Are YOU the cause of anything?

[Inzababa]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

Then where does that leave free will?

The reason I ask, is because I sort of enjoyed thinking until now that when I chose to do something, I was the cause of that event.

Not the result of random interactions between 4 forces.

FYI (source and background)

This question is one that I hit on while discussing something else in this thread :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229555

The question arose from this post :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8068002#post8068002

In which, I quote :

what causes a chair to come into existence and to "then exist and continue to exist" are the composites / molecules / atoms and energy that it is made of.

In fact, all forces involved can be attributed to how these interact.

I can imagine you nodding your head while reading what is in bold here, and saying, "well that's true...."

Yes it is, I'm not disputing that.

However, there would be no chair of the sort without intelligent, creative design in the first place.

You need someone to make that chair, to have the idea to make that chair, to be creative to make that chair.

To disregard that influence, or "cause" of that event is to me, the equivalent of dis-regading me!

What I am, who I am, my free will, my independent of thought and action, the very fact that I may, on my own, of my own will, be the cause of any event.

Now you may call this mystical, but I don't see it as mystical. You may call this philosophical, I think philosophy is very concerned about this topic.

On the other hand, as pointed out in one of those posts that is buried in this thread, if something is true, then whether you approach the problem from a philosophical or physicist' perspective, the conlusions should converge.

There's no reason why a philosopher shouldn't or can't agree with a physicist and vice versa.

At the end of the day Myriad, if that's how you see the world, then your world contains no free will, no independent choice, and you, as a person, are the cause of nothing at all.

See what I mean?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

interactions are not random, and the question is more related to cognitive philosophy than to physics, in the end, the ego is an illusion, and so, no, no one causes anything, everything is nature going on

[Pulvinar]

Then where does that leave free will?

It leaves free will where it has always been: as an ill-defined concept.

We are free to choose in the general case, but not free in any specific case. A specific case will depend on everything we are and have learned right up to the moment of the decision. If repeated (assuming no new knowledge), we'd always make the same decision, or if there is a random component, the choice would be biased based on the percentage of randomness. The random portion can't be called our will.

Same can be said of a computer. A computer's jump instruction could jump or not depending on the jump condition. It's free to choose, as long as you don't specify a particular instance.

[Stomatopoda]

Without time travel, how could we ever test for the existence of free will? (honest question-- I really don't know)

[WhatRoughBeast]

Well, when you say "I", exactly what are you talking about? From the materialist/4 forces point of view, "you" are a pattern of firing synapses which sort of slosh around in your brain. This expression of an intricate and baroquely intertwined neural net is actually fairly noisy. Some of this noise is genuinely unpredictable (at least for all practical terms) and some is so complexly patterned as to be the next best thing to unpredictable.

So the pattern of responses that is "you" is, at least, effectively non-deterministic. Is that good enough?

[epepke]

Quite a dull question. "Free will" is an incoherent concept. People only like it because it lets them have fun punishing them for doing something they don't like.

"I" is probably an incoherent concept as well, but it can be handy.

[WhatRoughBeast]

"I" is probably an incoherent concept as well, but it can be handy.

Yeah. Without it, whom should I say is calling?

[Complexity]

There is no such thing as 'free will'.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To clarify: Libertarian free will is an incoherent concept. At least, no one so far has been able to make it cohere in my mind.

Compatibilist free will is coherent, I guess, but not very interesting.

~~ Paul

[quarky]

Cool.

A double spoiler tags.
Not sure I've seen that before.

Oddly enough, even Free Willy wasn't very free.

[Inzababa]

interactions are not random, and the question is more related to cognitive philosophy than to physics, in the end, the ego is an illusion, and so, no, no one causes anything, everything is nature going on

That's an argument (the first prt of your phrase) I thought of already.

Would you not agree that if philosophy concluded anything that is true and/or physics concluded anything that is true, it should in theory be possible to explain and describe that truth in either field?

With regards to your conclusion, do I interpret it correctly as being :

"there is no free will or independent choice"?

[Inzababa]

It leaves free will where it has always been: as an ill-defined concept.

We are free to choose in the general case, but not free in any specific case. A specific case will depend on everything we are and have learned right up to the moment of the decision. If repeated (assuming no new knowledge), we'd always make the same decision, or if there is a random component, the choice would be biased based on the percentage of randomness. The random portion can't be called our will.

Same can be said of a computer. A computer's jump instruction could jump or not depending on the jump condition. It's free to choose, as long as you don't specify a particular instance.

So if I choose to smash my screen by punching it right now, that will not be my choice but a consequence of the context I am in, biological history and so on?

That's the conclusion I came to when imagining a physicist's perspective on the question :

there is no free will, we do not make our own choices.

Feels very wrong though.

At any rate, if it were true, wouldn't the behaviour of anyone be predictable?

Or is it only unpredictable because we do not have the scientific and material capacity to predict such a complex system with so many variables etc?

[Inzababa]

Without time travel, how could we ever test for the existence of free will? (honest question-- I really don't know)

I don't know / don't understand what you mean?

[Inzababa]

Well, when you say "I", exactly what are you talking about? From the materialist/4 forces point of view, "you" are a pattern of firing synapses which sort of slosh around in your brain. This expression of an intricate and baroquely intertwined neural net is actually fairly noisy. Some of this noise is genuinely unpredictable (at least for all practical terms) and some is so complexly patterned as to be the next best thing to unpredictable.

So the pattern of responses that is "you" is, at least, effectively non-deterministic. Is that good enough?

Yup, as far as I understand it, same answer as the 3 previous posts right?

The only reason our behaviour is non-deterministic is because it is unpredictable (at least for all practical terms).

Not because you (however you wish to define yourself) are the source of any kind of choice or decision.

[Inzababa]

Quite a dull question. "Free will" is an incoherent concept. People only like it because it lets them have fun punishing them for doing something they don't like.

"I" is probably an incoherent concept as well, but it can be handy.

I always wonder why people take the time to answer dull questions oO

I mean, I consider counting matches in a match box quite dull and pointless. So I don't spend any time doing it, know what I mean ? ;)

[Inzababa]

Yeah. Without it, whom should I say is calling?

well, who is it that exists when you think? ((c) Descartes limited)

[Inzababa]

There is no such thing as 'free will'.

I'm not disagreeing, but you might want to let people know about this.

I mean, most people I talk to aren't aware of it and I'm not sure that's what they teach in school.

[Inzababa]

To clarify: Libertarian free will is an incoherent concept. At least, no one so far has been able to make it cohere in my mind.

Compatibilist free will is coherent, I guess, but not very interesting.

~~ Paul

never heard of it, so looked it up :

ompatibilists argue that determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals' wills are the result of their own desires and are not overridden by some external force.[18][29] To be a compatibilist, one need not endorse any particular conception of free will, but only deny that determinism is at odds with free will.[30]

interesting.

by the way, I was using the term "free will" in the common language sense.

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

source : http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/free%2Bwill?q=free+will

though I suppose "fate" in the context here would be equated to "determinism"

[Inzababa]

Cool.

A double spoiler tags.
Not sure I've seen that before.

Oddly enough, even Free Willy wasn't very free.

you can make triple !

it's not that hard

is cooler than a double one

and if you've never seen a double one

I'm pretty sure you've never seen a quadruple one ;)

learn something new every day

huh? :)

[Inzababa]

By the way, what's incoherent about it?

[WhatRoughBeast]

The only reason our behaviour is non-deterministic is because it is unpredictable (at least for all practical terms).

Not because you (however you wish to define yourself) are the source of any kind of choice or decision.

If we do not have free will, then our actions are in some sense predetermined - that is, deterministic. If our actions are non-deterministic, then why don't we exhibit free will? Note the choice of words - I did not say that we _have free will_, since I do not consider it useful to conceptualize such ideas as things.

It seems to me that, if you grant behavior is non-deterministic, this fulfills the working definition of free will - that behavior is not predetermined. And if you note my description of personality / consciousness, since the pattern of neural activity is self-modifying, it can indeed be said to provide the source of its own choices.

[Aepervius]

So if I choose to smash my screen by punching it right now, that will not be my choice but a consequence of the context I am in, biological history and so on?

That's the conclusion I came to when imagining a physicist's perspective on the question :

there is no free will, we do not make our own choices.

Feels very wrong though.

At any rate, if it were true, wouldn't the behaviour of anyone be predictable?

Or is it only unpredictable because we do not have the scientific and material capacity to predict such a complex system with so many variables etc?

No because the system is very complicated, and as it is now, not simulable at least due to the size of it. You would be able to predict rough behavior tough, and it is called psychology, psychiatry and marketing.

[Aepervius]

I don't know / don't understand what you mean?

How do you know you have a free will ? Because you trhink you have a choice ? But how do YOU know you REALLY have a choice ? If you cannot repeat the experiment by time travelling, aka putting you yourself in the same situation with the same brain patern of neurone and status and getting a different choice ?

See as we see it as the moment, it is the potential of each neurone and its activation which lead us to do an action or another. But that potential is chemically set. There is nothing external changing it at each moment. So if you are in a position to choose something, say between 1 box elft 1 box right when asked, izt is as our udnerstanding goes, the potential in those enuron which will elad you to choose right. And if placed in the same situation with the SAME neuron potential, you would always choose right. Aka no free will. But you will have had the illusion of a choice because your cascading neuron potential and activation led to only 1 solution.

