addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The Thinkers' Club Message Board › "Back from the Future" An article I think this group might enjoy

"Back from the Future" An article I think this group might enjoy

Kristen B.
user 11524068
Bedford, OH
Post #: 3
Physics & Math: Back From the Future

A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present.

Read more at the link.
A former member
Post #: 35
I would be curious to know when they made their decisions about which samples to measure three times - *before* the second measurement, or *after*?

As with the rest of quantum mechanics, this is unlikely to have any relevance or implication at the macroscopic level. For example, the wave-nature of particles was thought to imply (by the lay public) that humans could somehow be in two places at the same time, but really the wave-nature of our collective particles all cancel eachother out.

This certainly has no implication on the existence of human choice, the validity of which is self-evident, but is often misunderstood. The common notions of "free will" and "determinism" represent a false dichotomy. It is neither the case that people's values and choices invalidated by the causal nature of the universe, nor the case that the ability to choose somehow violates causality. This dichotomy arises from the "billiard ball" image of causality as a series of disjointed events.

In contrast to that is the notion of causality in which events are *caused* by entities, acting and interacting according to their specific natures. For humans to remain alive requires an active process of survival - it is in the nature of a human to be capable of making choices based on his knowledge of how the world works, his values (e.g. life, food, water), and the environment that is available to him.

This is not a "proof" of free will, but a confirmation of it. Free will is axiomatic - i.e., any statement of "proof" would require one to exercise free will, in order for the statement to have any meaning. That is also why any statement attempting to validate determinism is automatically falsified - to assert "Determinism is true" as a valid statement requires the existence of "validation" and "truth", both of which are concepts dependent on the existence of choice.
A former member
Post #: 36
More generally, science cannot inform philosophy, since science is built on philosophy, i.e. an understanding of perception, concept-formation, knowledge, inductive and deductive reasoning, etc.

For example, if a scientist came along and said, "By mixing these two chemicals together, I have discovered that all knowledge is wrong!" Sorry, but all of your knowledge of how those chemicals work would also be wrong, and therefore your proof would invalidate itself.

The same goes for arguments/evidence against reality, existence, and consciousness. To assert the nonexistence of reality, consciousness, choice, etc, requires one to implicitly accept all of those things, for the assertion to be a statement of knowledge.

Relating this back to the topic at hand: to conclude that a scientific experiment invalidates volition requires one to a) reject all knowledge, including the knowledge that informed the conclusion, and b) accept the possibility of validation, a concept that is dependent on the concept of volition.

For those who believe they are facing a contradiction, I suggest that they simply review the evidence, and limit their conclusions to the context of the evidence - in this case, the quantum level.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy