8 ms·

Laws of Physics Can’t Trump the Bonds of Love

152 points by wallflower 14y ago

derleth 14y ago
This ties into my own philosophy: We define what the universe means. Intelligent life. We're the only ones that care, so it's up to us to decide what the universe is all about. That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening. We get it wrong, as we have in the past, but, over the past 500 years, we've been, overall, getting better and better at it over time. There's no guarantee we'll continue to improve. But, on the other hand, there's no, or very likely no, external grader, imposing an arbitrary standard on us. Our standards are our own, which means we have a chance at measuring up to them.
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  > That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. But we can't escape physics. We are still just complicated sets of reactions. We don't really have choices.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    > On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural phenomena. I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's not science.
    - mitchty 14y ago
      I'd say its rather simple, and similar to what has been done already. Wire up someone to an (eeg if i recall rightly), have them "choose" between two disparate things. Measure the brain response. If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That is, your conscious mind is only deluding itself into thinking it chose what processes in the brain have already decided. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_d... I think that was the gist of the study, its been a while so I might be off. Corrections welcome! That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree. That said its just a thought experiment at this point. Maybe this is a "bad" approach to determining it, but the experiments do cast doubt on at the very least our perception of free will and determinism.
      - Ygg2 14y ago
        Except it isn't that easy to. There is probably going to be some bias, not to mention that subtle unconscious hints from participants could be picked by the participants. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-... Also it's important to remember most of science theories can be overturned easily by new evidence. So I'm not sure science is 100% certain in either way.
        Ygg2 14y ago
        Late edit: "subtle unconscious hints from researchers could be picked by the participants"
      - gnaritas 14y ago
        > If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That doesn't follow. It's still their brain making the decision. The experiment simply pushes free will into the unconscious mind, it doesn't show you don't have it. You are still your mind, and those are still your decisions.
  - sixQuarks 14y ago
    That's well put. If you really do think about it, we ARE just a complicated set of reactions.
  - pekk 14y ago
    That thing we do, when we weigh options, is what choice is. Nobody is saying that physics is escaped by this.
  - Jun8 14y ago
    "We have to believe in free will. We have no other choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer
  - derleth 14y ago
    Think about free will in terms of a game-theoretic payoff matrix: There either is or isn't really free will, and you can either behave as if there is or behave as if there isn't. If there is no free will, it doesn't matter. The payouts are the same regardless of what you do. You can't affect anything. The game is rigged, go home, good night. However, if there is free will, the payouts vary drastically based on how you act, and the only way to get a good payout is to act as if there is free will. So, acting as if there is free will is, at worst, one of the ways to get the there-is-no-free-will payout, and, at best, the only way to get the best possible there-is-free-will payout. Note: If you mention Pascal's Wager in your response, you misunderstand the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it does not give a way to determine which deity to believe in. The argument was constructed with reference to the Christian deity, but it applies equally well to Shiva or me, for example. You can't abandon a whole methodology just because it can be misused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
    - alecst 14y ago
      I like this post -- and you're right, I immediately thought 'Pascal's Wager.' I'd just add that the other problem with Pascal's wager is that there is (typically) a non-negligible cost to believing in a god, which doesn't apply here.
    - Jesse_Ray 14y ago
      That argument is unsound. The color of the sky depends on atmospheric gases and suspended particles as causal factors. This shows that atmospheric gases and suspended particles are causally potent. At the same time, atmospheric gases and suspended particles do not have libertarian free will. This shows that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will. The statement that "If there is no [libertarian] free will ... The payouts are the same regardless of what you do" assumes that being without libertarian free will entails causal impotence, but that contradicts the fact that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will, as established by the argument about atmospheric gases and suspended particles. Therefore, that statement is false. When that statement has been corrected to allow people to be causally potent without libertarian free will, the conclusion of the argument does not follow.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    What would free will even be? It sounds as if it was a meaningful concept, but perhaps it really isn't. What would be the entity making decisions? And how would it not follow any rules? That would mean it would be random?
  - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
    I agree with the response below, but just to clarify, how do you know there is no such thing (or process, more likely) as free will? If its the Gazzaniga experiment's you are referring to, then please note that they merely showed that conscious awareness in a student/university staff population lagged behind the brain activities presumably associated with their experience. One would have to believe that all humans are imbued with free will eternally and for life at birth for such an experiment to convince you. Note that I do not believe this, so for me, these experiments do not necessarily disprove the existence of free will.
    - mylittlepony 14y ago
      I do not know there isn't free will, but I know there is nothing that suggests there is, other than this strong feeling we seem to have, which can't be trusted. So far, the universe seems to be deterministic, and our choices seem to be the result of deterministic reactions in our brains.
      - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
        I dunno, I do take your argument about our feelings on the matter not necessarily being a useful guide. Then again, deterministic actions (which is an assumption) in our brains do not necessarily correlate with a completely deterministic human. Perhaps the computation of such quantities as may be involved is impossible, and this would lead to a situation where even a completely deterministic universe could be compatible with the experience of "free will". We probably need a better term for this sensation, as "free will" is a particularly loaded term.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- heed 14y ago
  What do you mean by 'we get it wrong?' What is 'it'?
  - derleth 14y ago
    > What do you mean by 'we get it wrong?' Creating a world where some people can never be happy and satisfied. > What is 'it'? The meaning of existence and how to achieve a good existence.
- sown 14y ago
  > This ties into my own philosophy: We define what the universe means. That's a heavy responsibility. Some people can't handle it. I think that I'm one of those people. I lie awake at night sometimes very upset about how I'm running things and how I can't seem to do any better, no clue as to how to fix it. > We get it wrong, as we have in the past, but, over the past 500 years, we've been, overall, getting better and better at it over time. As an aside, that's kind of harsh to people of more than 500 years ago. It's easy to not have pity on people in the past for not knowing but they did the best that they could with what they had. Be nice because sometime in the future some people will judge us for the stupid things we do. :)
littlegiantcap 14y ago
Without getting too much into any sort of philosophical or religious discussion this is a really touching story. Merry Christmas everyone.
- munificent 14y ago
  Beautifully told too. No patronizing narration, no saccharine soundtrack, just a really amazing story.
canweriotnow 14y ago
The most beuatiful exposition of the weak anthropic principle I have ever encountered.
silentmars 14y ago
Sorry if it annoys anyone to bring in politics on this beautiful article here on Christmas, but here's what I have to say: Bookmark this article. Then, next time you are talking to some dittohead who is in favor of No Child Left Behind-style education, you can send them the link and say, "where does this fit in with your standardized testing horseshit?"
- jpiasetz 14y ago
  Wat? What does this have to do with standardize testing? The article doesn't mention standardized testing once. Standardize test has nothing to do with measuring individual students or individual teachers. It's a method for measure large scale changes. For example does all day kindergarten lead to student being better educated? Thanks to standardized testing in Ontario it can be measured whether or not students improve with all day kindergarten. You can argue for better test and you can argue for better application of the results of tests but there is no argument against benchmarking. Without a benchmark you're just shooting blind. People who are against standardized testing are the Jenny McCarthy of education. They think they can just tell when an education method is effective without measuring it
  - pekk 14y ago
    Yes, you are exactly right. I realized in high school that my standardized test scores meant absolutely nothing except as a kind of survey of the school. By no means were teachers "teaching to the test". And the material measured by the standardized tests was so basic/remedial that there is no way it would have been difficulty for AP track students - so fast changes in those scores would have been a pretty significant indicator of institutional failure.
Strilanc 14y ago
I was really unsure if I'd like this article. I'm still not sure if I do. It's about how a teacher motivates his students (science can help his son), but the way it's framed is very grating. There's this wrong idea out there, that you run into everywhere, that love is independent of physics. That a simulation of a human, grounded in rules of reality, wouldn't tend to its children. It grates me. A good analogy is: would you take an article about the fun of skydiving and title it "Can falling trump physics?"?
- smosher 14y ago
  Falling can be described in terms of physics, but the rush you get from it can't be. Not with today's machinery. The model we call physics may be so off-base as to be inapplicable at that stage. I see what you're saying, but he's talking about 'the meaning of it all', which doesn't feel like a scientific thing.
  - ksmiley 14y ago
    Perhaps I'm missing your point. The rush you get from skydiving _is_ explainable by physics. The human fight-or-flight response induces the adrenal gland to release epinephrine, which causes a raised heart rate, excitement, etc. Even complex feelings like "yearning to find the meaning of it all" and "loving your disabled son" have a biological basis. (Disclaimer: I get my science facts from Wikipedia and xkcd)
    - nsxwolf 14y ago
      I suggest you also use Wikipedia to get some philosophy: Look up "Qualia". Science is wholly incapable of explaining just exactly why feelings feel the way they do. "Adrenal gland releases epinephrine" is the trigger but it is not sufficient to describe the experience of a conscious person.
      - Strilanc 14y ago
        Qualia follow rules. They interact with the world. For example, the air vibrates one way instead of another when we talk about them. That's all that's required for something to be explored and understood, at least partially, with the tool of science. Phrased a different way, p-zombies are unlikely ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ ): > Why postulate an extramaterial soul, and then postulate that the soul has no effect on the physical world, and then postulate a mysterious unknown material process that causes your internal narrative to talk about conscious experience?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JennyZ 14y ago
"We say atoms are bound by weak attractors. Why not admit the truth: the Universe is held together by love."
VMG 14y ago
I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts. -- Richard Feynman Let's hope science some day may prevent the disease that afflicts his son.
rgonzalez 14y ago
Amazing. What would happen if we replaced every crappy teacher with one like this one? How different would the world be in 5,10,15 years? We need more teachers that are as passionate and devoted as this guy.
gosub 14y ago
The good old straw vulcan http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

152 points by wallflower 14y ago

This ties into my own philosophy: We define what the universe means. Intelligent life. We're the only ones that care, so it's up to us to decide what the universe is all about. That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening. We get it wrong, as we have in the past, but, over the past 500 years, we've been, overall, getting better and better at it over time. There's no guarantee we'll continue to improve. But, on the other hand, there's no, or very likely no, external grader, imposing an arbitrary standard on us. Our standards are our own, which means we have a chance at measuring up to them.

mylittlepony 14y ago
> That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. But we can't escape physics. We are still just complicated sets of reactions. We don't really have choices.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural phenomena. I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's not science.
  - mitchty 14y ago
    I'd say its rather simple, and similar to what has been done already. Wire up someone to an (eeg if i recall rightly), have them "choose" between two disparate things. Measure the brain response. If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That is, your conscious mind is only deluding itself into thinking it chose what processes in the brain have already decided. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_d... I think that was the gist of the study, its been a while so I might be off. Corrections welcome! That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree. That said its just a thought experiment at this point. Maybe this is a "bad" approach to determining it, but the experiments do cast doubt on at the very least our perception of free will and determinism.
    - Ygg2 14y ago
      Except it isn't that easy to. There is probably going to be some bias, not to mention that subtle unconscious hints from participants could be picked by the participants. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-... Also it's important to remember most of science theories can be overturned easily by new evidence. So I'm not sure science is 100% certain in either way.
      - Ygg2 14y ago
        Late edit: "subtle unconscious hints from researchers could be picked by the participants"
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      > If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That doesn't follow. It's still their brain making the decision. The experiment simply pushes free will into the unconscious mind, it doesn't show you don't have it. You are still your mind, and those are still your decisions.
- sixQuarks 14y ago
  That's well put. If you really do think about it, we ARE just a complicated set of reactions.
- pekk 14y ago
  That thing we do, when we weigh options, is what choice is. Nobody is saying that physics is escaped by this.
- Jun8 14y ago
  "We have to believe in free will. We have no other choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer
- derleth 14y ago
  Think about free will in terms of a game-theoretic payoff matrix: There either is or isn't really free will, and you can either behave as if there is or behave as if there isn't. If there is no free will, it doesn't matter. The payouts are the same regardless of what you do. You can't affect anything. The game is rigged, go home, good night. However, if there is free will, the payouts vary drastically based on how you act, and the only way to get a good payout is to act as if there is free will. So, acting as if there is free will is, at worst, one of the ways to get the there-is-no-free-will payout, and, at best, the only way to get the best possible there-is-free-will payout. Note: If you mention Pascal's Wager in your response, you misunderstand the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it does not give a way to determine which deity to believe in. The argument was constructed with reference to the Christian deity, but it applies equally well to Shiva or me, for example. You can't abandon a whole methodology just because it can be misused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
  - alecst 14y ago
    I like this post -- and you're right, I immediately thought 'Pascal's Wager.' I'd just add that the other problem with Pascal's wager is that there is (typically) a non-negligible cost to believing in a god, which doesn't apply here.
  - Jesse_Ray 14y ago
    That argument is unsound. The color of the sky depends on atmospheric gases and suspended particles as causal factors. This shows that atmospheric gases and suspended particles are causally potent. At the same time, atmospheric gases and suspended particles do not have libertarian free will. This shows that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will. The statement that "If there is no [libertarian] free will ... The payouts are the same regardless of what you do" assumes that being without libertarian free will entails causal impotence, but that contradicts the fact that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will, as established by the argument about atmospheric gases and suspended particles. Therefore, that statement is false. When that statement has been corrected to allow people to be causally potent without libertarian free will, the conclusion of the argument does not follow.
- Tichy 14y ago
  What would free will even be? It sounds as if it was a meaningful concept, but perhaps it really isn't. What would be the entity making decisions? And how would it not follow any rules? That would mean it would be random?
- disgruntledphd2 14y ago
  I agree with the response below, but just to clarify, how do you know there is no such thing (or process, more likely) as free will? If its the Gazzaniga experiment's you are referring to, then please note that they merely showed that conscious awareness in a student/university staff population lagged behind the brain activities presumably associated with their experience. One would have to believe that all humans are imbued with free will eternally and for life at birth for such an experiment to convince you. Note that I do not believe this, so for me, these experiments do not necessarily disprove the existence of free will.
  - mylittlepony 14y ago
    I do not know there isn't free will, but I know there is nothing that suggests there is, other than this strong feeling we seem to have, which can't be trusted. So far, the universe seems to be deterministic, and our choices seem to be the result of deterministic reactions in our brains.
    - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
      I dunno, I do take your argument about our feelings on the matter not necessarily being a useful guide. Then again, deterministic actions (which is an assumption) in our brains do not necessarily correlate with a completely deterministic human. Perhaps the computation of such quantities as may be involved is impossible, and this would lead to a situation where even a completely deterministic universe could be compatible with the experience of "free will". We probably need a better term for this sensation, as "free will" is a particularly loaded term.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
heed 14y ago
What do you mean by 'we get it wrong?' What is 'it'?
- derleth 14y ago
  > What do you mean by 'we get it wrong?' Creating a world where some people can never be happy and satisfied. > What is 'it'? The meaning of existence and how to achieve a good existence.
sown 14y ago
> This ties into my own philosophy: We define what the universe means. That's a heavy responsibility. Some people can't handle it. I think that I'm one of those people. I lie awake at night sometimes very upset about how I'm running things and how I can't seem to do any better, no clue as to how to fix it. > We get it wrong, as we have in the past, but, over the past 500 years, we've been, overall, getting better and better at it over time. As an aside, that's kind of harsh to people of more than 500 years ago. It's easy to not have pity on people in the past for not knowing but they did the best that they could with what they had. Be nice because sometime in the future some people will judge us for the stupid things we do. :)

littlegiantcap 14y ago

Without getting too much into any sort of philosophical or religious discussion this is a really touching story. Merry Christmas everyone.

munificent 14y ago
Beautifully told too. No patronizing narration, no saccharine soundtrack, just a really amazing story.

canweriotnow 14y ago

The most beuatiful exposition of the weak anthropic principle I have ever encountered.

silentmars 14y ago

Sorry if it annoys anyone to bring in politics on this beautiful article here on Christmas, but here's what I have to say: Bookmark this article. Then, next time you are talking to some dittohead who is in favor of No Child Left Behind-style education, you can send them the link and say, "where does this fit in with your standardized testing horseshit?"

jpiasetz 14y ago
Wat? What does this have to do with standardize testing? The article doesn't mention standardized testing once. Standardize test has nothing to do with measuring individual students or individual teachers. It's a method for measure large scale changes. For example does all day kindergarten lead to student being better educated? Thanks to standardized testing in Ontario it can be measured whether or not students improve with all day kindergarten. You can argue for better test and you can argue for better application of the results of tests but there is no argument against benchmarking. Without a benchmark you're just shooting blind. People who are against standardized testing are the Jenny McCarthy of education. They think they can just tell when an education method is effective without measuring it
- pekk 14y ago
  Yes, you are exactly right. I realized in high school that my standardized test scores meant absolutely nothing except as a kind of survey of the school. By no means were teachers "teaching to the test". And the material measured by the standardized tests was so basic/remedial that there is no way it would have been difficulty for AP track students - so fast changes in those scores would have been a pretty significant indicator of institutional failure.

Strilanc 14y ago

I was really unsure if I'd like this article. I'm still not sure if I do. It's about how a teacher motivates his students (science can help his son), but the way it's framed is very grating. There's this wrong idea out there, that you run into everywhere, that love is independent of physics. That a simulation of a human, grounded in rules of reality, wouldn't tend to its children. It grates me. A good analogy is: would you take an article about the fun of skydiving and title it "Can falling trump physics?"?

smosher 14y ago
Falling can be described in terms of physics, but the rush you get from it can't be. Not with today's machinery. The model we call physics may be so off-base as to be inapplicable at that stage. I see what you're saying, but he's talking about 'the meaning of it all', which doesn't feel like a scientific thing.
- ksmiley 14y ago
  Perhaps I'm missing your point. The rush you get from skydiving _is_ explainable by physics. The human fight-or-flight response induces the adrenal gland to release epinephrine, which causes a raised heart rate, excitement, etc. Even complex feelings like "yearning to find the meaning of it all" and "loving your disabled son" have a biological basis. (Disclaimer: I get my science facts from Wikipedia and xkcd)
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    I suggest you also use Wikipedia to get some philosophy: Look up "Qualia". Science is wholly incapable of explaining just exactly why feelings feel the way they do. "Adrenal gland releases epinephrine" is the trigger but it is not sufficient to describe the experience of a conscious person.
    - Strilanc 14y ago
      Qualia follow rules. They interact with the world. For example, the air vibrates one way instead of another when we talk about them. That's all that's required for something to be explored and understood, at least partially, with the tool of science. Phrased a different way, p-zombies are unlikely ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7/zombies_zombies/ ): > Why postulate an extramaterial soul, and then postulate that the soul has no effect on the physical world, and then postulate a mysterious unknown material process that causes your internal narrative to talk about conscious experience?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

JennyZ 14y ago

"We say atoms are bound by weak attractors. Why not admit the truth: the Universe is held together by love."

VMG 14y ago

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts. -- Richard Feynman Let's hope science some day may prevent the disease that afflicts his son.

rgonzalez 14y ago

Amazing. What would happen if we replaced every crappy teacher with one like this one? How different would the world be in 5,10,15 years? We need more teachers that are as passionate and devoted as this guy.

gosub 14y ago

The good old straw vulcan http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan