View Full Version : Free Will Deductively Ruled Out?
Mattius_
May20-03, 10:20 PM
Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...
it does not matter the proportion of each. the only thing that matters is that they are unchangebable by the person under the influence of these two variables...
So, we have two known variables that constitute a person... and both are unmanipulative by the person under the influence... (Think about it)
So I now ask, where is the free will in every decision that you make in your lifetime has been based on random and uncontrollable happenings in the past...
But you say that to a certain extent my theory works, but inevitably these 2 variables do not decide our whole life.
I ask, why do not these 2 variables extend to every crevice of our minds and bodies? what explanations do you have behind your judgement?
and secondly, if we do somehow differ and we are able to make our own decisions, how do our brains differ from any other physical object? physical objects are completely dependent and consequently evolve with change... what factors make our brain any different? None that i know of... So in saying that, are brain, the control center for all thought, is totally dependent upon outside forces acting upon it, and consequently changes in response to these outside forces.
So, i shall return to my thesis by saying that we are completely controlled by outside forces and are at the mercy of random happenings from our past which constitue the decisions we make in the present...
So now we can conclude that through scientific decuction, free will is not existant...
Anything contrary to this is pure speculation...
I am not proving anything here... The only thing i am showing you is that there are 2 sides here; One of those sides is backed up by scientific deduction, The other, purely speculatory...
Any questions?
LogicalAtheist
May20-03, 10:32 PM
You're concept is on the Biological level, sound.
I do believe that I have created a theory that, on the level of physics, proves not only that their is no free will, but the greater claim is that the entire course of EVERYTHING in a given universe (as a closed system) is absolutely predetermined.
I have never shared this theory with anyone. Partly because I didn't have anyone to talk about it with, and partly (without sounding insane) because I feel it's something someone might steal from me.
If there are any physics gurus here, I wish to talk about it safely. Any offers?
Anyhow - based on the evidence you have provided, and on my professional knowledge of Biology, I would say define free will. And then I'll tell you if we have it! But I mostly agree with you.
Mattius_
May20-03, 10:49 PM
Well to go further into my deduction we must turn to physics...
Although i have expressed our 2 known variables,i do believe that another variable is in the equation. This variable, which may be mistaken for a supernatural or godlike force is more probably the force of quantum mechanics... So now we have our 2 random variables rooted and dependent upon the uncertainty principal. The uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics may fill the void Athiesm has left in understanding our 'everything'. This final piece of the 'explanation to everything' puzzle may one day shape our thought.
Is this in anyway along the lines of your theory athiest?
LogicalAtheist
May20-03, 11:06 PM
I am unsure totally of what you mean. However know, it's not anything along my theory at all.
I'm gonna speak with whoever responds and is knowledgable. Perhaps I'll post it. But I don't need random people posting spams. I just want to know why my theory is wrong, if it is. Because it's extremely simplistic.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I am unsure totally of what you mean. However know, it's not anything along my theory at all.
I'm gonna speak with whoever responds and is knowledgable. Perhaps I'll post it. But I don't need random people posting spams. I just want to know why my theory is wrong, if it is. Because it's extremely simplistic.
Well, current theory suggests that there is a certain amount of complete randomness in the universe, so there is space for free will. Whther it exists or not, though, is irrelevant, because it certainly APPEARS to exist, which is close enough for gov't work!
LogicalAtheist
May20-03, 11:16 PM
Zero, what is the area of study or theories which involve this randomness?
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Zero, what is the area of study or theories which involve this randomness?
Its quantum stuff...*grins*, don't ask me, bub, I just know it exists, more or less.
wuliheron
May20-03, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Well, current theory suggests that there is a certain amount of complete randomness in the universe, so there is space for free will. Whther it exists or not, though, is irrelevant, because it certainly APPEARS to exist, which is close enough for gov't work!
I'd have to agree. The current theories are all revolving around "magical" pantheistic ideas. One is all and all is one, whatever. Note that the essential statement of quantum mechanics is as fluffy and uncertain as they come, but the results of the equations are as exacting as they come. Two steps forward, one step backwards.
LogicalAtheist
May20-03, 11:29 PM
QM is something I'll surely be getting into. Along the way. Since I am schooled in Biology, and I doubt I'll like chemistry much, I think I'll learn physics more (now that I've completed my one year intro) on my own.
Mattius_
May20-03, 11:30 PM
he is referring to the uncertainty principal athiest...
anyways, to an extent my theory is completely useless but in a different sense. You could say that my theory is not applicable to our life because by nature we will not accept this logic truly and sincerely fact. Just as athiest believes in no god or afterlife, he cannot possibly sincerely accept this to be fact (conciously or not) because to believe in life inevitably transformed into eternal abyss at death is to prove life pointless. his mind will not accept this logic because his mind will not allow logic to interupt progress. So my thesis here is that blood deems this hypothesis inevitably useless..
Ummmm...again, it doesn't matter, because whether or not things are determined, we cannot know which way they will go, and they certainly appear random enough to accept the premise of free will as being useful, if not 'true'.
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mattius_
Let me start here... There are two known variables
which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics,
the other being enviroment...
These "variables" are merely statistical
approximations of physical laws in action.
The whole science of biology is just that too.
As for the question posed in this thread's name:
My answer would be: Yes, it appears to be so.
