## Free agent cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

bahman wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 7:20 pm The problem is that matter cannot decide since it is deterministic. The decision is due to a free agent.
This is very true. But only in instances when the decision is to be made between two or more EQUALLY avaiable and EQUALLY desirable outcomes.

This can be done by the mind. But not by an inanimate object.

Some may argue that such situations don't come up, but that is not an argument I'd accept.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

How do you get to the impossiblity of a free agent getting created by a deterministic movement structure? It happens. All the time. If your argument is a priori, then you must show where and why it is impossible.

I maintain that inanimate objects can combine in such ways that they create a sentient being capable of making decisions.

Why is your argument stronger than mine? I say the two claims are both possible and equally probable; we can't decide which is true and which is false, if it's indeed actually a mutually exclusive matter of causation processes.
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 4:29 am
bahman wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 7:20 pm The Schroedinger equation basically tells us how the information moves around. It is a deterministic equation, deterministic means that given the information at now, the information in the future can uniquely be determined.
Whoa. That's not how a proper interpretation of an equation is. Instead, you must write down the equation, name every variable in it, and give them meaning, and then explain how you got from the equation to what you claim it means.

Can you do that too? If yes, please demonstrate. That is, please do the following if you want to gain some credibility for your claim:

Quote Schroedinger's equation precisely as written
name each variable and give them meaning
explain how your interpretation follows from the equation.
Ok, the equation is as following: i*(d/dt)Psi(r,t)= H Psi(r,t). i is square root of minus one. (d/dt) is the time derivative. r is the position. Psi(r,t) is the wave function. And H is the Hamiltonian operator. Psi(t) is a complex function and its norm squared gives the chance of finding a particle at time t at position r. This equation can be written as i dPsi(r,t)=H Psi(r,t)*dt. dPsi (r,t) is the differential and can be written as Psi(r,t+dt)-Psi(r,t). This means that the equation can be written as Psi(r,t+dt)=H Psi(r,t)* dt/i+Psi(r,t). This means that if one gives us Psi(r,t) at a given time t then we can obtain Psi(r,t+dt) at future time t+dt. In another world, having the information about the existence of a particle at time t in space uniquely determines the information about finding of the particle in space at time t+dt.
Last edited by bahman on Thu May 14, 2020 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 4:39 am How do you get to the impossiblity of a free agent getting created by a deterministic movement structure? It happens. All the time. If your argument is a priori, then you must show where and why it is impossible.
Because the behavior of a system made of parts that each part behaves deterministically is deterministic too. The Schrodinger equation in this case is: i (d/dt) Psi(r1,r2,...,rn,t)=H Psi(r1,r2,...,rn,t) where r1,...,rn are the position of particle number one,.., and particle number n. Following the same line of the argument as it is shown in the previous post one can show that Psi(r1,r2,...,rn,t+dt) is uniquely determined in terms of Psi(r1,r2,...,rn,t).
-1- wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 4:39 am I maintain that inanimate objects can combine in such ways that they create a sentient being capable of making decisions.
The behavior of a system with many parts in which each part behaves according to the Schrodinger equation is deterministic as it is illustrated in the previous comment.
-1- wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 4:39 am Why is your argument stronger than mine? I say the two claims are both possible and equally probable; we can't decide which is true and which is false, if it's indeed actually a mutually exclusive matter of causation processes.
I have an argument against emergence if you mean that. I can provide it if you are interested.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

bahman wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 8:12 pm
Ok, the equation is as following: i*(d/dt)Psi(r,t)= H Psi(r,t). i is square root of minus one. (d/dt) is the time derivative. r is the position. Psi(r,t) is the wave function. And H is the Hamiltonian operator. Psi(t) is a complex function and its norm squared gives the chance of finding a particle at time t at position r. This equation can be written as i dPsi(r,t)=H Psi(r,t)*dt. dPsi (r,t) is the differential and can be written as Psi(r,t+dt)-Psi(r,t). This means that the equation can be written as Psi(r,t+dt)=H Psi(r,t)* dt/i+Psi(r,t). This means that if one gives us Psi(r,t) at a given time t then we can obtain Psi(r,t+dt) at future time t+dt. In another world, having the information about the existence of a particle at time t in space uniquely determines the information about finding of the particle in space at time t+dt.
i*(d/dt)Psi(r,t)= H Psi(r,t)

Thank you.

This is a differential equation. Differential equations are in the form:

f'(x) = c*f(x) - d

Which means that the derivative funcion of fx equals to the function times a constant, minus another constant

These equations can sometimes (but not always) be solved for x or for f(x)

So this equation is a differential equation, which yields r, the position, for a passage of time t.

Fine. This is great. Thank you very much. Psi is a statistical function, I believe. I don't know what the Hamiltonian operator is. If it existed, it went out with the human-operated telephone switchboard (most telephone systems had a HA or Hamilton number in North America back in the fifties and before.)

What's the norm of a function?
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

bahman wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 8:42 pm I have an argument against emergence if you mean that. I can provide it if you are interested.
Your deterministic model already proves that emergence is impossible without a supernatural or qualia-type substance interacting with matter.

My only contention is that qualia can be created by a deterministic system. I have no argument to support it.

How do you reconcile Schroedinger's Determinist Equation with Heidegger's equation of indeterminism? If it was Heidegger. His name started with an H and he was German, too. My mind is mush, I can't remember names or faces. Not Himmler or Hitler, I'm quite positive. Heidegger, Heidenegger, Heidiger, Highdigger, Hochenzoller, or Hochfelder, something like that.
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am
bahman wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 8:12 pm
Ok, the equation is as following: i*(d/dt)Psi(r,t)= H Psi(r,t). i is square root of minus one. (d/dt) is the time derivative. r is the position. Psi(r,t) is the wave function. And H is the Hamiltonian operator. Psi(t) is a complex function and its norm squared gives the chance of finding a particle at time t at position r. This equation can be written as i dPsi(r,t)=H Psi(r,t)*dt. dPsi (r,t) is the differential and can be written as Psi(r,t+dt)-Psi(r,t). This means that the equation can be written as Psi(r,t+dt)=H Psi(r,t)* dt/i+Psi(r,t). This means that if one gives us Psi(r,t) at a given time t then we can obtain Psi(r,t+dt) at future time t+dt. In another world, having the information about the existence of a particle at time t in space uniquely determines the information about finding of the particle in space at time t+dt.
i*(d/dt)Psi(r,t)= H Psi(r,t)

Thank you.
Cool.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am This is a differential equation. Differential equations are in the form:

f'(x) = c*f(x) - d

Which means that the derivative funcion of fx equals to the function times a constant, minus another constant
No, they are in form f'(x)=(f(x+dx)-f(x))/dx where dx is a defrintial.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am These equations can sometimes (but not always) be solved for x or for f(x)
Yes, sometimes there is an analytical solution. There is however always a numerical solution.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am So this equation is a differential equation, which yields r, the position, for a passage of time t.
This is a differential equation for Psi in terms of r and t.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am Fine. This is great. Thank you very much. Psi is a statistical function, I believe.
Yes.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am I don't know what the Hamiltonian operator is.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:11 am If it existed, it went out with the human-operated telephone switchboard (most telephone systems had a HA or Hamilton number in North America back in the fifties and before.)

What's the norm of a function?
A complex number is Z=x+iy. The norm of it is |z|=sqrt(x^2+y^2).
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 8:42 pm I have an argument against emergence if you mean that. I can provide it if you are interested.
Your deterministic model already proves that emergence is impossible without a supernatural or qualia-type substance interacting with matter.
Yes, the emergence is impossible. And yes, minds are needed to affect matter through causation, for example, make it non-deterministic. It is up to you to move matter. That where the decision comes to play.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 am My only contention is that qualia can be created by a deterministic system.
The mind has ability to experience stuff. Matter is one of the forms that we can experience. Thoughts are another example. Matter cannot create. There is no emergence.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 am I have no argument to support it.
Emergence is impossible.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 am How do you reconcile Schroedinger's Determinist Equation with Heidegger's equation of indeterminism? If it was Heidegger. His name started with an H and he was German, too. My mind is mush, I can't remember names or faces. Not Himmler or Hitler, I'm quite positive. Heidegger, Heidenegger, Heidiger, Highdigger, Hochenzoller, or Hochfelder, something like that.
I couldn't find another equation by googling. Could you please clarify the name.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

bahman wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 7:42 pm Emergence is impossible.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 am How do you reconcile Schroedinger's Determinist Equation with Heidegger's equation of indeterminism? If it was Heidegger. ....
I couldn't find another equation by googling. Could you please clarify the name.
I'll try. Please gimme a day or two from now.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

I found a really good (and very old) article that tackles the subject.

