Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

But that's deterministic.

By whom?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Nope... spontaneous fission of a ¹⁴C atom is a random process... it would behoove you to read about it.

What you are talking about is the result of numerous atoms put together which then becomes like the system in this video... where while each ball is going to end up randomly in a slot along the bottom axis, the overall system follows a binomial distribution (bell curve) in the number of balls at each slot.





ETA: Here have a read of this...

Yes, yes, I know exactly what half-life functions are, and that was my point: Whereas the decay of the individual atom appears to be random, the entire process is entirely deterministic and predictable. On the macro scale, we can know exactly how many atoms will decay in a given time. We can even use the mechanism to measure the age of stuff.

Hans

 

[Leumas]

Yes, yes, I know exactly what half-life functions are, and that was my point: Whereas the decay of the individual atom appears to be random,.... We can even use the mechanism to measure the age of stuff.

Nope... it is random... it does not just appear to be random... and it is not deterministic... it is on average and approximately determinable for a whole lot of atoms together... but each individual atom decays randomly.

And the age of stuff measured by the process is within a range not an exact age... because it is approximate and random.

the entire process is entirely deterministic and predictable.

Again... nope... it is not... that is what "approximate" and "on average" means... it means it is not exactly determinable and not "entirely predictable"....

On the macro scale, we can know exactly how many atoms will decay in a given time.

Yet again... nope... we do not... that is what "approximate" and "on average" means... that we do not "know exactly"...


I think you may want to revise what these words mean... and read the quote cited in this post again...

• approximate
• average
• random
• deterministic

ETA: Here is a question to ponder over... if one knows the AVERAGE age of people in a POPULATION of people... can one "know exactly" how long an individual in that population is going to live?? Does the age of an individual just "appear to be random"?

 

[I Am The Scum]

By whom?

If we can't agree that the landing location of a falling object is deterministic, then I don't know what this conversation is.

 

[Leumas]

If we can't agree that the landing location of a falling object is deterministic, then I don't know what this conversation is.

It is this...

Determinism is a philosophical view, where all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism) or randomness. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.

...

Debates about determinism often concern the scope of determined systems; some maintain that the entire universe is a single determinate system, and others identifying more limited determinate systems (or multiverse). Historical debates involve many philosophical positions and varieties of determinism. They include debates concerning determinism and free will, technically denoted as compatibilistic (allowing the two to coexist) and incompatibilistic (denying their coexistence is a possibility)....

 

[JoeMorgue]

Giving wrongness a name doesn't make it valid, no matter what Philosophy says about the matter.

If the only card in your deck is "Well this is a valid philosophical concept" when everything is a valid philosophical concept, you don't have a weak hand, you don't have a hand.

 

[Thermal]

Just declaring things wrong is just as invalid.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Nope... it is random... it does not just appear to be random... and it is not deterministic... it is on average and approximately determinable for a whole lot of atoms together... but each individual atom decays randomly.

And the age of stuff measured by the process is within a range not an exact age... because it is approximate and random.





Again... nope... it is not... that is what "approximate" and "on average" means... it means it is not exactly determinable and not "entirely predictable"....





Yet again... nope... we do not... that is what "approximate" and "on average" means... that we do not "know exactly"...


I think you may want to revise what these words mean... and read the quote cited in this post again...

• approximate
• average
• random
• deterministic

ETA: Here is a question to ponder over... if one knows the AVERAGE age of people in a POPULATION of people... can one "know exactly" how long an individual in that population is going to live?? Does the age of an individual just "appear to be random"?

The average of a set follows different rules than the the individual.

You are missing the whole point: The higher you go in the scale of events, the more deterministic it gets. So to ponder for you: Does the fact that things seem deterministic at some level clash with them being "random" or "free" at some smaller scale, That is the question.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Nope... it is random... it does not just appear to be random... and it is not deterministic... it is on average and approximately determinable for a whole lot of atoms together... but each individual atom decays randomly.

That is what current quantum theory says. But the question is if a new theory on a lower level could be discovered that reintroduces determinism. This was Einstein’s hope, but he had no idea how that would look like.

 

[Leumas]

That is what current quantum theory says. But the question is if a new theory on a lower level could be discovered that reintroduces determinism. This was Einstein’s hope, but he had no idea how that would look like.

Yes Einstein and all those who are dejected by randomness and have to insert quotes around the word to alleviate the Cognitive Dissonance pangs it causes are all driven by this...

Randomness can be seen as conflicting with the deterministic ideas of some religions, such as those where the universe is created by an omniscient deity who is aware of all past and future events. If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation.

Hindu and Buddhist philosophies state that any event is the result of previous events, as is reflected in the concept of karma. As such, this conception is at odd with the idea of randomness, and any reconciliation between both of them would require an explanation.

In some religious contexts, procedures that are commonly perceived as randomizers are used for divination. Cleromancy uses the casting of bones or dice to reveal what is seen as the will of the gods.

 

[Leumas]

Giving wrongness a name doesn't make it valid, no matter what Philosophy says about the matter.

If the only card in your deck is "Well this is a valid philosophical concept" when everything is a valid philosophical concept, you don't have a weak hand, you don't have a hand.

Precisely... determinism is a THEOLOGICAL philosophy naval gazing in order to allow for the finding of the omniscient Jabberwocky in the naval gap.... nothing more than wrongness given the veneer of philosophy naval gazing.

 

[Leumas]

The average of a set follows different rules than the the individual.

The above statement contradicts the sciences of statistics and probability...

You are missing the whole point:

Nope I am not... you are the one who is doing that.


The point is

No... randomness is proven every time a ¹⁴C atom in all living things' bodies decays... it is just that some want to deny the fact...

And you objected by saying

Actually not. Instead, it is a prime example of a function that obeys strict rules even if we are (currently) unable to predict when an individual atom will decay. However, if we step back the distance of a few half-lives and a few millimeters, the decay pattern becomes totally predictable.

Which is definitively wrong as I explained in this post.... and you insisted on repeating the error which I again explained in this post...


But now you say

The higher you go in the scale of events, the more deterministic it gets. So to ponder for you: Does the fact that things seem deterministic at some level clash with them being "random" or "free" at some smaller scale, That is the question.

Which... despite the quotes around the word random... and the meaninglessness of the word "free" in the context... is conceding the original point you contested....

No... randomness is proven every time a ¹⁴C atom in all living things' bodies decays... it is just that some want to deny the fact...

So thanks... that was precisely the "whole point" I was making which you contested and now are conceding...

 

[psionl0]

Nope... spontaneous fission of a ¹⁴C atom is a random process...

You might not know which ¹⁴C atom is going to decay next nor when it will happen but that doesn't make it a random process.

Consider the sequence 8, 2, 0, 7, 9 . . . You would have no idea which number is going to come up next. So it must be a random process - magic even - right? Wrong! I happen to know the seed and the formula that generates the sequence and can tell you with 100% certainty which number is going to come up next.

 

[Leumas]

You might not know which ¹⁴C atom is going to decay next nor when it will happen but that doesn't make it a random process.

Consider the sequence 8, 2, 0, 7, 9 . . . You would have no idea which number is going to come up next. So it must be a random process - magic even - right? Wrong! I happen to know the seed and the formula that generates the sequence and can tell you with 100% certainty which number is going to come up next.

Ah... you used your programming language's RNG... and then you looked at the numbers that came out and now you can tell that when you use your computer again with the same seed that it will come up with the same sequence of numbers because that is what a computer RNG is ... and that is why it is called a pseudo RNG as opposed to a TRNG.

But... herein lies the rub... did you know what those numbers were going to be BEFORE they were printed out by the computer the FIRST time???

Here is a test for you... change the seed... now ... before you look at the output... try to guess what the sequence is going to be??? Can you???

Hint: no you cannot... that is why it is called a RNG.


Furthermore... if you understood how a computer language is a program that uses a programmed algorithm at the machine level you would know that this algorithm is a pseudo RNG as opposed to a TRNG.... and that is why the sequence will repeat again if you use the same seed number for the algorithm.

Do you know why it is extremely useful to have that feature in the first place?

Now... in your program use the seed number as the Date.now() function or whatever is the equivalent in your language instead of just a number you set.

Now run the program and see how successful you are in EVER guessing what the sequence is going to be...

It will behoove you to go research what a TRNG is ... and note while you are doing that... WHY it is a TRNG as opposed to just a PRNG.

Do you know why there exists this kind of online service to provide developers with a TRNG in the first place???


Nevertheless....... do you think there is a programmer out there who set up an algorithm for the fission of ¹⁴C atoms as a pseudo RNG??? And can HE predict the randomness of those ¹⁴C atoms BEFORE he lets the program churn out the random decay sequence of those atoms???



.

 

[psionl0]

Ah... you used your programming language's RNG...

BZZZZZT! Wrong! The algorithm is of my own making. It is not a very good algorithm but good enough prevent you from figuring out the next number in the sequence.

