Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
But that's just apparent randomness, which we've agreed is not what "free will" is about.
Materialism and Immaterialism
- Thread starter Wrath of the Swarm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- immaterialism materialism
hammegk said:
WHAT?
Science does not read on the god question at all! Faith is unfalsifiable, and is not part of science.
Scientists, therefore, do not even need to consider the god issue inside the scientific method.
While it's not germane to this discussion, I wonder what you would classify me as in terms of atheism and materialism.
I conclude that either no god exists or that s/he/it created the world so that it looks exactly like no such god exists. In such case, there is no need for a god-idea. Parsimony suggests that we can reject the unnecessary hypothesis, just like we can reject the idea that everyone has an IPU on their shoulder.
Being a scientist, of course, I can not assert that any conclusion is at 100%. Science does not deal in certainties, and can not, it deals in best present explainations.
Ergo, you can't possibly mean that scientists think 100% of anything. It's a fundamental contradiction.
Wrath of the Swarm said:
I presume you're talking to me?
No, it's not pure randomness, because even with the random nature of the beast, there are strong trends enforced by the process. The process is not purely random, it is some kind of agonizingly complex, time-varying markov process (or much worse, probably) in which companion threads to the "known" result are explored as a result of the uncertain nature of thought.
This is not the same as 'apparent randomness', please, at least using the usual definitions, because the system has an enormous memory component, and is only slightly random.
Since the system is also highly chaotic, very slight amounts of randomness, biased as they are, can lead eventually to quite different outcomes.
Say, for instance, you ducked, or you didn't, when you thought you heard the jaguar leaping from the branch above your head. Quite a potential difference in outcome, eh?
Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
No, that *is* randomness. Quantum mechanics concerns itself with probabilities, which interact in a deterministic fashion, but it can't say anything about the actual outcomes. I could tell you that a coin has an equal chance of coming up heads or tails, but I can't tell you the result of any given coin toss.
Whether quantum events are actually deterministic or merely appear so is debatable, although it's known that events can't be explained by resorting to classical locality. But from our point of view, it appears as random as a coin toss or roulette wheel.
Whether quantum events are actually deterministic or merely appear so is debatable, although it's known that events can't be explained by resorting to classical locality. But from our point of view, it appears as random as a coin toss or roulette wheel.
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Irrelevant. You could, however, predict the most likely results of 10,000,000 coin tosses, though, couldn't you? (*hint, say "yes"*)
Either you don't understand how many very random events combine to give near-certainty (instead of sheer randomness) or you're missing the point on purpose.
If we have 10 electrons, and the chance of each one taking on another state is precisely 10%, how many will take on that state, and what is the probability that none do?
If we have 1000 electrons, same question.
If we have a million electrons, same question.
In the brain we have many millions of individual atoms or molecules involved in each nerve firing. The outcome is NOT "random". The outcome is NOT a "coin toss".
Because of the dendrites, etc, in the brain, there is a strong bias toward certain states, and it takes more "difference" to put things out of those states. Even if we had a purely random system that would create a bias, and I haven't suggested a purely random system, because that's not what QM would imply. QM would imply a very strong bias toward a particular, given result, but would allow variations, i.e. the decision, based on many, not one QM interaction, would tend toward a given thing, but would not be PREDETERMINED to absolutely be that.
Most QM events, also, are not a "coin toss" as a coin toss is a 50% shot for a fair coin, and few QM probabilities are anything close to that.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
I think you guys may be arguing over nothing.
Wrath's request for a definition of free-will was directed at Ian and Hammegk, in response to their claim that it exists, and is neither deterministic, nor random (nor any combination thereof).
The first problem being that this is not a definition of what free-will is, but rather what it isn't. The second problem being that under any conventional mathematical definition of "random" and "deterministic", this is self-contradictory.
So I think what Wrath is saying is that while JJ's definition of free-will is perfectly reasonable, and about the only definition of it that represents something we actually have, it does not help in addressing what Ian and Hammegk mean by free-will.
Dr. Stupid
Wrath's request for a definition of free-will was directed at Ian and Hammegk, in response to their claim that it exists, and is neither deterministic, nor random (nor any combination thereof).
The first problem being that this is not a definition of what free-will is, but rather what it isn't. The second problem being that under any conventional mathematical definition of "random" and "deterministic", this is self-contradictory.
So I think what Wrath is saying is that while JJ's definition of free-will is perfectly reasonable, and about the only definition of it that represents something we actually have, it does not help in addressing what Ian and Hammegk mean by free-will.
