of the same universe at a succeeding moment."
Henri Poincare
Lets suppose his materialistic determinism is correct.
1. If we knew everything about how a coin will be tossed (wind etc) we could predict with absolute certainty if it would be heads or tails.
2. Therefore, probability is a measure of our ignorance.
3. However, it isn't! Probability is an objective mathematical calculation.
Probability is a measure of our subjective understanding and an objective fact!!! Does simplistic materialistic determinism dove tail with quantum mechanics?
Having probability as an objective mathematical calculation does not make the answer certain.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests