It is...inevitable?

[Lidless]

Newton's/Einstein's Laws work on the macro scale. Probabilities and chance work on the quantum mechanical level.

Is the universe clockwork on the macro-level? Was it already determined say just 10,000 years ago that I was destined to write this post, and you would read it? Or was there sufficient chance over that time that there was a significant possibility it would not happen? What about 1,000,000 years ago? From yesterday to today, was the chance that it would not happen so small as to be discarded for all practical purposes? Did this bunch of pungent chemicals called Lidless really have a "choice"?

Is there really such a thing as free will, or is it a fallacy, a ghost, and the brain is merely an ultra-complex set of electrochemical reactions within the Cosmic All and it's too complex for us to work out? Can the human psyche bear to think that it is just another part of an automated universe?

In Asimov's Foundation series, he suggested that, just with molecules, with sufficient number (mega-billions) of humans you could predict the future of humanity, albeit not for one human alone. Yes, one human can change the course of history, but was that inevitable in the bigger scheme of things given they, too, would be made up of stardust?

Is there really a soul that transcends time and space and its laws?

I love to flatter myself, no surprise there, but my rationality tells me it cannot be the case.

I don't have any answers. Merely questions and a gut feel.

[halplm]

well, you've complicated the question, but I think the answer is still 42.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very good questions indeed, Lidless. I have always been intrigued by the confluence of physics and metaphysics, though I know little about both. I do believe that the more we learn about the component parts of physical reality, the more we realize that everything is interconnected. Reality consists of particles and waves, yes? But are they really different things? What about time? How does time differ from space? Will it ever be possible to transcend time? If so, what will that do to our fundamental beliefs about reality?

You mention a "weak gut feel". I find that intriguing. I too have "a weak gut feeling". The best that I can do to define is to quote the prophet (I use that word with complete seriousness) Robert Nesta Marley:

"There's a natural mystic flowing through the air."


* "Foundation" spoilers ahead *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Lidless, as it happens, I just recently finished re-reading the Foundation series. It's interesting to note that in the end Asimov has the predicted course of human history diverted into "Galaxia" in which the whole Galaxy eventually becomes one living organism - quite a daunting concept.

[Jnyusa]

Cool questions, Lidless.

Is there really such a thing as free will, or is it a fallacy, a ghost, and the brain is merely an ultra-complex set of electrochemical reactions within the Cosmic All and it's too complex for us to work out? Can the human psyche bear to think that it is just another part of an automated universe?

Well, we're talking about conditional probabilities, aren't we, and not just static frequency distributions assembled after the fact.

If we looked at the world 160 million years ago, the probability that mammals would ever dominate the earth or that someone named Lidless would ever make that post would seem incalculably small. But then a random event occured (it seems) and the dinosaurs disappeared. Once the field was clear, the 'given' for mammals changed and their probability of dominance increased. Once the Order of Primates appeared, the 'given' changed and the probability of there ever being humans increased. Once your mother and father had sex, the probability of there ever being a Lidless increased. Events on TORC, the founding of B77, the founding of HoF ... each of these things contributed to the conditions necessary for your post, until eventually you read something here that made you think about this topic, and typed the first word, and the probability of that post went from 0 to 1.

Where free will fits in is that until you actually hit the submit button, a choice remains. The probability is less than 1 that the post will happen.

It's like the mistake most people make of confusing the probability of an event with the probability of a sequence. Flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads. The odds of the 101st flip being heads is still 1 in 2. That never changes, and that's what free will is like, in my mind.

The odds of getting 101 heads in a row is .5^101, and that probability is very low, but each time you roll another 'heads,' a series of such-and-such a length did occur, no matter how improbable.

As long as the probability is not 0, anything can and will happen. But it doesn't happen until it happens.

Is there really a soul that transcends time and space and its laws?

That's a different kind of question, I think. If you ask it in a probability context, you're asking what is the probability that we will discover tomorrow something for which we have no evidence today, or are there things in the universe that will never be accessible to the perceptions we possess right now. We can suppose that we will discover new things tomorrow, and there are some things that are there but we will never discover them - I think the p of both is quite high - but what a particular discovery will be is incalculable unless you have data about similar occurrences, and that's exactly what we don't have.

