Comments on: Things I Have No (or Very Little) Evidence For But Still Believe

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:35:31 +0000

Bryan requires emails. See, I’m reminding you.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:20:44 +0000

I know jack about quantum mechanics. But I do know about http://www.baconsalt.com/

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:58:58 +0000

I would actually like to discuss this with you. Hunt me down on twitter, and we’ll chat.

By: Peter "letsburn00" Hillier

Peter "letsburn00" Hillier — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:59:57 +0000

I think that quantum mechanics in fact pushed us even further away form free will.

Either we are perfectly determanistic systems (basically, a clock if you will. Clocks set and altered by the outside events but clocks none the less), vaguely determanistic systems with some totally random parts, or we are systems with this magical free will thing.

Quantum mechanics does not give us any free will. It simply works as a source of perfect randomness. ie, it makes determinism non-existant. But it means that we are simply clocks which occasionally slip a few gears. We are 99% determanistic clocks, the other 1% is competely random jumbling up caused by freaky random quantum effects.

The closest analogy would be if you had a cities entire traffic system set up so that the amount of time it took for the light to stay green was set by a roulette wheel (lets assume this is a magic quantum roulette wheel where the numbers are truely random) This means the traffic system runs at random is is essentually unpredicatable and non determanistic. What on earth about this random effect makes it somehow magically free willish or special. mostly it runs by standard rules, but the wildcard aspect doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a characteristic of the system.

Note that I’m not a physicist, but I’ve never heard anything from a phys. I’m a chemical engineer. Which probably is why I classify the brain(and whole body) as simply a large electro-chemical reactor.

By: Rev. J. Reed Braden

Rev. J. Reed Braden — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:03:58 +0000

It was way above my head and I could only repeat the very basics. I will hunt down the email when I get time. Remind me.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:41:30 +0000

I’d like to hear the argument for the opposite. Do tell.

By: Rev. J. Reed Braden

Rev. J. Reed Braden — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:15:35 +0000

Interesting. I’ve had an argument with a physicist who argued just the opposite. Appropriately amended.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:24:50 +0000

Interesting list. If I may say:

“mmmmmmmmm… bacon” — Me

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:18:01 +0000

As a physicist by trade, I disagree with your statement that physics provides a basis for pre-determination. In fact, the advent of quantum physics effectively destroyed the idea. Until the 20th century, there was the idea that if we could know the position, velocity, and acceleration of every particle, we could predict everything from the birth of Jesus to the development of the semiconductor. However, quantum mechanics showed that, because things exist in quantum superpositions, it is impossible to predict exactly where even a mere electron will go, much less a person. Twentieth century physics in fact provided a big push for proponents of free will.

Disclaimer: I am a real physicist. I am working on the T2K neutrino experiment in Japan. This may sound like a lot of buzzwords, but it’s actually, really true.