Religion

[Ghieri]

A core aspect of quantum mechanics is that a third person perspective on something sets it in stone.

The double slit experiment is a prime example. When a beam of light is shone through, it creates a pattern of dots. These dots are projected possibilities of the beam's final destination. Because the only things being observed are the source and the wall. if you attach a sensor to the slits, you will find that the pattern changes to a single dot. Because observing something narrows down the possibilities.

So with your dog, if it found a steak on it's own, unobserved, it may or may not eat the steak. Both possibilities exist at that point, but if you are watching the dog, then only one possibility exists. It's a safe bet, sure, that the dog ate the steak, but it's not 100% until you observe it.

If a God exists, there's a 3rd person perspective on *everyone's* life, which means there's only one possibility. Therefore, no free will.

[PutraenusAlivius]

Because observing something narrows down the possibilities.

So with your dog, if it found a steak on it's own, unobserved, it may or may not eat the steak. Both possibilities exist at that point, but if you are watching the dog, then only one possibility exists. It's a safe bet, sure, that the dog ate the steak, but it's not 100% until you observe it.

Schrödinger's cat!

[eliasfrost]

So what I do alone in a room may or may not be true? So unless someone else see me take a sip from my mug of coffee, it may or may not have happened? What happens to my own perspective and its credibility?

[BAndrew]

A very plain example:
Dogs have free will, yes?

NO. You don't know if dogs have free will. You don't know if humans have free will. You can't resolve the problem by referring to the problem itself. Your argument collapses here.

God knows that you will choose A instead of B because:

He has knowledge about how your brain works, about everything you did in the past and just plainly said - He knows you like his own pocket so therefore he knows your reaction just as I know how the dog will react to that meat.

Let me put it more simply. Is there any possiblity I will chose B? No, because God can't be wrong. So in other words I am doomed to choose A. That's not free will. I CANNOT affect my future because no matter what I will choose A.

[PutraenusAlivius]

So what I do alone in a room may or may not be true? So unless someone else see me take a sip from my mug of coffee, it may or may not have happened? What happens to my own perspective and its credibility?

You are observing your own decisions. It doesn't depend on someone else, it depends from any observation.

[eliasfrost]

So this:

A core aspect of quantum mechanics is that a third person perspective on something sets it in stone.

is false?

EDIT: Or maybe not false, but it's not the only thing that sets things in stone, so to speak. Since my own observation is just as valid to make the whole situation truth (presumably). What is saying that the dog's perspective isn't just as valid as my own observation in the example above? Isn't the dog's own observation the final word on whether it did a thing or not, just like my lonely coffee consumption?

[Ghieri]

So what I do alone in a room may or may not be true? So unless someone else see me take a sip from my mug of coffee, it may or may not have happened? What happens to my own perspective and its credibility?

I'd say until you actually do it it's up in the air, but this is where my understanding of quantum mechanics gets fuzzy.

EDIT: Yup, damnit. Forgot that quantum mechanics only applies at the particle level. We'll have to go with General relativity, instead. Same general deal, just on a macro level.

EDIT2: Goddamn I hate mornings. Ok, basic deal is that God has a bigger frame of reference than we do, so he sees what we don't. He knows what we are going to do before we do it. Time is cool like that. Unfortunately it means that what we will do has already been observed, therefore guaranteed to happen.

[PutraenusAlivius]

So this:

A core aspect of quantum mechanics is that a third person perspective on something sets it in stone.

is false?

EDIT: Or maybe not false, but it's not the only thing that sets things in stone, so to speak. Since my own observation is just as valid to make the whole situation truth. What is saying that the dog's perspective isn't just as valid as my own observation in the example above? Isn't the dog's own observation the final word on whether it did a thing or not, just like my lonely coffee consumption?

This is where Quantum Mechanics gets all weird. The most well known interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation, where observation forces nature to pick an outcome.

However, there is another interpretation called the Many-Worlds interpretation, it says that when you GOING TO sip that coffee, or that dog eating that meat, the outcomes are split into many independent courses.

For the dog eating meat, one outcome is you seeing him eating that meat, but another is you seeing him ignoring the meat. However, each outcome is decoherence and thus have no relations between each outcome.

And in the MWI, Observation isn't the determining factor.

[eliasfrost]

I can see where this is coming from and it's conceivable to a degree, but wouldn't that also mean that nature itself is concious and is having the ability to choose and pick? What does that make of nature then? Is it an entity, or is this choice purely random?

EDIT/ If it all is determined by nature, then nature would have dictated all my previous choices leading up to this point, right? That sounds a lot like fate to me, have we gone full circle?

And if it was all random, that would make no sense, since some of my decisions are made based on previous decisions. Say I have the choice to pick a red or green lego brick, if this choice was random it wouldn't matter either way, but if I then was presented with another choice: between a blue and a yellow brick, but this time the choice I made earlier would dictate the outcome of this choice, I want to structure this a bit for simplicity:

1) choose red or green: doesn't matter, the randomness doesn't really affect anything at this point.
- Say I happen to choose green.
2) Now I get to choose blue or yellow, but this time the rules are changed a bit. Now, if I chose red earlier, I would get a reward by picking blue, but a punishment by chosing yellow. But if I chose green earlier, the reward and punishment is reversed.

Of course I would choose yellow, since I chose green previously. This choice is influenced by my previous choice and if nature was randomly choosing for me, I would have a 50/50 chance to pick either blue or yellow, which isn't the case, I chose yellow because I would get a reward. So that would mean it's not random. /EDIT

Many-worlds theory, yes. It's an interesting concept but I'm extremely skeptical to it. It's interesting how widespread that theory has become, especially in fiction. It's also one of the theories that get a lot of attention in other areas, almost to the point of being a feasible theory which is unbelievable IMO. It has more applicability in science-fiction than in real science, it's way too much hocus pocus and wishing that such a "cool" concept were real. And it throws me off.

[PutraenusAlivius]

Nature is well a phenomenon of the physical world. Consciousness is simply being self-aware. Nature can be both self-aware and random, but it's really neither. It's semi-conscious. It is conscious, but it's lacking things that a conscious entity has.

If this is confusing, Consciousness is, quote:
"Consciousness is the quality or state of self-awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

What if the universe doesn't have a sense of selfhood, or the ability to experience? Our brain creates consciousness. And our brain comes from the theory of evolution, and evolution is from nature, so does that makes Consciousness a part the physical world? If so, then why is the creator the consciousness NOT conscious?

EDIT:
Not sure if real or not but worth a read.