Free will: everything is expected and permission is given.

688 תגובות

1. Bottom line, if there is no free choice why do anything at all? Why not lie in bed and stare at the ceiling? After all, whatever I choose to do (including if I choose to stare at the ceiling) it will become clear later that I had to choose that.

2. Bottom line, if there is no free choice, why do anything at all? Why not lie in bed and stare at the ceiling? After all, whatever I decide to do, it will become clear later that I would have to do it, including if I decide to stare at the ceiling.

3. Bottom line, if there is no free choice then why do anything. Why not sit in bed and stare at the ceiling? After all, whatever I decide to do, it will turn out later that I had to do it that way.

4. https://issuu.com/unwell/docs/daniel_wegner_-_the_illusion_of_con

5. Michael:

   I would like your reference to the question of the illusion of the passage of time - which I think is incorrect because why exactly does the consciousness of now exist, why don't I feel yesterday if it exists to the same extent? And do you think it's a lack of understanding of physics about time

6. Michael:

   We discussed the question and came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion and when you explain the point that free will is not possible then it is understandable and everything is in order

   But there is an even more serious illusion than free will and that is "the passage of time"
   There is a mainstream that claims that the passage of time is an illusion of consciousness and I claim that this is ridiculous - free will is an illusion of a mere sensation compared to the passage of time which is not only a sensation but is also objective because consciousness is a way of functioning of the brain that receives the stimuli from the outside and it is clear that time really does pass What is your opinion on this problematic issue? Is there a possibility that time really passes in his world and only today's physics is limited to understand it?

7. It is not clear to me why I get carried away into silly arguments with Bamba/ghosts
   bamba/ghosts,
   I gave you the interpretation from the website of the Language Academy. Why do you have to go to Google to look for another dictionary, only you can understand. You can go to milog.co.il where it turns out that turns out is a synonym for turns out (which is not true) or check in the right place, on the website of the Language Academy, which is authorized to decide on these issues and learn how the word should be used. If you read the link from the Language Academy, you will understand the correct use of the word turns out:
   "The distinction between what turns out and what turns out makes it possible, for example, to distinguish between the doctor's initial hypothesis, "It turns out that you have a broken leg" and the conclusion that emerges from the photograph, "It turns out that you have a broken leg." The "photograph" in our case is Nissim's mistake and therefore it became clear to us that Nissim does not know Hebrew. (don't insult miracles)

   I tried to offer a solution to a fan's question (which is a very deep question that is discussed in much more scientific forums than here) in the form of a question, since I am really not an expert in the field. Maybe it's below your honor to answer her, but it's funny that you come down on me without offering a solution yourself.

8. Shmulik
   It is not clear what you were trying to say with the link. If it means that the content of the link reinforces my point, then, indeed you are right.
   There is another link - to a Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary that will give you the correct interpretation of the word. You can find it by searching on a website called Google.
   Well, if we sum up the results then the result obtained according to all the calculations is this: I am 2, you are zero.
   After we've agreed on the results, maybe you'll start talking about it. How about answering Ehud's question? A very interesting question in the field of physics (which was discussed in the last comments).

9. Shmulik
   I thought Bamba understood at least Hebrew...

10. Thanks miracles

11. http://hebrew-academy.org.il/2012/07/11/מסתבר-ומתברר/

12. Bamba
    What exactly do you understand? I searched... and I didn't find it.

13. Shmulik
    you too? It's enough to have "miracles" here...
    It was good enough even if you didn't respond, you didn't have to respond again. really.
    By the way, the meaning of the word turns out to be this: revealed as it really is, contrary to what was initially considered.
    As I wrote and as I intended.
    Do not take an example from miracles and say things you do not understand. Although you are very similar in this feature, I expected more from you 🙂

14. Shmulik
    There is a concept in the philosophy of "emergent properties". These are features that you cannot reduce (or it is very difficult). Snow crystals are an example of this. Another example is the weather. And the most important example - consciousness.

    There is a complementary concept called reductionism - you can understand a car if you understand what an engine, transmission, wheels and so on are. A game of chess is another example.

    What you are asking is whether the classical world is an emerging feature of the quantum world, or alternatively, whether it is possible to make a reduction from the classical world to the quantum world. I don't know the answer - and I don't think anyone knows today. I think that quantum gravity theory is precisely an attempt to make this reduction.

    In any case - the question is in the field of epistemology. I think it's clear that the classical world can indeed be explained with the help of the quantum world, but we still don't know how.

15. A few words about a big quantum/classical world,
    One when the quantum splitting crosses the human being to a large extent - the whole human being is only in one part and therefore a bit difficult to see.
    Secondly, there is a quantum world even on the large scale, but it is arranged according to - the best above, and therefore again the complete human being sees only one part for the most part and not things like the previous world and the next world separately, in short without specific knowledge and specific help it is difficult to see

16. Bamba, Ehud, Nissim
    Does the averaging of quantum effects in the orders of magnitude in which we live (not too fast, not too small) give rise to our classical world?

    bamba,
    If we are dealing with Hebrew corrections (and after all we all make mistakes because there is only one Avshalom Kor) it could be that when you wrote "turns out" for miracles (quite a cheap drop by the way) you meant "turns out". Turns out from clear or certain and turns out from speculation.
    ("It turns out" that Nissim doesn't know Hebrew, Elek, and not "it turns out" that Nissim doesn't know Hebrew)

17. bamba,

    I'm sorry but I can't answer your question about the soul. The superposition principle and uncertainty principle are measurable things while as far as I know the mind is not a measurable object. By the way, you write "What Ehud asked is this: what is common between the classical and the conti and makes our world both classical and conti." may the question is not mine but is the basic question in relation to quantum theory. Classical and quantum are mathematical descriptions of the world of phenomena we observe, therefore our world is neither classical nor quantum, but it has parts of experimental systems and also phenomena outside the laboratory that can be described using quantum theory or classical mechanics. The basic question is when can the classical description be used? Some of the different interpretations of quantum theory are designed to answer this fundamental question.

18. and miracles
    You don't know Hebrew either.
    You wrote: "lettuce the 2 interpretations" - and I don't like lettuce at all!

19. Miracles
    It turns out that you are not one of those you called "we", who "know about the world".
    And once again I explain to you: it is you who distinguishes between 2 worlds.
    We don't live in two worlds. We live in one world, where the particle and the wave are one.
    And the question, which you do not answer, is: what causes a quantum system to become a classical system?

20. Bamba (this time with the addition of nougat cream)
    What you say is meaningless - it is clear that the world is both this and that. This is what we know about the world 🙂
    What I said is that the quantum world clearly affects humans, and I gave examples of that.

    From what I understand, we distinguish between these 2 worlds because we think these worlds are very different. In one - light is particles, in the other - light is a wave. Maybe one day we will invent something else, which hides these 2 interpretations from the light?

21. Miracles
    Not accurate. We don't live in a quantum world either. Rather, we live in a world that is both classical and quantum. In any case, what Ehud asked is this: what is common between the classical and the conti and makes our world both classical and conti.

22. Bamba
    It is not accurate to say "in the classical world, where we live" - ​​we also live in the quantum world. For example - our eye is able to sense a single photon. For example - it is possible to develop cancer from a single nuclear particle (as far as I know). For example - Roger Penrose claims that our consciousness is the result of a quantum system (not that I agree with him).

23. sympathetic
    The principle of superposition and the principle of uncertainty are principles...how to say..principles 🙂
    In the classical world, in which we live, there is a phenomenon called death. She is also quite principled in our world. Does this phenomenon not fulfill the principle of uncertainty and the principle of superposition?
    (Assuming that after death it is not known what happens to the mind/mind, whether it disappears. And if it does not disappear then it is not known where the mind exists.
    This could be an assumption from the mystical world, but in such principled phenomena the limit is thin).

24. Bamba

    A classical system, as it is called, is a system that obeys the classical laws of physics, mainly Newton's laws. A quantum system is a system that obeys the laws of quantum theory by and large and fulfills the Schrödinger equation. The fundamental difference between them is that a quantum system fulfills the principle of superposition and the principle of uncertainty, whereas a classical system does not fulfill the principle of superposition, while the principle of uncertainty has no measurable effect on it.

25. sympathetic
    What is a classic system? And how does it differ from a quantum system?

26. Michael

    Good to see that you are back visiting the site. Welcome back 1
    It's a shame, but to see that if you've already returned, you're making false statements with certainty and confidence.
    First, it is theoretically not clear that a quantum computer can even be produced, but regarding this point, you were right to qualify your words "as far as I know, it is technical." Regarding your claim that "in any case - it is not true that a quantum computer depends on one or another interpretation of quantum theory." In my opinion, it is interpreted incorrectly. The problem in producing a quantum computer is the theoretical and practical question of whether it is possible to produce a sufficiently complex macroscopic quantum system. This question concerns one of the basic open questions concerning the foundations of quantum theory and that is the measurement problem. From quantum theory it is not clear when a system stops being quantum and becomes classical. What is that "elusive component" that turns a quantum system into a classical one and when can it be used as a measuring device. Many of the quantum interpretations try to answer exactly the question of when a quantum system becomes classical and they differ from each other in relation to the answers they give. There is currently no possibility of giving an answer to this question, but when it will be possible to give a principled answer, the answer will be able to reject part or most of the interpretations of the quantum theory and leave those interpretations that correspond to the experimental results.

27. Gidi:
    I entered the article for the first time in a while and only now saw your question about the quantum computer.
    The only problem with quantum computers, as far as I know, is technical.
    We may not be able to overcome these difficulties but that does not mean that a quantum computer is impossible in principle.
    In any case - it is not true that a quantum computer depends on one or another interpretation of quantum theory. It fits all interpretations.

28. Freedom nourishes culture and learning!

    At the annual conference of the "Association for the Advancement of Science" which took place recently, much was said about the evils of the scientific ignorance that exists in the population as a whole. Many leaders have emphasized that universal scientific knowledge is crucial in determining wise public policy in a democracy, and it is also crucial in maintaining superiority in science and technology.

    The blame for the lack of interest shown by today's youth has been placed on our schools and universities, at all levels. In this, it is possible that most people can agree. It is clear that schools today do a terrible job of educating children in most areas—character, social responsibility, and good citizenship, as well as reading, writing, history, and science. The more money spent, the poorer the results seem to be. Smaller classes, new facilities, more expensive equipment, and a veritable army of support staff that doesn't seem to help.

    However, the solution proposed by the lecturers at the conference of the "Association for the Advancement of Science" * was only a repetition of the same old formulas that have so often failed in recent years: more science lessons, more requirements, more qualified instructors added to the curriculum from first grade to university. What these leaders seem to forget is the root experience that is the basis of democracy: the origins of democracy come from belief, that coercion is the opposite of personal growth. The unusual way in which Western democracies grew, proves that as much as the people enjoy more freedom within society, society as a whole enjoys more intellectual and moral advancement. The liberal democracies were built on the basis of this very important principle, but our leaders in the field of education seem to be so unaware of this fact, just like any ignorant child!

    The cure for the problem of scientific ignorance, for all other ignorance - and also for violence - is to uproot once and for all the disease at its root: coercion in schools. Human nature in a free society recoils from any attempt to force it into some kind of mold. The more demands we pile on the children at school - and the students at the university - the more certain we are to distance them from the material we are trying to shove down their throats. The real answer is freedom at school - freedom for every child and teenager, of every age, to choose the activities to which his natural curiosity leads him! After all, children's urge to rule the world around them is legendary. Our schools must keep this impulse alive by feeding it the freedom it needs to grow.

    Fewer mandatory activities are needed, not more—in fact, it's better to have no mandatory activity at all. People who wonder if there is any sense in talking, should look at the experience of the democratic schools, which are founded right on the basis of these principles. The results are overall excellent, as we would expect.

    The schools that our country desperately needs, to ensure a sustainable society of creative, enterprising, and free citizens, are schools that allow students the freedom to pursue anything that interests them (see, http://www.sudval.org/). Several models of such schools exist in the world today, and they herald a new world of education.

    ------
    * See: the report of the Harari Committee, headed by Prof. Haim Harari - "Tomorrow 98" (note, year 1998!!).

29. י

30. Michael asked me to you,

    As someone who understands the field of computers, without going into details, I saw that it is possible to build a quantum computer. Do you think this is possible or could it also be impossible? And one more thing...a quantum computer relies only on the Copenhagen interpretation and not on Bohm, so this means that in one way or another it could be that a quantum computer is theoretically impossible, right? Although I saw in 2007 that a quantum computer was built, but it does not produce amazing results and it is doubtful that it is quantum at all .

31. Gidi:
    It is not true to say that what cannot be tested empirically does not exist. It is only correct to say that science does not deal with it.
    On the other hand - we don't always know what can be tested empirically.
    In all interpretations of quantum theory something is hidden that cannot be tested empirically.
    You say that it is impossible to check empirically whether the world does not split in every event we call the collapse of the wave function, but this is a trending presentation (unintentionally) of things because it is equally impossible to check empirically that the wave function collapses at the moment Everett describes as the splitting of the universe.
    This is the constant state of competing metaphysical theories. If it was possible to decide between two such then at least one of them would be disqualified.

32. Dear Mr. Gidi, Shabbat Shalom
    When you do statistics, you can only do it on missing knowledge, and there is an interpretation that makes statistics and the missing knowledge that it comes from parallel worlds, there is nothing to prove here, on the one hand you claim that you have missing knowledge, and on the other hand you claim that it comes from parallel worlds but you don't know a lot about them, it's a question of how you live, if you live with time reversals, you can more easily accept the fact that they create parallel worlds and you're welcome, if you don't see the movement backwards in time of the particles - do statistics to find out what will happen , and again you will have some knowledge about the future according to statistics

33. Michael:

    Can I ask if there were indeed multiple worlds, where are they? If it is impossible to test or see them then it does border on science fiction even if there is no flaw in the equations describing the theory isn't it? After all what cannot be tested empirically does not exist?

34. Gidi:
    There are no known problems with the Boehm interpretation and no one has been able to point to problems with the multiple worlds interpretation either.
    A lot of scientists really don't like the idea of ​​multiple worlds but it's just an intuitive thing and as far as quantum theory is concerned intuition has proven itself time and time again to be a very poor tool.

35. Michael:

    From what I understand there is also an interpretation called multiple worlds which is also deterministic and mathematically it cannot be contradicted but as a theory it is not accepted by the scientists because it borders on science fiction.

    So then the Boehm interpretation cannot be refuted at the moment from an empirical point of view - what I am trying to ask is whether the Boehm interpretation is not counter-intuitive like the second interpretation (multiple worlds) and whether through research or settlement with the theory of relativity the Boehm interpretation has problems or is it fine except for the lack of locality who came

36. Gidi:
    I had not heard of this interpretation before but now I looked it up on Wikipedia and saw that it does not give determinism at all.
    Here you go The description of the theory in Wikipedia:
    GRW says that particles can undergo spontaneous wave-function collapses. For individual particles, these collapses happen probabilistically and will occur at a given rate with high probability but not with certainty;

37. Michael, have you heard of an interpretation of quantum mechanics that appears? Ghirardi, Rimini, Weber?

    From what I understand this interpretation doesn't have that many problems and is also completely deterministic what do you think?

38. Michael:

    Now I understand where I missed, I asked if the Copenhagen interpretation is correct then there could still be reasons we don't know but there can't be anything other than "hidden variables".
    Here was my lack of understanding, thanks for the answer

39. Gidi:
    You're missing something.
    The thing you are talking about is known in the professional parlance as "hidden variables".
    A man named John Bell was able to point out a predictable difference between the behavior of a system that has hidden local variables and one that does not.
    He formulated it in a mathematical theorem named after him.
    People conducted the experiments and saw that the reality corresponds precisely to the case where there are no hidden local variables.
    Therefore it is common to think that the hypothesis you are making is not correct.
    Note that I inserted the word "locals" into the sentence.
    This is important because there is an interpretation of the theory of relativity that actually gives determinism but completely sacrifices locality.
    But on second thought I remember that I have already explained all this and even in the current discussion and it frustrates me a bit.

40. Michael I have a question

    From what I understood and heard, a well-known physicist also talks about the fact that the word "random" is a word that describes an event that we don't know why it happened and not in a certain order that we are used to - but that doesn't mean that they don't have a reason, it's just that we don't know why a certain event happened - why if an interpretation Copenhagen is right, so there is no "determinism", then those "lotteries" at the quantum level can be completely deterministic, that is, some kind of mechanism that stands behind them and only we don't know, or am I missing something?

41. The conclusion that I have no choice but to believe in free will.
    Or because I don't have free will and therefore I have no choice but to believe in free will,
    Or do I really have free will and I am right in my belief...

42. I have long since come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to believe that I have free will, and this is for a simple reason -
    Or I don't have free will and therefore I have no choice but to believe that I have free will,
    Or do I really have free will and if so I am right in my belief...

43. B, seriously.

    Are you going to do what I asked you or not?

    Try to show with 4 messenger pairs how what you propose is possible. It should take you less than 2 minutes.

    You are the one who talked about glasses of milk, cows and Wikipedia. If you're serious about it, put in the little effort and compile a detailed list of passing and non-passing messengers, or it's probably time to let go.

    Good night.

44. Israel:
    1) Either the system is deterministic or it is not deterministic
    The coordination between the messengers is determined in MQR.
    2) To get a deterministic system:
    In the last example:
    a) The messengers go out in groups of a thousand pairs of messengers at a time. All the rulers of messenger A are at the same angle and all the rulers of messenger B are also at the same angle (perpendicular to messenger A).
    b) Out of every two thousand, the percentage of people entering the city is the ratio between the square of the bar's levy and the length of the bar. The first out of the thousands always enter. The last of the thousand do not enter.

45. Ahhh… yes. I forgot that you are in the land of English speakers 🙂

46. Did you mean maybe without loculi?

47. What Bell's theorem did not prove was non-local hidden variables. 🙂

48. The system you describe is not deterministic. Can I conclude from what you received that in a deterministic system it is impossible to have more than 50% discrepancies?

49. Example:
    Suppose that the chance of entering the city depends on the square of the cosine of the angle between the messenger's bar and the guard's bar.
    Then the matching percentages of 75 percent at an angle of 30 degrees and 25 percent at an angle of 60 degrees are obtained
    And this is when it is known that the rulers of the apostles are coordinated at the exit.
    Suppose:
    a) Guard bar A is parallel to the X axis. Guard bar B is parallel to the Y axis.
    Messenger A arrives at an alpha angle to guard A and messenger B arrives at an alpha angle to guard B.
    The ratio of the squares of the charges is equal.
    The chances of entry are equal, so there is a full match.
    b) Keeping the ruler at an angle of 30 degrees counterclockwise.
    Messenger A arrives at an alpha angle to guard A. Messenger B arrives at an alpha angle plus thirty degrees to guard B.
    Courier Implication A: The length of the ruler is multiplied by the cosine of alpha.
    Courier projection b: The length of the ruler is multiplied by the cosine of alpha and then multiplied by the cosine of 30 degrees.
    The ratio between the squares of the levies is exactly 75 percent.
    The ratio between the squares of the charges is the ratio between the chances of entry, so there is a 75 percent match.
    c) Keeper A tilts his bar clockwise.
    Messenger A arrives at Guard A at an alpha angle.
    Messenger B arrives at guard B at an alpha angle plus sixty degrees.
    Cosine A: The length of the ruler is multiplied by the cosine of the alpha angle.
    Courier charge B: The length of the ruler is multiplied by the cosine of the alpha angle and then multiplied by the cosine of 60 degrees.
    The ratio between the squares of the levies is 25 percent.
    This is the ratio between the chances of entry, so the match is 25 percent.

    All this in a situation where it is known in advance that there is originally a match between the rulers of the messengers (perpendicular to each other).

50. ב

    It does not matter.

    If you do what I asked of you - give a specific example - you will see it clearly.

51. Israel:
    It does not matter.
    Assume that the fit is a function of the angle between the poles.
    It is clear that at the zero angle the function is 1, which means full matching.
    It is clear that at the 90 degree angle the function is zero, which means a complete mismatch.
    It is clear that the function is a continuous function of the angle between the poles.
    It is not clear what the connection is to the coordination in the source between the photons.
    It is still possible that the photons are correlated at the source.
    It is possible that the error is only in the formulation of the dependence of the function on the angle.
    for example:
    In the example of the apostles with the rulers:
    The chances of entering the city are a certain function of the angle between the ruler of the guard and the ruler of the messenger.
    It is possible to adjust such a function to give the desired values ​​and yet it is clear that the bars are originally coordinated.

52. ב

    What I am asking for is this:

    A description where if we repeat the same situation of the angles of the arrows, and the guards tilt their bars at 45 degree angles, we will get:

    First time: 25% mismatch.

    Second time: 25% mismatch.

    Third time: 75% mismatch.

    Just that.

53. B:
    And I tell you again that Bell's theorem and the experiments show that the photons are uncorrelated at the source.
    Coordination at the source is a very special case of hidden local variables and this is exactly what Bell's theorem and the experiments disprove.

54. I made a mistake.
    The result is accidental.
    Actually it's not even exactly 25 percent mismatch but the number of mismatches is 25 percent of the number of matches.
    Thank you!
    But even so, it does not follow that the photons are uncorrelated at the source.

55. ב

    In the latter case, shouldn't we get a 75% discrepancy?

56. Israel:
    How a 25 percent discrepancy is created:
    When the number of messengers is very large:
    Before tilting the ruler there are two sections of adjustment of 90 degrees each. (direction of the ruler plus or minus 45 degrees) a total of 180 degrees in which there is an adjustment. So if messenger A arrives in the area of ​​these decrees, he enters and messenger B, who is coordinated with him, also enters.
    By tilting the ruler by 30 degrees, 4 sections of discrepancy are created, each of 30 degrees according to the following breakdown:
    1) Messenger A enters and Messenger B does not enter: two sections of 30 degrees each.
    2) Messenger A did not enter and Messenger B entered: two sections of 30 degrees each.
    And there remain 2 sections of adjustment of 60 degrees each. A total of 120 degrees of adjustment. (If Messenger A arrives in the area of ​​these sectors, then he enters and Messenger B also enters).
    A match can be obtained in two forms:
    1) A enters and B also enters.
    2) A did not enter and B did not enter either.
    Therefore, the amount of messengers that will arrive at a match angle will be double the amount of messengers that will arrive at a mismatch angle.
    so:
    The ratio between the mismatch and the match is the ratio between the total of the mismatch segments to twice the match segments.
    Twice the adjustment cuts equals 240 degrees.
    The total of all the non-conformity sectors is equal to 60 degrees.
    Hence the ratio of 25 percent discrepancy at a tilt angle of 30 degrees.

57. Israel:
    data:
    1) Both the guards and the messengers use rulers and not arrows.
    2) The guards insert the messengers if the angle between the guard's ruler and the messenger's ruler is plus or minus 45 degrees, thus creating 2 sections of 90 degrees in which the guard inserts the messenger, meaning a total of 180 degrees of incoming. 180 degrees do not enter so that in total there is a coverage of the entire circle 360 ​​degrees.
    The amount of people who enter is always 50 percent and the amount of people who don't enter is also always 50 percent and it doesn't depend on the direction of the guards' rulers.
    Let's check what happens when there are 4 pairs of messengers:
    a) The rulers are not tilted. The bar of guard A is parallel to the x-axis and the bar of guard B is parallel to the y-axis.
    Messenger 1a comes in. Messenger 1b enters.
    Messenger 2a comes in. Messenger 2b enters.
    Courier 3a did not enter. Courier 3B did not enter.
    Messenger 4a did not enter Messenger 4b did not enter.
    Full match.
    b) Keeper A tilts the bar 30 degrees counterclockwise.
    Messenger 1a enters (minus 30 degrees relative to the bar). Messenger 1B enters (no change).
    Messenger 2a enters (plus 15 degrees relative to the bar). Messenger 2b enters (no change).
    Messenger 3a did not enter (plus 60 degrees relative to the bar). Courier 3B did not enter (no change).
    Messenger 4a (plus 105 degrees relative to the bar [75 degrees from the other direction). Messenger 4b did not enter (no change).
    In this mode there is a complete adjustment despite the tilt of the ruler.

    In an experiment of 8 couples other results are obtained:
    a) The rulers are not tilted:
    1a entered. 1b entered.
    2a entered. 2b entered.
    3a entered. 3b entered.
    8a entered. 8b entered.
    The rest do not enter.
    Full match.
    b) Keeper A tilts his ruler 30 degrees counterclockwise.
    1a entered. 1b entered.
    2a entered. 2b entered.
    3a entered. 3b entered.
    Courier 8a did not enter! But messenger 8b came in because there is no change.
    The discrepancy is expressed in one pair out of 8 pairs. That is, in one eighth of the cases, 12.5 percent.

58. ב

    There are some unclear points in your description. Since the small details are critical to the conclusion, we should be precise.

    1. You say the cut is 90 degrees. The cut does not belong to the tilt angle, which you did correct from 30 to 45. According to your original description - the cut is 60 degrees.

    2. Even in a 90 degree sector only a quarter of the messengers will enter each city if the angles of the arrows are random and the number of messengers is large.

    3. You say: "The experiment with messengers and guards gives the same results as the experiment with poles and photons."

    I showed you that in the case of 4 pairs of pre-coordinated messengers, you cannot have a mismatch of more than 50% if the system is deterministic, meaning that the guards always enter the messengers if they fall within their cutoff definition and do not enter if they are not included in the cutoff. If you claim it is possible, please show it in this simple deterministic case. My argument also holds for every multiple of 4, except that the probability of 50% gets smaller the bigger the system. In practice we will get a match of less than 50%.

    Therefore, because of the parallelism to photons, the maximum number of matches in photons is also 50%.

    (This is if we start from the assumption that a photon system is also deterministic, which is not true).

    If you think it is possible in any other case, please show it with a specific example. General statements contribute nothing to the discussion.

59. Polarizers and photons vs. keepers and messengers:
    1) A photon that is polarized at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the axis of the polarizer will be swallowed. (The messenger will enter the city).
    2) The guards are coordinated when leaving the source. This is something that can be verified.

    The experiment with messengers and guards gives the same results as the experiment with polarizers and photons.
    conclusion:
    It is possible that the photons are coordinated upon exiting the source and not as claimed that the measurement of a photon at one pole causes a "change in zero time" of the state of its partner the photon intertwined with it.
    Since "change in zero time" contradicts the theory of relativity, we have no choice but to accept that the photons are indeed linked when they leave the source.

60. Israel:
    I brought the example of the apostles to show that they are originally coordinated.
    For this to fit the description of coherent photons in the source:
    1) The guards carry rulers and not arrows (North-South polarization has the same meaning as the opposite South-North polarization.
    2) The guards bring into the city all the messengers whose ruler is in the fence whose borders are plus or minus 45 degrees from the ruler's ruler. This is a 90 degree cut.

61. ב

    "There is an error here!
    Below is the explanation of the error:
    With every guard in any situation of bias, 50 percent pass and 50 percent don't pass."

    It is not in the original data. Here is the source:

    Coupled messengers are sent to two cities.
    The coupling is done with the help of arrows that they carry in their hands.
    The angle between the arrows of messenger A and messenger B is always 90 degrees.
    At the gate of city A stands a guard with a horizontal bar.
    At the city gate B stands a guard with a vertical bar.
    The guards approve entry only to those carrying an arrow that points in the direction of the ruler (plus or minus thirty degrees).
    A first check shows a 100 percent match in the city entry permits.
    1) Keeper A tilts his ruler at an angle of thirty degrees.
    An examination shows that there is a discrepancy of 25 percent in the permits for entering the cities.
    2) Keeper A returns his ruler to its place and Keeper B lowers his ruler at a thirty degree angle.
    An examination shows that there is a discrepancy of 25 percent in the permits to enter the cities.
    3) Keeper A and Keeper B each tilt their ruler by thirty degrees so that together a deviation of sixty degrees is created.
    An examination shows that there is a discrepancy of 75 percent in the permits to enter the cities.

    The messengers set out on their way when they are conjugated (the positions of the arrows they hold in their hands are coordinated).

    August 30th, 2013

    Basically, you're right. When there are many messengers - or photons - and the system is random, about half will pass and half will not.

    In the micro, if I understood the data correctly, if the direction of the arrows of each messenger is random and there are many messengers, only a sixth will pass. This is because of the following condition:

    The guards approve entry only to those carrying an arrow that points in the direction of the ruler (plus or minus thirty degrees).

    ZA that only in the limited area of ​​60 degrees around the direction of the guard bar, the messengers will pass. 5/6 of them will not pass.

    In any case, if the system is deterministic and we received 25% inconsistencies with each guard lowering his bar individually, the maximum amount of inconsistencies cannot exceed 50% as I demonstrated with 4 pairs of messengers.

    Even if the system is not deterministic, but the proof needs a control group.

    If you believe you can reach 75%, please give data as I gave for each situation.

    Good night.

62. At each angle of the polarizer:
    The polarization angle of 50 percent of the photons that reach it corresponds to the angle of the polarizer and they "pass" to you.
    The polarization angle of 50 percent of the photons that reach it does not match the angle of the polarizer, so they "do not pass"
    therefore:
    A 25 percent mismatch level created by polarizer bias is not the result of blocking 25 percent of the photons that passed before the bias.

63. Israel:
    A quote from your words:
    "For keeper A, the change is in messenger 3 who passes by. We received: messenger 1 passes, 2 no, 3 yes, 4 yes."
    There is an error here!
    Below is the explanation of the error:
    With every guard in any situation of bias, 50 percent pass and 50 percent don't pass.
    The change should be in at least two messengers. (or any multiple of 2).
    One messenger who did not pass before the tilt passes after the tilt but on the other hand another messenger who passed before the tilt does not pass after the tilt.
    That means there can't be a change in just one messenger (messenger number 3) because that changes the balance of 50 percent passing and 50 percent not passing.

64. You are welcome to re-read the idea I wrote in the previous comments.
    (Although I don't think you'll be able to understand exactly the third time)

65. Enough with the emotional. If you have an idea, share the forum.

66. Indeed.
    It's good to know at least that you didn't write in B.L.T.

67. Come on. Probably a real shame.

    And also the TSF.

68. Israel
    With all due respect, you simply do not try or do not want to understand what I wrote. Habel

    "Let's get off everything that isn't physics right now. Give a useful idea for the problem I presented: if there is a probability of finding the photon after the door in a time less than the distance of the door from the source of the photon divided by the speed of light, have we not thereby exceeded the speed of light?" – I thought you were not interested in philosophy. (Besides the fact that an answer to this question already exists - and you yourself are able to answer it).

69. ghosts

    "After you do this, you will also be able to get an idea of ​​what the thought is made of."

    I did. I did not make it. What is thought made of? And why should it interest me? I enjoy music even without understanding the array of neurons that created it.

    "Let him search for himself. I don't participate in searches for things that don't exist."

    Photon does not exist? So where does the flash of light come from when you turn on a flashlight (or laser)?

    Let's get off everything that isn't physics for now. Give a useful idea for the problem I presented: if there is a probability of finding the photon after the door in a time less than the distance of the door from the source of the photon divided by the speed of light, have we not thereby exceeded the speed of light?

70. And again: Maybe someone will drain the murky waters that have been woven into this discussion without having anything to do with it (or any logical discussion)?

71. Read HERE

    or directly In the chapter on collapse as a result of the involvement of consciousness

72. Are you done fighting? Do you understand physics?

73. Why do you see fit to tell me that I don't have to do something that I don't do?
    It's probably part of the madness.
    Notice how the deterioration began in the comments in this discussion.
    Hint: This is your comment (which is unrelated to anything and I have no idea where it came from) and this is different:
    If the cloudy water is the result of the shower you took when you tried to wash away the stinking spirit you discovered in yourself while introspecting - then the most I can do is give you a plumber's phone.
    When you finish complaining about the religion of the people from which you were born and grew - you will announce.

    It was during your argument with "blowing water" and my words regarding the cloudy water were directed (as any sane person could understand) to him.
    I didn't say anything about religion because it didn't belong to the topic of the discussion, but none of that stopped your problems from coming out

74. You don't have to attribute your megalomania and other problems to me.

75. I hope the medical spirit will come soon to restore the lost sanity

76. …it is enough to be a mathematical genius to fart formulas…. And that would be enough to be arrogant. and smelly

77. And you don't need consciousness at all...

78. Nor does it need someone to invent mathematics to establish that it existed even before consciousness.

79. Specific: Of course you don't need consciousness for the wave function to collapse. In the same way, the world's scientists are not needed to determine a wave function.

80. ב:
    You probably really don't understand but there isn't much you can do about it.
    These are measurements that are made on different bodies and/or in different places and the results of the measurement can reach a match only if such a match does exist.
    You did not understand? Not important.

    Yair:
    I have no strength for this nonsense.
    All the things you raised were answered in the article.
    Just to annoy you, I'm sending you the following two links (which even the speaker, like me, doesn't understand anything):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk

    General:
    The idea that the collapse of the wave function requires consciousness is complete nonsense.

81. "But if the idea is something like "the photon is only a product of transcendental thought, and as such it is in the collective thought of all of us, uhmmmmm" then for such an idea I burn the club." – I don't know who said that. But I do not agree with such an idea.
    Try to think:
    At the micro level (more precisely - at the lowest possible resolution) what are the things (everything) in the world made of? Is it from electrons? Maybe photons? Maybe both? Maybe it's even tiny gerbils who decide?
    After you do this, you will also be able to get an idea of ​​what the thought is made of. (And there is no need to make things up - if you understand the answer to the previous question - you will easily understand the answer to the second question).

    ” But I am not trying to understand the thought itself with the help of the thought. Name the loop.” - It really doesn't make sense. But that's already your problem because you're putting yourself in loops unnecessarily. Take for example the computer that managed to "read" minds:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/mind-reading-3008131/
    Does the computer use illogical and unnecessary loops? just no! There are other ways to understand the thought.

    "Jackie's mystery is still unsolved. Can you help Fotoninho find himself?” - Let him search for himself. I do not participate in searches for things that do not exist.

    You'll see:

    You probably remember how long it took me to explain the idea of ​​the "model".
    Now: I'm not willing to waste the same time just to explain an idea that is simpler to understand.
    If you don't like philosophy then don't ask philosophical questions.

82. "I admit that I don't have an answer but only an idea."

    I will always be happy to hear any idea, provided it also makes sense.

    So whip. Jackie's riddle is still unsolved. Can you help Fotoninho find himself?

    But if the idea is something like "the photon is only a product of transcendental thought, and as such it is in the collective thought of all of us, uhmmmmm" then for such an idea I burn the club.

    "By what means are you trying to understand the questions you ask?"

    With the help of thought of course. But I am not trying to understand the thought itself with the help of the thought. The name of the loop.

    Father, isn't it time to release the reaction to you?

83. "In my opinion, the whole issue is doomed to failure because of a simple logical loop: we try to understand thought through thought." – and with what are you trying to understand the questions you ask? (And I don't want to be rude - so I'll leave it to your imagination to answer for you)

84. Israel
    You must have meant a device that emits a laser beam - and not a "flashlight".
    But it doesn't matter because if you are not interested in philosophy but only in the photon - then you are indeed right and you really won't be able to understand the answer to the question "Is reality really so exotic and complicated?" Is it all just an illusion?".
    And not to the question, "Where is the photon?" Before or after the door? ” – even if Einstein himself rises from the grave and explains to you.
    I admit I don't have an answer, just an idea. But it seems that you are just trying to be interested, instead of trying to understand.
    Regarding the zebrafish - here you are already browsing the field in which Yuval is the expert and not me.
    In any case, without the philosophy you will not be able to understand beyond the technical side. I mean, you might know that the photon is behind the door - but you won't be able to understand the meaning of it.
    (Again: the questions you asked are not only technical but have a philosophical aspect - but you choose to ignore the meaning, and with such an approach you will not be able to understand the full answer but only the technical answer. Which is: the photon outside the door).

85. ב

    waiting (Why?).

    Ghost.

    Nicely written. When you want - you can.

    "According to the idea I brought up earlier: the first photon was created not in a "source" but in thought".

    I do not believe that our thought has anything to do with the creation of the photon. It seems to me more that it was created in a flashlight.

    "You must not (even if you can) ignore the philosophical side of things."

    Although I have taken several courses in philosophy, I admit, as a full-fledged vessel, that I do not have much interest in philosophy.

    And not in psychology, religion, sociology and more.

    When I think about it, narrow-minded and superficial Israel is not interested in almost any field related to people. Even when I was single more than I was interested in women mentally, I was interested in when you are in Bedam Neshit.

    I was once in the Louvre. It was nice, pictures, statues, Amayat. But I was most enthusiastic about the flying paper birds that the children sold outside for 2 francs.

    "Is the thought realistic?
    And no matter what the answer is - ask yourself what the thought consists of."

    In my opinion, the whole issue is doomed to failure because of a simple logical loop: we try to understand thought through thought. My logic says - impossible. We may be able to understand certain parts of the functioning of the mind and intellect, but we can never understand the understanding part, just as a computer can never contain all the data on itself.

    And so, with sadness and grief, (just, with joy and cheerfulness) I return to what really interests me: photons, electrons, protons and zbrabirons.

86. Israel
    Life is not just physics.
    When you are dealing with the end of the world and the world - you must not (even if you can) ignore the philosophical side of things.
    The philosophy claims that - whoever wants to search - searches, and whoever wants to find - finds (even what he didn't search for).
    Let's compare apples to apples:
    When you talk about photons and doors you are not talking about the same resolution.

    "After 59 seconds from the moment of launch, where is the photon? Before or after the door? Einstein claims: Before. It cannot travel a light minute in less than a minute. Feynman believes: the photon travels throughout the galaxy before it blows its soul"

    Right.

    But the real reality is more elusive than the photon. And man's logic cannot understand all of reality but only part of it.
    This is where philosophy intervenes to help the human mind understand reality.

    Also the illusion is not only "physics" - it was even life itself.
    The philosophy claims: "Everything is in the head". But the head is in reality and the physics is realistic. And yet the philosophy continues to argue in reality and in the mind.

    Earlier I asked: "What is the thought". And you ignored giving an answer.

    Ask yourself: is the thought realistic?
    And no matter what the answer is - ask yourself what the thought consists of.

    All the answers and questions that arise in your mind in any case will consist of that elusive photon and electron that travels through the universe and tries to create a physical reality from the present to the future and from the future to the past - and all this while ignoring the philosophical explanations of the philosophers who deal with physics.

    As the idea I brought up earlier: the first photon was created not in a "source" but in thought. As the collapse of the wave function that is created not by measurement but by human intervention using the first thought of the measurement intention. If it were not for man's intention, the world would not have been created. And I don't mean God.
    (And everything that is said here by me - it is said for no reason to exaggerate with words)

87. ב

    Let's try this with 4 messenger pairs.

    When the rulers are tilted at 90 degrees, the adjustment is absolute. Let's give data: pair 1 passes, 2 no, 3 no, 4 yes.

    Keeps A down at 45 degrees. A mismatch of 25%, i.e. one pair. Because of the determinism, there is no change for guard B, i.e. messenger number 1 passes, 2 no, 3 no and 4 yes.

