Is true randomness real

It has been mathematically proved that the way quantum mechanics operates is non-deterministic in nature.

Maybe that is a way of saying that it looks non-deterministic.

@four_legs_good said in #12: > It has been mathematically proved that the way quantum mechanics operates is non-deterministic in nature. Maybe that is a way of saying that it looks non-deterministic.

is it?

I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up in this thread (unless I missed it):

Free will.

I know that some neuroscientists have moved toward believing that we really don't have free will -- that our urges and opinions are pre-consciously formed and pre-determined before they emerge: that we are, in essence, a complex clockwork that merely fancies itself capable of free will.

But I will not agree. And I am free to do so. Consciousness is more fundamental than things material. Consciousness; not language; not even ego. I believe those should not be confused.

I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up in this thread (unless I missed it): Free will. I know that some neuroscientists have moved toward believing that we really don't have free will -- that our urges and opinions are pre-consciously formed and pre-determined before they emerge: that we are, in essence, a complex clockwork that merely fancies itself capable of free will. But I will not agree. And I am free to do so. Consciousness is more fundamental than things material. Consciousness; not language; not even ego. I believe those should not be confused.

#26

Approximation

#27

@Noflaps said in #25:

I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up in this thread (unless I missed it):

Free will.

I know that some neuroscientists have moved toward believing that we really don't have free will -- that our urges and opinions are pre-consciously formed and pre-determined before they emerge: that we are, in essence, a complex clockwork that merely fancies itself capable of free will.

But I will not agree. And I am free to do so. Consciousness is more fundamental than things material. Consciousness; not language; not even ego. I believe those should not be confused.

Free will isn't random, if you know (or understand) the human, or living being that is making the choices.

But, how well can we know (or understand) a human, or living being that is making the choices they live their life by?

Can I (or anyone) predict in a complete game of Chess, what my opponent's moves will be with certainty?

Since the answer is No way more often than Yes - that means there is more randomness I percieve from them, because I can not percieve their understanding, even as they choose to live it, making Chess moves; not only in the game of Chess, but in their life.

How well do I know anyone, when I am suprised by them, day-in and day-out? Their freewill is "random" to me right? I mean - can anyone explain to me the framwork on which they opperate on? Is it logical? Can I even possibly understand it?

What do you think?

@Noflaps said in #25: > I'm surprised that this hasn't already come up in this thread (unless I missed it): > > Free will. > > I know that some neuroscientists have moved toward believing that we really don't have free will -- that our urges and opinions are pre-consciously formed and pre-determined before they emerge: that we are, in essence, a complex clockwork that merely fancies itself capable of free will. > > But I will not agree. And I am free to do so. Consciousness is more fundamental than things material. Consciousness; not language; not even ego. I believe those should not be confused. Free will isn't random, if you know (or understand) the human, or living being that is making the choices. But, how well can we know (or understand) a human, or living being that is making the choices they live their life by? Can I (or anyone) predict in a complete game of Chess, what my opponent's moves will be with certainty? Since the answer is No way more often than Yes - that means there is more randomness I percieve from them, because I can not percieve their understanding, even as they choose to live it, making Chess moves; not only in the game of Chess, but in their life. How well do I know anyone, when I am suprised by them, day-in and day-out? Their freewill is "random" to me right? I mean - can anyone explain to me the framwork on which they opperate on? Is it logical? Can I even possibly understand it? What do you think?

Noflaps

edited

#28

In response, @Approximation, I think nature and nurture both influence us. But how can anyone be influenced if there is not an "us" to influence?

I have been too long a meditator to think that my thoughts in my native language are "me." My thoughts are served up to me -- they bubble up from the deep well of nature and nurture. But it is "me" who observes them. Quietly. Endlessly.

I can choose to react to them, or play with them. Or I can choose to let them glide on by, without reaction.

But they are, nevertheless, being observed. They are clouds passing across the blue sky. (That is a commonly furnished metaphor for thoughts .... I am not its originator).

But, admittedly mixing metaphors, my point is: those thoughts do not echo alone in a dusty, abandoned hall that nobody visits.

What is the nature of the observer? That is the endless question. But I can observe that there is, nevertheless, an observer.

Some who write of meditation and consciousness seem to suggest that there is no real observer. I have observed them doing so, more than once.

I wonder whom they think they inform?

In response, @Approximation, I think nature and nurture both influence us. But how can anyone be influenced if there is not an "us" to influence? I have been too long a meditator to think that my thoughts in my native language are "me." My thoughts are served up to me -- they bubble up from the deep well of nature and nurture. But it is "me" who observes them. Quietly. Endlessly. I can choose to react to them, or play with them. Or I can choose to let them glide on by, without reaction. But they are, nevertheless, being observed. They are clouds passing across the blue sky. (That is a commonly furnished metaphor for thoughts .... I am not its originator). But, admittedly mixing metaphors, my point is: those thoughts do not echo alone in a dusty, abandoned hall that nobody visits. What is the nature of the observer? That is the endless question. But I can observe that there is, nevertheless, an observer. Some who write of meditation and consciousness seem to suggest that there is no real observer. I have observed them doing so, more than once. I wonder whom they think they inform?

Human77

#29

define deterministic and undeterministic exactly. (in 13 dimensions, preferably)

i like the analogy with the chess game.
at one time i looked at an old game with someone I just played against.
I made the exact mistake even though the positions were not the same.
i think of course it would have been possible to predict exactly what would have happened in that game.
i had all the free will in the world to make my game look completely random.

define deterministic and undeterministic exactly. (in 13 dimensions, preferably) i like the analogy with the chess game. at one time i looked at an old game with someone I just played against. I made the exact mistake even though the positions were not the same. i think of course it would have been possible to predict exactly what would have happened in that game. i had all the free will in the world to make my game look completely random.

Approximation edited

#30

@Noflaps said in #28:

What is the nature of the observer?

What is the intent of oberserving as an observer? Perhaps, it is as simple of an idea as: to look before you leap. There are red lights in life causing us to wait on things until certain conditions are met, like the light changing to green. The green light is something we leap forward in action, giving us permission to achieve our dreams. Observation isn't less important when we're in motion, even though our energies are focused more on moving from point A to point B, due to changing traffic conditions (or board states, in Chess). What do you do when your Checkmate goal (or plan) is blocked? Rather than forcing the car thru the barricade, it can be wise to wait, recalculating the position, until the traffic situation has cleared, or maybe make a U-turn if allowed, and try again with another idea, given good judgement from the observations made.

@Noflaps said in #28: > What is the nature of the observer? What is the intent of oberserving as an observer? Perhaps, it is as simple of an idea as: to look before you leap. There are red lights in life causing us to wait on things until certain conditions are met, like the light changing to green. The green light is something we leap forward in action, giving us permission to achieve our dreams. Observation isn't less important when we're in motion, even though our energies are focused more on moving from point A to point B, due to changing traffic conditions (or board states, in Chess). What do you do when your Checkmate goal (or plan) is blocked? Rather than forcing the car thru the barricade, it can be wise to wait, recalculating the position, until the traffic situation has cleared, or maybe make a U-turn if allowed, and try again with another idea, given good judgement from the observations made.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.