martillo

Yes in Spanish the term "determine" has some different meanings but I think we must focus in the context of our discussion and give an appropriated definition to it. I'm considering the mathematical concept of determining which is the used one in Physics and software/hardware Computing: _ The value of a function is determined by the values of its variables. _ The inputs determines the output. Sure. Our problem is now is if at some present state the future can be determined by things of the past only and not by other things in the future. The thing is then related to if our choices are deterministic or not. If our choices depend on things in the past only then they are determined and the future could be determined. If our choices are not deterministic then the future cannot be determined. This is in what our discussion is centered in this thread I think. Seems the problem is about the "elbow room" (or degree of freedom) we can still find in our decisions in that future. If in the future we still have an "elbow room" then we can either play dice, rationalize about the best choice or just intuitively "follow our heart" for us to finally make a choice and decision. In this case there would be some indeterminism in the future choices and so in the future.

The thing became complex for me now. While I intuitively agree with libertarian free will I find really complex now to rationally demonstrate that is really the case. I'm studying deeper the subject but I think I will not reach to a final demonstration. The literature actually present different philosophical currents with their own argumentation but there's no final conclusion of one be true while the other ones being false. The subject has remained unresolved for very long time. I don't pretend now to be able to solve the it on my own. On another side I feel cheated with the Stephen Hawking quote I have presented. Actually he wasn't defending "free will" as I believed. That quote is just the beginning of a larger reasoning: "I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road. ... One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behavior, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fundamental laws. There is also a Darwinian reason that we believe in free will: A society in which the individual feels responsible for his or her actions is more likely to work together and survive to spread its values. (pp. 133-135 Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (1993))" I have found that the true quote of Stephen Hawking on free will is in his book "The grand design": “It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” Time for me to review many things. As for now I just can say that I intuitively agree with the libertarians' philosophic current...

I realize now that our difference is minimum. In summary: we both agree in the existence of volition and so the existence of some "free will", we agree in causality (every action has a cause) and also agree in that the future depends on our choices and actions. We are only disagreeing in if the future is determined or undetermined. I looked for the definition of indeterminism then. Googling I have found Indeterminism defined as: Is the view that at least some events have no deterministic cause but occur randomly or by chance. Considering this I find the future undetermined. As examples of types of events that occur randomly or by chance I would mention raining, clima in general, earthquakes, vulcanos' eruptions, etc. I would also mention the typical "quantum states" in elementary particles like electrons which allow events like the "quantum tunneling" phenomena and allow the possibility of "quantum computing" I think.

I think you could find people that could like to work in developing your model further only if you could convince them your model would really work. You already posted your current ideas, right. People in the forum is pointing out to you which problems each one is finding for the model to work. While you solve those problems in a convincing way you are moving further in the development of your model. You must take each criticism and refute it with good demonstrations that your model actually works. This way you are moving further. That would be the way I think. You must be also always prepared to find that your model could actually not work... I don't like the "wave-particle duality" model. I think is an unfinished model. I don't see how something could be actually be a wave and a particle at the same time. There could be both wave-like and particle-like behaviors, fine, but the thing must be solved for the waves-only or the particles-only model at the end. Of course.

Thanks! Nice if I could have moved a little bit. Is being about twenty years I'm on this try. @CarlD reminds me my first state of thinking about a new model and I can comprehend him. I think @CarlD would need to move into "Perturbation Quantum Field Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_(quantum_mechanics) But also he is including gravity in his model so he would also need to move into "Gravity Perturbation Theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity Too far from my area of expertise. Not to mention I'm an engineer not a physicist. A lot of time time incurring in the Physics' area but still with an engineering approach...

That is what you say. You have to demonstrate that to the Physics' community. Yes, I'm working in a particles' model that seems could explain the wave-like behavior of them but I'm well aware it is a huge task. You seem to still be at the state of "storm of ideas" and you can't be so sure your model will really work as you insist to say. You have to demonstrate that.

I don't know what do you mean by "materialist model" in Physics. The particles model haven't been disproved at all. Currently it works together with the waves model together in the wave-particle model. Some things are well modeled with the concept of particles and other are well modeled by the concept of waves. The "wave-particle duality" you know...

Currently the wave-particle duality model is the mainstream. You are trying to model everything as waves. I'm in the opposite direction thinking in improving the particles' model so I can't actually give you any help in that direction.

You misunderstood me. I asked what you would start reviewing, not how to do it. I mean, is there any special topic in Physics you think could be questioned right now? But I was just curious if any. Don't worry too much about.

Is not only in doing the maths. Even in a conceptual level you must present it in a way everybody can understand you without so much problems. I can't follow you even at the conceptual level.

Seems is not enough. You can't present your model to Physics Science this way. You know, it must pass scientific reviews...

Is really difficult to understand your model/theory mainly because you pretend to develop it without any mathematics. I don't get how "resonance creating magnetic properties/fields or spin creating electric properties/charges" could take place. Hard to follow you.

Seems like the Vortex Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_theory_of_the_atom. Not easy to grasp by me and your theory would be also based on the assumption of the existence of an aether which has been already well experimentally disproved by Michelson-Morley experiment.

Just curious, what would you start reviewing in Physics?

So now, it could be needed to begin to be considered "virtual particles" with any velocity, even "impossible velocities" (middle of the video), for the things to work? Wouldn't this be the same as the "instantaneous action at a distance" concept of of Classical Physics? Seems it is time to doubt about everything and rethink everything...

