Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

Well, the computer analogy is not so useful. Anybody who has built even primitive computer games will know you can easily simulate free will: Just let one or more of the inputs to the algorithm be a random number. It's still entirely deterministic (unless you implement a TRNG), but who can tell the difference?

A RNG doesn't give a computer free will. Neither does incomplete knowledge of a computer's programming.

 

[psionl0]

And if the invisible dragon in my garage built a computer...

"Maybe God did it with his magic we can't understand" is not only not an answer, it's not even a coherent thought.

The word "IF" at the beginning of my post renders this entire post moot. You need to learn the difference between evangelizing and entertaining a hypothetical.

 

[MRC_Hans]

A RNG doesn't give a computer free will. Neither does incomplete knowledge of a computer's programming.

I didn't say it did. I said it might be virtually impossible to distinguish from free will.

Hans

 

[psionl0]

I didn't say it did. I said it might be virtually impossible to distinguish from free will.

Sure. Computers are almost Turing test ready now. Who knows? Maybe there will come a day when computers can even do subtitling correctly.

But pseudo-free will is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Leumas]

Sure. Computers are almost Turing test ready now. Who knows? Maybe there will come a day when computers can even do subtitling correctly.

But pseudo-free will is not the topic of this thread.

Actually... that is precisely the topic of this thread...

Is it possible for both of the following statements to be true about one person, Bob:

1. Every single thing Bob does in his entire life was already inevitable even before he was born.

2. Bob has free will

And you already stated that there is no "free-will" ... ergo... it is all a pseudo-free-will in the first place.

And in a deterministic world, these things are all pre-programmed. Ergo, no "free will" or "free-will".

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

 

[Leumas]

Well, the computer analogy is not so useful. Anybody who has built even primitive computer games will know you can easily simulate free will: Just let one or more of the inputs to the algorithm be a random number. It's still entirely deterministic (unless you implement a TRNG), but who can tell the difference?

A RNG doesn't give a computer free will. Neither does incomplete knowledge of a computer's programming.

What about a TRNG (TRUE random number generator).... or do you not believe the T is real???

But I do agree... TRNG (or RNG) does not give a computer nor a human brain any such thing as "free-will"...

But... that is not what was said... what was said is that a computer with RANDOMNESS will FOOL humans to be appearing AS IF it had "free-will"... much like a human is also fooled by its own brain to have the illusion of "free-will".

That's the problem. There is no evidence that "underlying randomness" exists - much less that it controls the universe.
We use statistical formulae in QM much like we do with coin tosses but that only assumes that randomness exists. It doesn't prove that randomness exists.

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.

 

[psionl0]

Actually... that is precisely the topic of this thread...

And you already stated that there is no "free-will" ... ergo... it is all a pseudo-free-will in the first place.

As usual you have deleted the "deterministic universe" caveat.

And the OP asked if free will can exist in a deterministic universe - not if pseudo free will can exist in a deterministic universe.

 

[Leumas]

As usual you have deleted the "deterministic universe" caveat.

Nope... this is not true...

I deleted nothing... had you read the post properly you would have seen that I quoted you with a link to your original post... so most emphatically... you are wrong!!!

And the OP asked if free will can exist in a deterministic universe - not if pseudo free will can exist in a deterministic universe.

And again... had you read the post properly you would have noticed that I quoted the OP with a link to the original post....

And... in the deterministic universe the OP was asking about... you asserted that there cannot be "free-will"... ergo... if one is going to discuss the topic, pseudo-free-will is the only thing that remains...

And in a deterministic world, these things are all pre-programmed. Ergo, no "free will" or "free-will".

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

As usual you have deleted the "deterministic universe" caveat.

And the OP asked if free will can exist in a deterministic universe - not if pseudo free will can exist in a deterministic universe.

The OP asked that, and the answer is easy: No. [/thread]

So, as this is a discussion forum, the discussion has moved on to how deterministic the universe is and to which degree free will may exist in it.

If you don't want to discuss that, simply don't, but others do.

The thing is that the universe does not appear to be entirely deterministic. We find numerous kinds of events that don't appear to entirely follow a deterministic pattern.

Hans

 

[psionl0]

The OP asked that, and the answer is easy: No. [/thread]

So, as this is a discussion forum, the discussion has moved on to how deterministic the universe is and to which degree free will may exist in it.

If you don't want to discuss that, simply don't, but others do.

The thing is that the universe does not appear to be entirely deterministic. We find numerous kinds of events that don't appear to entirely follow a deterministic pattern.

Hans

The problem is that we have no way of telling how deterministic the universe is - or whether it is deterministic at all. Similarly, we have no way of telling if we are exercising free will or not.

Sure, you can insert random forces into the gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't prove that the random forces exist. It only gives us a calculable model. It is essentially the "God of the gaps" argument.

 

[Leumas]

The problem is that we have no way of telling how deterministic the universe is - or whether it is deterministic at all. Similarly, we have no way of telling if we are exercising free will or not.

Sure, you can insert random forces into the gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't prove that the random forces exist. It only gives us a calculable model. It is essentially the "God of the gaps" argument.

I think you are confusing what a force is and what random is... forces exist... when and how they get applied can be random and is random in certain things...

So it is not a magical "random forces"... it is physical interactions that interact randomly in certain times and at certain levels.

Get that? Forces exist... they get applied randomly... and thus you get random results... it is not "random forces".

All you have to do to understand this is... go to a Halloween Store... and buy one of those luminescent costumes and see it glow in the dark.... or... make a good hot cup of tea and drip a smidgen of milk in it and watch that... or turn the FM or AM radio set onto a channel that has no station on it and listen to that white noise... or wait for a tornado or hurricane or lightning and watch those... or get a good Geiger counter and listen to that... or go to the nearest white water river and sit at the bank and watch the water flow there... or go sunbathing and see if skin cancer will be the result or not.... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

The problem is that we have no way of telling how deterministic the universe is - or whether it is deterministic at all. Similarly, we have no way of telling if we are exercising free will or not.

So any further discussion is moot and futile since it would all be just fallacious Argumenta ad Ignorantiam

 

[psionl0]

I think you are confusing what a force is and what random is... forces exist... when and how they get applied can be random and is random in certain things...

What a load of crap. A "random force" is just a shorthand for forces that are applied "randomly". You have no proof that this is what happens whatsoever.

All you have to do to understand this is... go to a Halloween Store... and buy one of those luminescent costumes and see it glow in the dark.... or... make a good hot cup of tea and drip a smidgen of milk in it and watch that... or turn the FM or AM radio set onto a channel that has no station on it and listen to that white noise... or wait for a tornado or hurricane or lightning and watch those... or get a good Geiger counter and listen to that... or go to the nearest white water river and sit at the bank and watch the water flow there... or go sunbathing and see if skin cancer will be the result or not.... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Your inability to predict how these forces will be applied is not proof that the forces are applied randomly.

 

[Leumas]

What a load of crap. A "random force" is just a shorthand for forces that are applied "randomly". You have no proof that this is what happens whatsoever.


Your inability to predict how these forces will be applied is not proof that the forces are applied randomly.

So you are back to again denying that there is randomness.... ah well.... I suggest you go back and reread the whole thread again as a response.... there is no point in rehashing it all again.

But yet again... your argument is nothing but a fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... since you already stated that you...

The problem is that we have no way of telling how deterministic the universe is - or whether it is deterministic at all. Similarly, we have no way of telling if we are exercising free will or not...

And that is in addition to the words of sheer perspicacity below...

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

ETA: I suggest you look up the definition of randomness... this one is a bad one... but the quote below has a good one.

...inability to predict how these forces will be applied...

 

[psionl0]

So you are back to again denying that there is randomness....

No, I am saying that you have failed to prove that randomness exists.

ETA: I suggest you look up the definition of randomness... the quote below has a good one...

...inability to predict how these forces will be applied...

That was just an observation of what you (don't) know. It is not a "definition".

 

[Leumas]

That was just an observation of what you (don't) know. It is not a "definition".

So who knows??? Do you??? Or does the omniscient omnipotent Jabberwocky???

No, I am saying that you have failed to prove that randomness exists.

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...

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.

 

[psionl0]

No... randomness is proven every time a ¹⁴C atom in all living things' bodies decays...

 

[MRC_Hans]

The problem is that we have no way of telling how deterministic the universe is - or whether it is deterministic at all. Similarly, we have no way of telling if we are exercising free will or not.

Sure, you can insert random forces into the gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't prove that the random forces exist. It only gives us a calculable model. It is essentially the "God of the gaps" argument.

Yes, I quite agree on both accounts.

What I find from life is:

- The doings of life-forms in Earth, at least the more sentient ones, simply reeks of free decisions.

- If you don't apply some level of thought to your decisions, your life tends to go downhill very quickly.

From this I myself arbitrarily infer that we must have some degree of free will.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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...

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.

Hans

 

[Leumas]

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.

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...

...
Instead, the half-life is defined in terms of probability: "Half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay on average". In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%.

.... Note that after one half-life there are not exactly one-half of the atoms remaining, only approximately, because of the random variation in the process. Nevertheless, when there are many identical atoms decaying (right boxes), the law of large numbers suggests that it is a very good approximation to say that half of the atoms remain after one half-life.

Various simple exercises can demonstrate probabilistic decay, for example involving flipping coins or running a statistical computer program.

 

[I Am The Scum]

where while each ball is going to end up randomly in a slot

But that's deterministic.