OK - so it doesn't actually prove you don't have freedom of choice, rather it defies you to disprove you don't have freedom of choice, or maybe prove you do have freedom of choice. Wwhichever, it's a giggle IMHO.
This is the Jandal Theory (known as a "thong" by aussies and to be confused with a beach G-String in any form, although that would work too and be even funnier)
The theory started at a new years eve party many years ago, which here in NZ is in summer. I was wearing jandals (thongs / flip flops - call them what you will) and in the ensuing consumption of many beers in the sun the theory was born.
Take one jandal, pick it up and drop it.
What will happen?
It will fall. We accept this as part of our universe, known as the law of gravity. Gravity is in actual fact a theory. You can't prove gravity, except by evidence that it exists, i.e can be seen to exert a force on other objects. Like most things known as science, they are only theory's yet to be disproved by further scientific research. OK, there was a time the world was flat and sun revolved around the earth, maybe gravity will one day also be a fallacy.
Pick up the jandal again, and drop it.
What will happen?
It will fall. Do we accept at this point the jandal (save for intervention by an opposing force equal or greater than that of the force of gravity at that location and time) will predictably "fall" - i.e. move towards the object (earth) exerting the gravitational force upon it?
I assume most of us do. Maybe not the creationists - who knows? ;-)
If we repeat this same "base" experiment, will we get the same "base" result? (i.e. will it fall?) - Yes.
If we repeat this same "base" experiement will we get the same "exact" result? (i.e - will it land in exactly the same place in the same way?) - No.
Why not? Because there will always be slight variations (due to external forces either within or beyond or control) which affect the "conditions" of the experiment. In fact, at this point, it's not actually an experiment at all, as you cannot replicate the environment, nor can you create a "control" environment in which the "experiment" does not occur. It's a theory.
Reason? Simple - we may drop the jandal from a slightly different height, or on a different angle, or the air temperature or pressure may change, the breeze might shift in direction or force, geomagnetic forces from the sun's rays may alter, other less impacting bodies of mass may exert their own miniscule gravitational forces upon the jandal, etc etc.
Hypothesis One - IF you could in fact replicate all such conditions perfectly (an impossibility in reality, or even in a theoretical model) would the "experiment" produce the exact same result? The answer, if you accept the concept of a replicated enviornment, with a replicated control environment, with neither being able to influence or affect the other, through both forces understood and not understood, or the act of observation (known to alter the event in question by it's very existence) then the obvious theoretical response is - Yes.
Fact One - it is impossible to conjure such an environment to the extent that the experiment can be repeated, as the experiment "area" (i forget the correct scientific term) is the universe. As the universe is infinite (another theory in itself) and therefore encompasses everything within itself, it cannot be replicated, in either space or time. The "repeat" of the experiment must therefore always actually occur in a unique setting. Also, there can be no "control" environment, as the experiment encompasses any such within its space / time continuim. (sp?)
Hypothesis Two - IF it were however possible to do so, in a purely theoretical sense, then one must accept (if all current theories and "known" laws of the universe are also accepted) that the "experiment" in question would in fact produce the same results.
A giant leap forward (which took place over several hours of debate, and many more beers) and you break the conceptual experiment down to what ever level you desire, atomic, sub atomic, particle, sub particle, go as deep as you feel like. The "experiment" - the jandal, yourself, the space around you, the earth and it's gravity, all the other planets / suns / solar systems / galaxies etc are all made of matter, consisting of those elements (atomic down to whatever you like) which are all interacting, according to "known" i.e. accepted laws of science.
Hypothesis Three - the concept that these "elements" do not occupy a single space at a specific point in time is a misconceptive scientific anomoly used to describe behavours in experiments which do not conform to the accepted behaviours previously witnessed. Labelled as many things (commonly chaos maths) this idea is used when things simply don't add up. The idea that an "element" (of whatever size or nature, be it matter, force, energy, or any other accepted or believed notion) can occupy more than one space at one time is a MODEL used to explain behavours which otherwisie have no definable explanation.