It works at the inverse. You must analyze with logic what I have stated and point out what could fail in the statements. After all the aim is to find the right thing, isn't it? If there is something really wrong I will no hesitate in recognize and make a review. I use to do that always. I'm always looking for the truth.

The physics' Heisenberg uncertainty principle tell us that some things are impossible to be known with enough precision. That is a non logical appreciation like other one you have made: "So, IINM, you’re entire argument here boils down to, “Just trust me, bruh!”. They are just derogating comments. Don't ask me after why I don't really like to discuss with you. They are all logical well founded statements. I asked you to answer them with logical argumentation.

I have forgotten to mention that sometimes is used in its precise meaning of not always concept. It is not an introduced vague concept. It is strictly necessary in the statement. It means there that "free will" does exist sometimes while other times it doesn't. It depends on the conditions present. Other consideration is that a totally free will as a totally free volition actually never exist because always some conditions are present. That's true but we must talk then about the degrees of freedom the conditions allow at the moment of making a choice. Is something that also depends on the conditions present.

Please note that the post above is not just an "opinion". It is a complete reasoning applying logic on the subject. I think it deserves logical treatment. I think there's no contradictions nor inconsistencies but feel free to point out anything about how it could fail. Particularly note the difference I made in the looking at the past and looking at the future. If we analyze the present we find it has been completely determined by the past but the future cannot be determined from the present and the past.

Well, I think the subject could be solved in the following way (treating "free will" and "determinism" separately): About "free will": The problem is if there exist situations with options for us to make a choice. I think there are a lot, like the different options in the menu of a restaurant, the different candidates in real democratic countries, the different careers at universities and so on. So, situations of making a choice are a lot, in the world and during our lives. It follows that we do have the power to make choices, we do have volition. Now the problem of how much free is that volition depends on the degree of freedom the conditions allow at the moment of us making the choices. Sometimes the conditions are so restrictive that we have no choice and the volition is null or that it doesn't actually exist. I can say then that some free volition is possible sometimes. Finally and shortly, if "free will" means "free volition" I conclude: "Free will" exists sometimes depending on the conditions present. About "determinism": Any action has a cause and so all actions we make have a cause. There are intuitive actions and rational ones. In intuitive actions we just follow our intuition quite instantaneously. Rational actions need to be thought before making them and take some time. Our intuition is deterministic depending on past and present conditions. Our rationalism seems to be also deterministic because it just uses some deterministic logic to analyze things to give a conclusion for us to make a choice and finally perform a rational action. It follows at the end that there was nothing nondeterministic in the world and the entire universe. The present was determined by the past. The problem is for the future. Is impossible to know or determine all the choices all of us will make in the future. Even we don't know all the choices we will make in the future. Certain randomness and uncertainty is present in the physics of the universe and in our mind. The future is not determined and depends on our choices and actions. "Determinism" does not apply. For my discussion with @iNow and with @Eise: Note that in my reasoning I admit that our actions are all made deterministically. The problem is that is impossible to know all of the actions we will make in the future. That's why the future is undetermined. This is independent on when, where and how our choices are made in our brain and note that I even didn't mention consciousness. It doesn't matter in this reasoning. I just say to @iNow that I believe we are completely conscious in some choices and actions we make sometimes. I don't believe we are just spectators of our own lives. I don't know how to demonstrate that to you but this is another subject, doesn't actually matters in the discussion of "free will". All comments are welcome...

The right naming of things is important for me. Help to avoid misunderstandings. By the way, I'm reading things about "free will", as it is popularly known, and in several specialized literature "volition" is mentioned.

I'm returning to the thread because I have made an extensive search in terminology and have found what I was looking for while discussing, the right word: volition. One definition of volition: "the power or faculty of choosing". Googling: "the faculty or power of using one's will". So for me, to avoid misspellings and misunderstandings, the question "does free will exist or not?" should be better phrased as "does volition exist or not?" My answer is: Sometimes. It depends on the conditions which are always present. Sometimes the conditions completely determines what is going to happen and we have no choice to do anything about. Now about the discussions: I disagree with @Eise because I consider volition and determinism mutually exclusive. Determinism implies the future is predetermined, there are no choices for us to make. I don't understand how compatibilism is actually possible. I'm searching about compatibilism but I need time. May be @Eise could talk something about the key points for compatibilism to be possible. I disagree with @iNow because he believes the volition would be always at an unconscious level prior to a "post-dictive narrative" when we just become aware about what happened. We would be just spectators of our own life. I completely disagree with that although I don't have the evidence he required me to present. My reasoning and the example I presented was not enough for him. He considered that just as an "opinion" deserving no consideration and that's why is impossible for me to continue discussing with him. But I will continue thinking about, may be I could find something else with time. In summary I need time now to continue discussing about...

If everything is waves how do you explain electric and magnetic forces? I mean, different waves can only exhibit interference between them what does not exert any force on the original waves. Two intersecting moving waves just crosses one through the other exhibiting interference and continue after their original movement. How can you explain, for instance the electrical attraction between a proton and an electron if you model them as waves? How can you explain the magnetic force between two magnets? How could you explain forces between macroscopic "material" objects this way? How could you explain mechanical elastic collisions between "material" objects this way?

I don't know would the mystery will be solved. Better the second option having no rules to solve a mystery. No, just for iNow to not ask me more questions. You say you don't believe what I say. Why to continue asking questions to me? You don't open questions to anybody else. Why just me? ??? By the way, I have nothing else to add to the subject I think. I will not stay just repeating what I have already said.

I would suggest you to continue this your subject on your own or with other ones, not with me.