    With Guard A, the change is in Messenger 3 who passes. We received: courier 1 passes, 2 no, 3 yes, 4 yes.

    Now keeps B down and A returns to the original position. 25% mismatch. Because of determinism there is no change in guard A and we received a messenger 1 passed, 2 no, 3 no 4 yes.

    With guard B, the change is in messenger 1 who does not pass. We received: courier 1 not passing, 2 no, 3 no, 4 yes.

    Now the two guards are inclined at 45 degrees.

    Because of determinism and the lack of connection between the guards, we got the previous results we got at 45 degrees. At Shumer A: messenger 1 passes, 2 no, 3 yes, 4 yes.

    Guard B: Messenger 1 does not pass, 2 no, 3 no, 4 yes.

    The mismatch is in pairs 1 and 3.
    2 out of 4 are 50% not 75%

    parable.

    If you can propose in this simple and deterministic case of 4 pairs of messengers a solution where we get a mismatch of over 50% (75% according to you) you will be honored and awarded a Nobel Prize. Even Michael changed his name in your honor to B. Michael (what about him, by the way?).

    But if not... it might be better to start looking at the links, isn't it?

88. "It seems to me that no one would argue with the claim that the choice to "be hungry" is not in our hands," claims the author, but in reality many people choose to be hungry, sometimes to the point of death, such as women who want to lose weight or prisoners who try to rebel against their jailers. If their choice were automatic, the biological structure would dictate them to eat. .
    This article is fundamentally wrong, in that it attributes deterministic legality to the biological and the psychological. Neither the biological nor the psychological can be explained in this way. When a living being is sick, the disease can kill it or stop and it will return to health. Desire, of any kind, belongs to the psychological. To understand why this article is wrong, you should look at another psychological phenomenon, laughter. It cannot be explained through biological, chemical, physical laws. Desire is also a psychological phenomenon, and the means to explain it are not biologically or physically legal. The claim that man does not have free will - only on a trivial level - is hidden by countless human actions that are not bound by biochemical and physical reality.

89. If a certain body has property A then it has 100 percent property A and 0 percent property (not A).
    But if you measure a feature of a body, you can get different measurement results.
    Therefore, the number of bodies in which trait A was measured plus the number of bodies in which trait was measured (not a thousand)
    The volume is not equal to the total number of entities in the system.
    This is the correction required for Bell's theorem in order for there to be a match between it and the predictions of quantum theory.

90. B:
    Not true.
    These are measurements performed in different places and for there to be a match between them an equal reality is necessary.
    But it's really a shame.

91. Michael:
    There is no proof that locality is violated.
    If we assume that the measurement of properties of the material is not unambiguous (not the property of the material but only the measurement of this property) then we will get an improved Bell's theorem that will deal with the results of the measurements of properties and not the properties themselves.
    This improved theorem will fit the quantum theory and the apparent contradiction will disappear.

92. B:
    You were sent to read Bell's Theorem because the whole discussion is about locality which is violated only in quantum theory and not in systems of the type you are trying to describe.
    If you didn't understand that either, then it's a waste of time spent on the discussion.

93. Israel:
    If you had read what I wrote, you would have understood that this is not the case.
    The system is deterministic and the result shows exactly as expected a 25 percent match when the two rulers are tilted in opposite directions.
    incidentally:
    Unfortunately, I was sent to study Bell's Law. (As usual, they send you to buy a cow to get a glass of milk) So I read and I even think I understood, but Bell's Law and the apparent contradiction obtained between it and the predictions of quantum theory are not at all related to the deterministic and "non-quantum" system I described. (I bought a cow for a glass of milk and finally it turns out that this glass of milk is not even needed).

94. Everyone calm down immediately and join forces.

    Enough that in a month we may be at war with Syria and Iran. The biblical writer would always say: "And the land will be quiet for forty years". The last real war was in 73. Now 2013.

    B.

    The system I described in my last response is deterministic. The guards have no discretion. They check the angle of the arrow relative to the ruler and according to the relative angle decide whether to insert the messenger or not according to the instructions they have.

    Do you accept that in this scenario, in the case of 4 percent mismatches cannot exceed 50%?

    Ghost.

    Respectful philosophy in its place is a term, and a lot of it. But I am now more interested in the measurable physical question: after 59 seconds from the moment of launch, where is the photon? Before or after the door? Einstein claims: Before. It cannot travel a light minute in less than a minute. Feynman theorizes: The photon travels throughout the galaxy before it blows its soul.

    This dilemma leads to many different interpretations: influence on the past from the present, parallel universes, cats and zebras.

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantum-world-4-261212/comment-page-1/#comments

    But is reality really so exotic and complicated? Is it all just an illusion? And regarding the topic of the article, is what seems obvious to us - free will - also just an illusion?

    Ockham would argue I believe there must be a simpler possibility, and I don't mean that there is a God and the matter is closed.

95. With all due respect "eggplant" I am water

96. The honorable Mr. Michael
    Bell's experiment is not so simple to understand because, many people come out of their inner feelings, and "correct the version"
    And you don't see that her name is proven back in time when transferring data

97. Water blowing

    I must mention the originality of the nick you use (blowing water). Ignore the rest of your comments.

    But you will not be able to compete with the originality of the nickname "Eggplant at the head of the revolution" (I think Forum Ort several years ago).

98. B:
    Obviously you didn't read. Otherwise you wouldn't be claiming what you are claiming.
    It is not a long story and you can read it quietly.
    I have already given the link twice and I have no intention of dedicating my own efforts to overcome your laziness.

99. Michael:
    I have not read nor do I know what Bell's theorem is.
    See my request from Israel:
    "You don't buy a cow for a glass of milk."
    Do not expect to read the entire encyclopedia in order to learn one entry from it. What's more, after studying this entry, it turns out that it is unnecessary and does not add anything to the topic.
    I described a certain process. Certain conclusions emerge from the process. If you find an error in my words, please indicate where the error is. No mathematical theorems, integrals or operators are needed here. Just simple and logical thinking.

100. And refuted by facts - according to most of the facts
     And I will be healthy - and in the best the world will be discussed
     Apparently the permission is given

101. Everything is expected

102. Who speaks of prophecy!
     And another one that is refuted by the facts at any moment!
     Be healthy!

103. Once upon a time, whoever could travel in time was considered something else

104. to "water blowing"

     "I" is not "you".

     And you're just stupid.

105. Ghostly respect
     If something here is suspicious, then "you" means "I", maybe in the future, welcome

106. Machel
     I'm sure you'll be fine.
     Your problem is that no one will get along with you.
     And neither I nor anyone has any idea how to "withdraw the gratitude and ignore it".
     I don't need to go back to Ethni, because I'm at Ethni and my wife also says I'm fucking properly.

     Better and wiser than you have already said:
     If you have nothing to say - don't say anything.

107. Ghosts:
     So you're sorry!
     Although what you thanked for were things that you really learned from me, but when the spirit is sick, you can withdraw the thanks and ignore it.
     I hope you come back to your place, but I'll be fine even if you don't.

108. Machel
     I'm sorry I thanked you. I see the piss has gone to your head. I'm really fed up.
     "I suppose you would also make the same claim against a German who disbelieved in Nazism" - I see that you have become a fortune teller...

     Maybe the other commenters are really right when they say you trash your mouth..? (Don't answer me - answer yourself)

109. B:
     Only I will understand:
     1. Did you read and understand the proof of Bell's theorem?
     2. Do you disbelieve in its correctness?

110. Water blowing:
     I don't do any of the things you wrote. First of all.
     B: I see that you choose to speak illogically.
     You wrote a mess of words that the only one who can understand is you.
     I understand only one thing from your words: that you can see not only the horse but also the mares.

111. Israel:
     The proof was a bit long and I apologize for that, but I showed two things:
     1) The matching percentage does not depend on the messengers but only on the guards.
     2) If the cumulative tilt is 60 degrees (30 degrees for each guard) then the matching percentage is exactly 25 percent.

112. ghosts:
     The murky waters are the ones that are constantly blowing here and muddying the discussion.
     Your rant about the religion of the people from which I was created is really stupid. I assume that you would also make the same claim against a German who disbelieves in Nazism - and this is beyond the fact that the issue does not belong to the discussion at all and did not come up at all.
     Apparently beyond murky waters I'm starting to notice signs of mental illness here.

     Yair:
     All I can say is that it's a shame you didn't understand the article because so far none of the claims you made about it were true.
     Your claims about the laws of nature are also incorrect and the imagined connection between randomness and randomness is simply a joke, but it doesn't seem to me that you are at all open to a reasonable discussion and I am abandoning the campaign. The number of existing windmills is greater than the number of windmills I can devote time to.

113. Machal, when I wrote the first comment, I thought I was addressing someone with humor, and I was wrong. I didn't predict at all either because already in the first comment I gave my email and gave my name as well. In any case, your comments about randomness are not profound. I'm not sure you distinguish between the laws of nature and the events of the world. The laws of nature are deterministic, events are not, for many reasons that I will not go into now, but one of them is emergentism. A new quality of will appears in my life, which does not exist in anything that is not alive, and allows the life to choose right or left. This feature is affected by the events of the world more than it is directly affected by the laws of nature, and although the events are subject to legality, there is no contradiction here. When you are angry that your opinions are not agreed with, you present an emergent trait and event that cannot be explained by physical and mathematical tools, and perhaps even biological ones are not enough. In your writing, alongside knowledge and thought, there is also dogmatism. The central problem is reductionism. For 150 years, reductionists have claimed that life can be explained through physics and chemistry, but so far no one has been able to do it. Even the sciences closest to physics, chemistry and astronomy cannot be explained through physics, for the simple reason that in these fields there are events that cannot be explained physically. Therefore, when it comes to life, new tools are necessary, and the chance that the aforementioned reduction will be achieved tends to zero. The article from Wikipedia that you referred to reviews a long list of approaches and opinions in the context of your topic, most of which you did not refer to at all.

114. Honorable Ghost
     "Up" is an arbitrary direction like left and right are just definitions, just what, you turn back time in order to make it better, it's not exactly just forward in time, because there are several possibilities (universes or superposition or whatever you call it), but again you try arrange it in a better and better direction. With respect and hope that "good will grow for us"
     , even if it is like "heavens" in Christian literature (sorry for the religious source)

115. The matching percentages are according to the sectors of the circle in which the directions of the arrows (the polarization direction of the interlaced photons) are.
     Hence the use of degrees.
     After looking at the degrees, the conclusion is reached regarding the matching percentages.

116. There may be a situation in which there will be no entry permit for courier A, nor will there be an entry permit for courier B.
     But this is not the situation we are talking about when we work with photon detectors.
     To simulate the photon detector, a small correction can be given:
     Let's assume that each messenger enters the northern neighborhood or the southern neighborhood of the city, depending on the direction of the messenger's arrow relative to the guard's ruler.

117. ב
     You are confusing "degrees" and "percentages". Stick to the original version, and answer the question.

     Water blowing:

     really.
     "It is possible to transfer information back in time" - no. It is impossible to transfer information back in time.
     The arrow of time is forward only.
     You talk about mysticism and try to incorporate philosophy into your speech.

     "Everything that adds subtracts":
     "This means that there is no single answer to the human decision, someone can choose it partially according to the reality that he ranks "above", above is the best choice." - Define "above" and speak to the point and in the way of science - if you want them to understand you and take your words seriously.

118. In the sections where there is no match there is duplication because when messenger A enters then messenger B does not enter and when messenger A does not enter then messenger B actually does enter.
     When both messengers enter then there is no duplication.
     It should also be noted that the entire discussion revolves around those 90 degrees in which an entry permit is obtained and not the complement (270 degrees in which an entry permit is not obtained.)

     If we eliminate the use of arrows (with direction) and use only rulers (without direction) we can get the results for the whole circle according to the same process and the same calculation.

119. If messenger A arrives in city A with an arrow between minus 45 degrees and minus 15 degrees between him and ruler A, then the arrow of the messenger who arrives in city B will be between plus 15 degrees and plus 45 degrees respectively.
     Therefore in these cases the decisions of the guards will be compatible and the two messengers will enter.
     That is, a cut of 30 degrees of adjustment will be created.
     That is, in the cut of each guard there is 30 degrees of compatibility with the other guard and another 60 degrees of incompatibility with the other guard.
     In total there are 2 sections of discrepancy and together they make up 120 degrees.
     The adjustment section is shared by both guards and is 30 degrees (no duplication).
     30 degrees of match compared to 120 degrees of mismatch is exactly 25 percent match.

120. Dear Mr. B, look, the messengers and the arrows,
     There is a situation where if one side plays it affects the other side, and therefore there is a transfer of information from one side to the other, faster than the speed of light, it is not complete information that passes, it is partial information, that is why we are talking about statistics, but it is possible, it is possible to transfer information back in time. How does this change the person's decision - this means that there is no single answer to the person's decision, someone can choose it partially according to the reality that they rank "up", up is the best choice. Thanks

121. The last two lines were written hastily.
     I need to think about it more deeply.
     Not sure they are correct.

122. If the cloudy water is the result of the shower you took when you tried to wash away the stinking spirit you discovered in yourself while introspecting - then the most I can do is give you a plumber's phone.
     When you finish complaining about the religion of the people from which you were born and grew - you will announce.

123. Israel:
     In a continuous stream of messengers:
     Guard A alone brings in 50 percent of the messengers that come to him. (Fifty percent of the first spouse)
     Shumer B alone brings in 50 percent of the messengers that come to him. (Fifty percent of the other spouse)
     And this happens because the arrow directions of the messengers are completely random except for a 90 degree angle coordination between messenger A and messenger B.
     In this situation, the guard lets in anyone whose deviation is within 45 degrees of the guard's bar (clockwise or counterclockwise). And that is 50 percent of the following.
     Because the messengers are coordinated, the deviation of messenger A from the ruler of guard A is equal to the deviation of messenger B from the ruler of guard B.
     Therefore, if guard A lets in messenger A, then guard B also lets in messenger B. And that creates 100 percent coordination.
     A) Keeper A tilts the bar.
     Keeper B delivers courier B. That is, the arrow of messenger B is within the limits of deviation of 45 degrees from the ruler of guard B.
     But with guard A: because of the tilt of the ruler, the arrow of messenger A is no longer within the range of the 45 degree deviation from the direction of the ruler and therefore it will not pass.
     This creates a mismatch.
     That is, the discrepancy is between the decision of guard A and the decision of guard B.
     Note :
     Although each guard on his own transfers 50 percent of those who come to him. The discrepancy is in the decision regarding a particular couple.
     When one guard decides yes and the other decides no.
     It turns out in the experiment that when the tilt angle of the ruler is 30 degrees then there is a 75 percent match.
     b) The same thing happens when guard B drops his bar.
     c) When both rulers are tilted in the same direction, then the adjustment returns to 100 percent.

     d) Each guard tilts his ruler by 30 degrees so that the final angle between the rulers is 30 degrees. (previously it was 90 degrees)
     Messenger B comes with an arrow that is at plus 45 degrees relative to bar B.
     Messenger A coordinated with him comes with an arrow that is minus 15 degrees relative to bar A.
     The two messengers pass. There is a match in the guards' decisions.
     Messenger B comes with an arrow that is at plus 15 degrees relative to bar B.
     Messenger A coordinated with it comes with an arrow at minus 45 degrees relative to ruler A.
     The two messengers pass. There is a match between the guards' decisions.
     In other words, there is a 30-degree division where there is a match between the guards' decisions.
     The two guards together cover a sector of 120 (each 90 degrees less an overlap of 60 degrees).
     At 30 degrees out of 120 degrees their decisions are the same. That is a 25 percent match.

124. Year:
     You should understand that the depth of things is not measured by the number of words dedicated to them.
     The issue of randomness and its lack of relevance to the question at hand has been clarified and any additional fluff is unnecessary.
     In the same wordy but profound clarification, it is also clarified that the automatism in question is one in which the lottery mechanism of the quants also enters, and the fact that it is mentioned later several times does not change anything of its meaning.
     I will also add that impersonating multiple aliases is against the site's procedures and the "pure reason review" is not something that will "enlighten" our path.

     By the way, can someone drain the cloudy water into the sewer? The whole discussion here is muddled.

125. "It is not possible to send a signal - information - faster than light through interlacing.
     But this is what we got if we managed to measure the photon in the forbidden zone." - Beautiful. And here we are already entering the philosophical field of reality: if everything consists of photons and electrons, and the photon is a kind of electron and an electron is a kind of photon - then what is 'thought'? The very fact that we thought, prepared, launched and measured the photon - even then the "entanglement" was created.
     Good night. And think about it. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

126. water

     Not only do I flow with you on the topic of time - I even flow with you.

     Ghost.

     It is not possible to send a signal - information - faster than light through interlacing.

     But this is what we got if we managed to measure the photon in the forbidden region.

     Good night.

     nightmares

127. Israel
     "The meaning is that we managed to send a signal - the photoninho - at a speed exceeding the speed of light, right?" - and we call it "weaving".

     12 noon - I will hand over to Boogie.

128. With all due respect, you are getting yourself into trouble and some of you come out of the wrong understanding that the speed of light cannot be crossed, therefore your understanding of deterministic reality is also complicated.
     There is here a movement back in time, and the passage of information back in time, more than three plus one dimensions, therefore a change that is dependent and therefore statistical of "reality".
     With scientific respect from experience, with real respect

129. But note: if we managed to measure the photon in the forbidden area behind the door - this means that we measured the photon at a distance greater than a minute of light after a time of less than a minute after it was born.

     This means that we managed to send a signal - the photonino - at a speed that exceeds the speed of light, right?

     1 am - a good war.

130. Israel
     In such a case a wave function is the "nomus" and the photon is the "physics". We can also measure the photon in the forbidden areas and then we will discover that the photon is there (both before and after) - which is depicted as an arena between the photons. And this is what goes against classical logic, even though the scenario does take place in practice.

131. ב

     "In the experiment they will change the state of one of the messengers and measure if the change passes in zero time to the other messenger."

     It is impossible to do what you said, because that way information can be sent faster than light and that is impossible.

     Let's try the simplest case: a deterministic system. 16 pairs of messengers going towards the guards at the same time. Each of them holds an arrow at a certain angle, and his brother holds an arrow 90 degrees apart.

     Initial check: 100% match.

     Case 2: The 16 messengers come out and hold the arrows at the same angle as before. Keeper A tilts his bar by 45 degrees. Mismatches: 25%.

     Case 3: The messengers come out and hold the arrows at the same angle as before. Keeper B tilts his bar by 45 degrees. Mismatches: 25%.

     Case 4: The messengers come out and hold the arrows at the same angle as before. The two guards tilt their bars at 45 degrees.

     Do you accept that in case 4 we cannot get more than 50% mismatches?

     Ghost.

     I don't see what it has to do with our decision.

     If the window is a light minute away from the source of the photon, then according to classical logic if we have synchronized clocks at the source and in the window (preferably a door), then if the door closes less than a minute after the photon leaves, the photon will not pass through it and will remain entirely on the source side. If it closes after more than a minute, the photon has passed through it and is on the other side.

     In QED, on the other hand, the photon goes through all possible paths with a certain probability, including jumping to Andromeda for coffee. The sum of the histories is great.

     The purpose of my experiment is to check if the mathematical object called "wave function" also has a physical meaning, i.e. can we measure the photon even in the forbidden areas - the source side after more than a minute, or the other side after less than a minute.

132. Israel:
     It's a shame that you have to read the entire encyclopedia in order to explain one entry in it.
     it's impossible.
     and in particular when it is not helpful for the discussion.
     I gave you an example.
     In the example there are messengers in which there is a conjugation in the source (in the village).
     The guards in both cities can claim that the coupling between the messengers takes place in zero time only after they have been checked at the gates.
     Since the guards do not know the truth they can perform an experiment.
     In the experiment they will change the state of one of the messengers and measure if the change passes in zero time to the other messenger.
     No math needed here. Not integrals and not all kinds of functions and operators.
     You don't even need to read a whole book to understand it.
     Let's keep the discussion simple.

133. Israel, from Kal
     I would be happy for answers and corrections and additional explanations:
     Is the photon in front of the window or behind the window:
     As soon as we determine that a photon needs to be launched, already then the "nomos" decision is made that the photon must be in one of two places.
     As soon as such a decision is made - the photon is already halfway there - and that's even before we launched it out the window.
     At the moment of measurement - we determine that the photon is outside the window because the photon has already completed the other half of the way.
     That is, even before we measured whether the photon is inside or outside - the photon is already halfway there. That is, we created a superposition of a photon.
     And the end result is only the arbitrary philosophical "physics" assertion.

     (A vague description of what is happening. This is just an idea. Please treat with limited liability)

134. Following your comment, I read the article again, and I did not find "in-depth discussion" at random. You probably consider a few comments to be an in-depth discussion. On the other hand, comments about the automaticity of the actions are repeated many times, and a person may choose to starve, self-pain, cancel his life, and also write an article and comment on it, choices that are not an expression of automatic impulses.

135. The critique of pure reason:
     Too bad you didn't read the article carefully.
     I know you didn't read carefully because the issue of randomness you claim was not discussed was actually discussed in depth.
     Next, you should also add a reason to the review to justify the nickname you chose.

     ב:
     You don't see how it is possible to conclude about interweaving while leaving the source, but this is due to the fact that you do not read the links that are sent to you in which it is explained how it can be seen.
     In a way - you are not alone because before John Bell, others did not see either.
     In another sense you are completely alone because after John Bell - everyone who wants to know reads the relevant material and knows.

136. Whether the messenger will enter or not is not the question.
     The question is how appropriate it is.
     That is, if messenger A enters, will messenger B also enter or will there be a mismatch.
     If both A and B do not enter, there is still a 100 percent match.
     At an angle of 30 degrees there is a discrepancy of 25 percent in the entry clearances. This does not mean that 25 percent do not enter. Even when there is a 100 percent match, it does not mean that everyone enters.

137. ב

     "The percentage of discrepancy between the entry permits to the cities does not stem from the position of the guard's ruler in relation to the messenger's pressure, but from the relative position of the guards' rulers."

     It is true that by and large what determines is the position of the bars relative to each other, but in any case the details of the messenger will enter or not depending on the position of the bar that keeps relative to the pressure of the sender.

     If you believe the situation you described is possible, try doing it with series of 16 coins each, with each coin having an up or down state. Let us know the results.

138. ב
     Don't make your misunderstanding public - we know exactly what infinity is.
     Other than that, I completely agree with you.

139. Israel:
     The percentage discrepancy between the entry permits to the cities does not stem from the position of the guard's ruler in relation to the messenger's pressure, but rather from the relative position of the guards' rulers.
     In the case of a 30 degree tilt of guard A, a mismatch will be created between guard A and guard B.
     The discrepancy will be 25 percent.
     But it does not depend on the angle of the bars in relation to any point, but only on the angle between bar A and bar B.
     The messengers leave the village when the arrows in their hands can be in any direction as long as there is a 90 degree match between messenger A and messenger B.
     If bar A is horizontal then it will receive all the messengers with the horizontal arrows (plus or minus 45 degrees).
     If ruler b is vertical then he will receive all the messengers with the vertical arrows (plus or minus 45 degrees).
     That means there will be a 100 percent match between the number of entry permits of guard A and the number of entry permits of guard B.
     If both guards turn their rulers 30 degrees clockwise it will not change the alignment between them.
     If both are perpendicular to each other there will always be a 100 percent match between them. (at any angle they choose and provided they remain perpendicular to each other).
     When one of the guards changes the angle and the other does not change the angle, then the angle between the rulers is no longer 90 degrees and therefore a discrepancy is obtained.
     The discrepancy obtained when the angle between the rulers deviates by thirty degrees from the right angle is 25 percent.
     It has nothing to do with messengers. This is related to the guards because the messengers continue to be sent at all possible angles with equal probability for each angle.
     When the deviation from the right angle between the rulers reaches sixty degrees, then there is a 75 percent discrepancy between the entry permits that the guards distribute.
     All this does not depend on the messengers. It depends solely on the guards.
     The number of messengers is very large and the probability density of the angles of the messengers' arrows is constant over the entire circle.

140. Of course there was. See the example of the apostles.

     With photons the situation is different, because this is not a deterministic system but a probabilistic one. Still, if you compare the group of photons to a control group (16 in the messenger sample, 16 million in the photon sample for a reasonable statistical deviation engine) you will get that the mismatch cannot exceed 50 percent.

     Can you show me a way yes?

141. Let's say there were 16 pairs of messengers.

     When guard A tilts his bar 45 degrees, the discrepancy is 25 percent. For the purpose of illustration: pairs 2, 7, 11 and 14.

     We repeat the experiment when guard B tilts the bar. The discrepancy is also 25 percent. Let's say it's pairs 3, 5, 10 and 13.

     Now the two guards tilt their bars at 45 degrees.

     Because of the determinism of the situation and the lack of contact between the guards, we will accept that those messengers from group A who passed the first time, will pass this time as well. The same for group B.

     This leaves us with pairs 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15 and 16 in the same state of matching as before. Therefore the percentage of mismatches cannot exceed 50 percent.

     But this is not the end of the story. It could also be that the initial mismatch was in the same pair - for example pair number 4 where the right messenger passed and the left did not - and now because the two rulers are tilted, both passed, or both did not pass, so we got another match.

     Therefore the percentage of mismatches is 50 percent or less.

     If you claim that we received 75%, how is this possible without coordination between the guards?

     ?

     ??

     ??!?

142. Israel:
     Let's assume that the coupling of the photons takes place when they leave the source.
     Did this have an effect on the results of the experiment you described?

143. Asks also asks. I just don't get answers unfortunately.

144. ב
     Why don't you ask questions about the things you didn't understand?

145. "Criticism of pure reason" (Tabuna Aalek):
     It seems that you did not understand what determinism is.

146. It should be (plus or minus 45 degrees) together it's 90 degrees which means a quarter of a circle which means 25 percent of the area of ​​the circle which means 25 percent of the probability.

147. Coupled messengers are sent to two cities.
     The coupling is done with the help of arrows that they carry in their hands.
     The angle between the arrows of messenger A and messenger B is always 90 degrees.
     At the gate of city A stands a guard with a horizontal bar.
     At the city gate B stands a guard with a vertical bar.
     The guards approve entry only to those carrying an arrow that points in the direction of the ruler (plus or minus thirty degrees).
     A first check shows a 100 percent match in the city entry permits.
     1) Keeper A tilts his ruler at an angle of thirty degrees.
     An examination shows that there is a discrepancy of 25 percent in the permits for entering the cities.
     2) Keeper A returns his ruler to its place and Keeper B lowers his ruler at a thirty degree angle.
     An examination shows that there is a discrepancy of 25 percent in the permits to enter the cities.
     3) Keeper A and Keeper B each tilt their ruler by thirty degrees so that together a deviation of sixty degrees is created.
     An examination shows that there is a discrepancy of 75 percent in the permits to enter the cities.

     The messengers set out on their way when they are conjugated (the positions of the arrows they hold in their hands are coordinated).

148. There is no direction in space that is the zero direction. What is measured is the relationship between the mutual angle between the polarizers and the mismatch percentages.
     I don't see how it can be concluded about the interweaving at the time of departure from the source.

149. "After all, if the laws of nature are deterministic - accurate knowledge of the state of all mass and energy right after the big bang would allow us - in principle - to predict everything that will happen in the world - including our desires and choices."
     The article is written with great confidence and little criticism. The determinism of the laws of nature means that their mode of action is the same everywhere, but it does not mean that nature is uniform and allows the same events to happen to all individuals. Non-uniformity occurred already after the big bang and continues to occur even today. A ray of light leaving a star has no possibility of calculating where it will end up due to the impossibility of predicting all the inhomogeneities that may occur at any moment in its estimated trajectory. The formation of elements is also conditioned by random processes, and from this also the formation of life. The determinism claim has very limited applicability. Yair

150. ב

     I think you didn't read the article. Here is the gist:

     1. You send a million photons to the right and a million entangled to the left.

     2. You put the right polarizer at an angle of 0 and the left one at 30 degrees. You compare the polarizations of each pair of entangled photons. The percentage of mismatches between the photons: 25%.

     3. You conduct the experiment with the right polarizer at 30 degrees and the left polarizer at 0. Mismatch percentage: 25%.

     4. You conduct the experiment when the two polarizers are at 30 degrees.

     If your claim that "the polarization (and the coupling) is determined at the moment of leaving the source and not at the moment of hitting the polarizer" were correct, then the polarization of every photon out of the million flying to the right is already determined at the source, and has nothing to do with the position of the left polarizer. The same goes for the photons flying to the left: they have nothing to do with the state of the right polarizer.

     Logic says that in this case we will get a maximum mismatch percentage of 50% (no?). In practice we get 75%, as derived from quantum mechanics calculations.

     So how does this happen if the polarization and coupling are already determined at the moment of leaving the source?

     Note that the argument is logical, not physical. It also catches with coins in wooden or pelay mode. Bell's inequality theorem itself is not a physical theorem but a logical theorem: what is in group A and not in group B, plus what is in group B and not in group C, is greater than or equal to what is in group A and not in group C. Its application to quantum mechanics is independent of experiment, but many experiments have proven the unthinkable: reality is non-local.

     And this is only the tip of the iceberg: the Wheeler experiment speaks of something much more serious: influence on the past from the present.

     And we - here we come?

151. B:
     This is exactly what is being refuted by me Bell's theorem and the experiments that followed it

152. The polarization (and coupling) is determined at the moment of departure from the source and not at the moment of hitting the pole.

153. B:
     I did not read the article to which Israel referred, but your response shows a confusion between two terms:
     The one term is quantum theory
     The second term is the results of experiments.

     Israel talks about quantum theory and it is assumed that the polarization passes instantly. If you perform an experiment that shows that this is not the case, you will disprove quantum theory (at least in its current formulation).

154. ב

     Indeed we discussed this before. Does that mean you have already read the article?

     And if you have read and understood, do you accept that there is no possibility of hidden variables in the described experiment, and that the polarization of the photon is determined only at the moment the first photon hits the pole, and that its intertwined brother receives the same polarization if the angle between them is 0 and the opposite if the angle is 90 degrees?

     And if you say that the transfer of information takes more than 0 time, can you suggest how much time passes when the distance between the photons is a light hour, and they hit the poles a second apart? Time can't exceed a second, can it?

     And if we reduce the difference as much as we want, it seems that the information transfer time is getting closer to 0 as the time difference between the impact times is getting closer to 0.

     Conclusion: The polarization is determined the moment the first photon hits the first pole, and the information passes from photon to photon in zero time.

     Can you offer another explanation for the experiment described in the link?

     Permission questions:

     1. Can you identify the problem in the experiment described in the link, a flaw that was corrected in the improved Aspect experiment?

     2. Can you offer an interpretation of the experiment that does not require universal non-locality?

     3. If the spin or polarization information travels faster than light, why is this not a contradiction to relativity that prohibits sending information faster than light?

     4. If there is no contradiction, why did Einstein claim in the EPR paradox that such a contradiction exists? What do we see that he did not see?

155. Israel:
     The physical description you give is correct, but it seems to me less appropriate as a description of non-locality, even though it is really so in the sense that the fact of the particle being discovered in place A has an immediate effect on it not being discovered in place B.

     Miracles:
     I did not become a demagogue and I truly meant every word I said.
     The concept of "free will" is not the same as the concept of "I" and I explained exactly why.
     Another fact that indicates this is that the translation of the term into foreign languages ​​is based exactly on the translation of the two words from which it is composed.
     If you say there is "no" temperature, you are saying that that random distribution of kinetic energies has no average.
     This is mathematically absurd.
     It also prevents you from being able to run very useful formulas like PV=NRT and predict real happenings in the physical world.
     You can indeed continue the nihilistic line and say that those real events do not exist either, but this does not seem to me to be a constructive way of understanding the world (and taking it from the beginning would prevent us from the insights we have about it).
     I do not understand why you return to the question of free will in which we have agreement (only that in my opinion you describe it less well than the article).

156. B'
     You don't understand what you are talking about.

157. for miracles:
     Indeed in a situation of infinite boxes the chance of finding the ball in a certain box is zero.
     There is no point in talking about infinity because no one understands what infinity is.
     Another example:
     Suppose there are a million boxes and one of them contains a ball.
     Suppose we opened a box and discovered the ball in it.
     Did the ball "jump into the box in no time"?
     of course not.
     The explanation:
     We use tools that do not belong in the quantum world.
     In the world of quantum mechanics we cannot open a single box out of the million. We don't have tools delicate enough to do such a thing.
     We have a tool that can open a million boxes at once.
     Opening a million boxes we found a ball.
     Can we tell which box the ball is in?
     we will not be able to! Our measuring tools are too crude.

     It is the mixing of the fields between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics that causes errors and misunderstandings.
     Using tools that are suitable for classical mechanics is not suitable for quantum mechanics.
     For example:
     Window.
     In classical mechanics it is clear to everyone that there is a barrier here and a ball can be found outside the window (outside the room).
     in quantum mechanics. It is not clear what effect the window has on a photon. It also depends on the type of material the window is made of. in the thickness of the window and some other factors.

158. Israel:
     Unfortunately, you repeatedly refer us to reading long articles that do not innovate anything.
     If the photons are entangled it does not say anything about the speed of information transfer between them.
     Note that in the experiment the polarization of photons is measured and not the speed of change in polarization of entangled photons.
     If at one point they changed the polarization and found at a second point that the polarization "changed in zero time" that would be excellent proof, but that is not what they are doing.
     I think we've discussed this before.

159. You force us all to be in superposition. on your conscience

160. The examples, and also the YouTube of the experiment, will come after the final summaries.

     Our friend Yuval Chaikin, who has disappeared, defined the experiment as "fascinating". I have to agree with him.

     But if there is something to the whole thing we will know only at the end.

     Whatever, it's an abnormal fan.

161. If it's like Jackie's weekly drawing... only without the drawing - then it won't work. Not even in a super duper position.
     Examples, examples..

162. Also the sprouted in superposition before the measurement.

     But don't be afraid. These days experiments are being conducted in Southern California with the aim of finding out exactly the discussed question which can be defined: where is the photon hiding? Before or after the window?

     Can you kind commenters solve the riddle?

163. to you to you…
     I already have a sprout.

164. As long as we didn't measure - then the photon is in superposition (both before the window; and after the window) this is the 'small' problem in our poor world..

165. To me or to sprout?

166. Michael Rothschild
     What happened to becoming a demagogue? "I" is a concept on the same level as "free will". Two expressions that are difficult to define, like almost any other expression....
     You gave a good example - the concept of temperature. This is roughly what happens, I think, in the brain. The brain is a hive of billions of processes, each process is very simple - a neuron. If we take Laplace's breast as a metaphor, if we know at a given moment the state of each neuron then we will know how to calculate the state at any given moment in the future. but!!! There is randomness here, which results, for example, from temperature, the level of oxygen, liquids and the devil knows more. Therefore, on the face of it, there is randomness. That is - the future cannot be known precisely, therefore the illusion of free will.
     I will give an example to explain what I mean. I ask you what you will drink. If you have a clear preference for coffee then always choose coffee. If you like coffee and tea equally, your answer depends on a lot of factors - what you drank last time, how thirsty you are, what you ate recently, whether it's hot or cold, how much salt your blood lacks, and many, many other factors.
     But - you will think that you chose of your own free will...

167. Israel!
     Our good and valued friend. The truth is we missed you..

168. I haven't decided on anything, except for a missile attack on Damascus and the surrounding area.

     Are you claiming that reality is local? That information about the polarization of the photon or the spin of the electron does not pass in zero time in interwoven particles from one to the other?

     If so, say so, and prepare yourself for questions from Rachel the daughter, Rebecca the mother, and Sarah the grandmother.

169. If you have decided that the photon is "spread over the entire universe" then it is not clear how you can launch it beyond the window.
     If you can launch it beyond the window then obviously you can control its position. And if indeed you can control its position and make sure that its position is beyond the window then it really will be beyond the window.

170. B.

     and….

     Maybe you'll finally read the link I gave Gidi, right, this is only the seventh time I've referred you.

     If after this you are still not convinced of the lack of locality, I am always here to explain.

     with Nabot.

171. ב
     In total, you rephrased Schrödinger's poor cat paradox (in the first example)
     In an example of infinite boxes - the probability of discovering the ball is exactly 0.

172. Israel:
     Suppose an experiment:
     We have two boxes in front of us. One of them has a ball. We don't know which one.
     The probability of a ball being found in one box out of two is fifty percent.
     We open one of the boxes and discover the ball inside.
     Did the ball "jump into the box in zero time?"
     Did fifty percent of the ball that was not promoted in the box "jump into the box in no time?"
     We know not!
     Suppose another experiment:
     An infinite number of boxes are scattered along a straight line.
     All of them are empty except for one in which there is a ball.
     We open a box and find a ball inside.
     Did the ball "jump into the box in zero time?"
     Of course not!

173. Gidi

     See:

     http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

     Michael.

     In my understanding, not only in interwoven particles. According to the accepted interpretation in QED, a single quantum particle - an electron for example - does not have a defined position before the collapse of the wave function, and is spread with some probability throughout the universe. The measurement at a certain point causes it to collapse at that point, and gather its scatters from all corners of the world in zero time.

     This raises an interesting question: say we launch a photon through a window and close the window after the photon has passed. Can we confidently say that the photon is at a certain moment entirely on the other side? If so, where exactly? Doesn't the uncertainty principle prohibit us from knowing his location, so we can say that he has a probability of being on the previous side of the window as long as we haven't measured where he is?

174. Gidi:
     As I mentioned - we cannot assume that non-locality does not exist. It exists (as mentioned, also in the Copenhagen interpretation) and the question is only to what extent.

     Miracles:
     There is a fundamental difference between the question about the existence of free will and the question about the existence of the "I" and this difference makes me disagree with your claim that "I" does not exist.
     The difference is due to the fact that words in a language are merely expressions (voiced or written) of agreed upon meanings.
     After all, it is also possible to argue that the air has no temperature and in general there is kinetic energy of molecules, but we still define the temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules and it is convenient for us to do so because it allows us to streamline the discussion.
     In the same way there is "I".
     It's just a word that describes a set of physical objects as one unit (which by no chance also feels like one unit) and there is no problem with this type of definition.

     This is not the case with the expression "free will" which consists of two words that already had a meaning even before the expression was coined.
     The combination of the words "free will" is not subject to the definition "free" and its meaning derives from the meaning of the two words that make it up (as opposed to expressions that have received a meaning that is independent of the words that make them up such as "hospital fund" or "black hole").
     This is the form in which people perceive the meaning of the phrase and my argument is that such a thing does not exist in nature (again - unlike the collection of physical entities that define "I" - a collection that does exist in nature).

175. In short, everything is expected and permission is given. (Or in the current wording: science is right, but we have no reason to regret it) :)

176. Michael Rothschild
     I absolutely agree. I look at it from a different perspective, that's all. My claim is that there is no such thing as "I" in order for me to have free will.

177. Thanks for the answer Michael.

     Is there no experimental way to prove that non-locality exists? (and thus solve the problem of hidden variables?)