Jn

[Lidless]

Where free will fits in is that until you actually hit the submit button, a choice remains. The probability is less than 1 that the post will happen.

But do I really have a choice? Apart from an almost infinitesimal quantum chance to the contrary, are the atoms in my brain moving, reacting and responding such that at the last millisecond I will click that button? Is there really a free will, as opposed to a free won't?

Is there really a soul that transcends time and space and its laws?

That's a different kind of question, I think. If you ask it in a probability context, you're asking what is the probability that we will discover tomorrow something for which we have no evidence today, or are there things in the universe that will never be accessible to the perceptions we possess right now. We can suppose that we will discover new things tomorrow, and there are some things that are there but we will never discover them - I think the p of both is quite high - but what a particular discovery will be is incalculable unless you have data about similar occurrences, and that's exactly what we don't have.

Jn

I think you misunderstood the question. Basically, it's a summary of the blurb above. Am I dictated by the inevitable molecular activity in my brain, over which I have no control, or do I really have a choice, independent of it?

[vison]

Perhaps it is rather a matter of infinite universes, in one of which Lidless does not post his post, but hits the delete button and goes off to put a steak on the barbecue?

Or, you know, there might be a universe where Lidless is unknown and the populations of the various worlds wait, uncertain, wondering what it is that they are missing.

[halplm]

You're basically asking if our brains have the capability to change or shape the universe.

Obviously if everythign is particles and waves including our brains and the resulting thoughts... then you can predict perfectly the result of the universe. Even speaking in quantum terms, the probabilities can lead to knowing wether or not you're going to hit that submit button with some fair certainty.

So, do our thoughts change those probabilities? The simple answer is yes. Taking a simpler view, we change the world by living in it. We dig a hole, that hole is there. We put a seed in it, and a plant grows where it wouldn't have grown before.

If we have free will... if we have a soul... then that soul has an impact... it changes the universe. It shapes it.

I think we have that... at least there's some probability we do...

[Jnyusa]

Am I dictated by the inevitable molecular activity in my brain, over which I have no control, or do I really have a choice, independent of it?

Well, I think that the way you have phrased the question and the way I have phrased the question really are the same question. You're asking whether something other than brain activity is feeding into the probability of your doing something ... or, if you want to leave probability out of it ... is something other than the physical brain accounting for our mental activity and our choices. The question is unanswerable because we are asked to posit the existence of something for which evidence does not yet exist but might exist in the future.

Did the sequence of chemical reactions in your brain lead inevitably to your hitting the submit button? No - they didn't lead to that until you did it. Does that mean it was your soul or some non-physical thing that made the decision? No - not that either. Even in the physical world, it doesn't happen until it happens. Until you did it, the probability was less than one and something else, however improbable, might have happened instead. And that other thing would also have been a result of all the conditionals provided by your brain.

Jn

[Jnyusa]

Not to spam up the thread, but may I just rant for a moment?

n Asimov's Foundation series, he suggested that, just with molecules, with sufficient number (mega-billions) of humans you could predict the future of humanity, albeit not for one human alone.

See ... this is exactly where the condition matters and doesn't get taken into account.

Yes, with mega-billions of humans you would have an extraordinarily large set of possibilities from which to cast your prediction relative to what you have right now. But there are two things that make indeterminacy persist:

1. What is the probability that there will ever be mega-billions of humans? Given our physicality, resource needs, limitations within the abiotic parameters of the planet on which we emerged, etc.? That probability is close to zero, I would guess. So the probability of anything contingent upon that is also going to be close to zero.

2. If there were mega-billions of humans, the range of possible outcomes would increase accordingly! You would have the same data shortage that you have now, relative to the question you were trying to answer. The mega-billions of humans would only help if their choices could be contained to exactly the choices we have right now. In such a case, by definition they would not be human.

Jn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

1. What is the probability that there will ever be mega-billions of humans? Given our physicality, resource needs, limitations within the abiotic parameters of the planet on which we emerged, etc.? That probability is close to zero, I would guess. So the probability of anything contingent upon that is also going to be close to zero.

Jn, the probability of there being mega-billions of humans is predicated on the assumption that humans have spread throughout the galaxy and populated many different planets.

