Destiny and Free will

[Myriad]

Is testing determinism somehow easier?

We've learned quite a bit about the capabilities of deterministic systems, and some of their limitations. That's the subject matter of computing theory.

We can and do test whether deterministic models are adequate to explain observations. That's how we learned that certain quantum events cannot be deterministic and can only be modeled as random instead. It's also how we learned that chaotic or complex dynamic systems can be impossible to predict even though they are deterministic.

Recent developments in AI demonstrate that it's possible for a deterministic system to generate a stream of verbal narrative and/or selected actions from processed memory and present inputs. And also that such a system can work despite being unable to correctly account for why it produces the outputs it does. This doesn't prove or even strongly suggest that such AIs perceive themselves the way we do or perceive anything at all, but it's consistent with the possibility that we're in that same boat.

 

[Thermal]

If it doesn't exist, how could two identical people in identical circumstances turn out differently?

The same baby splits into two identical universes, one ends up becoming a sober doctor, the other a homeless drunk. If it isn't randomness, what caused the difference? Did one baby just magically choose to exercise greater will than the other? How can a person choose to choose something?

It's either random, or there's no way for the two babies to turn out differently.

There are no identical circumstances, only similar within certain degrees. One twin gets fed before the other, and the one who has to wait starts feeling inferior. Dad attends to one when they are in pain, and they develop stronger feelings towards men as protectors/providers. One twin gets an arm hurt in the crib and feels the world is a more dangerous place than the other.

If reason exists (and methinks it does), it is largely outside knee jerk reflexes borne of experience.

 

[Manopolus]

I have given you all the relevant data. There is nothing else to know.

There's you trying to assert yourself over me popping up again. And I'm proving that you can't. Right here in real time. It's right there in front of you. The whole motivation for the deterministic mindset. Nope, you don't have to be that way. You choose to. It's influence, not causation. Technically, it's probably extrovert vs introvert if you want to know more about the influences (not causes).

There was no data in that output.

And it does matter, because I'm exposing your choices. It's relevant. You can actually choose not to take this position.

 

[Olmstead]

There are no identical circumstances, only similar within certain degrees. One twin gets fed before the other, and the one who has to wait starts feeling inferior. Dad attends to one when they are in pain, and they develop stronger feelings towards men as protectors/providers. One twin gets an arm hurt in the crib and feels the world is a more dangerous place than the other.

If reason exists (and methinks it does), it is largely outside knee jerk reflexes borne of experience.

It's a sterile example for discussion purposes.

As for your example, that's exactly it: different circumstances that they have no control over will turn them into different people. That's the whole point of the lack of free will. There's no point in life where a person suddenly gets to step out of that chain of events. If they have the "will" to beat their circumstances, it's only because the right circumstances have come before, i.e. they never truly beat their circumstances.

 

[Olmstead]

There's you trying to assert yourself over me popping up again. And I'm proving that you can't. Right here in real time. It's right there in front of you. The whole motivation for the deterministic mindset. Nope, you don't have to be that way. You choose to. It's influence, not causation. Technically, it's probably extrovert vs introvert if you want to know more about the influences (not causes).

I'm not asserting myself over anyone, I'm simply asserting facts.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm not asserting myself over anyone, I'm simply asserting facts.

Sorry, I know peer pressure attempts when I see them. And yes, I'm also capable of it. As a matter of fact, I've been in sales for half my life. If that wasn't what it was, I guess I could have read it wrong... technically.

 

[Thermal]

It's a sterile example for discussion purposes.

As for your example, that's exactly it: different circumstances that they have no control over will turn them into different people. That's the whole point of the lack of free will. There's no point in life where a person suddenly gets to step out of that chain of events. If they have the "will" to beat their circumstances, it's only because the right circumstances have come before, i.e. they never truly beat their circumstances.

It doesn't follow, though. You are still begging the question that the genes and experience create inevitable choices, and thought doesn't exist. The whole discussion here is whether or not that is even the case. You can't just keep asserting it.

 

[Olmstead]

Sorry, I know peer pressure attempts when I see them. And yes, I'm also capable of it. As a matter of fact, I've been in sales for half my life.

What are you talking about? I gave you a scenario of two identical babies in two identical universes, and asked you what could make them diverge, and your response was that you would have to have been them, otherwise you cannot answer. It's not peer pressure to tell you that what you're asking is clearly irrelevant and unnecessary to provide an answer.

 

[Olmstead]

It doesn't follow, though. You are still begging the question that the genes and experience create inevitable choices, and thought doesn't exist. The whole discussion here is whether or not that is even the case. You can't just keep asserting it.

I'm asserting it because there's no other way for it to work.

What could make two identical people in two identical universes diverge?

It's a simple question. And if there's no answer other than nothing or arbitrary/random forces, then it logically follows that there is no free will. I don't know how else to explain it. Putting your faith in some magical free will thing that will cause the divergence is like putting your faith in God.