178. Miracles:
     The topic on which you expressed your opinion is the topic of the article.
     In general, the scientific knowledge available to us attests about a thousand witnesses that there is no free will in the accepted sense of the word.
     On the other hand - our feelings say otherwise and so do the aspirations of our hearts.
     The article aims to explain why our feelings lead us to a wrong conclusion and why our heart's desires do not correctly express our true needs.
     In short, it is intended to show that science is right but that we have no reason to regret it.

179. Gidi:
     As mentioned - from a technical point of view - there is no way to decide between the interpretations.
     From an "ideological" point of view - each of them has problems that are difficult for us, as humans, to deal with.
     It is true that the Boehm interpretation frees us from the need to assume randomness, but the (ideological) price we must pay to accept it is locality (the fact that what will happen to me in the next few seconds depends only on what is in my environment and not on what is happening in another galaxy thousands of light years away from me).
     It is true that there is a certain loss of locality in the Copenhagen interpretation as well, but it is limited only to the wave function collapse states of entangled particles.
     Therefore, the choice between the two interpretations is not an easy choice.
     By the way - apparently we have no chance to get out of this predicament because Bell's theorem and the experiments that followed it They show that there is no possibility of finding a theory that is both deterministic (based on hidden variables) and local.

180. I meant to say that Boehm's interpretation is more suitable for the description of physicists because it explains exactly what happens in quantum events and does not leave question marks such as "it is impossible to know anything before the measurement" "or there are lotteries in the quantum world" and I wanted to know if Michael agrees with this way of seeing.

181. You're just misusing letters.

182. to answer
     Two things
     Einstein's saying is known and it is about randomness "God does not play dice"
     And I don't lack power that I can't control, which will happen if I hold you or you over the future
     Sincerely

183. Dear Blowing Water:
     Bullshit.
     You can't even explain yourself.
     "Referring to time travel and transferring information back in time" - yes of course. I saw this movie.
     "I'll try to be modest, but this is also Einstein's opinion on randomness" - don't be modest, you're not that great.
     Visit a psychologist. And drink water.
     Successfully.

184. And something about free will
     The brain processes data, and it is possible to relate to its decisions and give it a repeated opportunity or correction after seeing the results in the future and returning to correct for the better,
     There is neither one way nor the other, there is both free will and something that is partly fixed, the answer is somewhere in the middle, and you can correct it even after you have decided, with respect

185. First for Mr. Rachaim
     It means time travel and transferring information back in time, just what, we are not alone in the business. and want a happy ending, that's why he is "up"
     Monday to dear Mr. Nissim
     I will try to be modest, but this is also Einstein's opinion about randomness, and many things and concepts that you get confused with, and don't see above, you see when you deal with time reversals.

186. Water blowing
     Do not confuse your mind with what is happening in the world. From now on say "I think so and so and so..." okay?

     Regarding randomness - I don't know if true randomness exists in nature or not (and I'm probably not the only one...) but it (in my opinion) has nothing to do with free will. Even without any randomness there is still, in my opinion, no concept of free will.
     I explained above why I think so. I didn't get a reference to it….

187. Water blowing:
     "If you turn back the time to a story and repeat it "in a big way" you can choose and arrange the "good" ones at the top."
     You're just an asshole.
     Maybe you can explain to us what "time reversal" is?
     Do you, at least, get an excess for this "return"?

188. Gidi:
     "It is also more logical to say that there is a reason behind those quantum events that we do not know than to say "it is impossible to know anything before measurement""
     Your logic means you know what the answer is before you even know what the question is. Does it make sense to you?

189. I'm just curious, would it be possible to reach a decision on this question if Boehm's interpretation is the correct one?

     After all, the Copenhagen interpretation is more mysterious and does not fit a whole science like the Bohm interpretation - it also makes more sense to say that there is a reason behind those quantum events that we do not know than to say "it is impossible to know anything before measurement" Do you also think so?

190. Gidi:
     Boehm's interpretation is not rejected by any physicist because its predictions are the same as those of the interpretation that talks about randomness, but statistically Enit thinks that most physicists talk about randomness, perhaps because this possibility is less "non-local" and perhaps because it is the first interpretation proposed.

     Miracles:
     All the phenomena related to the principle of uncertainty are seen (up to Boehm's interpretation) as inherently random, which is why I mentioned this principle - both in the article and in the comments, without clinging to a specific example.

191. "Everything is expected and permission is given and the good of the world is discussed and everything is according to the majority of the act"
     From the point of view of someone who has dealt with turning back time, if you turn back time to a story and repeat it "in a big way" you can choose and arrange the "good" ones at the top.
     And two more comments:
     A. There is a question, what is the "big story"
     B. To Nissim's response that was just now, there are no random things in the world, there are only things that are unknown and we can do statistics on them, and it could be that freedom and the lack of information comes from some kind of future that influences, and in this context in order to be able to choose and change for the better, if you know the future you need the story ( again) by and large

192. I'm not talking about free will at all anymore, but about "pure" physics and not radio active decay is not really random at the base (at least not according to Boehm's interpretation).

193. Gidi
     As far as I know there are physical phenomena that are completely random - like radioactive decay. But - this does not contradict the idea that there is no free will (as I think).
     Free will requires you to think that there is someone that free will belongs to. But, as we think today, there is no such "someone". There is no one place in the mind, or one line of thought in the mind. There are many "processes" that work at the same time and there is nothing, and certainly not someone, who manages these processes.

194. Yes, also from what you told me and from what I read on the Internet, the quantum effects are certainly not random and there is the Bohm interpretation which is completely deterministic and it is also no less acceptable than the second interpretation, is that correct?

195. Gidi:
     Like any scientific theory, the theory of determinism can only be confirmed and not proven.
     Therefore, if by "testing" you mean experiments in which determinism predicts a result while non-determinism predicts (at least statistically) a different result, then the answer to your question is positive: I agree with the fact that experiments can be carried out whose success will confirm the theory of determinism and as has been discussed here - Quite a few such experiments have already been carried out.
     In fact, there has never been an experiment whose results were inconsistent with the determinism hypothesis (in its broad definition, that is, including consideration of the uncertainty principle)

196. Michael, in my opinion also those people who claim that determinism is untestable and that this is a metaphysical claim is complete nonsense - this is a scientific claim for everything. Do you agree on this matter?

197. I guess kicking the door lock would be an immoral response in this case. Even though the action will lead to a solution (meaning the realization of his will).

198. Gidi:
     He says something very simple:
     I can choose to enter the bathroom but I can't because someone is inside and locked the door.

199. Michael I have a question for you the phrase "he does not distinguish between the freedom he has to choose the action and his ability to exercise his choice"

     What exactly is he saying because I didn't exactly understand what he meant.

200. Haim Israeli:
     No one but you turned the discussion into a discussion about who is more logical.
     It started with you making a baseless claim that my words didn't make sense and up to this point you haven't pointed out any logical flaw in my words.
     Every subject that has ever been discovered in the world was previously a subject that the scientific and philosophical world did not decide on, so your claim that it is impossible to discover because they have not been discovered to this day is a vain claim.
     There is also a contradiction between this claim and your attempt to explain the issue later in your comment.
     It is desirable, in your opinion, to understand and agree that free will or choice is an occurrence that is not the result of any causes.
     So it is desirable, in your opinion.
     Excellent.
     Although it is not a matter of understanding but of agreement (defining terms in language is always a matter of agreement) but I even agree to define free will in this way and to add and say that this kind of free will simply does not exist.
     To be more precise - our desire is precisely such, because the quantum events are a lottery without a cause, but I guess you didn't mean just the lotteries that nature performs, and that's why I said that the thing you meant (and which you defined inaccurately) does not exist.
     Creation out of nothing actually exists and is even a result of the uncertainty principle in quantum theory, but even in this matter you failed only out of ignorance and creation out of nothing of the type you mean really does not exist and therefore free will of the type you mean really does not exist and it does not matter at all for this matter what Human society assumes at every junction. This is a scientific question and not people's mistakes.
     If you had read the article carefully, you would also understand why human society makes this assumption (and why it would make it even if man were a completely deterministic machine) and why this assumption does not interfere and can continue to be used by us in setting the laws.
     In short - I strongly recommend that you read the article before you comment on it.

201. Hello Michael and hello to all those interested in the topic - free will and choice.

     It's a shame to turn a discussion on such a fascinating topic into a contest of who is more logical. In my humble opinion, reason and logic cannot bring a decision on such a complicated and complex issue, an issue that the scientific and philosophical world has never decided on.
     And there are a large number of schools of thought.
     First, I think it is important to understand and agree that free will or choice is an occurrence that is not the result of any causes. After all, if the choice is the result of a process bound by the laws of nature or even of a probabilistic (quantum) random process. No desire is free.
     Hence, free will and choice are the occurrence of creation from nothing.
     And on this last sentence I am trying to develop a discussion.
     Of course, it can be argued right away that there is no such phenomenon of creation from nothing. And hence also there is no will and free choice.

     But human society assumes, at almost every juncture of life, that a person has free will and choice. which is a right granted to him by the law.
     The entire legal system is based on this assumption. No advocate would think of arguing in court (with the most logical judges) that the person should not be held responsible for his actions because they were done without free choice.
     Of course outside of those special cases where they can prove that the defendant's actions were indeed done without consciousness and without the ability to choose.
     The last sentence is challenging, it turns out that it is customary to think that a person whose consciousness has been damaged. Said by a drug or hypnotist. Can do things not out of free choice.
     From this we can say that intuitively we feel a connection between consciousness and choice.
     The study of human consciousness is one of the hottest topics in modern science. And certainly one of the most intriguing. The enigma of consciousness is that mirror of consciousness in which the self sees itself, its consciousness. Also leads to the second puzzle. And maybe the first. the essence of the self.
     There is no doubt that will and choice are actions of the same I, the possessor of consciousness. We feel that the self is the sovereign of consciousness. And hence our feeling that we (I) have free choice.
     Those whose feelings tell them that they have free choice and want to logically justify the existence of free choice must, in my opinion, assume that the human self is capable of creating from nothing.

202. Haim Israeli:
     I didn't just say that I don't think it's appropriate to deal with the claim.
     I explained that I do not do this because your starting point is incorrect and I explained why.
     Besides, when I said that "Here - I am asserting a claim that you said could not be asserted" I really asserted the claim. You did not point to any logical flaw in the claim - you only claimed that it cannot be claimed. If you say that there is a logical fallacy in this claim - you are welcome to point it out. A statement that this cannot be asserted is not pointing to a logical fallacy but only an unsubstantiated claim that such a logical fallacy exists.

203. ghost,
     I agree with you that Michael's writing is logical.
     But when I say that it is impossible to claim this and that. It is clear to anyone with an understanding that I do not think that physically it is impossible to claim that way, but that logically it is not possible to claim that way. His answer: Here I am claiming so and so. Does this mean that I am claiming an impossible thing? She looks somewhat childish to me.
     ו

204. Israeli life
     Among other things, thanks to Michael Rothschild, I learned to express myself logically. If there's anything he understands, it's logic, expressing yourself well, and expressing yourself logically. I suggest to you, a little modesty, and go back to painting.

205. Michael,
     Your answer to me: "You claim that it is impossible to claim that reality is deterministic without assuming that a higher consciousness exists and here I do. Does this mean I'm doing the impossible? I have no idea where you got this claim from, but it's clear that it has no dawn."
     It turns out that you do not understand logical expressions. As guards, it is impossible to claim this and that. The meaning is that logically it is impossible to do this, understood?
     You also added that you don't see any need to confront my claims, so I'll leave you to your own devices.

206. Yoel Moshe:
     Life is not a picnic and sometimes you have to do things that are hard for you to do

207. Haim:
     I do not agree with you at all.
     You claim that it is impossible to claim that reality is deterministic without assuming that a higher consciousness exists and here I do. Does this mean I'm doing the impossible? I have no idea where you got this claim from but it clearly has no merit.
     The number of parameters does not aspire to anything - it is a finite size (albeit very large) and has no aspirations to be another size. This size has no effect on the basic simplicity of the behavior of reality.
     Let's start small: suppose there are only two bodies - let's say two electrons and they are located at known points in space. Do you think someone should calculate for them how they should act? Of course not! And what about three? And what about a million millions? And what if there are also protons? And what if it is a whole universe? There is no fundamental difference!
     In short - since I did not find anything correct in your starting point - I see no need to confront your conclusions.

208. Michael,

     My main argument is: if we do not assume that a higher consciousness exists, it is impossible to claim that reality is deterministic.
     And this is because the future of happening, as you also claim, does not exist. And since the number of parameters needed to calculate the future tends to infinity, it is not even theoretically possible to calculate the future.
     Therefore, those who claim that reality is deterministic are actually claiming that there is a higher consciousness that is able to "get along" with the infinite parameters that build the future chain of events. And regarding her, and only regarding her, the future indeed already exists.

     We, the possessors of human consciousness - for us reality is not deterministic. as explained above,
     And in a non-deterministic reality free choice is possible.

     And what is free choice? In my opinion, free choice is some action that was not bound by the physical conditions in which it occurred. Such action is creation out of nothing.
     And here again human consciousness, science and logic, do not understand and do not accept from nothing.
     This is what brings me to the thought (not scientific at all I admit) that there is a higher consciousness than human consciousness. Or let's say there is a reality outside of our consciousness, an absolute reality whose existence does not depend on our consciousness, but our consciousness arises from it.
     This last assumption is not a scientific assumption of course because we will never be able to perform any experiment that proves the correctness of the assumption.
     Is this supposed to stop us from engaging and thinking about it?

209. Haim Israeli:
     I already presented the connection between the topic of the article and modern physics (quantum theory) in the article and also explained why, in my opinion, it is not relevant to the problem.
     Your interpretation that claims that in a deterministic world everything has already happened - it is also not true.
     Suppose, for example, that you sent into space a fleet of missiles carrying nuclear warheads and there is no control over them and it is known that they will fall and explode on Earth in a year and make it unfit for human life.
     We therefore have knowledge that a deterministic process will result in your death in a year.
     Does that mean you're already dead and you just didn't notice?

     My opinion is different.

     I would not try to interpret Rabbi Akiva's words too seriously.
     He had no idea about the achievements of today's science.
     He was definitely talking about God and not nature. So do you.
     I chose to deal with the conclusions of science and not with any other speculation.
     Of course I also think that speculation based on God is incorrect, but that's a whole other discussion.

210. Haim, for the sake of clarity, this is not my interpretation but a possible interpretation that I brought only for the purpose of emphasizing the problematic embodied in one-sided interpretations.

     Yoel Moshe (Salomon? 🙂 ), get a big like ☼

211. Dear Friends.
     It is legitimate to use quotations from the sources as paraphrase. But it is not right to be commentators without studying the source. In the original chapters of Avot [4 – XNUMX] there is a sequence of XNUMX Mishnayat attributed to Rabbi Akiva. The first refers to moral instructions, the second to Israel's status vis-a-vis the nations and the next two are: "Everything is expected and permission is given and the good of the world is judged and everything is according to the Rabbi of the deed - he would say everything is given as a guarantee and a fortress is spread over all life. The store is open and the shopkeeper is comprehensive and the register is open and the hand is writing and anyone who wants to borrow will come and borrow. And the tax collectors pay back frequently every day and pay off from the person whether he is willing or not and they have what they will rely on. And the law is true law. Everything is fixed for dinner."
     It is difficult for the ND to accept an interpretation that tilts the limits of Rabbi Akiva's discussion outside the framework of the proportions between necessity/fate and human responsibility. His words speak for themselves.

     And interestingly, in the same matter, it is difficult for me to digest the complexity of Michael's response, that on the one hand everything is deterministic, necessary and expected, and on the other hand, he is 'happy' in his response. If everything is fixed and necessary and happy, what does it do?
     In other words - is there even a 'someone' here and certainly is there such a thing as 'joy'?

     Successfully
     Yoel

212. Yuval, I have a hard time with your interpretation of Rabbi Akiva's warning sentence. "Everything is expected and permission is given" and unfortunately this also seems to me to be evading this existential paradox of our lives, where on the one hand according to logic (Michael explained it beautifully and correctly) we do not and cannot have free choice, and on the other hand it is so clear to us that we are responsible for our actions and determine To a large extent our future and the future of our environment.
     According to your interpretation, all Rabbi Akiva wanted to say is that there is a higher authority that foresees the future. This is a very narrow definition. Do you think there is no reference here at all to our responsibility for our actions?

213. Haim, the accepted interpretation, which presents Rabbi Akiva's words as a paradox, is convoluted and may be wrong. It is possible that he simply said (in the shorthand style accepted by sages) that there exists ("given") an authoritative entity ("authority") that sees ("observes") everything. And in today's language translation: "There is an intelligent creator". The problem of the interpreters is that they are only seen in one sense and ignore the others and not always rightly so.

214. Michael, your article is very interesting and even enlightening.
     But it seems to me that you succumbed to your iron logic too quickly.

     You talk about desire but actually the classic debate is about the choice. Is there free choice or not?
     From a physical point of view, free choice is a choice (action, occurrence) that was not necessary under the physical conditions in which it was carried out.
     I call it creation out of thin air. Is this possible? Maybe, I'll try to find out here.

     What does determinism claim? Everything is expected. That is, the future has actually already happened, but our consciousness has not yet encountered it.
     Can any system predict the future? I don't think so. Because the number of parameters influencing the course of future events tends to infinity. In this state of affairs, it can be said that as far as our consciousness is concerned, what will happen next is unknown and is most likely non-existent.
     Modern physics clearly asserts that a fiscal reality that there is no possibility for any system to discern does not exist. Therefore the reality regarding our consciousness is not deterministic at all. Because you don't know what will happen until after it has already happened.

     But Rabbi Akiva claims that everything is expected. This claim of Rabbi Akiva is only true if we assume that there is some higher consciousness that can calculate the future to happen because all the infinite (or aspires to infinity) parameters that affect the course of events are visible before it.

     But Rabbi Akiva continues the sentence and says "and the permission is given". How?
     I interpret his words as follows:
     The future that will happen to us does not exist, but the Supreme Consciousness gives us the authority to freely choose, to create something out of nothing (that is, a choice that was not caused by any fiscal factor) and thereby be a part of the Supreme Consciousness
     Partners in creation.
     Free choice according to this explanation is where the peak of human existence is. If you will, the encounter between matter and spirit in which man, consciousness, is given the permission (and the permission is given) to participate in the act of creation in the creation of the future

     In conclusion I would say this:
     1- Reality for us is deterministic only if we assume a higher consciousness capable of being in the future.
     2- We have free choice because for our consciousness the future does not exist and reality is not deterministic.

     There are moments in a person's life when he creates, invents and literally creates from nothing. Or moments in which he is drawn to do things by unconscious force that only after a while he understands their meaning. These are, in my opinion, those lofty moments of free choice.

215. The position presented by Michael is very interesting. And in many cases even enlightening.
     And yet it seems to me that he surrendered too quickly to his iron logic.

     I admit that it is impossible to explain free choice in physical terms.
     Maybe free choice is not part of the world of physics as we understand it today?
     Perhaps free choice is - created out of nothing, and has no physical factor that created it.

     And there is another aspect that seems to me that Michael and all the commenters did not stand on.
     And this is the apparent paradox in Rabbi Akiva's famous sentence - "Everything is expected and permission is given."
     How?
     If everything is really predictable in a "deterministic world", how is authority given? Why did Rabbi Akiva prepare? Was he so stupid that he didn't notice the contradiction?
     I tend to believe that Rabbi Akiva understood the contradiction and yet insisted on explaining to us that this is the reality.
     That is:
     Although everything is expected. We do not and cannot have any system capable of predicting what will happen. And this is because the number of parameters influencing the next event that will happen tends to infinity.
     Modern physics assumes that an event that does not have any system that makes it possible to distinguish its existence does not exist.
     And therefore the future for us (regarding consciousness) is a physical reality that does not exist at all.

     After the future becomes the present and the past. Then we can maybe try and understand how the event happened.

     In the framed article: the physical theory that will be valid in the future is also unknown and will probably be a surprise to all of us. And of course change our way of thinking.

     In light of the above, I tend to interpret the phrase "everything is expected and permission is given" as saying: everything is expected belongs to a higher consciousness that is not part of us.
     This higher consciousness gives us the authority to create from nothing (free choice). thus being partners in creating the future.
     And of course, this is a huge responsibility.

216. Gidi:
     I was glad to read your words.
     It shows that you not only understood things but that you were willing to let go of things you said before.
     It is said about this "where the repentant stand, the perfect righteous do not stand".

     Shai in Yehuda:
     I say a little more than that but that's why I really wrote a whole article and not just a summary sentence.
     In fact I am saying that we act in a deterministic way (to the point of quantum effects) and that in fact we have no possibility of feeling any limitation that limits our will.
     But beyond that I also claim that the phrase "free will" expresses some of our inner desires that if you look at them closely you realize that the determinism of our will does not conflict with them, that is, even with the knowledge that the will is "mechanistic" you can feel good.

     Elijah:
     Below the last comment and above the place dedicated to a new comment there is a link that says "older comments".
     By using (repeatedly) this link (and as needed - the "newer comments" link that appears on all comment pages except the last one you can view all comments

217. The 471 comments how can I reach them??

218. Michael Shalom,

     After a long time I realized my mistake, you were right, I really tried to protect free will in every possible way just to give it a chance - because I didn't want to think that we don't decide "freely".

     After reading most of the comments between you and me, I realized that you were right in everything you said and it was really hard for me to let go of that ideal, today I don't have a problem and it no longer bothers me - and I realized that there is no free will at the level I tried to defend in the discussion.
     As you said, there is no reason for consciousness to have a physical explanation like everything else, I admit it took a long time but in the end I can say that I understood the subject and also that I was wrong and thank you for the article and the comments.

219. Michael, thank you very much for the clear explanation,
     I tried to formulate your arguments a little more formally. Do you agree with this wording?
     Claim: The experience of free will is an *illusion*. The will is not free and is subject to the deterministic laws of physics that determine the activity of the brain.
     Proof: Occam Razor. This is the simplest theory that is consistent with the scientific theories today that claim that our mind is made of particles that operate according to the deterministic laws of physics.

     I liked the examples, arguments and illustrations.

     In any case, apparently the brain is a sufficiently complex machine that there remains a large gap that does not allow us to actually understand the mechanism of its operation "step by step". It is possible that this complexity is the main reason for the illusion.

220. Gidi,
     It's you who doesn't try to understand. How does a clock measure time in a probabilistic world? How does a thermometer measure temperatures in a probabilistic world? How does a voltmeter measure voltage in a probabilistic world? Likewise consciousness. We're kind of in circles here, aren't we?

221. You are not trying to understand, the point is that the world is probabilistic, but in order to get an accurate probability (measurement) and an accurate description of the probability, our consciousness with which you measure cannot be probabilistic but accurate!

222. exactly! So you understand that even in such a world things can be predicted with certain probabilities and this answers the question from 22:04 and shows you that there is no paradox.

223. Will you turn on a light bulb 100 times? maybe 99? Maybe there will be a power outage, a short, a heart attack, and then you will get 99 light bulbs?

     Because of the probabilities you didn't think about it huh? That's exactly the point.

224. Gidi,
     Why do you go so far into consciousness?
     Just think, if everything in our world is probabilistic, how can there still be absolute things? How in a random world with only probabilities do you press a switch 100 times and a light bulb turns on 100 times?
     When you understand this, you will understand the answer to your question "How can a possible consciousness that is only probabilistic give you an exact expression?"

225. Gidi:
     There is no contradiction and I explained why.
     I'm constantly thinking - and not just for a moment.
     It's time for you to start thinking too.

226. There is a paradox here, think for a moment - is your consciousness, with which you measure all these things, a possible consciousness?

     How can a possible consciousness that is only probabilistic give you an exact expression? The example with the lottery is not so related here.

227. It's really a paradox

228. Gidi ( https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-316625 ):
     It's not a paradox.
     I don't know why you think this is a paradox.
     All phenomena in the macroscopic world are predicted by quantum theory.
     It is true that these are probabilities.
     Usually these are probabilities that are infinitely close to 1 or zero, and then the phenomenon is actually predicted.
     In cases similar to Schrödinger's cat, one can really talk about a lottery in the macroscopic world, but these are very rare and mostly artificial cases (and even in them there is no paradox. Does the fact that the lottery factory holds lotteries contradict the fact that someone wins these lotteries?!).
     so no.
     I didn't think about this "paradox" - simply because there is no paradox here.

229. Michael:

     On the other hand, even if consciousness is not material, there is a paradox: how can something non-materialistic communicate with something material?

     This requires the exchange of signals that take energy from the non-physical world to the physical world, but the energy of the physical world cannot go out or enter. Therefore such a dualism of material and immaterial also cannot be a paradox.

230. Michael:

     What is the nature of consciousness? If its nature is material then there is a paradox:

     Elementary particles build atoms-molecules-cells-mind-consciousness.

     Now translate it into quantum physics and you will see:

     Elementary particles possible builders-possible seals-possible molecules-possible cells-possible brain-possible consciousness. Why? Quantum physics only describes possibilities and not the event itself.

     So how can a possible consciousness give you an accurate expression of your possible elementary particles? A paradox, have you thought about it?

231. Gidi:
     Your question about Aharonov has already been addressed in this discussion.
     Look for the occurrences of the word Aharonov on this page and see what I think.

232. Gidi:
     It turns out that you do not know what is meant by "logic".
     Quantum theory is described mathematically and is therefore ultra logical.
     What is difficult about quantum theory is the fact that it contradicts our basic intuition and this - apparently - because this intuition is based on our experience in the macroscopic world.
     In the macroscopic world we see a wave and a particle and we do not see a "wave function".
     In the quantum world (in the accepted interpretation) there is only a wave function and it collapses every time you try to measure it - that is - when you try to give it a macroscopic expression.
     The problem is not in logic but in the concepts we use.
     Quantum theory is so successful because there is no scientist who behaves like you and says "it doesn't make sense" about things whose whole problem is that they don't agree with their intuition.
     He is content with the fact that they are conclusions drawn from the findings in a logical thinking process.

     Therefore - the only thing that does not make sense in this whole discussion is the contradictory assumptions that you are basing yourself on at the same time and the fact that you call your intuition by the name of "logic"

233. Camila Tebini, our logic should be adapted to the world and not the world to logic.

     What am I talking about? The fact that there are things that don't make sense (for you) in some of what I say still doesn't mean it's not true.

     Take an example in quantum mechanics, there are many discoveries that clearly do not make sense to the human mind, but despite this, this Torah is the most accurate known to mankind, no one understands quantum mechanics in depth, but we can use it, the same with free will we can use it but not understand it deeply.

     The matter of free will is deep, we feel that we have it even after all kinds of explanations to deny it.

     And that you "feel" that you already know to the end what free will is and that it does not exist, then you can be calm.
     A little knowledge of physics does not mean that you can relate it and state so firmly that free will does not exist.

     The fact that a cat can be half alive and half dead is also clearly illogical, but according to quantum mechanics it makes a lot of sense - again you have to adapt your logic to the world and not the other way around.

     No scientist in the world understands quanta in depth - but can use this theory even without understanding it to any depth.

     Camila, a little modesty has never bothered anyone, but you probably know how the world works better than any physicist.

234. By the way free will is not absolute, even if it exists then it is only partial, no one says that everything can be done with the power of thought and by free will (if it exists)

     For example, there are 2 doors A and B and a person has to choose which door to go through, now let's say door B is locked and he doesn't know it and he chose door A and he left it free will does not mean he could have gone through door B because it is locked but the difference is that he could have tried to open it and then went to door A. And there really was such a possibility (free will)

     This is one example regarding the debates about free will in philosophy.

235. Camila Tebini, our logic should be adapted to the world and not the world to logic.

     What am I talking about? The fact that there are things that don't make sense (for you) in some of what I say still doesn't mean it's not true.

     Take an example in quantum mechanics, there are many discoveries that clearly do not make sense to the human mind, but despite this, this Torah is the most accurate known to mankind, no one understands quantum mechanics in depth, but we can use it, the same with free will we can use it but not understand it deeply.

     The matter of free will is deep, we feel that we have it even after all kinds of explanations to deny it.

     And that you "feel" that you already know to the end what free will is and that it does not exist, then you can be calm.
     A little knowledge of physics does not mean that you can relate it and state so firmly that free will does not exist.

     The fact that a cat can be half alive and half dead is also clearly illogical, but according to quantum mechanics it makes a lot of sense - again you have to adapt your logic to the world and not the other way around.

     No scientist in the world understands quanta in depth - but can use this theory even without understanding it to any depth.

     Camila, a little modesty has never bothered anyone, but you probably know how the world works better than any physicist.

236. Gidi,
     The problem is that you don't really want to learn anything. If you wanted to learn, you would not ignore so many times the essential problems in your way of thinking that M.R. bothering to explain to you very patiently time and time again. Every few comments you pull out another broken straw to hold on to. Let's say if you seemed to understand what you were talking about, let's say if you at least seemed to understand a little about the same "arguments" of others that you bring and their relevance, but unfortunately it seems that even managing coherent arguments without contradictions, something for which only common sense is required, Even with that you can't stand it, what do you expect to learn from your alternating questions? What is the point of directing the questions to someone whose answers you obviously do not value (after all, you ignore them or insist on disrupting them). I suggest you go back and try to honestly deal with the answers you received, try to answer them yourself, without involving additional difficulties, try to undermine their validity or at least present an alternative that does not contain a self-contradiction. I promise you that independent thinking will open up your understanding more than any popular book you can read on the subject.

237. There is, but it hasn't been officially announced yet. Look on the top right.

238. Just a question: why don't they set up a system of forums so that it is possible to hold discussions in a normal and orderly manner?

239. Michael:

     What do you think of Professor Yakir Aharonov? Who is working on a new claim that says that the past and the future influence decisions?

240. point,
     Yes, it's me.

     "10 particles and moles of particles are defined according to the forces that act per particle" - no. I'm not even sure that's a legitimate sentence. A particle is defined by the force acting on it? Why? And if it is a free particle then it is not defined?

     Regarding the reality of "descriptions" (models) - certainly "they" do not exist in reality. The distribution function does not exist any more than the orbital does - and they both do not exist. The trick is to make nice approximations that will still fit the description of reality. There are professors who claim that what exists is only measurements. Anyway, I can relate this to the discussions on "Does mathematics have an existence beyond the one in our minds?", "Is there a world where the ideas of mathematics are real?" and to the idea of ​​Penrose's three worlds. This, of course, concerns philosophy.
     An interesting lecture by Prof. Mario Livio on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmdlq-TYpU

241. Michael:

     I do not believe in determinism since modern physics claims that randomness exists.

     The difference is that I have a hard time understanding how something can happen without a reason, I don't rule out the opposite.

     Our consciousness is a kind of derived qualia of activity in our mind, but the very thought itself is not physical, Michael, when you give an example that no rule in physics is violated in our brain, then it has nothing to do with free will and consciousness:

     When you feel fear then it is true that all kinds of chemical substances are released in the blood that cause this fear to pass into our consciousness but the actual experience is not the same substance only - it is qualia.

     Your "will" is actually you and that "will" or qualia no matter what you call it - it may behave like a quantum, it will not behave the same in the same situation, but the will or consciousness is actually you!!! Therefore you do not behave or your desire does not behave in a certain legal way such as Quantum. What exactly is the problem with my model?

242. Student, I thought you were the student from the comment written in this post on:
     November 11, 2011 at 13:03 pm #

     Anyway,
     10 Particles and anti-particles are defined according to the forces acting on a particle. The "treatment" of statistical mechanics is a convenient description for us to describe macroscopic quantities. But this is not something that exists in reality, it exists only in the minds of the scientists who deal with it.

243. I'm not arguing. There is no argument there.. 🙂

244. point,
     I don't know what conversation you're talking about (or I don't remember, or it wasn't me - there are many students at the Technion), but in any case I wasn't able to link what you wrote with what I wrote to Gidi. Nevertheless, I can think of a crude example that would not agree with the concept you presented: take a system of 10 particles and a system of Avogadro's number of particles - they will show different behavior under identical conditions. On one system you can run statistical mechanics treatment and on the other you can't.

245. Gidi:
     What does it mean who determined it?
     Knows what? Let go of the thoughts.
     The sequence of physical events does not stop with thought.
     Let's go one step further.
     Someone asks the person what he thinks.
     From the point of view of the person in question - this is another sequence of physical events consisting mainly of air vibrations that vibrate the skin of his eardrum.
     This triggers another series of physical events, at the end of which he replies "I think Gidi is wrong".
     Here everything was physical. I did not give the thought itself expression.
     Are you saying the person is lying?

     When I said that you have faith that you are not ready to give up - I was not talking about faith in God.
     I was talking about belief in free will.

     You repeat and prove that there is no way you will give her up and it doesn't matter at all what evidence you get.

     You are willing to go so far as to claim that elementary particles have consciousness and free will.

     You claim at the same time that everything has a reason (and find it difficult to accept that the quantum events have no reason) and also that the will is free and has no reason.

     As long as you don't settle the contradiction between your claims, there is no chance that you will be convinced because those who understand logic know that from contradictory maxims, you can draw any conclusion you want.

     point:
     You don't exist either - so what are you arguing about?

246. Student regarding our old conversation…
     Yes,
     Only what exists (elemental particles, the elementary forces) exists. Everything that is composed of them does not exist as a new thing but as a complex thing. Liquidity of water is not something that exists, it is a complex property. Temperature is not something that exists. Van der Waals forces do not exist. They are, on the whole, a convenient description of those fundamental forces that make them up. This. I think things are clear. And it's true, the consequences of such a statement are acute, from everything we know nothing exists (presumably we haven't arrived at the same theory of everything).
     And in general it can be argued that we will never know what exists, because a physical theory is only a description of reality. And if you are a realist and say that there is reality behind the description of reality, then all we will have is just the description.

247. What's funny about the free will debate is that determinism itself has a huge hole in the logic.

     "The complexity of the system, no matter how complex it is, cannot break the chain of causality and everything that needs to happen will happen"

     This is the point of view of a determinist and there is a very big problem with it, his logic, his belief, his behavior, his very grasp of this doctrine is deterministic. There is no such thing as logic, since 1+1=2 we have no choice but to think that it makes sense because everything is already deterministic including logic.

248. Michael Rothschild
     October 9, 2011 at 18:07 pm #

     Yair and Amit:
     As I said - it is not possible to distinguish that the will is not free, so it is not surprising that this is what you feel.
     However - in the brain - all molecules blindly obey the laws of nature. No exception to this rule has ever been observed.

     Michael, the fact that the molecules blindly obey the laws of nature has no problem with that, but who claims that the same arrangement of molecules in our mind will yield exactly the same thought? Who determined this?

249. To Gidi, regarding what you said here:
     "A classic example: in a situation of superposition when a measurement is made, how does the system "randomly select" the event? Does she do it freely? Does she have some kind of "awareness" of one kind or another? And how can she "choose" anyway? Questions for which there is no answer today and it is doubtful that there will be."

     The system does not choose. In an energy measurement, for example, you will measure one of the eigenvalues ​​for the Hamiltonian operator, where each value has a certain chance of being measured. The attempt to attribute to the system a human attribute such as choice is incorrect. You need to break away from this thinking (and many other rationales of classical physics). Feynman said (not an exact quote): "No one understands quanta" - and not for nothing. Professors who deal with quantum all their lives still describe it as "a theory that turns the stomach when you try to reconcile it with logic".

250. To your question - yes.

     Because the laws are not local, can this indicate something about the "freedom" of the electron?
     Random is a word that man invented but don't know exactly about it, maybe random is "free"?

     Although we discussed it before, I did not receive an answer to why this consent:

     Atoms ==> -molecules ==> -living cells ==> -emotions ==> consciousness ==> desires== >free will.

     It doesn't make sense to your claim that if an arrangement can create consciousness, why can't it create a "phenomenon" that has its own will that is non-local (as there is such a thing in nature) that can adapt to the local laws to move the atoms as it wishes randomly, freely, non-locally?

     You claimed it was bizarre but you didn't explain exactly why.

251. And I think what I said is really true.

     That a person has consciousness is obvious.

     The fact that elementary particles do not have consciousness is clear to me and to anyone who tries to think about what consciousness is (you are welcome to read a definition on Wikipedia).

     But for some reason - it seems to you that a person has a consciousness would go better with something that is clearly untrue and that is that elementary particles have a consciousness.

     You also ignore the contradiction between the claim that something is random and your demand to understand how it is carried out (after all, if you know how it is carried out and there is nothing random about it - it will be deterministic. I have already explained this mistake to you).

     By the way - do you understand how a certain arrangement of atoms can be the world champion in chess or trivia quizzes?

252. It's really, really not true what you wrote at the end that mentally I'm not able to put up with it.

     I entered this discussion not to prove to you or myself that free will exists but to get an answer as to whether it exists or not.

     The fact that I am stubborn and show a position that is contrary to yours is all in order to maintain the debate between us and not to say outright "I agree with you Yom Tov".

     Your answer regarding free will may very well satisfy some people but not me.

     Tell you why not? It's not because I believe in God, it's not because I believe in the soul, on the contrary I think more in your direction, I'm very realistic, I already told you I don't believe in anything supernatural like God, mysticism and all.

     What is true is that it is not possible (in my opinion) to know based on logic alone and to connect the fact that there is a way for the atoms to behave and free will since it is very difficult to define precisely.

     A classic example: in a situation of superposition when a measurement is made, how does the system "randomly choose" the event? Does she do it freely? Does she have some kind of "awareness" of one kind or another? And how can she "choose" anyway? Questions for which there is no answer today and it is doubtful that there will be.

     Or how "this or that arrangement of atoms can suddenly become self-aware, understand how it works and even debate the issue?" Indeed delusional things exist and this is what is beautiful and mysterious in our world.

253. Gidi:
     I did not say that the fact that I know physics means that it can be attributed to will and consciousness.
     You'll be surprised - but I also know how to play the bagpipe and that doesn't mean anything.

     Even the fact that there are open questions on other subjects does not say anything about the solution of this question - just as it does not say anything about the correctness of the Pythagorean theorem.

     What does mean is the fact that I have a logical and coherent answer that the questions you tried to put in front of her all received an answer that you are simply unable - mentally - illogically - to put up with.

     Not only did I see this at the beginning of the debate but I said it several times during it.

254. The fact that you know a little physics, does not mean that you can now throw it at things such as free will, consciousness, etc.

     People's attempts to explain consciousness with the help of the "complexity of the system" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to explain a phenomenon that we know nothing about.

     In quantum mechanics there are quite a few paradoxes and questions for which there is no unequivocal answer and they try to come up with all kinds of solutions such as the collapse of the wave function, such as in a state of superposition how does the system "decide" precisely on the position obtained? And many more unsolved questions

     As Professor Amnon said, there is no one who understands quantum mechanics so that he has answers to every question.

     In any case, it was a nice discussion, but I'm withdrawing from it because you didn't get an answer that satisfied me, I knew by the way that it would happen, but it's still intriguing to talk about the subject, if you think you have an answer, that's fine, if you're peaceful and calm, then everything is fine.

255. Gidi:
     Speak for yourself.
     In my opinion - not only is there an answer, but I know what it is.

256. As Professor Amnon Aharoni said, there are questions that should not be asked, probably the question of free will and God, these are the same questions for the simple reason that there is no answer to them, we do not know and we may never know, we can philosophize about them endlessly as happened between us.

