On free will:

  • #1
570
4
This thread is a continuation of a discussion that went off topic on the thread "Can You Prove You Exist?" on the General Philosophy forum. I am doing the honors of starting a thread specific to the subject of the discussion, which was obviously free will.
Here is the short discussion:
Imparcticle
Quote:
for now i beleive in itbut i cannot assume the real answer because myself i do not know it. and for those who said that living freely is equal to existing let me tell them that in the curent definition of FREE no one is free @ all. we are guied by our needs (eating drinking sleeping) our feelings, our minds. Therefore we are not free.


Free will exists. We are guided by our instincts, which form the basis for our decisions particularly our choices. Whether or not I choose salad for lunch can be predicted to a certain probablity, but with no absolute certainty. I choose, according to what it is I feel like eating at the time. If I am not a vegetarian, I can eat meat, which adds to the list of possibilities. My not being a vegetarian is based on a series of causal motivations, which in turn are derived and interpreted through instinct. But the final decision can only be approximated (before it is made by me) by a set of probabilities.
Even the very desire to be able to choose according to one's pleasure or neccesity is a derivitive of instinct itself. Free will exists, but it is a complicated topic.

Sabine
well weel well 1st of all thank u for the translation i forgot to do it, then i has nthg to do with what i said i was giving another idea.
about eating that salad u r jst prooving that u ain't free, to be free we should definitly change the definiton of freedom.
------------------------------------

Imparcticle:

define freedom. Let's go from there. But I should note you should seriously start another thread concerning this, as we are going off topic.

As this post might get a little bit too long, I'll post again to describe why I think there is free will in more detail soon.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
1,605
2
I'm not trying to be a jerk :surprised: but why not just continue in any of the numerous other threads on free will?
 
  • #3
41
0
okay imparcticle i am looking forward to hear from u and i am ready to agree with u if u coninced me or to make ugree with me.
 
  • #4
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
obvisouly there are certain physical limitations we have (such as being able to fly completely on our own). but i think if we have a will to become a certain person (such as a pilot), or a will to do certain things (such as fly an airplane), then the only "thing" limiting us is fear within ourselves. the greatest power humans have is choice, whether that choice be choosing between prime rib or tiger prawns for dinner, or choosing to hunt/fish for your food to survive.
 
  • #5
1,605
2
obvisouly there are certain physical limitations we have (such as being able to fly completely on our own). but i think if we have a will to become a certain person (such as a pilot), or a will to do certain things (such as fly an airplane), then the only "thing" limiting us is fear within ourselves. the greatest power humans have is choice, whether that choice be choosing between prime rib or tiger prawns for dinner, or choosing to hunt/fish for your food to survive.

I agree with that but how does one rule out the notion that physics equations predict how every iota of reality will behave, including the electrons and neurotransmitters in our brains which, presumably, are that which makes the choices you mentioned?

In a world where everything can be predicted, there is no free will except that induced by ignorance of the future would make it seem like genuine free will.

But then again, doesn't the uncertainty principle imply that not everything can be predicted already, thus lending credibility to the notion of free will?

You say we can't fly. I know where you're coming from; indeed, I have never flown myself nor have I seen anyone fly. How do you rule out the possibility that this is either a dream or a simulation where the "rules" could change at any and in every instant? I know it sounds absurd, perhaps, but it's been bugging me how to rule this out. Not that I believe in everything I can't rule out, but it would be nice to rule it out. Anyways, if this is a dream, perhaps it is possibly to make it a lucid dream, take control, and fly away. :tongue2:

What you're saying is that we have limited free will. Some choices and some non-choices. I presume you'd say it's a non-choice whether we obey the laws of mathematics and physics and I would tend to agree. Billions of observers couldn't be wrong could they?

A while back I started a thread on destiny which is directly related to free will. My conclusion was also that we have limited free will. We can choose what to have for dinner (or at worst it's a damn good simulated freedom) but not choose what the solution to x+5=2x is (where all entities are real numbers and variables over the real numbers).
 
  • #6
570
4
Sabine said:
okay imparcticle i am looking forward to hear from u and i am ready to agree with u if u coninced me or to make ugree with me.

