Free will and determinism

[MRC_Hans]

See what I mean about confusing?

TRNG vs PRNG may be a useful dichotomy when it comes to computer generated random numbers but when you claimed that "True random" is generally used when it is assumed there is no known mechanism I was unaware that you meant to limit this to computers.

I didn't mean to specifically limit it to computers. The confusion only really happens when you discuss determinism and perhaps in some scientific context. In such cases one will do well to specify the definitions used.

In everyday speak, all we need to know is whether a pseudo-random (and hence repeatable) mechanism is used or not.

Lack of knowledge (of a random event mechanism) is not the same as knowledge of lack.

Obviously. Or more generally: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Hans

 

[Leumas]

[IMGW=200]https://jacobsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bs-meter.j[/IMGW]

How do you even know if you yourself admit that you do not know???

For you it might appear to be so (despite you not even knowing and admitting that you have no way of knowing)... because

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

 

[Leumas]

Obviously. Or more generally: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However... in this case... THERE IS evidence of the absence....

By your definition:

...
Random: A sequence that cannot be predicted or repeated by any known method.

Unless you contend that there is a "known method" or someone who can predict thermal noise or the photoelectric effect or radioactive decay of isotopes or airwave static or quantum level subatomic particles behavior... or genetic mutation... then this is definitively evidence of absence of a "known method".

If you do contend such... then you need to prove it... saying "there could be" is not rational and is just Wishful Thinking... and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... to Rationalize continuing to clench onto a scientifically debunked philosophical conjecture coined by theological agendas centuries ago to rationalize an incessant hope for a possibility of an omniscient Jabberwocky.


True Random Number Generator (TRNG)

For truly random numbers, the computer must use some external physical variable that is unpredictable, such as radioactive decay of isotopes or airwave static, rather than by an algorithm. At the quantum level, subatomic particles have completely random behavior, making them ideal variables of an unpredictable system. Most higher end microcontrollers have TRNG sources, which wolfSSL can use as a direct random source or as a seed for our PRNG. Intel RDRAND, a silicon-based TRNG, is supported by wolfSSL.

And this is from your reference

In computing, a hardware random number generator (HRNG) or true random number generator (TRNG) is a device that generates random numbers from a physical process, rather than by means of an algorithm. Such devices are often based on microscopic phenomena that generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, such as thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, involving a beam splitter, and other quantum phenomena. These stochastic processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable for as long as an equation governing such phenomena is unknown or uncomputable.

 

[psionl0]

How do you even know if you yourself admit that you do not know???

You are trying to say it is "B" because we don't know whether it is "A" or "B". That is more than illogical - it is BS.

 

[Leumas]

You are trying to say it is "B" because we don't know whether it is "A" or "B". That is more than illogical - it is BS.

Nope... you are the one who says "we don't know whether it is A or B"... not I... I say it is B because we have scientific proof for randomness.

You are the one who then proceeds to deny the scientific proof for randomness (as well as the reality and facts of it) and say that randomness is not possible despite you having said that you "don't know whether it is A or B"...

And that ... as you said...

...is more than illogical - it is BS.

So as you see... it is clearly and arrantly your illogic not mine...

And it is all because

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

 

[psionl0]

I say it is B because we have scientific proof for randomness.

So show us the proof. (Radioactive decay is not proof).

You are the one who then proceeds to deny the scientific proof for randomness (as well as the reality and facts of it) and say that randomness is not possible despite you having said that you "don't know whether it is A or B"...

And . . . . back to lying again.

 

[Leumas]

So show us the proof. (Radioactive decay is not proof).

What would you say to a person... I dunno... say one who denies Evolution and demands that you prove it for him... and insists fossils are not evidence?

I hope you would say to him to go and learn about it from the numerous sources that are available... no???

So likewise... for your request... go learn about it from the numerous sources available.

And . . . . back to lying again.

Why do you keep repeating this lie about me lying when all one has to do is read your own statements... throughout this thread....

Here are just a few....

...Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?
...

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

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...

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.

