They we cannot know argument was also used to put aside the QM proof that determinism cant exist. The argument was for hidden variables we didn't know about. In the end also that was proven not possible.
In 1982, Alain Aspect performed a series of groundbreaking experiments that tested these Bell inequalities using entangled photons. His results showed a clear violation of the inequalities, confirming the predictions of quantum mechanics and ruling out local hidden variable theories. This means that the behavior of quantum particles cannot be explained by any deterministic theory with hidden variables that respect locality. Instead, the results imply that the quantum world is inherently probabilistic and that entanglement leads to correlations that cannot be explained by any classical deterministic mechanism
are you saying reality is deterministic and random at the same time?
Also you say: "Even if we theoretically allowed for the existence of this “entity” with “freedom,” it would still always make the single best decision among the possible decisions, so we come back to a deterministic order of events."
-> are you implying people dont make bad decisions? That they have perfect information to make the best decision? That they would always make the same decision in the same circumstances?
You just say multiple things about reality en theories that make little sense or are just as problematic as the problem you're trying to solve.
It's not clear by this article if you believe in a deterministic reality because you also say QM is random (which is also not true -> it's probabilistic) Also it's not independent. Everything influences everything.
Most statements in this article you make are scientifically proven wrong.
Just to share in case: A deterministic reality has been scientifically proven wrong.
You say that unraveling your stories isn't a choice because it just happens when you see and understand that the story isnt real. But the thing is, people believe what they want to believe. This is really easily observable in society. Many people choose to reject new information if it contradicts their current worldview, or what they want to be true.
Sure many things of how are thinking works is biological. Like confirmation-bias or repetition makes things true, believing in things to be part of a group etc.
Free will cant be scientifically proven, but also not unproven. But wat is proven at least, that you should live life like you have free will for the best life.
For someone telling others how our stories distort reality you certainly have a lot of beliefs about how reality is and works. You choose to believe a lot of things about reality. That's a tell :-)
I also tried to define free will btw. May attempt is: Free will is the ability to choose, through consciousness, to accept as truth or to reject as truth ideas and beliefs about the world and oneself created through thought, both your own and those of others.
For example you can choose to believe in free will or not :-)
First of all, I think it is important to take a step back and remove any assumptions about reality. We cannot really rely on science or anything like that, because what if everything is just a dream?
Once we take this step and accept the possibility that everything could be a dream within a matrix or some kind of simulation, we have effectively removed all assumptions. Science may be interesting, but what if it is just the science of this specific dream? How do you know there is not a completely different science outside of it?
So now that we have removed every assumption, what ultimately still holds? First, the fact that something exists, because if nothing existed, we could not wonder whether we exist or not. Second, there is some kind of capacity to feel—whatever we want to call it—because right now I am feeling something. It does not matter whether this is objective reality or a dream; the fact remains that something is being felt, so this capacity to feel must exist as well.
The next question is whether the existence of alternative realities is possible. What I am saying in the article is not about whether reality—whatever that is—is deterministic or not, or whether free will exists or not. I am saying that there cannot be alternative realities.
The reason is that alternative realities would require a fork in reality based on the choice of some agent capable of making a decision. This could be possible—there could be some kind of soul or entity that can make completely free decisions. But the point is that whatever this agent is, it will always make the best possible decision based on the knowledge it has at the time. Therefore, it can only make one decision—the best one available to it.
Since it can only ever make one decision, such a fork in reality cannot occur. As a result, there can only be one reality, not multiple alternative realities.
You want to remove any assumptions, but then the first thing you do is make the assumption that we could be living in a dream/simulation :-)
You see the paradox?
scientifically it has been proven we cannot live in a simulation :-) There goes another assumption.
You just deny the usefulness of science by assuming an alternate reality, which in an article you yourself claim cannot exist.
Ask yourself. What is aware of the fact that somethings exist and you feel?
You also assume that only one decision can be made? Based on what? It's just another assumption. Not only one choice, but the BEST choise. Which can only happen if their is a certain goal. Another assumption.
A best choice also implies that you can know the outcome and consequences of that choice. Another assumption.
Also what is the point of "proving" there can be no other realities?
( If we live in a simulation this is very wel possible :-) A simulation, like a computer game can have many forks :-)
Btw If you can only make one choice doesnt it have to be deterministic then? Which is proven wrong.
