Evolutionism vs creationism

[minchazo]

The problem here is no living person who has the capability to instruct others has any knowledge of what an afterlife would really be like. To supply the masses with mere speculation as if it were truth is not a good thing, regardless of intention.

I'm almost in total agreement with you. Organized religion makes sense to me *only if* it has correct knowledge that requires divine intervention to know. One of 'em's gotta be right...

[Dudley]

I'm almost in total agreement with you. Organized religion makes sense to me *only if* it has correct knowledge that requires divine intervention to know. One of 'em's gotta be right...

What about all of them? you would go to the place you think you should go to. I remember a sf version of hell made by that basis.

[fazisi]

Sorry to the "everyone can be right" well-wishers but it is more likely "everyone is wrong and we're all fucked".

*ponders before answering* I stated that God is an "actual, physical being." Meaning that He's not simply a 'force' pushing people to do good or a concept that controls nature. He is an actual being with a physical, tangible body having mass and occupying a three-dimensonal area.

I saw God at the liquor store the other night. He was bootlegging for some 15 year old girls.

[littlebrather]

You're basically saying that humans have no free will, and are ruled by statistics?

Never said smth like this. Idea of 'free will paradox' was firstly posted by JellySlayer and my idea was to argue again this paradox using some principles of probability. And you are ok, because the main idea was that 'free will' and 'determined probability' are the same things just observed from different levels. (While statistic may be is well known by God IMHO)

Quoted message was about 'quantum choice', and i have no idea how IRL it can be connected with human 'decision-making brain center'. But why not?

[minchazo]

Sorry to the "everyone can be right" well-wishers but it is more likely "everyone is wrong and we're all fucked".


I saw God at the liquor store the other night. He was bootlegging for some 15 year old girls.

I laughed at this

[grobblewobble]

The photons are in superposition; they go through both slits simultaneously. Hence the interference pattern. The (particle) measurement causes the wavefunction to collapse into one state or the other, entirely randomly, destroying the superposition state. The photons do not have the choice of A or B any more than a flipped coin has the choice between heads or tails.

Why wouldn't the photon have a choice? What proves it? If the photon would have a free choice, what would that look like and in what way would that differ from actual observations?

[Dudley]

Why wouldn't the photon have a choice? What proves it? If the photon would have a free choice, what would that look like and in what way would that differ from actual observations?

Free choice => tendency. there's no half half with choice.

[grobblewobble]

Free choice => tendency? You speak in riddles, my friend.

I think that what you mean is that the "choices" of the photons are randomly drawn from a certain predictable distribution. Do I understand you correctly?

If yes, my answer is free choice inevitably has to follow some statistical distribution, when enough data are gathered. How could it not? In this respect, free will is indistinguishable from random behaviour. In fact, I'd say there is no way one could observe a difference between randomness and free will at all. Maybe they are two labels for the same thing? Or are they?

Consciousness very much has the same problem. How could you possibly observe a difference between a very intelligent robot that has no self-awareness but can act like it and a robot with self-awareness? This can lead to the idea that self-awareness doesn't really exist, that it is merely some kind of illusion. However, in this case I see a scientific objection: you canobserve your own self-awareness. To ignore that is to ignore an observable fact, even though you are the only one who can directly observe it without telepathy.

[Epythic]

Bump, because I think this thread is too big to fail

[Evil Knievel]

This thread is also to big to be completely read through by me.

For procrastination I reply to something I caught on statistics, hope I can explain it well.

Think there is something of free will. Free meaning, that the decision do not have to follow any law. Tendency are fine, since they can arise from reasoning.

Ok, think of the decisions a lot of people make as free will driven. Then the probabily distribution of their decisions can only be known to the extend to which they are determined by a law ( and reasoning ...). Hence, any free will brings in an not-knowable element to every statistics, that even remains, when an infinite number of decisions has been made.
Even when infinitely many photons have passed the slits, the ratios of their decisions would have to be unknown.
Now there is no experiment checking infinitely many photons, but the decay of the uncertainity with growing number of experiments behaves exactly as if there was no free will at all for them.
If this is enough for a mathematical proof that there is no free will in photons, I cannot say, but it is at least enough to be extreeeemely likely. Maybe some physicist knows better?

Anywow.No thread hijacking intended.