Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

So you would align yourself with certain sects of fundamentalist Christians and argue dinosaurs and Cambrian era animals never existed, is this correct?

 

And these events happening above our reality could be Extraterrestrial for all we know, fucking with our 3D reality for kicks. Just because it's a higher order and is physical doesn't mean there isn't something Conscious going on.

The fact is that multiple experiments have proven that physical reality is non-local. This means that our Consciousness has an effect on all of physical reality. So it can't just be Determinism, because there's too much Quantum non-locality going on. If anything is being determined, it's being determined by something that has Consciousness.

Mr.Writer, on 09 Dec 2015 - 3:09 PM, said:

 

Incorrect. That would be to argue that Dinosaurs don't contain Consciousness, which is obviously not true. If you're about to make THAT argument, then it is you who is sounding like fundamentalist Christians.

 

How do you observe that dinosaurs had consciousness?

 

With your own Consciousness, that's how you observe.

 

Are you actually trying to say that like a cat doesn't have Consciousness? It just looks around, eats, and exists, but DOESN'T have Consciousness? Are we really about to go back to this argument? If this is so, then you DO have the same viewpoint as fundamentalist Christians.

 

Where are you observing them?

 

I don't know what point that you're trying to make. If you're arguing that animals lower in the animal kingdom don't have Consciousness, then that's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

If you're trying to make a point about how we use Science to come to conclusions about the existence of fossils and whatnot, we are still using our Consciousness to observe this data.

 

ChinaCat I'm posing questions based on the things you say, every time you get put into a corner, you deflect the questions and to me it illustrates your have no fucking clue of the implications of half the things you say.

 

I'm saying that the Universe/Reality and Consciousness are inseparable. Any measurements that we can make about time require Consciousness.

 

Actually, you're just not posing great questions. I'm not deflecting anything. I'm being very simple, and to the point, and constant in my stance regarding Consciousness.

To suggest that I'm saying that Dinosaurs didn't exist is COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I am saying.

 

I suppose even if you were, that wouldn't guarantee the validity of determinism, because God is arbitrary. Similarly, the initial conditions that created the universe didn't have a cause. They just were the initial conditions. Even if we stretch those initial conditions back to having occurred in higher dimensions we can't observe, they were still arbitrary.

Yes arbitrary is what I meant, thank you. I don't see how initial conditions could be random, as that would suggest they came about. Coming about itself can't be said to be random or deterministic. But if initial conditions are arbitrary, which I think they are, nothing that follows can said to be deterministic any more than it can be said to be random. Suppose everything that happens was all catalyzed by an apple falling from a tree. This set the clockwork of the universe in motion. You couldn't say this action itself was determined or random. It's just arbitrary. It's just what happened, for no reason. So even though everything that followed began to follow a certain pattern, the pattern still possesses the element of being arbitrary rather than determined.

Agreed. Honestly I don't really contemplate free will much. I don't see why having free will would make me feel any better or worse. It just seems like people like the concept of "freedom", so free will is actually patriotic ferver. All I am saying is that uncertainty begets uncertainty. And it could be that our actions are so polarized that they can neither be said to be random or orderly, but arbitrary themselves.

I am familiar with that, but we still have to be conscious of an event, at some point, for the brain to make a decision. I think it will be hard to convince me that being aware of a situation has no impact whatsoever upon how my body reacts to a situation. I think the two are inextricably linked.

I conclude this because the nature of the world hasn't been determined. It hasn't been measured as one thing or the other. Would it have been better if I said consciousness can only exist in an uncertain world? Because I see no reason to posit the existence of a world in which everything is certain, in which we are certain.

It's impossible to measure the position and velocity of a particle at the same time, so we say we aren't certain of one or the other. But is this to say one or the other itself is uncertain? Or is it actually definite despite our inability to measure it? We can't be certain. So uncertainty does exist, at least as far as consciousness goes, if not as far as physical reality goes. But then I find myself distinguishing consciousness from physical reality, and I'm not sure I can do that.

Well what the hell IS going on here, Mr. Writer?!? Please tell me if you know.

 

Let me attempt to rephrase it then with the apparent conundrum I see... You are suggesting in order to know reality exists we have to observe it, however we do not have to observe dinosaurs existing to know that they existed?

 

NO! That is not what I am saying. I am suggesting that in order to know reality exists we have to observe it, AND THAT we have to observe dinosaurs existing to know that they existed. Which we have with fossils and whatever else.

 

So prior to finding EVIDENCE, dinosaurs didn't exist?

 

I mean how could you ever say otherwise? Isn't evidence the crux of Science? Your Consciousness needed to see evidence before you could conclude that they existed. And even when they existed, they also had Consciousness.

 

What I can't wrap my head around is why mainstream Physics still hasn't accepted Non-Locality when I keep finding more and more evidence that fully shows it exists. Even when you look up the definition, all that you find is "In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality is the phenomenon by which measurements made at a microscopic level contradict a collection of notions known as local realism that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics."

But then I also found this, a post-2012 study, suggesting more thorough evidence that Non-Locality is more macrocosmic than we previously thought:


http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n4/pdf/nphys2916.pdf

 

I thought Chinacat was saying that something has to be observed in order to exist. Dinosaurs were observers. We haven't observed them observing, so either they did observe or they didn't. If they did observe, then they existed because they observed themselves existing. If they didn't observe, then they were just information that existed outside of a framework of time, which requires a conscious mind.

 

Yes evidence is and the available suggests that the dinosaurs fossils are found well before humans.

However we have many, many generations of people who were not conscious of dinosaur bones. this is an apparent troublesome discontinuity in regards to reality.

 

Yeah I mean Dinosaurs are only a human concept. We observed fossils, gave them a name, and so "Dinosaurs existed". Dinosaurs may not have known themselves as we know them. But for their world to exist, they still needed Consciousness. And we needed Consciousness to observe that they ever existed. But Consciousness is required for the notion of Dinosaurs.