= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DonaldMcIntyre comments on Is Determinism A Special Case Of Randomness? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
Would you agree then that probability doesn't exist because it is just the product of us not reaching those hidden variables, but if we could reach them then everything would be certain?
If so, t seems that probability, like free will and time, is also an illusion.
Probability is in the mind.
Or maybe not
Quantum uncertainty and indeterminism? I've never heard these terms, but this weekend at Yosemite I met a guy from Sweden who had come here to get his PhD in physics, and he made some comment along the lines of the movement of waterfalls not being predictable/explainable by physics... so is a waterfall an example of quantum uncertainty or indeterminism? If not, what are some examples?
The typical examples are things like radioactive decay, although there are many others.
And, may I repeat, it is a myth that the some barrier prevents quantum indetermimism having macroscopic consequences. If it did, particle physics could not be an experimental science.
Note that fundamentally random processes viewpoint and hidden variables viewpoint are equivalent -- they produce the same predictions -- so choosing one is the matter of convenience.
And hidden variables viewpoint is convenient exactly because it allows to think that probabilities is in the mind, that is, probabilities are nothing but a measure of uncertainty. It eliminates the only special case -- fundamentally random processes, thus allowing us to apply our uncertainty-measure concept everywhere. Fundamentally random processes are processes which rely on parameters for which we (fundamentally) can't reduce our uncertainty, and that's it.
So yes, I would agree.
Thx for the complete answer I like your thinking process!
I agree that they are equivalent in that they denote a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanics, but in the case of randomness, even though it could be an illusion, I still subjectively (naive view) favor the existence of randomness (and probability) in the base physical mechanics because I fail to see a connection between certainty and our brain's apparent non-bound decision making.
Nevertheless I am open to the option that physics is only deterministic and that such a process may recreate our consciousness (I have to think more about that though).
As others already mentioned, introducing fundamental randomness doesn't help in resolving free will problem -- whether or not physical processes are truly random, you have no control over them.
You may want to read LW free will sequence.
Opinions vary. Naturalistic libertarianism is a thing.