Is Randmoness Possible?

[Iacchus]

So you admit then that if I wasn't "focusing" on Lifegazer "either", you were just telling another despicable lie...?

Absolutely not. I think the problem stems from the fact that it's very easy for me to put you on ignore. It is possible I may have misread what you said.

Gosh, who knew that behind that innocent dolphinish facade lay the heart of a wicked, wicked liar? You'll be pushed into your own oven at this rate!

Would you care to try again?

Actually, no he's not... In fact, it's his blind irrationalism, his insistance that he should be treated as a Deity himself, which leads to his death.

Well, this is what I get for reading books about it I guess. No, it sounded to me like it had a lot to do with blind-rationalism, not to mention that Pentheus was a real authoritarian prick.

The fact that your own link only contains the name Pentheus and nothing else shows how once more, you've no idea what it is you've actually read. You just googled the name, and assumed again you knew what you were talking about.

Did you follow the link?

But tell me "cousin", if truly you are my "cousin", do you plan to lure me into the woods so the Maenads can tear me to shreds? Are you threatening me? Why, if you aren't, then there isn't a single thing in the parallel to yourself as Dionysus at all, is there?

Ahhh, so you are going to tear all the skeptics here to shreds? Quite the mass murderer, aren't you?!

We are all authors of our own downfall.

Let me spell it out to you very, very slowly Iacchus.

You... cannot... lie... to... someone... and... tell... them... they... believe... something... they... know... they... do... NOT... believe.

I know you're wrong about me.

Lifegazer I took seriously, towards the end, because he was clearly self destructively sick. You on the other hand barely register with me at all. You are just a hopelessly confused silly little child. The world's full of them, although admittedly they tend to be smaller and younger than you.

Yes, I love being silly. You on the other hand, sound like you were spoiled by your parents.

And it doesn't matter how many times you try and lie and say "You must think this!"... because I don't think that, and I know I don't. Just like telling me I am glue doesn't make you rubber, or indeed even address what your hand was doing in the cookie jar. And I can show this childish disconnect from reality to anyone else too. Which is why you dare not even take the risk of stating whether you think I believe in randomness or not. Despite you saying that you did know my beliefs. Because you know it won't stand up to adult scrutiny.

We're just a big bag of hot air now aren't we?

Because the only world you exist in is your own imaginary one. And you know full well you can neither understand or honestly face the real world.

Indeed, if the only world I exist in is imaginary, how would I know?

Which is fine by me. You'll simply grow old, and one day die, and you'll have neither touched nor wounded the real world, nor yourself, in the slightest. You are welcome to believe what ever foolishness you wish to believe in... because you are ultimately completely irrelevant. Which makes you irrelevant to me, too. I simply don't care Iacchus. I merely like occasionally pointing out just how silly you are for others, that is all.

Death is just the beginning.

 

[Iacchus]

Yet you didn't answer the question. Do you have free will if you are only free to do exactly what God knows you will do?

We are all bits and pieces of God. If God acts freely, then so do we.

Does God have free will if he also must follow a preordained path?

It would be much easier for me to accept this, than to say the Universe just randomly up and appeared out of nothing.

 

[Donks]

We are all bits and pieces of God. If God acts freely, then so do we.
It would be much easier for me to accept this, than to say the Universe just randomly up and appeared out of nothing.

So it's simple for you to accept that God has free will, as long as he does only what is preordained. Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[jan]

That's a tough one. I'll go out on a limb and say, "I have no idea."

Oh, the delights of ignorance. I, for example, didn't study it, I just read some popular articles about it, so I have no problem in explaining how the Many Worlds interpretation is supposed to work.

I would have to disagree with this phrasing. Causation refers to the action/effect linkage between two events. The radiation emitted from a decaying isotope may be random, but it is definitely causal.

I would say that there is a cause, but the cause is insufficient for the effect to be observed.

Say, you need ingredient A and B to make C happen. Now A can be called a cause of C, but A alone is insufficient to cause C without B.

To have a radioactive isotope is insufficient to observe radioactive decay. That's why I considered it to be (partly) uncaused.

I admit that this might be a dubious use of "causation", and that your example of black hole radiation is far more convincing. Your distinction between "acausal" and "random" sounds reasonable, so I'm considering adopting it. Is it yours, or standard wisdom of physicians?

For example, I predict that I will get tails on the next flip of a coin, but I can be fairly certain that I will have 50 tails out of the next 100 flips of a coin.

Shall we bet? I think your chances of exactly 50 tails are less than 8%.

No, because even if you have a Many Worlds situation, you will still have quantum fluctuations. In other words, in one world a quantum fluctuation will occur and in another it won't. However, in the world that it did occur, that fluctuation is still acausal, meaning there is no action preceding the effect.

