Randomness and Free-Will

[Descartz2000]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

[Pythagorean]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

Randomness doesn't require acting as it's own first cause.

[apeiron]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause.

Name some action you have decided upon that was not embedded within a context of experience.

Free-will is just what we call the state of being so conscious of that context - all the things we could do, should do, would be best to do - that we are also crisply conscious of the converse. So it is a hyper-non random state I would have thought. Our choices could not be more contextualised, more constrained by thoughts about outcomes and consequences.

In other words, our consciously willed actions are not simply triggered (which can be the case for skilled habits and automaticisms) but complexly caused, weighted by a landscape of information.

[JoeDawg]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause.

I'd say that is highly problematic.
Freewill, requires knowledge of the past, in order for their to be a choice. You can't make a choice without facts.
And random is pretty much, by defintion, not-caused. So referring to as a first cause is self-contradicting.

The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[Ferris_bg]

The major difference between the two is that free will depends only on information thus having some purpose and randomness lacks these two.

[Descartz2000]

Randomness doesn't require acting as it's own first cause.

In a sense I think that true randomness must act as its' own first cause. If we are talking about an acausal event, and there is no cause, then we are led into a paradox of there being an action, but without an initiator (a cause of some kind). If there are no variables or conditions to bring about the event, then why would the event ever emerge? If we don't want to accept that such phenomena is mystical, and occurs without logic, initial conditions, or causes, then we must turn to something like the action or event being its own first cause. I think abandoning classical logic is a mistake. I would say interpretations of first causes are in error too.

[Descartz2000]

Name some action you have decided upon that was not embedded within a context of experience.

Free-will is just what we call the state of being so conscious of that context - all the things we could do, should do, would be best to do - that we are also crisply conscious of the converse. So it is a hyper-non random state I would have thought. Our choices could not be more contextualised, more constrained by thoughts about outcomes and consequences.

In other words, our consciously willed actions are not simply triggered (which can be the case for skilled habits and automaticisms) but complexly caused, weighted by a landscape of information.

I do think that our consciously willed actions are simply caused by information , but this comes in many forms (genes, environment, experience, , etc). The process is not random in any way. I just think that in principle, to have 'free will' (choice to do otherwise), requires the mind or 'will' to be the first cause of biological processes. It seems more likely it is the other way around, the bio processes within the brain and body are the first cause of the resulting mind.

[fdesilva]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

Determinism leads to order, or is recognised by order. Randomness is expected to lead to disorder. Free will is ordering of random events in the predominantly deterministic framework to bring about outcomes, that is not predictable.

[wofsy]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

I think it would be impossible to know if anything is truly random.

Randomness can depend on initial conditions. The evolution of a distribution can depend on its initial distribution. If there were no initial distribution it would be hard to know how it could exist.

Could one also ask in the same way whether determinism can really exist?

Determinism can emerge from randomness - I think.

What does free will mean? It certainly involves choice but choice within a context. Maybe it boils down to what is the will.

[wofsy]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

Your thread question has me thinking a lot. I'm happy that you posed it.

Maybe what you are asking is related to one of Zeno's paradox's - not the one of Achilles and the Tortoise but the one of the arrow in flight. As I remember it the question is: 'Since at each moment in time the arrow just is where it is in space how then can we say that it is moving?' So movement like your idea of free will and randomness has no antecedent in itself.

[apeiron]

So movement like your idea of free will and randomness has no antecedent in itself.

Or rather - given Newton's inertia and Einstein's relativity - all local action requires a global framing context, whether you want to call it random, determined or willed.

[Descartz2000]

Your thread question has me thinking a lot. I'm happy that you posed it.

Maybe what you are asking is related to one of Zeno's paradox's - not the one of Achilles and the Tortoise but the one of the arrow in flight. As I remember it the question is: 'Since at each moment in time the arrow just is where it is in space how then can we say that it is moving?' So movement like your idea of free will and randomness has no antecedent in itself.

I think it is similar to free will and randomness. It seems that truly free willed actions argue for no dependence on prior states, the same can be stated about truly random events, and the same goes for Zeno's arrow too. If there is no movement or acceleration of the arrow within each moment or static state, then there is no resulting outcome that has dependence on previous states of the arrow, as there is no change or movement within each moment.

[baywax]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).

[Descartz2000]

I think it would be impossible to know if anything is truly random.

Randomness can depend on initial conditions. The evolution of a distribution can depend on its initial distribution. If there were no initial distribution it would be hard to know how it could exist.

Could one also ask in the same way whether determinism can really exist?

Determinism can emerge from randomness - I think.

What does free will mean? It certainly involves choice but choice within a context. Maybe it boils down to what is the will.

But, how can a 'truly random' event or outcome depend on its initial distribution? Unless information is unavailable in principle (for example: position and velocity), then in theory why would a future state of that event not be deterministic (at least in principle), but at the same time unpredictable? On the macro scale - events from Chaos are based on initial conditions, unpredictable, deterministic, and not truly random. It would seem that any time we introduce known (and even unknown) initial conditions, we find ourselves arguing for deterministic (in principle) events.

[Descartz2000]

[QUOTE=baywax;2572793]We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).[/QUOTE

I like your view on balance and physics. Would you say there is a tit-for-tat logic among all events? If so, then is true randomness an illusion?

[baywax]

[QUOTE=baywax;2572793]We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).[/QUOTE

I like your view on balance and physics. Would you say there is a tit-for-tat logic among all events? If so, then is true randomness an illusion?

I wouldn't go so far as to assign logic to any of the processes. It can be viewed as logical but that doesn't make it logical. I would gander a guess that true randomness may have been more prevalent toward the beginning of this universe. But, this sort of randomness is the kind that produces laws. After the BB, trial by error contributed to the order we see today. I think Chaos theory looks into the interconnectedness of everything.

I'm not saying we are necessarily a result of a "sequence" of events. Each of us is more like the strand in a web of states and phenomena that would begin to unravel if we were to veer in any direction other than what is required to maintain the balance of the universe. This is how the universe has come to adapt to its own existence through evolutionary trials and errors.

