On May 26, 11:16 am, st...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
> In article
<9b361894-218c-4bcc-9e22-08811acf0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> illywhacker <illywac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > ...
> >You seem to be admitting that conditional probabilities are not
> >empirical properties of the world, whereas probabiltiies that are not
> >conditioned on anything are. So what would a probability conditioned
> >on nothing be? What operational, empirical meaning does this idea
> >have? None. All probabilities are conditional on something.
> > ...
> but I accept that there might be "true" physical probabilities
> - if you like, conditioned on nothing.
> For example, I think it's possible that there is nothing
> in the physical Universe that could provide information
> as to whether or not a given U-238 atom will disintegrate
> in the next 4.5 billion years. Not only is my probability 0.5
> conditioned on anything/everything, but THE probability is literally,
> physically, 0.5.
As I also said to Herman, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the
issue: first, because the existence or otherwise of a coherent
epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics is still a matter
for
debate; second, because quantum amplitudes are not probabilities, but
are
used to compute probabilities; third, because in any case these
probabilities are not treated as physical quantities---rather, quantum
(not
probabilistic) expectation values of physical quantities are computed,
and
these are then compared to experiment.
In addition, in this case, there are many conditioning factors that
can
affect this probability, such as external fields, so the example is
wrong.
> Without physical probabilities and quantum mechanics,
> could free will exist?
What does the word 'exist' mean here? I know what it means for a chair
to
exist: I can sit on it, touch it, etc. What does it mean for free will
to
exist? Until this question is answered, the question has no content.
illywhacker;
|
