Live data from Hacker News

A delightful quirk of relativity theory

twitter.com

141–150 of 232 posts

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#141
post #78
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rescuing free-will from the jaws of spacetime would be cool! Free will does not exist. It is logically inconsistent. Either your choice is some function of your current state and the environment you are in, then the choice is not free, or it is independent of your current state and the environment you are in, then it is not your choice in any meaningful way, it is just the result of a coin flip. You can do some menta…

A few issues with the “free will” debate. 1) Define “free” 2) How do you test your hypothesis? You’re trying to apply logic to an untestable philosophical debate. If you believe free will doesn’t exist, you can’t design an experiment that would invalidate that belief. And if your theory is untestable and unfalsifiable, then what good is it other than a creative exercise? However, we do know from Quantum Mechanics tha…

"Free will" is a gesture at the experience we have of deliberating upon and deciding our own actions, I don't think determinism really matters, as long as we're the ones doing the deterministic calculations by which we choose what to do.

But it's okay, I understand if you have no choice but to argue with that.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#142
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try probing what people think having free will actually means, and you'll quickly see that people tend to react very strongly if you suggest that they don't have some vague undefined ability to take actions that are not defined merely by the state of their brains and inputs. To me what you describe does not at all match what I've observed people try to defend as free will whenever you peer beneath the vague veneer of…

You've got some interesting points there, but I think that the reaction some people have to the idea that they might be deterministic is actually to do with dualism and not free will. People try to pull free will into the dualism debate because they are desperately looking for reasons to back up their feeling that they are essentially more than pure material. I don't think that these two topics really have much to do…

I agree that is probably part of it. In terms of "hard free will" that debate is of course entirely orthogonal - a soul would just be another part of the combined system under consideration, but I can very well see people seeing the two as combined.

> I don't think that these two topics really have much to do with each other, which I think can be seen by looking at what people really mean when they actually talk about free choice and free will in everyday life rather than in philosophical conversations where they're already trying to justify a position.

I certainly agree that people often conflate these two separate subjects. This is also part of why I push so much on definitions, because so much of the time we speak past each other when discussing these subjects.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#143
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your either/or line of reasoning in your first paragraph. Are you sure these are the only two possibilities? Could there be partial dependence on the current state of one’s mind and environment? Does the same exact state always lead to the same exact decision? That is, if a universe began exactly as ours did and everything was the same up until time t when a decision is made by someone is that decision alwa…

One can certainly also imagine a mix of both option, for example your preferences deterministically determine which options you consider but a random event determines the choice you make. But that doesn't make a big difference, it's still a mix of predetermined and random things. A third option would have to be a wild thing - a choice would have to neither depend on the state of the universe, i.e. be determined, nor…

I was thinking of the third option. I don’t have anything intelligent to say about that option but posed it as a possibility. I imagine that believing in the third option would roughly be equivalent to a religious belief. That is, one believes that option because the alternative is unpalatable.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#144
post #42

This would be more fun in a blog post. Twitter is a fucking horrible format for a complex analysis of special relativity. That aside, my favourite quirk from relativity is this: "The more you move in space, the less you move in time." Like relativity in general, it sounds simple enough, but it's consequences are profoundly shocking. (That is, if you take the time to understand it, and don't leap to the conclusion tha…

Rescuing free-will from the jaws of spacetime would be cool! Free will does not exist. It is logically inconsistent. Either your choice is some function of your current state and the environment you are in, then the choice is not free, or it is independent of your current state and the environment you are in, then it is not your choice in any meaningful way, it is just the result of a coin flip. You can do some menta…

You can dismiss them as “mental gymnastics” but defining the term is the heart of the discussion. Philosophers argued about gravity and heat a lot too before we settled on rigorous physical definitions that could be expressed mathematically.

At a first approximation there are obviously limits to our “free” will as no one has yet been able to will themselves to float through the air without support, go without food or water indefinitely, pop a pet dragon into existence, survive the physical destruction of their brain, etc.

So it’s hard to start from a position that anyone ever seriously thought “free will” meant no limits or dependencies.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#145
post #136
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rescuing free-will from the jaws of spacetime would be cool! Free will does not exist. It is logically inconsistent. Either your choice is some function of your current state and the environment you are in, then the choice is not free, or it is independent of your current state and the environment you are in, then it is not your choice in any meaningful way, it is just the result of a coin flip. You can do some menta…

Free will just cannot be described by physics. This is very similar to the perception of the time flow. Time in physics is static. There is no now. Surely one can plug any time value into physical equations, but that will not explain, for example, why when we look at a thrown ball, we perceive a movement, and not, say the whole trajectory of the ball at the same time. And given that the free will and now are connecte…

Pardon, but your argument does not appear to be coherent. Your example in particular does not seem connected to your thesis in any way. I would suggest reformulating an argument that does not depend on a hazy refutation of physics.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#146
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I'm happy with other definitions, not because I feel I'm doing mental gymnastics, but because the version you give is clearly not what normal people mean by it when they refer to it. It might well be related to what philosophers argue about, but normal people who offer you a 'free choice' or who say that you did something 'of your own free will' do not mean anything like 'your choice was not a function o…

> if you genuinely believe the notion that we have free will is nonsense (and I do), then the logical extension is to be very uncomfortable with the notion of e.g. prison used for vengeance or anything at all other than to the bare minimal extent required to protect others Not really. You can view it as a game theoretic situation. Will the use of prison likely produce a good outcome or a bad outcome? Whether or not t…

You are just agreeing with the OP here. The point is that prison is useful for some things, eg protecting others, changing behavior etc. But if there is no free will, then it makes no sense to say prison is for vengeance.