[GeorgCantor]

There is no way we have free will.

Materialism cannot account for free will and it is very unlikely that it will ever account for free will as a matter of fact. Had materialism been the true description of reality, then you'd be forced to acknowledge that either we don't have free will(which is ludicrous) or that free will is supernatural. With the gradual fall of materialism, free will might be easier to explain(though in a wider context, we'd still be pretty much in the dark).


We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles

I don't think many people would agree that free will and consciousness/awareness is the result of quantum potentials. If anything, it seems to me to be the opposite. No one knows what free will is and how it comes about, so i will not make definite statements, but free will as in free from the laws of the universe sounds somewhat supernatural. Denying the existence of free will seems way too absurd to me. Where would the illusion of free will be coming from?


we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.


You deny that there is an "I" and i find that very unreasoanble.


I like your view on balance and physics. Would you say there is a tit-for-tat logic among all events? If so, then is true randomness an illusion?

I also don't believe in uncaused randomness, but free will seems to require a wholly new scientific approach. If it can't be deduced from constituent parts, then reductionism is probably the wrong tool towards free will. It could be that free will is primary/fundamental or it can simply be incomprehesible to the human way of reasoning. I have seen no evidence so far that we have no free will. The fact that we are holding this discussion is a very good testament that there is an "I" that has free will. Or are you saying we are not having a discussion and that is another illusion by the chain of events that started in the distant past?

[apeiron]

But, how can a 'truly random' event or outcome depend on its initial distribution? Unless information is unavailable in principle (for example: position and velocity), then in theory why would a future state of that event not be deterministic (at least in principle), but at the same time unpredictable?

There are many popular misconceptions about randomness (and determinism). An excellent recent paper on the nature of statistical models is....

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3507

In particular, it shows how a collection of individually non-random processes will produce "random", or rather neutral, statistical behaviour.

The random vs determinism philosophical argument is a hangover from the shocks of 17th century science and maths - Descartes, Cardano, LaPlace. Modern thinking has moved on from these simplicities.

[baywax]

Materialism cannot account for free will and it is very unlikely that it will ever account for free will as a matter of fact. Had materialism been the true description of reality, then you'd be forced to acknowledge that either we don't have free will(which is ludicrous) or that free will is supernatural. With the gradual fall of materialism, free will might be easier to explain(though in a wider context, we'd still be pretty much in the dark).




I don't think many people would agree that free will and consciousness/awareness is the result of quantum potentials. If anything, it seems to me to be the opposite. No one knows what free will is and how it comes about, so i will not make definite statements, but free will as in free from the laws of the universe sounds somewhat supernatural. Denying the existence of free will seems way too absurd to me. Where would the illusion of free will be coming from?





You deny that there is an "I" and i find that very unreasoanble.




I also don't believe in uncaused randomness, but free will seems to require a wholly new scientific approach. If it can't be deduced from constituent parts, then reductionism is probably the wrong tool towards free will. It could be that free will is primary/fundamental or it can simply be incomprehesible to the human way of reasoning. I have seen no evidence so far that we have no free will. The fact that we are holding this discussion is a very good testament that there is an "I" that has free will. Or are you saying we are not having a discussion and that is another illusion by the chain of events that started in the distant past?

Hello Georg

I wrote most of what you have quoted here.

That is, the combination of the many states and events that I am has written it.

Whether I had any choice to write this or not is not the point. I wrote it. Its a done deal. There is no other way that could have turned out... and the proof of this lies in the fact that it is already written.

You can question whether I wrote from a state of free will but it is difficult to prove if it was an act of freewill or an act of predetermined eventuality. The process of proving either of these methods of arriving at my writing would entail a complete forensic examination of the conditions of the entire universe at the time of my decision to write it and a comprehensive excavation of all the influences on my decision, past, present and future.

[GeorgCantor]

Hello Georg

I wrote most of what you have quoted here.

That is, the combination of the many states and events that I am has written it.

Whether I had any choice to write this or not is not the point. I wrote it. Its a done deal. There is no other way that could have turned out... and the proof of this lies in the fact that it is already written.

You can question whether I wrote from a state of free will but it is difficult to prove if it was an act of freewill or an act of predetermined eventuality. The process of proving either of these methods of arriving at my writing would entail a complete forensic examination of the conditions of the entire universe at the time of my decision to write it and a comprehensive excavation of all the influences on my decision, past, present and future.

I don't agree with the illusion of free will as that seems to mean that a God of sorts creates this complex and realistic illusion for us. I don't really believe that waves and 'particles'(or whatever you want to call them) have somehow acquired the ability to observe themselves, to reason and to have free will. Seems like a very absurd statement to me. Either we are missing something truly fundamental in our description of, call reality or universe, or the idealism ideology is right and materialism is wrong(or materialism is valid only in certain domains, but not in others). The mind-body duality(the self-awareness and free will) seems to be greater than determinism-based science likes to acknowledge.

Do most people here believe they are hallucinating their own existence?

[baywax]

I don't agree with the illusion of free will as that seems to mean that a God of sorts creates this complex and realistic illusion for us. I don't really believe that waves and 'particles'(or whatever you want to call them) have somehow acquired the ability to observe themselves, to reason and to have free will. Seems like a very absurd statement to me. Either we are missing something truly fundamental in our description of, call reality or universe, or the idealism ideology is right and materialism is wrong(or materialism is valid only in certain domains, but not in others). The mind-body duality(the self-awareness and free will) seems to be greater than determinism-based science likes to acknowledge.

Do most people here believe they are hallucinating their own existence?

My premise has nothing to do with illusion or hallucination. What I'm saying is that we have the ability to observe ourselves, to reason and to make choices the same way that a comet has the ability to orbit or a sun has to produce light and heat... these are the evolved and inherent properties of these entities. There is no duality between the mind and the body, they are a product of the same thing.

[GeorgCantor]

My premise has nothing to do with illusion or hallucination. What I'm saying is that we have the ability to observe ourselves, to reason and to make choices the same way that a comet has the ability to orbit or a sun has to produce light and heat... these are the evolved and inherent properties of these entities. There is no duality between the mind and the body, they are a product of the same thing.


The comet lacks self-awareness and logical reasoning and cannot observe itself(among other abilities). You are saying that we don't have free will and therefore we are mistaken that we have free will. That's the same as saying we are imagining that we have free will and therefore, since we don't have free will, all our statements from science or whatever, are very likely false. It's quite natural for the Sun to produce light and heat, but is it natural for carbon atoms to combine and produce an LCD monitor(when they have no free will)? Or are you saying that we are just mental states experiencing something like a free will, that doesn't really exist?

If we don't have free will, why is reality so consistent with our reasoning? Or are you saying that it is an illusion that it's consistent? If it's an illusion, then you must be a theist. I don't think you understand how all our knowledge falls apart if we are simle automata(zombis) and that it would take nothing less than a god for our illusory experience of selfhood and awareness to be that consistent with reality.

What you are suggesting appears to mean that we are hallucinating that there is a self(an "I") and if there is no "I", then there is no Anything. Even "I think therefore i am" is wrong, since you are not really thinking when there is no "I".

[baywax]

Or are you saying that we are just mental states experiencing something like a free will, that doesn't really exist?



That's what I'm saying. I'm saying we assume we have free will because when we direct our neurons to lift our arms... our arms lift. What we're not including in this assumption is the large number of influences causing us to "direct our neurons" to do something (like lifting our arms).

Free will and randomness are not an hallucination... they are an assumption made by a small part of the entire universe... our brains. This is because our brains don't have the capability of calculating the enormous web of influences that determine our every thought and action. We wrongly believe we are separate from the rest of existence. This has nothing to do with theism. It has to do with an holistic view of being.

Read: chaos theory
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

When I say that our ability to observe the self is a property like the light and heat of the sun, I am simply comparing properties. Self awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons like we find in the cranial cavity of our skulls. Light and heat are some of the end products of the sun.

[Freeman Dyson]

We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).

We can't simply be reduced to particles and waves. Apieron posted a good link on this.

All physicists concede that at each level of complexity new physical qualities, and laws that govern them, emerge. These qualities and laws are either absent at the level below, or are simply meaningless at that level. Thus the concept of wetness makes sense for a droplet of water, but not for a single molecule of H2O.

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/The%20physics%20of%20downward%20causation.pdf

[Descartz2000]

There are many popular misconceptions about randomness (and determinism). An excellent recent paper on the nature of statistical models is....

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3507

In particular, it shows how a collection of individually non-random processes will produce "random", or rather neutral, statistical behaviour.

The random vs determinism philosophical argument is a hangover from the shocks of 17th century science and maths - Descartes, Cardano, LaPlace. Modern thinking has moved on from these simplicities.


Thanks for directing me to this study. I am not a scientist, but I do read quite a bit on the subject of QM. If modern thinking has moved past some of these hangovers, it is not always reflected in the literature. However, I believe even recent work and advances on causal interpretations do seem to identify with at least some of these original notions of physics (Ex: t'Hooft, Christian).

[GeorgCantor]

That's what I'm saying. I'm saying we assume we have free will because when we direct our neurons to lift our arms... our arms lift. What we're not including in this assumption is the large number of influences causing us to "direct our neurons" to do something (like lifting our arms).


You cannot assume anything if you don't have free will. There is no way you could have this ability, as with no free will, there is no "I" that can assume anything. Only an existing "I" can make assumption. An actor in a movie cannot make an assumption, can they?


Free will and randomness are not an hallucination... they are an assumption made by a small part of the entire universe... our brains. This is because our brains don't have the capability of calculating the enormous web of influences that determine our every thought and action. We wrongly believe we are separate from the rest of existence. This has nothing to do with theism. It has to do with an holistic view of being.

The holistic view doesn't do away with free will, AFAIK. I think it rather confirms it, that it a genuine emergent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to its constituent parts(and hence cannot be understood in terms of our scientific tools and methods of investigation).

Read: chaos theory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


Thanks for the link, I read it but I fail to see the connection between chaos and free will.


When I say that our ability to observe the self is a property like the light and heat of the sun, I am simply comparing properties. Self awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons like we find in the cranial cavity of our skulls. Light and heat are some of the end products of the sun.


You couldn't have knowledge of these properties you listed, if there were no "You". The understanding that self-awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons, requires a Self, an "I". That "I" obviously exists. If that "I" is an illusion and doesn't exist, you are just an illusory voice in an illusory environment, perceived by an illusory GeorgCantor. That is a self-negating statement.

[baywax]

You cannot assume anything if you don't have free will. There is no way you could have this ability, as with no free will, there is no "I" that can assume anything. Only an existing "I" can make assumption. An actor in a movie cannot make an assumption, can they?




The holistic view doesn't do away with free will, AFAIK. I think it rather confirms it, that it a genuine emergent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to its constituent parts(and hence cannot be understood in terms of our scientific tools and methods of investigation).




Thanks for the link, I read it but I fail to see the connection between chaos and free will.





You couldn't have knowledge of these properties you listed, if there were no "You". The understanding that self-awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons, requires a Self, an "I". That "I" obviously exists. If that "I" is an illusion and doesn't exist, you are just an illusory voice in an illusory environment, perceived by an illusory GeorgCantor. That is a self-negating statement.

I'm sorry but I think you're missing my point.

1. the "I" you keep mentioning is a product of our physical existence. It's not proof of something we assume is "free will". Assumption takes place without free will, it is one of the many properties and products of a neuro net or "brain".

2. that which causes an "assumption" or an arm to lift is called a "brain" but the brain is, moreover, influenced by events taking place around it. And the events taking place around it are influenced by less and less proximal events but with no less influence. So that, you begin to see a rather large machine and the cogs thereof all acting in a balance that has allowed this universe to exist for 13.5 billion years.

this is where I see a similarity between what I am proposing and chaos theory. "deterministic chaos" means what I am doing right now was and is determined by events I will never know about, and done so with no intention or "grand consciousness".

[GeorgCantor]

I'm sorry but I think you're missing my point.

1. the "I" you keep mentioning is a product of our physical existence. It's not proof of something we assume is "free will".

How can there be an "I", if there is no free will?


Assumption takes place without free will, it is one of the many properties and products of a neuro net or "brain".


The initial condiotions from 14 billion years ago, or rather their result cannot make an assumption. It takes human consciousness and free will to make assumptions. Explain how dead matter that has no free will can make assumptions. At this point i am fairly certain that even you don't understand the implications of the point you are trying to make.


2. that which causes an "assumption" or an arm to lift is called a "brain" but the brain is, moreover, influenced by events taking place around it. And the events taking place around it are influenced by less and less proximal events but with no less influence. So that, you begin to see a rather large machine and the cogs thereof all acting in a balance that has allowed this universe to exist for 13.5 billion years.


How come those events are so perfectly ordered as to make so much sense to "humans"? You don't believe in god do you? Because your point speaks much more in favor of god, than of naturalism.


this is where I see a similarity between what I am proposing and chaos theory. "deterministic chaos" means what I am doing right now was and is determined by events I will never know about, and done so with no intention or "grand consciousness".


OK, but how come those conditions were so pre-ordered that you'd have the sensation of free will, that you actually control your life, that there is a "Baywax" that exists, that has children, that falls in love, etc.? If the illusion of free will is THAT good, how can you tell it apart from a hypothetical true, genuine free will? And if you can't, then by that reasoning we have free will.

[baywax]

"God", "logic", "perfect order" "pre-order", "free will" and "I" are all anthropocentric explanations of nature. They do not necessarily correctly describe nature... they only describe nature as we comprehend it. Creating these terms for the conditions we observe does not mean our terms correctly describe the conditions. That's why I have taken this stance which is in opposition to the norm. This represents my respect for the unknown. Your tirade of questions illustrates the common inability to see beyond established yet unproven beliefs that we are some how separate from the rest of the universe in our actions and our standing as humans.

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,


Interesting thoughts that sound like some I had a good while back about free will, ourselves and nature as the universe in which we live in.

In a way, I can see having free will as being able to make a final choice given a set of possible decisions, even if it is weighted by the past and immediately evolving universe. It is the self, the ‘I’, that is making this choice and, if obeying its own set of rules, can generate outcomes that are not in harmony with a ‘best fit’ course, yet compatible with the natural laws.

So, in essence, this description of free will is related to the fact that I am not bound by the said natural laws, that I can choose to go ‘my’ way and not nature’s preferred way. However, this kind of free will is only apparent because, while making the alleged ‘free will choices’, I certainly am not at all free from myself and will definitely have to compose with the consequences, good or bad.

Looking at it from another angle, maybe, indeed, the only true free will would be the kind of freedom of self in complete abandonment to the natural laws that is experienced by the suns, comets and all other ‘mindless’ material objects of our magnificent universe, following the evolving path already laid out for them, behaving exactly how they were created to behave, and certainly not having regrets, second thoughts, or composing with the consequences.

Regards,

VE

[nickyrtr]

To me, "random" is a statement about the speaker's knowledge, not the process studied. That which I perceive to be random is that which I cannot predict at all. It may in fact be deterministic, but I do not have access to its inner workings.

In that vein, to say a being has "free will" just means that I sometimes cannot predict its decisions. I guess, then, that free will is socially defined; whether you have free will is a function of the person observing you, not an innate quality of you.

[GeorgCantor]

"God", "logic", "perfect order" "pre-order", "free will" and "I" are all anthropocentric explanations of nature. They do not necessarily correctly describe nature... they only describe nature as we comprehend it. Creating these terms for the conditions we observe does not mean our terms correctly describe the conditions. That's why I have taken this stance which is in opposition to the norm. This represents my respect for the unknown. Your tirade of questions illustrates the common inability to see beyond established yet unproven beliefs that we are some how separate from the rest of the universe in our actions and our standing as humans.


So you are saying we are as good as dead. No one has ever been born and nobody has ever died.

[apeiron]

As is being demonstrated, freewill is just such a bad term - one that mixes materialism and theology in equal measure - that its "meaning" can be debated endlessly.

A scientist would move on to terms that are situated in a useful context.

So why not talk about autonomy (as a feature of complex systems)?

Or anticipation (as a feature of standard psychology and also the more general field of anticipatory systems)?

Determined and random are useful descriptors of simple systems, not complex ones.

Freedom is a concept relevant to social systems and so should be part of an anthropological level view of the issues.

If the chosen level of analysis is the psychological - the "consciousness" of individuals - then autonomy and anticipation are the right concepts to invoke. These are terms rooted in concrete theory.

It is muddled thinking to apply modelling concepts at inappropriate scales of analysis. If you actually studied psychology, would you expect "freewill" to be one of the topics?

[Zerqzee]

Free-will is meaningless without choice.

Who we will become is determined by our choices, decisions and actions. The choices, decisions and actions that we take in the now create facts that cannot be altered.

The "Now" is what exists. Reality is the cosmological temporality of tensed facts that are created in the "Now". A fact cannot be altered. Change is a constant in the "Now". The illusion of time is created by this observance of change brought about by movement. The movement is deterministic outside of our ability to choose. Choice is what gives us the ability to be creative. But it is also the ability to destroy.

Who we can be is not yet determined because we still have the ability to choose. Past facts cannot be altered yet potential still exists. We can choose to create or destroy. There is no other choice before us.

[Descartz2000]

Free-will is meaningless without choice.

Who we will become is determined by our choices, decisions and actions. The choices, decisions and actions that we take in the now create facts that cannot be altered.

