Free will and quantum indeterminacy

[Neogaia777]

Then why are we told to pray for others?

Because we don't know whether or not it is already in His predestined/foreordained will for us to pray in those very moments, and we don't know whether or not it is already in His predestined/foreordained will for us for those prayers to get or be supernaturally answered in those very moments, etc.

He did cause us to at least think about it or consider it in those very moments you know? So how is it we think we can know for sure about the rest, etc?

You're seeing this as a glass half-empty, while I am seeing this as a glass half-full, etc.

We "don't know", so how can we assume, etc?

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because we don't know whether or not it is already in His predestined/foreordained will for us to pray in those very moments,

And the only way we can know is to pray or not?

 

[Neogaia777]

And the only way we can know is to pray or not?

No, we still won't know, because you can't hang a yes or no answer on that's the way it's going to happen or occur every single time, etc.

If it's a no answer for something you were so sure was God's will at that time, or maybe because you had a bunch of yes answers up until that time, etc, then you have to stop and consider that you were just wrong in that instance that one time, or that there was some other reason for that no answer that time, etc.

We don't know everything, so there is no way for us to know for 100% sure each and every single time, etc.

But that's no reason for us not to try, etc.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

Having a knowledge of the mathematics helps.
An example is the Rydberg equation which was empirically derived in the late 19th century and describes the energy level spacings versus wavelength λ in the spectrum of the hydrogen atom.

View attachment 349053

Rₕ is Rydberg’s constant for the hydrogen atom, n₁ and n₂ are known as the principal quantum numbers where n₂ > n₁.
Scientists had very little idea at the time of how the empirical relationship worked or why Rₕ had a value of 1.097×10⁷ m⁻¹.

When the quantum mechanical model for the hydrogen atom was created in the 1920s the Schrödinger equation was found to be:

View attachment 349054

On solving this equation, it was found the equation could be reduced to a simpler form of the type.

View attachment 349055

The solutions for this equation are known as associated Laguerre polynomials.
Remarkably these polynomials lead to the Rydberg equation which could now be explained in terms of the quantum mechanical model of the hydrogen atom.

This leads to a philosophical issue was the Rydberg equation invented or discovered?
The methods used in the 19th century would indicate it was an invention but in the 1920s it was derived from the principles of quantum mechanics and was a discovery.
Is the Rydberg equation like mathematics in general already 'out there' waiting to be discovered or is it a product of the human mind?

There is also the case raised by the Nobel Prize winner in physics Eugene Wigner that the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've gotta say that I've never envisaged any practical use arising from the philosophical question you highlight there, (ie: the question about 'invented or discovered?'). I find the philosopher's fascination with this question, perplexing.

The way I see it it, the Rydberg relationships, portrayed by the equation, had not entered human perception until either (i) empirical methods or, (ii) theoretical (QM/math) derivations, realised them. The only way I can see any philosophical 'issue' arising from that particular realisation comes from one clinging to a firm belief in Realism as somehow being the only definitive philosophical way of thinking of reality .. and yet it, in philosophy, it simply isn't .. So what is the issue there at all(?), ie: other than serving to perpetuate unanswerable, meaningless, navel-gazing by Realism-fixated philosophers?
QM marches on in pursuing the interesting bits, in order to make meaningful contributions in practical human knowledge, however.

Oh .. and Wigner's question there, is easily answered by pointing out that nature's behaviours are obviously 'written' in any language which make sense to any human wanting to communicate the behaviours of the thing they call 'nature'(?)

 

[sjastro]

I think maths is just a language like any other. It's a way of describing the world. I can say that 'the square on the hypotenuse...' etc or I can say that 'A2 + B2...' etc.

Is that an answer to the question?

Your example is a case of mathematics being descriptive but it can also be prescriptive as well.

Since quantum mechanics is the theme of this thread, an appropriate example was particle physicists found that hadrons could be classified into groups or mathematical symmetries according to their properties.
One such group was the baryon decouplet classified according to its Strangeness S Strangeness - Wikipedia which is a quantum number, the charge Q and mass in MeV.

By the early 1960s there was an undiscovered particle which according to the symmetry had the predicted properties S=-3 , Q=-1 and a mass of around 1672 MeV.
The Ω⁻ baryon was discovered in 1964 with these properties to complete the symmetry group.

While each individual particle in the baryon decouplet group could be described by its properties, the mathematical symmetry pointed to some deep lying unknown physics which might explain why the mathematical symmetries existed in the first place.
The mathematical symmetries were found to exist due to a fundamental particle predicted by quantum chromodynamics the quark which was detected in particle accelerator experiments.

In this case the mathematical symmetries are found to be prescriptive indicating they were discovered and not descriptive.

 

[sjastro]

I've gotta say that I've never envisaged any practical use arising from the philosophical question you highlight there, (ie: the question about 'invented or discovered?'). I find the philosopher's fascination with this question, perplexing.

The way I see it it, the Rydberg relationships, portrayed by the equation, had not entered human perception until either (i) empirical methods or, (ii) theoretical (QM/math) derivations, realised them. The only way I can see any philosophical 'issue' arising from that particular realisation comes from one clinging to a firm belief in Realism as somehow being the only definitive philosophical way of thinking of reality .. and yet it, in philosophy, it simply isn't .. So what is the issue there at all(?), ie: other than serving to perpetuate unanswerable, meaningless, navel-gazing by Realism-fixated philosophers?
QM marches on in pursuing the interesting bits, in order to make meaningful contributions in practical human knowledge, however.

Oh .. and Wigner's question there, is easily answered by pointing out that nature's behaviours are obviously 'written' in any language which make sense to any human wanting to communicate the behaviours of the thing they call 'nature'(?)

I think you are giving philosophers a bum rap.
Lets not forget western mathematics, naturalism a forerunner of science, and the scientific method has its origins from Greek philosophy.

Examples where mathematics is prescriptive as given in my previous post suggests the mathematics was discovered.
This is taken to the extreme case like Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[SelfSim]

I think you are giving philosophers a bum rap.

Certainly am .. with specific focus on those who perpetuate unanswerable, meaningless, navel-gazing questions.

Lets not forget western mathematics, naturalism a forerunner of science, and the scientific method has its origins from Greek philosophy.

No arguments 'bout that.
I don't see any significant relevance there, between any forerunning methods and the methods that produced the accurate energy level predictions of the hydrogen atom via the Rydberg equation though. (A chalk and cheese comparison that one is, IMO).

Examples where mathematics is prescriptive as given in my previous post suggests the mathematics was discovered.
This is taken to the extreme case like Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis - Wikipedia

Of course the practical value of mathematics (in physics) has exceeded most initial expectations .. but similarly, many of us also accept that human perceptions have always been extremely complex, undistinguished and, thus far, appear to be boundless.

Let's not also not forget the evidence from the recorded history of the development of active human intellect which also synthesised Laguerre polynomials, the Schrodinger equation, the evolved models of the hydrogen atom and the QM wavefunction. (I'll hold back on drawing any equivalence between these constructs and the products of Tegmark's brain for the moment .. )
The notion that any of those constructs were just kickin' 'round before mere human minds just happened to trip over them independently from the evidenced intensive introspection of that intellect .. is also just that .. ie: a human-brain-produced notion .. but is it a testable notion?