Free will. Something I've been pondering.. Actually you can't predict everything no matter how much data you gather. Quantum fluctuations are truly random. The most basic particles of matter have an inhe
x
Click to expand

Comments(123):

[ 123 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6 - traveltech (02/22/2013) [-]
Actually you can't predict everything no matter how much data you gather. Quantum fluctuations are truly random. The most basic particles of matter have an inherent randomness, at least as far as we understand them.
User avatar #24 to #6 - quantumlegend ONLINE (02/22/2013) [-]
True, however this does not grant us free will, as those occurrences are still out of our control.
#45 to #6 - penguinthegreat (02/22/2013) [-]
maybe if we understood them better we would come to a conclusion that they aren't random
User avatar #74 to #45 - allamericandude (02/22/2013) [-]
That's what Einstein thought. He believed that we simply didn't know enough of the parameters to make the right predictions (and there are a core group of physicists who are still holding on to this belief). But it turns out experimentally that quantum mechanics really is inherently random.

Of course, that theory is still at the mercy of new evidence, but the tests done so far have all come to the same conclusion.
User avatar #125 to #74 - legionx (02/28/2013) [-]
this is really shown by the properties of electrons, you cant tell where they are going but not where they are or you can tell where they are but not where they're going; and the theoretical box in which the cat could be dead or alive but you don't know because the box is closed
User avatar #127 to #125 - allamericandude (02/28/2013) [-]
Not just electrons, all of the subatomic particles behave this way--quarks, gluons, photons, and so forth. Even entire atoms in some cases.
User avatar #126 to #125 - legionx (02/28/2013) [-]
typo- CAN tell where they are going but not where they are
User avatar #62 to #45 - traveltech (02/22/2013) [-]
Maybe, but we can't assume that
User avatar #91 - ichooseslowpoke (02/22/2013) [-]
But do you know why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?!?
#84 - myhumps (02/22/2013) [-]
So by that logic, if an asian person can calculate every single aspect of your brain, they can read your mind?
User avatar #87 to #84 - tdogmeds (02/22/2013) [-]
More like an asian computer.
User avatar #105 to #84 - justinsane (02/23/2013) [-]
that's part of the point, yes
User avatar #26 - killingsin (02/22/2013) [-]
And then quantum mechanics come along and just ruin everything with it's dammed randomness.
#73 - infinitereaper (02/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, sure, assuming our perception of reality isn't inherently flawed and entirely correct to to begin with.

Measurability, our human definition that is-may be incorrect as to the reality. See, we are limited by these bodies would generate understanding as an afterthought. The true nature of truth and universe is likely far behind our completely pathetic concepts. For it is our concepts that are derived from brains that the universe or reality doesn't necessary have to have designed in a way that makes them capable of understanding the world it exists in... so to speak.

Basically, all of this logic is bound by the human machine which is probably flawed. Thus flawed logic and flawed conclusions. Meaning most of this jargon is nothing but speculation that is very likely incorrect.

TL;DR Stupid post.
#83 to #73 - ddrredneck (02/22/2013) [-]
for the record..... you just tried to use logic to disprove the validity of logic.... You do realize the limitations of that, correct?
User avatar #101 to #83 - infinitereaper (02/23/2013) [-]
Exactly. We can't even be sure we even have the ability to even, even when trying to even.
#71 - Rascal (02/22/2013) [-]
I want you to research two things:
1. Second law of thermodynamics
2. Basics of quantum physics

Then you will find out that you are wrong.
#94 to #71 - everyonesderplol (02/23/2013) [-]
What does the second law have to do with this subject? Im not questioning you, im curious :p
#60 - Coolstorybroseph (02/22/2013) [-]
But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
+1
#66 to #60 - sixroller **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#80 - lavitts (02/22/2013) [-]
Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson, Why? Why do you persist?
#89 to #80 - tdogmeds (02/22/2013) [-]
Because reasons.
#78 - Rascal (02/22/2013) [-]
I remember thinking about this when I was about eight or so.
User avatar #90 to #78 - tdogmeds (02/22/2013) [-]
Me too.
Why do we stop thinking this?
#20 - Rascal (02/22/2013) [-]
TL;DR.