[Ethel]

Is the universe clockwork on the macro-level? Was it already determined say just 10,000 years ago that I was destined to write this post, and you would read it? Or was there sufficient chance over that time that there was a significant possibility it would not happen? What about 1,000,000 years ago? From yesterday to today, was the chance that it would not happen so small as to be discarded for all practical purposes? Did this bunch of pungent chemicals called Lidless really have a "choice"?

I would argue that the universe is not clockwork on the macro or any other level. Are you familiar with chaos theory, and what is called the butterfly effect? For instance, we cannot predict the weather with any accuracy. Weather models have shown that nearly infinitely small differences in initial conditions produce wildly different results. So too with the universe. This or that random happening will produce utterly different end states. Linear events are predictable; non-linear events - and that's most of what goes on in the universe - are not.

Is there really such a thing as free will, or is it a fallacy, a ghost, and the brain is merely an ultra-complex set of electrochemical reactions within the Cosmic All and it's too complex for us to work out? Can the human psyche bear to think that it is just another part of an automated universe?

I know for a fact the the human psyche can cope with this idea: the Calvinist doctrine of predestination underlies a number of popular Protestant sects. I myself do not believe it, however. That's not to say we have unlimited free will. We exist within the constraints of our bodies, our personalities and our culture. I can't choose to be 18 again, or to be an extrovert, or to have an intuitive understanding of what it's like to be Chinese.

Is there really a soul that transcends time and space and its laws?

In my opinion, the answer is no. We are inexorably drawn to that idea, though - it almost seems to be built into our consciousness. Perhaps it's somehow necessary to a stable and functional consciousness that we believe it will continue indefinitely. I have wondered - this is veering off into the goofy but it intrigues me - if the fact that we are built of ancient DNA, that will continue long after our physical bodies perish, has something to do with that sense of continuity. That perhaps, at a cellular level, we know somehow that even though our bodies die, our DNA lives on.

In Richard Dawkins' fascinating book "The Selfish Gene", he posits, in effect, that we are more or less houses that DNA has built for itself. I'm not sure he's right, but there is evidence in favor. Bacteria evolves to be resistant to antibiotics. Viruses evolve to be more or less virulent depending, in part, on how much virulence favors their survival. (If you kill everyone you infect, you die.) Life is infinitely clever about survival at even the cellular level - but without thought or intention.

[Primula Baggins]

I've often wondered if consciousness is somehow related to chaos and nonlinear events. I don't see how that "something more" that allows us to turn around and look at ourselves could develop from any entirely predictable, "clockwork" structure. Certainly we haven't been able to build anything with the same capability.

[Jnyusa]

Jn, the probability of there being mega-billions of humans is predicated on the assumption that humans have spread throughout the galaxy and populated many different planets.

Yeah, Asimov was writing fiction.

Not to downgrade the hypothesis only because it appears in a work of fiction, but if one wanted to figure out the real life probability of humans populating many galaxies, then one needs data on the number of planets that share our abiotic conditions. The answer to that question as of today is: none that we know of.

But the hypothesis does fail at another, theoretical level, which is that the number of possible outcomes increases with the number of possible people. You don't really draw closer to predictability by increasing the number of people unless the people are mere automatons.

Which is just another way of saying that if we were automatons, we too would be predictable.

For instance, we cannot predict the weather with any accuracy. Weather models have shown that nearly infinitely small differences in initial conditions produce wildly different results.

It's not predictable as a practical matter but it is predictable in theory if we knew all the input values and the equation that governed the strange attractor.

What chaos theory did was ... prove ... I guess they have proven it by now ... that randomness is not really random. There are underlying equations that determine where each data point is going to fall on a frequency distribution, but now we have to figure out what all of those equations are.

I don't think that the equation for the Lorenz attractor is know (weather) ... or maybe that's known by now. But even if it is known, the data set needed for using it to make weather predictions is too large to be cost-effective. 20% rain tomorrow is good enough for most folks, and a whole lot cheaper to come by.

Jn

[MithLuin]

An aside:

When I was in my fourth college math class (linear algebra), we had long boring pointless lectures....with people we'd been in classes together with for two full years. So, needless to say, I sat next to my best friend.

One day, the prof was going on about how A (a matrix) was "invertable." (Not all matrices are). I leaned over and whispered "A is inevitable" - she dissolved in giggles. Because, as she put it later, by that point, it did seem that A was "inevitable."