Nevertheless....... do you think there is a programmer out there who set up an algorithm for the fission of ¹⁴C atoms as a pseudo RNG???

I have no information on what causes an atom to decay at a particular moment and neither do you.

The difference is that I don't leap to the conclusion that there are magic forces acting in a totally (true) random manner that cause the fission.

 

[Leumas]

BZZZZZT! Wrong! The algorithm is of my own making. It is not a very good algorithm but good enough prevent you from figuring out the next number.

But it does not prevent you??? So you are all omniscient of this not very good computer universe you programmed... great!!!

But... BZZZZZT!.... have you even bothered to read this part of the post you are responding to

Now... in your program use the seed number as the Date.now() function or whatever is the equivalent in your language instead of just a number you set.

Now run the program and see how successful you are in EVER guessing what the sequence is going to be...

It will behoove you to go research what a TRNG is ... and note while you are doing that... WHY it is a TRNG as opposed to just a PRNG.

Do you know why there exists this kind of online service to provide developers with a TRNG in the first place???

I have no information on what causes an atom to decay at a particular moment and neither do you.

But you think it is just like your not very good algorithm that you programmed in your computer??? So who is the programmer then??

The difference is that I don't leap to the conclusion that there are magic forces acting in a totally (true) random manner that cause the fission.

No... but instead... you just leap to the conclusion that it is deterministic just like your not very good algorithm of a Pseudo RNG in your computer... which you are all omniscient of while I am not???

The difference is that I don't leap to the conclusion that there are magic forces acting in a totally (true) random manner that cause the fission.

That is your own false dichotomy... the reasons ¹⁴C atoms decay randomly is not magical ... it will behoove you to read up on nuclear fission.

And while you are at it... also read up on what a TRUE RNG is...


.

 

[psionl0]

But it does not prevent you???

Of course not. I know both the seed and the algorithm.

have you even bothered to read this part of the post you are responding to

Yes. It is a total tangent and not related to anything.

But you think it is just like your not very good algorithm that you programmed in your computer??? So who is the programmer then??

I am not arguing that a programmer "programmed" the universe. That is just a strawman of your own construction.

No... but instead... you just leap to the conclusion that it is deterministic just like your not very good algorithm of a PRNG in your computer... which you can predict despite me not being able to do so???

The argument is IF the universe is deterministic. It is not that the universe is absolutely deterministic.

 

[Leumas]

Of course not. I know both the seed and the algorithm.

Not if you use the time function... unless you can predict the exact time the program is run down to the millisecond before you run it.... can you???

Yes. It is a total tangent and not related to anything.

Nope.... it is not... it is very related.... but you cannot know that because you are not even willing to read the post let alone the topics it is referring to....

I am not arguing that a programmer "programmed" the universe. That is just a strawman of your own construction.

No... you are arguing that the universe is just like a not very good program you programmed...

The argument is IF the universe is deterministic. It is not that the universe is absolutely deterministic.

Yes... this a THEOLOGICAL philosophical conjecture... and it is not scientific and not true.... get that ... the universe is NOT deterministic.

Determinism is a philosophical view, where all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism) or randomness. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.
...

ETA: If you do not know one way or the other... then any arguments you make are nothing but fallacies of Argumenta ad Ignorantiam... it would behoove you to find out which way and then make arguments based on knowledge not conjectures that you do not know if they are true or not.

 

[suren]

For me, a necessary but not sufficient condition for free will is some degree of independence of the actions/decisions from any circumstances. However even the world might be indeterministic in the physical sense (for example of quantum indeterminism) people may still lack free will since they are controlled by physical processes.

 

[Leumas]

For me, a necessary but not sufficient condition for free will is some degree of independence of the actions/decisions from any circumstances. However even the world might be indeterministic in the physical sense (for example of quantum indeterminism) people may still lack free will since they are controlled by physical processes.

A Human organism is an ongoing natural process... part and parcel of the ecosystem it is immersed in... and is itself an ecosystem for other organisms (i.e. other processes) that are on and in it... and so on recursively.

The only possible way to be independent of the other processes it is but yet just another element of... is... no way....

Unless of course one wants to wish and hope for WOO WOO and then believe in it by using "philosophy" to convince oneself that it is not just wishful thinking and arguing from unfalsifiable fallacious argumenta ad ignorantiam.... because... see... it is philosophy after all.


And of course there are the following words sagacity...

.. And natural events don't do anything by "free will".