I used to think that in the Many Worlds situation, it is supposed that in each and every moment, you have a (deterministic) split between a world where the fluctuation occurs, and one where it doesn't occur.

But that makes me wonder... how it would be possible in such a situation to have different isotopes with different half-life periods. Seems I learned something new — that is, that I don't understand the Many Worlds interpretation.

 

[Iacchus]

Just because you can't understand how this can have arisen without a designer, it doesn't mean that it can't have happened. You have just advanced an argument from ignorance (an unlimited resource, I believe).

The only ignorance that has advanced this argument is yours. Obviously you don't know. Perhaps you should just stick with that, instead of projecting your uncertainty (as if you were certain) to others?

 

[Iacchus]

So it's simple for you to accept that God has free will, as long as he does only what is preordained. Why doesn't that surprise me?

I don't pretend to fully understand who God is or, how His mind works. I'm stuck here dealing with the same effects you are. However, like I said, it's much easier for me to accept this, than to say the Universe just up and appeared out of nowhere.

 

[Ceritus]

Just because an answer is easier it does not mean it is true. I understand you want to believe in a God and you have every right to believe in anything whether it be a pink unicorn or a massive bearded guy in the sky. But the fact remains there is no evidence of a God or a pink unicorn and until there is any kind whatsoever then it is quite arbitrary to argue there is a god in a science forum simply because nothing is random.

What I cannot understand is why anyone would want a God to exist but that is something I doubt I will ever grasp.

 

[Donks]

I don't pretend to fully understand who God is or, how His mind works. I'm stuck here dealing with the same effects you are. However, like I said, it's much easier for me to accept this, than to say the Universe just up and appeared out of nowhere.

It is easier for you to accept a contradiction than a strawman of your own making. That's fine.

 

[Iacchus]

It is easier for you to accept a contradiction than a strawman of your own making. That's fine.

Which, is exactly what I have said about you.

 

[Iacchus]

Just because an answer is easier it does not mean it is true. I understand you want to believe in a God and you have every right to believe in anything whether it be a pink unicorn or a massive bearded guy in the sky. But the fact remains there is no evidence of a God or a pink unicorn and until there is any kind whatsoever then it is quite arbitrary to argue there is a god in a science forum simply because nothing is random.

What I cannot understand is why anyone would want a God to exist but that is something I doubt I will ever grasp.

Easier? Hmm ... And if we were to put Occam's Razor into effect?

 

[Donks]

Which, is exactly what I have said about you.

Where did you say this?
Am I advancing a strawman in this thread? Did you not agree with the premises? Did you not agree with the conclusion?

 

[Ceritus]

Easier? Hmm ... And if we were to put Occam's Razor into effect?

Fair enough but if using Occam's Razor wouldn't the non existence of God be simpler I guess knowing what we know now?

The universe obeys the laws of physics and everything eventually forms from elements obeying these laws.

Instead of a being of such unfathomable intelligence and omnipotence using his magical powers to form the universe with the wave of his hands. A being that has always existed and always will exist where the laws of physics no longer apply. A being that was never created and cannot be destroyed is much more complicated to be honest.

Show me one thing the defys the laws of physics and I'll show you a new believer in God.

 

[jan]

OK, well I do stand corrected on that one, that non-causational events have indeed been reliably observed.

So there is at least one interpretation that is in complete sync with causation and may not require randomness. Interesting.

If I got it right. See my reply to Upchurch's post.

I'm using definition (2), which simply means the ability to make choices.

No. I think you are indeed using definition (2) (the one I would call "ambitious"), but "the ability to make choices" is definition (1). At least if you don't define "choice" as "something that requires free will⁽²⁾".

Exactly, the computer doesn't have free will if it is deterministic. Didn't you just prove my point instead of yours (that free will can exist in a deterministic system)?

I agree that the computer doesn't have free will⁽²⁾. Therefor, it is unable to make choices⁽²⁾. What I was trying to explain (and in retrospect, I think I failed miserable, I doubt my post was that thought-trough) that "choice" can have different meanings. The computer does make choices⁽¹⁾.

The idea is this: the ability of making choices is a matter of degree. The chess computer is, in this regard, very limited. We are higher up on the scale. But there is no difference in principle. Daniel Dennett has the example of a vending machine that tries to decide whether or not a coin is genuine or not. That is, the vending machine makes a decision, it has a choice. Admitted, that machine is pretty low on the scale, it's hard to imagine how you can be any lower in the ability of making intelligent choices. But the claim is that there is a smooth transition from the vending machine to the chess computer to a more sophisticated computer to insects, apes and human beings.