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm

I quote it below.

The significance of it is that quantum world is indeterminate, and its effect on the macro world (the world we live in and experience via our senses and apparatuses) is that the indeterminate quantum world makes the determinate macro world also indeterminate.

This sort of denies Schroedinger's Determinist Equation, don't it? After all, things are either deterministic, or non-deterministic.

How do you reconcile Schroedinger's Determinist Equation with Heisenberg's theory of indeterminism?

Here's the article. I think it's written in plain enough language to a dilettante audience.

Notes on Quantum Indeterminacy

It is important that we understand what modern physicists say about quantum indeterminacy. It is a very unintuitive notion, and I sympathize completely with people who distrust it. My own reaction to it was this: "This can't be right. They must be confusing not knowing the event's cause with the event not having a cause."

If physicists were confused about this, then we wouldn't need to take them seriously. But they are not confused about this. They know the distinction, and they continue to believe in quantum indeterminacy (QI).

In the early days of QI, the physicists seemed to be making that mistake. Some of them claimed that QI was an implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg pointed out that we can measure an electron's position, but in doing so we destroy any possibility of measuring it's momentum, and vice versa. So the combination of position and momentum of an electron is uncertain.

Notice that "uncertainty" is a characteristic that is an epistemological concept -- it is defined in terms of knowability. The argument seemed to be Uncertainty, therefore Quantum Indeterminacy:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)

But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.

In other words, QI, therefore Uncertainty. (You can't know something that doesn't have a determinate truth.)

All modern science is falliblist in epistemology. That means that any scientific theory might be wrong. We all acknowledge this. But scientific theories vary a lot in how likely they are to turn out to be wrong. The present state of physics makes quantum indeterminism a very well-established theory. It may still turn out to be wrong, in the sense that any theory may turn out to be wrong. Just like the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun might turn out to be wrong.

But QI is very well established. Very few scientific theories are as well verified by experience. And remember, the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes. Again, it might turn out to be wrong, but we still ought to take quantum indeterminacy seriously.

Quantum indeterminism asserts that certain kinds of events, call them "Q events" are indeterministic. Really really really indeterministic, not just "as far as we know" indeterministic. Q events are (approximately) events that take place at a sub-atomic level. An example is the radioactive decay of a radioactive element. (There are lots of other examples, but this is an easy one to think of.)

Radioactive elements have half-lives. The half-life of an element is the length of time during which one atom of the element has a 50% chance of undergoing radioactive decay. That probabability is a real, objective probability, even though there is no real, objective cause for an individual case of radioactive decay.

The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 million years. It decays into thorium-234, which has a half-life of 24.5 days. There are tons of radioactive elements with various half-lives, some very short and some very long. And it's ALL probability (objective probability) when each event will occur. According to QI, of course.

(I don't really care whether you believe in QI. But I do really want you to understand it.)

Let's call non-Q events "M events" for "macroscopic events". Now, you might think that QI is not a problem for Causal Determinism, as long as we restrict CD to non-Q events. Is that possible? We live in the M-world after all -- the world of macroscopic events, larger than atoms. Maybe CD is true of all M events even though it is false of all Q events.

Nope. First of all, physicists will claim that all M events are merely the additive effects of a lot of little Q events. But even if that's false, there's a bigger problem. There are certain Q events that have a huge influence on events in the M world. One example is sunshine. According to the best physics of today, sunshine comes from nuclear fusion, which is a Q phenomenon. Secondly, nuclear explosions. Thirdly, the clicking of a Geiger counter. We'll discuss in class this penetration of Q events into the M world that we live in (or like to think we live in).

Just to give you an example of how seriously this is taken by physicists, the following is quoted from Abner Shimony, "The Reality of the Quantum World", Scientific American, January 1988.

Shimony describes "indefiniteness" and the "superposition principle" (you don’t really need to know what they mean) then continues:

"From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways."