:smile: :smile: I'm glad you're looking forward to it. Me too. :smile:

Quite recently today I finished reading (well almost) a most excellent essay regarding free will. It is a logical analysis that is eye opening. It incorperated by own ideas of free will, so instead of me re-writing a summary of the essay and restating only what part was in common with my ideas, I think it is more efficient to have you read parts of the essay that I intend on highlighting. But if you want to read the whole thing, feel free: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm#intro


Consider the following two arguments. Argument 1 suggests free will is non existent and furthermore asserts all our actions are all due to natural conditions which induce us to do something.

We will begin with two views that are so antithetical to one another that we can properly speak of them as being paradoxical. The problem is that many persons find themselves inclined to subscribe to both views (or, more exactly, to the premises and conclusions of both of the following arguments).

Argument #1 – There is No Moral Responsibility
Premise 1: Every action is either caused or uncaused (i.e. a random occurrence).
Premise 2: If an action is caused (recall Darrow), then that action was not chosen freely and the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done.
Premise 3: If an action is uncaused (i.e. is a random occurrence), then the person who performed that action is not morally responsible for what he/she has done.

Thus: We are not morally responsible for what we do.

Argument #2 - Causal Determinism is a Necessary Condition
for Moral Responsibility
Premise 1: Unless there are extenuating circumstances, persons are (to be) held morally responsible for their actions.
Premise 2: Being unable reasonably to have foreseen the consequences of their actions is one such extenuating circumstance. (Recall that young children who cannot reasonably foresee the consequences of their actions are not to be held morally responsible for the consequences.)
Premise 3: In order to be able to anticipate or foresee the likely (or even the remotely likely) consequences of one's actions, the world must not be random, i.e. the world must be fairly regular (or causally determined).

Thus: Moral responsibility requires that there be causal determinism.




The conclusion of the Argument #2 can be put another way:
Causal determinism is [contrary to premise 2 of Argument #1] not only compatible with free will, it is a necessary condition of free will!
The 'logical tension' between these competing views is intolerable. There has to be some error somewhere in these two arguments.

My own view is that the error occurs in premise 2 of Argument #1. I will argue (below) that it is false that causal determinism makes free will nonexistent. (I will argue that both arguments are valid, but only the second is sound [i.e. all of its premises are true]. The first argument, while valid, has a false premise, thus making that argument unsound.)

After this the author spends quite some time discussing causal determinism with a few examples and eventually comes to the meaning of natural laws in the context of free will:

6.6 "The laws of nature are not of our choosing"
Recall the example (in Section 6.3) of John buying Claudia a bouquet of flowers. In discussing that example, I wrote:
There seems – in this account of the way the universe 'works' – to be no opportunity for the exercise of free choice. ... The Natural Laws are 'given' (i.e. not of our choosing); and the antecedent conditions, equally, are 'given' (i.e. not of our choosing). Our behavior is completely 'causally determined' by the laws of nature and antecedent conditions. There is no 'room', in this account ..., it would appear, for free choice.
I chose my words carefully. In the first sentence, I wrote "seems"; and in the last, "it would appear". For, on that earlier occasion, I wanted merely to present the argument; I did not want to endorse it, or to say that I thought the argument correct.

Indeed, I think that that earlier argument is mistaken. And we now have sufficient philosophical and logical tools to address the problem.

I want to suggest that the claim in that argument – the claim that the Laws of Nature are not of our choosing – is a relic of the earlier view that Laws of Nature are God's inviolable prescriptions to the Universe.

If we fully abandon the view that the Laws of Nature are prescriptions, then the way is open for us to rescue the theory that Free Will exists.
6.7 Do Laws of Nature Govern the Universe?
Three centuries ago, and indeed continuing right into the Nineteenth Century, the standard view of Laws of Nature was that they are edicts of God, and that just as His moral laws ought to guide our behavior, the laws of Nature do govern all of the universe. The behavior of everything in the universe – from the tiniest subatomic particle, through to single-celled creatures, and on to human beings, entire societies, planetary systems, galaxies, and finally clusters of galaxies – is governed by the Laws of Nature. That is, everything that happens in the universe (except perhaps for God's occasional miraculous interventions) accords with the Laws of Nature.

