4 ms·

First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are dete

First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Secondly, even true randomness doesn't significantly alter the world-view of Determinism, at least not when applied to the problem of consciousness (as in the current context). Regardless of whether the future state of the world is fully determined by the past state, or whether the future state of the world is fully determined by the past state + random events, consciousness and conscious decisions play no role. That is, the feeling that you decide whether to go to work or not, that today you could have decided otherwise if you had wanted to, is still an illusion in either model. In pure determinism, this was determined the moment the universe came into being. In determinism+true randomness, whether you went or not was unknowable ahead of time, but you still didn't have any input: say, some cosmic ray flipping a switch in your brain or not determined whether you did go.

defrost 3y ago
> First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Nope. In simple newtonian classical mechanics it is entirely possible to have a phase space in which for all epsilon greater than zero any initial conditions that lead to { heads } have a neighbouring set of intial conditions within epsilon radius that lead to { tails }. ie. It is possible to have coin flipping game in which no amount of precision in setting intial conditions can guarantee the outcome. This is the implication of Lorenz's butterfly and Smale's horseshoe map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
- simiones 3y ago
  True, though I don't believe there is any reason to think such systems would actually be physically realizable. To me this seems similar to the dome shape where a ball sitting at rest on the top would randomly move down at any time in any direction - it is part of the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics, but it is not necessarily part of the physics of it (since that dome shape requires infinite smoothness, which can't exist in the physical model).
robertlagrant 3y ago
Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. I'm saying: is randomness such as this an input to a deterministic model? This brain decides to flip a coin and base its next action on that coin's outcome: is that a future past which determinism cannot see?
- simiones 3y ago
  > Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. If we're discussing whether the future is fully determined by the past, this point is rather important. In a fully classical (newtonian) world, the future is fully determined by the past - so the result of that coin flip was already determined not just at the moment the coin was thrown, but in fact the moment the universe began. Now, with QM, whether this remains true or not is much more debatable. In the many-worlds interpretation for example, it does remain true: in that interpretation, the whole universe evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, with all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually happening, just not in the same place in phase space. In the more common interpretations, there is true randomness, with only one outcome happening from a random event and no way to predict which it will be. So, in the most common interpretations of QM, while coinflips may not be very random, you could instead measure the spin of an electron and base your decisions on that, and no one could predict the future if you do so. Still, note that you are not choosing anything, in either interpretation. Your next action is as unpredictable to you as it is to anyone else, if there is true randomness. Your thoughts, beliefs, experiences, do not influence your actions in any way if you base your actions on a random event. So, if you believe that a deterministic universe is not compatible with true free will, then you should also believe that a random universe is just as incompatible with true free will.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Agree about coin flipping - I was thinking about the same thing after I posted. Better source of randomness required. On your final paragraph - is what you're saying only true if you base all your decisions on the quantum mechanical equivalent of a coin flip? Or are you referring to something else?

defrost 3y ago

> First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Nope. In simple newtonian classical mechanics it is entirely possible to have a phase space in which for all epsilon greater than zero any initial conditions that lead to { heads } have a neighbouring set of intial conditions within epsilon radius that lead to { tails }. ie. It is possible to have coin flipping game in which no amount of precision in setting intial conditions can guarantee the outcome. This is the implication of Lorenz's butterfly and Smale's horseshoe map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

simiones 3y ago
True, though I don't believe there is any reason to think such systems would actually be physically realizable. To me this seems similar to the dome shape where a ball sitting at rest on the top would randomly move down at any time in any direction - it is part of the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics, but it is not necessarily part of the physics of it (since that dome shape requires infinite smoothness, which can't exist in the physical model).

robertlagrant 3y ago

Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. I'm saying: is randomness such as this an input to a deterministic model? This brain decides to flip a coin and base its next action on that coin's outcome: is that a future past which determinism cannot see?

simiones 3y ago
> Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. If we're discussing whether the future is fully determined by the past, this point is rather important. In a fully classical (newtonian) world, the future is fully determined by the past - so the result of that coin flip was already determined not just at the moment the coin was thrown, but in fact the moment the universe began. Now, with QM, whether this remains true or not is much more debatable. In the many-worlds interpretation for example, it does remain true: in that interpretation, the whole universe evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, with all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually happening, just not in the same place in phase space. In the more common interpretations, there is true randomness, with only one outcome happening from a random event and no way to predict which it will be. So, in the most common interpretations of QM, while coinflips may not be very random, you could instead measure the spin of an electron and base your decisions on that, and no one could predict the future if you do so. Still, note that you are not choosing anything, in either interpretation. Your next action is as unpredictable to you as it is to anyone else, if there is true randomness. Your thoughts, beliefs, experiences, do not influence your actions in any way if you base your actions on a random event. So, if you believe that a deterministic universe is not compatible with true free will, then you should also believe that a random universe is just as incompatible with true free will.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Agree about coin flipping - I was thinking about the same thing after I posted. Better source of randomness required. On your final paragraph - is what you're saying only true if you base all your decisions on the quantum mechanical equivalent of a coin flip? Or are you referring to something else?