"A number of theorists have maintained however, that [quantum-theory-described physical systems] ... differ from one another in ways not mentioned by the quantum state, and this is the reason the outcomes of the individual experiments are different. The properties of individual systems that are not specified by the quantum state are known as hidden variables. If hidden variables theorists are correct, there is no objective indefiniteness. There is only ignorance on the part of the scientist about the values of the hidden variables that characterize an individual system of interest. Moreover, there is no objective chance and there are no objective probabilities."

Shimony then goes on to report on recent experiments which very strongly indicate that hidden-variables theories are wrong. Indeterminacy is an objective fact and not just a matter of scientists' lack of knowledge.
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 7:59 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 7:42 pm Emergence is impossible.
-1- wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 12:19 am How do you reconcile Schroedinger's Determinist Equation with Heidegger's equation of indeterminism? If it was Heidegger. ....
I couldn't find another equation by googling. Could you please clarify the name.
I'll try. Please gimme a day or two from now.
Oh, that would be great.
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:22 pm I found a really good (and very old) article that tackles the subject.

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm

I quote it below.

The significance of it is that quantum world is indeterminate, and its effect on the macro world (the world we live in and experience via our senses and apparatuses) is that the indeterminate quantum world makes the determinate macro world also indeterminate.

This sort of denies Schroedinger's Determinist Equation, don't it? After all, things are either deterministic, or non-deterministic.
I think you are mixing things. An indeterminate system is a system that its state is not known. That doesn't mean that the system doesn't have any state. We also have determinism and non-determinism that as you rightly recognized are only options. The classical reality in which things seems determinable and deterministic is just a good approximation. The reality is that you change the state of any system when you want to get information out of it since the system is information.
-1- wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:22 pm How do you reconcile Schroedinger's Determinist Equation with Heisenberg's theory of indeterminism?
I think there is there is no theory, model, and equation for a non-deterministic system. You cannot for example formulate a decision.
-1- wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:22 pm Here's the article. I think it's written in plain enough language to a dilettante audience.

Notes on Quantum Indeterminacy

It is important that we understand what modern physicists say about quantum indeterminacy. It is a very unintuitive notion, and I sympathize completely with people who distrust it. My own reaction to it was this: "This can't be right. They must be confusing not knowing the event's cause with the event not having a cause."

If physicists were confused about this, then we wouldn't need to take them seriously. But they are not confused about this. They know the distinction, and they continue to believe in quantum indeterminacy (QI).

In the early days of QI, the physicists seemed to be making that mistake. Some of them claimed that QI was an implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg pointed out that we can measure an electron's position, but in doing so we destroy any possibility of measuring it's momentum, and vice versa. So the combination of position and momentum of an electron is uncertain.

Notice that "uncertainty" is a characteristic that is an epistemological concept -- it is defined in terms of knowability. The argument seemed to be Uncertainty, therefore Quantum Indeterminacy:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)

But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.

In other words, QI, therefore Uncertainty. (You can't know something that doesn't have a determinate truth.)

All modern science is falliblist in epistemology. That means that any scientific theory might be wrong. We all acknowledge this. But scientific theories vary a lot in how likely they are to turn out to be wrong. The present state of physics makes quantum indeterminism a very well-established theory. It may still turn out to be wrong, in the sense that any theory may turn out to be wrong. Just like the "fact" that the earth orbits the sun might turn out to be wrong.

But QI is very well established. Very few scientific theories are as well verified by experience. And remember, the evidence is not just that we don't know what the quantum causes are -- the evidence is that there are no quantum causes. Again, it might turn out to be wrong, but we still ought to take quantum indeterminacy seriously.

Quantum indeterminism asserts that certain kinds of events, call them "Q events" are indeterministic. Really really really indeterministic, not just "as far as we know" indeterministic. Q events are (approximately) events that take place at a sub-atomic level. An example is the radioactive decay of a radioactive element. (There are lots of other examples, but this is an easy one to think of.)

Radioactive elements have half-lives. The half-life of an element is the length of time during which one atom of the element has a 50% chance of undergoing radioactive decay. That probabability is a real, objective probability, even though there is no real, objective cause for an individual case of radioactive decay.