Now if you pretend you have a choice and you would "choose" differentely by whatever mechanism, the only way to truly test this is time travel by putting your brain into the same potential enuron to see if the cascading goes differentely. SEQUENTIAL different choice does not say you can choose, it only says your cascading neuron activation lead to different solution sequentially.

Thus the qip about time travel.

[quarky]

you can make triple !

it's not that hard

is cooler than a double one

and if you've never seen a double one

I'm pretty sure you've never seen a quadruple one ;)

learn something new every day

huh? :)

OMG!

(Sound of my head assploding)

[JJM 777]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

Then where does that leave free will?
That leaves free will as a specific case of the 4 fundamental forces in action.

If there is more to free will than that, still to science it looks like free will operates through the 4 fundamental forces, as long as we are unable to detect and measure the impact of free will apart from the 4 fundamental forces.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

We already directed you to philosophical discussion of what "cause" means, but yes, in some sense they are the cause of all events in the universe that we know anything about. We just don't know what the cause of the Big Bang was, for example.


Then where does that leave free will?

It leaves it as an incoherent folk notion, where it always was.


The reason I ask, is because I sort of enjoyed thinking until now that when I chose to do something, I was the cause of that event.

Review the content I directed you to earlier about the various definitions of cause. You are the cause of the events you mediate in one sense, just as the four forces are the cause in a different sense. Stressing about whether you cause things is rather pointless. You do in one sense, you don't in another sense, and if you don't have free will there's no sense in wasting time worrying about whether you have free will.

[Pulvinar]

So if I choose to smash my screen by punching it right now, that will not be my choice but a consequence of the context I am in, biological history and so on?
It's determined, but it's still your choice. If you make the wrong choice (by whatever criteria), then it's your rules that need to change.

Again, same with a computer-- if it makes the wrong choice due to a program bug, you shouldn't just shrug and call it inevitable, you fix the program.

That's the conclusion I came to when imagining a physicist's perspective on the question :

there is no free will, we do not make our own choices.

Feels very wrong though.
That's the wrong conclusion to draw. We do make our own choices. A computer makes it's own choices too. The computer may learned (usually through programming) to make a particular choice in a particular case. Likewise for us in following the rules we've learned. Note that the rule we may follow in a particular case isn't necessarily a "good" rule in the usual sense, but it's the one that wins the competition at that moment.

At any rate, if it were true, wouldn't the behaviour of anyone be predictable?

Or is it only unpredictable because we do not have the scientific and material capacity to predict such a complex system with so many variables etc?
Our behavior can be surprisingly predictable. This becomes clear with those who've had memory damage. They'll keep repeating the same question as soon as they forget they've asked it. Normally people are continually learning (while conscious) and thus their rules are ever-changing.

[Inzababa]

If we do not have free will, then our actions are in some sense predetermined - that is, deterministic. If our actions are non-deterministic, then why don't we exhibit free will? Note the choice of words - I did not say that we _have free will_, since I do not consider it useful to conceptualize such ideas as things.

It seems to me that, if you grant behavior is non-deterministic, this fulfills the working definition of free will - that behavior is not predetermined. And if you note my description of personality / consciousness, since the pattern of neural activity is self-modifying, it can indeed be said to provide the source of its own choices.

I noted your choice of words, and in doing so, looked more closely at mine, and realised I hadn't chosen mine very well.

So the following phrase which I wrote :

"The only reason our behaviour is non-deterministic is because it is unpredictable"

is mis leading (I think).

Should have said :

"because no one is able or can even conceptualise that it is possible to predict behaviour, this means that we are unable to pre determine anyone's behaviour."

however, it does not mean that behaviour isn't pre-determined, it simply means that we are unable to determine it.

I'm wondering : "why do you say we do not exhibit free will"?

with regards to your second phrase (It seems to me that, if you grant behavior is non-deterministic, this fulfills the working definition of free will - that behavior is not predetermined. And if you note my description of personality / consciousness, since the pattern of neural activity is self-modifying, it can indeed be said to provide the source of its own choices.) this simply defines "compatibilist free will" right?

Anyway, if you grant behaviour is non-deterministic, does this imply that it is necessarily either random or "designed"?

[Inzababa]

No because the system is very complicated, and as it is now, not simulable at least due to the size of it. You would be able to predict rough behavior tough, and it is called psychology, psychiatry and marketing.

right, so it's predictable in theory, simply to complicated for us to predict.

correct?

[Inzababa]

(1) How do you know you have a free will ? Because you trhink you have a choice ? But how do YOU know you REALLY have a choice ? If you cannot repeat the experiment by time travelling, aka putting you yourself in the same situation with the same brain patern of neurone and status and getting a different choice ?

(2) See as we see it as the moment, it is the potential of each neurone and its activation which lead us to do an action or another. But that potential is chemically set. There is nothing external changing it at each moment. So if you are in a position to choose something, say between 1 box elft 1 box right when asked, izt is as our udnerstanding goes, the potential in those enuron which will elad you to choose right. And if placed in the same situation with the SAME neuron potential, you would always choose right. Aka no free will. But you will have had the illusion of a choice because your cascading neuron potential and activation led to only 1 solution.

(3)
Now if you pretend you have a choice and you would "choose" differentely by whatever mechanism, the only way to truly test this is time travel by putting your brain into the same potential enuron to see if the cascading goes differentely. SEQUENTIAL different choice does not say you can choose, it only says your cascading neuron activation lead to different solution sequentially.

Thus the qip about time travel.

(1)
ok I understand that. What you're saying is that it is not possible to verify this empirically (for example, in a "controlled environment") because as soon as any measure of time has passed, it simply will not be possible to reproduce the same state of anything that is relevant to the question.


(2)

Think I understand that, it's almost the same thing : if every single physical entity and force were reproduced in an identical way (from atoms to neurons to energy levels in synapses to the boxes left and right etc) you would make the same choice, but you can't prove that empirically, because it isn't possible to reproduce this in this way.

Correct?

(3)
Think that's the same argument right? It isn't possible to reproduce the state of everything (including neurons etc) in exactly the same state.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

Then where does that leave free will?

That leaves free will as a specific case of the 4 fundamental forces in action.

If there is more to free will than that, still to science it looks like free will operates through the 4 fundamental forces, as long as we are unable to detect and measure the impact of free will apart from the 4 fundamental forces.



Specific case, which, as explained by Aepervius, and pointed out by Stomatopoda, is impossible to reproduce without time travel.

Therefore making it impossible to "prove" empirically". Right?

Even if it were possible for us to reproduce everything we know of, since we don't even know of everything, we'd probably leave out stuff that may have an influence anyway.

Think I understand (this'll be confirmed when anyone simply says "yup, taht's it")

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

We already directed you to philosophical discussion of what "cause" means, but yes, in some sense they are the cause of all events in the universe that we know anything about. We just don't know what the cause of the Big Bang was, for example.



Please don't merge topics and issues, this "thread" is independent, otherwise I would have posted it in the other thread.

Your phrase is contradictory by the way, would you agree to this?

"We DO know what the cause of the Big Bang was, we simply can't determine in what way these causes interacted and/or "worked" ".

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
So if I choose to smash my screen by punching it right now, that will not be my choice but a consequence of the context I am in, biological history and so on?
It's determined, but it's still your choice. If you make the wrong choice (by whatever criteria), then it's your rules that need to change.

Again, same with a computer-- if it makes the wrong choice due to a program bug, you shouldn't just shrug and call it inevitable, you fix the program.


Yeah, but for you to fix a computer's program requires outside intervention (you intervening in the computer's program).

Whereas what you're implying is that I can fix my own "program" so to speak?

Quote:
That's the conclusion I came to when imagining a physicist's perspective on the question :

there is no free will, we do not make our own choices.

Feels very wrong though.

That's the wrong conclusion to draw


Good, I was hoping it was wrong :)

We do make our own choices. A computer makes it's own choices too. The computer may learned (usually through programming) to make a particular choice in a particular case. Likewise for us in following the rules we've learned. Note that the rule we may follow in a particular case isn't necessarily a "good" rule in the usual sense, but it's the one that wins the competition at that moment.

In this sense, fundamentally, what you're saying is that there is no difference (at least in terms of principles and/or process) with regards to how a computer makes decision and how we make decisions.

Right?

Quote:
At any rate, if it were true, wouldn't the behaviour of anyone be predictable?

Or is it only unpredictable because we do not have the scientific and material capacity to predict such a complex system with so many variables etc?

Our behavior can be surprisingly predictable. This becomes clear with those who've had memory damage. They'll keep repeating the same question as soon as they forget they've asked it. Normally people are continually learning (while conscious) and thus their rules are ever-changing.


That's a great example, although I can think of cases in which the same event is repeated for different reasons which may be unknown to the observer.

I'd take the view that it wouldn't be possible to prove this empirically (as expressed in above posts) because, for a start, by definition, we do not have the capacity to reproduce every single potential influence and state.

I'm thinking that Economists thought that our behaviour would be predictable, and built economic models which don't work because they failed in predicting our behaviour.