The "Now" is what exists. Reality is the cosmological temporality of tensed facts that are created in the "Now". A fact cannot be altered. Change is a constant in the "Now". The illusion of time is created by this observance of change brought about by movement. The movement is deterministic outside of our ability to choose. Choice is what gives us the ability to be creative. But it is also the ability to destroy.

Who we can be is not yet determined because we still have the ability to choose. Past facts cannot be altered yet potential still exists. We can choose to create or destroy. There is no other choice before us.

I think relativity took care of squashing the concept of absolute time. As for choices, Libet and more modern researchers are shedding light on the myth of libertarian free-will.

[fdesilva]

I think relativity took care of squashing the concept of absolute time. As for choices, Libet and more modern researchers are shedding light on the myth of libertarian free-will.

Consider this. Relativity gives a view of a 4 Dimensional universe. Now this 4D structure will have a shape. Consider the possibility that this shape is flexible. Then changing this shape, (locally or universally) will correspond to free will. Such shape changing will alter the future by altering the past in a consistent manner. Have a read of this. Its is not impossible to do this
http://www.physorg.com/news170586562.html

[Anticitizen]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possess 'free will'.

[baywax]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possess 'free will'.

What you call "random factors" also play a part as "preceding cause(s)".

Is it so far fetched to think that our neuronet is capable of predicting every phenomenon in the universe? I tend to think its true. But, what is also true is that our neuronet relies entirely on our stomach and our ability to function in filling that belly, every day... sometimes twice or more. So, there is some built in shut off valve that stops us from accessing the information being calculated by our neuronet because that would detract from our foraging for food and fulfilling the other requirements of the "survival of the species". But, again, its silly because if we were able to listen to the predictions our brains come up with through calculated calculations... we'd be better off, no doubt.

[skippy1729]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possess 'free will'.

In 25 words or less, what you are saying is:

"The existence of fundamental randomness is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for 'free will'".

Skippy

[Anticitizen]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

[baywax]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

I think what people believe is that their entire body is separate from the rest of the universe and therefore they are able to make independent decisions based on this "island's" separateness and independence. Of course... that is completely ridiculous. This is why I imagine that free will is really for "amateurs" and that the "professionals" are aware of the interconnectedness of their own physicalness and that of the rest of the universe. Thus, rather than attempting free will.. they work with what they can perceive is affecting them and that which they are affecting.

[Anticitizen]

I think we're probably on the same wavelength, for the most part, but I must ask for clarification on your last sentence.

[Descartz2000]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.

[baywax]

I think we're probably on the same wavelength, for the most part, but I must ask for clarification on your last sentence.

Sorry... I mean that someone who isn't fooling their self with the idea that they are separate from the rest of the universe (and acting out of free will) will take the effects they have and the effects the rest of the universe has on them and use this knowledge to try and make a better way in life. This does not mean they're using free will.. it simply means they are following the grain rather than going against it. The fact that they have the capacity to see the interconnectedness of all things is something that is attained not through free will but by the grace of nature's ways.

[baywax]

Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.

Yes, I don't see the advantage in calling the functions of the brain "mind". Its like using the word "soul" and pretending everyone knows what you're talking about.

[apeiron]

Yes, I don't see the advantage in calling the functions of the brain "mind". Its like using the word "soul" and pretending everyone knows what you're talking about.

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

To think you can do away with one view or term, and just make do with the other, is what creates so much confusion. Instead, we need terminology that does full justice to both aspects.

Again, this is why I say freewill is a bad and misleading term (capable only of spawning endless debate about the paradoxes it creates). If you talked instead about anticipation or autonomy, then you can get on with actually understanding something interesting about the brain/mind as a system.

Randomness vs determinism is a debate about the properties of un-organised substances. Collections of stuff, ensembles of materials, that have only the simplest kinds of form or globally coherent behaviours.

Complex systems have complex behaviours and you have to find the right ways to talk scientifically about them.

It is a mistake repeated so often. Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

[Anticitizen]

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.


Like how a disc made of vinyl is what a record is, but music or a song is what it does.

Or various chemicals or physical structures is what pigments are, but color is what they do...

Is there a specific word that exists to describe such 'intangibles' that are irrefutably 'real'? If not, someone should coin one.

[JoeDawg]

Like how a disc made of vinyl is what a record is, but music or a song is what it does.

Or various chemicals or physical structures is what pigments are, but color is what they do...

Is there a specific word that exists to describe such 'intangibles' that are irrefutably 'real'? If not, someone should coin one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

[Anticitizen]

Thanks :)

[baywax]

Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

Like the chicken or the egg debate.

Except that without "nature" there is no "nurture" or society. This should provide a clue with regard to what the fundamental material is in human development.

[apeiron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Qualia is definitely the wrong word to capture what I was talking about. They are the local particulars of subjective experience. I was talking about the globally general, and objective, forms or constraints.

So a failure on a number of counts. Too local, too particular and too subjective.

[JoeDawg]

Qualia is definitely the wrong word to capture what I was talking about.
And yet, it seems to be what someone else was referring to....

[baywax]

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

To think you can do away with one view or term, and just make do with the other, is what creates so much confusion. Instead, we need terminology that does full justice to both aspects.

Again, this is why I say freewill is a bad and misleading term (capable only of spawning endless debate about the paradoxes it creates). If you talked instead about anticipation or autonomy, then you can get on with actually understanding something interesting about the brain/mind as a system.

Randomness vs determinism is a debate about the properties of un-organised substances. Collections of stuff, ensembles of materials, that have only the simplest kinds of form or globally coherent behaviours.

Complex systems have complex behaviours and you have to find the right ways to talk scientifically about them.

It is a mistake repeated so often. Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

Sorry, didn't mean to disregard the rest of this post. I agree that the more words we have to describe conditions and events the better. Its just that there has to be mutual agreement amongst the those discussing a matter as to the definition of the terms. Like I said earlier... the word "soul" is often bandied about yet the word as you say is far to subjectively rooted to be of any use in a conversation. Similarly "love" can be a stumbling block on the road to mutual understanding.

