4 ms·

i think for physical systems this might hold true in some way, though, i am not a physics person at all. it just 'feels' that way to me. however, life is also t

i think for physical systems this might hold true in some way, though, i am not a physics person at all. it just 'feels' that way to me. however, life is also there, and life doesnt nessesarily follow such rules, as actually most of (intelligent?) life is not physical. (emotions, thought etc.) but does have impact / effect on the physical. i dont think non physical things are so determenistic. (maybe they are, but it doesnt 'feel' that way to me)

sheepdestroyer 3y ago
What makes you say that life is not physical? There seems to be no reason to believe that it's not. On the contrary it seems most plausible that everything, including emotions, thoughts, decisions, are just chemical and electrophysical reactions. Thus deterministic.
- tedivm 3y ago
  If those physical reactions occur at or are influenced by the quantum level then they stop being deterministic. Hence the article.
digging 3y ago
For classical physics it's basically true[1]; see Laplace's demon. I recall also independently inventing determinism as a kid after I realized how easily I'd been swayed by external factors into buying one toy over another. For non-physical things, such as emotions and thought... well, we have no actual proof they're anything but physical. We just don't have proof that they're entirely physical, either. But the simplest explanation is actually that they are completely physical processes and just as deterministic as everything else (which is to say, possibly not at all, depending on how QM is resolved). [1] "Basically true" here means it's not strictly true (by that I mean it's not true in all possible cases) - but classical physics itself is not strictly true, thus relativity and QM... which are themselves not strictly true. We're still trying to find the theory that accurately describes all of physics.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  When you imagine a red ball, where is that red ball physically? Not the atoms of the neuron configuration etc., but the plane of existence where you place the red ball.
  - digging 3y ago
    I don't understand the question or how it relates to my comment, can you elaborate what you mean by "plane of existence"?
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      When you imagine from your minds eye, that is a plane of some sort. If we understood exactly where or how this plane exists and for whom, we could arbitrarily place objects and ideas in this plane. Eg force someone to think of a red ball bouncing, or pull imagined objects forcefully out of the plane.
      - mannykannot 3y ago
        Eg force someone to think of a red ball bouncing... Indeed: put them in a sensory-deprivation tank and show them a video of a (possibly simulated) ball bouncing. Their existing network of neurons will do the rest.
      - digging 3y ago
        You're asking me to define the physical nature of thought? Of subjective experience? I can't. No one can. As I already said, though, that doesn't mean we should assume there's something metaphysical going on. When I think of a red ball neurons fire. We have no reason to believe there is anything else going on because we have no evidence one way or the other. The experience of thinking of a red ball is not evidence that there's anything supernatural going on.
        mensetmanusman 3y ago

sheepdestroyer 3y ago

What makes you say that life is not physical? There seems to be no reason to believe that it's not. On the contrary it seems most plausible that everything, including emotions, thoughts, decisions, are just chemical and electrophysical reactions. Thus deterministic.

tedivm 3y ago
If those physical reactions occur at or are influenced by the quantum level then they stop being deterministic. Hence the article.

digging 3y ago

For classical physics it's basically true[1]; see Laplace's demon. I recall also independently inventing determinism as a kid after I realized how easily I'd been swayed by external factors into buying one toy over another. For non-physical things, such as emotions and thought... well, we have no actual proof they're anything but physical. We just don't have proof that they're entirely physical, either. But the simplest explanation is actually that they are completely physical processes and just as deterministic as everything else (which is to say, possibly not at all, depending on how QM is resolved). [1] "Basically true" here means it's not strictly true (by that I mean it's not true in all possible cases) - but classical physics itself is not strictly true, thus relativity and QM... which are themselves not strictly true. We're still trying to find the theory that accurately describes all of physics.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
When you imagine a red ball, where is that red ball physically? Not the atoms of the neuron configuration etc., but the plane of existence where you place the red ball.
- digging 3y ago
  I don't understand the question or how it relates to my comment, can you elaborate what you mean by "plane of existence"?
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    When you imagine from your minds eye, that is a plane of some sort. If we understood exactly where or how this plane exists and for whom, we could arbitrarily place objects and ideas in this plane. Eg force someone to think of a red ball bouncing, or pull imagined objects forcefully out of the plane.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      Eg force someone to think of a red ball bouncing... Indeed: put them in a sensory-deprivation tank and show them a video of a (possibly simulated) ball bouncing. Their existing network of neurons will do the rest.
    - digging 3y ago
      You're asking me to define the physical nature of thought? Of subjective experience? I can't. No one can. As I already said, though, that doesn't mean we should assume there's something metaphysical going on. When I think of a red ball neurons fire. We have no reason to believe there is anything else going on because we have no evidence one way or the other. The experience of thinking of a red ball is not evidence that there's anything supernatural going on.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago