What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
151 Comments
- shaggyb, on 08/16/2008, -9/+56I think the "atoms must also have free will" is a bit of a jump. The question here should be: is there such thing as true randomness. If something is not random then you can predict where every particle will be at any given point in time. Theoretically you could trace particles back in time to the beginning of the universe. Conversely you could predict a particles position all the way to the end of the universe. That also implies that you can predict the future at any given point in time in between. However, if there is truly randomness then it would become impossible to predict a particles past and future. So now the million dollar question.
Do you believe in randomness? Well do ya? - Scynet, on 08/16/2008, -0/+25Quantum physics opposes that idea a bit. Take radioactive decay, for example. Radioactive particle decays, giving off radiation. Half-life of a radioactive particle means that when you take any number of radioactive particles, after you reach the half-life, only half of the particles remain.
The dilemma lies in the fact that if you make new radioactive particles and wait for half of them to decay, then make a brand new dose of particles for comparison, the oldest won't decay first. There doesn't seem to be any internal mechanism or "clock" which dictates the decay process. It seems to be simply a fundamental property of the particles: a chance to decay at a certain rate, nothing more.
We might discover that there is a mechanism that makes a particle decay after all, but as someone on Slashdot stated, the opposite is also true. We can NEVER be sure that we've found the most fundamental rule that life follows, there's always a possibility of something smaller affecting our observations. - Dozernotz, on 08/17/2008, -2/+19@chesss
Just because something cannot be addressed by science doesn't make it inherently dumb. In many cases, it may well be, but plenty of human activity, probably most of it, involves ideas about things that cannot be experimentally measured. - notwizt, on 08/16/2008, -4/+20If you went back an hour in time, would you do the exact same things? I think I would, and what makes most sense to me is that randomness doesn't exist. If we had total knowledge of everything in the universe, we could predict the future. I seriously doubt that is achievable, however.
- robbiedo, on 08/17/2008, -4/+19Theoretically, you CAN NOT trace any particles back to the beginning of the universe. You can calculate statistical probabilities, but that is as accurate as you can get. Determinism does not exist, except maybe in the female human mind.
/yes, I do have a degree in physics. - hpfilter, on 08/17/2008, -2/+17""We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings.""
Doctor Manhattan - zmedico, on 08/17/2008, -1/+16Conway and Kochen's free will theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem - ChileanGoD, on 08/17/2008, -1/+16Do you mean that the fact that I'm typing these buttons on my keyboard to write this reply are in fact the result of the initial conditions set by the Big-Bang? Woaaa... You take fate to a whole new level.
Also... great comments... for a second I felt back home in the old digg style. - Diggnabbit, on 08/17/2008, -0/+15What could be more predictable than someone saying "Boobies!" in a Digg thread?
- blackjack75, on 08/17/2008, -6/+20"if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably"
Now you'll have to convince me that humans have indeed the tiniest amount of free will. I know people can do what they want but I don't think they can chose what they want or feel. It's all a result of the external world. Build the same humans with the exact same particles at the exact same place in space and time and he will do only what he is bound to do due to this conditions.
We're just grains of sand, blown by the wind, only blinded by our own complexity.
Damn, now I gotta get me a beer. - angelfelix, on 08/16/2008, -4/+18I think randomness is just a label for the things that we don't have the capacity to calculate precisely. And by capacity I mean powerful computers and the right approach to analyze things such as identifying all the variables.
- Suricou, on 08/17/2008, -0/+13Even without quantum issues, to do so would require more processing power than the universe can provide... because you would have to have your computer calculate the output of your computer calculating the output of your computer calculating the output of your computer... And the storage space faces a similar problem. It's like trying to image a drive onto itsself. Not going to work. If you had some type of place external to the universe to work from, then it could be done.
- inactive, on 08/17/2008, -14/+26and wtf is free will??
its a dumb philosphical concept which doesn't even have definition in scientific terms let alone there be the possibility of proving or disproving it - elfprince13, on 08/16/2008, -3/+11sufficiently large particles, yes, you probably could trace their them all the way to the beginning of the universe, or rather you could observe the effects of them having been there. However on a quantum scale, the universe is not governed by causal relationships, which makes predicting the future position of a particle is impossible, until it has been observed there. Schroedinger's cat ftw. if it makes your brain hurt too much, don't worry about it, because unless you're willing to live with the consequences of blaming everything you do on deterministic algorithms over which you have no control, it makes no difference one way or the other which you believe. Not fully understanding it almost guarantees your beliefs on the subject will in some way be incorrect, but it shouldn't effect the way you act.
- smek2, on 08/17/2008, -3/+10That's the problem with popular science. When scientists try to make the majority understand the very complex concepts of their field, they tend to use metaphors and analogies. Those are prone to misinterpretation and confusion. If you read the article carefully you realize that those mathematicians claim to have proven that subatomic particles do not inherit properties you can predict in advance. Considering the consequences for free will are obvious, though using allegories , some people might get confused and draw the wrong conclusions. The headline, for example, is a bit sensational, evoking the image of particles inherit a free will comparable to what we understand by this. The mathematicians claim to have proven that uncertainty really is part of reality and did so in a pure mathematical way. To come to the conclusion, that particles choosing their properties by means of a thought process, ie. free will, would be a bit hasty.
Personally, i tend to believe that free will is an illusion, to great parts anyway. If one consider how we, as living beings, are influenced by uncountable factors, internal (such as hormones, biochemicals) and external (such as various stimulus and socialization), one can't but realize that our decisions and actions are not random acts of free will but effects of cause. Still, i do not refuse the idea of uncertainty in nature. There's one thing one has to consider though. Subatomic particles are said to have no set properties until prodded. To prod a particle you don't necessarily need a lab and a scientist. All it takes is another particle. All the experiments regarding uncertainty were conducted in labs using special circumstances. But the the universe is like a giant lab itself, filled with probably billions upon billions of particles, interacting and prodding each other constantly. So even if nature is fundamentally probabilistic, it may very well be that there's no real consequence for the macroscopic world. - Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -0/+7Then again logicians like Godel, found out that there is no way to find out the answers to many (most) of the problems so it is a bit of a moot point to discuss the "what if" points especially if we'll never reach them.
Since the 1930s the universe seems probabilistic rather than deterministic which means that you'll never be able to do the exact same experiment with the same exact results at any given time which is also what our experience gives out. The universe while not entirely random it seems not to be entirely determined either, events are like bubbles in a soup popping out, the bigger ones (those with the greatest possibilities) have more chances to pop out..... - Nateon, on 08/17/2008, -3/+9You have to define what free will is. Can unpredictability alone constitute free will? Sorry, feeling a bit philosophical.
- BXRWXR, on 08/17/2008, -1/+6Speaking of astounding discoveries, did you know that there is this thing called the paragraph?
- venuspcs, on 08/17/2008, -3/+8What if all the energy in the universe has a shared connection. I don't necessarily mean a shared consciousness but more like a shared cause/effect connection; whereas what happens to energy A in Galaxy B affects the energy C in Galaxy D. This is the basic premise behind Quantum Sciences yet I have never heard anyone look at it this way....EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED TO EVERYTHING ELSE. There is randomness in my model however and here is how it works:
All energy independent of any other energy has a set (fixed) rule of behavior that it follows and can never deviate from. When energy begins to amass into matter (atoms) those atoms take on a new set (fixed) rule of behavior that they follow. Those rules are different than the rules for the independent energy that comprises them. Thus creating the appearance of randomness. Now you take those atoms and interact them with an outside energy source and the rules change yet again. Throw those atoms in an area near other atoms and yet again those rules change. The point is that each layer of existence has a different set of rules....something along the lines of:
1.) Pure Energy (independent of all other energy)
2.) Single Atom formed by several independent particles of energy
3.) Several Atoms combined to form a single particle of matter
4.) Several particles of matter combine to form a simple-celled organism or different type of matter
5.) Numerous different types of matter form to create a more complex organism or complex matter
6.) Numerous different types of complex organisms or complex matter unite to form stars, solar systems, suns, and life
Each of these 6 levels of energy existence has a different set of rules (for that level and only that level). Laws of Physics, Fluid Dynamics, Gravity, etc. only deal with the Sixth Level. The Quantum Sciences (in there current form) only deal with the Fourth and Fifth levels. The Quantum Sciences are slowly developing an understanding of the behaviors of level 4 and level five and the interactions between level 4, level 5 and level 6. But we currently have no rules for level 1, 2 or 3. Nor do we have any rules for the interactions between levels 1, 2 or 3. Furthermore we have little to no understanding of how level 1 effects level 6 or how level 6 effects level 2. So yes the universe appears to be random (for now) but only because we have yet to define all aspects of all 6 levels of energy. - thecoolestguy, on 08/17/2008, -3/+7Also, if we are conscious, then the smallest subatomic particle must be conscious. There is no dividing line between conscious and non-conscious. It's a gradient, with the highest intelligent organisms the most conscious, and the simplest wave-particles the least. The whole universe must be a agglomeration of consciousnesses.
- ChileanGoD, on 08/17/2008, -1/+5You are correct and wrong at the same time. Lets take your action of getting a beer as an example. If i follow your way of though correctly, that means that, in the current external world that you live in, getting a beer is an option that is common to you. So probably is getting a glass of water or juice or tea. What you explained is that the external world that you live in will not give you an option to get a glass of monkey blood or a glass of urine (even though some weirdos do). It is a fact that your behavior will be molded by your environment. It is called adaptation and that's all living creatures do in order to survive.
Now, free will, will be in your power. It's truly your nature that you choose to have a beer instead of what it could have been a glass of water or juice.... or monkey blood. I believe there are no initial set rules that can exactly pinpoint what your next action be but I totally agree with you that those actions will remain within the limits of a mold formed by your external world. - xander, on 08/17/2008, -0/+4//I know people can do what they want
You've answered your own question. - JacobParker, on 08/17/2008, -4/+8Boobies!
Now try and prove randomness doesn't exist. - jawdog, on 08/17/2008, -0/+4Exactly, the whole point of that quote is that unless you have the capacity to measure every particle in the universe in order to determine every single particle interaction, then the system is so complicated that you may as well consider humans to have free will because nothing can be predicted.
- bratterscain, on 08/17/2008, -2/+5I think it's entirely logical that at the position the universe is in at this space/time, that if time went backwards, it would work out just the same way going forwards. I couldn't see it being logical if it didn't. I don't see magic in the universe, I believe there's some kind of formulaic action going on at the sub-atomic level that is entirely logical and not random. As I said in previous comments, random just isn't logical. If x affects y, then z.
I don't believe anything in humans is random either. If a stimulus affects me, I'll pretty much do the same thing over and over when reacting to it unless other factors change or I decide to even be random in what to do, previous calculations come into play. That is why we have laws and order in the universe and in humans as well. Even if you have outlaw humans, they're are likely affected by a stimulus, external or internal, which will make them that way. To just give up and say there's illogic and random in the universe is to say everything above that has no grounds for logic. - Stevethegreat, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3You have to assume that the universe is deterministic to make such a statement and not even physicists know that anymore. Newton and Einstein showed us an entirely ordered universe, but Bohr and the early Quantum Physicists showed us something entirely different lurking in the underground. What if the order in the universe is just a veneer that our minds create so that make sense of it?
If the universe is not determined then -by definition- we can't be determined either, while this can't be -really- called (as) free will it certainly allows us some degrees of freedom that determinism does not...... - aquadoctorbob, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3From the Wiki page linked above: "The definition of "free will" used in the proof of this theorem is simply that an outcome is "not determined" by prior conditions, and may therefore be equivalent to the possibility that the outcome is simply random, whatever that means."
- dugmartsch, on 08/17/2008, -1/+4Arguing against free will is like arguing that there isn't a Sun. It's so obviously wrong its hard to rebut.
- jdepp, on 08/17/2008, -6/+9No.
- bratterscain, on 08/17/2008, -0/+3I think it is deterministic. It's just that as time goes by, no factor will ever remain the same in every experiment because as time changes, factors change somewhat on smaller scales but if you done that experiment over and over, if possible in the exact frame of time, I think you would see exactly the same outcome.
- 3Den, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2"Particles of energy" does not make any sense... what are particles of energy?
Energy is a property that is conserved when we observe how things work.. it's not a "thing" or "magic stuff" that floats around out there, drifting around. It's a property.. a calculation that can be shown to be conserved in all cases. - illt, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2I think what chesss is trying to say is, it's a dumb philosophical concept because regardless of whether we have free will or not, it isn't going to change how we act anyway.
- Ymeg, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2Everything is based in reality. Emotions are not random things that cannot be measured...
That being said, we are not even close to having the tools to accurately measure such things. - Paulish, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2But wouldn't simply knowing the future change the way we act, and so change the future to something different than we saw. If looking into the future does not change the way we act (or anything), why does looking into the future matter at all?