(which does not mean that our behaviour can't be predicted theoretically, simply that they were/are unable to do so)

[Complexity]

I'm not disagreeing, but you might want to let people know about this.

I mean, most people I talk to aren't aware of it and I'm not sure that's what they teach in school.


Each person is responsible for their own education - schooling is only the beginning, and everything that is taught in school should be regarded skeptically.

[Inzababa]

Each person is responsible for their own education - schooling is only the beginning, and everything that is taught in school should be regarded skeptically.

well the way I see it, responsibility requires freedom.

I can't be deemed or judged responsible for anything which is pre determined, can I?

I can't be responsible for any even which I am not the cause of.

Can I?

One more time, I'm not disagreeing and I'm not rejecting the idea that "freedom of will" doesn't exist, that there is no such thing as "free will".

However, I'd like to point out that if that were true, it does have dramatic consequences, at least on how I see the world and how I see it and the societies we live in operate.

Which, I agree, hasn't much to do with physics.

On the other hand, considering that physics comes in the first place from "us", then all of it is pre determined as well if "we" have or don't exhibit free will.

Computers running a program.

Any computer which does this can not be judged for anything that it does, including if it is wrong, whatever it does wrong is only a question of its programming, no judgement whatsoever on "what" it is, no blame whatsoever, and therefore, no responsibility.

[Pulvinar]

Yeah, but for you to fix a computer's program requires outside intervention (you intervening in the computer's program).

Whereas what you're implying is that I can fix my own "program" so to speak?
It depends on the program. If it's a more complex AI program, the rules it follows aren't hard-coded, but in the data it learns, so it should learn to improve those rules.


In this sense, fundamentally, what you're saying is that there is no difference (at least in terms of principles and/or process) with regards to how a computer makes decision and how we make decisions.

Right?

Yup, taht's it.

That's a great example, although I can think of cases in which the same event is repeated for different reasons which may be unknown to the observer.

I'd take the view that it wouldn't be possible to prove this empirically (as expressed in above posts) because, for a start, by definition, we do not have the capacity to reproduce every single potential influence and state.

I'm thinking that Economists thought that our behaviour would be predictable, and built economic models which don't work because they failed in predicting our behaviour.

(which does not mean that our behaviour can't be predicted theoretically, simply that they were/are unable to do so)
Right, the general case is far too difficult for us to predict with our limited knowledge.

[psionl0]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe. ...You seem to be taking that for a foregone conclusion.

There is a significant random component that governs particle behaviour at the quantum level so the universe can't be said to be deterministic. (Reset the clock and the random component will ensure that the universe turns out differently).

More importantly, the random component really means that there is a lot governing particle behaviour at the quantum level that we know nothing about. Who knows what forces are lurking around in there?

I don't want to get too imaginative here but it is entirely possible that there is a part of a human being that exists independently of his or her environment.

[Pulvinar]

Any computer which does this can not be judged for anything that it does, including if it is wrong, whatever it does wrong is only a question of its programming, no judgement whatsoever on "what" it is, no blame whatsoever, and therefore, no responsibility.

Theoretically you could chase the trail of blame back up the causal chain (for both computers and humans) back to the Big Bang. That's pointless though-- the useful thing to do is to figure out what can be fixed and fix it. If it's a simple computer program, both the program and the programmer's methods may need fixing. If it's a person stealing, both that person and the society they live in may need fixing.

Every step in a causal chain is responsible for the outcome-- none should get absolved of blame.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Yeah, but for you to fix a computer's program requires outside intervention (you intervening in the computer's program).

Whereas what you're implying is that I can fix my own "program" so to speak?

It depends on the program. If it's a more complex AI program, the rules it follows aren't hard-coded, but in the data it learns, so it should learn to improve those rules.


ok, as also confirmed by your other reply :

Quote:
In this sense, fundamentally, what you're saying is that there is no difference (at least in terms of principles and/or process) with regards to how a computer makes decision and how we make decisions.

Right?
Yup, taht's it.

Quote:
That's a great example, although I can think of cases in which the same event is repeated for different reasons which may be unknown to the observer.

I'd take the view that it wouldn't be possible to prove this empirically (as expressed in above posts) because, for a start, by definition, we do not have the capacity to reproduce every single potential influence and state.

I'm thinking that Economists thought that our behaviour would be predictable, and built economic models which don't work because they failed in predicting our behaviour.

(which does not mean that our behaviour can't be predicted theoretically, simply that they were/are unable to do so)

Right, the general case is far too difficult for us to predict with our limited knowledge.


Which ties back to the point that :

simply because we do not have the capacity or capability to predict does not mean it is not predictable in theory.

and your point of view is that it is predictable in theory ie : pre determined.

got it :)

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe. ...

You seem to be taking that for a foregone conclusion.

There is a significant random component that governs particle behaviour at the quantum level so the universe can't be said to be deterministic. (Reset the clock and the random component will ensure that the universe turns out differently).

More importantly, the random component really means that there is a lot governing particle behaviour at the quantum level that we know nothing about. Who knows what forces are lurking around in there?

I don't want to get too imaginative here but it is entirely possible that there is a part of a human being that exists independently of his or her environment.

Actually, I took that, not as a foregone conclusion, but as a starting assumption.

Which resulted (as you clearly saw) in the reasoning that there was nothing random about my behaviour, but which also implied that there was nothing random in the universe.

Whatever we "called" random was simply (in the same way as our behaviour) "to complex to predict".

There is a significant random component that governs particle behaviour at the quantum level so the universe can't be said to be deterministic. (Reset the clock and the random component will ensure that the universe turns out differently).

I didn't think of that, and never heard of it, would you mind explaining this (and if not, linking something somewhere else where I can read up on it?)

More importantly, the random component really means that there is a lot governing particle behaviour at the quantum level that we know nothing about. Who knows what forces are lurking around in there?

So to say that "those 4 forces are the cause of all events in the universe" is wrong according to you right?

I don't want to get too imaginative here but it is entirely possible that there is a part of a human being that exists independently of his or her environment

ok, without getting too imaginative, what makes you think that? How to you reach that "conceptual possibility"?

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Any computer which does this can not be judged for anything that it does, including if it is wrong, whatever it does wrong is only a question of its programming, no judgement whatsoever on "what" it is, no blame whatsoever, and therefore, no responsibility.

Theoretically you could chase the trail of blame back up the causal chain (for both computers and humans) back to the Big Bang. That's pointless though-- the useful thing to do is to figure out what can be fixed and fix it. If it's a simple computer program, both the program and the programmer's methods may need fixing. If it's a person stealing, both that person and the society they live in may need fixing.

Every step in a causal chain is responsible for the outcome-- none should get absolved of blame.


You'd think court of laws would apply this wouldn't you?

(again, I'm not implying in an ironic way that what you say is wrong, what I'm implying is that if you are right, then court of laws are wrong).

You took a similar example ; if it's a person stealing, would it not change a lot of things if society approached the issue with the attitude that that person "needed fixing"?

Every step in a causal chain is responsible for the outcome-- none should get absolved of blame.

Well the thing is, if it's pre determined, there is nothing else that link in the chain could possibly do, so how could it be blamed for anything ?

When you align lots of dominoes, then knock the first one over :

a) none of the "dominoes" can be blamed for falling over when pushed

can they?

b) if a domino were not to fall properly and therefore break the chain of dominoes

how could you blame "it"? You'd have to blame whatever or whoever put it in that position wouldn't you? Cause as far as it's concerned, it (the domino lol) simply can not do anything else.

So in both cases, it's not the domino you blame, or what the domino does, but whatever or whoever set up the dominoes in the first place.

And since "no one" set up the universe, and since "we" are simply (metaphorically speaking) dominoes, no one can be blamed for anything.

Can they?

Or did I mis interpret what you said?

[Pulvinar]

You'd think court of laws would apply this wouldn't you?

(again, I'm not implying in an ironic way that what you say is wrong, what I'm implying is that if you are right, then court of laws are wrong).

You took a similar example ; if it's a person stealing, would it not change a lot of things if society approached the issue with the attitude that that person "needed fixing"?
That's what most societies do already. We don't call it "fixing", of course, but the intention is the same: to change the person's internal rules so they no longer steal. Society also takes a look at what causes people to turn to crime and attempts to change that too.

Well the thing is, if it's pre determined, there is nothing else that link in the chain could possibly do, so how could it be blamed for anything ?

When you align lots of dominoes, then knock the first one over :

a) none of the "dominoes" can be blamed for falling over when pushed

can they?

b) if a domino were not to fall properly and therefore break the chain of dominoes

how could you blame "it"? You'd have to blame whatever or whoever put it in that position wouldn't you? Cause as far as it's concerned, it (the domino lol) simply can not do anything else.

Remove any domino and you'll find that the last domino (the result) is no longer reached. This proves that each domino is equally to blame for the result.



So in both cases, it's not the domino you blame, or what the domino does, but whatever or whoever set up the dominoes in the first place.

And since "no one" set up the universe, and since "we" are simply (metaphorically speaking) dominoes, no one can be blamed for anything.

Can they?