 

[Manopolus]

What are you talking about? I gave you a scenario of two identical babies in two identical universes, and asked you what could make them diverge, and your response was that you would have to have been them, otherwise you cannot answer. It's not peer pressure to tell you that what you're asking is clearly irrelevant and unnecessary to provide an answer.

The identical babies analogy wasn't what I was responding to. It was the post empty of content that subtly confirmed that you "don't know" (but not really), and then shifting it to "what to tell you."


To me, that's a sign that you just want to win the argument, not exchange ideas. Although I guess that wasn't an exact description of the phrasing, looking back.

 

[Thermal]

What are you talking about? I gave you a scenario of two identical babies in two identical universes, and asked you what could make them diverge, and your response was that you would have to have been them, otherwise you cannot answer. It's not peer pressure to tell you that what you're asking is clearly irrelevant and unnecessary to provide an answer.

It's not a scenario. It's an impossibility, as far as we know, and if it were possible, the answer would be "how the ◊◊◊◊ would I know?" It's tempting to say if everything was identical, nothing could be different, including the future. But it's all imaginary, not factual or logically following.

 

[Olmstead]

It's not a scenario. It's an impossibility, as far as we know, and if it were possible, the answer would be "how the ◊◊◊◊ would I know?" It's tempting to say if everything was identical, nothing could be different, including the future. But it's all imaginary, not factual or logically following.

Okay, at this point you're clearly just avoiding the thought experiment because you don't like what it will tell you.

 

[Manopolus]

Anyway, I'll go ahead and apologize to Olmstead for possibly seeing something that wasn't there. I was having a hard time reading anything else from that post. It seemed to be otherwise empty. Not much reason to call it out even if I read it right... other than my "deterministic" triggers. I choose to apologize of my own free will.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, at this point you're clearly just avoiding the thought experiment because you don't like what it will tell you.

No, I've engaged it squarely. You propose a conceptually impossible premise, and ask what would happen. How da ◊◊◊◊ would I know? I don't know what kind of creature results from a leprechaun ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ the tooth fairy either.

To be a thought experiment at all, the laws of physics and stuff have to be working. Your 'thought experiment' lacks any possible means of thinking or experimentation. It can't be speculated, unless, as you do, you just assume determinism.

Seriously, man, think it through.

Eta: or let's apply what little we could actually speculate on. The many worlds interpretation posits that there are a bunch of universes splitting off fromm each other as stuff happens. Two might be, as you propose, absolutely identical up.to a given point.

At that point, your theoretical actors may make choices which keep everything going identically, or cause a divergence. We don't know, because it's all random daydreaming.

As I said earlier, your posit only works (from your POV) as a slam dunk if you assume their futures would also be identical. To myself and others, they would only have been identical to that point by chance, and could diverge at any time.

 

[Manopolus]

But as to Olmstead's other arguments (generalizing) it seems to be about the suggestion that "God" is the only other answer. Yes, that is one answer that humans have made, which handles the paradox. Most of the reason we associate it with religion is because Descartes did, though. How about just stepping back and saying "I don't know what the chooser is in me" and leaving it at that? Why does it have to be an illusion?

Because the "cause" also goes straight back to the "first cause." That model also suggests a deterministic God controlling everything from the beginning. As a matter of fact, that was the original idea. It's a little less developed, but it was there when the argument started (Ancient Greece). And the reason to pursue the causal line was to obtain the power of the gods. It's entirely about control, not evidence per se.

I'm not arguing dualism. I'm not proposing a mechanism. I don't need to. I'm just saying that the model doesn't fit, and we can just leave the gaps there until they become clearer. I mean the model doesn't fit the being that is proclaiming it, mostly. It's like trying to wear the clothing of the gods, even if you don't believe in them. The Greeks called that hubris.

 

[Manopolus]

...and if you listen closely enough, it's like you're telling everyone that hears that you control them, because you know more about it than they do. That's the other point I've been pounding all the way through, but you claim not to get it. That's an intrinsic feature of determinism. There's no getting around it. It's right there in the sub-context every time it's proposed.

...but admittedly, I was hiding a hammer behind my back and looking for a nail in some cases when I was trying to point that out.

My original post here was just a reversal. If you say you're an NPC, well, who am I to say you aren't? It's the exact same sub-context right back at you. It's not tongue-in-cheek. It's illustrative.

 

[Manopolus]

You seem to forget that it was causation that proposed deities to us to begin with, or more specifically, blame. The human mind just can't stand the notion that there isn't someone or something to blame. It's another one of our features. But the chaos still persists in the unknowns, even now. We can even recognize it as a form of insanity when it goes too far - paranoid schizophrenia. But our own delusions are hard to see, especially the collective ones.

My father was an unmedicated paranoid schizo. Witnessed it firsthand starting at the age of five up until about ten years ago. He wasn't always delusional... maybe not even more often than anybody else. It's just that he became emotionally unstable when it fired off, usually due to some form of social discomfort. Just a story, but it explains where some of this comes from. It's why it has meaning.

 

[porch]

Seriously? You are 'not seeing' why we would want an accurate working model of reality?

That's a serious question, btw.

We're kind of getting into The Rule of So, here, except you've replaced So with Seriously.

Yes, I'm serious, no, please do not make up my words for me, and no, you do not have a working model of reality.

You know, when I entered this discussion, I was replying to a Manopolus post which I perceived to be simultaneously playful, combative, hyperbolic, and an invitation to argument. I responded in kind. M_ seemed to get it, welcoming me to the debate, calling me something like a robot guy, smiley face, and replied to M_ with a roboface. The vibe was okay.

For some reason, you seem bent on assigning the worst possible motivations to me, my ideas, my statements, and questions. I don't care at all to defend myself against these accusations. It is against the spirit of this forum, and it's not at all why I'm here. On a personal note, I would appreciate it if you stop.

eta: to answer your question (not that I'm expecting the reciprocal consideration any longer), it wouldn't change anything in our routine behavior. That's because no matter where you fall on this spectrum, you behave and conduct yourself 100% as if you have free will. You have said so yourself.

If you were to find out determinism was the One True Driver, what would you do differently? Nothing, of course. You couldn't, definitionally.

So what does your question mean? Nothing. It's playing with a paradox, which is entertaining in its way, sure. But it is certainly not the stumper it gets thrown up as.

Huh, it seems like we agree completely except for semantic differences. And clearly defining our terms . We agree that it doesn't make a difference, except you say that everybody behaves as if they have free will regardless, and I say everybody behaves as if they don't have free will regardless. I'm just saying, why go the extra step? We have everything we need right here.

 

[Olmstead]

No, I've engaged it squarely. You propose a conceptually impossible premise, and ask what would happen. How da ◊◊◊◊ would I know? I don't know what kind of creature results from a leprechaun ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ the tooth fairy either.

To be a thought experiment at all, the laws of physics and stuff have to be working. Your 'thought experiment' lacks any possible means of thinking or experimentation. It can't be speculated, unless, as you do, you just assume determinism.

Seriously, man, think it through.

Eta: or let's apply what little we could actually speculate on. The many worlds interpretation posits that there are a bunch of universes splitting off fromm each other as stuff happens. Two might be, as you propose, absolutely identical up.to a given point.

At that point, your theoretical actors may make choices which keep everything going identically, or cause a divergence. We don't know, because it's all random daydreaming.

As I said earlier, your posit only works (from your POV) as a slam dunk if you assume their futures would also be identical. To myself and others, they would only have been identical to that point by chance, and could diverge at any time.

The whole point of a thought experiment is to examine something that cannot be tested otherwise. The framework I presented is perfect for examining what might drive our choices. And examining all the possible outcomes is part of the exercise. That's why I posited both a case without divergences, and a case where there are divergences based on the subjects' choices.

In the case with divergences, we can speculate on what could cause identical people in identical situations to make different choices (even using your many worlds interpretation). You just don't want to think about it, because you know the only thing that makes sense is some sort of randomness, like the "random" or "probalistic" decay of an atom, which isn't free will either. If you think something else could make the timelines (i.e. choices) diverge, let me know.

 

[Thermal]

We're kind of getting into The Rule of So, here, except you've replaced So with Seriously.

The Rule of So requires an extrapolation, usually a strawman. I did nothing of the kind, but kept to your quote and how it would inform our decisions going forward (your own words). A direct quote is not a RoS.

Yes, I'm serious, no, please do not make up my words for me, and no, you do not have a working model of reality.

I didnt say I did. I said we should want one. Comically enough, on the heels of you saying right there about "making up words for me".

You know, when I entered this discussion, I was replying to a Manopolus post which I perceived to be simultaneously playful, combative, hyperbolic, and an invitation to argument. I responded in kind. M_ seemed to get it, welcoming me to the debate, calling me something like a robot guy, smiley face, and replied to M_ with a roboface. The vibe was okay.

Cool. M may have a more happy go luucky approach than yours truly. I'm from the Philly/NYC area and may come off as brusque, but please don't take it as aggro. We greet our mothers this way .

For some reason, you seem bent on assigning the worst possible motivations to me, my ideas, my statements, and questions. I don't care at all to defend myself against these accusations. It is against the spirit of this forum, and it's not at all why I'm here. On a personal note, I would appreciate it if you stop.

My only complaint is not addressing direct questions and/or changing the subject in the face of something thorny. Otherwise, I dont think I have said a peep about you personally?

Huh, it seems like we agree completely except for semantic differences. And clearly defining our terms . We agree that it doesn't make a difference, except you say that everybody behaves as if they have free will regardless, and I say everybody behaves as if they don't have free will regardless. I'm just saying, why go the extra step? We have everything we need right here

Ok. You said big and bold that everybody behaves as if they don't have free will. That's utterly nonsensical on it's face. Before we go on, could you clarify how, for instance, M and I behave so?