Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

Stop playing gotchas! You are constantly trying to obfuscate the debate.

Normal people reading what I posted would interpret it in the normal way: In an indeterministic universe, even if you could know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time but you could still not predict what happens next.

So yes or no... do you agree with Darat.... that you can never "know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time"... because uncertainty is an inherent property of the universe as the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Physics have shown?

And thus the universe is indeed indeterministic... you agree now... right?

Yes... or no???



.

 

[psionl0]

So yes or no... do you agree with Darat.... that you can never "know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time"...

I never disagreed with that notion.

And thus the universe is indeed indeterministic.

Total non-sequitur.

Would you argue that a coin toss is random because you can't calculate all of the factors that would determine the result of a coin toss?

 

[Darat]

I never disagreed with that notion.


Total non-sequitur.

Would you argue that a coin toss is random because you can't calculate all of the factors that would determine the result of a coin toss?

Random and indeterministic are different things.

 

[psionl0]

Random and indeterministic are different things.

QM is essentially assuming randomness to explain physical behaviour.

That said, "deterministic" means that you can predict a behaviour if you know the exact state of something. At the quantum level, either several different outcomes are possible for the same state or it is impossible to determine the precise state.

In the former case, that means indeterministic but QM says that the latter is the case therefore we can't make a conclusion regarding determinism.

 

[Darat]

QM is essentially assuming randomness to explain physical behaviour.

That said, "deterministic" means that you can predict a behaviour if you know the exact state of something. At the quantum level, either several different outcomes are possible for the same state or it is impossible to determine the precise state.

In the former case, that means indeterministic but QM says that the latter is the case therefore we can't make a conclusion regarding determinism.

You don't seem to be addressing your confusion of indeterministic with random?

 

[jimbob]

That is what Wikipedia says:

"Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty."

Yes, however some very elegant experiments show that the universe itself doesn't know* both the position and momentum



In fact underlying randomness is a good explanation for me as to how the presumably-uniform starting conditions of the instant of the big bang have lead to a universe with structure

Functionally it's a red herring anyway.

Indee. And "my thoughts and actions are not predetermined but ALSO affected by physical processes that are random" doesn't exactly do much more in my view. We're just at the whim of metaphorical dice rolls as well.


*Shorthand for it is truly indeterminate not that there's any knowledge

 

[psionl0]

You don't seem to be addressing your confusion of indeterministic with random?

What confusion is that?

 

[psionl0]

In fact underlying randomness is a good explanation for me as to how the presumably-uniform starting conditions of the instant of the big bang have lead to a universe with structure

It is also a "good" explanation for why a tossed coin lands the way it does.

 

[Darat]

What confusion is that?

See post 222.

 

[jimbob]

It is also a "good" explanation for why a tossed coin lands the way it does.

Nope.

That could be explained by classical physics.

But I cannot see how one gets structure out of an infinite, uniform field with no boundaries unless random events perturb the uniformity.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Random and indeterministic are different things.

How ?

 

[Roboramma]

It's not just about the definition of free will. We must also consider the definition of Bob.

The amalgamation of particles/quantum waves we all conveniently refer to as Bob does not have free will. Claim 1 applies.

The fictional active agent we all (including Bob) call Bob and whom we all (including Bob) regard as in control of Bob's decisions, has a fictional power we call free will. Claim 2 applies.

Our experiences occur primarily within the narrative realm of the latter description, so it's as reasonable to say "Bob has free will" as it is to say e.g. "That collection of particles over there is a chair."

No one really responded to this, but it's pretty much how I view the topic, so rather than writing out another post saying the same thing but saying it less eloquently, I thought I'd just quote you for emphasis and for anyone who missed it. Also hopefully anyone with an opposing view can shed some light on where and why they differ.

 

[Roboramma]

Random and indeterministic are different things.

How about this:
"Would you argue that a coin toss is indeterministic because you can't calculate all of the factors that would determine the result of a coin toss?"

 

[Myriad]

No one really responded to this, but it's pretty much how I view the topic, so rather than writing out another post saying the same thing but saying it less eloquently, I thought I'd just quote you for emphasis and for anyone who missed it. Also hopefully anyone with an opposing view can shed some light on where and why they differ.

Thanks for the upvote!

Yeah, I don't know whether it's because if you accept this view there's not much more to discuss, or because it pokes at at an uncomfortable dichotomy of modern thought, "everything is material + my continuity of experience is the most really real thing in the universe against which the reality of everything else must be weighed." I suspect it's the latter.

What I think is this:

Magic wands aren't real: true statement.
Harry Potter isn't real: true statement.
Harry Potter has a magic wand: also true statement.

But many people seem to have a lot of trouble with it:

Magic wands aren't real: true statement.
Harry Potter has a magic wand: also true statement.
Therefore Harry Potter isn't real: Oh, wait, that can't be right. I like Harry! Harry seems so real! He must not really have a magic wand after all, he only thinks it's magic. If we carefully re-interpret the entire series we can see how it's really telling us that all the magic is all a mental illusion but everything else in the story really happened. (And don't go trying to get Harry to use a transporter either, I—I mean, he,—knows better!)

 

[Leumas]

How about this:
"Would you argue that a coin toss is indeterministic because you can't calculate all of the factors that would determine the result of a coin toss?"

If you can do that then it is called pseudo-random... random is indeterministic by definition.... it does not matter what factors there are or are not there to be ascertained... if you can ascertain factors that enable you to calculate the outcome of a coin toss with CERTAINTY then it is not random... it is what is called PSEUDO-random.