Or did I mis interpret what you said?
That's the problem with equating "first cause" with "blame": it's useless. Much more useful to blame the entire chain, and thus fix what links can be fixed.

[JJM 777]

Reason trumps education any time
Not true.

Without any education, you wouldn't have invented even the wheel yet in your life, nor discovered fire.

Most of our capabilities are based on information taught to us by others, not on our own bright reasoning.

[Inzababa]

That's what most societies do already. We don't call it "fixing", of course, but the intention is the same: to change the person's internal rules so they no longer steal. Society also takes a look at what causes people to turn to crime and attempts to change that too.

ok, but when I studied Law in England at university, that's not at all how it was "presented" so to speak.

A lot of the "offenders" were / are put away in order to exclude them from society, rather than "fix them", although, this is now turning towards social science, apologies :)

Remove any domino and you'll find that the last domino (the result) is no longer reached. This proves that each domino is equally to blame for the result.

I almost agree.

To be specific, I agree with your first sentence, not with the second.

With regards to the second, it's not "the domino" that is equally to blame, but whoever or whatever put it there.

That may seem or sound insignificant, but from my point of view, nothing could be more crucial, since the "blame" is not directed to the entity "domino" which is and only does according to how it is determined to be and do.

Would you agree with that?

That's the problem with equating "first cause" with "blame": it's useless. Much more useful to blame the entire chain, and thus fix what links can be fixed.

Good point, in which case, in this example, we would call the entire chain :

Domino Chain.

And blame that for being badly "constructed" right?

[Inzababa]

Not true.

Without any education, you wouldn't have invented even the wheel yet in your life, nor discovered fire.

Most of our capabilities are based on information taught to us by others, not on our own bright reasoning.

lol I'm happy to discuss my signature, I'd rather not do it in this thread though ;)

Can I suggest :

pm

or

start another thread in some off topic part of the forum?

And I'll reply there (and would also be honoured lol)

[psionl0]

Actually, I took that, not as a foregone conclusion, but as a starting assumption.

Which resulted (as you clearly saw) in the reasoning that there was nothing random about my behaviour, but which also implied that there was nothing random in the universe.

Whatever we "called" random was simply (in the same way as our behaviour) "to complex to predict".Yes, but this is assuming that we are the sum total of our environment.

I didn't think of that, and never heard of it, would you mind explaining this (and if not, linking something somewhere else where I can read up on it?)I vaguely remember reading discussions about this in the past but I don't have a specific reference. All I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that if a certain event in time were repeated that the outcome would be the same - just like a coin toss (random factors).

So to say that "those 4 forces are the cause of all events in the universe" is wrong according to you right?I don't think that has been proven to a mathematical certainty but that doesn't mean it is wrong. Of course, there could be an element of trying to disprove a negative about this.

ok, without getting too imaginative, what makes you think that? How to you reach that "conceptual possibility"?There is a lot more about the universe that we don't know about than we do, so don't limit yourself to the idea that we are nothing but the product of our environment.

To answer your original question, if we are controlled by the state of the universe then there is no such thing as free will, love, hate, life, death etc. The universe is just a machine running through its motions (with some random outcomes here and there). The universe would effectively be just a simulation.

[Wowbagger]

All of these statements about "Free Will" being an illusion or an ill-defined concept tell us a LOT more about the limits of the person making that statement, than it tells us about the nature of "Free Will".

The more interesting question is: How does our Sensation of "Free Will" come about? This question can eventually be answered, regardless of whether Free Will really does exist (that is: we have a genuine opportunity to make decisions and effect the world; and make choices at least some-what independently of whatever else goes on in the Universe) OR it is merely all an elaborate illusion (implying all of our "decisions" are entirely pre-determined). OR, anywhere between those two extremes.

I suspect there could be some ways a genuine form of Free Will could exist. Of course, these are hypothetical processes, and may or may not actually happen. But, if we CAN come up with at least one way Free Will could actually exist, then it would be stupid to claim "Free Will is an Illusion" until we get to the bottom of whether these processes happen, or not.

Here are at least two leads on the subject, that I can think of:

Idea #1:
One way I outline in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212683 , though I may have to rewrite it, again, for clarity. I called it "The Brain Buffer Conjecture". It talks about how the sensation of the mind being separate from the body could be a consequence of different parts of the brain acting independently from other parts, for small amounts of time. And, a consequence of this could also yield a genuine opportunity for free decision making or "will"; because it would ALSO be acting at least some-what independently of the rest of the Universe, for small amounts of time, as well.

Idea #2:
I am no longer the champion of promoting quantum uncertainty as a factor in mental processing, that I used to be. But, I am also not quick to entirely rule it out, yet, either. If there are genuinely non-predetermined aspects of the Universe, (even if they are very small, and tend to "smear out" in the larger world): That does NOT mean there could NEVER be some way for our brains to utilize that, as a source of Free Will, somehow.

Again, these may or may not be correct. But, it is foolish to assume "Free Will" MUST be non-existent. We CAN construct ways for it to be real.

And, even if it turns out that it is all an illusion, it would be very interesting to learn how that illusion happens.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Actually, I took that, not as a foregone conclusion, but as a starting assumption.

Which resulted (as you clearly saw) in the reasoning that there was nothing random about my behaviour, but which also implied that there was nothing random in the universe.

Whatever we "called" random was simply (in the same way as our behaviour) "to complex to predict".
Yes, but this is assuming that we are the sum total of our environment.


I think I agree with you on that too, but am not sure. What do you mean?

Originally Posted by Inzababa
I didn't think of that, and never heard of it, would you mind explaining this (and if not, linking something somewhere else where I can read up on it?)

I vaguely remember reading discussions about this in the past but I don't have a specific reference. All I am saying is that there is no reason to believe that if a certain event in time were repeated that the outcome would be the same - just like a coin toss (random factors).

All right, then the only thing I can hold on to is that you say someone said "randomness" being generally accepted by the scientific community "in the universe".

Which, without meaning to take sides or support one argument over the other, contradicts other things which have been said in this thread.

I'll look it up though :)

("google random theory science universe determinism" or something like that)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
So to say that "those 4 forces are the cause of all events in the universe" is wrong according to you right?
I don't think that has been proven to a mathematical certainty but that doesn't mean it is wrong. Of course, there could be an element of trying to disprove a negative about this.


what do you mean?

Originally Posted by Inzababa
ok, without getting too imaginative, what makes you think that? How to you reach that "conceptual possibility"?
There is a lot more about the universe that we don't know about than we do, so don't limit yourself to the idea that we are nothing but the product of our environment.


I'm not, personally I mean. However in this thread, I'm trying to "fit" to different kinds of reasoning.

In this thread, I'm "assuming" the position that has been explained to me by other people as I understand it. Does that make sense?

To answer your original question, if we are controlled by the state of the universe then there is no such thing as free will, love, hate, life, death etc. The universe is just a machine running through its motions (with some random outcomes here and there). The universe would effectively be just a simulation.

Well, couldn't you say that emotions, love, hate etc can be determined as well?

As a matter of fact, I'd say that many of the "symptoms" (or effects) that someone shows when he feels love or hate can be reproduced easily and observed almost scientifically.

Which would mean that the behaviour that someone shows once he feels love or hate can be artificially "caused" (just for the sake of verifying this).

And if that's true, that behaviour would not stem from the person experiencing those emotions, would it?

Anyway, is that why you think it is entirely possible that there is a part of human being that exists independently of his or her environment?

What I'm wondering is, if you think that, what makes you think that?

[Inzababa]

All of these statements about "Free Will" being an illusion or an ill-defined concept tell us a LOT more about the limits of the person making that statement, than it tells us about the nature of "Free Will".

That's a statement I intuitively feel is correct. However I'd imagine such a statement could only realistically and truthfully be made by someone who understands the nature of "Free Will" in the first place, right?

Since I don't, I can't really comment.

The more interesting question is: How does our Sensation of "Free Will" come about?

This question can eventually be answered, regardless of whether Free Will really does exist (that is: we have a genuine opportunity to make decisions and effect the world; and make choices at least some-what independently of whatever else goes on in the Universe) OR it is merely all an elaborate illusion (implying all of our "decisions" are entirely pre-determined). OR, anywhere between those two extremes.

(my bold) I'm very curious / interested about this.

(1) I suspect there could be some ways a genuine form of Free Will could exist. Of course, these are hypothetical processes, and may or may not actually happen. But, (2) if we CAN come up with at least one way Free Will could actually exist, then it would be stupid to claim "Free Will is an Illusion" until we get to the bottom of whether these processes happen, or not.

(1) what makes you suspect this?

(2) these two leads which you provide, do they "conclude" with an answer to that question? (CAN it exist in at least one way?)

I like your second idea, it's what I was thinking as well ; if there can be any kind of randomness in the universe (no matter how much, even if it's next to zero, as long as it's not zero), it would make sense that whatever "influence" that randomness may have when the universe complexifies, provided it still remains, would not remain constant, which implies the potential of it gaining influence (I would imagine).

Because any influence's strength varies when what it is having an influence on evolves. Right?

Although, that idea would be made irrelevant if it could be shown (and I confess I have no idea about this, especially as I seem to have received contradicting information in this thread) that "random" did not exist, that there was nothing random, whether in someone's behaviour, or in the universe.


Again, these may or may not be correct. But, it is foolish to assume "Free Will" MUST be non-existent. We CAN construct ways for it to be real.

On the other hand, how can you construct free will from pre - determined events that are all related to 4 forces? (whether "randomness" exists or not)

And, even if it turns out that it is all an illusion, it would be very interesting to learn how that illusion happens.

I'd agree to that whole heartedly, especially considering the "fact" (since I see it as a fact) that even an illusion may influence what happens.

Will check the thread you started though there's a high chance I don't have the qualifications to participate in it.

[Complexity]

well the way I see it, responsibility requires freedom.

I can't be deemed or judged responsible for anything which is pre determined, can I?


Of course - responsiblility requires freedom, and you aren't responsible for anything.

Note that I didn't say that anything is predestined - that doesn't appear to be true. Predestination isn't the only alternative to 'free will'.

I haven't changed my position on this - I've been saying these things for many years.

While people aren't responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean that our behavior can't be modified through the actions of others - we tend to think the world is a better place if we treat each other as though we are responsible for our actions (at least, up to a point).

[Complexity]

All of these statements about "Free Will" being an illusion or an ill-defined concept tell us a LOT more about the limits of the person making that statement, than it tells us about the nature of "Free Will".


Nah.

[Myriad]

That's a statement I intuitively feel is correct. However I'd imagine such a statement could only realistically and truthfully be made by someone who understands the nature of "Free Will" in the first place, right?

Since I don't, I can't really comment.


Do you believe that there are people who understand the nature of free will better than you do? If so, how do you think those people obtained that understanding?

If not, then you conclude that no one can really comment, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
well the way I see it, responsibility requires freedom.

I can't be deemed or judged responsible for anything which is pre determined, can I?Of course - responsiblility requires freedom, and you aren't responsible for anything.

Note that I didn't say that anything is predestined - that doesn't appear to be true. Predestination isn't the only alternative to 'free will'.

I haven't changed my position on this - I've been saying these things for many years.

While people aren't responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean that our behavior can't be modified through the actions of others - we tend to think the world is a better place if we treat each other as though we are responsible for our actions (at least, up to a point).

Am confused now, because if I'm not responsible for anything, how can I be responsible for my own education?

Note that I didn't say that anything is predestined - that doesn't appear to be true.

ok, thanks for pointing that out, because that's how I understood your comment.

So why do you say "that doesn't appear to be true"? What makes any event unpredictable?

While people aren't responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean that our behavior can't be modified through the actions of others - we tend to think the world is a better place if we treat each other as though we are responsible for our actions (at least, up to a point).

I agree that our behaviour can be modified through the actions of others. On the other hand, if the actions of others doesn't stem from "pre determined" events, same question as above : what makes it unpredictable?

I don't understand the second part though : we tend to think the world is a better place if we treat each other as though we are responsible for our actions (at least, up to a point).

[Wowbagger]

That's a statement I intuitively feel is correct. However I'd imagine such a statement could only realistically and truthfully be made by someone who understands the nature of "Free Will" in the first place, right? Perhaps.


(my bold) I'm very curious / interested about this.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of good material exploring this question. But, we do have some good stuff coming out of studies of consciousness, which is somewhat tangent to this issue. (I could recommend some books by Susan Blackmore and Antonio Damasio, for example.)

I think the answers to the Free Will question will emerge once we've established more answers to the nature of human consciousness, and how it emerges in the brain.

(1) what makes you suspect this?
It get's rather complicated. Part if it is intuition. But, there are also aspects about human behavior that are fairly unpredictable. More-so than other animals, I think. And, that gives us a small basis for thinking we might be in more control of our lives than the "illusionists" would claim.

But, there's more to it than that. I might have to write up more about it, some day.


(2) these two leads which you provide, do they "conclude" with an answer to that question? (CAN it exist in at least one way?)

I have not seen an argument that would counter my logic that it "CAN exist" in at least one way, yet.

Of course, this is all conjecture, and not something we can experiment with, yet. So, in that sense, we can't draw an actual conclusion.

But, having something is better than nothing.


On the other hand, how can you construct free will from pre - determined events that are all related to 4 forces? (whether "randomness" exists or not)

The sensation of free will could still come about through near-independent actions taking place in the brain. We would still think we have control over the Universe, but it wouldn't be actual control.

Perhaps someone more clever than I can figure something else out.

Nah.
If your statement about Free Will not existing was genuinely insightful, this thread would have ended with it, with all or most questions answered.

You contributed nothing with it.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
That's a statement I intuitively feel is correct. However I'd imagine such a statement could only realistically and truthfully be made by someone who understands the nature of "Free Will" in the first place, right?

Since I don't, I can't really comment.

(1) Do you believe that there are people who understand the nature of free will better than you do? (2) If so, how do you think those people obtained that understanding?

(3) If not, then you conclude that no one can really comment, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

(1) yup, what I'm curious about is why you ask this? Is it just for (2)?

(2) I'm not sure, but Confucius says (I know, he isn't a physicist :p)

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

I would imagine those 3 methods may work to reach that understanding, though I wouldn't think they are the "only" way.

(3) No, if not I wouldn't conclude that though. Why would I conclude that no one can really comment if I believed that there was no one who understood the nature of free will better than I do?

Now that I answered your questions, allow me to ask you one :

why do you ask these 3 questions?

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
(my bold) I'm very curious / interested about this.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of good material exploring this question. But, we do have some good stuff coming out of studies of consciousness, which is somewhat tangent to this issue. (I could recommend some books by Susan Blackmore and Antonio Damasio, for example.)

I think the answers to the Free Will question will emerge once we've established more answers to the nature of human consciousness, and how it emerges in the brain.


Sweet, would you call any of that "good stuff" "scientific"?

Or, if the word scientific isn't suitable, do you think it is the kind of stuff that is or at least could be "peer reviewed"? (which would mean that once it was, it could be "established officially" as true).

Maybe the term I'm looking for is official "publication"?

Originally Posted by Inzababa
(1) what makes you suspect this?

It get's rather complicated. Part if it is intuition. But, there are also aspects about human behavior that are fairly unpredictable. More-so than other animals, I think. And, that gives us a small basis for thinking we might be in more control of our lives than the "illusionists" would claim.

But, there's more to it than that. I might have to write up more about it, some day.


Just to clear a common confusion up, when you say that there may be things that are unpredictable !

do you mean that we do not and probably will not (at least for many years) have the capacity to predict them, simply because they are so complicated, fast, concern things that happen in live brains on a tiny level which we would have difficulty observing etc?

Or do you mean that there are aspects about human behaviour that are unpredictable "absolutely", as in, it is not even theoretically possible to predict?

Originally Posted by Inzababa
(2) these two leads which you provide, do they "conclude" with an answer to that question? (CAN it exist in at least one way?)

I have not seen an argument that would counter my logic that it "CAN exist" in at least one way, yet.


I suppose that's not the most important part of any logic though.

(not saying it isn't important, simply saying it isn't the only important thing to take into account).

For example, if I were to develop a logic based claim that was not based on evidence, it could not be countered by any kind of empirical proof, it would have to be countered by logical deduction alone.

What I am imagining though, is that through logical deduction alone, it is possible to speculate about almost anything.

Of course, this is all conjecture, and not something we can experiment with, yet. So, in that sense, we can't draw an actual conclusion.

But, having something is better than nothing.

This is what I mean, though I don't intend to draw a parallel in the sense that I'm comparing your argument to this one (I've only skimmed through yours already, haven't read it properly) :

I've heard logical arguments by religious theologians which can not be negated, ie, can not be logically demonstrated to be wrong.

A simplistic summary example would be : "God exists even though there is no evidence of his existence".

Logically, this may be a possibility, however it isn't possible to definitely demonstrate how that argument is wrong or could be true (either way).

My point isn't about rejecting your argument before I even read it, I simply wanted to point out that with speculation alone and logic, there "may be" or "could be" any of a million things which then makes me wonder :

on what grounds to we investigate or even simply take into account the possibility of one conjecture rather than another?

Originally Posted by Inzababa
On the other hand, how can you construct free will from pre - determined events that are all related to 4 forces? (whether "randomness" exists or not)

The sensation of free will could still come about through near-independent actions taking place in the brain. We would still think we have control over the Universe, but it wouldn't be actual control.

Perhaps someone more clever than I can figure something else out.


I think I understand what you mean, there may be logical and good reasons that would explain why we "sense" or feel we have free will, irrespective of whether we do or not, which can be explained if we view the world as deterministic.

Correct?

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.
Then where does that leave free will?
The reason I ask, is because I sort of enjoyed thinking until now that when I chose to do something, I was the cause of that event.
Not the result of random interactions between 4 forces.

Nor every event is determined by only the four physical forces.
Information can also be a factor in the causality of events.
As an example, mathematics is used in many decision processes, but some of the constants of mathematics are not determined by any previous affects of the physical forces.
Mathematics may be an avenue to explore to discover that choices are possible that are neither random nor pre-determined.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.
Then where does that leave free will?
The reason I ask, is because I sort of enjoyed thinking until now that when I chose to do something, I was the cause of that event.
Not the result of random interactions between 4 forces.