By the way, does a chimp have a free will? Descartes would have said no, I guess. But Descartes had no idea how related chimps and humans are. Does a bee have a free will? A virus? If there is a smooth transition from abiogenesis to homo sapiens, I would expect a smooth increase of free will⁽¹⁾. Free will⁽²⁾, on the other hand, is a binary property: you either have it, or you don't.

Everyone feels as though they have free will.

I doubt this very much. But since you seem to concede that this is irrelevant for the question whether we have free will⁽²⁾, maybe we can postpone this.

However, to answer your question, I would prefer to have true free will rather than free will be an illusion (wouldn't you?)

This might sound annoying (sorry if it is), but since I still don't get what the difference would be, I am not very interested in having free will⁽²⁾.

As a computer programmer, I would never say that a computer makes decisions. A computer clearly doesn't make decisions, it simply follows a program.

Admitted, I used unnecessarily fuzzy language.

That said, there are several reasons why we should look further at our own ability to make choices. One is simple curiosity. Another is that the feeling that we can make choices is so engrained in our psyches that it's difficult for some to father that we might not have it, which might explain certain prejudices people might have against atheists and even scientists.

I agree. The topic is well worth further investigations. The experiments you mentioned seem to do just that, and I hope that more like them will follow, and our knowledge about these processes will increase.

Still another has to do with how we react and interact with those around us. For example, if you truly believed that nobody has free will, why would you get mad at someone for hurting you (they didn't have a choice) and why would you try to punish or reward anyone for "bad" or "good" behavior when there is no such thing?

Getting mad and wanting punishment are two different topics.

I might get mad because I am a human being and tend to have emotional reactions, which is often a good thing. But "getting mad" is not one of them, I would say. I think some people should be punished to alter their brain states. I don't want them to be punished because I think they are guilty.

If I would be God, I wouldn't condemn anybody to hell. I don't see the point. As far as I am concerned, may all beings enjoy heaven, guilty or innocent. Is this just? I wouldn't care.

For that matter, why should one who doesn't believe in free will obey a legal system that is based on free will and (if free will doesn't exist) contradicts itself by punishing people that it says shouldn't be punished?

I don't know anybody who obeys the legal system. Even my God-fearing, devout Christian father-in-law doesn't hesitate to use bootleg copies of computer software.

So why don't I start stealing, killing and raping? I don't think I would be very gifted for such a career. And I don't like the prospect.

And it's true that we will very likely never know the answer to these questions, but they're still worth thinking about in my opinion.

I wholeheartly agree. Even if a question is metaphysical, that doesn't mean that it is meaningless.

Yes, but we try not to jail people who don't deserve it.

Since you conceded that we don't know whether or not free will⁽²⁾ exists or not, the accuseds should be given the benefit of doubt, that is, we would have to assume that they don't have free will⁽²⁾. According to you, that would mean that they are innocent. Therefor, nobody should be ever punished.

Your original premise for this was that ancient people didn't believe in free will. Even if Helen ONLY had the ability to choose whether to use her blue toothbrush or her red one that morning, the ability to make just that one choice demonstrates that Helen has free will and that free will exists.

No, I don't claim that all ancient people didn't believe in free will. It's obvious that I claimed that Euripides believed in free will (though it's difficult to decide whether or not he believed in free will⁽²⁾, since he had no ideas of eighteenth century clockwork universe ideas). Euripides is trying to reconstruct what he thinks Homer's theory was, and he is having a hard time, since Homer's world is so much different than his own. He, indeed, says that Helen's argument is that she only has free will with regard to minor decisions. That doesn't mean that his reconstruction of Homer's thinking is accurate.

Nevertheless, I concede that you could make a case that there are some occasions were Homer has a hero acting free. For example, the decision of Achill not to engage in combat seems not to be caused by any god. So maybe Achill has, according to Homer, a free will with regard to a very important decision (and the freedom to act in accord with his decision). On the other hand, Homer speaks about Achill's anger as if it is some kind of independent being. Difficult to decide.

On the other hand, it seems that causation may actually disprove the existance of God, especially the type of God that a lot of people believe in nowadays, such as a God who granted Adam and Eve free will in the Garden of Eden.

I guess there will always be some loopholes where you can smuggle free will in. And perhaps only Adam and Eve had free will?

Just because it doesn't obey any laws that we know about or can currently comprehend doesn't mean that it doesn't obey laws.

That's not the problem. Maybe the soul obeys some laws we don't know anything about. Nevertheless, it would obey those laws. Sounds like determinism to me.

The soul shows some behavior. Does this behavior follow any laws, regardless whether or not we know does laws? Or are there occasions where the behavior of the soul doesn't strictly follow those laws?

We don't know much about basic forces such as gravity or magnetism. In fact, we cannot observe them directly, only their effects. What if free will is simply an unknown fundamental force like gravity or magnetism, and the only observable effects of this force is our free will?