In my book, The Concept of Physical Law, and in a number of articles, I have tried to show that the supposed changeover, beginning in the late-nineteenth century, from the view that natural laws are prescriptions to the view that they are descriptions, was not carried through completely. Although a very great many persons say that they regard natural laws as nothing more than descriptions of the universe, they still harbor views that are appropriate only for a prescriptive theory.

One can find in the writing of many contemporary scientists and philosophers two claims which – I allege – are inconsistent with one another:
1. The laws of Nature are descriptions.
2. The laws of Nature govern the world (or, as it is sometimes expressed, whatever happens does so in accord with the laws of Nature).
There is something more than a little strange in these two views. The second would seem to be the proper companion to the view that laws of nature are prescriptions, not descriptions. How, we might ask, can a description govern the world?

Put another way, I think that the source of the problem of causal determinism and its supposed incompatibility with free will lies in the failure of many persons to fully shake off the historical view that laws of nature govern the world.

On a strictly descriptivist view, laws of nature do not govern the universe. To govern the universe, laws of nature would require unknown (dare I say, magical?) powers. Moreover, the view that laws of nature govern the universe turns the semantic theory of truth upside-down. It presupposes a theory which I think is, ultimately, unintelligible, namely an anti-Tarskian theory that propositions do not 'take their truth' from the way the world is, but rather 'impose' their truth on the world. We will do well to abandon this outmoded, supernatural, theory.

The way out of the puzzle about free will and causal determinism is to adopt a thoroughly modern view of natural laws, removed once and for all from its supernatural, theistic, origins.

and concludes.....

If, however, one adopts a thoroughgoing descriptive view of natural laws, the problem of free will does not even arise. On the view I am proposing, there simply is no problem of free will. We make choices – some trivial, such as to buy a newspaper; others, rather more consequential, such as to buy a home, or to get married, or to go to university, etc. – but these choices are not forced upon us by the laws of nature. Indeed, it is the other way round. Laws of nature are (a subclass of the) true descriptions of the world. Whatever happens in the world, there are true descriptions of those events. It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. You certainly don't get to choose the laws that describe the charge on an electron or the properties of hydrogen and oxygen that explain their combining to form water. But you do get to choose a great many other laws. How do you do that? Simply by doing whatever you do in fact do.

For example, if you were to choose(!) to raise your arm, then there would be a timelessly true universal description (let's call it "D4729") of what you have done. If, however, you were to choose not to raise your arm, then there would be a (different) timelessly true universal description (we can call it "D5322") of what you did (and D4729 would be timelessly false).

Contrary to the earlier claim – that the laws of nature are not of our choosing – I am here suggesting that a very great many laws of nature are of our choosing. But it's not that we reflect on choosing the laws. I don't wake up in the morning and ask myself "Which laws of nature will I create today?" No, it's rather that I ask myself, "What will I do today?", and in choosing to do some things rather than others, my actions – i.e. my choices – make certain propositions (including some universal statements containing no proper names) true and other propositions false.

SO sorry if that was long! :eek: I only have a little bit of my own to add on the following post. This one seems to be getting too long.
 
  • #7
570
4
Complexity, Self Organizing Systems, Chaos

I will make this succinct:

-From a simple set of rules, complexity arises.

- Once the system becomes more and more complex, it becomes random.

dictionary.com
random
1.) Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective
2.) Mathematics & Statistics: Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

- According to definition 1., a system with a random rate of progression has no pattern and its future state cannot be predicted. If it cannot be predicted, then what may happen in the future state of the system cannot be known--with 100% accuracy.

-According to definition 2., a system with a random rate of progression cannot have its future state be predicted with 100% accuracy, but however, it is possible for it to be "described by a probablity distribution". So, there is x% chance of P happening if Q happens and so on. That is, there is no pattern distinguishable from the basis on which the system (in this case our actions) evolves. If that's not clear either, this is what I mean: It is not possible for any system to evolve on a basis different from the original. For example, the evolution of the universe such that it is disorderly, but still is governed by the laws of nature; So laws are constant to a system regardless if it is random.


~~Thus, the future of a system which is random cannot be predicted definitely.

