You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Are Particles Conscious? : A short thought exercise!

in #science • 8 years ago (edited)

I think so,

So. Why is it that we call particles random but purport to humans being the sole owners of consciousness and free will?

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.

"The more you know about the future the less you can know about now. "

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.

8 years ago in #science by
$0.00
    1 vote
    Reply 2
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago  

    Side thought. You stated "humans (and animals)", are plants or fungi, or microbiology, algae, etc included in your 'beings' imbued with consciousness?

    [-]
     8 years ago  

    "Humans (and animals) are the only things that really do have consciousness and free will."

    I want to have a meaningful dialog with you. In order to do so I would like to clarify some of your thoughts.

    1. What do you consider 'consciousness'?

    2. 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.

    "This is a terrible metaphor for what happens with uncertainty over time."

    I agree with you :)

    ". 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."

    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.

    "you can not know much about the velocity or the future."

    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?

    $0.00
      Reply