I don't think this analogy works. Free will is not some substance you can add or take away from the soul as it pleases you, like you can magnetize a piece of iron without changing it's weight. Instead, it would have to be some way how the immaterial gears of the immaterial soul spin. But do those immaterial gears follow laws, or do they sometimes behave unlawful?

All of your arguments here assume free will. If you have no ability to decide whatsoever (as is the reality if there is no free will) then can you actually be responsible for anything you do?

I think that free will⁽¹⁾ is a matter of degree. Therefor, you can be more or less responsible⁽¹⁾. Therefor, it is reasonable to punish you with the full sentence law describes, or none at all, or some minor sentence, depending on your amount of responsibility<sup>(1)</sup.

 

[Iacchus]

Fair enough but if using Occam's Razor wouldn't the non existence of God be simpler I guess knowing what we know now?

The universe obeys the laws of physics and everything eventually forms from elements obeying these laws.

Instead of a being of such unfathomable intelligence and omnipotence using his magical powers to form the universe with the wave of his hands. A being that has always existed and always will exist where the laws of physics no longer apply. A being that was never created and cannot be destroyed is much more complicated to be honest.

Show me one thing the defys the laws of physics and I'll show you a new believer in God.

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. Therefore everything we see around us has always been here, in some way, shape or form.

 

[Ceritus]

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. Therefore everything we see around us has always been here, in some way, shape or form.

I agree and the ball that exploded in which was the big bang could have always existed. But what would have created god from nothing.

 

[Iacchus]

I agree and the ball that exploded in which was the big bang could have always existed. But what would have created god from nothing.

No, first we have the potential for everything -- through God -- which then created the Big Bang. Remember, God exists outside of time and space, as a Spirit, in another dimension.

 

[Upchurch]

Your distinction between "acausal" and "random" sounds reasonable, so I'm considering adopting it. Is it yours, or standard wisdom of physicians?

Split the difference. The wording is mine, but it is based on standard ...well, not "wisdom" but agreed upon definitions of physicists.
[fquote]Shall we bet? I think your chances of exactly 50 tails are less than 8%. [/fquote]Well we can predict some number of tails, anyway....
[fquote]Seems I learned something new — that is, that I don't understand the Many Worlds interpretation. [/fquote]I often say that when someone says they understand quantum mechanics, one of three things is going on: (1) They're lying. (2) They are wrong. (3) They are insane and, thus, capable of understanding QM.

 

[Thomas]

I often say that when someone says they understand quantum mechanics, one of three things is going on: (1) They're lying. (2) They are wrong. (3) They are insane and, thus, capable of understanding QM.

Uuuh, that's precious, Uppy. I might quote you on that one day, after all, you're sort of the philosopher of the house

Well, I did study determinism with quite some eager in my early youth, and I think I studied it too much, because it left me in some amounts of doubt. However, if I had my back against the wall and someone would force an oppinion out of me beyond "I don't know", I guess I belong to the Newtonian/Einsteinian- tradition, as I believe that everything has a cause, and I'm allowed to, because I guess I'm more of a philosopher than a debunker. If everything has a cause, then everything must be interacting with everything (at least in the known universe), hence, all actions are determined by previous actions, and that leaves us with no free will.

I'm sure you will correct me if I'm at fault here, Upchurch. And you should, because with my back to the wall I have a hard time seeing a way out of a truly deterministic universe. And QM hardly count as evidence of the opposite no more than the weather forecast. I think it's an incomplete theory despite the roar of so many physicians who claim to understand QM in full.

 

[Bri]

No, I do believe "God" is the source of free will and, the fact that all things are deterministic beyond that, shows the allegience of everything (by varying degree) to the original cause. As for the notion of "multiverses," this seems like another way of spelling out omniscience which, would be indicative to the mind of God. Whereas to the degree that one is conscious (hence closer to the mind of God), one has a greater capacity of free will. Which is to say, free will is very much linked to consciousness ... whereas everything else (in the physical sense) is deterministic.

Iacchus, your view of free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Determinism, by definition, states that EVERYTHING is determined, including what you call "consciousness." How can you have free will if everything you do is determined?

You've contradicted yourself here.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'm sure you will correct me if I'm at fault here, Upchurch. And you should, because with my back to the wall I have a hard time seeing a way out of a truly deterministic universe. And QM hardly count as evidence of the opposite no more than the weather forecast. I think it's an incomplete theory despite the roar of so many physicians who claim to understand QM in full.

It is my understanding that QM equations have so far never failed to provide an accurate result, and that QM explains many things that Newtonian physics and determinism doesn't explain.

However, your notion that there is no free will would hold true with either theory.

-Bri