Science and free will

[paximperium]

Libertarian free will would not look out of place into the above category of phenomena.

Well...that's something I don't think we have an issue agreeing with.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well...that's something I don't think we have an issue agreeing with.

Maybe not you and me, but I suspect certain other people will disagree.

ETA: I just checked your definition again, should have looked closer. I can agree with everything except "break the laws of physics". I don't see why God, miracles, etc... necessarily break the laws of physics. Some versions do, others can operate within the boundaries of those laws and still be miraculous. For example, there could be one day when, against all the odds, everybody who visited Lourdes was healed. This wouldn't break the laws of physics. People have been known to miraculously recover from cancer, with no known scientific reason. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. This "miracle" would just be a series of highly unlikely events occuring together. By contrast, if a cat thrown out of a window was to hover in mid-air then this would involve a breach of the laws of physics.

 

[Belz...]

You're still just asserting it.

UE, apparently you're not even reading what I write. Did you even bother trying to understand ? Let me give you examples, then.

- An object is either black or it isn't, or it's a combination of black and not black. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A chicken filet is either hot or isn't or it's a combination of hot and not hot. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A light is either bright or it isn't or it's a combination of bright and not bright. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A glass is either full or it isn't or it's a combination of full and not full. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A car is either fast or it isn't or it's a combination of fast and not fast. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A star is either far away or it isn't or it's a combination of far and not far. Can you see a third possibility ?

- An event is either caused or it isn't or it's a combination of caused and not caused. Can you see a third possibility ?

 

[Belz...]

You want scientific evidence for a metaphysical claim? Metaphysical claims can't be supported or falsified by scientific evidence. That's why they are metaphysical.

That's also why their existence or non-existence cannot be, even in principle, distinguished, and why they can be safely ignored.

Since it interacts with physical reality it must be detectable in principle.

Why?

What do you mean, "why" ? Because if it interacts with reality then, by definition, it causes changes, and changes can be, at least in principle, detected. I'm amazed that you don't grasp this very basic implication.

 

[Belz...]

It's not "interact" that is causing the problem. It's the claim that any interaction must necessarily be detectable by science. There's all sorts of reasons why this is not true. What if the interaction is non-repeatable? What if it is inconsistent? What if it manifests via quantum randomness? What if it only happens to certain people? What if the interaction is partly determined by people's belief systems?

I genuinely do not know why so many people believe that any interaction with physical reality is necessarily detectable by science. Many people do believe it, but there is no good reason why.

Strawman. Read my post again.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's also why their existence or non-existence cannot be, even in principle, distinguished, and why they can be safely ignored.

No. You can ignore it so long as all you are doing is science. If you are talking about philosophy or religion, then it is the fact that you cannot scientifically distinguish them that can be safely ignored.

What do you mean, "why" ? Because if it interacts with reality then, by definition, it causes changes, and changes can be, at least in principle, detected. I'm amazed that you don't grasp this very basic implication.

You still just asserting your conclusion is true. Up until now you've been asserting "everything is either determined or random" and justifying it with "it's obvious." Now you are trying to say that it is true by definition that everything which affects reality could be detected by science, and your justifying it with "I'm amazed you don't believe it."

Not everybody shares your metaphysical assumptions. Your beliefs are not true simply by virtue of your believing them. Your entire position boils down to "Materialism/determinism is obviously true."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Strawman. Read my post again.

It's not a strawman, Belz. You are just assuming things and then expecting everybody else to agree with them. It's not obvious that everything is either determined or random. Neither is it true by definition that anything which affects reality is theoretically detectable by science. The rest of your belief system is dependent on assumptions like these, and the assumptions themselves are supported by nothing at all. They are just things you happen to believe.

 

[Belz...]

None of that makes sense. I didn't say originatory acts of will are random. I said they were anything but random.

And yet you describe them as random. Perhaps you simply don't realise the logical implications of your description.

Acts of will are, by your own words, indistinguishable from arbitrary, random ones. For all intents and purposes they ARE random.

Libertarian free will would not look out of place into the above category of phenomena.

Neither would fairies.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, apparently you're not even reading what I write. Did you even bother trying to understand ? Let me give you examples, then.

- An object is either black or it isn't, or it's a combination of black and not black. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A chicken filet is either hot or isn't or it's a combination of hot and not hot. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A light is either bright or it isn't or it's a combination of bright and not bright. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A glass is either full or it isn't or it's a combination of full and not full. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A car is either fast or it isn't or it's a combination of fast and not fast. Can you see a third possibility ?

- A star is either far away or it isn't or it's a combination of far and not far. Can you see a third possibility ?

- An event is either caused or it isn't or it's a combination of caused and not caused. Can you see a third possibility ?