Also a coin toss has a binary outcome (well, excluding landing on the edge)... Momentum's standard deviation of variation (σ_p) and Position's standard deviation of variation (σ_x) have an analog (i.e. infinite) set of values they could be... the only limit is the relationship described by the Uncertainty Principle (ħ is the Planck constant):

σ_xσ_p≥ ħ/2​

And this is a property of REALITY... and thus in reality nothing is predetermined nor determinable with certainty... and thus indeterministic... i.e. we cannot rewind time and play it forward with the same outcome.



.

 

[Leumas]

What confusion is that?

The confusion is.... that you think that "random" does not mean uncertainty... if you think randomness can be eliminated by determining factors then you mean pseudo-random not random....

The other confusion is... that you think the Uncertainty Principle is just about pseudo-randomness and thus can be done away with by God-like powers of determining things.

This is arrantly not true ... even a god cannot determine or predetermine things with certainty since the universe is inherently indeterministic.

So you know... like those impossible things the theists keep telling us it is illogical to ask of God to do (e.g. lifting a rock he created).... well... determining or predetermining the universe is one of those things God cannot do... sorry for the bad news.

And lest you hasten to interject that this entails free will.... then again... bad news... it does not entail any such myths either.... only the illusion of it.... much like this construct of the human brain is also an impossible illusion that cannot exist in reality.... not to mention the whole concept of gods in the first place.

 

[Leumas]

...
What I think is this:

Magic wands aren't real: true statement.
Harry Potter isn't real: true statement.
Harry Potter has a magic wand: also true statement.

But many people seem to have a lot of trouble with it:

Magic wands aren't real: true statement.
Harry Potter has a magic wand: also true statement.
Therefore Harry Potter isn't real: Oh, wait, that can't be right. I like Harry! Harry seems so real! He must not really have a magic wand after all, he only thinks it's magic. If we carefully re-interpret the entire series we can see how it's really telling us that all the magic is all a mental illusion but everything else in the story really happened. (And don't go trying to get Harry to use a transporter either, I—I mean, he,—knows better!)

Well said!

 

[GDon]

What I think is this:

Magic wands aren't real: true statement.
Harry Potter isn't real: true statement.
Harry Potter has a magic wand: also true statement.

The third one is a false statement, if you want to be consistent with the implied premises:

In real life, magic wands aren't real (true)
In real life, Harry Potter isn't real (true)
In real life, Harry Potter has a magic wand (false)

Your magic wand premise, in order to be true, would be "in fiction". Thus:

In fiction, magic wands aren't real. (false)
In fiction, Harry Potter isn't real (false)
In fiction, Harry Potter has a magic wand. (true)

For your original statements to be true, the implications are:

In real life, magic wands aren't real = true statement
In real life, Harry Potter isn't real = true statement
In fiction, Harry Potter has a magic wand = true statement

Given the different premises, they aren't part of the same argument. Similarly any arguments around omnipotence, free-will, etc: we need to start from the same set of premises and definitions even if you disagree with them if we want to debate the implications of those premises, especially in a logical format.

My premise, and the same premise as other compatibilists like Dennett: free-will is an evolved trait,

 

[Leumas]

....
And this is a property of REALITY... and thus in reality nothing is predetermined nor determinable with certainty... and thus indeterministic... i.e. we cannot rewind time and play it forward with the same outcome.

And this has a devastating implication for all those entertaining SciFi stories and movies and TV programs about parallel universes with the same protagonist but being a galactic military Dictator instead of a nice Federation Spaceship Captain... since these also along with gods and free-will are rendered impossible too.... Quetzalcoatl bloody darn it!!!

 

[Myriad]

The third one is a false statement, if you want to be consistent with the implied premises:

In real life, magic wands aren't real (true)
In real life, Harry Potter isn't real (true)
In real life, Harry Potter has a magic wand (false)

Your magic wand premise, in order to be true, would be "in fiction". Thus:

In fiction, magic wands aren't real. (false)
In fiction, Harry Potter isn't real (false)
In fiction, Harry Potter has a magic wand. (true)

For your original statements to be true, the implications are:

In real life, magic wands aren't real = true statement
In real life, Harry Potter isn't real = true statement
In fiction, Harry Potter has a magic wand = true statement

Given the different premises, they aren't part of the same argument...

I understand what you're claiming, and why you'd want to claim it. But it's wrong. In the real world, Harry Potter has a magic wand. The relationship between the fictional concept "Harry Potter" and the fictional concept "magic wand" is not itself fictional. I could go out and ask a hundred people, real people whom I could see and talk to, whether Harry Potter has a magic wand, and all of them who could understand the question would say yes. (Some of them would mention, with great consistency, that said wand is holly, eleven inches long, with a phoenix feather core.) If I were to market a character that was claimed to be infringing on Harry Potter's IP, a real court in the real world could reasonably consider, as supporting evidence, whether or not my fictional character had a fictional magic wand similar to Harry Potter's. If you were to wake up tomorrow and discover that contrary to your own clear recollections, all the Harry Potter books and films you can find say Harry Potter never had a magic wand, you'd suspect you were dreaming, or the subject of an elaborate hoax, or you'd doubt your own faculties. Just as you would if, for instance, everyone suddenly started insisting Elton John never wears or ever wore large eyeglasses. That one example is an association between a real person and real objects, and the other is an association between a fictional person and fictional objects, makes little difference in the import or reality of the association itself.