The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 million years. It decays into thorium-234, which has a half-life of 24.5 days. There are tons of radioactive elements with various half-lives, some very short and some very long. And it's ALL probability (objective probability) when each event will occur. According to QI, of course.

(I don't really care whether you believe in QI. But I do really want you to understand it.)

Let's call non-Q events "M events" for "macroscopic events". Now, you might think that QI is not a problem for Causal Determinism, as long as we restrict CD to non-Q events. Is that possible? We live in the M-world after all -- the world of macroscopic events, larger than atoms. Maybe CD is true of all M events even though it is false of all Q events.

Nope. First of all, physicists will claim that all M events are merely the additive effects of a lot of little Q events. But even if that's false, there's a bigger problem. There are certain Q events that have a huge influence on events in the M world. One example is sunshine. According to the best physics of today, sunshine comes from nuclear fusion, which is a Q phenomenon. Secondly, nuclear explosions. Thirdly, the clicking of a Geiger counter. We'll discuss in class this penetration of Q events into the M world that we live in (or like to think we live in).

Just to give you an example of how seriously this is taken by physicists, the following is quoted from Abner Shimony, "The Reality of the Quantum World", Scientific American, January 1988.

Shimony describes "indefiniteness" and the "superposition principle" (you don’t really need to know what they mean) then continues:

"From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways."

"A number of theorists have maintained however, that [quantum-theory-described physical systems] ... differ from one another in ways not mentioned by the quantum state, and this is the reason the outcomes of the individual experiments are different. The properties of individual systems that are not specified by the quantum state are known as hidden variables. If hidden variables theorists are correct, there is no objective indefiniteness. There is only ignorance on the part of the scientist about the values of the hidden variables that characterize an individual system of interest. Moreover, there is no objective chance and there are no objective probabilities."

Shimony then goes on to report on recent experiments which very strongly indicate that hidden-variables theories are wrong. Indeterminacy is an objective fact and not just a matter of scientists' lack of knowledge.
I don't think that indeterminacy is relevant to our discussion.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

bahman wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 7:38 pm I think you are mixing things. An indeterminate system is a system that its state is not known. That doesn't mean that the system doesn't have any state.
Well... to reply to the above, please refer to these quotes from my large quote:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)

But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.

"From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways."
bahman wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 7:38 pm I don't think that indeterminacy is relevant to our discussion.
Okay, but why do you think so? Is not your entire thesis based on the claim that matter behaves deterministically? I think it is based on that claim.

Can you really dismiss a claim as "not relevant" that questions, nay, that challenges the basic assumption which your theory (free agent can't be created) is built on? I think you ought not to dismiss such a claim.
bahman
Posts: 3551
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

-1- wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:33 am
bahman wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 7:38 pm I think you are mixing things. An indeterminate system is a system that its state is not known. That doesn't mean that the system doesn't have any state.
Well... to reply to the above, please refer to these quotes from my large quote:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum, therefore an electron does not have a determinate position and momentum. (If we can't know it, it doesn't exist.)

But that was a mistake, and physicists now think more like this:

We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.
I think the author is wrong. Any given particle has a determined position and momentum. Uncertainty enters when momentum and position are measured simultaneously. Measurement is nothing more than interacting with the particle. The uncertainty is, therefore, the result of interacting with the particle.
-1- wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:33 am
"From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways."
bahman wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 7:38 pm I don't think that indeterminacy is relevant to our discussion.
Okay, but why do you think so? Is not your entire thesis based on the claim that matter behaves deterministically? I think it is based on that claim.
Because we are discussion determinism versus non-determinism. I already defined indeterminacy. Determinism applies to the system that given a state of affair of the system, the system does always change to another unique state of affair. Non-determinism applies to the system that the system deals with equally likely options. So we are dealing with at least two states of affair and system has to choose one.
-1- wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:33 am Can you really dismiss a claim as "not relevant" that questions, nay, that challenges the basic assumption which your theory (free agent can't be created) is built on? I think you ought not to dismiss such a claim.
I hope that things are clear given the definition.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Free agent cannot be created

bahman wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 6:16 pmI think the author is wrong. Any given particle has a determined position and momentum.
Well, the entire quantum mechanic community thinks that the author is right. What math do you have to show that supports that the author is wrong? Just saying "he (or she) is wrong" does not quite cut the mustard.