Let's see if you will actually question all the assumptions you're making, or you will feel the need to continue defending it haha (like defending your identity ;-)
You are right; I made a mistake in writing that sentence in the chapter, and I will fix it soon, so thank you for pointing it out. What I meant to say—and what will be corrected in the original article—is that the decision taken is always the one the agent believes is the best possible among the options available to it.
Of course, the agent may or may not exist, but here we are considering the hypothesis that it does. What I am saying is that even if such an agent exists, it will always make what it believes to be the best decision among the options it has available—and of course there is only one.
So the mistake is that I forgot to use the word “believe”: it does not have to be the actual best decision, but simply the one the agent believes to be the best.
Yes you believe that because thats how you experience your agent. Now lets question this experience and therefore lets question this assumption.
Lets say there is an agent, but he isnt making decisions based on what he believes is best, but the decisions are made out of probabilities within the agents system of posibilities. Decisions based on experience from the past, or based on emotions, based on rational, or out of fear, a decision out of habit, because its routine etc etc
Now this agent has a voice in his system that constantly tells and rationalises the decisions that are made to be the best one.
So even though the agent believes he makes the best decisions because his voice his telling him that, he makes the decisions only out of probabilities and are partially just random.
But even simpler. Why cant there be an agent who is isnt motivated by the best, but for example the most predictable, or the most safest, to avoid that what he fears the most.
Or an agent who sometimes makes the rational best choise, but sometimes an emotional bad one. Influenced by circumstances and feelings which are random.
The agent will always make what he believes to be the best decision, by definition.
For example, if he chooses purely based on fear, then acting on fear is, in that moment, what he believes to be the best decision. If he decides by rolling a die, then relying on randomness is itself what he believes to be the best decision.
What determines this belief about the “best” decision? It is always something that precedes the decision: information. This information can be internal (memories, emotions, conditioning) or external (environmental inputs), but in all cases it already exists prior to the choice.
Therefore, even if one assumes some form of “freedom,” the decision process is still fully determined by pre-existing information. At any given moment, this process yields only one possible outcome. In that sense, there are no genuine alternative possibilities and no branching into multiple realities.
For example, if he chooses purely based on fear, then acting on fear is, in that moment, what he believes to be the best decision.
-> no, thats no true.
Also thats not what i said.
If he decides by rolling a die, then relying on randomness is itself what he believes to be the best decision.
-> no, thats not true
Also thats not what i said.
Therefore, even if one assumes some form of “freedom,” the decision process is still fully determined by pre-existing information. At any given moment, this process yields only one possible outcome
- no, thats not true
Have fun holding on to your believes and not question them while telling others to question theirs. Like everyone on the internet. This blog is going to be a great succes! :-)
Assuming the possibility of something is completely different from assuming its certainty. Assuming that our current experience may be a dream is a perfectly valid assumption, because it presents it as a possibility, not a certainty. Saying that we are not living in a dream is a dogmatic statement, because it closes off the possibility that it is a dream, whereas believing that it may be a dream does not close any possibility—it may very well not be a dream.
Unicorns may or may not exist. Why assume either one? They may not exist in this relative reality, but this could be just one of many nested realities, potentially far removed from ultimate reality—like a dream within a dream, within a simulation, within another simulation, and so on.
Because in life you have to make decisions (or pretent to ;-) based on the fact if the unicorn is real or not.
If you go trough life believing every thought you have is a real possibility because ultimately we cannot know. Than your just living life trough a distorted view of reality and will constantly believe the lies you're telling yourself as a possible truth.
Researchers have mathematically proven that the universe cannot be a computer simulation.
Their paper in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics shows that reality operates on principles beyond computation.
Using Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, they argue that no algorithmic or computational system can fully describe the universe, because some truths, so called "Gödelian truths" require non algorithmic understanding, a form of reasoning that no computer or simulation can reproduce.
Since all simulations are inherently algorithmic, and the fundamental nature of reality is non algorithmic, the researchers conclude that the universe cannot be, and could never be a simulation.
If you do not like the idea of a simulation, then just replace it with a dream. Perhaps the science within the dream has “proven” something about the non-dream world, but how much weight would you give to the science of a dream? Probably none.