Take it to Tumblr, oh wise philosopher.
#106 - karlossacramento (02/23/2013) [-]
heisenbergs uncertainty principle, a natural law, look it up
User avatar #108 to #106 - agentpurplek (02/23/2013) [-]
Yeah cause just by measuring everything it would change.
User avatar #100 - craftyatom (02/23/2013) [-]
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!
Electrons act erratically, and x-ray radiation from black holes and the like are truly random.
It's a minute difference, but butterfly effect says that everything matters.
#93 - everyonesderplol (02/23/2013) [-]
Its called the uncertainty principle, and is a core pillar of quantum mechanics, and describes the location and momentum of particles. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the location of a particle in the future, even if you know its current location, its direction and speed.

So nothing is predetermined. Get it right.
#114 to #93 - novus (02/23/2013) [-]
It was impossible to know the exact location of atoms a couple decades ago, and now we can take pictures of them. In fact we needed fluid dynamics and Brownian motion to explain the "random" distribution of atoms in an environment, when really the truth was too complex to model at the time. But in truth, they are not randomly distributed.

Quantum physics theories are in a constant state of flux, many have been disproven, and many others compete and disagree. This is not to say quantum mechanics is wrong, but that we do not understand it entirely by any means. We can simply model it and predict distributions using random variables. One day, just like with the weather, genetics, and atoms, quantum mechanics may not rely on randomness to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
#119 to #114 - everyonesderplol (02/23/2013) [-]
The uncertainty principle is not inferred from any discovery or observation, but from mathematics. It is, however, backed from observations. And trying to predict the location of particles does not rely on randomness. It relies on statistics. Which is mathematics.

Its like saying just because we can't move anything at or above the speed of light right now, doesn't mean we can't do it in the future. It's just not true.
#120 to #119 - novus (02/24/2013) [-]
I agree, the uncertainty principle is a different beast, because it is mathematically derived instead of physically. The main issue I have with the quantum argument as it relates to my post isn't whether quantum particles' positions are truly random or not, it's that the uncertainty principle flat out states that quantum particles *do not have a position*. They are, in simple terms, fuzzy balls of energy, without definite boundaries, speeds, or positions. Math can model their behavior by calling their "position" a probability wave to determine how they will interact with other particles, but we have to use that probability model because we are trying to force an object with no "position" into our math model of dimensional axes. I argue that they have no position in the classical sense, that our mathematical probability spreads are to model the behavior of an object and determine its area of effect, an object which actually has no definable position. It's position and velocity aren't "random", it is a fuzzy area of energy without a specific position/velocity in the first place.

My point in my earlier reply was that in the future, we may better understand quantum particles and model them in a way that doesn't require such crude probabilities. Just because math led us to their discovery, doesn't mean that our models of them are fully accurate (if they were, all quantum physicists would agree on everything).

In regards to FTL travel, they're actually making some breakthroughs. By adjusting the shape of the ship, they can get the energy to theoretically move 10 times the speed of light (by warping space) to only require the energy of a large nuclear reactor, down from the energy equivalent of the mass of Jupiter. http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html
#72 - milkandeggs (02/22/2013) [-]
Well **** .
#56 - Rascal (02/22/2013) [-]
Alright then, explain the radioactive decay of a single atom.
#61 to #56 - deargodshutup (02/22/2013) [-]
science
User avatar #21 - cheesymuffins (02/22/2013) [-]
Uncertainty principle is based, in part, in our current abilities of measuring things. This is because all of our methods of measuring things use what I'll call 'active' forms of measurement. What I mean by that is our current forms of measurement throw something at what we're measuring, and then record what happens to what we threw, to put it crudely. Whether that be light or electrons, we throw them at things, and record what happens.
Now when I put it so crudely, you can see how the methods we use to measure things aren't ideal, because some of the things we want to measure, like single atoms or single electrons, can be measurably affected by what we're throwing.
Another part is our lack of understanding. We just haven't figured it out yet. We've essentially invented an excuse for our current lack of understanding. We don't know how to invent the tools we need to measure things without uncertainty. Eventually, we'll get it.
#12 - verycoolcat (02/22/2013) [-]
Quantum Mechanics Bitch!

Take everything you know about physics.... and THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

User avatar #40 to #12 - GritaGris (02/22/2013) [-]
In no way whatsoever are Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and determinism icompatible
#124 - legionx (02/28/2013) [-]
I concede your logic and raise you a feel
#97 - fornicatio (02/23/2013) [-]
heisenberg
#85 - Rascal (02/22/2013) [-]
i'm sure you never heard of quantum randomness bro
[ 123 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)