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

 

[psionl0]

. . . and say that randomness is not possible . . .

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

If you can't tell that these are two entirely different statements then you are beyond help.

 

[Oystein]

I voted "Yes" (Bob is fully determined, and Bob has free will), not because it is true, nor because I have compelling arguments, but also not randomly. I freely chose to pick "Yes".

I agree there is an illusion of free will wherein we have agency for change and choice in this universe. It works for me, and many, probably most, perhaps all, as a good heuristics to make sense of the world - oneself, fellow humans, and why the cat is the way it is.

In a similar way, gods came about: As heuristics for pre-scientific peoples to explain why the rain "wants" to stay away this summer and make the crops wither: it's the "free will", even capriciousness of the rain god.

Human decisions are the result of an unpredictable gazillion interactions of particles and waves, many of them individually unpredictable - but human psychology as an emerging phenomenon has some weak predictability. "Free will" is a heuristic concept to make sense of decisions we make.

So: Even though Bob is not physically free, he surely feels psychologically free, and there is no contradiction here: The physics representation is "true" but impossible to evaluate and thus useless, the psychological representation is "untrue" but can be evaluated to a reasonable degree of usefulness. We are, in practice, better off considering "free will" a real thing, even while it isn't.
That's similar to how we ride a bike: We just know how it goes, it feels like we master the physics, even while it is extremely difficult to actually do (compute) the physics.

 

[Tassman]

I voted "Yes" (Bob is fully determined, and Bob has free will), not because it is true, nor because I have compelling arguments, but also not randomly. I freely chose to pick "Yes".

I agree there is an illusion of free will wherein we have agency for change and choice in this universe. It works for me, and many, probably most, perhaps all, as a good heuristics to make sense of the world - oneself, fellow humans, and why the cat is the way it is.

In a similar way, gods came about: As heuristics for pre-scientific peoples to explain why the rain "wants" to stay away this summer and make the crops wither: it's the "free will", even capriciousness of the rain god.

Human decisions are the result of an unpredictable gazillion interactions of particles and waves, many of them individually unpredictable - but human psychology as an emerging phenomenon has some weak predictability. "Free will" is a heuristic concept to make sense of decisions we make.

So: Even though Bob is not physically free, he surely feels psychologically free, and there is no contradiction here: The physics representation is "true" but impossible to evaluate and thus useless, the psychological representation is "untrue" but can be evaluated to a reasonable degree of usefulness. We are, in practice, better off considering "free will" a real thing, even while it isn't.
That's similar to how we ride a bike: We just know how it goes, it feels like we master the physics, even while it is extremely difficult to actually do (compute) the physics.

YES. We have been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution and are programmed by genes and environmental pressures. We take our decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not entirely freely.

 

[Leumas]

Indeterministically Determined

YES. We have been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution and are programmed by genes and environmental pressures. We take our decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not entirely freely.

Humans are an ongoing process...

The next state of one's process is due to one's process' state at the time one's process reacts to conditions (i.e. "takes a decision")...

The current state of one's process is the result of current ambient processes/conditions as well as the sum total of previous states of one's ongoing process inputted to one's current process as a feedback (see image below).

Accordingly, the ambient processes/conditions as well as the historical ambient processes/conditions as well as the current constitution/condition of one's brain... which is the culminations of historical constitutions of the brain... determine the next state of the process.

Therefore the human ongoing process is determined by the sum total of the processes it is immersed in as well as itself as yet another process in the sum total of universal processes... as well as the ongoing progression of those processes.

All the ongoing processes of the universe... here on Earth or out there in the solar system or beyond or down to atomic levels deterministically interact and interfere with the progression of each other's processes.

However... a few (not too few) of those numerous universal processes are themselves indeterministic... thus imparting an overall indeterminism to the overall confluence of process.

Click on the image to see it in better resolution
​

– but not entirely freely.

Not at all freely... as you can see the human process is indeterministically determined by a confluence of deterministic processes as well as indeterministic ones... not at all freely.

And do not forget these words of sheer shrewdness...