How do you know that this reality can be a dream? Where do you base this on? That's just another assumption. Have you ever questioned this assumption?
For example. In this reality, which you believe can be a dream, i can talk to people who can share knowledge/information with me about something which i dont understand. How can i have information about something which i dont understand? That's impossible.
Of course than you can say, i just dreamt i didn't understand the information. In this reality i can understand the information.
But in this reality you cannot fake not understanding information. If you understand it, you understand it, even when it's wrong.
Say i cant fake not understanding 1+1=2
Also i can be lucid dreamer. When i'm dreaming and i think about the fact if i'm dreaming , i always know that i'm dreaming. Not only that, after i know that i'm dreaming, i can alter the dream.
In this reality that's not possible.
So whatever it is, it cant be the same as a dream because it has all different properties than a dream.
If you say a This reality=dream, than it has to have the same properties. But the dont have the same properties. So they cant be the same.
According to quantum physics, no matter how much information
we obtain or how powerful our computing abilities, the outcomes
of physical processes cannot be predicted with certainty
because they are not determined with certainty. Instead, given the
initial state of a system, nature determines its future state through
a process that is fundamentally uncertain. In other words, nature
does not dictate the outcome of any process or experiment, even
in the simplest of situations. Rather, it allows a number of different
eventualities, each with a certain likelihood of being realized.
It is, to paraphrase Einstein, as if God throws the dice before deciding
the result of every physical process. That idea bothered
Einstein, and so even though hè was one of the fathers of quantum
physics, hè later became critical of it.
Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature
is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads
us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system
at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of
various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and
past with certainty. Though that is distasteful to some, scientists
must accept theories that agree with experiment, not their own
preconceived notions.
What science does demand of a theory is that it be testable. If
the probabilistic nature of the predictions of quantum physics
ALTERNATIVE HISTORIES
meant it was impossible to confirm those predictions, then quantum
theories would not qualify as valid theories. But despite the
probabilistic nature of their predictions, we can still test quantum
theories. For instance, we can repeat an experiment many times
and confirm that the frequency of various outcomes conforms to
the probabilities predicted. Consider the buckyball experiment.
Quantum physics tells us that nothing is ever located at a dcfinite
point because if it were, the uncertainty in momentum would
have to be infinite. In fact, according to quantum physics, each
partiële has some probability of being found anywhere in the universe.
So even if the chances of finding a given electron within the
double-slit apparatus are very high, there will always be some
chance that it could be found instead on the far side of the star
Alpha Centauri, or in the shepherd's pie at your office cafeteria. As
a result, if you kick a quantum buckyball and let it fly, no amount
of skill or knowledge will allow you to say in advance exactly
where it will land. But if you repeat that experiment many times,
the data you obtain will reflect the probability of finding the ball
at various locations, and experimenters have confirmed that the
results of such experiments agree with the theory's predictions.
It is important to realize that probabilities in quantum physics
are not like probabilities in Newtonian physics, or in everyday life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
They we cannot know argument was also used to put aside the QM proof that determinism cant exist. The argument was for hidden variables we didn't know about. In the end also that was proven not possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
In 1982, Alain Aspect performed a series of groundbreaking experiments that tested these Bell inequalities using entangled photons. His results showed a clear violation of the inequalities, confirming the predictions of quantum mechanics and ruling out local hidden variable theories. This means that the behavior of quantum particles cannot be explained by any deterministic theory with hidden variables that respect locality. Instead, the results imply that the quantum world is inherently probabilistic and that entanglement leads to correlations that cannot be explained by any classical deterministic mechanism
are you saying reality is deterministic and random at the same time?
Also you say: "Even if we theoretically allowed for the existence of this “entity” with “freedom,” it would still always make the single best decision among the possible decisions, so we come back to a deterministic order of events."
-> are you implying people dont make bad decisions? That they have perfect information to make the best decision? That they would always make the same decision in the same circumstances?
You just say multiple things about reality en theories that make little sense or are just as problematic as the problem you're trying to solve.
It's not clear by this article if you believe in a deterministic reality because you also say QM is random (which is also not true -> it's probabilistic) Also it's not independent. Everything influences everything.
Most statements in this article you make are scientifically proven wrong.