The universe, according to the accepted laws of thermodynamics, is in a state of entropy.

dictionary.com
entropy
A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

If the universe is deemed as being in a state of entropy, then it is a closed system.Therefore, if the universe is in a state of entropy, then it is in a state of randomness. As has already been established, any system which is random cannot be predicted because it evolves with no pattern. It is important to point out here the relationship between "being predicted" which is relative to humans and "having no pattern" which is definite for all reference frames.

dictionary.com
universe
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

IOW, universe=all that there is. This includes humans. If it includes humans, then it (the universe) includes our actions. If it includes our actions, then our actions are also contributors to the universes' state of entropy. If such is the case, then our actions are also random. If our actions are also random, then what we do next is random. Okay, recall what I said earlier:

"So, there is x% chance of P happening if Q happens and so on. That is, there is no pattern distinguishable from the basis on which the system (in this case our actions) evolves. If that's not clear either, this is what I mean: It is not possible for any system to evolve on a basis different from the original. For example, the evolution of the universe such that it is disorderly, but still is governed by the laws of nature; random laws do not randomly come out of no where. So laws are constant to a system."

The laws in the case of humanity are our instincts. They form the basis for our decisions, but DO NOT [DEFINITELY] DETERMINE THE OUTCOME. The outcome is random, and based on probability. Thus, what we decide to do is not neccesarily predictable. There is always a probability of our deciding something that is contrary to that which was predicted. And so we have the choice to go against a prediction.

Quantum physics supports this: To make this post short, I'll paraphrase from Einstein's famous quote "God doesn't play dice" and say "God does play dice." That is to say, in quantum physics, everything is random. In our case, our actions are also random (I have explained what I mean by that).

Now, Sabine, convince me otherwise. (THIS IS SO FUN. I hope you're having as much fun as I am. But I understand I wrote alot, so take your time in replying...I understand :redface: .) OKAY, now I'm done!!!!!!! :surprised :rofl: :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #8
570
4
phoenixthoth said:
I agree with that but how does one rule out the notion that physics equations predict how every iota of reality will behave, including the electrons and neurotransmitters in our brains which, presumably, are that which makes the choices you mentioned?

In a world where everything can be predicted, there is no free will except that induced by ignorance of the future would make it seem like genuine free will.

But then again, doesn't the uncertainty principle imply that not everything can be predicted already, thus lending credibility to the notion of free will?

You say we can't fly. I know where you're coming from; indeed, I have never flown myself nor have I seen anyone fly. How do you rule out the possibility that this is either a dream or a simulation where the "rules" could change at any and in every instant? I know it sounds absurd, perhaps, but it's been bugging me how to rule this out. Not that I believe in everything I can't rule out, but it would be nice to rule it out. Anyways, if this is a dream, perhaps it is possibly to make it a lucid dream, take control, and fly away. :tongue2:

What you're saying is that we have limited free will. Some choices and some non-choices. I presume you'd say it's a non-choice whether we obey the laws of mathematics and physics and I would tend to agree. Billions of observers couldn't be wrong could they?

A while back I started a thread on destiny which is directly related to free will. My conclusion was also that we have limited free will. We can choose what to have for dinner (or at worst it's a damn good simulated freedom) but not choose what the solution to x+5=2x is (where all entities are real numbers and variables over the real numbers).

read my 2nd post to this thread, and the 3rd quote about natural laws and free will. That'll answer your questions to some extent. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
imparticle, i think your posts and mine are conveying the same thing, but your explanation is much more scientific.

I agree with that but how does one rule out the notion that physics equations predict how every iota of reality will behave, including the electrons and neurotransmitters in our brains which, presumably, are that which makes the choices you mentioned?

the choices you make (here is where I am defining free will) are prior to how the brain will react or act in accordance to the choice/decision. how the electrons and neurotransmitters carry out the messages to the muscles is where the physical boundaries come in to play. our choices are reliant upon our muscles receiving those messages effectively, but the choice is still made.

it's like asking the question, does our biology rule us, or do we rule our biology?
 
  • #10
1,605
2
My assertions
In a world where everything can be predicted, there is no free will except that induced by ignorance of the future would make it seem like genuine free will.