Of course, you have to understand that "duductivly
ruled out" is only a probablistic(like everything
else in the Universe) term refering to deductions
connected to current reasoning systems in turn
connected to observation. You see, "free will"
implies lack of laws, at least according to
the reasoning systems science currently recognizes.
As for QM, stop using it as some sort of
magic wand for any belief starting from God
and "down to" free-will. This is pathetic.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by Mattius_
Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...
You're starting from an assumption. You assume that free will/choice is not one of the deciding factors.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 12:37 AM
Drag - QuantumCarl is indeed pathetic, I agree. He should be disallowed from using such a name.
Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - QuantumCarl is indeed pathetic, I agree. He should be disallowed from using such a name.
Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all.
Again, you make an assumption, that free will does not exist. The other two factors, nature and nurture, are proven to exist and to influence us, but I doubt very much that anyone has proven definitively that one or the other has a certain, specific percentage of control over our development.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 01:47 AM
Adam - it's you who's making an assumption.
As I said, he's speaking of the two factos which influence behavior. You're given credibility to a completely randomly chosen claim. Think of all the millions of possible conceptual ideas of things that could affect behavior.
What if said that elves in our heads, control slight changes in perceptions of environment, thus affecting our behavior.
Would one even waste the time of considering such a claim? I should hope not.
Likewise, the idea that there is some kind of magical ability to surpase all physics and logic, and that out of nowhere comes some intertia for some behavior which is truly some kind of randomness in the universe, is just as obsurd.
I certainly would give it no thought whatsoever.
Making an assumption of either of these is barely making an assumption at all. So concluding, sure it's an assumption, but come one, some level of assumptions must be made; otherwise there'd be an infinite amount of possibilities in any of the infinite amount of places to put these infinite amount of possibilities.
The Opiner
May21-03, 11:30 AM
My thoughts run very close to those of LogicalAtheist. I have posted several messages on the old version of Physics Forum questioning the supposed violation of cause and effect (~determinism) in most of the currently accepted theories about subatomic behavior (~QM).
I learned through these discussions that while there is dissention coming from some quarters (which gives me some hope that determinism holds truly everywhere, as I have believed for 35 years now) the majority (vast majority ?) of physicists are convinced that true randomness - which I take as meaning "uncaused" - exists at the quantal level. Furthermore, and additionally disturbing, this randomness is believed to have effects at the macroscopic level as well.
So my question to LogicalAtheist is: How can (we) you rail so confidently against randomness (~current, accepted QM theory) when so many professional, exceedingly bright, students of physics are convinced otherwise? I myself have to admit that I just will never understand their full. mathematically rigorous and esoteric arguments.
My only hope is that another, deterministic, theory gains widespread acceptace soon. I am not getting any younger.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 11:53 AM
Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?
From that, I choose to say that neither of them could produce such a result as to say "randomness exists". Sure they could produce a number value which could be correct up to some point. But to prove the falsitiy or truth to a claim, I won't accept that from a theory that science agress has some flaw in its compatibility.
That's why. Hope that makes sense?
In other words, I suppose the "answer", being string theory and unified theory, will probably clean up the problems with QM and GR and also show they're isn't such randomness.
That is my reasoning there. I do not accept the claim that randomness is existant. Despite the fact that my theory I have yet to post here states that in fact the entire course of the "universe" is indeed predetermined (and no one has yet to show me my error) I don't find that grim.
It's not like it means I can see the future. Furthermore, a solid theory that randomness is existant, using a formula, would also be nice.
Originally posted by The Opiner
My thoughts run very close to those of LogicalAtheist. I have posted several messages on the old version of Physics Forum questioning the supposed violation of cause and effect (~determinism) in most of the currently accepted theories about subatomic behavior (~QM).
I learned through these discussions that while there is dissention coming from some quarters (which gives me some hope that determinism holds truly everywhere, as I have believed for 35 years now) the majority (vast majority ?) of physicists are convinced that true randomness - which I take as meaning "uncaused" - exists at the quantal level. Furthermore, and additionally disturbing, this randomness is believed to have effects at the macroscopic level as well.
So my question to LogicalAtheist is: How can (we) you rail so confidently against randomness (~current, accepted QM theory) when so many professional, exceedingly bright, students of physics are convinced otherwise? I myself have to admit that I just will never understand their full. mathematically rigorous and esoteric arguments.
My only hope is that another, deterministic, theory gains widespread acceptace soon. I am not getting any younger.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?
Actually, they are both very reliable in their own fields (the very large and very small respectively), and they may (soon) be unified by a Theory of Everything. But, that's a subject for another thread, I guess.
As far as Free Will goes, I agree with Zero. As I've said before, it cannot be proven or disproven.
Let's say that I believe in Free Will (merely for the purpose of argument). Then let's say that I try to prove that I have Free Will. However, every attempt that I make at proving Free Will could just be a part of my predestined future, and is thus entirely useless.
Now, lets say that I believe in predestination (merely for the purpose of argument). Then let's say that I try to prove that my future is predestined. However, every attempt that I make to prove predestination could be the result of a Free choice.
Thus, it cannot be proven, and it wont affect our lives at all (since we can still try to do all of the things that we would "like to do", without ever being able to tell whether it's predestined or up to Free Will).
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - QuantumCarl is indeed pathetic, I agree. He
should be disallowed from using such a name.