"Mind" is not used in neuroscience because it is, again, interpreted in many different ways by just as many people... as is "consciousness" (which must be joined to "awareness" when used in neuroscience discussions).

These are difficult items because... like i said again... everyone pretends to know what the other is saying when the definition is left up to the observer. We don't have to eliminate the words... each person needs to express how they are utilizing the word when its being used in a discussion... and even then the listener's definition will always automatically kick in when they hear the word. What to do?!

[apeiron]

Like I said earlier... the word "soul" is often bandied about yet the word as you say is far to subjectively rooted to be of any use in a conversation. Similarly "love" can be a stumbling block on the road to mutual understanding.


My view is that ancient greek metaphysics did a good job on establishing the maximally robust, objective and invariant terms for discussing things. They are so strong as to be mathematical. And they came for good reason as dichotomous pairs - asymmetric terms that exactly complement each other as A and not-A.

So you have "good" dichotomies such as stasis~flux, discrete~continuous, chance~necessity, substance~form. And in more modern times we have added local~global, event~context, signal~noise, and a few more.

There are also some "bad" dichotomies that have persisted, such as matter~mind, love~hate, evil~good, etc.

Good dichotomies all share the property of strong asymmetry - in scale terms especially. While weaker pairings are simpler "same scale" symmetry breakings. So for instance, love and hate, or good and evil, are the same size metaphysically. But the robust dichotomies have a breaking of symmetry across scales. Local~global is explicitly a breaking across scale and so is "very good" :smile:!

Event and context also are maximally asymmetric in this way. Discrete (the local part) and continuous (the global whole) again fit the bill. As does stasis (what stays located) and flux (the whole that is in movement).

So we are not completely helpless so far as finding good terminology for discussing meta-physical issues. Part of the job of philosophy really has always been about reducing the discussion to the most fundamental concepts, the words that really mean the most.

Soul and mind and consciousness and qualia and freewill - those are all a historical baggage of terminology that just aren't that helpful. But metaphysics already established the most robust language back in ancient greece.

And if we follow the path of maximum asymmetry - dividing our ignorance or vagueness as strongly as possible in opposing directions, not forgetting to go in different directions in terms of scale as well - then this has actually proved itself the best way to produce the necessary language.

There is a method for making the words.

[baywax]

My view is that ancient greek metaphysics did a good job on establishing the maximally robust, objective and invariant terms for discussing things. They are so strong as to be mathematical. And they came for good reason as dichotomous pairs - asymmetric terms that exactly complement each other as A and not-A.

So you have "good" dichotomies such as stasis~flux, discrete~continuous, chance~necessity, substance~form. And in more modern times we have added local~global, event~context, signal~noise, and a few more.

There are also some "bad" dichotomies that have persisted, such as matter~mind, love~hate, evil~good, etc.

Good dichotomies all share the property of strong asymmetry - in scale terms especially. While weaker pairings are simpler "same scale" symmetry breakings. So for instance, love and hate, or good and evil, are the same size metaphysically. But the robust dichotomies have a breaking of symmetry across scales. Local~global is explicitly a breaking across scale and so is "very good" :smile:!

Event and context also are maximally asymmetric in this way. Discrete (the local part) and continuous (the global whole) again fit the bill. As does stasis (what stays located) and flux (the whole that is in movement).

So we are not completely helpless so far as finding good terminology for discussing meta-physical issues. Part of the job of philosophy really has always been about reducing the discussion to the most fundamental concepts, the words that really mean the most.

Soul and mind and consciousness and qualia and freewill - those are all a historical baggage of terminology that just aren't that helpful. But metaphysics already established the most robust language back in ancient greece.

And if we follow the path of maximum asymmetry - dividing our ignorance or vagueness as strongly as possible in opposing directions, not forgetting to go in different directions in terms of scale as well - then this has actually proved itself the best way to produce the necessary language.

There is a method for making the words.

This is great news. Thanks apeiron!. I'm going to have to distill this concrete info and let it simmer before solidifying enough to comment further in this locale....:rolleyes::smile:

[baywax]

For the moment, let me just express my confusion about the validity of the word "meta-physics". It appears to me to be a contradiction of terms or at least of root terms.

Metaphysics means to be above or outside the physical world. Yet, we discuss it using physical terms... we contemplate it using our physical and biological bodies, including our brains. And if someone told me an idea is not physical I'd tell them they are wrong because an idea is, in its most fundimental form, an electromagnetic pulse. Metaphysicists claim that energy is evidence of metaphysical reality yet energy is in fact electromagnetic pulses and/or radiation.

How is it that a concept, completely conceived by physical means, and claimed to be above and beyond all physical realms, exist in the first place? And how do does one go about proving the existence of the metaphysical using nothing but the clumsy butterfingers of a physical frame of reference?

[JoeDawg]

Metaphysics means to be above or outside the physical world.

Actually, it means, this is what Aristotle wrote about, after he was done writing about physics. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that followed after the chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy."

[apeiron]

Meta makes sense if you take it as a more general level of discussion. So if physics is concerned with what is, then meta-physics could be a step up to a more general view about what could even be.

[baywax]

Meta makes sense if you take it as a more general level of discussion. So if physics is concerned with what is, then meta-physics could be a step up to a more general view about what could even be.

That's usually called a hypothesis isn't it?... not metaphysics..

[magpies]

Invsible forces like magnetism would be considered a part of metaphysics by ancient greeks im sure.

[apeiron]

That's usually called a hypothesis isn't it?... not metaphysics..

No.....

[baywax]

No.....

Surely, you jest... what else do you call the imaginings and over-reaching of physical entities such as humans?

Of course many say that physicalness is a manifestation of the "spectrum" of some other something or other... but that's as hypothetical as imagining a form of "life" that is not carbon-based.

[apeiron]

Surely, you jest... what else do you call the imaginings and over-reaching of physical entities such as humans?