But then again, doesn't the uncertainty principle imply that not everything can be predicted already, thus lending credibility to the notion of free will?

Seem to match in principle yours.

randomHaving no specific pattern, purpose, or objective
2.) Mathematics & Statistics: Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

I don't think 'random' has such a nice definition. Let me give you an example why I dislike definition 2.

Let's limit ourselves for the moment to sequences of real numbers and ask if the (infinite) strings are random or not. Definition 2 says that if a sequence can be described by a probability distribution, then it is random. Consider the following sequence:

{666, 666, 666, 666, 666, 666, 666...}

Just to be perfectly clear, each number in the sequence is 666. This can be described by the following probability distribution:

P(X=666)=1 and P(X=z) where z!=666 is 0.

This sequence, by the above definition (2), is a random sequence. But do I have free will if I always eat 666 potato chips (which is one of many interpretations for this sequence)?
 
  • #11
570
4
This definition is much more precise:

A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers. Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved for the output of unpredictable physical processes. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomNumber.html

The only thing I don't like about this definition is this part:
A random number is a number chosen as if by chance

because it suggests that the number is not neccesarily chosen by chance but only seems as it has been chosen by chance. do you agree? I am sure Dr.Wolfram (from whose website I retrieved the definition) worded this very carefully, and it may be that indeed this is what it not only suggests but defines it as. (meaning, a random number is not neccesarily chosen by chance).

This is the best definition I've been able to find thus far. Perhaps you might suggest one?

THANK YOU for pointing this issue out. I highly appreciate it.
 
  • #12
1,605
2
Imparcticle said:
This definition is much more precise:



The only thing I don't like about this definition is this part:


because it suggests that the number is not neccesarily chosen by chance but only seems as it has been chosen by chance. do you agree? I am sure Dr.Wolfram (from whose website I retrieved the definition) worded this very carefully, and it may be that indeed this is what it not only suggests but defines it as. (meaning, a random number is not neccesarily chosen by chance).

This is the best definition I've been able to find thus far. Perhaps you might suggest one?

THANK YOU for pointing this issue out. I highly appreciate it.


That is a definition for laymen. Hurkyl can help jog my memory but as far as I know there is not a definition of random that all technicians (mathematicians and other theorists) agree on yet. But the one I've heard is that a (possibly finite) sequence is random if it cannot be specified by a program or algorithm or function containing "considerably fewer" characters than the sequence itself. If the sequence is infinite, this means that it is random if it cannot be specified by a procedure of finite length. To me this in essense means that it is practical to predict the sequence (exactly).

The question then arises of how to prove a given sequence is random. To prove nonrandomness involves finding a formula for the n-th term in the sequence or at least a procedure for finding the n-th term. But to prove randomness would involve proving that no such formula exists. How does one do that??? The proof will have to encorperate the idea that it's not just that we aren't smart enough to find the procedure; there is none.

Then the question arises, since proving randomness is difficult, is whether there is anything that is random by this definition. As far as I know the only proof of this is nonconstructive; no known sequences are random but you can prove random sequences exist. And also that random sequences are as numerous as nonrandom ones.

The question with that definition is how does one check that definition? "as if"? Were these numbers chosen as if by chance or not:
{1, 23, 834,6238}? Well even if there is some formula for the nth term in that sequence (and there is), I did choose them by chance.
 
  • #13
570
4
{1, 23, 834,6238}? Well even if there is some formula for the nth term in that sequence (and there is), I did choose them by chance.

That depends on what you mean by chance.

Perhaps we might try working backwards; study the method for generating random numbers. For example, those suggested at this website seem to be a good place to start: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomNumber.html

(this is the same place I got that "laymen" definition from.. :tongue2: )
 
  • #14
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
I actually think that definition is derived from computer science. It is not a lay definition. A number is called random if it is generated by a random number generator, which is a machine programmed according to any of the methods suggested by that website. But if we had perfect knowledge of the program and the machine, as well as perfect computational ability, we would be able to perfectly predict the "random" number that is generated. The fact that we don't have any of these things makes the generated number appear random. In fact, the better definition of "random" in this case may very well be "any event that cannot be perfectly predicted from the knowledge of its cause" or something along those lines. "Cannot" here is in practice, not in principle. This definition is compatible with determinism in that a "random" number, as defined, can still be determined.
 