I don't know if this is supposed to
be a joke or a serious statement, but I
DO seriously advise you to get a grip
on yourself. The fact that some of your
opinions (certainly not all) are included
amongst the mainstream opinions of many on PF
does not give you the right to speak that way
to other members. After all, recpect is a
must for a scientist so he could appreciate
all opinions appropriately and without bias.
Peace and long life.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 03:31 PM
It's absurd that people here who know scientific material are unable to understand the power of the scientific method. "free will" can be proven or disproven as well as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in reality adheres to a method of proof.
How many of you know very well the power of the scientific method? I use it everyday almost. I'm utterly concerned at how otherwise scientific people are diminishing its power!
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's absurd that people here who know scientific material are unable to understand the power of the scientific method. "free will" can be proven or disproven as well as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in reality adheres to a method of proof.
How many of you know very well the power of the scientific method? I use it everyday almost. I'm utterly concerned at how otherwise scientific people are diminishing its power!
It's powerful, as we all well know, but it is not all-powerful. Besides, did you even read my reasoning in the previous post?
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's absurd that people here who know scientific
material are unable to understand the power of
the scientific method. "free will" can be proven
or disproven as well as anything in reality.
Absolutely anything in reality adheres to a
method of proof.
Please, prove that everything in reality
adheres to a method of proof.
Thank you.
Originally posted by drag
Please, prove that everything in reality
adheres to a method of proof.
Thank you.
You have asked something of LogicalAtheist that is paradoxical, and thus impossible, to accomplish. You probably know this already, I'm just making sure.
Originally posted by Mentat
You have asked something of LogicalAtheist
that is paradoxical, and thus impossible,
to accomplish. You probably know this already,
I'm just making sure.
Isn't the best way to learn - personal
trial and error ? [;)]
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 04:08 PM
Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could. Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the distinguished scientific community that everything in reality adheres to reality.
Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres to a proof. That proof is reality.
Easily said. Nothing further from me.
Mentat - Your statement doesn't work because your first assumption is
"Let's say that I believe in Free Will (merely for the purpose of argument)."
But, you don't. And when you operate under the reality that you don't, or even if you operate under an unknown if, then the truth is easily found.
So, your assumption immediately rules out taking place in this reality, since in this reality you don't have free will.
Originally posted by drag
Isn't the best way to learn - personal
trial and error ? [;)]
You mean I should have let the poor soul try it, so that he could fail, and then suddenly assume that you were right? Wait a minute, that's exactly what you wanted. Oh well, spoiled now, isn't it? [<:)] [:D]
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by drag
Isn't the best way to learn - personal
trial and error ? [;)]
If we assume that, then I sure hope you've realized your trial was an error and learned. [8)]
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could. Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the distinguished scientific community that everything in reality adheres to reality.
Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres to a proof. That proof is reality.
Easily said. Nothing further from me.
Mentat - Your statement doesn't work because your first assumption is
"Let's say that I believe in Free Will (merely for the purpose of argument)."
But, you don't. And when you operate under the reality that you don't, or even if you operate under an unknown if, then the truth is easily found.
So, your assumption immediately rules out taking place in this reality, since in this reality you don't have free will.
Did you happen to read the rest of my post? I clearly showed that I also don't believe in predestination. It is my belief that neither can be proven or disproven, and thus the argument is moot.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Did you happen to read the rest of my post? I clearly showed that I also don't believe in predestination. It is my belief that neither can be proven or disproven, and thus the argument is moot.
I like you mentat, but you committed the subjectivist falacy. Weather or not you "believe in predestination" doesn't change it's truth or falsity.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I like you mentat, but you committed the subjectivist falacy. Weather or not you "believe in predestination" doesn't change it's truth or falsity.
I know that, but the reasoning in my post (which I hope you've read by now, since you are attempting to respond to it) shows that such a thing (as "predestination's truth or falsity") cannot be proven.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 04:55 PM
Mentat - I read it the first second you posted it. Sure it can be proven or disproven. As easily as anything. I don't understand why some think one thing is easier or harder to prove. Perhaps certain things take more technology, or more formulas, but they are all provable.
And once they are proven either way, the ultimate statement needed to prove it, is just as simple as the statement to do anything.
In otherwords, the work may be harder, but once it's done it needn't be repeated (unless for rechecking).
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I read it the first second you posted it. Sure it can be proven or disproven. As easily as anything. I don't understand why some think one thing is easier or harder to prove. Perhaps certain things take more technology, or more formulas, but they are all provable.
And once they are proven either way, the ultimate statement needed to prove it, is just as simple as the statement to do anything.
In otherwords, the work may be harder, but once it's done it needn't be repeated (unless for rechecking).
This is why Free Will cannot be disproven:
Any attempt that one makes at disproving Free Will could just as easily be considered a "willful" action, on their part, and thus defeats it's own purpose.
This is why Free Will cannot be proven:
Any attempt one makes at proving Free Will could just as easily be considered to be the acting out of their predestined futures (meaning, they were predestined to question their own predestination), and thus defeats it's own purpose.
I don't see how I can be much more clear.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
This is why Free Will cannot be disproven:
Any attempt that one makes at disproving Free Will could just as easily be considered a "willful" action, on their part, and thus defeats it's own purpose.