Nor every event is determined by only the four physical forces.
Information can also be a factor in the causality of events.
As an example, mathematics is used in many decision processes, but some of the constants of mathematics are not determined by any previous affects of the physical forces.
Mathematics may be an avenue to explore to discover that choices are possible that are neither random nor pre-determined.


This is something which I've been thinking about a lot lately, but have been unable to "prove" / "demonstrate" and/or "show".

I tried, by the way.

I don't want, didn't want, it is not my intention to relate two threads which I started.

However I can't help myself (because of what you just wrote) point out to you that I actually attempted to address this question in the following thread : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229555

Although, when I made that first post, I had no idea, and wasn't even using maths as an illustration of what I was asking.

Now, what you say makes sense to me: "some of the constants of mathematics are not determined by any previous affects of the physical forces".

However, I am unable to "show" it.

On the other hand ; what you just wrote contradicts a lot of what has been said in this thread (about free will). I was stomped and inquiring when I started this thread, however if what you say is true, then I'm "sorted", and my problem disappears.

Do you think you could demonstrate it, prove it, show why it is true "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I personally feel it is very important (if only for personal reasons, because whether I see my choices as the result of determined (or random) interactions between 4 forces, or whether it is at least possible (even if not proven) to conceptualise that "I" have any kind of free choice, has dramatic consequences on "me" (so to speak)).

[Kevin_Lowe]

Please don't merge topics and issues, this "thread" is independent, otherwise I would have posted it in the other thread.

I'm just pointing out that I know for a fact I've already given you the tools to solve this "problem".


Your phrase is contradictory by the way, would you agree to this?

"We DO know what the cause of the Big Bang was, we simply can't determine in what way these causes interacted and/or "worked" ".

No it's not contradictory, and no I don't agree with your claim in quotes. We don't have any idea what the cause of the Big Bang was.

[Inzababa]

I'm just pointing out that I know for a fact I've already given you the tools to solve this "problem".

Ok, thanks for pointing that out to me.

By the way, coincidently, problem is solved in the post made by Bill Thompson 75 just above yours.

On the other hand, I really did not and do not intend to both threads to be on the same topic / subject.

That's what I meant.

Quote:
Your phrase is contradictory by the way, would you agree to this?

"We DO know what the cause of the Big Bang was, we simply can't determine in what way these causes interacted and/or "worked" ".

No it's not contradictory, and no I don't agree with your claim in quotes. We don't have any idea what the cause of the Big Bang was.

Kevin Lowe it's simple look :

If 4 forces are the cause of all events that happen in the universe.

Then those 4 forces are necessarily the cause of the Big Bang.

Unless you would like to suggest that the Big Bang is not an event that happened in the universe.

Otherwise, I can't see how what I said isn't true.

It's not a claim, I'm simply applying the assumption which you agree with.

[Inzababa]

mis post

(how to delete?)

[dlorde]

Then where does that leave free will?

What exactly do you mean by free will?

[dlorde]

...I'm thinking that Economists thought that our behaviour would be predictable, and built economic models which don't work because they failed in predicting our behaviour

They made the fundamental mistake of assuming the participants were rational players.

[dlorde]

This is something which I've been thinking about a lot lately, but have been unable to "prove" / "demonstrate" and/or "show".
That's because it isn't correct.

[Inzababa]

What exactly do you mean by free will?

Not sure actually.

And it's a great question (first time asked in this thread).

I think it's precisely my capacity to choose and act according to what I "will".

(which, if we were to be really thorough, would require us to also define what "I" is and what my "will" is)

The less limited and constrained that is, the more "free" that capacity is, the more limited and constrained that is, the less "free" that capacity is.

Not only that, but if whatever I do is determined by a mixture of influences, and if "I" exist and have a "will", then my free will is measured by how much of those influences (what %) stems from me and my will.

Which wouldn't only be limited by material (I purposefully did not use the term physical) considerations (as in: how I can move, what I can do etc) but also by what I am aware of, what I know, what I understand, what I am able to take into account when making a decision and so on.

Lastly, this necessarily implies that if what I do think and feel is determined by influences, and that my free will is one of these influences, then my free will is necessarily the source of an influence.

Therefore, I am the cause of some events.

Not the 4 forces, not anything else, but me.

I'm hoping that is true, I don't know whether it's true or not, I'd like to find out, because I'd like to think (which means that until then, I believe) that :

"I am the captain of my soul".

[Inzababa]

They made the fundamental mistake of assuming the participants were rational players.

yup, I think that's one of their biggest mistakes.

[dlorde]

Or do you mean that there are aspects about human behaviour that are unpredictable "absolutely", as in, it is not even theoretically possible to predict?
Some parts of the brain behave chaotically (and there are suggestions that the whole brain 'teeters on the edge of chaos', whatever that means, exactly). Chaotic systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) are deterministic but unpredictable.

[Inzababa]

That's because it isn't correct.

seriously, let's not merge the threads shall we?

[dlorde]

seriously, let's not merge the threads shall we?You brought it up. Seriously; although I was actually referring to Bill Thompson 75's claim.

[Inzababa]

Some parts of the brain behave chaotically (and there are suggestions that the whole brain 'teeters on the edge of chaos', whatever that means, exactly). Chaotic systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) are deterministic but unpredictable.

If I understand this correctly, the only reason anything which is chaotic is not random, yet is unpredictable, is because we are unable to predict the result of chaotic events.

Not because it is not theoretically possibly to do so.

Correct?

[Inzababa]

You brought it up. Seriously; although I was actually referring to Bill Thompson 75's claim.

no, he brought it up.

And you quoted me (and my post) when you wrote that. I hope you can see why I thought you were referring to what I wrote :

This is something which I've been thinking about a lot lately, but have been unable to "prove" / "demonstrate" and/or "show".

[dlorde]

(which, if we were to be really thorough, would require us to also define what "I" is and what my "will" is)
Just do 'free' and 'will' for now.

Lastly, this necessarily implies that if what I do think and feel is determined by influences, and that my free will is one of these influences, then my free will is necessarily the source of an influence.Recursion - see recursion. You can't invoke free will as a contributor to of your explanation of free will.

Therefore, I am the cause of some events.

Not the 4 forces, not anything else, but me.The four forces don't apply to you? are you an uncaused cause?

wait... are you God?

[dlorde]

no, he brought it up.No, you brought up the reference to the other thread :rolleyes:

[dlorde]

Correct?Follow the link. What you seek is there.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
(which, if we were to be really thorough, would require us to also define what "I" is and what my "will" is)

Just do 'free' and 'will' for now.


Free = unlimited.

Obviously, nothing can be unlimited otherwise it wouldn't exist, so as far as we're concerned, it's only a matter of degrees.

The less limits, the more free.

Will = my intent (which requires intention, which requires a system capable of having intent)

the two put together = unlimited intent (as a question of capacity or even simply existence, since intention can be limited in its very existence)

Quote:
Lastly, this necessarily implies that if what I do think and feel is determined by influences, and that my free will is one of these influences, then my free will is necessarily the source of an influence.

Recursion - see recursion. You can't invoke free will as a contributor to of your explanation of free will.

I'm not invoking it as a contributor to my explanation of free will.

Quote:
Therefore, I am the cause of some events.

Not the 4 forces, not anything else, but me.
The four forces don't apply to you? are you an uncaused cause?

wait... are you God?

If I have the capacity to choose and act according to my will, then my will is a force that is the cause of certain events.

According to that rational, (and you're mocking and childish reasoning) I am not god, my will is god.

god constrained and limited by whatever constrains and limits my will.

On the other hand, that also depends on what you mean by God.

God is usually referred to as "the creator".

And as far as I'm concerned, I create things all the time. Yup.

So I have to ask, what do you mean by "God"?



FYI in case you missed it, I wrote in that same post :

I'm hoping that is true, I don't know whether it's true or not, I'd like to find out, because I'd like to think (which means that until then, I believe) that :

"I am the captain of my soul".

[Inzababa]

No, you brought up the reference to the other thread :rolleyes:

yeah but you know why?

Because he was stating exactly what I was stating in the other thread.

Which is what I pointed out to him.

[Inzababa]

Follow the link. What you seek is there.

No, answer the question.

[dafydd]

I am the cause of two daughters, with the assistance of my wife.

[dafydd]

And as far as I'm concerned, I create things all the time. Yup.

:

What have you created recently?

[Inzababa]

What have you created recently?

the word "blabo" (its meaning, its function, and how it is defined).

I also created a poem not long ago.

Hmm, trying to think of simple examples; I had an idea about ethical business which I created.

Speaking of business, I created a business.

:)

[dlorde]

In the words of the dragons, "I'm out".

I'll leave you guys to draw your own conclusions about the OP.

[Inzababa]

In the words of the dragons, "I'm out".

I'll leave you guys to draw your own conclusions about the OP.

who cares about the OP

it's not about the OP

it's about what the OP is asking and what he says.

you seem to have a strong tendency to get personal.

