MigL

YIPPEEE !!

OK, so should this thread, then, try to define 'free will', before getting too far ahead of ourselves ?

Thanks for the info, swansont.

My previous post gives an example using a single slit or hole, so you can always determine which slit or hole the quantum particle went through, as there is only one. A single quantum particle results in one spot on the detector. A large number of quantum particles passed through the single slit, one at a time, results in an interference pattern. Re-read post # 39 because you don't.

Did you know, tar, that you can pass a single quantum particle through one slit and get a single spot on the detector ? Did you know that you can repeat the same process hundreds of times and all the individual single spots on the detector will line up and arrange themselves into an interference pattern ? Did you know that you can repeat the single process in hundreds of different experiments with hundreds of slit screens and hundreds of detectors in hundreds of different cities around the world and get that same single spot on the detector ? Yet when you stack the transparencies with the single spot from each of the hundreds of different detectors, they will line up and arrange themselves into an interference pattern ? What is interfering with what ? Or are you just seeing the probabilistic true nature of a quantum particle ?

I'm looking at the incarceration rates chart ( first set ) that iNow posted ( post #79 ) . The time span is 1960-2010. Black American incarceration numbers increase steadily to about 2000 ( peak ), then decline.

I will be happy with a NO vote. I admire what the UK has been able to accomplish the last couple of hundred years. They did it together.

OK It was a too quickly put together thought experiment, spurred by reading the other thread. Lets consider, instead, virtual particles. Is it impossible for a single photon to be travelling along a geodesic and spontaneously produce a virtual particle/ant-particle pair ? Now the virtual particle pair could have the wrong energy because of Hisenberg borrowing ( I made up that term ), but when they annihilate after a brief period, they must reproduce the initial energy and momentum of the original photon exactly. A gain any difference in the trajectory of the virtual particles would be manifest in a difference in the final photon's energy and momentum. In effect, virtual anti-particles that act differently gravitationally, provide a mechanism for violating conservation laws.

Showtime !! There is no predicted lower limit, you can go to zero. Energy gravitates and as such produces a gravitational field. A high enough concentration of energy in a given volume is predicted to form a black hole. See J. A. Wheeler's work with gravitational collapse of geons ( just going by memory). Is that an upper limit ? I don't know, you can still add more energy to a black hole.

Any insight as to the rapid drop-off in incarceration rates after the peaks in/about 2000 ?

Your opinion Ophiolite, but I'll have to disagree. The Scotts already have a vibrant cultural identity and no-one ignores their accomplishments ( James Clerk Maxwell is a personal 'hero' ) All the arguments for, that I've read on this forum or seen on TV/online, assert that Scotland would get to decide, and to keep more of her own money and be better off economically as an independent ( I won't use the word country, John ). Whether the ( yet to be negotiated ) terms of separation bring about such a windfall is the question voters have to ask themselves.

Dimreepr, are you suggesting that sociopaths and the like, do not feel and suffer psychologically like the rest of us do, because of a genetic abnormality ? Please provide references. That there is no free will and no such thing as evil in this world ? Please provide a valid argument or references. That this ( unproven ) condition absolves them of any and all responsibility for their actions ? And that understanding is the solution ? Sometimes you have to understand that something ( or someone ) has gone bad ( for whatever reason ) and to protect the rest, quarantine (segregation ) or destruction is the only option. Notice that this works for wine, cheese, plants, etc. so we also use it for people ( rightly or wrongly ). Knowing the cause and understanding doesn't affect what has become. It may help prevent.

I figured I was using wrong definitions Eise, but I'm dipping my toe in new waters here. My views are based on science, not philosophy Skeptic134. I do hope I'm not being insulting, but there is a difference. Probability results in choice from a quantum mechanical point of view because any observation/interaction changes the probability distribution. The chances are no longer fixed. They have been altered. You, by observing/interacting have affected the outcome. Determinism ( my wrong definition ) has been lost

I understand that it is always better to check experimentally. Given that... A particle and anti-particle pair of equivalent mass are created from an amount of energy equivalent to at least twice the mass of the particle or antiparticle. This energy, say a gamma photon, was previously affected by a gravitational field in accordance with its mass-equivalent energy. After the particle and anti-particle come back together and annihilate, energy conservation dictates that the equivalent amount of energy is produced, i.e. the same gamma photon. This photon continues to be affected by the previous gravitational field. Is it possible that the matter and anti-matter particles were affected differently by the gravitational field and so the re-created photon is in a different trajectory about the gravitational field, thus invalidating energy /momentum conservation ? Or is ALPHA actually testing the equivalence principle of GR, i.e. energy is equivalent to inertial mass but maybe not to gravitational mass ?

You still don't get it tar. It is not the case that "the thing was at an exact location, with a particular momentum, at a defined time in reference to other items, and we just could not determine them both at the same time, because the darn things are so tiny and fast, they have too large an amount of states at the time", because at the quantum level, determinism, the old paradigm ( the foundation of our ideas), goes out the window and is completely invalid. It only starts to become valid again, i.e. deterministic, at scales large enough that the deviation from what we consider 'normal', i.e. deterministic is insignificant. This means our common everyday world is also based on this probabilistic paradigm, but we don't notice the 'strange' ( as you call them ) effects, because they've become statistically trivial. The first part of your paragraph, "the thing is in undetermined state, where knowing one aspect exactly, precludes you from knowing the other exactly" is correct, but is an interpretation. Myself, I like to start from the basics, and embrace the probabilistic paradigm completely. I don't see the quantum particle as being in a multitude of states at any particular time, but, as actually being a probability distribution, i.e. there is chances for it to actually be in different places/momentum/states. Any interpretation of the basic paradigm, such as superposition of states ( where they are all concurrent, see Shroedinger's cat ), many worlds ( where every choice/observation/interaction produces a new, different reality or universe ), and others, only seeks to relate/compare the probabilistic quantum domain to our deterministic, common everyday existence/world, and is bound to suffer from inconsistencies. This choice of paradigm means I don't have to consider what happens to a quantum particle either before or after observation/interaction. There is no difference. it is, at all times, a probability distribution. The observation/interaction just alters the distribution and the chances are altered.