I was talking about the process of generalisation - the development of universals or general principles from particular or local experiences and observations.

A hypothesis is something else - a particular guess about how some particular thing could be explained. (Although that something could be very large - like a particular universe).

[baywax]

I was talking about the process of generalisation - the development of universals or general principles from particular or local experiences and observations.

A hypothesis is something else - a particular guess about how some particular thing could be explained. (Although that something could be very large - like a particular universe).

Ah... I see. So, when Lao Tsu hits upon a sort of axiom that appears to be true in many situations and on many scales... that would be a metaphysical constant. Such as when he points out that being supple like the grass is a better way to survive than being brittle like old wood....?

There are more observations by many philosophers that seem to apply as axioms yet are not nor never could be construed as theories or as physics. Yet they are truths in as far as metaphor or analogy can be truth. This is a very interesting take on metaphysics. Thank you!

[apeiron]

There are more observations by many philosophers that seem to apply as axioms yet are not nor never could be construed as theories or as physics. Yet they are truths in as far as metaphor or analogy can be truth. This is a very interesting take on metaphysics. Thank you!

I was thinking more of concepts which really are taken as "truths". So ancient greek philosophy came up with a whole bunch of meta-physical ideas that underpin our physical models.

There also all happen to be derived as dichotomies.

So we have fundamental distinctions like discrete~continuous, stasis~flux, atom~void, one~many, substance~form, chance~necessity, etc, etc.

This is more than just analogy or metaphor. It is a greater level of abstraction about what is believed to be "true". Or at least logically possible in some limit case exhaustive fashion.

Of course, since you mention Eastern philosophical traditions, this was also the essence of Taoist I Ching. But not so completely developed.

[baywax]

I was thinking more of concepts which really are taken as "truths". So ancient greek philosophy came up with a whole bunch of meta-physical ideas that underpin our physical models.

There also all happen to be derived as dichotomies.

So we have fundamental distinctions like discrete~continuous, stasis~flux, atom~void, one~many, substance~form, chance~necessity, etc, etc.

This is more than just analogy or metaphor. It is a greater level of abstraction about what is believed to be "true". Or at least logically possible in some limit case exhaustive fashion.

Of course, since you mention Eastern philosophical traditions, this was also the essence of Taoist I Ching. But not so completely developed.

Yes and I am more conversant about the tao than I am about greek philosophy. The eastern philosophies really do tend to use metaphor to explain their observations. Although this was perhaps to extend their understanding and truths to the general public and the more dense of the dynasties. So that, when they saw the grass bend in the wind and the stiff and hard tree be blown to the ground by it, they remembered that being rigid of spirit and action is not an enduring way to behave when compared to the "flex" of the grasses.

So, perhaps the poetry of Lao Tsu is a description of his more metaphysical and observed truths and is meant to convey these truths in the simplest format. Confucius often paraphrased the tao but his verbose use of the imagery shows how reliant he was upon the simpler form of tao's truths.

(is this off-shoot going to resolve in an understanding of randomness and free will?)

[apeiron]

(is this off-shoot going to resolve in an understanding of randomness and free will?)

It might if we return to the metaphysical origin of the perceived conflict.

Ancient greeks dichotomised action into chance and necessity. What we today call the random and the determined. And these are indeed the two extreme possible states for simple systems.

The question for simple systems then is whether this means all such systems are either of one kind, or the other kind? So either completely deterministic (eg: GR) or completely probablistic (eg: QM).

Or instead, we could recognise that the dichotomy crisply defines two kinds of limits that can be approached (so all actual systems exist in the spectrum of possibility that lies in-between). So some systems are as random as possible (like a coin-tossing process), or as determined as possible (like a coin placing process).

Then having got a good fix on simple systems, we can ask what is different about complex systems. Do the same dichotomies actually apply once reality has this further dimension?

If you are of the "more is different" camp, then yes, new dichotomies, new metaphysical-level distinctions, are required to capture this different dimension of truth.

But the ancient greeks did not really develop any. And modern science has not done too well at popularising any either.

There is the concept of autonomy to stand for what is special about a complex system's choice making abilities - creative action within bounding constraints. But what do we call the simple system's abilities in this context? What is the right word (non-autonomous not adding much to the discussion)?

One quite good dichotomy coined by Stewart and Cohen is complicity~simplexity.

This would be an example of modern metaphysics - attempting to create new unifying concepts that generalise from scientific understanding.

[baywax]

It might if we return to the metaphysical origin of the perceived conflict.

Ancient greeks dichotomised action into chance and necessity. What we today call the random and the determined. And these are indeed the two extreme possible states for simple systems.

The question for simple systems then is whether this means all such systems are either of one kind, or the other kind? So either completely deterministic (eg: GR) or completely probablistic (eg: QM).

Or instead, we could recognise that the dichotomy crisply defines two kinds of limits that can be approached (so all actual systems exist in the spectrum of possibility that lies in-between). So some systems are as random as possible (like a coin-tossing process), or as determined as possible (like a coin placing process).

Then having got a good fix on simple systems, we can ask what is different about complex systems. Do the same dichotomies actually apply once reality has this further dimension?

If you are of the "more is different" camp, then yes, new dichotomies, new metaphysical-level distinctions, are required to capture this different dimension of truth.

But the ancient greeks did not really develop any. And modern science has not done too well at popularising any either.

There is the concept of autonomy to stand for what is special about a complex system's choice making abilities - creative action within bounding constraints. But what do we call the simple system's abilities in this context? What is the right word (non-autonomous not adding much to the discussion)?

One quite good dichotomy coined by Stewart and Cohen is complicity~simplexity.

This would be an example of modern metaphysics - attempting to create new unifying concepts that generalise from scientific understanding.

The "complicity and simpexity" dichotomy reminds me of a sort of consilience between the two concepts. Especially the way the words are a hybrid of one another.