But those are examples of opposites. You are assuming that "random" is the opposite of "determined". It isn't. "Random" is the opposite of "purposeful" or "intended". "Determined" is the opposite of "indetermined" (or "not made inevitable by antecedent causes.") Just because something isn't made inevitable by antecendent causes, it does not follow that it isn't intended. It would follow if you also add the premise "materialism is true", because then there would be no other potential source of intent. But I'm not a materialist, so I don't add that premise.

Free will is an uncaused caused. It is non-deterministic (because it wasn't made inevitable by antecedent causes) and it is non-random (because it is intended). Why is this so hard to understand?

I'll answer my own question: you can't understand it because you can't/won't think outside of the materialistic box. You are trying to understand free will from the point of view of a materialist and, not surprisingly, it doesn't work.

 

[Belz...]

No. You can ignore it so long as all you are doing is science. If you are talking about philosophy or religion, then it is the fact that you cannot scientifically distinguish them that can be safely ignored.

Yes, philosophy is what people do when reality doesn't satisfy them.

Not everybody shares your metaphysical assumptions. Your beliefs are not true simply by virtue of your believing them. Your entire position boils down to "Materialism/determinism is obviously true."

If you'd bother to think about it, you'd agree. Unfortunately you're too blinded by your religious beliefs.

It's not a strawman, Belz. You are just assuming things and then expecting everybody else to agree with them.

It's a strawman because what you DESCRIBED in your post wasn't what I said. You either didn't understand because you didn't read properly (which seems more and more probable) or you purposely misrepresented me.

Neither is it true by definition that anything which affects reality is theoretically detectable by science.

Yes, yes it is.

If an event CANNOT interact with reality (say, something in another universe), then it can never be detected and will forever remain hypothetical to us. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, it can safely be ignored. If an event CAN interact with reality (say, something in OUR universe), then by definition it can be detected because it HAS effects, and effects are precisely what science detects. I'm not saying it WILL be detected.

The rest of your belief system is dependent on assumptions like these, and the assumptions themselves are supported by nothing at all. They are just things you happen to believe.

No, they all stem from a two assumptions: something exists (I think you'll agree to that) and reality is always consistent (you'll be hard-pressed to find counter examples). The rest just follows logically.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you'd bother to think about it, you'd agree. Unfortunately you're too blinded by your religious beliefs.

This is absurd.

Belz, I was a materialist until the age of 33. Since then I've spent more time thinking about this than anything else. I spent three years at University studying for a degree which was specifically tailored at gaining a better understanding of these issues.

Again: stop trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. You think you've thought about this harder than I have? Think harder.

 

[Belz...]

But those are examples of opposites.

Yes. "P or Not P" is, obviously, a proposition about opposites. Your point ?

You are assuming that "random" is the opposite of "determined".

That's not what I said. You have serious reading comprehension issues. I said "caused" and "not caused". Perhaps you'd like to answer that, instead. Do you disagree that something is either caused or not ?

Of course, "random" IS the opposite of "determined", anyway.

It isn't. "Random" is the opposite of "purposeful" or "intended".

That is completely false, actually. Lots of things happen that are neither random nor intended, so yours is a false dichotomy.

"Determined" is the opposite of "indetermined" (or "not made inevitable by antecedent causes.")

And by that definition "indetermined" is a synonym of "random".

Just because something isn't made inevitable by antecendent causes, it does not follow that it isn't intended.

Why, yes it does. Unless you claim that "will" can act without any reason, in which case it isn't "intentional" anyway, and becomes arbitrary (random).

It would follow if you also add the premise "materialism is true", because then there would be no other source of intent. But I'm not a materialist, so I don't add that premise.

It has nothing to do with materialism, UE. Even if I were a dualist or idealist I'd still be arguing this because no matter what metaphysics you subscribe to, you can't break the laws of logic.

Free will is an uncaused caused. It is non-deterministic (because it wasn't made inevitable by antecedent causes) and it is non-random (because it is intended). Why is this so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand. It's actually quite easy to understand. My problem with it is because it doesn't make a bit of sense. And, if free will is uncaused caused, then you're not talking about a third alternative but about a combination of the ones you're claiming are a false dichotomy.

 

[Belz...]

This is absurd.

Belz, I was a materialist until the age of 33.

Irrelevant. I was a theists for almost two decades and you still claim that I'm dogmatic. Sauce for the goose.

You think you've thought about this harder than I have? Think harder.

I couldn't care less which of us has thought more about it. I care about truth.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Of course, "random" IS the opposite of "determined", anyway.

If that is what you believe then the rest of the discussion is an entirely superfluous waste of time.

Premise 1: Random is the opposite of determined.
Premise 2: Free will requires something which isn't determined and isn't random.
Conclusion: There can be no such thing as free will.