This is why Free Will cannot be proven:
Any attempt one makes at proving Free Will could just as easily be considered to be the acting out of their predestined futures (meaning, they were predestined to question their own predestination), and thus defeats it's own purpose.
I don't see how I can be much more clear.
Well, your statements are clear, however they are inapplicable, and therefore false in their conclusions. You're using some kind of philosophical paradoxical idea. But this has no basis in reality.
To say free will is present is to say that all of the agents of causation (we know of at any particular time) that indeed could be used to "predict" a given event (however hard it is doesn't matter, merely that it is possible) are not the complete list of agents of causation.
If we use the scientific method to study such agents known at a given time, using of course a vary simple subject of atoms or perhaps something smaller.
And we do indeed continuously predict the outcome, would you agree that it's looking favorable at least, that our agents are all that is at causation?
Now I ask you. in our world of atoms, and things lesser than that ONLY...
Does not a chemical reaction always produce the predicted results, when done correctly?
When done correctly, does newton's laws (or equal laws more paplicable to all in the universe) always predict outcomes?
Do all the other laws and accepted theories indeed produce predictable laws so much to the extent at which we have the knowledge to do so currently, and please without nitpicking details.
Then I ask you, why if using simple atoms, and moving to simple objects, if said agents predict with 100% accuracy of the CORRECTLY PERFORMED EXPERIEENTATIONS, why would it be proper to ever question that another agent is at work, when indeed no other agents are needed, and an agent that, when added, produces no change as when the other agents are used, is not an agent at all.
My point being ultimately. You're using a pradoxical language statement. But in the world it has no application.
http://www.hazlitt.org/e-texts/morality/ch27.html
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clark_22_2.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm
http://world.std.com/~twc/fearof.htm
http://world.std.com/~twc/neurosci.htm
Furthermore, a solid theory that randomness is existant, using a formula, would also be nice.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.
If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.
Mattius_
May21-03, 10:54 PM
Well, i tried... Egocentrism too often gets into the way of debate... I thought i had stumbled onto forums more than that but i was wrong.
The views expressed by particular individuals of the forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum in general. There are many on the forum who believe they know a lot (and a few of them are quite justified in that belief), but to my knowledge we have only one member who thinks dissenting viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't merit any discussion.
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Mattius_
Well, i tried... Egocentrism too often gets into the way of debate... I thought i had stumbled onto forums more than that but i was wrong.
Egocentrism? You claim not to center around yourself and your POV?
Facts are facts. No matter what one "believes" or wishes to be true, the truth does not change because of this.
Apparently you're just saddened you did not get what you wanted. This is often the case in reality, I would teach oneself to like the truth, no matter what it is. Because then you will never be disappointed!
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The views expressed by particular individuals of the forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum in general. There are many on the forum who believe they know a lot (and a few of them are quite justified in that belief), but to my knowledge we have only one member who thinks dissenting viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't merit any discussion,
Surely dissenting views are fine to discuss. But if one wants to start a debate that will end with some real result one must
1. Make a claim
2. Make it as simple and specific as possible
3. Define ALL terms
4. Scrutinize the hell out of the claim BEFORE bringing it to others. It's like proofreading, you do it BEFORE you turn your paper in, otherwise others are gonna do it for you.
Those are general helpers. Most people here I imagine them posting a post as it pops into their head.
The more scientific 50% of the crowd here doesn't do it. And it doesn't go unnoticed.
Those four points are good guidelines, but more important than all of them combined is the willingness to listen to dissenting opinions.
And don't forget there is a similar burden on the others who join a debate once started.
Greetings !
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
[B]Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could.
What do you mean by that ?
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the
distinguished scientific community that
everything in reality adheres to reality.
Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres
to a proof. That proof is reality.
How do you know that you can know absolute
reality and thus make the above relevant ?
Here's an additional task for you then, please,
prove that you can know absolute reality.
Mentat, sometimes you talk too much... [:D]
Peace and long life.
LogicalAtheist
May22-03, 12:17 AM
Drag said to me:
Prove that you can know absolute reality.
Define "prove"
Define "know"
Define "absolute"
Define "reality"
Define those, and check my signature, then retype the task, or put it as a claim and i'll take a STAB at it. Perhaps starting a new topic called "LA - Prove Reality" since it's way off topic. Although the topic is dead.
Les Sleeth
May22-03, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Surely dissenting views are fine to discuss. But if one wants to start a debate that will end with some real result one must
1. Make a claim
2. Make it as simple and specific as possible
3. Define ALL terms
4. Scrutinize the hell out of the claim BEFORE bringing it to others. It's like proofreading, you do it BEFORE you turn your paper in, otherwise others are gonna do it for you.
Not bad for setting up an empirical experiment, but this is the philosophy section. Here people only need to make sense and not contradict facts; further, one even gets to start out with a "fuzzy" idea and see how it goes. Do you not like this? Well, don't forget you can always move on to somewhere that better meets your needs.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Those are general helpers. Most people here I imagine them posting a post as it pops into their head. The more scientific 50% of the crowd here doesn't do it. And it doesn't go unnoticed.
Just too condescending! I don't understand why you think you can come to a site that was around long before you found it, populated by some pretty smart and educated people, and then start criticizing the format and members. You haven't proven you can think at all except like a mindless computer. Hey, we already have plenty of computer think, why not show us what you've got to offer we humans?