In the tao there is a unification theory described by the way water flows, fills voids and continues on after conquering the deepest abyss while all the while providing the sustenance of life. The dichotomy described in the tao is between the multitude (all living and non-living things) and the "unnamed way". Some people think the "way" is chi or energy but after reading the i ching and the tao te ching for many years I have not determined this to be true. In fact, I would suggest that energy is one of the multitude and the manifold.

But, of course you're right and there is always a dichotomy and there has to be in order for anything to be perceived. As Doris Day has pointed out "you can't have one without the other". But, the tao's "unnamed way" seems to be the determining factor with regard to the survival of the multitude. And the actions, behavior and "swaying back and forth" of all things appears to be determined by the nature of the unnamed way.

What would a physicist or a greek philosopher call the "unnamed way"?

[apeiron]

What would a physicist or a greek philosopher call the "unnamed way"?

Why, the Apeiron of course! The boundless, the unlimited. A state of pure plenipotential. Or in modern philosoohy, ontic vagueness.

All ancient philosophies share this same basic notion of organic creation as a division, a symmetry breaking, of a state of pure potential. As crisp divisions develop and mix, this creates the multitude that is.

In Indian Buddhism, you have dependent co-arising, for example.

The basic idea may be shared either because it was such an obvious idea, everyone arrived at it. Or there could have been a transmission of the concepts from west to east, or east to west.

[baywax]

Why, the Apeiron of course! The boundless, the unlimited. A state of pure plenipotential. Or in modern philosoohy, ontic vagueness.

All ancient philosophies share this same basic notion of organic creation as a division, a symmetry breaking, of a state of pure potential. As crisp divisions develop and mix, this creates the multitude that is.

In Indian Buddhism, you have dependent co-arising, for example.

The basic idea may be shared either because it was such an obvious idea, everyone arrived at it. Or there could have been a transmission of the concepts from west to east, or east to west.

So far all I've got on "apeiron" is that its a computer game on the macintosh and that its a

"a cosmological theory created by Anaximander in the 6th century BC"

and

"Apeiron is a Greek word meaning unlimited, infinite or indefinite from the Greek a (without) and peiras (end or limit in Ionic dialect)."

While the unnamed way is the continuous ebb and flow of all that is and its propensity to strike a balance of same.

Interestingly enough these two ideas were both recorded around the same time, in the 6th cent. BC.

[Deveno]

Some have mentioned in this thread that it is rediculuous to reject the notion of free will will, because that entails denying the self, or sense of "I".

I agree that rejecting free will does indeed have this consequence. Where I diverge with them, is in the rediculousness of such a notion. Our brains are good at symbolic manipulation, abstraction is a basic form of our thought processes. When we think about the world, and the things in it, we do not do so entirely faithfully, but use (with more or fewer degrees of awareness) representations of the world adequate for evaluation. We lose the fine detail, in order to see larger aggregates of ideas. It's really kind of an awesome thing that we can function so fluidly this way.

But one thing we over-look, is that "I" is just a central symbol our brains create to refer to ourselves. And that, being a symbol, leaves out a great deal of imformation. This symbol is no more who we are, than saying "my friend John is John." I may indeed have a friend named John, but he is surely more than his name. He is also surely more than everything I have ever thought about him. The actual details of his physical existence are so many, I doubt there is room in my consciousness to hold them all.

Such is the bane of self-awareness. Eventually, we realize that the very reasoning process that allows us to have these conversations, also bars us from discovering what is ultimately true. Naming apples, blinds us to the uniqueness of every individual apple, in an essential way, the idea of an apple takes us even further from the truth. What is, isn't "I", what "I" is, doesn't actually exist. The world of words and ideas, is in many ways a profound and beautiful one, but its structures and concepts are those are our own devising, not what may (if you believe in an independent reality) be there without us.

[apeiron]

While the unnamed way is the continuous ebb and flow of all that is and its propensity to strike a balance of same.

It is this idea of ebb and flow where I think the two approaches diverge.

If reality arises as the crisp division of some raw, vague, unformed potential - a symmetry breaking phase transition - then either a) there is ebb and flow. What is divided is just as easily reunited. Or b) there is only flow. Once a breaking has started, it must flow all the way down a gradient until some new different, and permanently broken, equilibrium is arrived at.

Tao is based on a.

Anaximander's apeiron is more b. What is produced can subside again. But overall, the story is of a succession of phase transitions which gradually create the complex materials of the world.

I would describe my own position as strong b. And this would be based on modern cosmology and thermodynamics. For example, the ancients never imagined a dynamic universe that cools~expands towards the nullity of a heat death, the ultimate phase transition. Taking the potential for anything and transforming it into the most immense nothing possible.

So there are both similarities and essential differences of view here. And the ancient traditions were only a metaphysical start.

[apeiron]

I agree that rejecting free will does indeed have this consequence. Where I diverge with them, is in the rediculousness of such a notion.

This is certainly the correct view. The idea of a "chosing self in charge" is a social construction, a convenient fiction created with language.

[baywax]

This is certainly the correct view. The idea of a "chosing self in charge" is a social construction, a convenient fiction created with language.

I'm not sure how the Greeks see it but the taoist and asian take on "self in charge" is more like "to serve is to rule" and "to rule is to serve". Interesting that this is a dichotomy yet apparently a hybrid like "simplexity and complicity" of ideas and function.

Another thing is that if one does act or chose to act in a stubborn or "brittle" way, eventually nature will "crumble" you. And, yet again, there is the unspoken rule that the way or nature has prompted your stubborn or "take charge" actions because they not only provide a compliment to the humble and persevering approach of nature but perhaps also somehow provide other means that continue and support the duration and progress of all things.

When you say the tao suggests there is a beginning that is simple and whole which then splits into the myriad of all things, then returns to the whole... I would beg to differ. The multitude is the compliment to the "uncarved block". This is can be seen as being depicted by the yin and yang symbol where there is always a compliment and there can be neither without the compliment of the other. Thus the two compliments are the whole. However, we must add a third element which is the observer taking note of the whole... slightly perplexing.