Interesting thoughts.
Some input from familiar with the quantum science you sorta mention.
So. Why is it that we call particles random but purport to humans being the sole owners of consciousness and free will?
It would be just as easy for an alien to observe our planet with some massive telescope, and observe all our random (yet probabilistically predictable) human behaviors!
Well, not really. There is a fundamental entropic uncertainty when moving between the size scales you mention here. Even if you knew the precise location and momentum of every subatomic particle in the universe, you could not advance that data set forward in time. There is fundamental uncertainty built into the universe.
The more you know about now, the less you can know about the future. The more you know about the future the less you can know about now. This concept runs deep into quantum mechanics and to really appreciate it I wouldrecommendd a degree in physics or nanotechnology.
Hi Kyle,
I appreciate the input :)
Absolutely agree! I'm not sure how this counts as a "not really" statement when what you said actually supports my position.
This fundamental uncertainty is what I'm actually referring to when I say 'random'. However, I'm proposing that this uncertainty is founded by conscious particles being self-directed (at least to the degree we find ourselves to be).
I'm not really sure if I understand this statement
"The more you know about the future the less you can know about now. "
If, time is not linear (which I profess), then now/future would be a false dichotomy and I don't think it would be an appropriate example. Or, I may be missing the point...
Did I miss your point?
I think so,
Humans (and animals) are the only things that really do have consciousness and free will.
My point is the quantum nature of uncertainty you mention is a fundamental property of the universe. It is not that particles have consciousness in the way I would define it; particles properties (speed, location, time) have a finite precision of measurement. By measuring one precisely, you remove precision from another. This is called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This is a terrible metaphor for what happens with uncertainty over time. If you know velocity precisely you can predict the future very well, except you can't know much about the starting point (the now) - so that prediction for the future will have caveats. If you take great care about the starting point (initial position/properties) you can not know much about the velocity or the future.
This is a hard rule of the universe.
Side thought. You stated "humans (and animals)", are plants or fungi, or microbiology, algae, etc included in your 'beings' imbued with consciousness?
I want to have a meaningful dialog with you. In order to do so I would like to clarify some of your thoughts.
What do you consider 'consciousness'?
What do you consider 'free will'?
I know these are complex ideas, so it may be a difficult request. However, for us to proceed in any meaningful manner I would need to know your basis of understanding for the above claim.
I agree with you :)
Although, (from my understanding) you didn't say much here, only that there are some measurements to take and that these measurements aren't perfect. (similar to my measuring of peoples behavior analogy). I actually believe everything you stated.
We estimate in probabilities, not certainties. Right? The same process of understanding/predicting human behavior, in probabilities, not certainties...
Your argument would only contradict mine if you were stating that we could **in fact, ** know the behavior of particles!
Which brings me full circle. What is the fundamental difference between particles and "humans (and animals)" that causes one to have 'consciousness' and one to not?