  • #15
570
4
Loseyourname: Wouldn't that definition go against the concept of random? You're asserting that the universe is deterministic, but not to us.
 
  • #16
Free Will is the ability to change things in our realm that may not otherwise be changed if Free Will where not in existence.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD
 
  • #17
92
0
It is the minds choosing that is random not the action

Imparcticle said:
I will make this succinct:
-From a simple set of rules, complexity arises.
- Once the system becomes more and more complex, it becomes random.
IOW, universe=all that there is. This includes humans. If it includes humans, then it (the universe) includes our actions. If it includes our actions, then our actions are also contributors to the universes' state of entropy.

IMPA, the set of rules is a setting/parameters for order. Complexity arising is a misleading or a misomer if the ability for it to arise are within the finite set of rules ergo within the sum-total order of physical and metaphysical Universe. E.g. a human/animal beomes more and more complex as it aquires more expreinces and the number of sensoral connection increase but all of that increasing complexity ability is inherent to its RNA-DNA complex.

Our random choosing of and action is limited to the set of rules and order of the metaphyscial and physical Unvierse. Rules allows "mind" ergo the rules allows limited choices by mind.

Sum-totally, entropy succumbs to metaphysical and physical order i.e. there is no universal random entropy beyond that of consciouness's limited choices to move(take action).

Chaos is superficial and local to metaphysical conscious mind accessing in that it is our inbility to find/see the overall order at to small (micro) or too large(macro) scope of events.

Rybo
 
  • #18
570
4
IMPA, the set of rules is a setting/parameters for order. Complexity arising is a misleading or a misomer if the ability for it to arise are within the finite set of rules ergo within the sum-total order of physical and metaphysical Universe. E.g. a human/animal beomes more and more complex as it aquires more expreinces and the number of sensoral connection increase but all of that increasing complexity ability is inherent to its RNA-DNA complex.

I'm not sure I completely understand what it is you are trying to convey; are you agreeing with complexity arising from a set of rules (NOT neccesarily finite) or what...?
 
  • #19
StatusX
Homework Helper
2,571
1
Just wondering: do you think you have to make a choice between universal laws of physics and free will, or can they coexist?

As the laws are now, I don't see any room for free will, in the strictest sense of the term. We're made of atoms that obey the laws of QM. There is a deterministic wave equation, but this only specifies the probabilities of certain events. So, yes, things can't be predicted exactly. But according to QM, they are random. That isn't "free", it's "random". Does anyone believe this is all true, but we still have free will? I agree we can make choices that couldn't have been predicted, but in what sense could they be considered in our control?
 
  • #20
92
0
Complexity Arising

Imparcticle said:
I'm not sure I completely understand what it is you are trying to convey; are you agreeing with complexity arising from a set of rules (NOT neccesarily finite) or what...?

Yes and no. There are eternal inviolate rules, cosmic laws/principles that set the parameters for all complex possiblities ergo there is only order of Unvierse, except for, human mind making random choice's and perhaps prime numbers.

The finite set of eternal rules is type A-) complexity and the most universal.

There are two or more types of numerical complexity but they all have too do with additional relationships.

Type-B) One type of complexity arises from the additon of more things ergo more relationships. E.g. Two points/nodes/vertexes have one relationship. Three points/nodes/vertexes have three relationships more. this is just more of the same.

Type-C) Another type of complexity arises when at four points we have a exponential(?) jump in the number of relationships in correspondence to the number of points i.e. at four points we have six relationships/lines. This is abreak from the foregoing pattern.

Type-D) complexity is that of the unpredicted whole by the sum of its parts a.k.a/ synergy. This type is somewhat a misomer because the if all aspects of type-A-Universal are known then teh whole is predictable but knobody knows it all. Some think they do but they dont.

The set of RNA-DNA has encoded within it a pre-set level of type A-) universal biologic complexity. The compleity ariseing in biologics from gestation to death is a limited exponential type-C numerical comlexity.

Hope my personal classifications/subcatgorizations help.

Rybo
 
  • #21
92
0
No free lunch Tanstafal(?)