257. Not only do they not know how it happens, but they don't know if it happens.
     That's why Boehm's interpretation gives exactly the same predictions without resorting to lotteries at all.
     In fact - the very question "how does it happen" is based on heresy in the randomness of the process.
     Therefore - we are left with the same two choices:
     Either it's random (then the question of how it happens is meaningless) or it's not.
     In any case - as I explained - it is not at all relevant to the matter of the freedom of the will.

258. This is the thing I don't understand, do you mean the lottery of quantum theory? Is it a physical process in itself? Do you know how it happens?

259. Gidi:
     Surely this is not an off wheel in a casino.
     A casino wheel is in the macroscopic world and the effect of quantum phenomena on its behavior is negligible.
     In fact - a casino wheel behaves deterministically.
     This is a lottery as only quantum theory knows how to draw - in a completely non-deterministic way.
     All the lotteries conducted by humans are ultimately what are called "pseudo-randoms" - that is, those whose sense of randomness we get in relation to them stems from a lack of information and not from true randomness.
     Only the draws of quantum theory are truly random.

     Not sure the word lottery is right?
     Why?
     Is there another word you think is more appropriate?
     And in general - what is your insecurity supposed to convince me of?

260. I'm also not sure that "lottery" is the appropriate word here, the fact that there is no reason that compels something to happen does not make the issue a lottery.

261. But what do you mean by lotteries? What's a wheel or someone rolls a die? Where are the draws held?

262. Gidi:
     You don't argue.
     You are fighting for an ideal that is hard for you to let go of.
     I don't think I will continue the discussion beyond the current response.
     There are, as mentioned, two options.
     One (Bohemian interpretation) is that everything is deterministic and everything has a reason.
     In this alternative you will not get what you want.
     The second is that at the quantum level there are lotteries.
     Not will but lotteries whose distribution of possible outcomes is known in advance.
     I already mentioned this possibility in the article itself and explained that in my opinion there is no point in calling it "free will" because the one who determines the results of the lottery is not me but the lottery.
     All this refers to what is perceived today by science as realistic.
     I'm not sure that's what you mean and maybe you're trying to give me metaphors again. I hope that's not what you're trying to do because it's really stupid (it's like saying something like "You agree with me that iron is attracted by a magnet so you must agree that a person will also be attracted by a magnet.").

263. Michael, do you agree with the statement - if an electron can be found elsewhere without any reason obliging it to be found there - then a human decision can also happen without any reason obliging it to happen? (soft determinism there is a reason but not binding)

264. The thing that "bothers" me is precisely the word random, if there are quantum phenomena without a factor, then how do all these things happen? by themselves? Is it possible to base other things on this Torah, such as the argument of free will?

     After all, the argument of many is this: we are made up of seals of a certain order that operate according to the laws of physics, we have no real choice, these are nothing more than physical processes.

     It can also be said that if an electron moves without any binding factor in one direction, and there is no reason in the world that forced its action on it, then it is a sign that it is indeed free from any external physical constraint. Do I understand things correctly?

265. Right.

     or thatBoehm's interpretation is correct, then there is no randomness in the world at all -

     Or there are quantum events that have no cause.

266. I'm not claiming that an event that happens requires a reason, I just don't understand how it can be.
     (As it seems, an event can happen for no reason)

267. Gidi:
     I have already said that Sompolinski was confused on this point and as mentioned - the existence of entangled particles proves the existence of non-locality
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality_principle.
     Do you really want me to tell you why he got confused?
     I do not know!

     Your personal opinion is your personal opinion but you never gave a reason to support it.
     Since in your opinion an event cannot occur without a reason - after all - as I already told you in my previous response - the will must also have a reason and therefore you are simply creating a contradiction when you claim that the will is free.

268. Ok, correcting myself.

     I don't have conclusive proof, but in my (personal) opinion, no one really knows what free will is, and how an event can happen without a reason. (And if you know, I'd love to hear an explanation)

     If you claim that there is proof that the laws of nature are not local, why did Simpolinski claim the opposite? (from what I understand)

269. Gidi:
     What is "if so and so then the laws of nature are really not local"?
     The laws of nature are not local. The existence of entangled particles demonstrates this.

     And what is "If this is so and so then it is impossible to know what lies in the question of "freedom"""free will""

     Is "not to know" in this phrase an imperative (ie "it is forbidden to know"?)
     Because if this is the case, then in my opinion I violate the commandment and Anti knows even though it is forbidden.
     If the meaning is "it is impossible to know" then here too - I am doing an act that you think is impossible.

     In general - to claim that something cannot be known - proof is necessary.
     In the absence of proof - you have no right to formulate a general claim in the style of "it is impossible to know" and the only thing you can claim is "I am unable to know"

270. If things can happen for no reason, then the laws of nature are really not local, and if this is the case, then it is impossible to know what lies in the question of "freedom" "free will".

271. Gidi:
     I don't have the strength for it!
     You keep saying that if an event takes place without a reason it must have a reason.
     Don't you understand that this is a nonsensical claim?!
     And if this is an axiom that you want to base yourself on and conclude that the reason is "free will of some kind" (of a particle! ha ha!) - then what is the reason for that "will"?

272. After all, if an event takes place without an external cause (without a coercion), but nevertheless the event occurred, then something had to cause it to happen, in any case, and if there is no coercion from the outside, then maybe the cause comes from within? Will the electron itself answer? So you can really say that this is a free action, right?

273. In a situation where the world is not deterministic, it is still not clear to me how something can happen without a reason on the one hand - and still happen.
     And if this is true then maybe it is indeed "free" maybe only one of them really has the ability to choose?

274. Gidi:
     As I said - it is not at all clear that the world is not deterministic and you are welcome to read on Wikipedia about Bohm's interpretation of quantum theory.
     Even if it is not deterministic - there does not have to be someone or something that determines the outcome. In any case - it must not be the particle itself because in the case of entangled particles the collapse of the wave function of one also causes the collapse of the others - so which one of them "decided"? Does only one of them have the ability to choose?

275. You didn't answer my first question - you assumed that the world is deterministic, my question is if the world is not deterministic then what exactly is the reason that the electron is random? And if there is no reason, then what caused the same action anyway? Is the electron itself?

276. Regarding the theory of determinism there is a problem - it goes endlessly backwards, if the big bang had a reason then it also has and so it continues and if there is no reason for the big bang then it was created without a reason - random - and if so then nothing else must also have a reason.

277. The mathematicians did not exactly claim that the electron has a will - they generally determined that if there is such a thing as free will it should also be expressed at the level of the electron.

278. The question is, is it random at all? The thing that happens for no reason? If it happens for no reason then what caused the action anyway? The electron itself?

279. Gidi:
     I think this is nonsense.
     The electron chooses nothing.
     The term choice - from its definition - depends on the existence of will and the existence of will is a result of the existence of interests arising from the natural selection that preserved only creatures that try to succeed in life.
     An electron cannot have any interests because it is almost immortal to begin with.

     As I have already mentioned - the collapse of the wave function is only one of the explanations for the phenomena of the quantum world.
     Bohm's interpretation presents another alternative in which the behavior of the elementary particles is completely deterministic!

     Be that as it may - there is no logic in the matter - neither in the claim that the quantum phenomena demonstrate the "will" of elementary particles nor in the (strictly delusional!) claim that living beings cannot have a will if atoms do not have a will.
     Based on the same logic, it can also be argued that a person cannot have fingernails if atoms do not have fingernails.
     A rant from the land of rants.

280. Michael:

     I have another interesting point on this subject of free choice, I want you to tell me what you think, we talked about a similar thing before but you will soon see the difference, I want to attack the problem of free choice from its foundation.
     The truth is I've always thought about it but I didn't really bring it up here, there are some mathematicians who claim that if a person has some kind of free will even the smallest, then the atoms should also have the same "freedom".
     Now the question arises, does an electron choose? This is a question that sounds a bit delusional at first, I admit, but if you think for a moment you will see that this is perhaps the most important question for the matter of free choice and I will also explain why.
     According to the "uncertainty principle" the electron cannot be accurately predicted, no matter how sophisticated the equipment with which we measure is because it is fundamentally random, we can actually say that given the exact same situation (theoretically) the electron can be somewhere else for no reason.
     If we go a little deeper we will find out - you mean for no reason? It can be explained in another word - if there is no force forcing the electron to move or it does not completely determine, this is a sign that the electron is "free also in terms of physics, since given the same situation there can be a different result, which means that the laws of physics do not necessarily determine and force where the electron will turn, therefore Moving in a truly "free" way that there is no better explanation for free than the example of the uncertainty principle.
     Now the question is does the electron "choose" where to be? When I say chooses, I don't mean that the electron has a personality and is smart and self-aware, but rather that it has the ability to somehow "choose" where to move "freely"?
     If the electron can choose freely, so can man. Of course, this is a question that no one has an answer to, but I would just love to hear your opinion.

281. By the way, Camila:
     In my opinion - what is interesting in my article - what I wrote it because of his understanding in the first place - is not the judgment on the question of whether the desire we have deserves the title "free", but the following two distinctions:
     1. We have no choice but to feel that our will is free (because of the absence of another will to compare it with)
     2. The will we have - whether we call it "free" or not - is actually the will we need. Adding more "freedom" to this desire will not serve us.

     The operative message from Bob Doyle's words is also true and although it echoes the old and familiar slogan of "think before you decide" he pours into it additional content that says - the more you think - you will give randomness more opportunities to present you with additional action options and thus your choice will be more informed.

282. withering:
     I listened to the lecture he gives at this link:
     http://www.informationphilosopher.com/tutorials/free_will/

     In my opinion there is no dispute between us on the facts.
     He simply claims that the dimension of randomness that exists - both for quantum and chaotic reasons justifies in his eyes the claim that the will is free.
     In other words - if there is a dispute, then it is a dispute about taste and not about facts.

     Broadly speaking, he claims that some of the possibilities we are looking at are created as a result of the randomness of things in the universe and we have the freedom to choose between them.
     You can read something similar in a comment I previously wrote here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/memethics-0703101/#comment-263160
     Look for the phrase free will in this response.

     A similar thing is also mentioned in Sompolinski's lecture (after he describes it, he calls it "the famous veto theory").

     The point is that in my opinion (and this, as mentioned, is a matter of taste) - the fact that there are lotteries does not make the will free. It makes it at least predictable but not free - because we do not control that randomness.
     Think for a moment about people addicted to gambling.
     These are people who give randomness a more extensive role than other people.
     They are not more free than others - they are less free than them.

     In the end, he sees freedom precisely in our ability to choose between the alternatives, but what kind of freedom is that? It is simply the freedom to activate the physical system in our mind which, like the variety of possibilities, is also controlled by the laws of physics (which produce - as he and I say a combination of determinism with uncontrolled randomness).

283. This is indeed a good site, since it does not philosophize and presents well-founded and rational positions.
     I'm already waiting for MR to read it and express his opinion on the matter.

284. No problem, look Michiel, I'm just like you - I want to know the truth, I don't want to stay with a stupid or incorrect belief just like that.
     The problem is that even if I think exactly like you, there is a very big problem here, a sort of paradox without a solution.
     Your conclusions are that there is no free choice and we are all part of the same physical system, so our logic, our conclusions, and all of our insight are also forced upon us, after all you don't even have a choice in distinguishing between truth and falsehood and what you think is true then it is forced on you (whether the advance is deterministic or whether it is random).
     I remember that you once answered me something about this and claimed that "deterministic systems can calculate things accurately, so they are right, and therefore such a system can also arrive at the truth - but another paradox is created here. Why do you think this is the truth? You cannot even decide whether it is true or false. This is also forced upon you. (And your thinking that this is truth or logic is also forced upon you, you will never be able to know if it is true or false.) This is a paradox I know I would be happy if you could find a solution to it, because I think and think and fail. And not just you everyone on this site.

285. Michael,
     Skimming through the site that Gidi pointed out, I get the impression that it is a serious site with a serious person behind it. The site is invested (in terms of the knowledge and thought invested in it) and it seems to me that you will find interest in it (with and without relation to the topic discussed here).
     I recommend that you start with the general page that introduces the person behind the site - Bob Doyle:
     http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
     On this page, a little further down, you will find a list of publications and a link to a presentation that concisely presents his arguments on the subject of free will. I think that would be a good start for you. I would love to read what you think about it when you get time to read it and comment.

     Gidi, you would have saved yourself (and especially us) a lot of time that was wasted on the apricot comments you presented earlier. At least I can say to your credit that this time this website seems more relevant and serious, but as mentioned I would also be happy to read what Michael has to say on the subject.

286. Gidi:
     In the meantime I didn't have time to read the content behind the link.
     It is, of course, also a matter of motivation.
     I feel that I understand the subject well and that I probably won't learn anything new from the link (and if someone out there thinks differently than me, I'm pretty sure I can find where I went wrong, but I no longer have the energy to look for other people's mistakes and certainly not to read about all the mistakes that all kinds of people may do).

     If I read it in the future I will write my conclusions here.

287. By the way, Michael, the last 2 links I gave you, in my opinion, is a very good site, it clearly shows all the misconceptions regarding all the positions of the philosophers, such as libertarians, compatibilists, determinists.
     This is a non-philosophizing article and is based on the knowledge that exists today, and not on any baseless theory (as I learned from you and as it should be)
     Within the site itself there are more links (within the site) about free will, attitudes towards it, problems, in short everything is highly recommended, I learned a thing or two from it. [And if you have an opinion on it or some insight I would love to hear it]

288. Ok, I misunderstood what you said, I thought you claimed something but you meant something else, I accept.
     M.R. I understood what approach should be taken to talk to you - you are very rational and based on what you see, and the truth is perhaps good that this is the best way to reach correct insights and conclusions. (I am also such a person, I do not believe in God, not in mysticism, fortune telling And so on, simply on the topic of free choice, I'm not in a hurry to draw conclusions, that's all, understand me).
     If you read the link I brought you, what do you think about it in the context of free choice, did you get any insight from it?
     From what I understand, there are so-called requirements for free will to exist, there is such a list, and it doesn't seem to me that there are any contradictions or anything that deviates from the physics we know, I will bring you a link from that website, only that it talks about the list, please tell me what you think about it and whether it is open Something new in the discussion (we agreed that I no longer bring theories that have no basis) [it's not really long, isn't it]
     http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/requirements.html

289. Gidi:
     Maybe you will decide what I said?
     Earlier you said I said that if the universe is random then all our actions are random.
     This, as mentioned, is not true and the question arises as to why you even tried to claim this.
     Now you say I said that if randomness exists there is no room for free choice.
     I didn't say that either!
     I said something that may sound similar but is completely different.
     I said that randomness does not mean free choice. I said that a choice made by lottery does not express freedom of any kind.
     I said you brought a Hasidic source because this source bases your claim on logical errors in my words just like a Hasidic source.
     I did not refer to the quality of the source as an independent text but only to its relevance to the confirmation of the defamations you defamed me.

290. As I recall, you claimed that if randomness exists, then there is no room for free choice, so the lottery is not free choice, isn't that right, Michael?
     And why do you claim that I brought you the source of a stork?
     This is a source that is not in favor of free will, just shows misconceptions on the subject, that's all.

291. Gidi:
     You are wrong - both in understanding my words and in interpreting reality, but let's start with the simpler matter:
     Can you point to a comment where I argued that if the universe is random then all our actions are random?
     No. You can't, and that's because I didn't say so.

292. Ok, you claim that if the universe is random, then all our actions are random, and I say that there may be a mistake in thinking here, since randomness is not the direct cause of action, it is part of the reasons for action, and randomness allows us to choose between alternatives.
     If I'm wrong I'd love to know where exactly.

293. Gidi:
     You brought me a source, but it's a stork's source.
     Show me an argument I made and point out the logical fallacy in it and I'll show you where you went wrong.

294. MR I brought you a source, you choose to ignore it
     http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html

295. Do you not agree with the sentence, randomness allows you to choose between several alternatives, but is it not the direct reason for the choice?

296. Nice, Gidi.
     So now you started giving marks and telling me that I have several logical errors and you did that too, in your own way, without any substantiation (even without a wrong substantiation!).
     So that's it, Gidi. This is simply not true. You are welcome to add to the topic you are working on also the finding of the basis for your aforementioned defamation.

297. point,
     Let's say everything is made up of electrons, neutrons and protons, so can we throw out the whole dictionary and talk in terms of protons, neutrons and electrons? It is not clear to me if your claim is just semantic, or stems from the negation of chemical and physical properties.
     Do you understand that the electron, neutron and proton individually - they are different from the atom as one? Different quantitative combinations of them make up different atoms, and different atoms in different combinations make up different molecules, and different molecules make up different substances, so you can make a space shuttle or hair shampoo out of them. So according to you the shampoo and the shuttle are the same thing (or don't exist at all?) because they are made up of the same electrons, neutrons and protons?

298. One last thing, MR, if we are talking about logical thinking, then there are several errors in your thinking in terms of determinism and indeterminism. (I had them too)
     Obviously if classical determinism is true then there is no talk of free choice at all.
     Indeterminism - There is one major mistake in this concept
     Chance only generates alternative possibilities for thought and action.
     It is not the direct cause of actions.
     M.R. I am bringing you a link so that you can read it. It talks about misconceptions in the subjects of free choice, determinism, and randomness, so that you can read it. It is very interesting.
     http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html

299. Gidi:
     There are no paradoxes in quantum theory.
     Something that has paradoxes is not true.
     It is impossible to say that there are holes in your words because all in all this is one big guy without a shred of supporting evidence or logical consideration.

300. No, I did not come from a religious or ultra-orthodox home, I am 100 percent secular.
     It is clear to me that the majority of the scientific community believes that our consciousness is also nothing more than a certain arrangement of seals.
     Am I showing a lack of understanding on these issues?, ok, I already said kudos to you for discovering what consciousness is, all these years of talking about consciousness, about how it works, why, how much and all the surrounding questions and discussions, in the end, and this is acceptable to everyone He knows what consciousness is and neither can define it.
     Regarding the claim that I don't agree that atoms can create something complex - that's not true. I definitely agree that atoms are able to create a spaceship and any kind of generator, but when it comes to the feeling, it's clear here that it's something unusual (although it may be that it's all about arranging atoms) but right now We do not know how consciousness is created and how we experience something subjectively.
     Again, I repeat, I am bringing here some theories, even if they sound illogical to some, I make it more interesting by not agreeing with the author of the article (fully).
     Atoms ==> -molecules ==> -living cells ==> -emotions ==> consciousness ==> desires
     The consent shown above becomes uncondemned as it flows forward, especially in the final stages.
     MR You claim that my theories have holes in logic, even in quantum mechanics there are paradoxes, this does not make it wrong.
     If there is no free choice, and you are nothing more than atoms acting according to the laws of physics, then everything you say is not under your control, even your logic is forced upon you, since you have no choice but to think that way.
     In any case, I am withdrawing from this discussion, even so I knew that we would not be able to reach an understanding, just as until today they have not reached an understanding on these issues.

301. Student, you probably didn't understand what I meant to say.
     Names we give to certain things composed of other materials must be distinguished from what exists.

     Let's say that the elementary particles are protons, neutrons and electrons, so they exist, but an atom is just a word that briefly describes a proton+neutron+electron.

302. Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314183 ):
     enough!
     I'm tired of repeating myself and hearing no argument except "you can't know".
     I confess.
     I can't know anything.
     I already said that I can't even know for sure that I don't live in the Matrix.
     Aren't you easy on yourself?
     You simply avoid the discussion of arguments like you can't know and neither can I.
     OK!
     I said a thousand times!
     We can't know anything!
     The question now is whether we try to find out what is reasonable and what is not, what is beneficial and what is not - or do we constantly continue to claim the trivial claim that means nothing "we cannot know".
     In my opinion, this way that you stick to with all your heart is the avoidance of any effort - it is the ceaseless attempt to make it easier on yourself.
     And if we add to that everything that was said - we will be forgotten after two responses, even in the rare cases where it was understood, and claims like "because the atoms are not self-aware, so it is impossible to build something that is self-aware from them" are repeated again and again (and here is another time in the response https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314185 ) even though I made it clear to him a number of times that this is a nonsensical claim (and gave several examples in which the same "logic" fails) - it is clear why there is no point in the discussion.
     This discussion is so stupid that I decided to withdraw from it.

303. Gidi,
     It's nice of you that you make sure to illustrate in your comments the principled criticism that is voiced towards you, you're just good at it! 🙂

     Not only are you ignorant, wrong a lot and show a lack of understanding of the topics discussed, you are also not that smart (to say the least). If what you wrote about yourself is true, I'm afraid that your future at Bar Ilan is not going to be easy, especially your future in the legal profession, because although this profession does not require sticking to the facts and striving for the truth, and it is obvious that this part exists in you in an impressive way, still in this profession the ability to present arguments is required which at least look like they are logically coherent and thus you have proven yourself to be an abject failure.
     Here you have the opportunity to get information about questions that surely interest you from people who have a little more than a high school diploma above 9 and a 740 in psychometrics, but you insist on rambling on about things you don't understand anything about and miss every point of interest given to you by those who understand these subjects a little more than you. The loss is largely yours even if you don't see it yet.
     By the way, do you come from a religious home, maybe even ultra-Orthodox?

304. Gidi,

     A dead end indeed. If you can't understand that atoms form complex structures there are no more words. Would it be possible for atoms to fly into space against gravity? is it possible? That's logical?
     Yes, Gidi, spaceships are also made of atoms.

     Would it be possible for atoms to transmit information from one end of the earth to the other? Would it be possible for atoms to sit in front of a computer and type this answer? It doesn't make sense.

305. point,
     If there was no such thing as opaque, you wouldn't be able to write this comment. Your computer, for example, consists of many molecules and is built based on their chemical and physical understanding. Regarding molecules - and how they exist and there is a lot of evidence for their existence (for example, NMR and crystals) - you can find these in any university chemistry/physics faculty.

306. Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314181 ):
     Several differences between your hypothesis and mine:
     1. My hypothesis is based on a lot of facts and findings, your hypothesis is not based on anything
     2. Everything that has been understood so far in the world operates according to the laws of nature and I offer an answer that is based on them while you propose something indeterminate in which the only thing that is defined is that there is nothing else in the world that utilizes the same principles of action.
     3. The scientific community overwhelmingly adopts my approach and not yours

     In other words - in science there are only hypotheses because there is never proof and the claim that both my words and your words are hypotheses has no value.
     There are established hypotheses and there are unfounded hypotheses.
     Science prefers grounded statements.
     It is easy to know which group your hypothesis should be associated with and which group my hypothesis should be associated with.

     There are hypotheses based on entities known to science and there are hypotheses that invent new entities ad hoc. To deal with this trend, Ockham's razor was invented, which favors explanations that do not invent new entities ad hoc.
     Your hypothesis is based on new entities invented ad hoc which are in addition to all indefinite.

307. Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314180 ):
     Obviously, the intention is not for you to point to something you don't know and solemnly declare that it is not a normal physical process.
     Clarification for all the unconscious: I mean a phenomenon that is known to be not the result of the laws of nature and theirs alone.

308. Understand, it's not that I don't agree with the claim, I myself don't know what consciousness is, but I don't pretend to explain it in a way that's convenient for me, I'm not making it easy on myself.
     There are 2 things here, the first is that our consciousness and desires are an arrangement of seals, since such an arrangement can create consciousness and make skaters feel and know that they exist, that it cannot be explained that you want to eat ice cream, does it seem that the feeling itself is seals? This is your subjective experience that you will not measure, as far as we know.
     If these delusional things are true, then an arrangement of atoms, perhaps, can also create a will that is free - a particle has a will and it creates a phenomenon and then according to its will it dictates to the atoms where to move.
     Do you not agree that if seals can feel and be aware this is a phenomenon (bordering on a natural animal in terms of seals?)
     That is why super-consciousnesses can also be created that can decide in a way that is not related to his arrangement, again, maybe, not sure.
     The second possibility is that consciousness and will are something beyond the arrangement of atoms.

309. Apparently we have reached a dead end because some claim that atoms can be self-aware of wanting and feeling by the hocus pocus of a certain arrangement, then this is clearly illogical, and if this is true then it is also possible to have a product of free will, perhaps, and it is clear from the things here that those who claim that consciousness is an arrangement of atoms They can't say that, they don't know what consciousness is, what Point said in his response that you can take the tail of an elf with a cat's legs and make a potion for life from it that is equivalent to the claim that consciousness is an arrangement of atoms.

310. Gidi,

     If you don't agree that consciousness and desires are an "arrangement of atoms", do you have a slightly less vague counter-hypothesis than "downward causation"?

311. Regarding what you said about my claim that it can act contrary to the laws of nature, I did not understand my words correctly.. The chemical activity in the brain has a physical expression, but the feeling itself has no physical expression, and you cannot tell if our subjective thinking is affected by the laws of physics.
     The claim that an arrangement of atoms creates consciousness is even more delusional than my claims Michael, because you cannot prove, or even try to come close to solving what consciousness is. You state that consciousness is an "arrangement" of atoms.

312. point,
     Thank you for welcoming me into the world of real science.
     Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by saying there is no such thing as atom or molecules, can you explain?

313. In addition, everything I said is only a hypothesis, just like you hypothesize that people's consciousness and desires are an arrangement of atoms.

314. And yes, I can show you an example of something that is not exactly made up of atoms - consciousness Michael - until proven otherwise.

315. R. H. Good morning to the world of real science.
     Let alone molecules, not even atoms exist. There is no such thing as an atom in reality, we use it because it is convenient for us, describe properties of electrons around protons and neutrons (also just a convenient description until we know what is really there), and call this description an atom.

     Just because it's convenient for us doesn't make it sustainable.

316. dot (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314086 ):
     You certainly didn't invent the standard model.
     Believe me, I didn't suspect it even for a moment.
     So now you say that the standard model follows that there is nothing - only organized particles.
     This is also the opinion you have always expressed and I have already told you that it is pointless.
     It is true that all particles are organized but there is a difference between the different organizations and therefore they operate differently.
     I responded to this pointless claim of yours with this response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-309745

     There are particles, they have organization, there are the laws of nature, and there is the ultimate law of nature which is logic, and with the help of all these together you can do many interesting things even though you always claim that a computer and stone and consciousness are the same.
     Do you really want me to look for the comments where you claimed that consciousness is an illusion (and the comments where I proved to you that this is not the case - even logically because when you claim that consciousness is an illusion you have to vote for the governor)?

     So now you have decided to switch to dualism and as usual - you do it without any basis. You probably think that it is enough to call the words of the other side "delusional".

     You are welcome, then, to point to one example of something that is not a direct consequence of the laws of nature and the organization of atoms. one will be enough. It will, of course, also be enough for a Nobel Prize, but let's not divide the bear's skin before hunting.

     The truth is you are really confusing.
     in your response this (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-309743 ) - it is hard to know if you are again repeating the nonsense that there is no consciousness at all (and Gidi, without understanding, applauds you) or if you are again presenting a dualistic position.

     Feel free to tell us which of the two nonsenses you meant.

     Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314094 ):
     You just amaze me with your short memory.
     You already received the answer to your response in this response of mine (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-312204 ).
     In response to this, you started telling me that I don't know what a computer is and got blocked, you received explanations about how wrong you are, and even admitted that this response makes dust and ashes of your claim that properties of organized particles should also exist for the individual particles.
     All this happened behind the scenes in blocked comments. After you apologized, I see that you have returned to the method of exhaustion and you repeatedly bring up the same mistakes as an argument.

     Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314099 ):
     Your response is nothing more than a collection of baseless statements.
     I repeat: you did not make any argument here, you simply repeated and screamed the conclusion you are ordering me to reach.

     Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314105 ):
     This is just nonsense!
     I already explained why, but you repeat and declare that you have no problem with logical contradictions.
     The laws of nature work in a certain way, but you have no problem with them creating a mechanism that does not obey the way they work.
     Can you show me one example in nature of such a thing?
     Maybe you don't have a problem with them using particles and the laws of nature to draw a triangle that is a pentagon?
     What is this nonsense?

     Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314108 ):
     Ah ha!
     Now I understand you!
     If the laws of nature do not operate locally then anything can happen!
     Well, it's hard to argue with such "logic".
     So really, with such rules there can be a triangle that is both a pentagon and a Star of David and a fruit salad.
     Why didn't you say that before?!
     It must be useful for something!
     Maybe someone will build on this to create a ballistic missile interception mechanism that at the same time is also used as a birth control pill!

     Good.
     At this point I'm tired of reading the ramblings again so I'll end the response here.
     I see that Camila and R.H. Everything was explained to you nicely, but you decided in advance what the conclusion must be and you won't let the facts confuse you.

317. point,

     really? Atomic arrangements don't lead to anything new?
     Now you have single handedly killed all the science of chemistry in the world. Have you heard of molecules? Do they not constitute sealed arrangements?
     Aren't chemists who invent a new molecule creating something new?

318. Nice point you said, although the example is a bit unrelated, but you are still in the direction of my head.
     Listen, I can tell you that even if we continue to argue about this for another 1000 years, we will not (probably) reach a solution. This is an issue that people have been arguing about since they existed until today.
     Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no sense here (for me)
     Atoms ==> -molecules ==> -living cells ==> -emotions ==> consciousness ==> desires
     Atoms ==> -molecules ==> -living cells ==> -emotions ==> consciousness ==> desires== >free will.
     Who claims that the first makes sense and the second does not? Both cannot currently be explained by science or anyone else

319. Sealed arrangements cannot lead to anything new.
     What is witchcraft here? Put the legs of a bat with the tail of a black cat and we will get a magic potion that will make a dead person come back to life. That's about what you're suggesting.
     Those who believe in witchcraft will find another site in science that does not have witchcraft

320. One last thing Camila, I wrote the comments very quickly with disdain because I heard music, and I did 10 other things at the same moment or so, regarding the fact that you call me ignorant, for your information I am still a soldier (21 years old) but I graduated from school with a matriculation certificate which is not shameful No one 5 units in everything with an average above 9, I got a 740 on the psychometric the first time I took it, I'm going to study law next year at the university in Bar Ilan, so since you call me an idiot, look at yourself, what you're doing is playing with words and trying to sound intelligent, it's That I brought quotes to the website, these are not my opinions, but all in all I threw some material from all directions here, and if I want I can sound much more matter-of-fact than you, but I don't try.

321. And one more thing Camila, I didn't fall for any logical fallacy, I didn't say that it was definitely true, I just claimed that if unexplained qualities such as consciousness and will can appear from a certain arrangement of sealers, then free will can also be created (note that I can, I didn't say must) and even if I claimed that way, then I correct myself now

322. Camilla, first thing - I don't mean just the feeling of free will, but real free will.
     Second thing - regarding what I said about consciousness, it's just a quote from a physicist and it's not my opinion, I just brought something different here.
     Third thing, you don't know what consciousness is, hence the confusion here, you are desperately trying to convince that consciousness is a correct "arrangement" of atoms, but actually you know nothing about consciousness, how it is created, and how can a block of atoms in a correct "arrangement" bring feelings
     What can I tell you, what you claim makes a lot of sense - an arrangement of sealers can bring feelings, desires, awareness, etc.
     Although it does not make sense to the ordinary person, it can certainly be true, which I myself believe in, but if it is true, then the qualia of consciousness, which is a phenomenon of a block of atoms, can also create a will (not free, let's say) from the same arrangement of atoms (yes, yes Atoms want something) Therefore, a qualia of will that is free can be created - which is actually a phenomenon that dictates to those atoms how to move, there is nothing supernatural here, no more than atoms create desires (which also has no explanation and can sound supernatural to some of us.)

323. Gidi,
     Among other things, you fail with a simple logical fallacy - the fact that certain arrangements of atoms allow properties A, B and C (whether because this is factually verified or whether we have no reason to think otherwise) does not mean that every property can be obtained in arrangements of atoms and in particular it does not mean that the property D can be obtained. This is especially true when there are good arguments against programming the existence of feature D.

     From your responses it is clear that you do not understand what you are talking about and in particular the scientific issues related to the subject. You rely on quotes that you copy from other places and people without understanding their content and meaning, without finding out what those sources are and what their reliability is. But apart from the ignorance you demonstrate, at the same time you show the ability to raise arguments and think rationally at the level of a kindergarten child (like for example this sentence you wrote: "You claim that consciousness is made of atoms? It's a ridiculous thing according to logic, is consciousness really made of atoms?" or this sentence: Do you know what I think? That awareness is not a human thing at all, after all it also exists in animals, could it be that awareness is something fundamental in the world?" and there are many other pearls). You also confuse in your last comment between the experience of free will (qualia) and the question of the existence of objective free will, these are two different things. There is no way that true free will will not exist, but at the same time there will be a feeling as if our will is free (and apparently this is indeed what the particular arrangement of our atoms maintains, judging by the knowledge that scientific research provides us on the subject, knowledge, as opposed to gut feelings, opinions of laymen and things which may or may not seem logical to Mr. Gidi). No matter how you spin it, you are proposing a being (superconsciousness) that is supernatural (does not arise from the structure of matter and the laws of physics known to us) and in this respect is similar to God or the Spaghetti Monster or the Matrix that M.R. He mentioned in his comments, that is, filler material that we don't have access to and he apparently explains (although in practice he doesn't explain anything) the parts that we still don't know how they work fully. Everything known so far indicates precisely that this type of filler does not exist, so what makes you claim with such determination that such a filler must exist? (This is a rhetorical question, I think I know what makes you make your wrong and confused claims and it's certainly not out of a desire to understand the issue, so your answer to my response is not required here either and you can feel free to ignore it).

324. Wow Gidi, you contradicted yourself about 10 times in the last 3 posts.
     Why don't you sit down for a moment and form a reasoned and well-founded opinion?

     I definitely agree with your statement:

     Atoms ==> -molecules ==> -living cells ==> -emotions ==> consciousness ==> desires== >free will.

     There are a few more steps in the middle, but as a very simplistic schematic description it's fine.

325. Immortals create-molecules-living cells-emotions-consciousness-desires-free will.
     What doesn't make sense here? The fact that a block of atoms creates a qualia of will which is a phenomenon but not the atoms themselves, so can a qualia of free will be created which dictates where the atoms will move according to the laws of physics.
     We know that the laws of physics are not completely local, therefore anything can be, and moreover we do not know what consciousness is, and no physicist can say what it is and how it will be possible at all, and the explanation of years is an "arrangement" of seals that is acceptable to me, but it can also create qualia of desire Free, apparently we have reached a dead end.

326. If I take atoms now, let's say billions, I will sit down and with very advanced equipment (which doesn't even exist today) I will sit down and build some sort of arrangement for myself so one day the atoms will start to feel...
     This is your claim, again I have no problem with it, but if it is really true then free will can also be created because of a correct arrangement, and your example regarding calculation is not relevant since this is about feelings and awareness and not calculation.
     Pay attention to the difference - I do not claim that a certain arrangement can be contrary to the laws of physics, but its product, which is awareness and free will, they determine where the atoms will move according to the laws of physics - but their decision no longer depends on the arrangement of these atoms in freedom - which is not forced by these puppies, just like the arrangement More consciousness that we do not know what it is and for sure its expression (emotion) does not exist in the physical world.

327. I have no problem with the fact that a correct arrangement of atoms can even create consciousness, but if that is true, there is no reason in the world that this or that arrangement cannot create super consciousness that is free, aren't you claiming that consciousness is made of atoms? It's a ridiculous thing according to logic, is consciousness really made of atoms? Whoever says such things in interpretation does not know consciousness, therefore tries to explain it in such ways.
     And again if it is true and an arrangement of atoms can create consciousness, will, feeling, then such an arrangement can also create a qualia of free will just as there is a qualia of consciousness, and you cannot contradict this, because your claim that consciousness (subjective feeling) is made of atoms is the most illusory.

328. Well, the previous comment is awaiting approval, so in the meantime:

     Gidi and point,

     You guys, I guess, accept the fact that a computer is made of atoms? So why is it so difficult to understand that the brain is a very very very complex computer?
     And just as many atoms, as Gidi said, in the context of an airplane can cross continents, and many atoms in the context of a computer can calculate what is the square root of 2, also many atoms in the context of a fly brain can calculate complex aerodynamic calculations, and even atoms in the context of a human brain can be self-aware.

     It's all a matter of their correct arrangement.

329. point,

     Let's replace the word consciousness in your response with the word calculation (when referring to a calculation made on a computer, let's say root 2)

     "Michael, think about electrical signals
     Each signal has a defined position at a defined time.
     So what your delusional claim says is that if you arrange the positions of the signals that will pass through certain locations in space at certain times, a root 2 calculation will be obtained!!

     Why is this weird? Because an analogy can be made to an electric signal, instead of an electric current you will take a water current.
     So your claim is equivalent to the claim that if you arrange water pipes in a certain way, then the flow of water will create a root 2 calculation in them!"

     Do you understand now?

330. Michael:

     By the way, the feeling of happiness does not exist in the physical world either, it is only your feeling, you can describe the chemical occurrence in the brain, but you cannot say that the happiness that a person feels exists somewhere, that is why this is more than a collection of particles, since he is speaking in the imagination, something that is definitely not physical, Rather, it is a product of qualia, therefore if this is true, free will can also be created just like joy, sadness, consciousness, etc. And this does not contradict logic at all if the first claim is true, that emotion and consciousness and sensation are created from several particles in one or another "arrangement".
     And if you claim that it doesn't make sense, then maybe it's just your logic test.

331. Crazy things? True, in some places they are delusional, but the fact that particles create thinking and consciousness as if the atoms are self-aware is delusional on the same level, so there are 2 possibilities here, either the arrangement of the particles is correct, or there is something beyond that, the idea that the arrangement of particles can create consciousness and feeling may be true, but So a sign that if consciousness can be created (a type of God or something beyond an atom surrounded by an electron) then it can be created from the qualia of free will, and you cannot say what is possible and what is not possible in terms of arranging atoms, if I were to make a claim that consciousness and its thinking can be created before a human being Anyone who doesn't understand science in depth claims that I'm talking nonsense, so even humanity has limited knowledge about physics and these processes.

332. According to me? I didn't invent the standard model.

333. point:
     Your words are delusional and I will not address them beyond that.
     Of course they are also in contradiction to your constant claim that there is nothing in the world but arrangements of atoms.

334. Gidi (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-314026):
     Your words in this response are clearly illogical.
     Not everything can be made from atoms.
     Soon you will ask us why it is not possible to create from atoms the devil and God, the Holy Spirit, a being that can live in the heart of the sun and forms that feed on eating space.
     As I mentioned - besides the atoms, there are also the laws of nature.
     That was the argument in the first place.
     Have you already forgotten?!

335. Michael, think about electrical signals
     Each signal has a defined position at a defined time.
     So what your delusional claim says is that if you arrange the positions of the signals that will pass through certain locations in space at certain times, you will receive consciousness!!

     Why is this weird? Because an analogy can be made to an electric signal, instead of an electric current you will take a water current.
     So your claim is equivalent to the claim that if you arrange water pipes in a certain way then the flow of water will create consciousness in them!
     Now what is missing is for all kinds of other delusional people to come along with the simple plumbing theory and explain to us that we get consciousness thanks to the water we drink, because water has consciousness.

336. Michael:

     This does not mean that free choice works against the laws of physics - this same "arrangement" of atoms causes the phenomenon of free choice - that it decides where the atoms will move - everything works according to the laws, only that free choice decides where they will turn, it makes sense, because you claim that an arrangement of Sealers can create feelings and desires so this is also theoretically possible.

337. Michael: Please answer me about that

     A point for thought, go in and read it all
     Let's say it's true, and there is nothing other than "atoms" and electrons in our world, so the explanation of many things is this: in fact, a nicely designed chess board is nothing more than atoms "arranged" in some way, and the colors we see "is an arrangement of atoms" finite, and even The human body, these living cells, is a certain arrangement of atoms, and even our emotions are an "arrangement" of atoms, and even our awareness is a certain "arrangement" of atoms, now except that it doesn't really sound logical about emotions and consciousness, because an emotion is something we experience, And how can a single atom experience? So many atoms in a block are able to experience feeling and even be aware of the object right? So if all this is really true, it can be said that anything can be created by the same arrangement of atoms, so why can't the phenomenon of free will happen because of the same "arrangement" of atoms? After all, this is the condemnation just as a group of sealers together can create feelings, experience, awareness, vision, including the very "feeling" that is already something that logically tells us is immaterial, so the same can be said that a very certain arrangement can create a free choice, or "to break free from the chains of physics"
     what do you say?

338. Gidi:
     Certainly consciousness is not limited to humans.
     I said that it is a consequence of evolution and in many discussions I showed that it exists at one level or another in all vertebrates.
     But there is a limit!
     Stones have no consciousness.
     I didn't listen to all of Amit's words (it's an Indian name, not Hebrew, and certainly not pronounced with the letter A) and I don't intend to do so.
     I stopped listening as soon as I realized what kind of person this was.
     If you want an interpretation of his words you must ask for it elsewhere.

339. Gidi,

     you know what i think That breathing is not something human at all, after all it also exists in animals, could it be that breathing is something fundamental in the world?

340. you know what i think That awareness is not something human at all, after all it also exists in animals, could it be that awareness is something fundamental in the world?
     And one more thing, is what Amit says somehow related to Schrödinger's cat? (Amit is basing his words on real things, isn't he?)

341. Gidi:
     He is a religious preacher.
     Maybe it's his private religion but it doesn't matter.
     Consciousness that has existed since time immemorial is a form of God (and also a form of hallucination).
     Note that because of the link to quantum theory it is not just awareness (which, as mentioned - is a baseless claim in itself) but one whose very existence made the world possible.
     If you read on Wikipedia what he does, you will see that this is a man whose writings actually copy the ideas of Hinduism (which, as you know, was formulated before anyone knew anything about quantum theory) and those of Theosophy, which is also a type of religion (it is not for nothing that the name of this doctrine begins with the word Theo, which means "religion ").
     True - we are not talking about religions in the sense of a set of rules of behavior - but we are talking about religious beliefs.

342. One more thing, from what I understand Amit Goswami is talking about consciousness, similarly to Schrödinger's cat, what is this paradox - that as long as we opened the box in which the cat is then it lives and dies at the same time, and our very measurement determines its state? Is that what Amit means by and large?

343. To be honest, that's what I thought at first, hahaha, he really went off the rails (John Helgin), but regarding Amit Goswami, he is really not a religious preacher like we thought at first, he doesn't believe in God at all, he claims that there has always been awareness (it's not God) and he also claims that awareness is a fundamental matter In the world, that's all he claims and he bases his words on knowledge of physics and not just regret, he's been a scientist for about 50 years, let's say he's not stupid.

344. Also read the reaction of the scientific community to the film "What the Bleep" in which John Heglin participated:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

345. Read about John Heglin and decide for yourself if he is not - at the height of simplicity - a man who went off the rails:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin

346. Gidi:
     In my opinion we have no reason to think that qualia are not blindly affected by the laws of physics.
     I also explained this to you in one of the previous comments (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-313128) where I also expressed my opinion on the role of the qualia in the whole mechanism.
     The fact that we sometimes make painful choices does not change the picture per se.
     We have all kinds of impulses and sometimes the opposing impulses are also strong and the "battle" between them is difficult.

347. Everything we hear should be taken with a limited guarantee. (almost)

348. R.H
     Regarding that colleague Goswami, note that he is a senior member of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is on the border between science and pseudo-science with very controversial studies, so you should take his words with limited responsibility.

349. His name is John Hagelin, a well-known physicist

350. Here is another knowledgeable physicist in the world who says that free choice can exist, and he is really not a religious preacher, this is also a short video:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&feature=related

351. I understand, right now according to "logic" there really isn't much room for "free" choice
     From here there are 2 possibilities, the first is that physics acts on everything in a "blind" manner, and therefore even our decisions are not free, nor is consciousness, nor anything, this is a deterministic aphorism with randomness.
     The second possibility is that awareness itself is created from the physical process, but its derivative what is called "qualia" (what you experience) is not blindly influenced by the laws of physics - you can call it - freed from the "shackles of physics" which sounds a little illogical, but there is something in it, Because physics cannot and does not come close to explaining the concept of consciousness or anything at all (it is clear to you that it does not consist of matter)
     I'll give you an example from life - consciousness can be affected by the "arrangement" of the atoms in the brain, say from severe hunger, but even if they put food on your plate after you haven't eaten for 2 days, you can still choose not to eat for another reason, since consciousness can be affected by the laws of physics - But they don't force it on her for good.
     What do you think of the possibilities, one of which is sure to be true.
     There is another possibility, but it is a bit delusional, that the electron does not disintegrate in a random way, these "of its own free will" - they will answer even the electron has a will - but I don't think that is true.

352. Gidi:
     As I said, quantum theory has several interpretations.
     The common interpretation is that these are simply lotteries (completely random) with a known distribution.
     It also has an interpretation that is completely deterministic (Bohm's interpretation) that is completely non-local.
     According to Boehm's interpretation, everything is deterministic and there is no question of free will at all.
     According to the popular interpretation - as I have already explained probably five times in the current debate - these are purely lotteries and therefore - although it is true that the future is not determined - there is no freedom here (because a lottery is not freedom).
     Just for the sake of illustration - on the question of whether to sit or remain standing - suppose there is a quantum lottery according to which in half of the cases you will sit and in half of them you will remain standing.
     When you are faced with the choice - a lottery takes place in your mind and if you are drawn to sit - then you will sit - you had no freedom of choice. Likewise if you are lucky enough to stay standing.
     It's not you who chose. A physical event at the quantum level (that your mind has no control over) chose for you.

353. Or it is more correct to ask how to know the direction because it is correct to discuss free choice, is this the direction of determinism and indeterminism?
     In my opinion, from what I understand, if the uncertainty principle is true, then there is nothing in the past that "forces" something to happen in the future.
     Is this direction relevant to the problem?

354. I didn't know he was a religious preacher, I thought he was a physicist who bases his words on science, but if you say he is talking nonsense then it could be.
     From what I understood from him, he claimed that awareness is a fundamental matter, awareness is not a derivative of chemical activity in the brain, it is a more fundamental thing.
     If what Amit said is not true, what can support freedom of choice in the matter of quantum mechanics?

355. Gidi:
     I started watching the movie and I was hooked.
     He is just a religious preacher in disguise and like all religious preachers he lies.
     What is "clear as day" according to him is the opposite of the conclusion of everyone whose research results he cites.
     Do you believe even for a second his claim that it is consciousness that determines what will happen?
     If so - how do you respond to what I said in my previous response?

     I must say that it is possible to invent any delusional answers to the things I said.
     Illusory answers can be given to anything.
     As I said - there are no proofs in science, so it is always possible to invent some kind of hallucination that would agree with the facts and that would be impossible to contradict.

     After all, even the hallucination that you live in the matrix and your whole world is a false imagination planted in you by the computer operators, you cannot contradict.

356. Gidi:
     I will watch the movie soon, but the religious origins of his words can also be learned from what is written about him on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami ).

357. It's short, about 7 minutes

358. I just don't understand the quantum hiccups in depth, because I didn't study it, I just have a little general knowledge, that's why I don't understand.
     So you are saying that this theory will only apply if there is "God"? Because I don't remember him talking about him at all, or even mentioning him, maybe he meant that he was always watching?

     If you want, take a link to talk to him on YouTube:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA&feature=feedlik

359. Gidi:
     I said why the viewer is not necessary.
     If you don't believe in God or some other spaghetti monster then the explanation is really easy.
     As mentioned - the very formation of conscious observers involves the collapse of a wave function before they were created and this means that there is no need for a conscious observer for the wave function to collapse.
     What is not clear here and why should I go back and explain it?
     In general - when is consciousness "conscious" enough to cause a wave function to collapse?
     Do only sufficiently intelligent people cause it?
     What about people with mental retardation?
     What about monkeys?
     what about cats
     What about bacteria?
     In fact all living things can only live because wave functions are constantly collapsing around them.

     The measuring devices that measure the phenomena that the viewer observes - work even in his absence and cause the collapse of the wave function in any case.
     Take a device that fires photons at a photographic plate.
     The impact of the photon on the photographic plate is a measurement of its position and it causes this position to be defined (causes the collapse of the wave function).
     From the claim that consciousness is the one that causes the collapse, it appears that when the device is turned on in a room without an observer - a collapse of the wave function will not occur.
     But what if the viewer later enters the room?
     He will still see dots on the photographic board.
     And even though he would see dots on the board - he wouldn't know which photon hit which dot. He only knew in general at which points photons hit.
     So what caused the wave function to collapse?

     This whole idea of ​​the need for a conscious observer is an idea that religious people who make science kradom to dig into distort in order to claim that there is always an observer and that this observer is God.

360. I know that Simpolinski is a physicist, you are right about the fact that in this kind of debate arguments and proofs should be brought and not theories that have no basis such as downward causality as I brought it up, but I realized that there is no point in talking about it anymore because it has no basis in the scientific world.
     And so I also brought you the name of a physicist, who explains his opinion on the matter.
     Now I want to ask you something, Amit claimed that the observer cannot be ignored, so how can we state that there has not been awareness in this world since time immemorial in some form, or claim that awareness is not an "observer"?

361. Gidi:
     You probably don't know that Sompolinski is a physicist and that he understands quantum theory.
     As I said - if you want to have a substantive debate - you need to bring arguments (and preferably ones you understand) and not people's names.

362. Listen, I don't know about this exactly teleologically, I think it's something related to purpose or God, but I don't really believe in God, nor do I think there is a "purpose" to the world, I'm just trying to understand if the concept of "free choice" is physically possible, and apparently right now there is a situation That such a choice is possible, Amit Goswami is not some philosopher or religious man, he is a scientist and a physicist, he bases his words on quantum mechanics - the most mathematical thing that exists today.
     There are other scientists who claim that he is not the only one, he is simply an example.
     Simpolinski - he seems to be a very intelligent person and understands the matter, but he too can be wrong, and not everything he claims or believes is a sign that it is true. I think for the purpose of the debate it is more relevant to talk about physicists and descriptions in quantum mechanics, something that has a foundation in the world, compared to causality from above which is a total theory without any findings so far.

363. Gidi:
     There is no evidence in science.
     There simply is not.
     So amit goswami (who has no serious discovery associated with his name) says something and most other experts (including, for example, Feynman) say something else.
     It is clear that amit goswami is motivated by religious and not scientific motives.
     And by the way, it is also clear that relying on the name of this or that person is not supposed to be a substitute for dealing with the arguments I have put forward.

     I just saw his response ravine And I see that because the discussion has been prolonged - people don't follow the context in which things are said.

     I remind you that the subject is free will and the whole matter of causality from above is presented here as an argument that supposedly enables it.
     This confusion stems precisely from the blurring of the boundaries that Eyal makes between a real reason and an explanation or description.
     I find at least some comfort in the fact that Professor Sompolinski agrees with me.

     By the way, the exact same confusion is also behind the reference to evolution in a teleological way.

364. Do you really think that a physicist like amit goswami who has a great understanding of quantum mechanics does not know what you stated in your last comment? Wasn't there always awareness? Do you think he claims that the ad is the viewer because he just feels like it? Everything you say is taken into account but it still doesn't mean anything, just your personal opinion.
     And regarding the exhaustion, I'm not trying to exhaust you, that's really not the goal.. You simply wrote an article that claims something that has not been proven and does not come close to being so, therefore you need to stand behind what you write, and you really fail to convince me, that's why I'm responding here, for that There is the option to respond.

365. How do you think the world once existed without awareness? Maybe she was always there in some form?
     How do you know that the ad is not a "viewer"?

366. Gidi:
     "Quantum mechanics is more related to the issue of free choice than anyone thought,"

     Isn't that a bit pretentious? How do you know what everyone thought?! Do you know more than everyone else?
     You overdo it!

     The rest is just nonsense.
     Quantum mechanics has all kinds of interpretations and it's clear from your words that you don't know any of them in depth, but you allow yourself to make a claim like awareness is the observer.
     There are indeed some Newegists who claim this, but this is in the wrong interpretation and the world existed long before there was any awareness in it, and if awareness was needed to cause the wave function to collapse, it would never have collapsed and no awareness would have been created.
     The wave function collapses due to measurement and this can be done even without the involvement of consciousness.
     All components of the single slit and double slit experiments work exactly the same way even when there is no one in the room but you probably don't understand what I mean.

     I really suggest you stop making statements in areas you don't understand.

     The continuation of the response is also based on misunderstandings and I don't have the strength to deal with it.

367. Gidi:
     After such a long exhaustion - I have already stopped delving into the answers because of the slim chance that I will find anything in them.
     It's not because I can't answer but because the attrition method eventually works for me too.
     If you say that there is something new in your last answer - I will read it and if this is indeed the case - I will also refer to it.

368. R.H.:
     In my opinion this is really far from answering the definition but I have already explained it as best as I could.
     In my opinion there is also a difference between the atoms that drive the car and the car that drives the atoms and as I have already explained before - in terms of explanation - these are simply explanations at different levels and as an explanation - both are legitimate.
     On the other hand - when talking about causality - this is not the case.
     Professor Sompolinski says the same thing.
     It is not a case that they built the car from atoms and that they took a car and disassembled it into atoms.

369. You don't relate to what I wrote in the last comment? You didn't answer it, you just choose to ignore what you can't answer.

370. Gidi:
     I will not return to the debate with you, which has long since passed to the point of exhaustion.
     It's been a long time since you said anything that hasn't been said and answered before.

371. Do you know "the viewer affects the observation"?
     Quantum mechanics is more related to the issue of free choice than anyone thought,
     There are physicists such as Amit Gosami who have been in the field for many years and know quantum mechanics in depth and they say first of all that quantum mechanics is the most accurate and mathematical science of our world, and every movement of objects can be explained on the level of possibility, and not what happened by itself.
     Quantum mechanics only calculates possibilities and probabilities, and after that comes the question of who chooses between these possibilities and possibilities, when the rest is ultimately chosen where the object will move, and then we see directly that awareness belongs here, we cannot ignore awareness because it is the "viewer" who is part of the world but he is not Belongs to quantum mechanics, since it can only describe the object and not the subject, and from here they got the idea that the subject should be something more fundamental, awareness is something fundamental, awareness is part of "being" that objects are part of it, but not all of it.
     These objects can only be described in terms of possibility and probability. And quantum mechanics succeeds in giving these possibilities.
     Awareness is something "revealing" because there is no mathematical definition for the subject in this science, only for the object. (and only that they are possible) The question of who the guy is still remains, and when we understand this we see that the "guy" is free from any constraint, there is freedom of choice.
     This was said by physicists of quantum mechanics, and not by some philosopher, or man of religion. If you want to read about him, he is a physicist who knows quantum mechanics, his name is Amit Goswami
     And there are quite a few such physicists.

372. from the devil,

     You say: "The claim of causality from above is a claim that says that there is something that arises - not from the behavior of the components of the system - but only from the entire whole - such that the components alone would not cause it, but the whole does cause it because it is controlled by additional laws that are not a direct result of the behavior of the components. "

     This definition violates exactly what I described. Cells or molecules or atoms in your body are not able to jump a meter from one place to another. But as a whole you are able to leap, so you made them do things they couldn't do on their own. After all, you have "causality from above". This argument is of course also valid for a car without any awareness that while it is driving, all its atoms do something that they would not do alone.
     In any case it is so trivial and does not support any claim by Gidi and his ilk that there is something special outside of nature in awareness.

     ravine,
     I agree with you. Causality is in our explanation. Whether the car's atoms drive it or the car drives the atoms depends on our definitions. So this whole story of causality from above is quite far-fetched in my opinion.
     However, you should also remember that in order to understand how a system works, you need to know and understand all its components, the interaction between them and how they build the overall system. It is not possible to understand a system such as the heart without understanding how muscle cells work, on the other hand it is not possible to understand the operation of the heart just by looking at the individual cells.
     That is, the understanding of the micro and the macro complement each other and neither of them can be given up.

373. I will give an illustrative example from the world of computers:
     If I write a computer program that manipulates bits there are countless ways and levels in which I can describe the operation of the program. It is said to be written in an object-oriented language such as Java. When the program ran on a particular machine, I could describe the operation of the program at the bit level, at the machine language level, at the level of the elite language in which the program was written. Neither level will be more accurate than the other, they are all equally valid in this respect. Why is it still better to describe the program at the top level? First of all because of the simplicity but not only. When this program will run on another machine, the explanation for questions related to the program's running, such as why this bit changed from 0 to 1, will be different from machine to machine at the lower level. On the other hand, the explanation at the top level will remain completely the same in a way that does not depend on the specific machine, that is, an explanation at the top level captures the essence of the program (or the phenomenon) much more closely

374. R.H.:

     Because causality cannot be inferred from observations it is model dependent. The human brain as well as science in general builds models of the world and the term causality is only valid for these models.
     The choice of how to model phenomena in the world is not only a matter of accuracy but also a matter of convenience and elegance. A simple model is often better than a complicated model even if slightly more accurate.
     Therefore the example you gave is an example of downward causality and it is neither more nor less realistic than other causality. There are phenomena, in fact the vast majority of the phenomena that science deals with, that the model that describes them does not refer to the lower levels at all, which for every need and interest are affected no less and no more by the upper levels than the opposite.
     A model in which the hand moves particles is a physical model for anything and everything that will surely be more useful than one in which the hand is described by the particles of which it is composed. Mr. Roschild will say that this is only a matter of simplifying explanations, but simplifying explanations is at the heart of science and is not a trivial matter. Causality cannot be divided into true causality and causality for simplification purposes. Causality is a tool with which the brain deconstructs and simplifies the world

375. Let us assume that such causality does not exist even though
     As for it not being observed in nature - it is more or less clear - if it is true or exists in the world, it only happens in highly sophisticated systems - such as humans.
     But let's assume that causality from above is not true, this still does not mean that without it free will does not exist or cannot exist.
     The focus on free will should be done on the plane known to us, according to the physics known to man today, there is no negation of free will from a physical point of view, since the events of the past do not force the events of the future. -which determinism immediately rules out).
     There are physicists who believe that a person's awareness is not a derivative of brain activity - these are a type of law that exists in the world - I didn't understand then, that's exactly it.
     I will ask you if randomness exists in the world, but what causes or who causes that sometimes the electron will disintegrate within a minute and sometimes within 10 minutes? It is impossible to know these things. What is certain is that physics itself does not rule out free will.
     Again, we have to be careful about free will - we may not mean the same will, for the purpose of the definition:
     Free will means that given the same situation exactly one to one (theoretically) the person can perform more than one action (and not out of the randomness of quantums) these out of a decision and of awareness.
     Your claims regarding the current passing through the brain do not refute free will at all - these simply show that it can be deceived (mechanism) and the effect of the current is not on the consciousness but on the will - there is a difference - even if we feel happy it is not consciousness - the consciousness experiences the feeling But the consciousness is not the emotion - therefore if a current can change "desire" to make it happy or sad it does not affect the consciousness itself.
     Think about it for a moment - if you are hungry - it has nothing to do with consciousness, it is a certain emotion that your consciousness experiences, consciousness can experience many emotions at the same time, but the emotion can definitely be influenced.

376. Gidi:
     Although Sompolinski also mobilizes the argument of locality to justify his claim that causation from above is not possible at all, but the basic argument is nevertheless the fact that top-down causation has never been observed in nature and therefore there is no reason to assume that it exists and such an assumption is simply a variation on the flying spaghetti monster.

     Personally - I think that the argument of locality is not really important and that even if there are laws in nature that are not local (among us - there really are some! The coordination between systems intertwined in quantum theory is not a local phenomenon!) - there will still not be causality from above because all in all it will be necessary to take into account, beyond the factors the locals, also the non-local factors.

377. R.H.:

     No.

     Also according to the quote you gave, the claim of causality from above is a claim that says that there is something that arises - not from the behavior of the system's components - but only from the whole complex - such that the components alone would not cause it but the complex does cause it because it is controlled by additional laws that are not a direct result of behavior the ingredients.

     I repeat - you cannot find a realistic example of causality from above.

     The example you described is realistic and therefore also not an example of causality from above.

     Causality from above is not defined as causality coming from an external factor to the system.
     Therefore - if the body and the stone are outside the system, this is not an example
     If the body and the stone are within the system then what you are describing is causality from below like any causality that exists in nature. The body is not the whole system but a component or a collection of components within it. So is the stone.
     Both, like the water, are governed by the laws of nature that determine their behavior and the effect of this behavior on the behavior of the water.

     As in the example I gave with the air pressure and the winds that those who do not understand may interpret as causation from above when it is only an explanation from above, one could see the waves in the water (regardless of the factor that created them) as the cause of the movement of the molecules.
     This could be called causality from above if that were the case.
     But factually - this is not the case because the causality is the opposite and the waves are created as a result of the individual molecules and the interrelationships that nature imposes on them.

378. It is not something outside of nature, it is a phenomenon of a macro system that affects the micro and not the other way around.
     This is a claim that has no findings today. (Not even refutations)
     Michael, look Simpolinski talks about this phenomenon, he himself does not believe in it, because of the locality in the laws of physics (in his opinion) not all physicists agree with him.
     Again, I am not asserting with any force that such causality does exist, I am only bringing you theories and claims that are heard by scientists themselves.
     What does Michael think causes the electron to randomly break up? Once after a minute and once after 10 minutes? It is true that it is random but in the end it is something or someone that causes it.
     R. H. A theoretical example of downward causation - the atoms in my brain cause consciousness and sensations, this is the derivative of those chemical actions in the brain, so they create consciousness, but it is itself a qualia (from a phenomenon) that the causality comes partially from and not only from a layer of atoms - it can be Just like our eye sees 3 colors and then there is a phenomenon and we see a different color, and there is no explanation for it.

379. from the devil,

     I bothered and searched a bit what the term causality means from above.
     Here is one of the definitions (from the website: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html)

     Downward causation can be defined as a converse of the reductionist principle above: the behavior of the parts (down) is determined by the behavior of the whole (up), so determination moves downward instead of upward.

     According to this definition - the behavior of the part (or for that matter the particle) results from the behavior of the whole and not the other way around. According to this definition what I described is correct. If I wave my hand, the rule (the body) has resulted in a change in position, speed, momentum and whatever you want of the particles that make it up.

     So either I'm missing something here or it's completely trivial. It is true that sometimes the definition appears as: "something outside of nature affects nature downwards". However, in this definition it is not clear to me what it is outside of nature and why it is above and not below nature 🙂 ?

380. R.H.:
     Sompolinski explains in his lecture what this is all about.
     I also tried to do this in some of the responses.
     The problem is that it is difficult to explain in a serious and logical way something that logic says cannot exist.
     Therefore - your example is not an example of causality from above.
     You will never find an example of causality from above because there is no causality from above in the world.

     Gidi won't find an example either, but it doesn't matter to him. He will not let reality spoil his theory.

381. No, this is not causality from above.

382. Gidi and Machel,

     I will thank you and make sure that I really do not understand what you mean by causality from above. I ask again, if I throw a stone from place to place and thereby cause atoms and other microscopic particles to move from place to place, is this causality from above?

383. Mr. Rothschild, the example you brought with the spirit has nothing to do with what I said.
     Not everything that cannot be explained - that is, there is a downward causality in it, maybe it only exists in a very complex system like the human, so we don't know yet if it exists or not.

     For example awareness may be such a phenomenon of downward causality, no one knows yet.
     I hear ridiculous claims all the time about consciousness also from people who think they understand everything and know all the answers, claiming delusional things such as that consciousness exists because of the level of complexity in the brain, these are ridiculous arguments.
     Again, I am not claiming that downward causality definitely exists - maybe there are other things unknown to humanity and how we perceive the concept of free will - but to cancel it and say that it does not exist based only on a few physical findings is also a wrong approach.
     It's like I'll tell you even if there is real quantum uncertainty in the world as it sounds true randomness will answer, still who or what ultimately decides the randomness and the final result where the electron will go?
     There are many unknown things.
     Also, the example with Libet's experiment does not say anything about free will and does not even come close to it, and even today after thousands of such experiments there is no agreement or consensus regarding its findings.
     I reinforce Moshe's words, in your article I did not find a proper definition (in my opinion) of free will or what it is at all.

384. Mr. Rothschild
     As far as I know I have only responded once. to your article.
     Although it is possible that other times that my name appears it was the Great Spirit or the aliens or just someone else with a separate will of his own.
     On your advice, I read your article again and even looked through it carefully and unfortunately I still could not see where and how you interpret the essence of desire.
     Apart from troublesome philosophical philosophies, I have not found a proper definition or even an explanation.
     Maybe I skipped it again unwillingly or you skipped it willingly or unwillingly who knows?

385. Gidi:
     As I said (and as Professor Sompolinski also said) - there is no basis for the claim of downward causation.
     Such "causality" may have value in simplifying explanations, but everything that is "above" derives from what is "below" and never the other way around.

     By the way - there is no place in nature (and not only in the brain) where causality from above has been found.
     As mentioned, there are some explanations (for example - the wind flow as a result of the differences in air pressure) but in practice - each air molecule gets its direction and speed of movement from its collisions with other molecules and not from "air pressure".
     The explanation based on the air pressure is our way of expressing the derivation of the average phenomenon from the average data, but it is not the real reason for the movement.

386. The physical explanation for this claim is simple: in elaborate and complex systems the influence of the micro laws on a partial macroscopic system.
     This is not the main point, I will give you an example: there are phenomena in our world that have no explanation at the microscopic level, there is a claim that says that when there is a complex elaborate system (like man) then phenomena are created, and those phenomena are completely unaffected by the level of atomic (micro) physics, they will answer My thought was that I wanted to buy a car, so it's not because of the atomic and chemical activity alone, but my feeling lowered the causality down because of the "phenomenon" of the desire, it caused the particles to move in my mind.

     Read about it in English downward causation

387. Gidi,
     It is not clear to me what you mean by downward causation. What is so special about a macro system affecting the micro?
     When you wave your hand, all the molecules and the atoms that make them up and the protons/neutrons/electrons that make up the atoms and the quarks that make them up are affected, aren't they?
     Another example, a kilometer-sized particle accelerator affects the movement of subatomic particles. Is that what you call downward causation? And if so, then what is special about it and, moreover, what is not physical about it?

388. When I said that consciousness is not affected by physics, I meant causation that goes down, and not some supernatural activity - you can see causation that goes down as a physical explanation as well.
     It can be said that a very complex system creates at some point phenomena (also physical) that do not come only from the micro level. This is what I claimed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

389. Moses (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-313380):
     Are you trying to tell us that despite all the comments you've made here - you still haven't read the article you're commenting on?

390. Yesterday I almost didn't have time to visit the site and when I came back today I discovered that there was at least one good thing that came out of Gidi's comments and those were the comments given to him by the other commenters.
     It's a shame that he didn't read them himself, but I enjoyed them a lot - and especially the link that Camila gave, which I find appropriate to repeat and present here:
     https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011

391. R. H.,
     I believe that Gidi has already proven to us that he has no problem with logical contradictions. He belongs to what I call the group of people who try to keep their minds too open, and when they try to keep their minds too open what happens is that the mind falls out:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg
     Another proof that Gidi's mind has long been out of his head is the fact that he claims that it is impossible to achieve what has already been demonstrated and achieved in science. He demonstrates very well the thought patterns (if you can call it that) that are characteristic of the anti-science of their kind, among whom there are many similarities, whether they are religious people, conspiracists or New Agers of any kind. Everyone ends up blaming science for the fact that the information obtained through it is imperfect and then goes on and on about believing in things whose foundation is much, much shakier at best, and proven wrong at worst.

392. Gidi,

     Let's put some order in the concepts because you are confusing them. You say "I don't believe in a supernatural being."
     And I also don't think there is a physical explanation for consciousness" and this is a sentence with an internal contradiction.
     Nature = physics. Therefore what is not physical is supernatural. Therefore, if you do not believe in a supernatural being, you cannot think that there is a non-physical explanation. Very simple.

393. Also, why do you think that if the will and consciousness are physical then there is no free choice? This is unrelated in my opinion, the fact that they did an experiment and passed an electric current through the brain and then made the subject do an action and feel as if he did it, does not mean that free will does not exist, but simply that it can be "tricked" because in the end it is a mechanistic thing. Do you not agree RH?
     It is very possible that there is free will which is a mechanistic phenomenon in our world because of that "arrangement" of atoms.
     (I myself have never believed that there is a soul or anything supernatural) but this does not say anything about our will as humans, in the end it is natural that people are not blindly affected by neural activity in the brain, these have some kind of melody that makes up from the "image" of " some kind of "free will".

394. I don't believe in a supernatural being.
     And I also don't think there is a physical explanation for consciousness - but its "effect" may be completely unaffected by physics (downward causality) this is what I claim.

395. Gidi,
     1) You say: RH: So you say that consciousness is because of neuronal connections?
     Answer: Of course, does it seem to you that something else creates it? And if so, then what? Would consciousness exist without neuronal connections?

     2) You say: R.H. You try to explain consciousness as if at least you created it, let's say you know nothing about it.
     Answer: I agree with you, I did not create it and I, and probably no one else either, do not know what it is and how exactly it is created, but I do know that there is no reason to assume that it is created by some supernatural action or one that is outside of physics as you defined it.

     At one time, they didn't even know how traits were inherited. You would surely claim that it is outside of physics, it is possible that hair color is derived from some unknown macroscopic element???

396. I don't like to set "limits" since I am an open-minded person, I am a trialist myself, I simply assumed that it would not be possible to simulate consciousness because we do not know about it or even come close to knowing about it. (Maybe in the future they will be able to, I am not mistaken)

     The same thing about free will - I don't think there is currently anyone who can answer this question unequivocally and overwhelmingly.
     Regarding free will, there is an argument in all the voodoos - also in science itself and in philosophy.
     There are all kinds of examples even in science such as - even though we are made of atoms - so how can there be free will? - there are all kinds of possibilities such as - the derivative of the activity in the brain is not subject to physics - or partially subject (downward causality)
     Let's say you are now thinking about some plan that you are planning - then it is true that you can say that a certain order is taking place in your brain that caused it, but the very experience you have (when you think and imagine) is only a derivative of the activity and the very experience does not exist in the physical world, therefore it is not subject to it either - and hence that there is a possibility that free choice exists.

397. Gidi:
     You claimed that all existing models of neural networks have rather disappointing results even in operations such as pattern recognition...
     Do you think that these operations also cannot be carried out in the future with the help of computers?
     If in your opinion actions such as identifying animals in a picture will be possible in the future, what is the difference between them and simulating emotions or consciousness? Where do you draw the line between what is possible and what is not

398. I live in a crazy movie. what is your movie

399. It makes no difference if a person is thinking about a girl, or about food, there is no technology that can show that, and there won't be.

     You can only see more blood flowing to a part of the brain, nothing more than that and some electrical activity, but you really won't get a picture of what I'm thinking, and if you think so, then you're living in your own movie, legitimately everyone lives in a movie. (Yuval Chaikin)

400. Thank you, Camila♥ very cute and kind ♥ ♥

     And it seems to me a good opportunity to bring a quote from a story I wrote for my children half a jubilee years ago, while they were tender in years. It tells about a human figure with the ability to see in a wide color spectrum:

     "I cheated in a card game," he said, adding, "It was a game where all the players cheated. I cheated the best."
     "It's very bad", I said, "you will have many enemies".
     "Not true", he answered, "everyone enjoyed playing with me".
     It was late at night and I didn't want to provoke a long argument at the expense of precious hours of sleep and that's why I left it to the subject.
     But since the phenomenon repeated itself night after night for a whole week, I could no longer pass it by in silence. I told him: "This is not great wisdom, nor is it at all fair to play with cards that are transparent for you and opaque for your opponents."
     "Very true", he replied, "and that's why I reveal all my cards while the cards of the other players remain face down".
     "So how do you still win and make a profit?", I wondered.
     "I read their minds," he answered calmly.
     I couldn't hide my astonishment. I told him: "I know that your vision penetrates all matter. But thoughts are not matter."
     "Thoughts are not matter?", he asked in amazement, "so how is it possible that I see them inside people's minds? I see certain substances in the brain arrange themselves in such an arrangement that I can recognize them as words and meanings even before they are spoken."

     : )

401. Gidi, special for you
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/dreams-activate-the-brain-in-a-similar-way-to-real-actions-3010116/

402. RH You are trying to explain consciousness as if at least you created it, let's say you know nothing about it.

403. Who decided that in the future there will be scanners that can take a picture? Did you hear that from any source?

     RH: So you are saying that consciousness is because of neuronal connections?

404. Mr. Rothschild
     Maybe you should first define what a desire is. before dealing with the degree of freedom.
     Is when a certain atom emits beta particles the result of a will.
     Or is a doe running away from a tiger a voluntary action.
     Or maybe a pigeon flying to its nest is doing something voluntary.
     And maybe it is a purely human mental action like human emotions such as love, feeling of superiority, feeling of inferiority, understanding, etc.

405. jubilee,
     You must have meant fMRI

     The future is not far at all, see for example the work from the laboratory of Prof. Gallant from Berkeley on the subject in question:

     https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011

     As with everything, those who insist on not understanding, like Gidi for example, will be forced to admit that there is no hocus pocus and no imaginary friends and no supernatural powers. I only hope that those people will not lose their zest for life as soon as they discover that everything that exists here is "just" completely natural things that operate within the framework of simple laws of physics which, together with some chemical elements and biological/mathematical rules, form all the wonderful things we experience in this universe, and still "just "These things are sublime and exciting and wonderful, even without having to add artificial spices to them.

406. Gidi,
     Show me where the picture of the woman is on my computer's hard drive? If you take it apart and find magnetic fields, is that an image? As above, in the brain there is a representation of the image, apparently in neuronal connections. So if you define that it is not the physical world, then the image in the computer is also not in the physical world.

407. Gidi, tell me: are you really like that or are you just pretending to be?
     I'm coming back especially for you: M-H S-Y-S B-M-W-H Z-W R-K T-M-W-N-H. Please nod your head if you understand.

     In the future, when MRI scanners become sophisticated enough, it will be possible to take the image directly from inside the brain.
     Meanwhile, only those who have a talent for drawing can copy the picture and submit it to you, as you request.

408. Does the woman exist in your mind? Maybe take it apart and show it to us?

409. Gidi!

     Failure to pay attention to details distorts understanding and leads to wrong conclusions. The sentence you wrote "Does that woman you are currently imagining in your mind exist somewhere in the physical world?" is not well worded.
     The image of the woman only exists inside my brain box. The woman who inspired the picture, if she exists, is elsewhere. Please note that these are two separate material entities.

410. Does that woman you are currently picturing in your mind exist somewhere in the physical world?

411. why funny Beyond your gut feeling, do you have any evidence that consciousness is immaterial in the sense that it is completely mechanistic and arises from biology just as the activity of the kidneys, heart or liver arises from biology? Are they also immaterial? Just because you don't understand how consciousness works does that make it "immaterial"?

     You did not refer to what I wrote to you above exactly on the subject. Is a picture of a sexy woman on a computer without a screen "material"? It consists of magnetic fields that only if you process them in the right way will you get an image. Is it material? And if so, then what is the difference from consciousness except for the fact that we don't understand how it works?

412. Where does the security come from? Are you saying that consciousness is "matter"? I have never heard anything more delusional than this, awareness is a derivative of this action, awareness itself does not exist in the physical world. (materially) And note, I am not talking about these feelings only about awareness.

413. There's no need to convince me, I'm also not trying to convince you, overall I'm setting a position - and showing that there are 2 sides to every coin.

414. Gidi,
     Where does your confidence and decisiveness come from in the sentence: "Feelings and self-awareness are not computational phenomena, and therefore cannot, in principle, be represented in it"?

415. Let me tell you something about the researchers - they live in a kind of movie, and that's fine, people have delusions of grandeur that they think they can do anything they can imagine, and the very "cold analytical" thinking does seem logical - after all, if the brain is all physics and everything is models So what's the problem with creating it artificially?

     But the small problem here is that the brain is indeed physical and tangible, but its derivatives such as consciousness and recognition are not physical in their actual experience, and even if the computer can imitate behavior then it will only "wait" for it but without any self-awareness and no emotion, just a pile of computer chips.

     It's the same as saying that in a blue film inside a computer the people "inside the computer" are really having an orgasm.

416. Gidi:
     I have already answered all these things - both in this article and in other articles.
     It seems to me that there is no chance that you will be convinced, so I stop trying to convince you.

417. I thought in addition to this - our consciousness is a derivative of electrical activity in the brain (but it is not the activity itself, after all, awareness is not "matter").

     Some people say: "I can anesthetize an area of ​​the brain and then there is no awareness" - does this mean that awareness is there?
     I can say that an injury to the brain is not the same as an injury to awareness, these to an injury to the brain, just as an injury to an airplane computer is not the same as an injury to a pilot, and the plane will appear to be spinning without an aware pilot.

418. Gidi:
     It is encouraging to see that there are those who know well from the researchers dealing with the subject.

419. Yoel Moshe:
     My opinion on things has not changed following your clarification.
     Wherever you have ever looked at the brain - it has operated exactly according to the laws of physics.
     We have never found even a shred of confirmation for the assumption that there is something external to physics.
     More than that - it turns out that the conscious comes after the unconscious and our whole feeling about ourselves is that "we" - is precisely the conscious and not the unconscious.
     The unconscious is part of me but the "I" is the conscious and therefore - even if there was a non-physical mechanism behind the unconscious (and all the studies show that there is no such thing) - we would not recognize this mechanism as "us". On the contrary - it would make our situation worse because then we would have to see ourselves as someone else's puppets.

420. The Blue Brain Project:

     It may be possible to symbolize many of the information processing activities of the human brain in this project, but emotions and self-awareness are not computational phenomena, and therefore cannot, in principle, be represented in it. In fact, all existing models of neural networks have rather disappointing results (relative to initial expectations) even when it comes to proper information processing operations, such as pattern recognition, which are done in the human brain very easily.

     In my opinion, phenomena of awareness, and also a considerable part of brain information processing, are related to effects that are not at all modeled in the Blue Brain project, and are beyond the simplistic level of neurons and synaptic connections. It's not that this project isn't important, and it's certainly possible to learn a lot from it. But you have to lower your expectations.

421. Michael thanks for the effort to understand. Below is a renewed attempt at explanation.
     I refer to the article and also to the extensions in your comments.
     1) It is simple and clear to everyone that the person 'calculates' his steps.
     2) It is known that some tendencies are 'needs' for example the need to obtain food, and some skills developed in the race to obtain those needs.
     3) Some of the desires and thoughts are 'abstract' a person wants to achieve goals that are not existent for him to be the first to reach Everest for example where the achievement is tangible but not existent or a willingness to die for the righteousness of an abstract idea whether it is an ancient Christian martyr, Hannah and her seven sons or Socrates.
     4) The abstract components of desires require 'consciousness', 'will', choice. However, the above applies or will not be true, happen or are manifested in the practical, mechanistic world. In the end, a certain and measurable neuronal thinking process in the brain makes Socrates' physiological mouthpiece the statement that under these circumstances he chooses to drink the poison.

     The questions you raise are basically: I-Is Socrates' decision free?
     II - Are there things in the components of the decision and motives that are not within the physiological / biological machine that is Socrates' mind.
     If I understood correctly, your answers [the decision is not free, and the machine is the only existence] are based on one premise and several research confirmations.
     The basic premise is that every action expressed in the brain is a measurement, it means that there it is carried out and it is the result of the machine/computational mechanics.
     The studies of Professor Simpolonsky and others indicate that it is possible to show both a decision that precedes the will and an external activity that is interpreted by the one acting as his own will.
     Here I find the problem because if the basic premise was that a decision is the product of a mechanical 'calculation' then even if the situation described in the study is correct, we have to locate another place in the brain where the computational decision that preceded awareness was made. And this is of course because in advance we ruled out the possibility of the existence of an abstract 'I' or rather a non-mechanistic 'I' that does not exist inside the brain but uses it as a substrate.
     In the current state of research in which we do not know how to define the mental calculation machine as a machine fed with formulas and algorithms, but as a system that works and we have nothing but to imitate it - I see the argument that denies the existence of an 'I' with 'freedom' and 'will' as a circular argument.
     Putting the phenomena that I saw in front of my eyes with the dog on the one hand and the human on the other hand illustrates to me how powerful and consequential any argument for and against will be. Of course, this 'quantitative' discussion may also have moral implications.

422. Yoel Moshe:
     Your words are really unclear to me.
     Do you know what a circular argument is?
     What about the argument I presented is circular?!
     I think your response is similar to the following claim:
     You did prove that one and one plus one are two, but if one and one plus one are not two then your proof is invalid.
     Can you point out the difference between this argument and what you claimed in the response?

     The examples you gave do not negate anything from what I said and I have no idea why you think they do.
     I think you just didn't understand my words.

423. As I imagine, the basis of the analysis of the article [=Michael's] is the following conclusion "All our knowledge and communication with reality and with our decisions and awareness of ourselves - is expressed by biochemical/physical means. = All brain/mental/consciousness phenomena are a mechanical product of a biological/physical computational system" .
     Isn't this a circular argument? I mean to say that if the assumption is that 'will' is outside of physiological reality then the argument has no hold. And if we assume that he is part of it, then the argument is there.
     I am aware and admit that the analysis should be rational and controlled, but for the sake of illustration I will tell about two cases that I saw with my own eyes. [Of course, it is not the point to mix a moral judgment of the phenomena and their cause, but an observation of their place according to the thesis of the article]

     1) A dog that is trained for this [in a rather cruel/forceful way - but we leave the moral judgment aside] receives its daily food from its owner and while running in its direction [of the food] it received the command 'courtesy to friends' the dog lies down near the food whining and sees the owner's cat The house eats half the portion.
     2) A man came home hungry and prepared his food. After the steaming food was placed on the table, he went to wash his hands and then put his heart into it because on the way to the food he would have to make noise. summer Our friend froze on the kitchen chair into the night and lost his food and the main thing was to please his mother's sleep.

     And I ask, are these systems of balance and inertia and the human as a dog devoid of choice and judgment? Is the consideration of the consideration of the parent [he was not dependent on his mother for his livelihood] a product of mechanical calculative necessity?

424. Gidi:
     I have already given my answers to these questions.
     In fact, the last question is exactly the topic of the article and the article is my answer to it.

425. Michael:

     You're right about the experiment with the current, it doesn't leave much room for something non-mechanical (not sure but probably yes)

     But my point is, is what you see on the "screen" that is awareness, how do you know that it is subject to the laws of physics? (as opposed to the fact that the laws of physics create it, but what about its derivative?)

     Another question for you Michael, let's say I see a beautiful girl and this, I trust her, I agree 100% that there is no free choice here, this is a mechanistic process in the body.
     It can also be said about many other things such as falling in love, fear, hunger, and more.
     The question is whether among the possibilities already given to us (not out of free choice) can we freely choose between them?

426. Gidi:
     Think again about the experiment where electricity was applied to a certain point in the brain and the user reported that he experienced an urge to move his hand.
     That doesn't leave much room for anything non-mechanistic about the experience.
     To me the subject of experience is quite clear.
     Consciousness (what Kahneman calls "system 2") is similar to a digital computer (don't attack - I said similar - not the same) in the sense that it uses logical rules to draw operative conclusions from data coming from the unconscious system (Kahneman's "system 1").
     Consciousness does not have direct access to the senses and sensations.
     In order for the mind to be able to handle the senses and feelings all these are flooded towards it by the unconscious system.
     The way in which the unconscious system presents the input of the senses and the sensations to the mind (it is probably nothing more than a form of representation expressed as an excitation pattern of nerve cells) is the experience.
     In other words - the experiences are the interface between the subconscious and the conscious.

     Moses:
     I didn't mix anything.
     The subject of the variety of possibilities is not the main point of the story. I showed that we feel a sense of free choice even in a situation where we can sit or remain standing - even though these are only two options and I also explained why this is so and why the fact that the choice is not free should not "offend" us.
     I think you didn't understand what I was trying to clarify.
     I also explained that to me randomness has nothing to do with free will.
     In my opinion, the result of a lottery does not represent any freedom and "will" that is based on randomness - not only is it not free in my view - but it does not even deserve the name "will".
     I'm even ready to go as far as to say that in a world that was too random, consciousness would not have been created and obviously - the will would not have been created either!

427. Mr. Rothschild
     You confused desire with choice.
     Choice is never free because it is inherently limited by the maximum number of possibilities from which one or more of the required compromises will be chosen
     For will it is certainly possible to quantify the degree of freedom in it for example by comparing it to a process of quantum choice such as
     radioactive beta decay.
     If the will is activated in such a way it can be said that it is indeed completely random and probably also completely free.
     As the degree of randomness decreases, so will the degree of free will.

428. Gidi,

     If not material then what?

     I really don't agree that there is anything immaterial. This image in the imagination is also an expression of something material.
     If we return to Yair's analogy. Let's say we have a computer that contains a JPG file of that sexy girl I imagined as per your request. An alien comes with no knowledge of computers and breaks his guts. Will he be able to understand, without a means of visualization such as a screen or a projector, from the hard disk alone that this image exists? Would you claim that even in the case of a computer there is something immaterial?
     In brain research we are where the alien is, it is not yet completely clear to us how memories, imaginations and desires are obtained from neurons, but in my opinion all of these are material like an image file on a computer is material.

429. R.H.:

     In my opinion there is nothing mystical - even if free choice exists, there is nothing mystical about it.

     And I didn't claim that anything goes beyond physics in the brain-its derivative in the imagination.

     And yes, I separate the mechanistic process that causes consciousness to appear from the very experience of it, imagine that you think of a sexy girl in your mind, after all, the figure you see in your imagination does not exist in the physical world, but all of this you actually see her and imagine, you can't explain to me how it happens And where is it anyway?

     The same is true of free will, if it exists - it is derived from the awareness that it works in a mechanistic way, but the very experience of it is not "material" (that girl you are thinking about is not material) and thus there is actually no effect of (absolute) physical laws on the very experience itself.

430. Gidi,
     You say that you didn't say that awareness is not mechanistic, and then you repeat and say "your very experience of awareness is not mechanistic, it has no place in the physical world, and therefore is completely unaffected."

     I guess I don't understand. Do you separate the ads from the experience of the ads?
     I agree with Yair that many things in the brain are not clear. However, the fact that something is unclear does not automatically make it mystical.
     I see no reason to assume that there is anything in the brain that fundamentally differs from other biological, chemical and physical processes. I also see no reason to assume that quantum processes play a role in the brain more than in other tissues. Does anyone think that in the heart or liver quantum processes are of crucial importance and it is impossible to explain the activity of these tissues without quantum processes? The same in my opinion in the brain.

431. R.H.:

     Who told you that awareness is not mechanistic? Pay attention to what I write, I said that awareness is a mechanistic process, but your very experience of awareness is not mechanistic, it has no place in the physical world, and is therefore completely unaffected.

     As Yair said: "Compared to the computer, the calculation phase, the electrical pulses and the "flow" of the transmitters are quite familiar, but what is in the brain the equivalent of the screen display, which is the state of consciousness, is not clear at all."

     By the way, this is just another theory, I did not say or insist that it is true.

432. Compared to a computer, the calculation stage, the electrical pulses and the "flow" of the transmitters are quite familiar, but what is in the brain the equivalent of the screen display, which is the state of consciousness, is not at all clear.

433. Gidi,
     Why are you so locked in that awareness is not physically mechanistic? Isn't pain or fear that even unconscious creatures feel completely mechanistic? Do you think there is a fundamental difference between a fly escaping from your hand and a person who is afraid? I don't think so, both are mechanistic resulting from a neuronal response. In my opinion, awareness is a similar process, although sophisticated and complex in several ways, but it is not fundamentally different from other sensations and there is nothing beyond it.

434. On the other hand, I have another theory - awareness is created from a mechanistic process, but the subjective experience that a person experiences is not mechanistic (after all, awareness is not made up of matter and therefore may not be completely affected by physics) therefore, because it is not matter in the physical world, it is a phenomenon that affects the movement of The atoms in the human brain. (a type of downward causality)
     After all, our consciousness is not made of matter, it is a phenomenon that has no "place" in the physical world, so it could be that there is something hidden in language, have you ever thought about that Michael?

435. Michael:

     I agree with you, my intention to "force" was actually a lack of determinism - past actions do not absolutely affect our choice in the future.

     It can be said that selection is basically an algorithm + randomness.

     On the face of it, it seems that the principle of "classical free choice" is ruled out.

     It's important to remember that even if we believe it, it doesn't mean it's 100% true, it could be that some of it is true and some of it isn't, what's for sure is that it's not certain. (Especially regarding our awareness and experience that cannot be explained today.)
     The principle of uncertainty is not only in physics, in my opinion it is also important in life, almost everything we do, think, conclude, we must cast some kind of doubt and always learn more and keep an open mind and flexibility of thought.

436. Gidi:
     In my opinion, the sensations are also completely mechanistic.
     Not only the effect of chemicals such as hallucinogens indicates this, but also the fact that it is possible to evoke a feeling of nothing less than the will itself by mechanical means (as is evident from the experiment described by Professor Sompolinski).
     Regarding the place of quantum theory - I referred to it in the article itself (and perhaps also in some of the comments).
     In my opinion - even if there is a real quantum effect on the brain (which many neuroscientists deny) it still cannot give us free will because it is simply a lottery.
     If someone wants to call it "free will" - I don't mind if they do so, but to me it's a confusing use of the phrase (in the same way, someone can decide that before each decision he also spins some kind of roulette and takes into account its result in some way. Obviously, there is no benefit in this.

     On the other hand - I have no problem calling the will that we feel following all the mechanistic processes taking place in our mind as "free will" and by that I mean the fact that it is our will - that is - of the machine that is us - that was accepted under natural circumstances and not due to coercion by another person.

437. Michael:

     Indeed an interesting article, I haven't read the whole thing yet, but overall a good article.

     As for your response, I agree that the awareness is something only from the church.
     But my intention was different, you mean that awareness affects a completely different level, you claim that awareness affects the person but is itself affected by physical processes, and I claim that it may be produced by a physical process but your feeling of how you experience it is not something that is affected by physical processes. (Isn't that a possibility?)

     I want to touch on quantum mechanics for a moment - in my opinion it has a touch on this matter, even in the case that consciousness is mechanistic and also its very experience (it is not something that can be measured and I don't think they will be able to measure it) so there is uncertainty about the future - at the atomic level on which basically everything rests about her, and this can indicate a "type" of "free choice" because there is a certain algorithm in my mind and it reacts to a certain situation, but according to the principle of uncertainty it can react in a different way given the exact same situation (theoretically) so it can be said broadly that my actions are not "forced" "Based on the past and past actions (determinism) no one can force the action on you, no physical constraint.

     True, it is not a free choice that most people talk about, but it is possible to call it a "type" of "free" choice because in the end the algorithms in my mind are mine (even though I did not choose it)

     What do you think of what I say? I just want to get to the bottom of this issue and know the truth.
     Some people say that if quantum mechanics is correct then there is free choice - this is not true, but it has a touch on the subject. What do you think?

438. Gidi:
     I don't understand what you want and there is nothing new here.
     Consciousness does not arise because of complexity.
     I hear this claim many times but I have no doubt that it is wrong (100 brains of dead people - if you connect them with a cable to each other - they are more complex than the brain of one person and they have no consciousness).
     Consciousness is created because of the structure of the brain and the way it works (mechanistically).
     Our feelings are also created in this way.
     It amazes me that you tell me "don't tell me it doesn't have an effect" after I have claimed more than once that it does. After all, you copied the reasoning that bases this conclusion on evolution from me!
     A computer that is built according to the structure of the brain and imitates it exactly will have consciousness, feelings and emotions.
     You are not qualified to say that no one knows what consciousness is.
     There are of course different levels of knowledge but at a certain level knowing also knows what consciousness is.
     We still do not understand all the mechanisms that operate in it, but there is no reason to think that something in it is not physical.

     By the way, I recommend you and others to read an excellent article I received recently, which summarizes the opinion of Kahneman (the first Israeli to win a Nobel Prize that is not in the field of humanities):
     http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3533866,00.html

439. Michael:

     A point for thought that I didn't think about before and it changes a few things in our understanding, tell me what you think.

     Basically you claim that there is only physics, and we as creatures that are made of atoms and obey these laws just like a stone, in the end this leaves us no room for free choice.
     For example: some people say that a person can play chess to learn to reach higher levels and the like, but this is a mistake if we take a chess computer, it can also play chess (which is a very complex game) and the computer can also learn from its own mistakes and improve its ability.
     But this is where the problem begins, there is one small difference, the person experiences the game, he is aware that he is playing a game compared to the computer and this awareness is what the computer does not have.
     Now if awareness is a product of the complexity of the system but in the end is mechanistic for everything, then it blindly obeys the laws of physics and chemistry and thus has no effect according to this belief. sets fire to the laws so it has no effect on the final result and if this is true why was it created in the process of evolution and does it not affect as much as you think if you add some kind of algorithm to the brain then it would also have an effect and there is no difference between it and awareness so that according to this belief awareness is just another factor or algorithm and thus has no difference in the effect on the product than any other final algorithm or an effect like that of anything else without awareness, so here you encounter a problem or rather 2 big problems.)
     Except that awareness is not a "substance" and no one knows what it is or even comes close to explaining how it is created.
     And the explanation that it was created at all from the complexity of the cave is not an explanation.

440. Doo doo:
     But according to the above description - you are in the second stage and therefore you say that consciousness is not consciousness and choice is not choice and since at the end you return to the starting point - perhaps it would have been better if you had not started.

441. Real

442. Doo doo,

     Anyone who sits in meditation does not arrive at answers but understands that there are no questions. And that's not an answer either.

     Qing-Yuan, a Chinese Zen Master, once said:

     Thirty years ago, before I studied Zen, I saw a mountain as a mountain and water as water.

     Later, when I followed the teacher's guidance, I entered the Zen gate and saw that the mountain is not a mountain and water is not water.

     Now, when I am in a world of pleasure, peace and quiet, where everything is as it is, I see that a mountain is only a mountain and water is only water.

443. We see your understanding of Zen Buddhism. You know what's beautiful about Zen is that everyone who meditates will come to the same answers 🙂 In short, this is no longer related to the article

444. Doo doo,
     Uncle Topaz also knew the day of his death and so did everyone else who committed suicide. It's a choice. However, there are Zen sages, especially the Tibetan ones, who were destroyed by the Chinese. Do you think they chose it?

     By the way if you do know some Zen, it doesn't exactly talk about knowing the future or choosing the time of your death.

445. It's up to you, try to research Zen Buddhism as a recommendation 🙂 Michael, have a good Shabbat and thank you

446. Doo doo:
     As I said - you cancel the meaning of words.
     First of all choice and now also responsibility.
     This is clearly unproductive and no one will accept your offer.

447. I mean you as a system after yourself no matter where you are you chose to be there period

448. You know there are Zen sages who know exactly when their day to die comes but this???

449. The last response was a reference to his uncle and in the meantime Makael also responded.
     Another question for Dodo, can you elaborate a bit more on the initial source and how to be aware of the choice not to be involved in accidents? Sounds to me like very useful knowledge for life.

450. Oh yes? And how exactly did you choose to have cancer? And more importantly, can you not choose to be in an accident or illness? Do you think that if there was such an option it would not be used?

451. Gidi:
     in your response this (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-312430) You didn't say things that I don't agree with you.
     On the contrary - I said each of these things myself.
     I only claim that it is not relevant to the question of the existence of free will.

     Doo doo:
     In that a person chooses to stand in a certain place and immediately after standing there an asteroid falls on him, he does not choose to be killed.
     In almost every discussion I find myself explaining the role of words in human communication.
     If everything that happens to a person is called a "choice" then the word "choice" is pointless because it does not provide any information.
     The word "choice" was invented to convey information and most people know what it means.
     To start using the same word for something completely different is nonsense.

     As for your claim about the primary source: I am convinced that you are deluding yourself.

452. And Michael, you will be surprised, but there is a way to be aware of the choice and decision from the initial source!!

453. You chose to be in a place where there would be an accident, which is hard to understand!!!!

454. Doo doo,

     really? Are there no accidents in the world? Is it all your choice?

455. Doo doo:

     You draw conclusions too quickly, you only look at one side of the coin, hold on to the concept and don't let go.
     In order for you to read a little about all of Libet's experiments and also about the new experiments of the last two years and understand that there are all kinds of new discoveries and even the researchers themselves cannot reach a unanimous agreement or even draw well-founded conclusions from these experiments, I will give you an English article on Wikipedia: Neuroscience of free will

     Believe me, if the experts themselves who test and do these experiments still can't tell you if there is a preconscious choice yes or no, then you are sure that they can't. The preparation of the brain but its over-concentration.)

456. Michael:

     I understand you, we just don't agree on some things and that's it. (nothing to do)

     It is clear that there will be debates regarding this topic - it has existed for thousands of years (and will probably continue to exist for a long time to come)
     One small thing, regarding what you said with the Coke and Sprite experiment, I intended to reproduce it theoretically, not practically, just as quantum mechanics discusses the subject of randomness and we know that in practice it is impossible to predict a system because it is complicated, but the big question is not practical, but whether theoretically it is possible predict (according to a large part of the scientists it is not possible because it is really random!)

     In any case, your article is undoubtedly thought-provoking, even for me, and if I have new insight I will respond.

457. Doo doo:
     Decision and choice are things that happen in the brain and even if we are not aware of them during the "cooking" stage, they reach our consciousness in a very short time.
     Illness is not like that and does not belong to the realm of thought, consciousness and choice at all.

     By the way - I am convinced that consciousness has a role and that otherwise it would not have developed within the framework of evolution.
     As I mentioned before (https://www.hayadan.org.il/memethics-0703101/#comment-263160) Consciousness plays an important role in our choices (by the way - in the response voted above I used the term "free will" in the teaching of "will of the mind" and not in the meaning I am discussing in the current article)

458. Even if, for that matter, you got a serious illness, cancer, or fell into a pit without seeing, you chose it

459. what are you saying everything that happens to you is your choice period!!!!!!!!!

460. Doo doo,
     A person's depression is by choice about as much as you would say the flu is by choice. Depression is something that is imposed on a person and is not done by any choice.

461. I'm talking about the decision mechanism, the source of the decision people are not aware of if they even think they are aware

462. Take for example a person who is depressed as a result of a crisis. His depression is a result of choice.

463. You understood my head!!!!!

464. In my opinion - you - his uncle - is the one who decides.

     You do this according to the way you are built and in accordance with the laws of nature without any possibility of deviating from them, but still - you are the one who decides because you are the same physical system that makes the decision.

     Think about the Kinneret.
     They say that the Kinneret is drying up - and it is true - it is the Kinneret that is drying up and not the laws of nature.

465. Conscious is this small part of our brain that is funny to a newborn baby, it only develops from the age of 3 months and up. When I say conscious I mean "the ego" studies show and it is clear to me that the decision for something is not from the conscious mind. Conscious = I, Dodo, Dodo is a name given to me and the thought that I am Dodo, I decide is fucked up, it is an illusion!!! It's a bit hard for me to express myself, I hope you understand me!!

466. Doo doo:
     The claim that consciousness is an illusion includes within it an internal contradiction because for there to be an illusion there must be something that is governed by it and this something is what we call consciousness.
     Although you did not say that consciousness is an illusion because you were talking about "the conscious", but in my opinion this is also a mistake that I can clarify if you explain exactly what you mean by the word "the conscious".

467. Great article Michael https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/ every word in a color :))))

468. Gidi:
     I'm really tired already.
     Let's stop with this discussion already because all your points have been answered a long time ago - both in the article itself and in the comments.
     If there is anything non-deterministic in the world, it is only the quantum effects.
     It is not clear if quantum effects have a real effect on the brain, but even if there is - it is a lottery and not freedom.
     The reason why you will sometimes choose Coke and sometimes Sprite is the different circumstances (and a court won't help - they will be different - it's impossible to restore everything, including your state of mind at the moment of the choice. It's simply impossible!) and not any freedom you have.
     These different circumstances cause variations in your decisions on different occasions but they are not the reason for feeling free will.
     You have no freedom of movement.
     how do you know that Because you want, for example, to fly and you don't fly.
     You have no freedom of vision. You know this because there are things you would like to see and you don't.

     You can't know that you don't have free will because the situation where you want to want something and you don't want it is a logical contradiction.

469. Why is it hard for people to accept that consciousness is an illusion? And Levit and all the experiments in the world prove that a person acts from the subconscious, not from the conscious, this is called a subconscious choice. When you say I did it like that, it's not me, it's nature, period. (Of course, nature is you)

470. Michael:

     I listened to Simpolinski's lectures, I accept most of what he says, and a small part I don't really accept (not that I don't agree with them, but I cast a shadow of doubt on them.)

     Libet's experiments are related to the question of free will, I don't understand why you don't want to open it up.

     The truth is when I think about free will in depth...I understand that there is a problem with it.

     But let's not forget one important thing in the rules of the world (probably) it is not deterministic.

     Could it be that a choice free from all constraint is random at all? Maybe randomness is the same "free choice" we are talking about? What do you think?

     A small example: I have to choose between Coke and Sprite: let's say they did an experiment and I chose Coke. Now we do the same experiment in exactly the same ratios one to one, and then it turns out that I suddenly chose Sprite! (Let's say I like Coke and Sprite almost the same where quantum effects can have an effect) Maybe this is the "power" of free choice? (That it is actually random? (Given the same circumstances) There can be more than one way in which we act or decide) Do you agree with such a "free" choice?

471. Moti:
     I didn't understand you and according to my perception the Sipa does not contradict the Risha.
     As far as quantum effects - everything is predictable.
     Not by us - but in principle.
     I clarified the sense in which this is expected in this response:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-310070

     The situation you described is not a situation of causality from above.
     The physical state (at the lower levels) of the mind of a hypnotized person is different from that of a non-hypnotized person.

472. Michael
     If I understood correctly, you are saying (in my words as I understand it): the collection of all the chemical and physical in us determines what we are, that is, our choices regarding everything (including thought), hence we do not have freedom of choice.
     Also, unlike the title of the article: everything is not predictable, meaning the future is not dictated in advance.
     But here the Saifa contradicts the Raisha. Our future is not known to you or to me or to any other person since we do not know all the physical and chemical things that have built on Buria. and not the correlation between the particles within each and every one and how it leads us to choose our choices in the changing reality. That is, we are actually templates. Which if we look at it in terms of Plato's "idea" the future exists, (just as everything physical exists in its true form) according to The choice of each "template". And if we want to know the future we will investigate in a scientific way maybe we will get there. (I hope you got to the end of my opinion).
     I would like to describe to you a situation that shows causality from above:
     If you stick a burning cigarette to the skin, it will immediately blister and blacken, which shows a reaction from below. Now we will do it with a simple pencil, we will stick the pencil to the skin of a person under the influence of hypnosis, and tell him that the pencil is a burning cigarette. The reaction will be as follows, that is, a causal reaction from above.
     Michael at this link you will see a reaction of revenge made by an animal:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vxu94vEtTs

473. Gidi:
     I don't know which article you mean when you talk about "the article itself" because, as mentioned, there were many studies and articles.
     If you are talking about Libet's article then I answered you that more knowledge has been accumulated since then.
     Do me a favor and listen to Sompolinski's lecture.
     In general, it seems to me that this discussion is going nowhere and I would very much like to stop it.
     I do not oblige you to agree with my conclusions.

474. Michael:

     Yes, but in the article itself that is not the point, but that the signal that shows that the brain is preparing for action is not certain that it really prepared for action, it simply concentrated on coming.

475. Gidi:
     Many things happened after Libet and among other things it turned out that it was not only the decision itself but that they could tell which decision was made because there was a difference between the decision to press the right button and the decision to press the left button.
     This, of course, also joins the experiments in which the brain was stimulated at a certain point and made the subject feel that he had decided on his own.

     Much of this is described in Sompolinski's lecture.

476. Michael:

     By the way, I want to point out something about Libet's experiment, the experiment shows that when an action is performed, then the brain has already decided for us that there is an activity that starts a few seconds before, but they did a study on this in 2009 and discovered

     study conducted by Jeff Miller and Judy Trevena (2009)[17] suggests that the readiness potential (RP) signal in Libet's experiments does not represent a decision to move, but that it is merely a sign that the brain is paying attention. In this experiment the classical Libet experiment was modified by playing an audio tone indicating to volunteers to decide whether to tap a key or not. The researchers found that there was the same RP signal in both cases, regardless of whether or not volunteers actually elected to tap, which suggests that the RP signal doesn't indicate that a decision has been made.[18] In a second experiment, researchers asked volunteers to decide on the spot whether to use left or right hand to tap the key while monitoring their brain signals, and they found no correlation between the signals and the chosen hand. This criticism has itself been criticized by free-will researcher Patrick Haggard, who mentions literature that distinguishes two different circuits in the brain that lead to action: a "stimulus-response" circuit and a "voluntary" circuit. According to Haggard, researchers applying external stimuli are testing neither the voluntary circuit, nor Libet's hypothesis about internally triggered actions.[1

     Source: Neuroscience of free will on Wikipedia.

477. Gidi:
     In the Wikipedia article there are several possible definitions for free choice.
     This specific definition is really what most people think exists, but it stems from the illusion I described and does not describe reality (again: except, perhaps, the uncontrollable "lotteries" performed by quantum mechanics).

478. Michael:

     Is the definition I gave you a definition you accept of free choice? (Or do most people think this is the definition?)

     She basically says that for there to be such a choice the voter can take more than one path of choice under a set of circumstances.

     (I just can't find a different definition and it seems that this is the most "realistic" definition that if you look at it in depth you can see that there really is no difference between randomness and free choice, what do you think?

479. Gidi:
     In my opinion, with the exception of the possible influence of quantum effects (which actually do not improve "freedom" at all but only allow the result to be "drawn" without control) this is a definition of something that does not exist in humans either.
     It is impossible to build such a computer (again, except for quantum effects).

480. It is known that the choice is made even before we are aware of it!!!!!!!

481. Michael:

     Here is an example of free choice from Wikipedia

     Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

     This is, in my opinion, free choice and this is its definition. Now do you (let's agree that this is the definition) do you think it exists in people or is it even possible in our world and would it be possible to build such a computer?

482. Gidi:
     As I explained in the article, in my opinion, not only is there no free choice in the meaning that people usually think there is, but if you analyze things in depth you realize that this meaning is not defined.
     I also showed that despite this - we must feel that our choice is free.
     This is true for us - humans and it will also be true for any computer with consciousness that we manage to build.

483. Reality is an illusion of the mind, that's all!!! No mind no reality

484. Michael:

     Is it possible that there is such a complex system (for example man) that a phenomenon of free choice is created?

     Or some kind of computer that can choose freely? (From what I understand, some of the claims about free choice are not necessarily talking about people having the choice, but whether it is possible in the world.)

485. It's clear that everything is chemistry in the brain, there's no doubt about that, I'm not claiming that there is some kind of soul or something outside, really, really no. You are talking about a situation for example of clinical death where people experienced all kinds of nonsense Ro Or and the like haha. I'm talking about a situation where you merge with everything around you, you are just part of a system. I don't know who you were with, but Zen Buddhism is what guarantees you that the evidence Yours will vary from end to end

486. Doo doo:

     I know for sure that after death you don't feel anything.
     You are welcome to read the The article I wrote on the subject.

     I am convinced that although you claim that your senses were not active during meditation, you would feel and run away if someone tried to saw off your hand at that time.

     Many years ago I went to Guru Maharaj's meetings (not his, of course, but his representatives in Israel).
     I learned all (4) of their meditation methods and went through the process they call "getting the knowledge".

     You feel all kinds of things during meditation and some of them really have nothing to do with reality, but they all originate in the mind.

     Many people report all kinds of near-death experiences (what is known in the professional parlance as NDE = Near Death Experience). Many interpret these experiences as if they tasted something of the afterlife.
     This is simply a misinterpretation of the experience and there is quite a lot of scientific material collected on the subject.
     One of the best books written about him is the book The God Impulse by Kevin Nelson in which it is explained in quite detail how these experiences are created.

487. In sleep the senses are not neutralized like meditation doesn't even come close. And why do you not experience anything in death? You think that everything you understand through the senses is an experience. Michael, understand an experience beyond the senses is to feel like a stone is to be in matter. I know that what I am talking about here has no scientific basis and it is no longer related to the topic, but I must point out that you are an excellent conversationalist who is fun to talk to

488. Doo doo:
     If the project is successful - the brain will be able to do everything the human brain can do.
     Under certain conditions he could even go crazy.

     The question "how does the world look without our senses" is rather meaningless because sight is a sense and without the sense of sight the world is not seen.
     If instead of the question "how does the world look" you put the question "how will we experience the world" it can have different answers that depend on the question of what remains active in your body and mind.
     During sleep the senses are quite neutralized and we sometimes experience a dream and sometimes nothing. Ditto in fainting. When you die you experience nothing.

489. The blue brain, for example, will be able to experience such an experience that it is actually nothing??

490. It is interesting to investigate this according to science if it is possible

491. So what does that mean?

492. Just for your information, I had an experience, you don't have to believe it of course. If we describe it in words it will be like this I had no sense of time or place there I simply did not exist there was neither light nor darkness I can't describe it to you in words

493. Gidi:
     Why?
     What logic is there here?
     A deterministic system that is built to solve problems is not something you can trust?
     Let's say you build a computer that draws conclusions in a completely logical way and works like a computer works. Will you believe him when he answers 2 to the question of how many are 1 plus 1, but you will not believe him if to the question "Is your mode of operation deterministic?" Will he answer "yes"?

494. Doo doo:
     The intuition you are talking about here is nothing more than a guess that we have no reason to trust.
     Intuition is not a completely reliable thing in general, but in the areas you talk about - ones in which we have no experience - it is especially useless.
     I assume, for example, that intuition would not have led a person who is not well versed in the findings of physics to the conclusion that time is not an absolute thing.
     Nor would she invent the uncertainty principle out of thin air.
     These things are the result of a prolonged wading in the swamp of the illogical (intuitive) findings of the experiments - a wading that eventually yielded a correct intuition.
     I also assume that if I were to ask you if it is possible to build a planar surface whose area is less than a square millimeter and within which you can rotate a straight section a light year long, your intuition would say "what if" even though in practice - it is possible!

495. Michael:

     The deterministic approach contains an internal flaw that cannot be overcome: if I assume that my actions and decisions are forced by some mechanism, genetics, mind, etc., and not made by choice, then this decision itself, that is, the decision to embrace determinism, is like that. Therefore, such a decision should not be trusted, because the a priori chance that the coercive system is 'sympathetic', meaning that it directs me to the right goal, is simply nil" (this is taken from an article but it makes sense, what do you think about it?)

496. And know that you fixed some things for me from all these conversations with you, thank you very much, brother

497. I'm not talking about intuition in the sense you're talking about. For example, what is the experience of dying? These are answers found in intuition. But the world is seen without all our senses? I am talking about knowledge that is not absorbed with the help of the senses, this is my intention, Michael.

498. His uncle Erez Ran Boaz impersonates:
     I don't know why you ask "How do you know if there is a random (deterministic) generator at all?"
     Did I say there is such a generator in the brain?
     No. You will not find such a claim in any of my comments.
     In general (ie - not in the brain but in the computer) - surely there is such a thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation

     As you make sure to ignore: the blue brain is not based on a predefined algorithm but on structural imitation.
     His builders think he will have intuition.
     I qualify my words and say that if they succeed in the project, he will have intuition.

     As far as I understood you - there is nothing mystical about intuition and it simply expresses, unconsciously, knowledge that we have acquired in different ways.
     It is therefore not surprising that a chess player's intuition about the game improves the more he practices and plays.

499. According to many experiments we see that there is a factor that gave the order before we are aware. Is it known today where this order came from? And how do you know if there is even a random (deterministic) generator at all? After all, there are really tiny processes in the brain that today have no tools to measure them. And what about the thing called intuition? Is there any algorithm that can give the blue brain intuition?

500. On another thought - there is another place where I would make use of a randomness generator, and that is in situations where there is no clear preference for one course of action over others, but it is important to me that the people around me have difficulty anticipating my moves.
     Creating this difficulty can serve a variety of purposes, one of which is - as in the previous response - creating interest and amusement, but another is that of conflict situations (if it's a real war and if it's a football game).

501. Yoel Moshe:
     First of all - there are projects that try to achieve the result of a computerized brain based on the existing architecture of the living brain.
     One of the most prominent of them is the Blue Brain Project:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AR1cUlhTk

     They are not based on normal software but on a physical imitation of the anatomy of the brain.

     In this way of working, whose principle is "build first and then understand how the whole works", it is difficult to know if one of the "subsystems" you will build will not be similar to a randomness generator, but to be clear - even then it will be a randomness generator based on physics.

     In answer to your question, I can express my personal opinion, but it should be understood that this is really a personal opinion, unlike the other things I said that are based on knowledge of science and logical analysis.
     This is a personal opinion because it is based on the qualities I value in a person when another person may value other qualities.
     I would put a pseudo-random element in such a computer so that it could have conversations with more people.
     I would not put such an element in the core of the machine but only as an accessory that she can use when she sees fit.
     I know how I try to act.
     Consistency (as opposed to randomness) is actually a quality I appreciate in a human being.
     This does not mean that his answers to each question will be fixed in essence, but it does mean that he will not simultaneously hold contradictory opinions and that his opinions may change over time as a result of information and stimuli to which he is exposed.
     In other words, I personally expect from a person behavior that is consistent in substance (not necessarily in expression).
     I also try to behave this way personally and I hope that no one sees me as overly mechanical or cynical or stereotyped.
     So where do I use pseudo-randomness?
     Especially in the choice of words.
     This use of randomness is really meant to amuse (or reduce boredom) my interlocutor.
     In any case, it is clear that the way I take to demonstrate behavior that is observed as random is also a physical way.

502. It is surprising that many people think that the sense of free will requires some kind of pure non-determinism.
     The fact is that our lives are unable to distinguish between non-determinism and determinism which are different and different and even simple.
     I don't know, for example, that there is any person in the world who is able to distinguish that a pseudo-random generator is deterministic and simple is indeed... deterministic 🙂
     Also, the science of digital signatures is based more on the scholarly hypothesis that even a strong computing power is unable to distinguish pseudo-randomness.
     And there is the science of chaotic functions…

     My hypothesis is that the complexity of the brain is also not sufficient by itself for the feeling of free will.
     The brain is simply able to model reality in a way that preserves its chaotic nature and thus enables the sense of non-determinism necessary for the existence of free will.
     I can imagine a situation (cruel experiment) in which the brain models a reality that is perceived as deterministic and therefore free will is not possible.

503. Michael thanks again. [ Full disclosure - thank you first of all because if you didn't respond I would explode with curiosity ] But my question was serious and not cynic, albeit from an entertaining and slightly challenging point of view. I'm not sure your answer will flow like your article but I promise to delve into it again.
     But I will try to present my hesitation in analyzing the situation from a different angle. Let's say that Antha is a partner in a team [successful and without budgetary and technical limitations] that is engaged in creating a human robot that will pass the 'Turing test' and will look, sound and function like a human being. Is it necessary to introduce an element of random selection into its activation algorithm? I would like to say, will the algorithm of the responses be based on 'every question has an answer' and there is only one correct answer? Or in order for the 'guy' not to sound mechanical and cynical or at least not stereotyped we will have to give him a dimension of randomness and diversity in the answers?

504. It's subconscious

505. Moshe:

     It is not at all certain that it is not carried out consciously.

506. According to my understanding, it is not known how the choice is made, but what is certain is that it is not conscious

507. Moshe:
     I didn't understand what the beginning of your comment refers to, but regarding the question at the end - there are still many things that are not known, but in Sompolinski's lecture you can see that there are already some things that are known.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk

508. Yes, but they were aware that it was not a natural feeling of desire. My question is whether it is known today but the selection is being made? Because according to what I understood it is really true that it doesn't matter if there is determinism or not. What is the selection mechanism that is certain is not conscious

509. Gidi:
     nonsense!
     Question: A single molecule has no pressure and a collection of molecules has pressure?
     Answer: Yes!
     Question: A single atom cannot do calculations and a computer made up of atoms can?
     Answer: Yes!
     Question: A single atom cannot code the evolution of a living being and a collection of molecules can?
     Answer: Yes!

     Question: Is there something beyond all these things?
     Answer: Yes!
     Question: And what is that something?
     Answer: A very specific organization of the atoms.

510. A single atom has no consciousness but a group of atoms has consciousness? There is a phenomenon here that is beyond.

     A single atom has no will but a "block" of atoms has a will?

     It is clear that there is something beyond here that no one knows and probably never knew either. (free will is also included here)

511. You prove here that I am not an "ego". quite a nice way

512. Finally it is acceptable to me Michael!!

513. Moshe:
     Not true.
     I'm not saying "it's not me - it's nature".
     I am responsible for my actions and the fact that I am part of nature does not matter as such.
     It seems to me that you are ignoring a lot of data mentioned here - including the experiments in which sending a current to a certain point in the brain of people made them think they wanted to, for example, move their hand.
     But listen: I don't have the strength to argue with you because you don't even bother to formulate your words clearly, with Hebrew words and punctuation marks.
     I'm just trying to understand what you wrote and in the end I find out that everything you wrote is based on ignoring what I wrote.

514. Gidi:
     First of all - you should respond to the matter.
     I said that determinism has not been disproved and I said this following your disproved claim that it has been disproved.
     So before we continue - you should understand that "most scientists think not X" is not a refutation of X and therefore your response does not refer to my response at all.
     Besides - when most scientists talk about non-determinism, they mean the quantum effects - as I explained - and nothing else.
     Do you claim otherwise? Please show me an example of a phenomenon that is not due to quantum effects that some scientist claims is not deterministic.
     Besides - I mentioned that there is a non-deterministic interpretation of quantum theory and I even pointed to the Wikipedia entry.
     Is that something you disagree with?
     It is true that most scientists usually refer only to the non-deterministic interpretation of quantum theory, but this is only a social phenomenon because on the practical level there is no difference between the predictions of the theories.
     In other words - no scientist who understands anything about quantum theory claims that its deterministic possibility has been disproved. nobody!

515. Michael:

     Look, I don't know what you know or think, but most scientists today believe that there is randomness and not determinism, and real randomness and not just a lack of predictability.

516. 1 suspect why? Why do you see, why do you feel, how do you know that it is not an illusion?
     2 The prediction is not deterministic

517. It's true, and regarding what you claim, Michael, it's basically to lack any responsibility for your actions, it's to say it's not me, it's nature, it's that you don't understand where the reason for the action came from, where the initial current that led to the action came from, and I see it clearly, that doesn't mean you didn't choose, it's all a matter of choice Today it is called a subconscious choice, it is known that if I ask you to move a hand, you will move a hand and you did not practice, this already shows that the choice was to move a hand if yes or not to move a hand in terms of the distinction, of course it is not from the conscious conscious not after nothing is an illusion that only gets stronger with time

518. Gidi:
     Who knows this today?
     1. Apart from quantum theory there is nothing in nature that is suspect of non-determinism
     2. Quantum theory also has a deterministic (non-local) interpretation which is identical in prediction to a non-deterministic interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

519. According to what is known today, determinism is nothing more than a disproved theory.

520. Machiavelli 13:24

     I agree with what you say here. I also think that free will is an illusion like an optical illusion that even though you "know" that the two train tracks are parallel, they seem to meet to you. By its very nature it is the creation of a tremendous chaotic system, the human brain and that is why the illusion is so strong.

     Moshe,
     Do you have reason to believe that what happens in the brain is not deterministic? Apart from quantum phenomena, do you know any non-deterministic process?
     On the other hand, there are quite a lot of considerations against the claim that what happens in the brain is not deterministic. I will mention two:
     1) The marrow is made of cells and when you look at the neuronal cells they look like any other cell in the sense that they are surrounded by a membrane, contain intracellular organelles, contain all the normal cellular functions and beyond that are unique in some functions that other cells do not have such as certain channels and synapses. On the face of it, there is nothing non-deterministic about these cells. Since the marrow is a collection, albeit a huge one, of such cells there is no reason to assume that something non-deterministic is happening.
     2) The brain was created during evolution, you can follow its development and increase in complexity from molluscs to humans. In other words, the brain is a product of mutations. Since mutations affect gene expression and there is nothing non-deterministic about gene expression, there is no reason to assume that a certain mutation suddenly caused the appearance of something supernatural or non-deterministic, etc. As stated simplistically, all that mutations can do is change gene expression.

521. Yoel Moshe:
     I don't know if you are asking seriously or sarcastically, but I will answer seriously:
     Apparently I had no choice but to publish the article.
     Apparently my desire to do so is determined by the laws of nature.
     I probably have no choice but to feel, despite this, that I had freedom of choice - that is - I could have wanted not to publish the article - even though in practice I could not have wanted to.
     If I answered this comment of yours - I probably couldn't choose not to answer.

     And despite all that - as you can understand from the article - I feel good about this situation and it is clear to me that the same "freedom" that people think of when they talk about free choice is actually a concept that if you try to delve into its definition you realize that it is unnecessary.

522. to Michael Thank you fascinating and thought provoking. But I didn't understand whether you had the freedom of choice to publish the article or not. And if so, and if not, did you have a 'desire' to do so? In short, will we continue to distinguish between freedom/choice and desire?
     And finally, do you have free choice or control over your 'will' to answer or not to such questions and responses?

523. Moshe:

     There is no connection between free choice and what you say because even if the world is random (and indeed it is) it does not really strengthen free will either.

524. How do you know that what goes on in the brain happens in a deterministic way, this has not yet been proven!

525. Rani:
     That's true, but that's not the point.
     Think about an ordinary person - one who does not engage in philosophy in his day-to-day life and does not ask himself questions about determinism.
     The question I pose and I also think I answer it is what causes him to err in this illusion.
     In my opinion - it is not at all a question of determinism but a question of awareness of the existence of better alternatives.
     You feel "forced" when there is something you want to do and you can't do it.
     Otherwise you feel free.
     This is a situation that is not accepted in relation to desire because what you want is - by definition - what you want.
     Because of this - even when you are aware of the determinism of nature you still feel that your will is free.
     You know he's not free but you feel he is.

526. Michael, I think Sompolinski's distinction about the source of the illusion is that in a reality that is seen as completely deterministic the sense of free choice could not exist in the first place.
     We need an illusion of non-determinism like that of chaotic systems such as reality or real non-determinism if our mind is a kind of quantum machine (which according to Sompolinski is a lame argument).
     The fact that you interpret as free choice your ability to decide whether to sit on a chair is thanks to the fact that our brains are used (and well used) to the feeling.

     Thought experiment: I have to decide whether to sit on a chair without having any deterministic preference. How do I decide?
     I run a kind of imaginary lottery in my mind to decide and finally decide.
     I conduct the experiment several times and see that the chance of sitting is (for the sake of simplification) 50 percent.
     Now I ask myself what are the reasons that made me decide each time to stand or sit.
     Let's say I don't have intra-brain access to a quantum randomness generator, so what made me decide was the reality that preceded the decision, which is chaotic and therefore seems random to me.

     Rani

527. R.H., Gidi:
     Sompolinski talks about downward causality in this lecture:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk

     I also talked about the issue in my comments.

     It is clear to me (and to Sompolinski) that the phenomenon does not exist.

     Some people confuse explanation with causation.

     This may be Gidi's problem (some of his statements indicate this).

     If we make a projection to the issue of evolution, then downward causality would be, for example, teleological evolution - that is - that a certain mutation was created to solve a certain problem and not that it survived because it was created by chance and solved the problem.

528. Not exactly.. Look, I'll explain to you...

     In our world there are physical laws and they are local and do not change (in our opinion) and according to the main idea every system will be sophisticated which in the end will completely obey the micro-physical laws.

     Example: Why do I want to eat because I feel hungry and this is the answer at the macro level, but at the micro level the explanation would be that the cells in the brain are affected by the neural activity in the brain and this is affected by the movement of the infarcts, etc., etc.

     What some claim is that your feeling that you are hungry cannot contradict the microscopic processes that happened in your body.

     The claim of downward causation means that there are elaborate macroscopic systems that contain phenomena that are phenomenal and cannot be explained according to the microscopic physical laws...which means that it is possible that a complex macroscopic cave imposes itself on the microscopic level and it follows that the influence of the microscopic laws on a complex system is negligible or only partial. They will answer that the causality does not come from the bottom up, in some cases it is the other way around from the top down.

     If you want, read about it in English downward causation

529. Gidi,

     I don't understand what you mean. It is clear that there is an interaction between macro and micro systems and vice versa. When I wave my hand all the cells that make up the hand and all the molecules that make up the cells and all the atoms that make them up are lifted up together. On the other hand, the decision to wave the hand fell in the neurons and synapses between them and this resulted in the macro change, ie the hand.

     Is that your intention?

530. It's not that consciousness is outside of physics, rather consciousness is a phenomenon of an elaborate macroscopic system which imposes itself on the micro level (I believe in downward causality), therefore the microscopic legality has only a partial or negligible effect on the macroscopic system. (Downward causality is a claim that we don't know today if is it true or not)

531. Gidi,
     So if not according to physics, then what? Do you have any reason to assume that consciousness is "outside" of physics?

     It is quite clear that the environment affects the mind and the mind affects the environment, so what is here outside of physics?

532. I understood you - the thing we disagree is that you claim that consciousness falls according to physics and I claim otherwise - perfectly fine now we understand each other.

533. Gidi:
     I said my opinion.
     why are you asking again
     Consciousness is a physical thing that is subject to the laws of physics, acts according to them, and affects the world.

     In another response I wrote that in my opinion there is no "downward causality".

     What is not clear?

     Did you just decide to tease me?

534. Regarding consciousness - the question is, do you think that consciousness affects the physical world in such a way that consciousness itself is not affected by physical laws? (perhaps downward causality or something similar)

     When I say that consciousness affects the physical world, I mean that it itself is not affected by the existing physical laws. (again downward causality or something like that)

     *Downward causality is a claim, it is not proven, but there are those who advocate it and come to explain that there are phenomena at the macro level that cannot be explained at the micro level (laws of micro physics), mostly happens in very sophisticated systems. be true.

535. Gidi:
     You will be surprised - but you won't find a cake recipe in the article either.
     He discussed the topic I intended to discuss and not any other topic.
     Regarding consciousness - this does not belong to the article - but in my opinion it is a physical thing that affects the physical world.
     Very simple.

536. And your article is too long for this one. There are only 2 options.

     1. Our consciousness affects the physical world

     2. Consciousness does not affect the physical world (total screw up)

     Very simple.

537. Gidi:
     It seems that you didn't read the article and the comments and you didn't listen to the lectures in the links or.... You read and watched the lectures and didn't understand anything.

538. You assume things as if you are at least professors.

     Even today's scientists cannot determine whether there is free will or not...(they can only speculate)

     There are many experiments that have been done on the brain, such as Libet's experiment, followed by many more experiments, but they do not show at all whether there is a choice or not.

     Science does not come even one step closer to the question of how it is possible to explain that by electric currents one can really "feel" something (or awareness itself).

     The very fact that we talk about free choice strengthens it more.

     The big question of this article is whether our awareness can affect the physical world, and no one has an unequivocal answer, (it's very possible that there won't be) what I can put on the table to strengthen the claim of free will is our awareness, and the very fact that we can at all To talk about these issues, whether there is a choice or not, confirms it. (I doubt that a system, no matter how complex it is, a group of atoms in total, can talk about itself and really "understand") this is a point for thought. By the way, when I talk about free will, I am not referring to these souls and spirits, free will is mechanistic (in my opinion).

539. R.H.:
     There is a misunderstanding here that for some reason I am unable to remove from the discussion.
     I also claim that this is an illusion.
     Throughout the article and the comments I claim this and it is still not understood?!
     I only claim that the source of the illusion is not the chaos but the lack of a measure to which one can compare in order to feel the absence of freedom.
     I explained it in the article as best I could.

     I say again:
     You refer to part of the question "how the will works" and not to the question "how the illusion is created".

     I also said this in my previous comments so I'm starting to despair.

540. God,

     There is no connection between what generates the feeling and the feeling itself. There is no arguing that we all feel that we have free will. The question is whether this feeling is true or an illusion. I and I think Rani also hypothesize that this feeling stems from an illusion and there is actually no free will and in addition we proposed a mechanism to create the illusion.

     Sensation is the color red, you don't need to know anything about wavelengths to feel red. As above, you don't need to know what chaotic behavior is sensitive to initial conditions or any other mechanism to feel that you have free will.

     Evidence that the will is not really free but is influenced by external factors are phenomena such as cold reading, emotional manipulations, hidden advertising, etc. in which the person chooses what they were directed to and despite this he has a clear sense of free will and a rational decision.

541. Is it known today what the source of desire is? Subconscious or similar?

542. R.H.:
     It seems to me (actually I'm really convinced) that you and Rennie are confusing what generates the will and the source of our feeling that it is free.
     Do you really feel that your feeling that the desire to sit on chair A or on chair B is free stems from some chaos?
     Note that this is a conscious feeling (the question is not defined at any other level) and therefore - if this is your claim - it implies that anyone who has ever felt that their will is free should have known something about chaos (even if they did not call to speak on its behalf).
     To me it seems completely disconnected from reality.

543. Mc*al Varney,
     I agree here with Rani, the feeling of free will probably stems from a complex deterministic chaotic process in neurons that gives the illusion of free will. Like for example that a coin toss is a deterministic chaotic process that gives a sense of randomness or that the "deep blue" software presents an illusion of free will.
     Therefore it seems to us that under the same conditions we can choose to do different actions, but in fact it is never "the same conditions" there is always some factor that has changed and then our decision changes.

544. What exactly is a fact? Is there an unequivocal fact that the world is deterministic? Does science already have a solution to the issue of free will? Why is this a fact?

545. Rani:
     I really don't get this "explanation".
     Try for a moment to look inside yourself and think if your sense of free will has anything to do with chaos.
     I know for sure that this is not the case with me.
     When I have to choose whether to sit on chair A or chair B, I am not aware (mentally) of any chaos that affects my decision - absolutely nothing!
     As a person who knows science, I also know about chaos having an effect, but it really doesn't belong because my feeling is not based on this knowledge.

546. Well, then it seems to me that I came out screwed up

547. Michael, when I say that reality is chaotic I simply mean, as Sompolinski said, that it is very sensitive to initial conditions which is something that can be sensed even without a deep mathematical understanding. A rational being interprets his conduct in a reality he cannot foresee as freedom of choice. Shasompolinsky's insight is mainly important to show that quantum justification is not necessary for the applicability of the feeling of freedom of choice.

548. What exactly is a fact? Is there an unequivocal fact that the world is deterministic? Does science already have a solution to the issue of free will? Why is this a fact?

549. Ran:
     You have your theory and you won't let the facts confuse you.

550. Doo doo:
     I guess there's a lot you haven't seen yet.
     Have you seen babies who don't want to leave the arms of their immediate family members?
     Almost all babies do this at one point or another.
     Why?
     Did a stranger beat them?
     No - they are simply afraid without learning it and without you noticing it.
     True - it doesn't happen on the first day, but they don't have teeth on the first day either.

     By the way - what does this belong to the topic of the discussion?

551. Rani:
     Completely clear and I also explained how the feeling is created.
     By the way - people thought they had free will long before they dealt with physics, determinism and chaos.
     This is an internal feeling that people do not need to interpret at all (because it is like interpreting the feeling of the color red. Science today knows how to explain how the feeling is created, but people had no difficulty feeling it even before the age of science) and they certainly do not need terms like chaos to interpret their feeling.
     That's why I stand by my opinion.

552. I delved into the topic, it's all conjecture, we don't really understand where the desire comes from, where its source is, that doing experiments with electric current or with fmri devices doesn't point to anything. Measure today and nothing else

553. I have yet to see a baby with feelings of love, fear, hate, depression, all of these are products of the ego that develops over time, factually, the bigger a person grows, the more his problems

554. Michael, if we could perceive reality as completely deterministic (ie without chaotic illusion) then it is not clear how a sense of freedom of choice could develop. Of course, another necessary condition is the existence of a reason capable of such an interpretation (by the way, therefore we can interpret that history, for example, has free choice by virtue of being deterministic but chaotic).

555. Boaz:
     No.
     There is no such division.
     Quantum processes occur everywhere in the physical world.
     In fact, it seems that all physical processes are quantum processes only that in the macroscopic world we are looking at accumulations of many such processes and not at individual processes.
     To this day it is not clear whether the brain is affected by the fact that the processes in it are the result of quantum processes or that everything that happens in it would be the same even if it were not possible to decompose the macroscopic phenomena into their quantum components.

556. Rani:
     To me - the chaos is not the reason for the feeling of freedom.
     As I wrote in the article, I'm really convinced that the feeling of freedom is the only feeling we can have because, in relation to the desires that are consciously created, we have nothing to compare our desire to and say something like "I want X but I would actually prefer to want Y"
     By definition - what we want is what we prefer to want and we can never feel the constraints that made us want what we want.

557. Ran:
     It seems to me that you did not even try to delve into the subject.
     To get some idea of ​​what is being talked about here, you are welcome to read the comment that the student from the Technion added to this thread:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-309336

558. Uncle:
     Not only are the atoms in our brain affected by education and study, but you can actually see the changes in the structure of the neurons and the connections between them.
     Of course, these changes are also a consequence of the laws of nature and not of any "freedom" that we have.

559. Michael, as far as I understand Sompolinski actually said that freedom of choice is only a human interpretation of the fact that our consciousness exists in a system that for us is chaotic and therefore we have become accustomed to the illusion of freedom of choice for example like we have the illusion of continuity. Even if there was a God who decides all the choices for us, we would not be able to free ourselves from the feeling that there is freedom of choice.

     Sompolinski also mentioned an experiment in which the choice was influenced without harming the *feeling* of freedom of choice so that it is a feeling we have become accustomed to even if they prove to us that there is no choice.

     In this context I remembered the interpretation of the chess match of Kasparov and the machine called Deep Blue.
     A rabbi who interpreted one of the games said that it was not clear to him who was the man and who was the machine, since Kasparov played quite "mechanically" and the machine showed flight, daring and creativity from the point of view of the human observer. illusion.

560. So according to your article, thoughts, feelings, what teaches us about the world are done automatically? I mean, if I think about a certain thing, it's actually matter in an orderly way, not me? There is no control, free will. On what basis do you say these things? Tell me what tools are available in the world today to see what's going on in the brain with an fmri. You can check what a thought is. Your entire article is your conclusions only. It has not been proven in any way. So I wanted to move my hand and my hand moved and not my leg. This is of course an electric current, but what is the source of the electric current? Are there any subconscious processes from which the decision was made? It's not a simple issue and what you say today will receive completely different innovations in another year

561. interesting
     http://translate.google.co.il/translate?hl=iw&langpair=en|iw&u=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

562. Michael, I have a question for you, what is the role of the subconscious in the issue of choice, isn't the subconscious actually a place where quantum processes take place??

563. Yaffe is right, so you want to tell me that in a certain way we influence the atoms in our minds in some way by education??.

564. Doo doo:
     You repeat and emphasize the fact that you did not understand the argument of the article.
     The fact that study and education have an effect does not belong to the topic, but in the article itself you can find evidence that in my opinion they also have an effect.
     Otherwise - what is the meaning of the things I wrote about the deterrent role of punishment?
     After all, punishments are man-made and a newborn baby probably knows nothing about them, yet I say they have an effect.
     The fact that there is a study is a self-evident fact that completely corresponds to my conclusions expressed in the article.

     What is learned and what is instinct is a subject for another article.

565. I'm talking about a baby that was born. I know many cases that contradict this experiment. Take a baby and put it next to a tiger. Will it be afraid? Put him in a field of mines, will he be afraid to move? Put him in the middle of a busy road, will he move? Not to try, but take a 3-month-old baby and put him on the window sill, just make sure there's some kind of pool of water below hahahaha I actually meant to say that a lot of the feelings of fear, hate, moving, something that develops over time, it's not born, it's acquired (ego) The baby has no ego, no ego There are no barriers

566. Uncle - you are also wrong.
     Your claim that a baby placed on the edge of a roof will not be afraid is fundamentally wrong.
     The subject, named by the experimenters Visual Cliff, was investigated and it was found that a baby without any experience recoils from a gaping chasm that is presented to him and escapes from it by crawling.

567. Rani:
     Where did you see Sompolinski say that there is freedom of choice?

568. cedar:
     you are rambling
     Is there anything real you know how to do? What achievement can you point to in front of other people who will agree with you that it is a significant achievement?
     I'm sure not.
     But that doesn't stop you from trying to sell people the lie that you know better than all scientists.
     It is not clear to me what direction you are talking about when you say that I am not in the direction.
     I didn't mean anything.
     I just wanted to allow you to demonstrate to the public the fact that apart from bragging, you have nothing to offer.
     You made good use of the opportunity I gave you and I hope everyone has understood by now.

569. And I don't do any advertising, it's my insights and anyone who moderates will see you talk like me

570. At least someone understands me lol

571. Erez, there is a section in the site's regulations that prohibits advertising and what you are doing to Zen Buddhism is the rape of an advertisement. be careful

572. You sound dismissive in your speech, my intention is that if you think that what you perceive with your 5 senses is consciousness, then you are mistaken

573. Most scientists think most likely they are wrong and meditation you are really, really wrong

574. I really liked Prof. Sompolinski's first distinction (in my understanding) regarding the freedom of choice from the macro and not from the micro (for example, quanta).
     Animal consciousness operates in reality which is a chaotic system (order 2) and here you have the freedom of choice - the future cannot be accurately predicted.

     That is, in a simplistic way - consciousness + chaos -> freedom of choice.
     Note that chaos is not random but deterministic which is very sensitive to initial conditions (unstable determinism like the butterfly effect).
     It is true that the micro (quanta) is truly random, but I was convinced by the observation that in most cases this randomness does not spill over to the macro and therefore there is no obligation to depend on such randomness for freedom of choice.

     Good Day,
     Rani

575. cedar:
     I see you are doing well without me.
     You tell me, for example, why I call consciousness.
     Continue to manage without me and answer yourself the question you asked and if possible - please spare us this discussion between you and yourself.

576. You call the one you understand, will you ever know what exists outside of your mind, tell me?

577. cedar:
     You keep babbling and your babbling bores me.
     You also continue to argue after you promised us you were done.
     The vast majority of scientists are sure that you are wrong and this is also reflected in the entry I pointed to on Wikipedia.
     If you want us to examine your meditation in an objective test and see what questions you can answer with it - just say.
     All people talk about consciousness and almost everyone claims to have consciousness.
     How do you think they know that?
     If it is about something that only meditation allows you to know what it is then they are talking about something different than what you are talking about. Are you trying to invent a new language for us in which you call consciousness something different than what everyone else calls consciousness?
     Why do you think someone would agree to change the language?

578. Doo doo:
     You just show that you didn't understand me.
     Certainly there are also things to be learned. I only said that there are many things that you claimed are taught and they are not.
     But what is the problem with the fact that things are learned?
     Does that contradict what I said?
     If that's what you think - it's a sign that you didn't understand what I said.

     Besides - you are not authorized to determine the degree of enormity of people.

579. Consciousness-only Buddhism is a theory according to which existence is only consciousness, therefore nothing exists outside the mind. This means that all conscious experience is just a false imagination; Thus, the idea of ​​consciousness-only is essentially an opposition to all our earthly phenomena and experiences.

     Yogis who achieved enlightenment through transcendental meditation (these are called the Buddha collective), talk about detaching the "conscious self" from what is happening and imparting new abilities to the experience of life that arise from the strengthening of that awareness, such as the ability to activate the conscious self by choice to filter the sensory input of the "external" reality.

     You are sure to have attained enlightenment

580. You didn't understand me for example fear put a baby on the edge of a roof he won't be afraid he has no mind put a baby in front of a lion he won't be afraid so what is fear love for example it differs from person to person so but you can define feelings like justice or empathy after all it's words it's something we learn it It is not natural that you enter a place where giants have not fired you

581. Brother, understand that an answer to the understanding of consciousness will never be given by words, you are looking for written on paper by formulas where you will not be found, I promise you the end of an argument

582. cedar:
     When I want I will write an article on the subject.
     In the meantime, you are welcome to content yourself with what is written here (warning: this was written without being based on meditation!)
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

583. cedar:
     There are a lot of things you don't know and it is not limited to the question of what kind of meditation I do.
     You are simply making baseless and mostly meaningless claims and I do not intend to argue with you.
     I'm itching to present you with a real question to which there is no debate about the answer and see how you solve it through your meditation, but it seems to me like kicking a dead horse.

584. What is consciousness in your eyes, Michael?

585. Doo doo:
     Quantum processes occur everywhere and of course also in our minds.

586. Awareness is the one that perhaps allows a type of choice that is "free" and nothing else. (Awareness is also a "mechanical" part of us)

587. You claim that the choice is created by impulses for example if I am hungry I can also choose not to eat and die and if I see a hot iron I can touch it and get burned the choice does not come from the conscious mind the choice is made by the subconscious and my ambition is to achieve control over the subconscious connect to the subconscious through Meditation and I'm not kidding, I don't know what kind of meditation you do

588. cedar:
     you are rambling
     Just so you know, I also practice meditation.

589. Doo doo:
     You are wrong.
     Such feelings also exist in animals and not only in humans and there are many experiments that demonstrate this.
     Not every innate trait is expressed in the baby.
     You may not have noticed but when the baby is born it is small and has no teeth.
     Do you claim that he grows and grows two because of the mind?

     Factually, by the way, feelings of justice and empathy are revealed in children at a very early age - even before they master the language.

590. You are talking about impulses. It is strange that a born baby does not have impulses such as love, fear, empathy, the need for empathy, a sense of justice, etc. All of these are the product of the mind of what you get in the environment, which is actually the use of the mind, no mind, no problems :))

591. Michael, do quantum processes occur in our minds??

592. Camilla, you are probably looking for answers in books and science, so good luck with Michael. Your mind is so full that nothing enters and will not enter. The strange thing is that everyone who practices meditation will reach the same conclusions (Zen Buddhism). Have you ever thought about what exists outside of your mind?? Is there any shape or size of sensation? Imagine that your 5 senses don't exist at all, so nothing exists. Reality is the brain's creation. Ask yourself what you were before you were born :)) In short, I won't get into an argument if no one here is using your mind to understand what Unbeknownst to any writer, letters or numbers cannot describe what consciousness is and I understand well what you are saying. Science will change the worlds from end to end so have a pleasant change :))) Good day

593. The place is without a place

594. cedar,

     It follows from what you say that a person cannot understand what consciousness is until he experiences it himself, and that the way to experience it is through meditation (of a very specific kind).
     A. Do you seriously want to say that anyone who has not meditated and come to the same feeling that you may have experienced (and more logically others have told you about it) does not understand what consciousness is because all those people have never experienced their consciousness?

     B. Why do you think the method you recommend and not another method is the way to understanding consciousness?

     third. Let's say I decided to start meditating seriously, every day, with the method you recommended, maybe because I heard from other people that it works or maybe just by chance because it was the first thing I tried when I had a good sotol. How will I know that I have come to experience consciousness fully and in its deepest form? After all, according to you, I don't know what consciousness is yet, and no one else can explain it to me, so you understand that there is a problem here because I may be attributing my understanding of what consciousness is to the "correct" experience. Do you understand that under these conditions it could be that if you have an experience that makes you think you understand what consciousness is, then you are making a terrible mistake in interpreting your experience? To use your analogy, how are you sure that you experienced red, then it is possible that you even looked at blue...

     Maybe you should make sure you understand what they are saying before you call others scumbags?

595. It turns out that there are people who have emptied their minds of everything.

596. Explaining what consciousness is is like explaining to a person blind from birth what the color red is

597. There is only consciousness and all your chatter is an illusion, the truth is not thought and certainly not speech, sit down and empty your brain of nonsense and let the great consciousness enter only there is an answer

598. withering:
     Regarding the second article - he brings up ideas similar to mine, but in my opinion he is confused about one thing: he talks about trying to decipher the meaning of the concept of "free will" when this concept is an expression in language and what it represents is subject to the decision of human beings.
     Today - as I tried to show - this concept carries an excess charge that causes us problems.
     All that is necessary is to recognize the excess baggage and get rid of it.

     In the first article, they actually insist that the concept of "free will" is subject to our definition, and therefore it says that it is desirable that before dismissing or confirming its existence - they should make sure that they are talking about the same thing.
     It seems that in this article the authors are not aware of the experiment described by Sompolinski in which they not only observe the will at the time of its formation but go further and actually create it.

     It seems to me that in my article there is an understanding of all these points, a logical answer to the question of the existence of free will in each of the definitions discussed and also a way to relax from the feeling of conflict.

     Uncle:
     The article is nice and funny, but it seems to me that what I wrote actually also deals with the problem of motivation.
     Thanks to the insights that led me to write the article, I personally do not have any problem with free will and my motivation to act has not diminished.
     In addition to that - after all - what decision could be more "personal" than that of the specific machine that constitutes me?

599. An article from Nature magazine from 2005:

     http://www.daf-yomi.com/Data/UploadedFiles/Forums/14730.pdf

600. Nice new news in Nature regarding the (not so new) research on free will (or perhaps the lack of it):
     http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html#B1

     The main article referred to:
     Soon, CS, Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J. & Haynes, J.-D. Nature Neurosci. 11, 543-545 (2008)

     And also an interesting philosophical opinion in this context (although I've only read part of it yet):
     http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/what-makes-free-will-free/

601. Another suggested suggestion for increasing the metaphorical thought relative to the 'digital' thought - more hours of darkness, less hours of light at night.

     As for the image from the Zohar, there it is indeed a literary and musical muse. But this can also be translated to the clarification of the researcher's ideas.

602. Regarding the boy who had one of his hemispheres removed - don't try this at home 🙂
     It only worked because it was done at a very early age, when the brain was still flexible enough to adapt to the situation.
     An adult brain has already acquired habits of activity that it is almost impossible to get rid of.
     This is one of the reasons for pain and phantom limbs.
     An adult whose half of his brain stops functioning loses control of the opposite half of his body and many other cognitive functions.

603. Uncle:
     Roughly, we talk about such a division - but only roughly.
     The specialization is also not completely rigid.
     There was, for example, a case of a child who, due to an illness, had to remove one of the hemispheres of his brain and he grew up to be a completely normal child.
     People who had their cerebral hemispheres cut off (the main neural bridge between the two hemispheres) sometimes showed characteristics of rivalry between the personality in the right brain and the one in the left brain - which shows that there are areas that both hemispheres deal with (otherwise there can be no rivalry).

     Regarding the functions of the hemispheres, there is an unusual book that I recommend people to read and try the exercises that appear in it.
     The book is Drawing on the right side of the brain by Betty Edwards.

     This is a book that teaches you to improve the quality of your drawing by "neutralizing" the dominant left hemisphere.

     The example from the Zohar seems unrelated to me, but you knew in advance that this is what I would think.

604. To Michael,

     As I recall, studies have shown that the left half of the brain specializes in cold and balanced analysis, while the right half specializes in discovery through brilliance and intuition.
     It turns out that the right half does not work less hard, but that most of the work is done subconsciously. And these calculations are not numerical calculations, but symbolic images - icons of meanings.

     I hope I don't upset anyone, but there is a beautiful image of the difference between these two types of thought precisely in the Zohar book (in Gemara Darosh it appears differently).
     There are psalms in the book of Psalms that open with the phrase a psalm to David, and some that open with the phrase psalm to David.
     When David began to sing and only then did the Holy Spirit sing over him (revelation - Eureka), this is David's psalm.
     And when the Holy Spirit rested on him and from that he sang a song, this is a psalm to David.
     I would therefore suggest calling the 'muse' in Hebrew the word 'psalm'.

605. Uncle:
     Thanks!
     interesting.
     I can't say that I understood, but I take comfort in the fact that he also says that he still doesn't know what came out of this story.
     Personally, I don't believe anything came of it, but I really don't know.

     On the topic of our feeling of free will, it seems to me that he is looking too far because as I have shown - we have no way to feel otherwise - and this within the known and established physics.

     What did catch me in his words is the matter of intuition because I also often feel that solving problems is not climbing up the cliff with the heel on the side of the thumb and is more like mountain climbing in which a mountain climber throws a hook that is caught in some high place and then pulls himself up on the rope tied to the hook and I always asked I wonder how it is that I manage to know where to throw the hook.

     On the other hand, even here it is not necessary because it is possible that even in the process of solving the problems there is a lot of activity that is not conscious and it is the one that finds where to put the hook.
     This position derives (subjective) encouragement from the fact that I often feel that here, right now, I have solved the problem - and this even before I know the solution. As if the unconscious found a solution and first of all gives the consciousness a report (in the form of special excitement) that there is an idea for a solution and only then details.
     Another reinforcement is obtained from the fact that sometimes - the same solution that came from intuition turns out to be wrong in the end (and then the excitement becomes depressing).

     In any case - if Aharonov receives the award - it will be for what he has already done and not for what he has not yet done and may not be done.

606. Here is an interview article with Prof. Aharonov about his work in the last 15 years:
     http://www.calcalist.co.il/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3365730,00.html

     I heard these words from him in a radio interview many years ago.
     He assumes that, as we feel, man has freedom of choice.
     He also claims that time flows for a certain purpose.
     In this theory he also wants to explain the gaps in evolution if there are any.
     Indeed a philosophical-theological approach. But he tries to test and establish it with pure physical tools only.

     By the way, it is likely that his winning the Nobel Prize is only a matter of time.

607. Year:
     I deduced from your wording that this is your opinion.
     If not - I still have no idea what you are arguing with me about.
     The very fact that you argue with me means that you do not agree with me, but if my whole argument is that consciousness (and the will as part of it) are the result of the laws of nature and therefore are not free, then this means that there is something in this argument that you do not agree with.
     What is that something?

608. I have no idea what connection between the book and the article you are trying to point to and I don't think I will investigate the matter.
     What is clear is that Dostoevsky was not aware of the conclusions that science has about the way the brain works.
     In the book that I have already mentioned on certain occasions in the past - The God Impulse - the researcher puts forward several hypotheses regarding the brain events that caused Dostoevsky to become a devout Christian after he was almost executed, but I assume that is not what you are talking about.

609. Machel,
     Fairness requires that the person arguing with you should not refer to things he did not say. Nowhere did I say that consciousness is not a consequence of natural laws.
     The illusion I had that you might recognize the mistake… I really should have avoided it.

610. Machel,
     The Karamazov brothers deal with the same issues as the article. Do you believe the writing of this book is consistent with your conclusions?

611. Year:
     Dot commented on it as delusional because his hallucination is the opposite of yours.
     He thinks that there is nothing that deserves to be called "consciousness", or that at most - if there is - it is an illusion.
     He said this many times.
     I explained to him that it was about the material and how it was organized.
     So he says it's delusional because in his eyes (at least until that reaction - there is no difference between a computer and a person and a stone)
     You say it's delusional because you think there is a consciousness that is not a consequence of the laws of physics - one that somehow manages to activate our bodies despite this.
     In short - I am in the reality between your two delusions and that is why you both describe my words as delusional even though your opinions are opposite.
     Therefore - even the attempt to connect to a point in opposition to things is taking things out of context.
     I did not formulate a wrong sentence.
     The sentence "Consciousness is composed of matter" is an abbreviation of the more detailed claim that a point heard from me more than once is that consciousness is a process that occurs according to the laws of physics in a body of matter and energy organized in a given way.

     Not referring to this description - which is the context - is taking things out of context.

     I never claimed that we know what consciousness is.
     We know a number of things about her (which you refuse to acknowledge) but that doesn't mean we know what it is.

     As for your comments on section 2 - what I mean and what I will say.
     There is nothing between them.

612. Machel,
     Regarding 2 in your response to me, I agree that I shouldn't have attributed to you the claim that everything can be predicted according to the laws of nature, but if you go back to that response (it's a shame there is no numbering) and notice the final sentence that is separated from the main section and sounds like it's your opinion, you'll understand why I was wrong. I guess from most comments you don't always read your words before publishing them.
     Regarding 1, I didn't take the sentence out of context at all, it stands for the same response in isolation, and a point also responded to it as delusional. I don't understand why you can't see that you worded the sentence wrong.
     In the rest of your answer, you attribute to me things that I did not write at all, and that I propose things contrary to the opinion of the scientific community...on the one hand, there was not and will not be created, but on the other hand, the scientific community and any other community in fact cannot explain what the essence of consciousness is...since we cannot be satisfied with the description of the pulses the nerves.
     Not long ago, I asked this very question to a well-known neuroscientist, and his answer was emphatic, "We may never know."

613. Gidi:
     I don't think you understood the article.
     abandoned.

614. In any case, this has nothing to do with free choice at all.

     Even if you can't eat for a whole day, you will be hungry and the feeling of "hunger" is not your free will, that's what the brain says and that's it.

     The same for an electric current, perhaps it can stimulate a desire to move the hand or talk or even eat but, again, this is not related or does not indicate a relationship to "free" choice.

615. Gidi:
     When I give someone an anti-depressant I can't tell if it's really helping them or if it's just making them say it's helping them.
     Nevertheless - there is a limit to the unreasonable assumptions that should be adopted.
     The person says he wants and he is the only authority on whether he wants or not.

616. Michael:

     Regarding an electric current, you are right that if they pass it through the brain at a certain point, then you will move your hand involuntarily,

     But regarding your second claim that it is possible to transfer a current and then make you think that you wanted to do the action, it is not accurate at all because only the person to whom it was done feels that way, maybe it is not the same feeling of desire but something similar to it? You can't know it's just the opinion of some people on whom they did the experiment.

617. Gidi:
     I explained that the article was intended to resolve a conflict that those who accept science's claims about reality have.
     If you do not accept the claims of science and you say that evolution is "just a theory" (as if there is some claim about reality that is not "just a theory") and all kinds of similar things - then this article is not for you.

618. Year:
     1. "Consciousness consists of matter, etc."
     I wrote the things in response to the question of a point (whose opinion is completely opposite to yours) and they are intended to deal with his misunderstanding.
     Of course, you have to deal with your misunderstanding differently.
     I have explained more than once that this is a form of organization of the material and a process, but that is not what was important in that response and taking things out of context is not a smart thing to do.
     If you don't think that what I wrote is true - you are welcome to point to one case where it was discovered that something in the brain does not follow the laws of nature. One will do!
     It is known that you can send an electric current through the brain that will make your hand move.
     It is known that it is possible to flow an electric current in another place and make you move your hand and claim that this is what you personally wanted to do.
     All your actions and feelings are the result of such things and nowhere is there an electrical voltage that was not caused by a previous physical phenomenon that caused it.
     You can, of course, ignore all existing knowledge and claim what you want, but if you do so without a shred of confirmation - you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously, and indeed - it's not a coincidence that the majority of the scientific community thinks differently than you.

     2. ” (“I ignored, for that matter, etc.”
     very nice.
     So you are saying that precisely quantum theory is not a problem and in fact justifies my choice to ignore the matter.
     Is there a problem with that? No. So why did you write it?
     Regarding the continuation - you simply did not understand what I wrote.
     Note that I was talking about a parable and not about our reality (not completely accurate - I was talking about what we don't think is our reality but that we have no way of showing that it really isn't our reality) I was talking about the matrix hypothesis (and I also explained what it is) and I claimed that if it were true (and as mentioned - It is not possible to distinguish whether yes or no) after all, it was possible to take a faster computer, etc.
     I don't think you even came close to understanding things.

619. Quite a few things are wrong in the article and in Machal's comments, I will dwell only on years:
     1. "Consciousness consists of matter that operates according to the laws of physics, but not every substance that operates according to the laws of physics has consciousness."
     So what is the material? Consciousness is produced from the material brain cells, but it itself is not material, until its materiality is proven. Below is an article by a physics professor who believes that there are abstract things in the physical world:
     http://odyssey.org.il/209313
     Does consciousness have a measurement, like any physical phenomenon?
     2. ("I ignored, for the purpose of the matter, the randomness of quantum theory, because that way it is easier to explain")" In other words - the entire future can in principle be predicted according to the laws of physics and accurate knowledge of the data of the elementary particles and the same being can predict everything without knowing a thing and a half Talk about consciousness."
     Precisely the quanta, despite the difficulty of explaining them, are not a problem, whereas consciousness cannot be predicted, even the example of choosing the seat in the article cannot be predicted using any sophisticated computer.
     If Machal really agreed with the example that Guy brought from Roger Sperry, he would have realized that his claims about the possibility of predicting consciousness are wrong.

620. I can explain to you what free choice is in my opinion:

     A choice that does not depend on previous events "and at the junction" whether to choose A or B then the option is open they will answer lack of determinism,

     Now we are in a problem because if we reach the exact same intersection and choose option B then it is difficult to explain the difference between free choice and randomness.

     Another way to explain free choice is by the claim of "downward causality" in the essence of our awareness and our desires are not blindly affected by the micro level and the laws, but there is a top down causality here that the effect of the laws of physics is only partial on us (a sophisticated macroscopic system) imposes itself on the level the microscopic.

     For example: you choose between Coke and Sprite, so free choice means that your choice will not be deterministic, but your will and awareness move the "particles" in the brain to where they want.

     By the way, another important thing is that I do not believe in "free" will because there is no such thing in my opinion, what is more, I believe that our will is not blindly influenced only by the laws of physics, but has the "power" (because of awareness) of downward causality.
     I am not saying that there is a connection to the soul or to God, this is simply a claim (which by the way has not been disproved) that it is also physical, it just works the other way around.

621. Gidi, maybe you will demonstrate free choice for us?

622. One more thing... could it be that free choice is something created over time?

     Does because we have reached the level as we talk about awareness and free choice actually make us go "out of the box" as people and maybe get this ability?

     I'll give you an example, let's say Phil has self-awareness (in my opinion) but not like our awareness and I'll explain to you why.. Let's say Phil sees something in the world so he's aware of it. The question is, is his awareness aware of awareness? Or it's just as if his body works completely mechanically without any free choice and his awareness is just like a movie, he sees and hears but has no influence.

     With man it is not like that, he is the only creature that can talk about his awareness and in fact he is aware of being aware, I think there is no such ability to live and in general man is "thousands of light years" away from any other animal.

     Could it be that the process of evolution (if it is true) can cause such miracles?

     Although man is genetically similar to monkeys, he does not compare to them at all. Can a monkey ever play chess like a man? Or build an atomic bomb? Engineer a building? Talk about himself like us? Investigate himself? After all, they don't even come close to the shadow of these things.

     What I'm trying to say is that it could very well be that free choice is something very mysterious, some kind of mechanism given only to us humans because of an evolutionary process or by God, I don't really know.

623. I didn't say it can't happen, just how to say it.. it sounds a little weird, that's all.

     The fact that we are here is true..but actually no one has any idea how we got here or even how it all started, it's all theories..no one really knows.

     The theory of evolution is also a total theory and nothing more than that... it has some reinforcements, I'm not saying that it doesn't, but on the other hand it has a lot of holes... and in general it is a theory that is mostly assumptions... and many, many unexplained "holes".

624. Gidi:
     What do you mean?
     Are you telling me it can't happen?
     So how did it happen anyway?
     We are here, aren't we?

625. Were stars, living beings and consciousness created? It also sounds like a crazy thing that is very hard to believe.

626. To detail things a little more, then:
     (almost) in the beginning were the laws of physics and the elementary particles.
     Then these laws worked and without choice stars, life and consciousness were created.
     There is nothing supernatural that led to the formation of consciousnesses and also from their creation - they are built and function as consciousnesses only by virtue of the laws of nature and have no freedom to act otherwise.
     If we look at the matrix theory (the theory that cannot be confirmed or disproved and therefore is not scientific - our entire reality is nothing more than the result of a computer program in which certain "laws of nature" were determined and a certain distribution of the data of the "elementary particles") then a being external to this reality, who observes our reality through The computer's display medium and watch the formation of the stars and life and the various consciousnesses, can take a faster computer, copy the current situation into it, run it, and see what each and every one of us will decide to do at any given moment (I ignored, for the purpose, the randomness of quantum theory, because This is easier to explain).
     In other words - the entire future can in principle be predicted according to the laws of physics and accurate knowledge of the elementary particle data and the same being can predict everything without knowing a thing and a half about consciousnesses.

627. By the way, one more thing.. In my opinion, if there is free will in the world, it is not as everyone thinks that it is body and soul and that the body receives orders from the soul, but it is something purely ecclesiastical. For example, causality from top to bottom.

628. ravine:
     Again - a distinction must be made between description and explanation and emanation.
     I completely accept what Sperry says and you can see it in my argument with a point - for example in my response to this:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-309718

629. There are renowned scientists who support the interview of downward causality.
     If I'm not mistaken, Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry first talked about this when he tried to describe what the forces at work in our minds are. I heard about him from Douglas Hofstetter's books.
     Sperry's intention, if I understand his intention correctly, is that when trying to understand brain activity, it appears to be a chaotic and unclear tangle. At the bottom level there are the atoms that obey the laws of physics, above them there are the cells and the electrical signals that pass between them and the rough division of the brain regions will change according to their function.
     Thinking about the brain at the micro level does not contribute much to understanding its activity. When I ask why a person made such and such a decision, it would be more correct to describe the decision not at the level of the neurons, but usually it would be a more exhaustive explanation at the level of ideas, psychological impulses, computational understanding of brain function.
     If we want to ask the question why people are capable of such and such decisions but chimpanzees are not, we will not get the answer at the level of neurons. The "real" reason is different thinking patterns, different impulses.
     When will we be able to say that we understood the behavior of a human being? Will it be when we create an exact replica down to the atomic level of that person and watch them reproduce exactly the same behavior of the original?
     Or will it be when we create an algorithm that reproduces the thought processes that went through a human's mind (and for that we can even use a robot without even a single neuron in its body)
     Here is a quote from his words:
     In my own hypothetical brain model, conscious awareness does get representation as a very real causal agent and rates an important place in the causal sequence and chain of control in brain events, in which it appears as an active, operational force...

     That is, the description in which consciousness is the one that causes the parts to move inside our mind is not far-fetched.
     On this occasion, he also says that a Hebrew translation of Bach's book Gadel Asher has been released. recommended:
     http://www.haayal.co.il/story_3374

630. Gidi:
     And did I say that this is everyone's opinion?
     All in all, I said that causality from above is not true (in my opinion) and is not accepted in science.
     Did I say there is no more theory? After all, there are a lot of unfounded theories and I certainly didn't say they don't exist.

     And I repeat and emphasize the difference between emanation and explanation.
     Why do you care about the explanation? It's just not relevant!

631. This is in his opinion, but not everyone's opinion.

     And no, it was not disproved, he himself said that it cannot be contradicted logically.

     Don't get me wrong, I'm not behind the claim that there is downward causality, but it is a possibility.

     If you said that you listened to the lecture, then you probably also heard that there are phenomena that are "phenomenal" that the microscopic laws of physics cannot explain, not because it is inconvenient, but because there is no explanation.

     By the way, you should know that I'm roughly on the same page as you...I'm a realistic person, and I don't believe that there is such a thing as dualism at all, nor a soul,, regarding free choice, I don't agree with you because it's a very complex matter for which there is no definitive proof, and I, as a person, too, if there's anything important that I've learned In life it is not to draw conclusions too quickly..and you my friend (in my opinion) draw conclusions too quickly...even scientists do not all agree on the things you say and they cannot explain today what consciousness is, how it will even be possible in our world and many other things..it could be That there is some sort of partial free choice that most people don't have the intention of. It might mean that you don't have to keep an open mind, read to be educated, and also not be fixated on different positions, isn't that right?

632. In other words - just like me, Professor Sompolinsky points out the difference between an "explanation" that can be given at the macro level and an "emanation" that exists only from the micro level.

633. Gidi:
     I listened to Sompolinski's lecture earlier but in light of your request I listened again and saw that he completely agreed with me.
     I transcribed a large part of his words, but for now I will only quote the sentence that summarizes his opinion on the matter: "All these examples are examples that are not true and are unfounded. They do not indicate the ability, the interpretation, of downward causality"

     Say from now on: "Michael, you are completely accurate."

634. Professor Haim explains there about what I talked about with you (it's about 5 minutes)
     Go to 1:01:30 to 1:06:30

635. You are not accurate, take a link
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk

     Go to 1:01:30 to 1:06:30 (hour)

636. Gidi:
     What I said is absolutely accurate.
     There is a difference between "cannot be explained" and "does not follow".
     Many times it is more convenient to explain phenomena at the macro level. For example everything that involves the weather.
     It is much easier computationally and it is much more applicable in terms of the available data.
     However - there is no phenomenon in the macro world that does not arise from the micro level and all explanations at the macro level are based on averaging data at the micro level.

637. Michael:

     What you said is not accurate, there are phenomena at the macro level that cannot be explained at the micro level. Indeed, an individual particle will not find that it behaves differently from the laws and that is true, but these are complex macroscopic systems that have processes that cannot be explained according to the physical laws. Professor Haim Simpolosky said this himself (not that he said it contradicts the micro laws, but he said that in his opinion.)

638. Yoel, I'm not sure that the problem is with Michael, he wrote an article, you try to interpret it into all kinds of things he didn't mean and then you come with claims. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is also a moderator. He is committed to the values ​​of science, he is knowledgeable and understands it well and many commenters thank him for what they learned from him. Apart from that, on all websites and all blogs, writers and moderators are allowed to comment.

639. To my father Blizovsky
     The combination of a commenter who is also a moderator is fundamentally ethically flawed and points to a serious problem.
     When that personality's responses are based on a constant misunderstanding of a text, there is a serious problem.
     When the reactions of the same personality in other cases include as a matter of course personal attacks, and on the other hand he turns claims against him as if they were personal attacks, there is a serious problem.
     When that personality deletes comments in which it was proven that there was a factual error, and even based on that error an unfounded response, there is a serious problem.
     When all this happens on a site called "Hidan", there is a very serious problem.

640. As I said, Yoel, I won't argue with you anymore because I don't see you as a worthy philanderer.
     What's more - if you continue your personal attacks - I will block your ability to react.

641. To Michael
     I don't know about you, but there are some things that some people learned before there was Wikipedia.

     If the wrong content is attributed to the concept, the path from here to wrong conclusions is very short. For example: if consciousness is not matter, maybe there is a fundamental problem in connecting it to the world of physical phenomena?

     I didn't know you represented the scientific community, but if you say so, you must have a very respectable letter of appointment.
     The connection between my claims and moral preaching is conceivable because you don't know what moral preaching is. Here is an example of a mistake in the concept leading to a wrong statement.
     I'll sum it up like this, Michael: what you wrote is your opinion, which is not correct in my opinion - and I also wrote a few things about it. You and your words are neither science nor the scientific community as a whole. Modesty (along with accuracy) are welcome qualities.

642. Joel (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-309978):
     Your words belong more to the field of moral preaching than to science.
     As a principle - this is about preaching morality to the scientific community almost as a whole.
     You are welcome to read what is written on Wikipedia about free will and the scientific approach to it.

643. Joel (https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-will-0810113/#comment-309971):
     I wanted to explain something.
     I explained and I understood.
     I'll leave the word police to you.

644. The claim that nature controls our desires does not take into account all the decisions that nature and nature have nothing to do together. The claim that it is possible to make a reduction from the desire to see a certain movie at nine o'clock to physics through biology and chemistry (pleasure, etc.) uproots the meaning of things from their foundation. From the theoretical point of view, proposals of reduction to mathematics have been made to explain everything that is happening. It has long been out of consideration.
     Those for whom gravity, quantum and the desire to buy a flower for a loved one are on the same plane, misses the fundamental differences between the above. More than that: does not take into account the changes in "transition".
     Combining different attributes - like "white" and "hard", for example - in relation to the same matter is worthless. Connecting physical determinism to human will as above.
     The use of single/single-valued physical determinism does not take into account basic things in large systems, including human ones, such as chaos.
     When it comes to universal forces of nature, gravity for example, everyone obeys. What to do, and not all people act in given fields in the same way, they even do the opposite, and some do nothing. That is: at different stages, the business adopts a different mode of operation.
     The interesting thing is that things of this kind were already raised by Laplace about 200 years ago, and given the assumption of the late 19th century that science knows everything, it is claimed that in principle everything can be known for the future.
     We are blessed: we got a real retro.

645. Michael: "Consciousness consists of matter that operates according to the laws of physics."
     Consciousness is not composed of matter.
     What makes it possible, the place where it is created, is matter.
     It itself is not composed of matter.

646. Gidi:
     First of all - a theory that cannot be disproved in principle is not a scientific theory (beyond that - no scientific theory can be proven, but that is less important for our purpose).
     I will not elaborate here on the reason why science is not interested in unscientific theories. Says only the gist: "Practically - they have no meaning".
     An example of a theory similar to the one you proposed is the following theory:
     "There are no laws of physics. God controls the movement of every elementary particle and in the meantime he simply wants to do it according to certain laws, but he has free will and can change his decision."

     Second - everything we have ever discovered in science is based on "causality from below". Nothing that is not like this has ever been discovered.

     Third - according to your suggestion - to justify your theory at least one example of a case where an elementary particle does not obey the natural laws of causation from below is necessary.
     There is no such example.

647. Michael Rothschild
     October 9, 2011 at 18:07 pm #

     Yair and Amit:
     As I said - it is not possible to distinguish that the will is not free, so it is not surprising that this is what you feel.
     However - in the brain - all molecules blindly obey the laws of nature. No exception to this rule has ever been observed.

     There is another interesting thing here from a physical point of view in the context of free will: in principle, the laws of physics are local and do not change...even if there is randomness in the world, this does not strengthen the claim that there is free choice - it simply means that not everything is dictated in advance.

     There is a theory called "downward causation", it is an interesting theory that cannot be disproved logically, and it has not been disproved in physics, but it also has no conclusive evidence and it says so

     As a principle, most physicists teach that the micro level affects the macro and this also makes sense, macroscopic systems are ultimately built from microscopic systems that they are influenced by and cannot contradict them because there are physical laws and no matter how complex the system is in the end it is built and obeys the microscopic laws (atoms, etc.) ) Now the theory of downward causality says the opposite: in our world, mainly in elaborate systems and living things, there are phenomena that cannot be explained at the microscopic level, these are phenomena that occur at the macro level without a physical explanation at the micro level, which can mean that a macroscopic system imposes itself on the microscopic system and the effect of the micro is partial only! And it is still not known what is true here, whether we simply cannot explain some of the phenomena due to lack of knowledge, or whether complex macroscopic systems (such as living beings) impose themselves on the foundation stones from which they are built.

     Which can perhaps strengthen the argument in favor of free choice because it is not the atoms we are made of that affect us, but we influence and impose ourselves on them, and this theory cannot be disproved today.

648. Well, period, that's the old debate between us. nothing new.
     In your eyes, the organization has no meaning.
     Although a computer can calculate and a stone cannot - but there is no difference between them. They are all a collection of elementary particles.
     So tell me please: why do you use the word "computer" and the word "stone" if they are not different things.
     Why not invent a word (like acha = acronym for collection of elementary particles) and just use it to describe anything?

649. The way atoms are organized does not create anything new. The laws of physics apply to each and every atom individually and together if there is interweaving but that's it. The computer does nothing beyond obeying the laws of physics. There is no consciousness or anything related to consciousness.
     Consciousness consists of matter?? I have never heard anything more ridiculous.

650. I have no free will, and I admit that I did not choose to respond to this article.

651. point:
     I am not contradicting myself and will try to explain to you for the umpteenth time.
     Consciousness, in my opinion, is something that exists and influences.
     There is no doubt about it because otherwise natural selection would not have chosen it.
     Consciousness consists of matter that operates according to the laws of physics, but not all matter that operates according to the laws of physics has consciousness.
     A computer is also composed of existing materials, but this does not mean that the way in which these materials are organized has no effect, and therefore there is a difference between a computer and a stone.

652. Michael, you are contradicting yourself
     On the one hand, you say that there is no free choice (or free will, at the moment the terminology does not matter).
     And on the other hand you say that consciousness is active and has an effect in the universe.
     According to the way I perceive things, to say that consciousness has an effect and that it is a cause is the same as saying that a person has free choice.
     The analogy you brought to Temprotra seems correct but it is misleading, and it is important to understand the difference. Temperature is not a physical object, temp is a macroscopic measure that quantifies a collection of microscopic events.
     Temp is not a reason, it is entirely our invention for a convenient description of a phenomenon. Not of the causes of the phenomenon, for the causes one must understand what is happening at the microscopic level.

     However:
     Consciousness is not a physical body and is not a measure of any physical size, it is simply a given, the only given thing.
     The laws of physics that apply only to physical objects (particles, fields) determine everything. Therefore it is not possible for consciousness to have an influence in the universe.
     Unless you believe in free choice and claim that consciousness is related to quantum effects and these allow room for choice (this is at least close to what I think is happening).

653. Uncle:
     The opening of the first comment in the sentence "Any word about Yekir Aharonov?" It actually sounds like a criticism to me, but if you regret it, I have no problem and I'm ready to forget that it was even written.
     In connection with the settlement, the effect of the future on the present if the future is not determined - I am still not clear what this is about.
     If you are clear then please explain.
     If not - please provide an exact quote of Aaronov's words.
     There is no other way to discuss this seriously and if we are talking about gossip - I have no interest in being a party to it.

     As for the mention of the Holy Scriptures - I have no problem with the mention, but there is and I have a problem with the unfounded claims that religious people often deceive the public with as if the discoveries of science were known to the Sages or the writers of the Torah.
     The truth is that none of them knew anything that was not known to their contemporaries.
     If you notice - even the title I gave to the article - "Everything is expected and permission is given" comes from the sources of Judaism and this - although it is clear to me that their intention was completely different.
     There is a difference between using a coin of language that is also suitable for new knowledge and claiming that the new knowledge was known to those who used that coin for the first time.

     There is no trend of opposition to anything that might mention Haredim.
     My objection is to the lies (and what to do with the lies that the ultra-orthodox usually spread?) that claim that the writers of the holy books knew things that they did not.

654. To Michael,
     It was not my intention to criticize - how come you didn't bring up Aharnov's opinion. It is certainly acceptable and possible that his opinion on this matter is not sufficiently publicized yet. I just wanted to mention here his opinion, which is the basis of his current work, which has been going on for quite a few years.
     It would indeed be interesting to understand how exactly the influence on the past relates to the possibility of free choice, according to his explanations.
     As for your question - I understand that the influence on the past and the future is not absolute and terministic. There are effects, but there is still room for other additional effects.
     As for the word "exactly" that I wrote, again, this was not a polemical claim, my intention was that Aaronov's work on the possibility of influencing the past is not *against* free choice, but rather, its purpose is precisely to *explain* the possibility of free choice.

     As for reciting scriptures, I don't think we should shy away from reciting our rich stories. The great scientists like Yuval Naman liked to mention our origins. He mentioned, for example, the cycles of the comet mentioned in the Mishnah and the Talmud, long before Halley's discovery. I saw that you also in this thread mentioned a bull that hit the cow, which is an old Talmudic expression. We should not gather only into the two extreme groups, those who despise tradition and those who believe that there is no place for modern research.
     It is common to look for who was the first thinker of any scientific idea, whether from decades or hundreds of years ago, or among the Greek philosophers. So why not point out that the possibility of influencing the past is indeed mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud? Just because the current trend requires opposing anything that might mention the ultra-Orthodox?!

655. Uncle:
     My main argument is that as long as someone is "working on a theory" his temporary conclusions are not part of scientific knowledge.
     Beyond that, I said that I had not heard such claims from Aaronov's mouth (the truth is that before I wrote this I made an effort to "hear" and searched in all his articles that I could find - including in the arxiv and I asked people who work with him. Despite this, I did not succeed. This does not mean that he did not say it, therefore, Despite the clarification, I didn't write that he didn't say it, but only that I didn't hear him say it. Of course - the meaning is that I didn't hear it from someone other than you. I heard it from you).
     I also questioned how, in a world where the future can affect the past, there can be free will when the will is intended to affect the future - something that is not "free" if the future is already determined.
     That's why answers like "Precisely yes" - there's no way you'll convince me (not to mention the typical attempt to tie the crowns of science to the holy books).

656. Eddie:
     This is not a theory but an attempt to deal with the psychological problem arising from the conflict between the implications of the known theory and our intuitive feelings.
     The theory underlying this confrontation is easy to disprove.
     All that needs to be shown is a situation in which something in the brain (molecule, atom, elementary particle, electric voltage, etc.) acts contrary to the laws of nature.

657. To Michael,
     Well, it is precisely Aharonov's work on the issue of retrograde influence that is related to and necessary for him to enable the matter of free choice. He also mentioned this in an interview with his voice in the media, several years ago, and also recently in the written media.

     And by the way, the possibility of an influence going back in time was raised in our sources, in the Jerusalem Talmud.

658. Michael Rothschild,
     Is your theory disprovable?

659. Culture is the totality of reactions to experiences. Intelligence is the ability to learn and utilize experiences.
     Thinking is a cultural occurrence, an analysis-consequence of an accumulation of experiences and reactions and the memory of their results.

     A.
     http://the-scientist.com/2011/09/01/ribosomes-in-control/

     The paper
     N. Kondrashov et al., "Ribosome-mediated specificity in Hox mRNA translation and vertebrate tissue patterning," Cell, 145:383-97, 2011. Free F1000 Evaluation

     The finding
     The ribosome was thought to treat all messenger RNAs the same, connecting coded peptides into a protein chain like a mindless machine. However, Maria Barna, a developmental biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues found that a deletion in one ribosomal protein was responsible for skeletal abnormalities, such as kinked tails and extra ribs, in a line of mice called Ts for " tail short.” The ribosomal mutation caused decreased translation in eight of the 39 murine Hox genes, and suggests that ribosomes can regulate gene expression.

     The change in dogma
     "Basically what it suggests is that the ribosome itself is helping to select the messages that it translates," said Jonathan Warner, professor of cell biology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "This is the first time they've shown this."

     B.
     The ribosome itself helps select the messages it translates? Yes! Definitely yes!
     http://the-scientist.com/2011/08/31/ribosomes-in-control/

     http://universe-life.com/2011/06/10/update-comprehension-of-universelife-evolution/
     It has ALWAYS - since Earth's life day one - been an RNA world.
     ALL Earth life is evolved RNAs.
     ALL genetic evolutions are RNAs configurations-expressions of enhanced-energy-constraint modifications.

     Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
     http://universe-life.com/

     Why Pavlov smiled in 2008
     http://universe-life.com/2011/09/24/pavlovs-smile/

660. Uncle:
     I say more than that.
     I say that cold logical thinking is also mechanistic.
     There is a mechanism in our mind that knows how to perform logical or mathematical or other conscious calculations - but this mechanism is also mechanistic.

661. After seeing that someone here asked to shorten the article, I decided to respond as well in order to strengthen what was said in it, and shed some light on the neurobiological processes that take place in our bodies and minds. A really short response.

     Blaise Pascal once said - "We never think about the present and when we do, it is only to see what light it can shed on our plans for the future."
     This is, in my opinion, a sharp and precise distinction regarding the non-existence of the present which is going to perish in our thinking process which is immersed in utilizing past events to plan what will happen in a moment or a moment further away.
     This all-embracing process, from the moment of birth to death, is the thinking and decision-making, of which the will, which seems to us to be free, is a part of them, but not their primary motive.

     When a person thinks logically and makes a decision, he probably has knowledge of the situation that requires a decision, - knowledge of different options for action (response) and an informed assessment of the results of each of the response options.
     This knowledge exists in memory in the form of systemic representations and is accessible in abstract or verbal form at the same time.
     Thinking and deciding (the exercise of the will) should show that the decision maker has some logical strategy to derive valid conclusions from which the response will be derived.
     The supporting processes, attention, as well as working memory are an integral part of logical thinking, but also emotion and feelings and the brain mechanism that links everything together take part in what seems to us to be a pure logical thinking process.

     I want to say that choosing a response is not done by purely logical thinking, but is done after all the neurobiological processes have also participated in the process.
     And so is the desire.
     Because there are processes that occur without the involvement of consciousness, it seems to us that all our decisions are based on logic and the exercise of the will only.
     Here is an example of an unconscious process that leads to a decision.
     Let's imagine what happens when the blood sugar level drops and the neurons of the hypothalamus sense this drop. This is a situation that requires some action. We have prior knowledge of this situation that is embedded in the systemic representations of the hypothalamus, there is also a strategy for choosing a response that is embedded in the neural circuit and consists of creating a state of hunger that will motivate us to eat.
     But there is no visible knowledge here, no clear display of options and results, and no cognitive mechanism of drawing conclusions, until the moment when we are aware of being hungry and decide to eat.
     A hidden process that led to a conscious decision.

     The experience with situations like this last and others throughout our growth process has caused the brain to connect the disturbing stimulus with the response that is most beneficial to it.
     From this moment on, this pattern of action becomes an integral part of the brain's decision-making and reaction system.
     Therefore, even when we are faced with decisions such as choosing a career or marriage or friends or planning a building or even solving a mathematical problem, there is no way we can reach a decision on action without the involvement of the mechanism I described earlier.
     It is not surprising that people tend to think that there are separate mechanisms for solving the drop in sugar in the body and deciding who to marry, but it is clear to the neuroscientist that both are based on a common neurobiological core.

     If, for example, we think about a situation in which we have to decide whether we want to get married, all the knowledge or the key elements unfold in our minds simultaneously at lightning speed, now before we have enough time to enter with ourselves into a balanced and fresh balance of pros and cons, just like that in the blink of an eye when we think about some future situation in married life, We experience some gut feeling, some unpleasant contraction, (and I'm sure everyone has experienced this at some point) this is a neurobiological sign that functions as an automatic alarm signal, Hello, Deir Balak.
     This signal leads us unwittingly to reduce the options of choosing the action and preventing something that will cause us possible harm almost without conscious awareness.

     And then we say to ourselves with a pat on the back, brother, what common sense I have, what logic, what an informed decision-making process I have.

     This is the connection between what we call cognitive and what we call emotional and this connection is required by reality because it allows us to choose from a smaller number of action options.
     This contraction, this feeling does not weigh for us but helps the thinking process to delete certain options and make an informed decision.
     It is a neurobiological means of influence that helps us decide and it is activated unconsciously and we are mistaken to think that free will has led us to a certain pattern of action.

662. Yair and Amit:
     As I said - it is not possible to distinguish that the will is not free, so it is not surprising that this is what you feel.
     However - in the brain - all molecules blindly obey the laws of nature. No exception to this rule has ever been observed.
     This is the dilemma and in the light of this dilemma I wrote the entire article.
     The answer to your question is also given in the article.
     After all, the whole thing was from the beginning about the will of the mind - the one that involves conscious choices, because I don't think there can be any disagreement about the basic desires and impulses.
     The desire - as I mentioned - is the mechanism by which we weigh our various urges - the urge to eat, the urge to look good, the urge to obey the laws we were brainwashed with in our childhood, etc., and choose the destination we aim for.
     Isn't it obvious that the cases you mentioned are private cases of what I described?

663. Although not everything is predictable, the permission is given...

     Quantum Mechanics Of Life http://universe-life.com/2011/03/27/quantum-mechanics-of-life/
     Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology
     From "Essence Of Quantum Mechanics"
     http://universe-life.com/2011/01/24/quantum-mechanics-and-entanglement/
     The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most likely cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.
     Energy-mass relationship also governs the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.
     Mechanisms do not set/determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states.
     The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behavior of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behavior WITHIN the galactic clusters.
     Life's Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology.
     UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.
     The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically worthless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
     Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
     It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their lives as individuals and as group members.
     Dov Henis (Comments From 22nd Century)
     "Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection"
     http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/26/in-evolution-last-really-can-be-first/comment-page-1/

664. Be in the background of Yair's words here: the diet phenomenon. As far as is known, man is the only creature that goes on a diet.
     The phenomenon of dogs eating until they throw up in response to their natural urges is well known.
     Contrary to a person's needs and urges to eat, there are those who choose to withhold food from their mouths for health and social needs: beauty, fashion, etc. Why would one person choose to fast and starve while the other would give it up? Isn't there an expression of free will? It is clear that there are factors that influence both sides. On the one hand, the food meets a basic need, providing food for pleasure, and on the other hand, the diet provides an answer to other satisfactions, and there are those who will choose one way and others another, just because this is their authentic and free will.

665. Mabruk

666. On a small scale, we are certainly allowed to attribute to freedom of choice also the meaning of freedom of will.
     In a previous debate I argued that the only true free will is a human action against nature, such as self-mutilation, birth control, suicide. The things did not get sympathy then, now maybe they will get more attention.

667. Uncle:
     I don't know all the things Aaronov is working on but I've never heard him say anything about free will.
     He does deal with controversial issues these days (such as retroactive influence) but here too he still has a vision for the time and he still needs to be convinced and convinced before his words can be based on.
     If at all one can conclude anything from the claim that the future affects the present, it is precisely that there is no free will because the future has already been determined (otherwise it would not be able to affect the present).

     It is not entirely clear to me how you want the article to be shorter and also to mention unknown studies by Aaronov.
     Feel free to write your own article on these topics.

668. Tinkering:
     Remember the bull that hit a cow?
     From there you will do the calculation yourself.

669. So if a person stole while sleeping, should he be punished or not?

670. No word on Prof. Yakir Aharonov?
     Prof. Yakir Aharonov has long been nominated for the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
     In recent years, Aharonov has been engaged in the development of a physical theory in which there will be room for free choice.

     Another word, the articles should be a little shorter.

671. It turns out that there is another misunderstanding that other people may fail at.
     It was reflected in Itay's first response.
     I quote the relevant part:
     "And that all the laws of science and physics are open to us from beginning to end?"

     I hope that those who read the article in order to understand understand that nothing I say is based on the claim that we know (or even that we will ever know) all the laws of physics and that the conflict arises between the very term "free will" and the obedience of all the components of our mind to the laws of physics - whatever they may be .

672. In the response that was blocked, he brought with me, apart from the blasphemies, also a relevant link.
     This is the following link:
     http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1309740

     It seems to me like just a Kotrey article but even from what is written in it it is easy to see that the majority of the scientific community agrees with my words.

     Those who want a balanced picture on the subject (if a balance between truth and error deserves to be called balance) can read here:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

     The chapter In Science presents an image that is in direct contradiction with Itai's unsubstantiated claims.
     You can also see that the points I highlighted in the article are not addressed in it.

673. And of course the moral choice is similar to any other choice.
     This is about weighing between impulses, some of which are of the so-called moral type and some others.
     Nothing justified your immoral choice to launch a personal attack on someone just because they dared to publish an article that contradicted your prejudices.

674. Itai:
     Just because you know Libet's experiment doesn't make it wrong.
     You will be surprised - but there are things you know and they are also true.
     The approach I described is the approach of the entire scientific community today, and if you knew the facts, you would understand that I did not present a new approach, but only arguments that clarify and establish unresolved points that were in it.

     Your hints about the Nazis only show us who you are and do not give us any information about the topic of discussion.
     Actually this is true for all your comments.

     And by the way - Professor Chaim Sompolinsky talked about much more than Libet's experiment, but why bother with the details - you came to insult and blaspheme.

675. I know this approach and also the miracles of Benjamin Libet etc....

     This has nothing to do with moral choice.

     I would like to know: why is it so burning for you to feel deterministic? Maybe because it removes the moral responsibility from you? Maybe this way you can allow and justify to yourself all your immediate desires (perhaps the release of Willy is related to this in a certain way..)

     By the way, I know a human society that lived in the mid-thirties of the last century, who really liked the above idea...

676. Student, Technion:
     Thanks for the links.
     I knew the first one, the second one I didn't.
     Both are relevant and have an additional advantage.
     If Itai If he listens to them, he will be able to curse someone else.

677. Itai:
     If to your messages that only indicate that you didn't understand, you read a comment then...
     Continue to sleep well.
     call when you wake up

678. If to confuse your words you call a reason - what else is there to add
     And regarding the "child reasoning" - a child is someone who is enthusiastic about puns and monologues about male genitalia...

     Happy New Year

679. All our freedom is canceled when we want - and it doesn't matter what, because the very act of will is dependence without freedom to choose. And therefore some say that there is no such concept at all: free will.

680. A short interview with Prof. Haim Sompolinsky from Hebrew regarding the subject:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH-HeU0DNl0

     And his extended lecture regarding physics, mind and free will:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk

681. Itai:
     A bit arrogant to state things without any reasoning.
     Asserting without justification that someone who justifies his words is arrogant is not only arrogant but also insolent.
     The rest of your words only indicate that you are probably still a child.
     How old are you?

     point:
     In some ways I did change my mind.
     In fact it is not entirely accurate and certainly not in the direction you are pointing.
     There is consciousness and consciousness has influence.
     This is my opinion even today and in fact it only got stronger.
     The fact that consciousness - like all other things - is based on the laws of physics and obeys them does not invalidate its existence - just as the fact that the air molecules obey the laws of nature - each individually - does not invalidate the fact that there is air pressure and temperature.
     I also always knew that the laws of nature lead to the fact that the will is not free in the sense that we feel it is free.
     I debated the matter anyway in hopes of getting some new insight from people's words.
     It didn't happen, but the very act of dealing with the issue brought up the two main insights I described in the article - one is that in the absence of something to compare our will to, we have no way of discovering the unfreedom of the will, and therefore we are always determined that it is free.
     The second is that there is actually no real value behind that ideal of freedom because as I said in the article - the solution to the problem that the desire is meant to solve is dictated by the data of the problem and the way to reach the solution is not important.

     As far as I'm concerned - these insights brought me to rest and to the inheritance and conflict no longer oppresses me.

     adamdeum:
     It is not clear to me why you are commenting here on a topic that does not belong. Ability to respond in the designated place.
     You are wrong in the way you present things.
     Every time you turn on an electrical device and it works, it is a prediction of science that comes true.
     It is impossible to compare the number of predictions that science succeeds in predicting with those that it "misses".
     Any such omission naturally becomes a big noise because on the one hand it is "bread" for the haters of science and on the other hand it is an interesting thing that allows scientists to promote science.
     All the trillions of correct predictions are taken for granted and no one makes a fuss about them.

682. Sos, you uploaded the article on free will: Blessings and Obligations. I liked.

683. Hello Michael Rothschild,
     First of all, sorry for introducing a gender where it is not a gender, but the topic is very important.
     In response to my response from yesterday, you responded as follows: "Scientists almost always succeed in predicting natural phenomena."

     Unfortunately I have to disagree with you. When you say that science knows how to predict, you obviously don't mean the scientists of the past, even as far back as 150 years. that almost all their scientific predictions in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics, crashed in the face of the reality of the discoveries that came later.

     Even in the modern age, the scientists' abilities to predict are almost non-existent! Did anyone predict in advance that a certain type of mushroom would eliminate bacteria in the human body and save humanity? Did anyone predict that there would be a hole in the ozone as a result of chlorides used by humanity? Has anyone predicted that the most powerful poison in the world is found (probably, not definitively) in a marine snail? Did anyone predict the cosmic background radiation and that it would help confirm the big bang theory? Did anyone predict in advance the discovery of the destruction of 95% of the world's stock market at the end of the Perm period? Did anyone predict that the universe is accelerating at its rate of expansion? Did anyone foresee the laser and then the uses of the laser? Did anyone predict that metal machines would fly through the air? (Rambom gave this as an example of something that could never happen). Did anyone predict the existence of the dinosaurs? Who predicted that there would be so many uses for the computer (not Thomas Watson the founder of IBM who thought that the world would need no more than five computers in the future). Did anyone predict the internet? Has anyone predicted the existence of quasi-crystals? Has anyone predicted in advance the approximate, let alone the exact, number of genes in the human genome? Can anyone today predict what the technology will be that will provide us with a solution to where the next earthquake will be? Did anyone predict that asbestos is carcinogenic? Can anyone give a forecast today, what will eventually be the main treatment that will eliminate most types of cancer? Can anyone predict exactly what types of life are found on other stars? I can go on and on…

     We all need a little modesty, especially the experts among us. We are psychologically inclined to think that we know answers to future questions, which, despite all our expertise, we have no idea about.

     The very fact that (to the best of my knowledge) there is no empirical study that retrospectively checks thousands of scientific predictions and examines how right the givers of these predictions were - says Darshani. For the sake of scientific truth, in my opinion, such an institute should have been established that retrospectively examines the ability of scientists to predict, and this in a repeated and impartial examination. The very fact that there is no such institute brings me to the sad conclusion that the results are already known in advance: scientists have no real predictive ability... most of the story is trial and error in laboratories and research institutes.

     Besides, it is not wise to predict something five years ahead, when the buds of technology are already known to the forecaster (for example regarding the future development of the cell phone). The trick is to predict 25 years ahead and more, when the forecaster doesn't even have a faint idea of ​​what the future technology will be. Poincaré has already indicated to us how limited we are by non-linear future changes. Popper already said that forecasting requires knowledge of future technologies which themselves cannot be predicted in advance, because if we knew about them we would already have developed them today... We also don't know what we don't know...
     Against this background, contracts whose predictions have come true have become celebrities in the world of science - because they are so rare...

     In conclusion: there is an inability of scientists in most fields of exact sciences to predict the future. Economists are even worse: their ability to predict is a joke (it has been empirically tested!). Historians are probably worse than them: who predicted the fall of the USSR? the fall of the twins? The Second Lebanon War?
     The exception is physics, where there are certain predictive abilities (Einstein of course and many others). The almost only field in which there has been a dramatic improvement in predicting the future (the very near, range of days): atmospheric sciences.

684. Looks like you changed your mind.
     We previously discussed the matter of the activity of consciousness, and I said that consciousness is passive and is not a cause in the universe.
     The desire to have free will is the same as the desire to 'exist'. And existence is not possible where it is not a cause. If there is no free will - free for reasons - then consciousness is passive, meaning there is no existence. And the illusion of existence is the same as the illusion of free choice.

685. The proof of free choice is the very deliberation

686. In my opinion, the writer should choose one direction in his article - the world of science - physics, etc
     and philosophy (also for science).
     I know very few people in our world who can build on one of the subjects.
     in both? even rarer.
     Successfully

687. A bit arrogant to state that free will is an illusion...
     And that all the laws of science and physics are open to us from beginning to end?

688. After writing the above article I circulated it to a few friends to get initial feedback.

     The following paragraph also appeared in the response of one of my friends:
     "The discussion of the consequences for the issue of punishment is also concise and beautiful. In fact, among the accepted considerations in favor of punishment, you eliminated the element of paying evildoers as their reward (since they actually had no other choice) and left the reasons of protecting others and deterrence."

     My answer to her was as follows (to the extent of style revisions):
     "Indeed, I did not touch on the issue of payment for the acts in the aspect of revenge, but only in the aspect of deterrence.
     That doesn't mean there's no revenge.
     The urge to take revenge developed during evolution and people really feel it.
     The point is that this impulse probably developed precisely because it encourages the creation of an environment in which the criminal pays for his crimes and thus deterrence is created.
     The justice system itself, of course, has no feelings, but in the end the punishments it passes serve the same function as the urge to take revenge.
     "

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.