I never said predictable by humans. Predictable in the sense that if we were capable of scanning, analyzing, and replicating perfectly any set of conditions, then the various particles and whatnot would allow us to do just that. Now granted, I don't know as much about physics as you guys have taught yourselves (physics II was it for me in college), but regardless, even if our brains are set to follow predictable thought processes due to physics or if they are subjected to chaotic, unpredictable forces, then free will cannot exist. It is like when a "random" number is picked by a computer chip. It appears random to us, but it certainly is not random to the computer chip.
For a real life example, a person is in a bit of a hurry. He asks himself, "Do I want to speed, or do I want to play it safe?" Certainly, all of the outside factors play an important role: how much time he has, how important his destination is, even busy he knows the cops are on that road. If those factors were different, he might very well make a different decision. But under a specific set of conditions, when his mood is a certain way, and when it is raining or sunny or windy, he will make up his mind in one particular manner.
It proves that on top of it being impossible for humans to know things to full precision, it is actually impossible for anything to have that information, since the information literally does not exist until the particle is observed.
Perhaps you meant to write a slightly different response, but this answer appears flawed at second glance. To say that the information does not exist until the particle is observed brings up that old "clever" question: if nobody is in the forest when a tree falls, does it still make a sound? While that information is blocked to us, just because we haven't observed it doesn't mean it does not exist. If that information does not exist, then the particle does not exist.
and when observed, it is in a random and unpredictable place
If this theory proves true, then we still don't have free will because our brains are subject to a certain amount of chaos. However, we all know that the particle can only be in one location at a given time. Even if it would appear in all of those locations at once, it would have to be an illusion. If a particle is in three different locations concurrently, then there are effectively three particles.
you don't discover the positions of things by observing, you simple force them to take a position.
If you force it into a position, then you know where it is. If you know where it is, then it is safe to say that it does have a predictable location. If, after putting it there, it does not have a predictable location for any amount of time, then you haven't forced the particle to go anywhere. I do hate to require you to explain these things in further detail, but it is the way of discussion, yes?
I looked up on wikipedia the uncertainty principle quickly:
Bohr's response was that the wall is quantum mechanical as well, and that to measure the recoil to accuracy ΔP the momentum of the wall must be known to this accuracy before the particle passes through.
That's just one of the examples I looked at, and it talks about what we can and can't observe.
Although modern quantum mechanics suggests that uncertainty is inescapable, a unifying theory governing probabilistic assignments may nevertheless exist.
How can it be said that simply because we will forever remain uncertain at the smallest levels that it means that those tiny, tiny levels are themselves uncertain? And if, this article goes on to point out, physics advancement has never really been precise - instead, the theories advance because they become successively more accurate. Perhaps the uncertainty principle will hold up, or perhaps it will turn out to be false. Perhaps physicists will make that uncertainty arbitrarily small one day.
Then again, perhaps the uncertainty principle works on so tiny a level, relative to the scope of our brains, as to have no impact whatsoever on its function. Perhaps, when I lift a book, I don't know to the most precise measurement how much weight I am lifting or how much strain such an action puts on my arm muscles, however slight. For all intents and purposes, I know that the book is light and the strain is not great, and it is an approximation that I do not lose any sleep over. I know that our brains are incredibly more complex than that little example, but they must still operate under some set of laws. If chaos does exist, I feel that it must be on so small a level as to have a negligible impact on our thinking. After all, psychology exists, and while greatly incomplete, it does a pretty good job at explaining how many different things work in the brain.
My point remains though, that if we were capable of perfectly reproducing a brain and all of the conditions about it, if we were to clone the entire universe from this point, then looking from one universe into another would be akin to looking in a mirror. Even if it is chaotic to us, for all intents and purposes, it does not mean that that chaos is not set to follow a particular path. While that might seem to go against conventional wisdom...
I think I'm done musing now. I have some actual work to get done with today.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 22 2009, 5:01 pm by Sael.
None.