Just to share in case: A deterministic reality has been scientifically proven wrong.
You say that unraveling your stories isn't a choice because it just happens when you see and understand that the story isnt real. But the thing is, people believe what they want to believe. This is really easily observable in society. Many people choose to reject new information if it contradicts their current worldview, or what they want to be true.
Sure many things of how are thinking works is biological. Like confirmation-bias or repetition makes things true, believing in things to be part of a group etc.
Free will cant be scientifically proven, but also not unproven. But wat is proven at least, that you should live life like you have free will for the best life.
For someone telling others how our stories distort reality you certainly have a lot of beliefs about how reality is and works. You choose to believe a lot of things about reality. That's a tell :-)
I also tried to define free will btw. May attempt is: Free will is the ability to choose, through consciousness, to accept as truth or to reject as truth ideas and beliefs about the world and oneself created through thought, both your own and those of others.
For example you can choose to believe in free will or not :-)
First of all, I think it is important to take a step back and remove any assumptions about reality. We cannot really rely on science or anything like that, because what if everything is just a dream?
Once we take this step and accept the possibility that everything could be a dream within a matrix or some kind of simulation, we have effectively removed all assumptions. Science may be interesting, but what if it is just the science of this specific dream? How do you know there is not a completely different science outside of it?
So now that we have removed every assumption, what ultimately still holds? First, the fact that something exists, because if nothing existed, we could not wonder whether we exist or not. Second, there is some kind of capacity to feel—whatever we want to call it—because right now I am feeling something. It does not matter whether this is objective reality or a dream; the fact remains that something is being felt, so this capacity to feel must exist as well.
The next question is whether the existence of alternative realities is possible. What I am saying in the article is not about whether reality—whatever that is—is deterministic or not, or whether free will exists or not. I am saying that there cannot be alternative realities.
The reason is that alternative realities would require a fork in reality based on the choice of some agent capable of making a decision. This could be possible—there could be some kind of soul or entity that can make completely free decisions. But the point is that whatever this agent is, it will always make the best possible decision based on the knowledge it has at the time. Therefore, it can only make one decision—the best one available to it.
Since it can only ever make one decision, such a fork in reality cannot occur. As a result, there can only be one reality, not multiple alternative realities.
You want to remove any assumptions, but then the first thing you do is make the assumption that we could be living in a dream/simulation :-)
You see the paradox?
scientifically it has been proven we cannot live in a simulation :-) There goes another assumption.
You just deny the usefulness of science by assuming an alternate reality, which in an article you yourself claim cannot exist.
Ask yourself. What is aware of the fact that somethings exist and you feel?
You also assume that only one decision can be made? Based on what? It's just another assumption. Not only one choice, but the BEST choise. Which can only happen if their is a certain goal. Another assumption.
A best choice also implies that you can know the outcome and consequences of that choice. Another assumption.
Also what is the point of "proving" there can be no other realities?
( If we live in a simulation this is very wel possible :-) A simulation, like a computer game can have many forks :-)
Btw If you can only make one choice doesnt it have to be deterministic then? Which is proven wrong.
Let's see if you will actually question all the assumptions you're making, or you will feel the need to continue defending it haha (like defending your identity ;-)
You are right; I made a mistake in writing that sentence in the chapter, and I will fix it soon, so thank you for pointing it out. What I meant to say—and what will be corrected in the original article—is that the decision taken is always the one the agent believes is the best possible among the options available to it.
Of course, the agent may or may not exist, but here we are considering the hypothesis that it does. What I am saying is that even if such an agent exists, it will always make what it believes to be the best decision among the options it has available—and of course there is only one.
So the mistake is that I forgot to use the word “believe”: it does not have to be the actual best decision, but simply the one the agent believes to be the best.
Yes you believe that because thats how you experience your agent. Now lets question this experience and therefore lets question this assumption.
Lets say there is an agent, but he isnt making decisions based on what he believes is best, but the decisions are made out of probabilities within the agents system of posibilities. Decisions based on experience from the past, or based on emotions, based on rational, or out of fear, a decision out of habit, because its routine etc etc
Now this agent has a voice in his system that constantly tells and rationalises the decisions that are made to be the best one.
So even though the agent believes he makes the best decisions because his voice his telling him that, he makes the decisions only out of probabilities and are partially just random.