Hypothesis Four - IF it were possible to be able to meaasure such things (bearing in mind the act of measurement alters the results to the point that they cannot be proven to be correct, even if it were possible to measure such such things which it isn't) and therefore define explicitly the space an "element" (of whatever size) occupied at a specific point in time then it must be accepted that in "theory" the "experiment" could be explicitly measured, defined, and therefore proven to be true.
Therefore - if it could be accepted that were it possible to measure such things, and that they could be recorded in isolation from themselves, and this could be done at a level that would allow explicit recorded evidence to be gathered without altering the actual event itself, then it must be accepted that the event in question could therefore be predicted. It is also therefore accepted that if it could be predicted, were such an environment capable of being explicitly re-created, the event could be replicated.
The Jandal Theory then states - if it can be theoretically accepted as such, and therefore cannot be disproven to not be so, it must therefore theoretically be so.
Conclusion - the jandal is representational of yourself, a collection of elements (of whatever size) that at a given point in time must theoretically occupy a fixed (and theoretically known) point in space. Given the previous hypotheses regarding the theoretically known and theoretically predictable nature of their interaction, it is therefore impossible to disprove the conceptual theory that you cannot have freedom of choice, as the consequential events that follow that explicit moment in time must therefore also be theoretically predictable.
Ergo - you therefore have no freedom of choice, as the inability to disprove the theory is the scientific equivalent of being able to prove it, e.g. gravity itself. Gravity is not proven, and cannot be measured, save by it's effect on other objects; it is their relational interaction with each other, not the proven existence of gravity itself, which is the basis of our aceptance of gravity.
Accept gravity, therefore accept you have no freedom of choice.
Of course i have NO qualifications, training, knowledge, or other evidential (i.e,. actual scientific) basis for my theory, other than my amusement, the fact I love to argue a point to see what kind of rise I can get, and one fine sunny day with too many beers - so don't take your rebuttals too seriously, I certainly won't be. :-)
Enjoy . . . . . . . . .
wokky
31 Comments
Did I get that right? It's like: If X, then Y... If Y, then Z... therefore If X, then Z.
p.s. My head hurts.
My beer will fall... gravity
freedom of choice : Do i get another one myself or wait till someone takes pity on me and brings me another?
I won't know until that second which one I will choose- :)
wokky -- Caught me at the wrong time, mate. It's morning, I have no beer in me, and I'm feeling quite lucid. Which generally means I'm not going to be much fun discussing theories. More than likely, I'm going to be a calculating prick who wants to tell everyone else why they're wrong. :-) Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts, and am wishing that I was full of beer discussing cool new theories with my pals.
I think you should invite a few G-strings along next time and repeat the experiment. You can probably even test a few new theories. *G*
I'm fighting the urge to talk about quantum theory and objective randomness, so I'd better go before it's too late, ha!
- JB
See.. free will baby !!
Knock yer socks off!
*Lordy, I must be tireder than I thought*
Give them to me before you drop them, OK? I'll relieve you of the burden. *S*
As mentioned in a thread by jbravo, if the human mind exists partially at the quantum level, it then follows that it is potentially nondeterministic, and therefore admits the possibility of free will.
This argument hinges on the nondeterministic nature of the quantum theory. If quantum-level interactions were shown to be deterministic, then it would no longer apply, and Jandal theory would again be grounded.
Also, I've heard of philosophy work which disconnects the notions of determinism and free will, enabling the possibility of a form of free will within a deterministic framework. I don't know the details of the argument, but it seems to have gone ignored by physicists in general (Bell, for example).
Interestingly, I have heard an alternative to the current model of nondeterminism in Quantum theory. It essentially replaces the quantum entanglement explanation for perceived action at a distance with a reverse causation explanation--instead of particles being able to instantaneously affect each other's state over an arbitrarily large distance, the theory postulates that the particles are responding to a common cause at some point in the future--in the context of any observation which reveals such particles to have a connected state, the experiment itself is the common future-cause.
The probablistic nature of quantum theory is based (as I understand it) on the inability to explicitly define and measure it in a quantifiable and replicatable manner.
f course the last paragraph cooks my cookies and I'm gong to have to think on it for a while longer . . . . . .
You could try to make an arguement against free will based on this theory. Here's how it would go: If present events are determined by future causes, as penumbra's theory suggests, isn't that basically the definition of predeterminism? Is it now our destiny to fulfill what has been ordained by the future? A compelling arguement.