Oh no ! Not again ? Didn't you see what you started between Ten oz and I last time you posted race based stats ? No seriously, thanks for the informative post. I assume these stats are American. I wonder how they would compare to Canadian or European numbers ? Is it a mostly American effect or is it widespread in all ( so called ) modern societies ? Also, any explanation for the drop in incarceration rates at about 2000-5 ?

Well, we know where some of the members of this forum stand, and the main driving issue seems to be economic. Some think they will be better off independent while others think that independence will weaken all parties concerned. This isn't a referendum. Its a lottery !

Once probability is introduced you cannot know the initial conditions exactly. Without this information you cannot write an equation of state that describes the future evolution of the system. Once there is ambiguity in the future state of the system it is no longer pre-determined. It can in effect, take any state possible ( within reason and the restrictions caused by the HUP, of course ). Determinism has been lost.

Temperature is a measure of energy. QM doesn't allow for exactly zero energy. The best theory we have for the emergent property of mass is Electroweak symmetry breaking via the Higgs mechanism at about 250 GeV. Above this energy/temperature symmetry would again hold and mass should vanish. This is still brand new science and I'm at best, an amateur in the field. AJB might be able to shed some light on the subject.

I was having trouble sleeping this morning so I posted on this thread, but I'm not at all versed in philosophical matters. I'm using standard word definitions and realize that there may be subject specific definitions. Determinism implies to me, that choice is meaningless. The clockwork laws evolve the system in a way that is determined solely by the initial conditions. In effect the initial conditions, constrained by the clockwork laws, pre-determine the state of the system at any later time. Consider for example a pool table. knowing the initial position of all the balls on the table and their initial velocities, we can use Newton's laws of motion to determine their positions and velocities at any later time. The balls do not have a choice of any other position or velocity. What Quantum Mechanics does is introduce a probability distribution associated with the position or velocity of The pool balls. Specifically the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes knowing the velocity of any ball impossible if we fix the position of that ball, and knowing the position impossible if we fix the velocity. The future states of the balls are therefore no longer specified by the initial conditions and the clockwork laws. Choice is re-introduced to the system. And is that not what we mean by free will ? The existence of choice ?

People only say QM is weird or strange because it is different from our common, everyday experiences, not that the universe behaves in inexplicable ways. We have mathematical models that explain this behavior, and once you understand the models, the behavior is not weird or strange, just different from the common.

From a 'hard' science background, determinism is the Newtonian view of the world. Once the initial conditions are set, the universe unfolds like a clockwork according to certain laws and causality. This is also a religious/creationist viewpoint where all events are predetermined and an omnipotent knows and determines everything that has happened, is happening and will ever happen. How is free will then possible under these circumstances ? Determinism or more accurately, pre-determinism, precludes free will. Religion/creation is inconsistent since it involves both determinism by a diety and the notion of free will. The development of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920s brought about a paradigm shift in the way we view reality, from a deterministic view to a probabilistic view, along with several instances of causality violation. The clockwork, deterministic view has been supplanted by one which makes the notion of free will possible. Note that I may be using a non-standard definition of determinism and that there seems to be no consensus on the definition of 'free will' in this thread either.

If people continue to consider the big bang as an explosion, then for consistency with observation, we ( and by we I mean the observable universe ), have been and always will be within the 'explosion'. There is no outside to the explosion just as there is no 'outside' to the universe. Discussing a centre, direction or other side of the explosion is non-sensical as it doesn't fit observation. Trying to use gravity as the driver for expansion in this way is also a non-starter, as gravitationally bound systems in the universe at large scales are not affected by expansion. Or am I misunderstanding your theory ?

Elfmotat has explained how the probabilistic nature of realty at the quantum level results in the HUP. You on the other hand, 'know' ( from common experience ) that no experiment says that a thing, moving at a specific speed, can't have a specific position. I can think of several cases where elfmotat's math predicts one thing and the universe doesn't keep working according to your common expectations. It actually follows the completely uncommon expectations of the math. Or would you care to enlighten us with your explanation for the double slit experiment ? Also keep in mind that you may not be there as an observer to interact with those solar flare photons, but they will interact ( the meaning of 'to observe' ) with many others, even the virtual particles present throughout space that owe their existence to the HUP ( yes, self-consistency is part of quantum theory ) .

You have a valid point, but there's enough blame to go around, so don't forget to blame the protesters in the photographs also. They are the ones preaching hatred, and many were arrested for the act. When they committed the crime isn't really relevant as they don't belong in our ( supposedly ) civilized society. Arms dealers build tools. How we use them can be a problem. We certainly appreciated their efforts in WW2 and during the cold war. It seems they also provide a convenient scapegoat. People who react to extremism with extremism are usually called victims when discussing other crimes and are usually excused. Or would you place as much blame on the victim of a rape who kills her assailant, as you do the rapist ?