These discussions are always interestingly recursive, since if I do not believe in free will then my own view on free will is itself not a free choice. And yet I still feel strongly that my not believing in free will appears to be my free choice.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#147

More readable formatting: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482811504424542211.html

Am I crazy, in that I actually like Twitter threads for this sort of thing--at least in the hands of a capable author? When threaded correctly (as this one is), its easy to follow. And the requirement to condense and split thoughts into tweet-sized chunks creates natural breaks to pause and consider the content before continuing. I find the cadence of "each thought is a tweet" provides a nice rhythm. Sure, you can do…

usually this is called paragraphs

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#148
This is too longwinded (and a Twitter thread ugh). I'll repeat an analogy I read somewhere else.

Everything in the universe moves at constant speed through (four-dimensional) spacetime. To simplify the analogy we'll just consider two dimensions: space (x-axis) and time (y-axis) with your spacetime vector being of constant length. At rest your spacetime vector is (0,1). You speed up to 10% of light speed and your spacetime vector is approximately (0.1, 9.99) so you're moving slightly slower through time.

What I like about this analogy is it constrains your space vector to the speed of light. Warp Bubble Andys like to pump negative values for energy and mass into equations to rationalize something they want to be true: that faster-than-light travel is possible. To me, this is just a fundamental lack of understanding about the domain of a function. Velocity is no different. I firmly believe it's bounded by [0,c). Values outside of that range just don't make sense are as such undefined. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#149
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I'm happy with other definitions, not because I feel I'm doing mental gymnastics, but because the version you give is clearly not what normal people mean by it when they refer to it. It might well be related to what philosophers argue about, but normal people who offer you a 'free choice' or who say that you did something 'of your own free will' do not mean anything like 'your choice was not a function o…

> if you genuinely believe the notion that we have free will is nonsense (and I do), then the logical extension is to be very uncomfortable with the notion of e.g. prison used for vengeance or anything at all other than to the bare minimal extent required to protect others Not really. You can view it as a game theoretic situation. Will the use of prison likely produce a good outcome or a bad outcome? Whether or not t…

This is what I mean by setting vengeance up vs. "the bare mininal extent required to protect others".

I agree that there are still people who needs to be locked up, including under possibly brutal sentencing terms. E.g. Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway is up on a parole hearing today - if he gets out (it'd take a miracle) it doesn't matter if it's free will (in any sense of the term) or purely deterministic processes that leads him to act if he is still probabilistically likely to carry out another attack - it's still more important to keep the public safe from him than to worry about whether or not he had a genuine choice.

To the extent there's a measurable effect of seeing the punishment of others, that too might be a justification, though I find that dicier. But if that is done based on a cold calculation of how it affects offending rates that to me is still very different from vengeance.

So to be clear I'm not arguing it removes the justifications for punishments, and I agree with your mention of seeing it as a game theoretic situation - even really harsh punishments might be the best choice in some circumstances. But it removes "they chose this themselves" or "they deserve it" as a justification (the feeling is still valid; acting on it becomes cruel), and that makes for a very different legal system. It also shifts a focus towards considering that if it's not about vengeance, then you should look at how to actually optimise the balance between the public good and treating the prisoners as humanely as you can without reducing the public benefit of the punishment too much.

Norway is far from achieving that, but if you look at e.g. Bastøy fengsel [1] ([2] has links to assorted longer articles), you can get one idea of what de-emphasising vengeance and taking rehabilitation and trying to address reoffending rates might start to look like (though Norway has by no means solved that, Bastøy also certainly haven't made it worse, but it also is not the norm in Norway either - yet anyway). For some people, it might well be that harsher prisons works better, or are necessary (I doubt Breivik will ever get the chance to serve his time somewhere like Bastøy for example). (Bastøy is the - so far - culmination of a process of reform that started in the 1960's, at a point where Norwegian prisons were quite brutal and the brutality of it eventually triggered a strong counter-reaction.)

For others even less prison (Norway as it is have sentences that would look comically short for e.g. Americans or British people). But evaluating it as a "game theoretic situation" as you say would in any case very likely lead to very major change to how the legal system would work most places in the world (including Norway)

[1] http://bastoyfengsel.no/English/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bast%C3%B8y_Prison

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

#150
post #42

This would be more fun in a blog post. Twitter is a fucking horrible format for a complex analysis of special relativity. That aside, my favourite quirk from relativity is this: "The more you move in space, the less you move in time." Like relativity in general, it sounds simple enough, but it's consequences are profoundly shocking. (That is, if you take the time to understand it, and don't leap to the conclusion tha…

Rescuing free-will from the jaws of spacetime would be cool! Free will does not exist. It is logically inconsistent. Either your choice is some function of your current state and the environment you are in, then the choice is not free, or it is independent of your current state and the environment you are in, then it is not your choice in any meaningful way, it is just the result of a coin flip. You can do some menta…

This argument has always sounded like a strange bit of gerrymandering of identity. I suppose for some definitions of the terms you used that 'your current state' could be different from the 'you' that is deciding, but I wouldn't call any of those distinctions intuitive.
Post reply on HN