Ultimately, though, I don't think it holds water. Here's why. If your future self is making decisions in the future that affect your life now, doesn't that give your future self free-will?
Let's shift the perspective to drive this home. Right now, you ARE the future-self relative to your past self. What future-determinism is saying is that the decisions you make now affect your past. Weird, I know. Stay with me. From a quantum perspective, you are not actually changing your past. What it means is that your past is somehow ambiguous -- just like the position of a photon or electron is ambiguous until it is measured. When you measure a photon, it not only makes up its mind where it IS, but also where it's BEEN. Same thing here. Your thoughts and actions today determine not only your present, but they also determine your past -- that is, they resolve the ambiguity of your past!
The quantum behavior as I described is proven science. The exact mechanism, as penumbra suggests, is not. I'm inclined to believe the future-causation mechanism, since it eliminates the need for any phenomenon to seemingly travel faster than the speed of light.
If this arguement of free-will is correct, it is far more powerful than what you would typically imagine as free will. It means that regardless of what your situation is -- regardless of any mistakes you think you may have made -- you have the power, right now, to determine what your life is, and give meaning to the past that brought you here to this moment.
I am not the first to think of this, by the way. See the following article on MSNBC:
OMG! I can't f....ing believe this! I just went to look up an old article on the subject (on MSNBC's Cosmic Log). Turns out that the CURRENT BLOG is about this EXACT SUBJECT!!!!! Twilight Zone... dooo do do do...
Go read it at:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.ms...ve/2007/07/17/274531.aspx
I'm still trying to find the old article. I'll post it when I find it...
"The Self-Made Universe" -- April 19th, 2007
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.ms...ve/2007/04/19/160480.aspx
I think my argument / theory is to postulate the opposte, that rather than your future self being able to influence the past (and therefore have free will), the fact that your past has occured (i.e. is a fact) and is instrinsicly linked to your future therefore your future is also fixed (and therefore pre-determined).
It's all relative, at any point a "future self" is in it's relative present, has a relative past which has occured (fact) and has a relative future influencing it's own relatve present. On a continium (sp?) therefore every point in time is a relative past of a relative prsent and future, and the link between them all makes them all equally pre-deterministic in nature?
So I'm using the same quantum theory to argue the reverse position?
(btw - i don't believe a word of anything I've said, it's just an amusing debate to ponder)
Perhaps the fact that all events, past, present, and future are linked does not preclude free-will. If you ignore our perception of time for a moment, you could consider the entire universe in quantum superposition, and it is experiencing decoherence to some final state based on conscious observers -- which we are. This means that our consciousness is influencing the outcome. -- i.e. free will!
The act of observation being only one of the factors we are currently unable to "measure" the influence of, and therefore, if theoretically measured, is therefore theoretically predictable, and therefore inherently deterministic in it's influence?
Isn't therefore the exclusion of quantum theory and time continium (someone tell me how to spell that) a validation of the jandal theory?
hahahahahahaha - implosion!
Thought, intelligence, consciousness are inherently not tied to space-time. They are abstract patterns that can manifest themselves in what we view as the physical universe, but are not limited by it. As such, consciousness can influence the physical universe, but not the other way around (unless a consciousness chooses to do so).
Gravity
Although, there's gotta be different levels of theories if your theory is on the same level as the theory of gravity. From ' reasonably sound' (like the theory of gravity) to the 'far out' (like creation, democracy and the jandal theory).
My theory is...." If there's a lot of jargon... it's just a theory "
Please take the following words as if it was asked by a child. Imagine that ther was this little child appears on your side while you ere doing yor experiment......
Why did you let the jandal fall? to create a theory or were there any reason?
When it did fall why did you pick it up and let it fall again? Didn't you have a choice not to pick it up so it ill not fall on the second time? Why didn't you catch that jandal before it falls? What if are to repeat and that jandal is your favorite (Let's say it as given to you by your most beloved ones in the whole wide earth), would you let your jandal fall if we will include fire in the experiment?
What is a jandal??? remember, I am just a little curious child
hahaha... I'm getting insane reading this stuff that's why I asked too many question,, pardon me>>:)
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)