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

 

[suren]

Not at all freely... as you can see the human process is indeterministically determined by a confluence of deterministic processes as well as indeterministic ones... not at all freely.

What I and some others see is that you appear to be confident that universe is indeterministic. Or maybe we have different definitions of indeterminism. In any case I don't consider indeterminism and unpredictability the same thing. Unpredictability just means that we are not able to predict.

Being unable to predict outcomes of physical processes is not quite the same (although necessary condition) as fully proving that it's indeterministic, because there is a possibility that we either haven't figured out the algorithm or there are hidden variables/states. We can only say that we have some evidence for true randomness. We just can't be dogmatic about indeterminism. Also just keep in mind that some interpretations of QM are still deterministic.

In any case, can you point me any physical experiment that you think it logically rules out any possibility of hidden variables/states or an unknown deterministic algorithm?

 

[Leumas]

What I and some others see is that you appear to be confident that universe is indeterministic.

Yes I am... because that is what numerous science fields and REALITY indicate.

Much like I am confident of the fact of the evolution of species... unlike most who still even nowadays clench onto the old notion of creationism... and ask all the time for proof of evolution while rejecting any given to them... and never ask for proof of creationism because they have faith it is the default.

Or maybe we have different definitions of indeterminism.

And I asked you many times to give that definition.... you still have not bothered to do so.... why?

Can you define

• Determinism
• Indeterminism
• Random
• Evolution

In any case I don't consider indeterminism and unpredictability the same thing. Unpredictability just means that we are not able to predict.

Why... that is what indeterminism is... unless you have another definition which you have not bothered to give yet???

Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or do not cause deterministically.

It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of libertarianism. In science, most specifically quantum theory in physics, indeterminism is the belief that no event is certain and the entire outcome of anything is probabilistic. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the "Born rule", proposed by Max Born, are often starting points in support of the indeterministic nature of the universe. Indeterminism is also asserted by Sir Arthur Eddington, and Murray Gell-Mann. Indeterminism has been promoted by the French biologist Jacques Monod's essay "Chance and Necessity". The physicist-chemist Ilya Prigogine argued for indeterminism in complex systems.
....
Yet some philosophers have argued that indeterminism and unpredictability are synonymous.

Being unable to predict outcomes of physical processes is not quite the same (although necessary condition) as fully proving that it's indeterministic,

It is fully proven if you cannot predict and no one can and nothing can... unless of course you contend that there is one/something who can... do you?

And if you think that ... one day perhaps we can... then that is just like saying maybe one day we can find the hidden god out there.

because there is a possibility that we either haven't figured out the algorithm or there are hidden variables/states.

Yes and Pixie dust might be real too... it is only that we haven't found it yet... right???

We can only say that we have some evidence for true randomness.

QED!!!!!!!

We just can't be dogmatic about indeterminism.

Yes... that is akin to saying that we have evidence that lightning is caused by static in the clouds.... but we might still one day find hidden variables that prove that Zeus' scepter is the real cause after all.

Also just keep in mind that some interpretations of QM are still deterministic.

And some are not.... the ones that are, are just THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS... not science.

And mind you... determinism itself is a philosophical naval gazing thought experiment also... done by people centuries ago when they did not have much science... and never did any science... and just COINED the conjecture.... so it is an unproven conjecture.

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

In any case, can you point me any physical experiment that you think it logically rules out any possibility of hidden variables/states or an unknown deterministic algorithm?

Why do you not demand proof for determinism instead.... can you point me to where determinism is proven? Other than philosophical naval gazing hand waving and conjectures???

However... I already did once to you here.... and two others times here and here....

Nevertheless... asserting hidden variables as CAN BE... is not rational... that is just like saying that maybe one day we can find the tooth fairy hidden inside the pillow, despite evidence that the dollar was put under the pillow by the parents.

And it is not just QM that is indeterministic.... there are numerous other things... it will behoove you to read up on them too.

Have you ever heard of something called White Noise or Brownian noise???

Also... although a bit too complex... look up Quantum nonlocality???