StatusX said:
Just wondering: do you think you have to make a choice between universal laws of physics and free will, or can they coexist?
As the laws are now, I don't see any room for free will, in the strictest sense of the term. We're made of atoms that obey the laws of QM. There is a deterministic wave equation, but this only specifies the probabilities of certain events. So, yes, things can't be predicted exactly. But according to QM, they are random. That isn't "free", it's "random". Does anyone believe this is all true, but we still have free will? I agree we can make choices that couldn't have been predicted, but in what sense could they be considered in our control?

Stat, cosmic laws/principles allow for limited free will ergo limited random choices within limits of those laws.

Cosmic laws allow specified/steerability to limited ddgree of micro and macro motions ergo we choose to move our finger or one phton ergo free will provided the indiviudal has neccessary equipment/hadrware to do so. No guarrentees that any individual will have or ever aquire the euipment to make or direct/steer those motions.

Just because quantum mechanics only appears random to us does not mean that it is. I say that the cosmic law of "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" is indeed an inviolate eternally true, but, I and others may be wrong. BBang appears to violate that law.

Perhaps having full mental faculties i.e. access to mind, is the only free lunch for some humans and, that Universe exists, at all.

Rybo
 
  • #22
StatusX
Homework Helper
2,571
1
Rybo said:
Stat, cosmic laws/principles allow for limited free will ergo limited random choices within limits of those laws.

Cosmic laws allow specified/steerability to limited ddgree of micro and macro motions ergo we choose to move our finger or one phton ergo free will provided the indiviudal has neccessary equipment/hadrware to do so. No guarrentees that any individual will have or ever aquire the euipment to make or direct/steer those motions.

Just because quantum mechanics only appears random to us does not mean that it is. I say that the cosmic law of "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" is indeed an inviolate eternally true, but, I and others may be wrong. BBang appears to violate that law.

Perhaps having full mental faculties i.e. access to mind, is the only free lunch for some humans and, that Universe exists, at all.

Rybo

It's a little difficult to tell with that grandiose language, but I think your point is that quantum randomness isn't really random but is wiggle room for us to exercise control. Is this right?

This is commonly argued, but there are two problems I see with it. First of all, according to QM, it is random. If it isn't really random, the theory is wrong. This might seem like a technicality, but it's important, because the randomness is crucial to many assumptions in QM. There are experiments that have been performed to distinguish between true randomness and a "hidden variable theory", which is more or less what you're proposing, and randomness has won out so far. The second, as pointed out by Daniel Dennett, is that we have a belief that we are free, and our only real obligation is to find out why we have this belief. Quantum uncertainty allowing freedom does not explain the belief, it just allows for a possible way it could be correct. In other words, if there was another universe where there was no quantum uncertainty and it was undeniable that the world was deterministic, people would almost certainly still have the belief they were free.
 
  • #23
92
0
Order only ergo no quantum randomness or uncertainty

StatusX said:
It's a little difficult to tell with that grandiose language, but I think your point is that quantum randomness isn't really random but is wiggle room for us to exercise control. Is this right?
This is commonly argued, but there are two problems I see with it. First of all, according to QM, it is random. If it isn't really random, the theory is wrong. This might seem like a technicality, but it's important, because the randomness is crucial to many assumptions in QM. There are experiments that have been performed to distinguish between true randomness and a "hidden variable theory", which is more or less what you're proposing, and randomness has won out so far. The second, as pointed out by Daniel Dennett, is that we have a belief that we are free, and our only real obligation is to find out why we have this belief. Quantum uncertainty allowing freedom does not explain the belief, it just allows for a possible way it could be correct. In other words, if there was another universe where there was no quantum uncertainty and it was undeniable that the world was deterministic, people would almost certainly still have the belief they were free.

Stat, at some level/to some degree we yes, do steer photons, electrons etc....but I think we will never aquire the technology to ascertain gravitons ergo things at the planck scale or there abouts.

True that an inidviudal photon --and I suppose an electron in some manner and regardless of their wave-length-- in theory, can have a probability/uncertainty of being located anwhere in the whole of Universe until it is interfered with by another fermionic(?) particle, or set of particles that are then conveyed to us via marco-clusters of atoms, asa macro molecular instrument/meter.

