No.

Well, it establishes that the spin on electrons is up half the time and down half the time. Does that mean it's random, 50%/50%? Not necessarily, but there's a lot more than that. Plenty for decay too. And the math that puts it all together (which is modern physics, more or less) involves "random" elements.

But we can't prove it's random, no. We can't prove that there are no hidden variables at work, that would be proving a negative. Local hidden variables were pretty much ruled out by violations of Bell's inequality though, implying randomness pretty strongly.

Let me rephrase that in hopes it receives a more fuzzy logic denial, than a binary one.

There exists a measurement problem in quantummechanics. Through the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thoughtexperiment, it was shown that measurements made in one part of a quantummechanic system, can directly influence another part of a quantummechanic system. The act and manner of observation could change the whole system of measurements. This is generally believed to be true: That on those levels the observer plays a role in the outcome.

Using the Kochen-Specker paradox Conway mathematically proved that the spin of a particle is dependent solely on the direction from which it was measured and not on its history.

So, Yes: If the direction in which u observe subatomic particles influences the direction of the spin (something that is believed to be true).

Believed to be true by Conway and Kochen and me.

I'll get to your replies another time.

Not how I heard it explained, and I'm definitely not buying it until someone who knows the details can verify.

I believe Conway proved that the spin of a particle is not defined before we measure it, not that the spin is purely a function of the direction from which we measure.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the "observer," it has to do with the process of observation. The observer could be standing on the moon for all it matters. If the measurement is happening by photon, then the direction of the photon is what matters. It has nothing to do with the position of the person observing.

My god, you people are silly.

All you have to do is prove that something does not logically follow from your assumptions, or that it is in contradiction to reality...

Proof that Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist:

Something cannot be "invisible" and "pink." Therefore there are no invisible pink unicorns. The unicorn part is a red herring. No need to disprove the existance of unicorns here.

Please look up the words "invisible" and "pink" before proceeding.

Simple proof that there is no free will (using my definition of free will, conveniently):

Assumption: Every action (or decision) is made based on something.

Definition of will: The ability to take action (or make a decision) by choice.

Definition of free will: The ability to take action (or make a decision) without regard for genetics, biology, past experiences, or knowledge.

Examples that could prove me wrong: A Christian deciding to not believe in God for the next twenty minutes, then deciding to believe again at the end of the twenty minutes.

An atheist deciding to believe in God for the next twenty minutes, then deciding to not believe again at the end of the twenty minutes.

This is not the same as changing your mind based on new knowledge, or based on a new argument. The argument changed your mind, which is not the same as free will.

If you have free will, then you can decide on a whim what to believe.

Sure it can. You define "invisible," and I'll define "color," and I'll make your invisible pink unicorn.

Invisible: Unable to be seen by humans under normal lighting conditions

Pink: Able to be seen by humans due to the reflection or generation of light that looks a lot like this text, OR kind of like this.

Clarification: I think the first color is "magenta."

For a more detailed explanation of the color pink:

http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~wwwphil/pink.html

It's a standing joke based on argumentation logic. First you claim something 'known' to exist (the unicorn, god, free will or whatnot), then you claim it can't be disproven because it can't be known (it is invisible) - then somehow ignoring the last argument you then claim to know it is pink.

It's basically the logic of most religious argumentation packed into a little expression.

Well, I said I get to define the color. But this works, too, because you included "by humans under normal lighting conditions" there. That implies, "invisible to the naked eye." So as long as my pink unicorn is very tiny, it will be unable to be seen by humans under normal lighting conditions. However, it will be able to be seen by humans due to the reflection of light under a microscope in the color specified.

No need to get tricky.

You could also have a full-sized unicorn that is invisible, but that does emit intermittent photons of the appropriate wavelength, say one photon per fifteen seconds. That one photon would certainly not be detected by the human eye, but it would be pink. (Oh, this would fail the "able to be seen by humans" bit - but it doesn't imply "under normal lighting conditions." I'll bet a unicorn could fluoresce pink under certain abnormal conditions though.)

Unfortunately, I can't fit unicorn cloaking devices into those definitions very easily.