Your conclusion is already inevitable as soon as you allow premise 1, which you claim is true by definition. Therefore, according to the way you are defining words, free will cannot exist.

There is no point in any further discussion on the subject. You are defining your conclusion to be true. It's not based on logic, not based on science and not based on any sort of critical thinking. It's based on how you are choosing to define certain words.

How would you feel if I tried to claim free will was true by definition? If you had any sense, you'd give up talking to me because it would be a complete waste of time.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I couldn't care less which of us has thought more about it. I care about truth.

Then stop confusing truth about reality with truth which is dependent on your choice of word definitions. Reality doesn't care how Belz defines words. If free will exists then it doesn't cease to exist because Belz has tried to define it out of existence.

 

[paximperium]

Then stop confusing truth about reality with truth which is dependent on your choice of word definitions. Reality doesn't care how Belz defines words. If free will exists then it doesn't cease to exist because Belz has tried to define it out of existence.

The irony in these words are pretty amusing. UE you are the one special pleading Free Will into existance via semantic juggling because you want it to exist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The irony in these words are pretty amusing. UE you are the one special pleading Free Will into existance via semantic juggling because you want it to exist.

I'm not, actually. I'm not offering an argument that free will necessarily exists. I am making a much weaker claim than those people who are trying to argue that free necessarily doesn't exist (weaker meaning that it isn't such a big claim about the nature of reality, not less-well-justified.) In some respects this resembles the atheist/agnostic debate. A hard atheist is making a much stronger claim than an agnostic. All I am saying is that you can't rule out free will a-priori, whilst people like Belz are claiming that they can know, a-priori, that it doesn't exist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Lord Emsworth, your entire post continues to equate "not determined" with "random." Like Belz, and Paul, you appear to define "random" as "not determined." These terms are NOT synonymous.

Random: lacking any definite order or purpose

Non-random: having some sort of order or purpose

Determined (philosophy): a philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent sufficient causes

Indetermined (philosophy): Indeterminism is the philosophical belief contradictory to determinism: that there are events which do not correspond with determinism (and therefore are uncaused in some sense).

Random/non-random is about whether there is ANY sort of order or (more importantly) purpose.

Determined/indetermined is about an event or act is inevitable due to antecedent causes.

How can someting be non-determined and non-random? It can be so if it is an originatory act of will. It's non-random because it was intentionally willed, NOT because it was made inevitable by antecedent causes, and it's non-determined because it was not inevitable.

An indetermined event, or whatever, cannot exhibit a definite order in any way, shape or form. Because that definite order in and on itself asserts some sort of cause, asserts that there are dependencies. If you want to have an ordered sequence of numbers and the principle by which they are ordered is "from smallest to largest" you'll get 123456789...



And with your purpose or intention ... There is always something which has the intention so-and-so. Or conversely, the intention so-and-so is held by something. You have no such something:

How can someting be non-determined and non-random? It can be so if it is an originatory act of will. It's non-random because it was intentionally willed, NOT because it was made inevitable by antecedent causes, and it's non-determined because it was not inevitable.​

"It" is originatory. "It" is also intentionally willed. By? Oh, sorry, "It" is originatory. Watch where you tread. Just stuffing the word "intention" or "will" in there somewhere doesn't get you anywhere.

Something can have the intention so-and-so. The intention so-and-so does then depends on the something, though.

If some intention is said to be my intention, then that intention better depend on anything that I am. If that intention is not a consequence of anything that I am, then I claim no property. If I am not the cause of my intention the I can claim no property.


On top of that, there are usages of the word random where it does mean exactly the same as indetermined. What else do you think makes quantum events random? What else do you think makes a fair coin toss random?

 

[Belz...]

If that is what you believe then the rest of the discussion is an entirely superfluous waste of time.

Let's make it simple, UE: is "not caused" the opposite of "caused" ?

Premise 1: Random is the opposite of determined.
Premise 2: Free will requires something which isn't determined and isn't random.
Conclusion: There can be no such thing as free will.

Your conclusion is already inevitable as soon as you allow premise 1, which you claim is true by definition. Therefore, according to the way you are defining words, free will cannot exist.

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with MY definitions.

How would you feel if I tried to claim free will was true by definition?

I would ask you to show it, as I have.

 

[Belz...]

That is completely false, actually. Lots of things happen that are neither random nor intended, so yours is a false dichotomy.

And by that definition "indetermined" is a synonym of "random".

Why, yes it does. Unless you claim that "will" can act without any reason, in which case it isn't "intentional" anyway, and becomes arbitrary (random).

It has nothing to do with materialism, UE. Even if I were a dualist or idealist I'd still be arguing this because no matter what metaphysics you subscribe to, you can't break the laws of logic.

I noticed you dodged those points, UE.