- mmmunaf, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2What a sensationalist title. All their proof implies is that the axioms which our current system of mathematics is based on restrict us from explaining a specific physical phenomenon. I can imagine a lot of philosophers loving the prospect of "free will" starting at the subatomic level (though they can't even prove that it's anything but an offshoot of the laws of physics on a human level), but the fact is all this proof reveals are issues with the fundamental laws of mathematics, which one could've already realized (though not formally proven in the same sense) by reading Gödel.
- thecoolestguy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Also, speaking of 'life', the mechanisms behind it; natural selection that favors the increase in entropy, does exist at the molecular level in things that aren't considered 'life'. We have arbitrarily created a dividing line between life and non-life for the sake of categorization, but the fact remains that the fundamental dynamics that we associate with life exist throughout all the universe. In the same way, the fundamental defining characteristics of awareness/consciousness, must exist in the smallest sub-atomic particle, albeit in a very very small degree.
- thecoolestguy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2----The same happens with neural networks, just because information theory is too young to know WTF is going on there doesn't mean that there is no some pretty incredible things going on which are very unlike what biology typically does.----
The world is not digital, it's analog, so whatever it is that gives consciousness must decrease gradually as a brain gets less complex, but it can never reach zero. There is no absolute dividing lines in between states of being and states of not being in the universe. Even an electron orbiting an atom can theoretically orbit 1 trillion miles away from the nucleus, although the odds are very small.
It is for this reason that I argue that every thing must be conscious, since consciousness in an analog universe must exist at the most infinitesimally small amount in the smallest particles. - starmanjones, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2i was being mentored by renown psychologist and he use statistics to determining the factors... i.e. as in an ANOVA where variables are essentially compared to find which and what relationship they have to each other. pay dirt is find 'significance.'
at any rate his analysis led him to postulate that there are 3 genes which which related to creativity. you get two you're creative. get 3 and you are schizophrenic. creativity might be related to "loose associations' and creativity is a function of associations between unrelated concepts.
i always found that answer a good model. - Urzeitlich, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2There is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is everything, so what you are thinking of as "outside" of the universe is really part of it, by definition.
- aquadoctorbob, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3Quantum mechanics introduces a randomizing component. I hypothesize that if you were to "restart" the universe as you mentioned, since the Big Bang would re-enter the realm of the Planck length, you could end up with something wildly different from what we have now.
Seriously, though, my knowledge of QM is limited to what I've gleaned from a couple of books written for the general public (CS major, not physics). Giving the universe a randomizing function (i.e. quantum "foam") fits nicely with my own little philosophy of possessing free will. - Diggnabbit, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3I think the emphasis of the article (or at least the title) should be the other way around.
The implication of the discovery is not that subatomic particles have "free will" in the sense of thinking and deciding what to do the way that we do, and so they're just like use. It's that what we call "free will" in human beings may be the result of random, non-determinative acts by subatomic particles. So, yes, there is randomness, which is not the same as "free will" because there's no decision-making process that goes on, but it's that randomness that allows for the decision-making process in human beings. - thecoolestguy, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2---If we're alive then the tiniest bit of matter should be alive, oh no it isn't, no particle known to man can copulate yet some certain carbon based networks (life) do, how can it be?-----
'Life' has characteristics that are concrete, rather than abstract, namely the ability to procreate.
Consciousness meanwhile is a state of perspective, it's awareness, and since there's no physical characteristic to it, it can't be divided into things that have it and things that don't. - ommadawn, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3@bratterscain:
As for your 'logical' idea of reversing time. We essentialy don't know why time flows, but most likely it's a result of the way quantum phenomena take place, and by that, speaking about a quantum process going back in time has no sense, since the flow of time is an apparent effect and not an implicit property of the system. - JoshReflek, on 08/17/2008, -2/+4If you were right, then i wouldn't be able to disagree with you, mm?
- Suricou, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3Either you were going to disagree with me all along, or your disagreement was a result of purely random quantum effects influencing your actions through a chaotic chain of events. Either way, you didn't choose to disagree.
- igul222, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2Time to redefine 'life'.
- Evolutuon, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3I guess this would have something to do with particles having "free will:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experimen ...
Matter behaving as waves? Seems unpredictable to me. - JoshReflek, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2Asserting that "Random" is your answer, means you dont know the cause yet.
- RedneckRandy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3Free Willy!
- riskybeats, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3No, but allow me to ***** on your comment.
*Grunting poop noises* -
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is