Thanks for explaining that. I was involved in the origins of the IPU (May her hooves never be shod) on alt.atheism and on alt.atheism.mod

The jist of the argument was:

"Prove that God doesn't exist, because the onus of disproving something falls on the disprover"

"OK, then. Disprove the existance of the invisible pink unicorn"

Got to love reductio ad absurdum.

The argument for the existance of free will is parallel to the argument for the existance of God; neither is viewable and neither is disprovable, except for through logic.

Funny Doesn't work as an argument though. Pink is not a wavelength. It is a human construct. I will allow you the use of a microscope, but only if you allow me to have one. Oooh. Now I see the tiny unicorn. It isn't invisible anymore though...

And I do believe in flourescent pink unicorns as well. They aren't invisible though, unfortunately.

Okay, but now we're getting into other questions. How can God be a person, when our image of personhood, the image we apply to God, is constructed by humans? That's a question the theists never want to answer.

Okay, but if it's invisible most of the time and if it fluoresces pink under the appropriate light, then wouldn't it be called pink? Certainly it's no color other than pink, and it's pink under certain circumstances, so if we assign it a color then that color must be pink. At most times it's invisible, and at some times it's pink, so the attributes of "pinkness" and of "invisibility" can both be assigned to it, making it an invisible pink unicorn.

In fact, maybe it goes invisible at will, and spends about half its time invisible and half its time pink, in which case it's either pink or invisible at any given time. If we talk about "the pink unicorn," then we're definitely talking about this unicorn. If we talk about "the invisible unicorn," then we're definitely talking about this unicorn. So how can it be invalid to talk about it as "the invisible pink unicorn?"

Also, is my red shirt still red when it's dark? In total darkness, isn't my red shirt completely invisible?

nope
Millions of people around the world observing free will, believing in free will and believing they know free will exists. You are talking about free will supporters as alien abductees.

wait, the truth of the statement "2+2=4" is not relevant to whether we should believe in the statement? That is if someone did not know the answer to 2+2=x (a child or someone new to counting), it is not relevant wether he/she believes one person stating "2+2=5" or the majority stating 2+2=4?

Yes, so to me saying "Black swans don't exist" using the induction method of "I have never seen one" is non-valid in scientific debate.

How are you socially responsable for murder, genocide or rape if all those acts were predetermined. Murder in the first degree? Murder in the Big-Bang degree? Free will (in all its existance or conceptual understanding thereof) is needed for social responsibility.


Without evidence sure. But if Galileo says the world revolves around the sun, because of his conflicting measurements if otherwise. If you critique his statements to a degree of foolishness, what have you proven? A) that Galileos statements are incorrect? B) That Galileos measurements were incorrect? or C) that the sun revolves around the earth?

If Galileos measurements are found to be correct and supported, now where do you stand with your critique? Once u want to your critique to still hold ground, that the world does not revolve around the sun, you have to account for those conflicting measurements.

This is good rigirous scientific practice. It can also be like an anchor for the status quo.

This is your good right. But if you merely ridicule and say it does not exist. To someone who provides (ample) evidence, know then that you have no evidence at all, and through that your ridicule is even more absurd.

I am not for the uncaused free will. I am for a non predetermined free will.

This is more and more "The sky is blue". The sky is not blue it is observed as such by humans. You can prove the sky is not blue, light reflects here and there bla bla, Our intuitive notion of the sky being blue remains, and is used for effective communication.

I am suggesting that my subjective experience of choice necessarily implies my subjective experience and justification of a connected responsibility.

yes. Zeus and Hera existed in their personal experiences. If you agree all of reality is fed into our minds through a personal experience, and you are consistent in posing cultural bias as the cause for misconceptions. Then with what impudence would you grant other parts of personally experienced reality (which is all there is, even for science) a greater place in real reality (if you even believe reality can be real)?

Were the ancient Greeks such fatalists that they just rolled over and let determinism carry them to the oracles for predictions of their fate?

If all are brainwashed and you are the only one screaming they are under random mindcontrol, in my reality that would seem foolishly crazy.

Free will is more than acting on determined desires.