I think there is a micro wiggle-room that we will not ever be able to ascertain, so yes, a hidden variable because, it is too small and perhaps because a fraction beyond our recgonized and accepted, speed of EM-Radiation.

Stat,
1) we have the appearance --if only superficially so-- of a non-physical(metaphysical) wave(probality/uncertainty) ergo for the most part an abstract mathematical construct. Is that close to correct description? Please clarify for if im off.

2) we have collection of particles --interering quantum hits at the electron level-- which collection, creates the metaphyscial(non-physical) wave-pattern.

Recently another posted a link saying that a that the wave-pattern can be ascertained via one individual photon --mybe otrher particles the same-- but im reluctant to accept that information until It can be explained to in a reasonable layperson way and enough otheer agree that it is true.

Im sorry but the latter half of your comments in relating uncertaingty and fredom are diffcult for me to understand i.e. do you think ther is no free will?

If so then please again explain what it is that all animals have some degree of "limited choice" abilites. I guess it is use of the uncertain principle that I find hard to relate to our macro experince of having limited choices.

As I state at the beginning above we I dont the think we will ba able to have planck scale --or even close-- steerabilty. That may be the crux of your aruement against free will. You call it quatum uncertainty I call it too small just beyond physics.

The latter meaning that, I think quasi-physical gravity is too small and just a fraction faster that radiation ergo it is not only directly related to radiations perceived speed.

I think gravity, in some manner I dont understaned yet, is EM-Radiation --the mysterious wave-patten-- but that quantum physics of Universe places a speed limit on our abilities ergo we are limited an not allowed to quantify gravity as gravitons but as clsuter of gravitons that recognize as a various frequencies of photonic radiation.

Oops, I may have gotten off subject, gone over-board and wrote too much info.

http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id11.html [Broken]

Rybo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
jammieg
I think I've got it now, "freewill" is to change what can't be changed.

Weird...we came up with the same definition or I forgot, I probably forgot I read it up top, anyway it seems like the true meaning of "freewill", most everything we find we can't do we eventually break the rules somehow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
71
0
well, I like to seperate everything into levels..

like level 1 is quantum mechanics, and level 2 is "our" level.
it all depends on if level 1 controls level 2, or vice versa..
for example, when i start my car, im activating all these electrons which makes up the car right.
now my car, me, my house, everything we see around us as things with meaning, is level 2.
now, the solution i like alot, is hard to explain, but i will try..

see at level 1, it can either be random or not, it doesn't matter.
it's what we experience at level 2, in our minds, that matter.
like you're at a restaurant with your wife, you're looking over the menu, you think "hmm shrimp sounds mightly delicious.. but i also want pork chop.. choices choices.."
at this level, i fully believe free will exists.
sure, everything we do is guided by this closed system we're in, we ARE the closed system for christs sake.
but the point is we have 2 choices in every situation. our most fundamental choice is whether to live or die..

there are so many gazillion sub atomic particles in the universe, it's ridiculous to think about, and at that point, everything is so complex, higher levels of complexity arise.
which is why everyone is morally and in every way responsible for their actions too..

think about it, every pattern in the universe is its own closed system, so a human is a closed system in itself.
which means the human is the only one making the decision.
you can't "blame" these actions on a deterministic system, simply because the person has emotions and thoughts that reflect what these actions consequences will be.

a better discussion would be, "are animals morally responsible for their actions?"
if so, are humans the only ones morally responsible?

bottom line for me: you can't make subjective viewpoints based on a quantum level we know very little about. we have no clue about this unceirtainty principle, at best, we know very little about anything.
as such, we need to stop thinking about it and see whats in front of us.
people have been held responsible for their actions since the dawn of time, is this a coincidence?
i think not. nature intended everyone to be responsible, and this is born into humans, we feel it and know it.
we know it because we have thoughts and emotions, and we know it because we have all felt guilty when we have hurt someone. we took responsibility ourselves.

now until i know more about the fundamental workings of the universe, im going to go with the simple humanistic view of free will; we have it, we are responsible, this is all i know.

just my 2 cents, cheers.
 

Related Threads on On free will:

  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
S
  • Last Post
4
Replies
95
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top