And what about the fine art of listening? Do you know why most people don't listen? It's because they want to be the center of the universe, and also usually want to indulge their infatuation with themselves. If this were a nursery for adult children, then maybe that style would be more welcome. Right now, the last thing we need is another raging narcissist.
Greetings !
Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are many on the forum who believe they
know a lot (and a few of them are quite
justified in that belief), but to my knowledge
we have only one member who thinks dissenting
viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't
merit any discussion.
[:D]
I think we got two - there's another one
in the politics forums (a mentor, btw). [;)]
LA, about what Mentat was telling you.
Science calls its laws theories for the simple
reason that they are not absolute. Since
they are not absolute you can not use them
to absolutely prove/disprove things.
Free will also seems to defy all reasoning
systems we have so far, but who said we won't
have new ones ? Reasoning systems often have
their source in science - observation which
is in turn, like I said above, not absolute.
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Peace and long life.
LogicalAtheist
May22-03, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Not bad for setting up an empirical experiment, but this is the philosophy section. Here people only need to make sense and not contradict facts; further, one even gets to start out with a "fuzzy" idea and see how it goes. Do you not like this? Well, don't forget you can always move on to somewhere that better meets your needs.
Just too condescending! I don't understand why you think you can come to a site that was around long before you found it, populated by some pretty smart and educated people, and then start criticizing the format and members. You haven't proven you can think at all except like a mindless computer. Hey, we already have plenty of computer think, why not show us what you've got to offer we humans?
And what about the fine art of listening? Do you know why most people don't listen? It's because they want to be the center of the universe, and also usually want to indulge their infatuation with themselves. If this were a nursery for adult children, then maybe that style would be more welcome. Right now, the last thing we need is another raging narcissist.
How nice. If you take it as condescending then you're unable to properly comprehend what I am trying to display. I am making a critique based upon the foundation of writing in a logical manner.
If you find something like this an insult, I just have nothing to say. [;)]
Prove that you can know absolute reality.
As opposed to partial reality?
Define "prove"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prove
Define "know"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know
Define "absolute"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute
Define "reality"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality
Easy. [a)]
Greetings !
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "prove"
Show absolute truth of...
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "know"
Be aware of, I guess.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "absolute"
Totally unquestinable - true. The only examples
I can give for this are not from reality, but
from abstract systems - the rules of chess for
example. These abstract systems are absolute
because we defined them.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "reality"
The Universe.
You originally said:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the
distinguished scientific community that
everything in reality adheres to reality.
Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres
to a proof. That proof is reality.
And I responded with:
Originally posted by drag
How do you know that you can know absolute
reality and thus make the above relevant ?
Here's an additional task for you then, please,
prove that you can know absolute reality.
Now, if you have no problem with my definitions
above, please, carry on.
Live long and prosper.
LogicalAtheist
May22-03, 01:03 AM
I have no problems with your definitions. It doesn't matter to me if they agree with mine or not. I merely wanted to see this claim as definied by you. depending on the definitions the answer could change. But I wanted to indeed address your claim.
Adjusted claim:
Provide proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that empirical evidence of reality exists.
Honestly, I still do not understand the claim. I understand you want me to prove something, and to what degree you want it, and obviously you want empirical evidence, but of what?
I wish I could answer this, but alas I am confused. Please help!
Unless my adjusted claim is perfect for what you're asking. If it is then, I think perhaps it's a bit to "fundamentally philosophical".
PS: Adam. Firstly my comments weren't for you. Secondly your attempt at humour or something else isn't taken. Your post was utterly useless to no one. Thirdly, dictionary.com is the lazy mans place to get incorrect and irrelevant definitions when the definition of terms is so important as this.
Greetings LA !
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Adjusted claim:
Provide proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that
empirical evidence of reality exists.
Honestly, I still do not understand the claim.
I understand you want me to prove something,
and to what degree you want it, and obviously
you want empirical evidence, but of what?
Of an empirical proof that empirical evidence/proof
of anything in reality exists. After all, you said
it yourself - the proper and advisable way of
discussing subjects here is by presenting claims
and their proofs - justifications. After all, you said:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
"free will" can be proven or disproven as well
as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in
reality adheres to a method of proof.
------------------------------------
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I wish I could answer this, but alas I am
confused. Please help!
It's quite alright, you're supposed to be...[;)]
Live long and prosper.
LogicalAtheist
May22-03, 01:39 AM
My claim still stands. Anything in reality can be proven. I think the burden of proof lies on you. Not me. It's not too much of a scientifically controversial claim. Perhaps philosophers will argue, but surely they won't use an ounce of logic in it.
Someone I know says he believes that we are entirely nature and nurture, no free will, and that he is therefore nothing more than a biological automaton. I doubt very much he believes it, but he says it. Why does he say this? Because nature and nurture have been proven, and free will has not. The obvious logical hole in this reasoning is: does this mean we were not influenced by nature at all before the discovery of DNA? Or were we not influenced at all by our environment before the formalised field of psychology? In other words, discovery of the mechanism for something is not the condition required for that thing to exist. This does not prove the existence of free will, however; it merely rules out that sort of half-formed "logic".