It is possible to create those feelings yes. Vertigo, temporarily amnesia /cognitive impairment. I believe they even produced some devine God-like experiences of awe and being ripped out of ones body.

To me this science does not shred the power of subjective arguments. It even enhances them. That we can create a devine feeling says nothing about God existing or not, but it does say humans are wired to experience divinity. We are wired to experience free choice. That is part of human reality and processes of the mind. Human reality and the mind do have a say in the truthvalues of a supposed reality.

My preference to. The act of humans creating order in this chaos is the magic that is free will and morality and human reality. For everything that is for a human comes from creating this order. Free will for me ties in there, in that the process of establishing a chain of cause and effect leading to a free willed decision begins in the chaos. It is not predetermined you are going to act a certain way, because the first cause lies in chaos.

It is secondly not predetermined, because thoughts are able to influence our psysical actions. Human thoughts do not always follow from rational logical viewpoints. In these cases the acts of humans are not predictable by any logical rational means. The tools used for predicting follow rational logic. The acts are therefor as random as we can possible observe.

"Free will" works. If it is such a suicide, why does the concept even exist. "Free will" works just as "The sky is blue" works. If I hold up my mouse, I can descide to drop it or not. I am free to do both. This is a liberated responsible view. I am free and responsible for my acts to pull the trigger or not. It was not predetermined at conception. The naive view of folk "Free will" needs to exist for society and law to place responsibility on a person.

I just realised I am an anti-realist.

You have lots of evidence of reality, but you dont believe in reality per se. I dont like pointing out contradictions, so luckily you (freely choose) to make few.

If we allow free will to exist solely on the basis of personal experience, you are right, than all based in personal experience (grounded in reality or hallucinated) is allowed.

But actually I am fine with that. Not for a scientific viewpoint yet, put from a philosophical viewpoint. If a poker player believes to be doomswitched or that a site is rigged, he could make statements such as "Pokerstars is rigged" and believe them to be the truth. He is essentially not a liar, because he does not know what he is saying is not the truth.

He has created a modal, grasped order in the chaos and drew his lines in the sand. This can go so far as to not believing mathematical proof for the invalidity of his statements. I see a world where all that matters and is considered to be true and real, is a popularity contest of personal opinions and experiences.

In so far truth and reality can exist, if all is through personal experience then if there is acid in the water supplies and people start seeying translucent pink unicorns, then all there is to that reality is the experience of observing pink unicorns. Therefor in the acid universe "translucent pink unicorns exist" is considered a true sentence and true for all it is worth. "Jack Bauer" only consists as a concept in your head, but how do you think "George W. Bush" is not a concept in your head either. If everything is concepts in your head, then free will and Zeus exist, just as much as reality and pancakes.

Applying modal logic to metapsysics is perhaps a bit lame, but to me valid and justifiable.

"Predetermined" is largely meaningless. At best it's a straw man, at least in the modern day. Libertarian free will is uncaused by definition.

To the extent that free will is caused, free will is deterministic. If you don't believe in uncaused free will, then you don't believe in nondeterministic free will. Unless you believe in free will that is both uncaused and unrandom, you are a compatibilist.

I can still respond to your arguments re: nondeterministic free will tomorrow if you want.

How the hell am I (the one that says there is no god and therefore we have freewill), the one that is suggesting anything mythical and/or mystical?

In fact it is you, believing in the toothfairy or whatever goblins that believe in the mythical stuff...

Great comeback imo.

LOL!!!! This is about the must funniest thing I have ever read.

So you mean I don't choose which tv-program I'll watch this evening. This is just great.
The deepest discussion about some "proof" we don't have a free will.
HAHAHAAHHAAHAHA!!!

OP isn't saying reality doesn't exist. Noone is suggesting you aren't choosing. What is being said is that the choise mechanism you are going through follows a logical pattern. For example: according to your values.

No he told me that I must believe in pink flying unicorns when I said the same thing...

You are suggesting that human action is neither causal nor random. This is a mystical assertion. You are the one making mystical claims here.

madnak,
Can you show that non-causality implies randomness?

I can demonstrate that it's indistinguishable from randomness.

If randomness exists, it is defined by the opposite of causality. Because if something is caused (logical), it is not random.