[Toontown]

Scenario: an X-ray from the sun takes a somewhat random swipe at your brain (due to quantum uncertainty), randomly striking several of your neurons and destroying them, thereby altering your though pattern to something different from what it would otherwise have been, had the X-ray not randomly intervened.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that all your thoughts are deterministic. Your thoughts are subject to uncertain quantum events. But does that mean you have free will?

The answer is no, under the common understanding of "free will". You have no control over random events that happen inside your brain. So randomness does not produce free will.

So. If you have no control over a random mental event, then would a deterministic mental event be closer to "free will"?

Who cares? What difference does it make? It's just semantics. If your brain makes a decision, then it's your brain making the decision. No one else's brain makes the decision for you. It is 'your' decision, however you choose to semanticize it.

So, basically, there has been a big, long discussion about nothing. Not unlike an episode of "Seinfeld". The only fact that has been firmly established by all of this is the fact that internet forums are replete with groups of people who march in lockstep and refer to themselves as "we". I think it can be reasonably concluded that these people are not demonstrating much in the way of "free will". And I don't think it matters whether my conclusion is deterministic or not. It is my conclusion. It sure as hell isn't "their" conclusion. "I" am the free bastard around here. Not "them". :D

[Inzababa]

due to quantum uncertainty


Is quantum uncertain uncertain because we don't have the capacity to predict it?

Or is it uncertain because it is absolutely theoretically impossible to predict?

(the reason I ask is because I would think depending on whether it's one or the other, that has important consequences on the rest of the reasoning)

Assuming that this randomly striking several of your neurons and destroying them means that it simply and purely is not possible to predict, determine, it strike me as obvious (and I may be wrong) that "randomness" is the cause of an event.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that all your thoughts are deterministic.

I'll agree to that "IF" the x-ray from the sun is indeed random, rather than appears random because it is too complex for us to determine.

Your thoughts are subject to uncertain quantum events. But does that mean you have free will?

I wouldn't think we could deduce one (having free will) from the other (there are uncertain / random events).

The answer is no, under the common understanding of "free will". You have no control over random events that happen inside your brain. So randomness does not produce free will.

If I understand it correctly, your argument would be valid if the common understanding of "free will" were understood to be "absolute".

In the sense that "free will" necessarily requires a "control" over all events, (including those which happen inside your brain), that it necessarily requires "no constraint of necessity", then as soon as there is the slightest constraint (including limits such as time) it isn't really free.

On the other hand, there can be "degrees" in free will can't there? Which, if the above is true, would vary according to those constraints.

Example : you are at a point in a labyrinth where there are only two options in order to move forward; left or right

that's a considerably limited number of options, yet (if free will exists, and using the colloquial meaning of it found in the Oxford Dictionary) once those constraints are established, the "choice" is then up to you and your will.

add to this scenario events that happen in your brain which you have no control over, for example, you're thirsty and your brain is dehydrating (or whatever, an x ray has fried some of your neurons), the point remains doesn't it? the choice is up to you, but the "degree" of free will is relative.

So. If you have no control over a random mental event, then would a deterministic mental event be closer to "free will"?

I don't know.

I'm pretty sure I can easily demonstrate that I don't have control over most mental events (whether they are random or not).

On the other hand, the reasoning behind a deterministic mental event not having free will, as I understand it, is that "there is no choice", therefore, no free will.

At least, no "unpredictable" choice, and to simplify things, you're just a domino which falls when pushed and doesn't when not.

Who cares? What difference does it make? It's just semantics. If your brain makes a decision, then it's your brain making the decision. No one else's brain makes the decision for you. It is 'your' decision, however you choose to semanticize it.

Well that's what I'd like to establish, is that sensation "your brain is making the decision" an illusion which is part of my awareness and consciousness, or is a true "fact"?

(I think Wowbagger approaches this issue)

And if it's not an illusion, if your brain, or you, or whatever, actually does make a decision "on its own", according to the colloquial (common) definition used by the Online Oxford Dictionary : the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion. that means "I" have power, not only those 4 forces. A separate power, which can evolve and influence independently from those 4 forces, even if is made of those 4 forces and uses those 4 forces.

It also is important to me because whether I consider that I have free will or not, (in fact, irrespective of whether I do, simply whether I consider that I do or not) does have a big impact on me, personally, on my life and the way I see it.

So, basically, there has been a big, long discussion about nothing.

I don't really agree, it may be nothing to you but it is something to me.

In the sense that it may have nothing of value to you, it may not be worth anything to you, it may have no meaning to you, but it does to me.

I would imagine it does as well to anyone who participates in the discussion.

The only fact that has been firmly established by all of this is the fact that internet forums are replete with groups of people who march in lockstep and refer to themselves as "we".

Though I agree with your second phrase, I wouldn't agree that this is the "only" fact that has been firmly established.

I might also suggest that the "establishing" isn't over.

I think it can be reasonably concluded that these people are not demonstrating much in the way of "free will".

I'm not sure whether I agree with you on this or not. Though it's an interesting phrase because it implies that "free will" isn't a case of having it or not, because you use "much" free will, which would mean (as I was suggesting) that there are or at least can be "degrees" and/or "strengths" in free will.

ie : you may have more or less free will

I personally try to avoid getting personal when discussing this kind of thing on this kind of forum, because as I wrote above : "it's not the OP that matters, it's what is asked and said by the OP that matters".

This (if true) can also be applied to "these people" (whoever they are).

And I don't think it matters whether my conclusion is deterministic or not. It is my conclusion. It sure as hell isn't "their" conclusion. "I" am the free bastard around here. Not "them".

Though I like this phrase because I may be inclined to relate to it (even if in an illusionary way), for the reasons I just expressed, I personally would prefer to avoid any personal considerations in this way.

However, thanks for the humour and "good mood" :)

[Kid Eager]

No matter how much you try to contort the english language and science, you are yet to contrive a logical, convincing or even necessary basis for the mysterious force that you seem to be so intent on wanting.

Two different threads and far too many posts have established nothing but a monomania...

[nvidiot]

I ain't no cause, I'm an effect baby!

But seriously: free will is a convenient illusion.

[Inzababa]

No matter how much you try to contort the english language and science, you are yet to contrive a logical, convincing or even necessary basis for the mysterious force that you seem to be so intent on wanting.

Two different threads and far too many posts have established nothing but a monomania...

1. those two threads are related but don't address the same issue. The topic of each is not the same topic.

2. in this thread, I am not attempting to contrive a logical, convincing or even necessary basis for the mysterious force that I seem to be so intent on wanting.

Evidence :

My first post in this thread

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

Then where does that leave free will?

The reason I ask, is because I sort of enjoyed thinking until now that when I chose to do something, I was the cause of that event.

Not the result of random interactions between 4 forces.

FYI (source and background)

My first post in the other

How to explain the different causality links between the original “cause” (Socrates has an idea) and the final effect (in this example, which stops at which is that my “application” of the idea has?

Although why you and others feel the need to get personal and always direct any kind of conversation to me, what I am and what I intend rather than focusing on what I say and whether it's true or not is "worrying".

a) because if you see anything wrong with what I say, and "care", I would imagine you would point out what is wrong with what I say

and

b) I am increasingly "sceptical" about this seemingly wide spread attitude to "get personal"

In fact, it won't be long before I start a thread about this myself.

;)

[Inzababa]

I ain't no cause, I'm an effect baby!

But seriously: free will is a convenient illusion.

ok

why?

[nvidiot]

ok

why?

Cos I'm so damn sexy!

(sorry you walked right into that :P)

Why? Because first we can show the universe at the smallest scales is probabilistic and at the larger scales deterministic(ish).

And secondly because you can't test it.

[Inzababa]

Cos I'm so damn sexy!

(sorry you walked right into that :P)

Why? Because first we can show the universe at the smallest scales is probabilistic and at the larger scales deterministic(ish).

And secondly because you can't test it.

hang on,

I'M so damn sexy ! :)

What do you mean by "probabilistic"?

If it is deterministic, does this mean there is no "random"?

by the way, you're secondly doesn't work :p

[nvidiot]

Can you come up with a test for "free will"?

[Inzababa]

Can you come up with a test for "free will"?

maybe, don't know, never tried, can you?

[nvidiot]

So why doesn't my "secondly" work then?

[Inzababa]

So why doesn't my "secondly" work then?

because if you can't test something, that does not necessarily imply that it does not exist :)

"testing" is proof of existence, however it doesn't equate in the same way, because there are things may which may exist which we can not test (if only because we don't know about them).

which can be summed up in this metaphor :

a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Any computer which does this can not be judged for anything that it does, including if it is wrong, whatever it does wrong is only a question of its programming, no judgement whatsoever on "what" it is, no blame whatsoever, and therefore, no responsibility.

Theoretically you could chase the trail of blame back up the causal chain (for both computers and humans) back to the Big Bang. That's pointless though-- the useful thing to do is to figure out what can be fixed and fix it. If it's a simple computer program, both the program and the programmer's methods may need fixing. If it's a person stealing, both that person and the society they live in may need fixing.

Every step in a causal chain is responsible for the outcome-- none should get absolved of blame.


You'd think court of laws would apply this wouldn't you?

(again, I'm not implying in an ironic way that what you say is wrong, what I'm implying is that if you are right, then court of laws are wrong).