To make it worse, the word "invertable" came up many more times during the course of the lecture...and every time he said "A is invertable," we dissolved in giggles. (Of course, I didn't help matters by occassionally whispering 'inevitable' under my breath).

We tried to be quiet about it, but when you get that slap-happy, it is hard not to laugh. I know other people in the class noticed; the prof gave us a few funny looks (there were maybe 60 students). I thought it was really funny, my friend was probably embarrassed. But I will not forget that lecture .

Anyway, obviously, the thread title reminded me of that story. I do not think it was inevitable that I would hear the word "invertable" and think "inevitable." I also do not think it was destined that she would find it funny. But I do know that once I said that, and once she did find it funny, it was inevitable that we would giggle throughout the rest of the lecture.

Cause and effect is real - actions have consequences, which is a truth of Newtonian physics and basic morality. So, yes, some things are, to put it that way, inevitable. But not...everything. There is an element of chance, else all games would be solved and all bets meaningless. The power of prediction breaks down, eventually, and not just because we don't have all the data points. In radioactive decay, what is to say that that atom will decay, and not it's neighbor? The rate is constant, but the pattern (which one does, which one doesn't) is random.

Destiny and choice are two poles. Reality involves a mix of them both. They are not contradictory or exclusive...you can have some of each.

In other words...I seriously dislike the Merovingian guy in the second Matrix movie.

As for the human soul...it is real. What do you think you see shining out of people's eyes?

[vison]

Um.

Yes.

[Ethel]

For instance, we cannot predict the weather with any accuracy. Weather models have shown that nearly infinitely small differences in initial conditions produce wildly different results.

It's not predictable as a practical matter but it is predictable in theory if we knew all the input values and the equation that governed the strange attractor.

It's predictable in theory if we could have a model that copied, molecule for molecule, the world we live in. Which is to say, a "demo" universe in which we could model cause and effect. But we cannot.

What chaos theory did was ... prove ... I guess they have proven it by now ... that randomness is not really random. There are underlying equations that determine where each data point is going to fall on a frequency distribution, but now we have to figure out what all of those equations are.

That is not my understanding, though my understanding may be flawed. Chaos theory draws pictures around chaos - pictures which help us understand phenomena - but is unable to predict outcomes. Utterly different from, say, Newtonian mechanics. Although it is possible that with deeper understanding we'll be able to fit chaos into a predictable paradigm. So far, to the best of my understanding, we have not.

[Jnyusa]

Although it is possible that with deeper understanding we'll be able to fit chaos into a predictable paradigm.

I think that they are still largely at the point where they are trying to figure out which systems display chaotic behavior and which do not.

In economics people are looking for chaos in price changes. They've shown, so far as I've read about it, that chaos exists for commodity prices but not stock prices. That result was ... predictable ... in my opinion ... I have a friend who did her dissertation on chaos in stock prices and I told her when she started that she would not find it, and she didn't. (Reasons why are a bit complicated to explain here.) It would be a heck of a thing if we could eventually predict price changes ... but then we have another theory that says the minute something in economics becomes predictable, people change their behavior in response to the prediction and it becomes unpredictable again.

Btw, why do you have a photograph of Lali in your avatar?

Jn

[Ethel]

Btw, why do you have a photograph of Lali in your avatar?

It's not a photograph of Lali. It's a photograph of the actress who played Inara in Firefly and Serenity. Cem is organizing a Firefly related event at TOB, and Inara is my character. Just trying to be consistent across the 'verse, eh?

[Whistler]

Forget Asimov!

Ray Bradbury: Now, there's a science fiction writer who has things figured out.

I attended a lecture by Bradbury a few years back, and he imparted this wisdom:

In the end, there are only three things that really matter: the Bible, Shakespeare and dinosaurs.

I would have added pirates to that list, but who am I to argue with a great man?

Sorry for the osgiliation, but I felt predestined to post it.

[Ethel]

I have a friend who did her dissertation on chaos in stock prices and I told her when she started that she would not find it, and she didn't. (Reasons why are a bit complicated to explain here.) It would be a heck of a thing if we could eventually predict price changes ... but then we have another theory that says the minute something in economics becomes predictable, people change their behavior in response to the prediction and it becomes unpredictable again.

Almost a definition of chaos theory, isn't it?