Another person I know claims that we can't rationally say free will exists until we know the cause and the mechanism by which it functions. We can observe the effects of gravity and make calculations describing how its effects operate, but as far as I know there is not yet any definitive explanation of a cause or mechanism for it. Thus, by this chap's reasoning, free will and gravity are equally valid or invalid, so tie yourselves down because we're all about to drift away. Obviously this half-logic does not hold water either.
When it comes down to it, the evidence we believe is electrical signals interpreted by the brain. Common concensus conveyed to us through more such signals shows us that the evidence seems correct. And it all relies on us trusting in those electrical signals. Yes, unfortunately, there is trust, or faith, involved even in empirical science. It is the first stage from which all acceptance of any "reality" is formed; that we trust our perceptions, that we are really receiving data from outside our own minds. In short, we make a decision, to be solopsistic or to trust that the world beyond our mind really exists and that the signals coming in are real. If the latter, then we accept that those signals from other people, from our own senses, from experiments and such are valid, at least within the limits of our abilities and knowledge so far.
But free will? Well, people occasionally ascrifice themselves for other people, or for political causes or religions or such. It's quite a stretch to explain away such acts in terms of preserving one's genes for the future. Life generally wants to live. It's also quite a stretch to explain it in terms of environmental factors alone, especially in cultures which actively discourage suicide and such. Why would you pick up an apple to eat for a snack instead of a carrot? Why the chair you're on and not the one next to it? Is there any signal from outside, or any DNA sequence, which makes you do one or the other?
LogicalAtheist
May22-03, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Adam
The obvious logical hole in this reasoning is: does this mean we were not influenced by nature at all before the discovery of DNA? Or were we not influenced at all by our environment before the formalised field of psychology?
Not only is this not obvious, or a hole, it has nothing to do with the argument in your friends logic. I was reading what you said, about your friend. And then when you said this, i thought I had switched windows to another topic. The two had nothing to do with eachother. It's a weird psychological event when ones words instantly become something else.
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:
No evidence yet for free will -> free will does not exist.
No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not exist and we have never been influenced by it.
DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet before their discovery, we were made of such, influenced by such.
Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell evidence for free will. But that does not rule out the existence of free will.
Greetings !
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
My claim still stands. Anything in reality can be proven.
So, you refuse to justify and provide
proof to your own claims ?
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I think the burden of proof lies on you. Not me.
How so ? You're the one who made a certain claim.
I made no assumptions, I think.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's not too much of a scientifically
controversial claim.
First of all, you're in the philosophy forum
and those were philosophical issues you
discussed. Second, I couldn't care less about
what type of claim it is - you made it, but
you provided no proof. Could've claimed anything
else like God or flying pink ellephants. All
I'm asking for is an explanation for this claim.
Originally posted by Adam
Someone I know says he believes that we are
entirely nature and nurture, no free will,
and that he is therefore nothing more than
a biological automaton. I doubt very much he
believes it, but he says it. Why does he say this?
Because that's what observation = science says.
Everything else is baseless assumptions.
The assumptions supported by observation are
probabalisticly likely. The rest is incomprehensible
(probably - because I can't prove it, though who
know maybe I can, but that does not seem possible
at the moment, although it may be ..... [:D]),
just like flying pink ellephants. [;)]
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Live long and prosper.
Because that's what observation = science says.
Everything else is baseless assumptions.
It is unknown exactly how much control over us nature and nurture have. Is it 50%/50%? Or 45/55? Or 40/40/ and 20% free will? This is unknown. Assuming that there is no percentage governed by free will is akin to assuming, upon the establishment of formal schools of psychology, that we are not governed or influenced in any way by genetics.
Greetings Adam !
Originally posted by Adam
It is unknown exactly how much control over us
nature and nurture have. Is it 50%/50%? Or 45/55?
Or 40/40/ and 20% free will? This is unknown.
Indeed, very complex.
Originally posted by Adam
Assuming that there is no percentage governed by
free will is akin to assuming, upon the establishment
of formal schools of psychology, that we are not
governed or influenced in any way by genetics.
I don't know about psychology, but assuming there
is no percentage governed by free will is
a simple result of the likely fact that we
seemingly do not obseve free will. If we had
some evidence from observation which indicated
that free-will is likely - we may then consider
the percentage.
Live long and prosper.
Les Sleeth
May22-03, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Adam
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:
No evidence yet for free will -> free will does not exist.
No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not exist and we have never been influenced by it.
DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet before their discovery, we were made of such, influenced by such.
Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell evidence for free will. But that does not rule out the existence of free will.
Excellent reasoning Adam, but I got your point the first time you made it. Maybe a certain person here didn't get it because HE ISN'T LISTENING.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Well, your statements are clear, however they are inapplicable, and therefore false in their conclusions. You're using some kind of philosophical paradoxical idea. But this has no basis in reality.
Thanks [;)].
To say free will is present is to say that all of the agents of causation (we know of at any particular time) that indeed could be used to "predict" a given event (however hard it is doesn't matter, merely that it is possible) are not the complete list of agents of causation.
And it is the same to postulate that our futures are predestined, as it requires that there be a "predestinator".
If we use the scientific method to study such agents known at a given time, using of course a vary simple subject of atoms or perhaps something smaller.
And we do indeed continuously predict the outcome, would you agree that it's looking favorable at least, that our agents are all that is at causation?
Now I ask you. in our world of atoms, and things lesser than that ONLY...