But even simpler. Why cant there be an agent who is isnt motivated by the best, but for example the most predictable, or the most safest, to avoid that what he fears the most.
Or an agent who sometimes makes the rational best choise, but sometimes an emotional bad one. Influenced by circumstances and feelings which are random.
Wouldnt that also be possible?
The agent will always make what he believes to be the best decision, by definition.
For example, if he chooses purely based on fear, then acting on fear is, in that moment, what he believes to be the best decision. If he decides by rolling a die, then relying on randomness is itself what he believes to be the best decision.
What determines this belief about the “best” decision? It is always something that precedes the decision: information. This information can be internal (memories, emotions, conditioning) or external (environmental inputs), but in all cases it already exists prior to the choice.
Therefore, even if one assumes some form of “freedom,” the decision process is still fully determined by pre-existing information. At any given moment, this process yields only one possible outcome. In that sense, there are no genuine alternative possibilities and no branching into multiple realities.
For example, if he chooses purely based on fear, then acting on fear is, in that moment, what he believes to be the best decision.
-> no, thats no true.
Also thats not what i said.
If he decides by rolling a die, then relying on randomness is itself what he believes to be the best decision.
-> no, thats not true
Also thats not what i said.
Therefore, even if one assumes some form of “freedom,” the decision process is still fully determined by pre-existing information. At any given moment, this process yields only one possible outcome
- no, thats not true
Have fun holding on to your believes and not question them while telling others to question theirs. Like everyone on the internet. This blog is going to be a great succes! :-)
Assuming the possibility of something is completely different from assuming its certainty. Assuming that our current experience may be a dream is a perfectly valid assumption, because it presents it as a possibility, not a certainty. Saying that we are not living in a dream is a dogmatic statement, because it closes off the possibility that it is a dream, whereas believing that it may be a dream does not close any possibility—it may very well not be a dream.
If i would assume the probability that unicorns exist , would that also be valid? You cannot prove they dont exist :-)
Unicorns may or may not exist. Why assume either one? They may not exist in this relative reality, but this could be just one of many nested realities, potentially far removed from ultimate reality—like a dream within a dream, within a simulation, within another simulation, and so on.
Because in life you have to make decisions (or pretent to ;-) based on the fact if the unicorn is real or not.
If you go trough life believing every thought you have is a real possibility because ultimately we cannot know. Than your just living life trough a distorted view of reality and will constantly believe the lies you're telling yourself as a possible truth.
Your still assuming the probability. How do you know this probability exists? or can exist? (is valid)
You assume is it perfectly valid? Why? Based on what?
Yes according to science we cannot live in a simulation :-)
https://x.com/Dr_Singularity/status/1984395350308741342
Researchers have mathematically proven that the universe cannot be a computer simulation.
Their paper in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics shows that reality operates on principles beyond computation.
Using Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, they argue that no algorithmic or computational system can fully describe the universe, because some truths, so called "Gödelian truths" require non algorithmic understanding, a form of reasoning that no computer or simulation can reproduce.
Since all simulations are inherently algorithmic, and the fundamental nature of reality is non algorithmic, the researchers conclude that the universe cannot be, and could never be a simulation.
If you do not like the idea of a simulation, then just replace it with a dream. Perhaps the science within the dream has “proven” something about the non-dream world, but how much weight would you give to the science of a dream? Probably none.
How do you know that this reality can be a dream? Where do you base this on? That's just another assumption. Have you ever questioned this assumption?
For example. In this reality, which you believe can be a dream, i can talk to people who can share knowledge/information with me about something which i dont understand. How can i have information about something which i dont understand? That's impossible.
Of course than you can say, i just dreamt i didn't understand the information. In this reality i can understand the information.
But in this reality you cannot fake not understanding information. If you understand it, you understand it, even when it's wrong.
Say i cant fake not understanding 1+1=2
Also i can be lucid dreamer. When i'm dreaming and i think about the fact if i'm dreaming , i always know that i'm dreaming. Not only that, after i know that i'm dreaming, i can alter the dream.
In this reality that's not possible.
So whatever it is, it cant be the same as a dream because it has all different properties than a dream.
If you say a This reality=dream, than it has to have the same properties. But the dont have the same properties. So they cant be the same.