Dr. Stupid
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
A little lost in the flow, but I think hammegk raises an interesting point here. If we assume that "Free Will" can be either dismissed or considered "explained" as some combination of determined/random/QM, then what about "life"?
If "life" is just an emergent property of a certain set of physical interactions, then in theory we can create a living creature from raw material and a template. So are computer viruses actually "living creatures"? If not, then what definition separates them?
Loki said:
But "life" is just a word we use as a shorthand to describe a particular set of attributes. Or am I missing something here in your question?
Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
The most likely results, yes. But not what the actual results would be.jj said:
No, the outcome is still random. Tossing a billion coins is as random as tossing a single coin. You can't switch over to determinism just by increasing the number of trials.
Some outcomes may be more probable than others, but the determination of which outcome takes place is still random.
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Then, I guess we are discussing something other than mathematics. You are asserting that if there exist any uncertainty in an outcome that it's "random"? "Still random", not "partially random", etc.
I agree that it's not fully deterministic. Why do you think otherwise. In the real world, NOTHING is fully, absolutely deterministic, even dropping a rock. It COULD tunnel sideways, of course at its deBroglie wavelength the probability is "age of the universe as an instant" in scale, but it IS possible.
Loki said:
I'd answer with "whatever I want it to be a shorthand for", for instance I could just decide that life is anything that displays repeating, self-replicating structure and then hey presto the universe is "alive".
A definition for "life" only becomes difficult if you are someone who believes there is at least one additional property that isn't "physical" that is associated with "life". (A, for instance of such a property would be a “soul”.) You then struggle with a definition for "life" since you have to define (or at least describe in detail) the "non-physical" property within your definition of "life". And since describing something “non-physical” would appear to be impossible defining "life" then seems to also be impossible.
Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
Don't teach a crone to suck eggs, jj.jj said:
The event does not need to be completely unconstrained to be random. If some aspect of the event is random, then the outcome cannot be predicted. We might be able to make a guess with a very high degree of certainty - but that's not the same as a fully deterministic system.
Ding! Give the man a cigar!
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Darat,
I agree with what you're saying. I suspect my original thought is poorly expressed (something to do with another early morning start at the office). What I was getting at (and this second attempt may be as ill-formed as the first) is that it seesm to me that questions relating to "define 'life' and "define 'self-'awareness'" are more problematic for any form of materialism that the "Free Will" issue.
"Free will" needs "self-awareness", "self-awareness" needs "life". Arguing about "Free WIll" without adequately resolving the first two seems unlikely to succeed?
I agree with what you're saying. I suspect my original thought is poorly expressed (something to do with another early morning start at the office). What I was getting at (and this second attempt may be as ill-formed as the first) is that it seesm to me that questions relating to "define 'life' and "define 'self-'awareness'" are more problematic for any form of materialism that the "Free Will" issue.
"Free will" needs "self-awareness", "self-awareness" needs "life". Arguing about "Free WIll" without adequately resolving the first two seems unlikely to succeed?
Loki said:
I think I know what you mean... but (of course there was going to be a but) aren't you unnecessarily complicating matters? I would stick to just using "self-awareness", no need to tag “life” on.
Then we can make statements like, "A rock has no "self-awareness" therefore cannot exercise "free-will".
The interesting thought I have about this approach is it gives us a way to examine if we need to introduce "free-will" to explain the actions of humans. For instance if we believe a protozoa has no self-awareness yet we see it seek out food then why is it a requirement that humans would need “free-will” to explain us seeking out food? (Obviously it doesn't mean we don’t have “freewill” it just suggests it isn’t a requirement for certain observed human actions.)
Err, that's my position from the beginning. No need to give me credit for something I figured out in high school. That was long ago.Wrath of the Swarm said:
I think your definition is absurd for several reasons:
1) There is no "certain" in the physical universe, period. Ergo, you are chosing a definition wherein everything is, in fact, "random". This is absurd, as it makes the word useless and redundant. Since everything is random, why bother use the word at all.
2) There are unquestionably degrees of randomness, probabilities, to be precise, that express the likelihood of an outcome. These can be modeled as a distribution of likely outcomes, etc. It is beneficial to express the "likely outcomes" and their likeliness.
3) Rather than use the word redundantly, we might as well use it as a measure of how random a system is. Is the probability of contrary result .000001 .5 .999999? (Yes, I'm begging the definition of contrary for the time being.)
If you'd like to have a discussion, please save the ad-homs, and stop using useless, redundant definitions, please.