Does not a chemical reaction always produce the predicted results, when done correctly?
When done correctly, does newton's laws (or equal laws more paplicable to all in the universe) always predict outcomes?
Do all the other laws and accepted theories indeed produce predictable laws so much to the extent at which we have the knowledge to do so currently, and please without nitpicking details.
Sure, this is all true, but I'm not talking about the subatomic world. In turn, I ask you this: In the subatomic world, is there such a thing as consciousness? If not, then you have two choices: 1) abandon the idea that all of reality can be explained by a reductionist approach, or 2) find consciousness in the subatomic world.
My point being ultimately. You're using a pradoxical language statement. But in the world it has no application.
I didn't use a paradoxical (self-contradictory) statement, at any point in any of these posts.
One more point: With all due respect, shouldn't you address my argument directly, instead of side-stepping it with one of your own?
Originally posted by drag
Mentat, sometimes you talk too much... [:D]
I know. [:)]
DrChinese
May22-03, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?
From that, I choose to say that neither of them could produce such a result as to say "randomness exists". Sure they could produce a number value which could be correct up to some point. But to prove the falsitiy or truth to a claim, I won't accept that from a theory that science agress has some flaw in its compatibility.
...
I do not accept the claim that randomness is existant. Despite the fact that my theory I have yet to post here states that in fact the entire course of the "universe" is indeed predetermined (and no one has yet to show me my error) I don't find that grim.
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.
1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.
If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?
Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.
Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.
If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.
Actually, this just proves that the subatomic world is nondeterministic, doesn't it? What if larger objects are predestined/determined? I mean, I know that the Uncertainty Principle would apply to them also, but that doesn't mean that it applies to their conscious choices (except as a limiting factor).
Originally posted by DrChinese
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.
1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.
If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?
Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.
Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?
Just out of curiosity, how does SR contradict determinism?
LogicalAtheist
May22-03, 01:13 PM
DrChinese - You completely and totally missed the entire concept behind what I said. Everything you said I overlooked is the very things I was pointing out.
In fact, your argument is identical to mine. Somehow you managed to not understand a word I said.
By the way bub, QM and GR are not at all supported by experimentation without exception.
By there very nature they make up for eachothers incorrect answers. Perhaps you should learn more about them before speaking on them.
You say: "Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. "
Which is exactly what you have done, and opposite of what I have done.
You dare to say that QM and GR always give right answers, when indeed both of them give different answers to the same problem? It's logically impossible
Again I suggest you study them a bit further.
Originally posted by DrChinese
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.
1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.
If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?
Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.
Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?
Greetings !
LA, are you avoiding from continuing our discussion
about your claim that everything can be
proved/disproved ?
Originally posted by Adam
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:
No evidence yet for free will -> free will does
not exist.
No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not
exist and we have never been influenced by it.
DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet
before their discovery, we were made of such,
influenced by such.
Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell
evidence for free will. But that does not rule
out the existence of free will.
Indeed, nothing rules out anything.
However, since it's existence is apparently not
proved there is no reason to making any use of it.
There is no reason to assigning any "percentage
of consciousness" to it or using it as part
of other theories, the same way that I wouldn't
use a mathematical equation unless I knew it
makes sense - valid within math(which is different
because math is an abstract system but nevertheless
applicable for the example I wanted to provide here).
Live long and prosper.
Alexander
May22-03, 03:54 PM
LogicalAtheist, the determinism in our universe is prohibited by mathematics. Turns out that every object in out universe is a wave. For a wave a position and momentum are mathematically entangled (by their definition) properties - they are Fourier images of each other. For Fourier entangled values their spreads are inversely proportional (product of spread of momentum with spread of position is constant).
Thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, thus mathematical undeterminism of objects in universe - just because they happen to be waves.
heusdens
May23-03, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You're concept is on the Biological level, sound.
I do believe that I have created a theory that, on the level of physics, proves not only that their is no free will, but the greater claim is that the entire course of EVERYTHING in a given universe (as a closed system) is absolutely predetermined.
I have never shared this theory with anyone. Partly because I didn't have anyone to talk about it with, and partly (without sounding insane) because I feel it's something someone might steal from me.
If there are any physics gurus here, I wish to talk about it safely. Any offers?
Anyhow - based on the evidence you have provided, and on my professional knowledge of Biology, I would say define free will. And then I'll tell you if we have it! But I mostly agree with you.
Don't be affraid of your idea being "stolen". The very idea is rather old, and was put forward by Laplace, it goes under the name of determinism.
Determinism is exactly like that. It states that when we would theoretically have the knowledge about all things (all material objects, all forces) we could then in principle know the entire future of the material world.
Modern physics have left this idea, because of new physics phenomena, that radically eliminate the possibility of total determinism.
The Opiner
May23-03, 07:04 AM
Alexander,
I can accept that "ultimately" everything is waves. But, don't these waves follow some system of physical laws. Heck, doesn't everything?! I don't care much if we have to describe them in terms of probability functions or whatever. If they follow physical laws then cannot waves be said to be "determined". Why does Determinism fail here? What in the universe could possibly cause something to happen withour a preceeding cause? This stuff is either way above me or way below me. :)
Alexander
May23-03, 08:37 AM
Determinism fails with waves for strictly mathematical reason: a wave has certain mathematical relationship between position and momentum which follows from: a). definition of position of wave b). definition of momentum of wave. Fourier entanglement of wavelength spread dk with position spread dL for a wave (dk x dL = 1) follows from a) and b) mathematically.
