Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

Once again, the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. If you take it and don't add something like a collapse postulate, QM is deterministic. If you do add a collapse postulate, then yes, you get indeterminism, and I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't do that, but QM isn't necessarily indeterministic.

You might try looking up unitarity in QM.

It's probably worth noting that even under Everett measurement outcomes will still be probabilistic along any particular branch of the wave function.

So you too think that there is no randomness and that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of measuring ruler' accuracy??

And can you please explain how is Schrödinger's EQUATION deterministic if its SOLUTIONSSSSSSS to find out things is indeterministic.. unless of course you use woo woo legerdemain THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS??

 

[Leumas]

Once again: there are no local hidden variables. The distinction is important.

So there are hidden variables outside space time??

 

[GDon]

For what it's worth, a survey of philosophers found that about 60% accepted or leaned towards compatibilism. Only 12% accepted or leaned towards no free-will.
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium

 

[Leumas]

For what it's worth, a survey of philosophers found that about 60% accepted or leaned towards compatibilism. Only 12% accepted or leaned towards no free-will.
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium

How many of these "philosophers" are graduates of seminary schools and/or are theists who believe in gods or are agnostic??

ETA: citing the numbers of "philosophers" in support of any argument at all let alone "free-will" is the quintessential book definition of argumentum ad populum

 

[Darat]

Free will only exists in the world of narrative. Nothing in nature makes a decision; there's just cause and effect (and maybe pure quantum randomness). When we say a hurricane "decided" to turn eastward we're speaking metaphorically. Decisions are a fictional aspect of the narratives by which we explain our experiences, which themselves are a form of narrative, with a mix of physically real and fictional elements.

The thing is, that world of narrative is the world we know. There are many other things we regard as important that are as fictional as "making decisions." For instance, pain. In what way does a dynamic system of interacting particles feel pain? When a neural network in training delivers a wrong output and its synaptic weighting gets adjusted to reduce its tendency to make that mistake in the future, is that a "punishment" that causes the neural network pain?

Saying free will is an illusion makes you a proper atheistic rational skeptic. Saying that pain is an illusion makes you a wacko (or perhaps, an Asian mystic or an over-enthusiastic exercise coach). But the two concepts, whether you want to call them illusions or not, exist on (and only on) about the same experiential/narrative/cognitive level.

I agree to a large extent but pain isn’t a good analogy as it is something we can observe both internally and externally to our narratives.

 

[Darat]

Once again: there are no local hidden variables. The distinction is important.

Not in this discussion.

 

[Roboramma]

Not in this discussion.

It certainly is. There are interpretations of QM that can't be ruled out that are deterministic. Bohmian mechanics is a "hidden variables" theory, but it's non-local, and entirely consistent with Bell's theorem.

Personally I don't think it matters much to the free will question. The kind of indeterminacy you get in QM doesn't leave any room for libertarian free will, anyway. And the kind of determinism you get in QM still leaves any particular observer with probabilistic outcomes.

 

[steenkh]

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood him there. Could you pull up the quote?

Yes, I have misunderstood him. I can’t find my copy of The Arrow of Time, but there are plenty of other writings of him on the net, and YouTube videos by Carroll that says that I was wrong.

Sorry about that.

 

[Olmstead]

For what it's worth, a survey of philosophers found that about 60% accepted or leaned towards compatibilism. Only 12% accepted or leaned towards no free-will.
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium

Compatibilism is the refuge of those who have realised that free will doesn't exist, but don't want to accept the implications. Hard determinism is a depressing idea to most people, so it makes sense that most philosophers would rather adopt a lukewarm version. Because it's a lukewarm version of something, it's also a logically inconsistent mess that exists because people "need" it to be true.

 

[Leumas]

It certainly is. There are interpretations of QM that can't be ruled out that are deterministic. Bohmian mechanics is a "hidden variables" theory, but it's non-local, and entirely consistent with Bell's theorem.

Personally I don't think it matters much to the free will question. The kind of indeterminacy you get in QM doesn't leave any room for libertarian free will, anyway. And the kind of determinism you get in QM still leaves any particular observer with probabilistic outcomes.

You still have not answered directly

So you too think that there is no randomness and that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of measuring rulers' accuracy??

And can you please explain how is Schrödinger's EQUATION deterministic if its SOLUTIONSSSSSSS to find out things is indeterministic.. unless of course you use woo woo legerdemain THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS??

But I think I can maybe rummage an answer out of the above...

...
Personally I don't think it matters much to the free will question. The kind of indeterminacy you get in QM doesn't leave any room for libertarian free will,

So you do not believe that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of measuring rulers' accuracy... great... I wish you could state this directly to me or to the guy who believes it is only a limit on tape measures.

anyway. And the kind of determinism you get in QM still leaves any particular observer with probabilistic outcomes.

Ah... I hope I am not presuming too much out of this... but it seems that you also do not believe that there is no randomness.... great... but I hope my rummaging and deductions from your words is not presumptuous... and I do wish you could have said this directly to me or to the guy who believes that randomness does not exist.

anyway. And the kind of determinism you get in QM still leaves any particular observer with probabilistic outcomes.

And so... I also can glean that it looks like you are saying that the universe is in the end indeterministic because whichever way you look at it Schrödinger's EQUATION describes an indeterminism whichever of its SOLUTIONSSSSSSS to find out things one decides to take.... great... QED!!!

...
Personally I don't think it matters much to the free will question. The kind of indeterminacy you get in QM doesn't leave any room for libertarian free will, anyway. ...

And the outcome is also you do not think that the universe allows for free will whether it is indeterministic (which you say it is) or not.... GREAT...QED!!!

Now... I hope I am not strawmanning you... if I am... then can you PLEASE ... be clear and answer directly?

So you too think that there is no randomness and that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of measuring rulers' accuracy??

And can you please explain how is Schrödinger's EQUATION deterministic if its SOLUTIONSSSSSSS to find out things is indeterministic.. unless of course you use woo woo legerdemain THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS??

And can you please admit that you were arrantly and completely wrong as demonstrated by the FACTS... when you said the below error.... the right thing to do when one is proven wrong is to admit it.... no???

And that casino did pay out. You clearly don't understand Everett, or QM in general.

And if I am correct about all those rummaged and gleaned answers you seem to be giving in your post.... then why on earth you chose to wrongly ASSUME errant things about me and contend and wrangle with me instead of the guy with whom you are clearly in disagreement and fully aware was saying utterly wrong things????

In summary

1. You do not believe there is no randomness
2. You do not believe that the Uncertainty Principle is a limitation of tape measures
3. You think that QM renders the universe indeterministic
4. You do not think there is free will

Right??? If any of the above is wrong... PLEASE ... state clearly and unequivocally what you think instead.... so that I can stand corrected... thanks!!!



.

 

[Leumas]

Yes, I have misunderstood him. I can’t find my copy of The Arrow of Time, but there are plenty of other writings of him on the net, and YouTube videos by Carroll that says that I was wrong.

Sorry about that.

Very honestly intellectual... a refreshing thing to see....

 

[Dr.Sid]

Hard determinism isn't needed to refute "free will". Statistical determinism together with underlying randomness give no room for "freedom" either. It doesn't make you any more in "control".
You as an individual, the body, the brain, the process in the brain, viewed from outside .. you do decide.
You as the observer, part of the process in the brain, viewing it from inside .. the "I" which thinks, therefore is .. you just witness what the brain decides.
Obviously you do associate with those decisions. It was your brain after all. You have much more insight into the decision than anyone else. And that decision were made for your sake, as far as you can see. It is your decision. But you didn't decide it.
Basically same as farts ..

 

[Leumas]

Hard determinism isn't needed to refute "free will". Statistical determinism together with underlying randomness give no room for "freedom" either. It doesn't make you any more in "control".
You as an individual, the body, the brain, the process in the brain, viewed from outside .. you do decide.
You as the observer, part of the process in the brain, viewing it from inside .. the "I" which thinks, therefore is .. you just witness what the brain decides.
Obviously you do associate with those decisions. It was your brain after all. You have much more insight into the decision than anyone else. And that decision were made for your sake, as far as you can see. It is your decision. But you didn't decide it.
Basically same as farts ..

 

[psionl0]

Hard determinism isn't needed to refute "free will". Statistical determinism together with underlying randomness give no room for "freedom" either. It doesn't make you any more in "control".

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.

 

[Myriad]

I agree to a large extent but pain isn’t a good analogy as it is something we can observe both internally and externally to our narratives.

I'm not sure, though your point is well worth considering. We externally observe phenomena correlated with internal narratives of pain. But don't we also externally observe phenomena correlated with internal narratives of decision making? People say, "hmm, I'll have to think about it..." and then "I've thought about it, and decided...". There are parts of the brain that "light up" in PET scans specifically when a subject is required to perform a task involving comparison of variable outcomes. Physiological stress indicators can occur.

In any case, we know that computation by the brain is real; that the computation amounts to a free-willful choice is the fiction. Once again this seems closely related to the qualia concept. The willfulness of decisions; the painfulness of pain; the redness of red...

 

[GDon]

Compatibilism is the refuge of those who have realised that free will doesn't exist, but don't want to accept the implications. Hard determinism is a depressing idea to most people, so it makes sense that most philosophers would rather adopt a lukewarm version. Because it's a lukewarm version of something, it's also a logically inconsistent mess that exists because people "need" it to be true.

The thing for me is that free-will is an inconsistent mess. There is no real definition for free-will other than "the ability to do otherwise", which is not a definition per se, merely an outcome.

The idea that free-will is not possible in a deterministic universe but may be possible in an indeterministic universe is incoherent since no definition exists for free-will. How do random events lead to free-will decisions? Has anyone explained that? I haven't read one myself. It's consistent with "free" but not with "will". One can hardly be said to have "will" if their actions are determined by chance.

The base assumption is that free-will needs to exist separately from the processes of the brain in order to be free. And that is just an assumption that is not proven. Processes in the brain lead to consciousness, and arguably they lead to free-will as well. The only reason it gets called "illusion" is because of the assumption that anything originating within the brain is not free. It's not because anyone has proven that it actually is an illusion, despite experiments that get cited to that effect (and don't impact on the free-will debate despite what is claimed)

If we remove the chief assumption that free-will requires something that doesn't originate from within the brain, is there any reason to think that we don't have free-will? And can that chief assumption be validated without referring back to itself?

An interesting update to the link I provided above to a 2009. This is a study done by the same group but for 2020. 62% of philosophers surveyed are compabitibalists, about a 3% rise from 2009.
https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUPOP-3

 

[Leumas]

Yes... as I said... unfalsifiable woo woo .... in the imagination everything is possible... including the nonexistence of randomness and multiple universes with copies of one where one always wins the roulette spin... uh huh...

You are quite simply and directly wrong about this. All interpretations of QM are consistent with all known predictions of QM, all known experimental results of QM, and all technologies that make use of QM.

<snip>

Why have you not responded to this post proving the statement in your above post arrantly wrong??

And why have you not responded to the questions in this post ... or this post ... or this post... or this post???

Do you think it is right to incorrectly accuse someone of being wrong and then when clearly proven wrong about that... not to even bother to say anything at all???

But above all.... I am really interested in your answers to these questions

1. Do you agree that there is no randomness??
   
2. Do you think that the Uncertainty Principle is just a limitation of our measuring rulers?
   
3. Do you think all the Everett woo woo stuff is evidence for a deterministic or an indeterministic universe??
   
4. And which universe... out of the gazillions that split off from the gazillions of universes that split off from the gazillion universes etc. etc. .... every time a particle interacts with another every single time every single moment???

Can you at least answer this question below?

Do you NOT think the statements below are "quite simply and directly wrong" and do you agree with them??

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

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.

 

[Leumas]

...
If we remove the chief assumption that free-will requires something that doesn't originate from within the brain, is there any reason to think that we don't have free-will? And can that chief assumption be validated without referring back to itself?

The answer to your question is easily provided.... can you look at the image below and will your brain to choose to see the squares labeled A and B as the same color... by looking at them and willing your brain to do so... you can even try to squint or meditate or even ingest something if you wish... look at the image and see if you can will your brain to choose to perceive the squares as the same??

If not ... then there is your reason!!

And lest you interject that this would be impossible.... then consider this... squares A and B are indeed in reality and in fact the very same color.... so all you would be doing is FREELY WILLING to choose to rid your brain of an illusion it imposed on itself.

 

[Dr.Sid]

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.

We can't predict the outcome, yet we know the outcome follows simple statistical distribution, and it follows it as precise as we can measure it.
If that's not random, I don't know what is.

 

[psionl0]

We can't predict the outcome, yet we know the outcome follows simple statistical distribution, and it follows it as precise as we can measure it.
If that's not random, I don't know what is.

Tossed coins also follow a "simple statistical distribution". Is it your argument that coin tosses are strictly random?