Basicly, position and momentum (as well as energy and time) are mathematical inverse mirror images of each other. Thus you can't have "sharper" one without "blurring" the other.
By other words, spread of momentum (call it a) and spread of position (call it b) for a wave is simply one and the same thing, but expressed by inverse quantities: a=1/b.
Thus the uncertainty principle: ab=1
The Opiner
May23-03, 09:51 AM
Thanks Alexander for trying (once again) to explain this to me. Like I said in a previous post, I just don't follow the math and I don't find it convincing in itself (although I accept the criticism that this is because I am ignorant here). I can follow arguments in words, though. So is there any way to answer my specific questions, as stated, in words? Maybe they are inappropriate questions somehow.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mattius_
[B]Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...
it does not matter the proportion of each. the only thing that matters is that they are unchangebable by the person under the influence of these two variables...
I agree with Adam. The fallacy begins...at the beginning.
We've gone from
1) there are two known variables that influence a person's behaviour
to
2) these two variables are unchangeable by the person under the influence of these two variables
The suppressed premise inherent in 2) is that there are ONLY two variables that influence a person's behaviour. This is a huge (perhaps infinite - but don't like throwing that word around) leap from premise 1.
And LogicalAtheists attempt at rescuing this argument is equally fallacious:
"Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all."
To say that something is not a known factor is completely different from saying that "it doesn't exist at all". The fact of the matter is that what we know ABOUT the two variables we began with, that is, the extent to which we can operationalise and measure them, grossly underdetermines actual human behaviour. So to conclude that free will is "deductively ruled out" by this knowledge is a gross overstatement.
Greetings !
The Opiner, are you familiar with the
theory of Quantum Mechanics ?
If you familiarize yourself with this theory
it will help you understand why classical
determinism is no longer considered a valid
concept.
Axe, welcome to PF ! [:)]
btw, I fully agree with you.
Live long and prosper.
Les Sleeth
May23-03, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by axe
[QUOTE]. . . To say that something is not a known factor is completely different from saying that "it doesn't exist at all". The fact of the matter is that what we know ABOUT the two variables we began with, that is, the extent to which we can operationalise and measure them, grossly underdetermines actual human behaviour. So to conclude that free will is "deductively ruled out" by this knowledge is a gross overstatement.
Good points.
In terms of a deduction, the evidence doesn't support ruling out other possible factors yet. We know genetics influences some things, and we know environment influences, but we cannot conclusively connect genetics and environment to every human trait.
For example, how will we account for creativity or courage or will? Mozart is writing music at age four . . . locate the gene, or prove sufficient environmental influence. A jetliner crashes in an icey river; a middle-aged man, out of shape, nearly frozen insists a young woman go ahead of him into the rescue helicopter and then drowns himself . . . locate the gene, or prove sufficient environmental influence. Someone is a drug addict, petty thief, and lazy and aimless bum. One day he decides to change and so gets into college and finishes, and goes on to become a decent human being. What genetic and environmental factors can be proven to account for his will power to change?
So the problem is that all human traits cannot be proven to be caused by genetics and environment, and therefore a deductive proof is impossible. Plus, as Zero pointed out, it does at least appear (to many anyway) that humans have free will. Since genetics and environment cannot account for everything at this time, free will deserves consideration for a place in any model of human consciousness.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.
If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, this just proves that the subatomic world is nondeterministic, doesn't it? What if larger objects are predestined/determined? I mean, I know that the Uncertainty Principle would apply to them also, but that doesn't mean that it applies to their conscious choices (except as a limiting factor).
I'd appreciate a response, please.
Originally posted by Mentat
I'd appreciate a response, please.
Just a SWAG... I don't think he really knows
what "conscious choice" means, niether do I. [;)]
I'd appreciate a response, please.
Sorry!
No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...
However, the type of nondeterminism, I believe, guarantees nondeterminism in the macroscopic world (though it may be very rare to see it occur)
Alexander
May23-03, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by The Opiner
So is there any way to answer my specific questions, as stated, in words?
Simply speaking, a wave train (= bunch of oscillations) does not have exact position.
Alexander
May23-03, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sorry!
No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...
True in statistical sense. Basicly, math says that uncertainty or spread of parameters in the system of N "wavicles" is proportional to sqrt(N) (notice here - not to N, because some uncertanties may by chance have opposite sign, and some positive sign).
And because the system have N particles, then RELATIVE uncertanty (= per particle) is sqrt(N)/N=1/sqrt(N) and becomes smaller and smaller as N increases.
Say, one molecule of nitrogen (=air) has spread of kinetic energy of order of 50-80% from average, but 100 molecules - sqrt(100) = 10 times less - only 5-8%, and the energy of million molecules is only 0.05-0.08% spread.
Thus temperature of a million molecules (=average kinetic energy per molecule) can be mathematically defined down to about 0.1 % (and not much better).
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sorry!
No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...
However, the type of nondeterminism, I believe, guarantees nondeterminism in the macroscopic world (though it may be very rare to see it occur)
Yes, it does guarantee that ones condition is non-determined, but what if it's undetermined nature was pre-determined? Also, what about conscious choices?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.