You took a similar example ; if it's a person stealing, would it not change a lot of things if society approached the issue with the attitude that that person "needed fixing"?


I don't think you can make the argument that because there is no free will, the legal system or society should be changed to reflect this. If there's no free will, the legal system and society are created and populated by people with no free will and is therefore working exactly how it must.

Or, to put it another way, if your defence for a crime is that you have no free will, so could not have acted in any other way, the judge can claim that he can act in no other way than to give you ten years in jail.

[Inzababa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inzababa
Any computer which does this can not be judged for anything that it does, including if it is wrong, whatever it does wrong is only a question of its programming, no judgement whatsoever on "what" it is, no blame whatsoever, and therefore, no responsibility.

Quote:
Theoretically you could chase the trail of blame back up the causal chain (for both computers and humans) back to the Big Bang. That's pointless though-- the useful thing to do is to figure out what can be fixed and fix it. If it's a simple computer program, both the program and the programmer's methods may need fixing. If it's a person stealing, both that person and the society they live in may need fixing.

Every step in a causal chain is responsible for the outcome-- none should get absolved of blame.

You'd think court of laws would apply this wouldn't you?

(again, I'm not implying in an ironic way that what you say is wrong, what I'm implying is that if you are right, then court of laws are wrong).

You took a similar example ; if it's a person stealing, would it not change a lot of things if society approached the issue with the attitude that that person "needed fixing"?

I don't think you can make the argument that because there is no free will, the legal system or society should be changed to reflect this. If there's no free will, the legal system and society are created and populated by people with no free will and is therefore working exactly how it must.

Or, to put it another way, if your defence for a crime is that you have no free will, so could not have acted in any other way, the judge can claim that he can act in no other way than to give you ten years in jail.

I think that's a good argument.

"if there's no free will, then the legal system and society are created and populated by people with no free will and is therefore working exactly how it must".

On the other hand, it's worth noting that how the legal system works has evolved through time (just as "we" as a society have as well).

Free will or not, that's undeniable, and leads me to conclude that if a system can evolve, then it probably will (even if it "must" rather than "could depending on free will") continue to evolve.

Integrating "there is no free will" into that system as one of the functions that it should take into account when "working" (in my view, and if that statement is true) is one way in which the legal system "could" evolve (even if there is no free will).

_____


Not only that, I think (even if I would have thought this with or without free will) that this is "necessary", "IF" it is true that there is no free will for the argument I just made to be valid.

In other words, I do have the capacity to judge, (in this case, judging that it is necessary to include the concept (if true) that "there is no free will" in the legal system).

Whether you equate that to the same capacity that anything judges (for example, a calculator will "judge" a result according to the variables that it calculates) is deterministic or not (I think) does not show whether the resulting judgement is valid or not.

I can also imagine other reasons why it would be important to integrate this "truth" or "fact".

______________

On the other hand, (and I should maybe have started with this and left it at that until it was cleared up) I'm not sure I understand how you reach your conclusion, and it's more than possible that I missed something or mis interpreted something.

[Mashuna]

It was really just an example of the kind of problems people get into while talking about the effects of free will when they either don't define what they mean by free will, or conflate a number of different concepts of free will within a single argument.

[Inzababa]

It was really just an example of the kind of problems people get into while talking about the effects of free will when they either don't define what they mean by free will, or conflate a number of different concepts of free will within a single argument.

ok, sorry I "flooded" you, I guess I didn't get that from what you wrote.

would you say that my response addresses those problems?

or did you (which I can understand) not bother reading it cause it's too long?

The reason I didn't define free will (as I see it) until I was asked to, was because I'm not claiming anything (at least not in the first post).

I'm trying to get answers, and "checking" them to see if they make sense.

The point is : I don't know the answer.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mathematics may be an avenue to explore to discover that choices are possible that are neither random nor pre-determined.
Since random means "not determined," I'm not sure how there is any logical room for a third possibility. However, I would love to hear proposals.

~~ Paul

[Inzababa]

Since random means "not determined," I'm not sure how there is any logical room for a third possibility. However, I would love to hear proposals.

~~ Paul

I agree that random is necessarily not determined.

And if it is determined, then it is necessarily predictable "in theory" isn't it?

This is one of the contradictions I asked (but got no answer to) with regards to people saying (example with chaos theory) that some things were determined AND un predictable.

I still don't know how that works?

Unless it is possible to "create" something random?

(this is done in computers, or on playlists, where Winamp is asked to choose a "random" song, but that strictly isn't random is it? Just "relatively random".

[Complexity]

Am confused now, because if I'm not responsible for anything, how can I be responsible for my own education?


Why do you think anyone else is responsible for your education?

This 'responsibility' sidetrip is really beside the point.

My original point was that you should attend to your own education, if you are going to get one, because it is not anyone else's job to make you learn or think.

Do not confuse 'education' with 'schooling'.

[Complexity]

By the way, coincidently, problem is solved in the post made by Bill Thompson 75 just above yours.


No, it wasn't.

[Complexity]

who cares about the OP

it's not about the OP

it's about what the OP is asking and what he says.

you seem to have a strong tendency to get personal.


I think he is saying, "Life is too short for this nonsense."

I agree.

[Inzababa]

Why do you think anyone else is responsible for your education?

This 'responsibility' sidetrip is really beside the point.

My original point was that you should attend to your own education, if you are going to get one, because it is not anyone else's job to make you learn or think.

Do not confuse 'education' with 'schooling'.

That doesn't matter does it?

If I'm not responsible for my actions then how can I be responsible for my own education?

I'm only using that "sidetrip" because you did, if you wish I'll drop it, no problem at all.

With regards to your original point, it becomes true from what age (according to you)?

I think I am confusing education with schooling as I'm not aware of any significant difference in meaning of those two terms.



ANYWAY back on topic? :)

[Inzababa]

I think he is saying, "Life is too short for this nonsense."

I agree.

yet ... you continue to "participate" in this nonsese :eek::eye-poppi:eek:

seems like your "program" is running a few bugs which need fixing ;)

[Inzababa]

No, it wasn't.

It was if it is true, which I think it is.

However, I also think that's off topic.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Since random means "not determined," I'm not sure how there is any logical room for a third possibility. However, I would love to hear proposals.
~~ Paul
Suppose I create a work of art and the shapes and colors I use are based on the decimal expansion of Pi. The composition would not be random and would not be determined by anything in the physical universe. However, the work did come from my mind and the choices I made were based on those non-random, non-determined digits.
This may not establish "free will" but it leaves it as an open idea that needs to be further analyzed.
It certainly shows that the dichotomy of random vs determined is false.
It also goes right to the heart of the OP's opening question.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree that random is necessarily not determined.

And if it is determined, then it is necessarily predictable "in theory" isn't it?

This is one of the contradictions I asked (but got no answer to) with regards to people saying (example with chaos theory) that some things were determined AND un predictable.

I still don't know how that works?
There are deterministic processes so complex that they are essentially unpredictable. In particular, if we don't have complete information on the initial conditions of a chaotic process, we will eventually lose track of it.

Unless it is possible to "create" something random?
If a process involves at least some randomness, then it is call stochastic. Obviously if there is true randomness involved, then the process is not purely deterministic and we cannot predict it.

The question for libertarian free will: Is there some way of making a decision that is neither deterministic nor random. I just don't see how.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suppose I create a work of art and the shapes and colors I use are based on the decimal expansion of Pi. The composition would not be random and would not be determined by anything in the physical universe. However, the work did come from my mind and the choices I made were based on those non-random, non-determined digits.
I'm not sure what you mean by the digits of pi being nonrandom and not determined. The digits form a random sequence, but I can determine them to any length you choose. We've calculated over 5 trillion digits of pi so far.

How would you select digits from the sequence in a way that was neither random nor determined?

~~ Paul

[Bill Thompson 75]

I'm not sure what you mean by the digits of pi being nonrandom and not determined. The digits form a random sequence, but I can determine them to any length you choose. We've calculated over 5 trillion digits of pi so far.
How would you select digits from the sequence in a way that was neither random nor determined?

~~ Paul

Pi is fairly normal (the digits 0-9 are evenly represented), but it is not random. If it were random we wouldn't have simple formulas for calculating it.
Pi is not determined because it is not caused by or affected by any force or feature in the universe.
Calculations do not determine Pi, they only reveal it.

The selection process of the digits would be determined, but the specific digits selected would not be, and therefore any action based upon the specific digits would not be determined.

[dlorde]

..Pi is not determined because it is not caused by or affected by any force or feature in the universe.

No. The feature in the universe that determines pi is the ratio of any Euclidean circle's circumference to its diameter.

[casebro]

"Am I the cause of anyhting?"

Two men have thanked me for saving their lives. Does that count, as in the "Four Forces"? Or along the lines of the subsequent discussion re: karma-like stuff?

So far as creativity, here's a link to my Imageevent site: <http://imageevent.com/bigchriscase/casebrothersfurnituremaking> You might also peruse the pulldown menu for other fields of endeavor.

From my point of view, if you ain't the "cause" of anything, your ain't worthy of the air you breath.

Though this kind of philosophical question seems idiocy to me. I remember Bill Cosby's take on a philosophy class that asked the question "Why is there air?" Cosby, an athletics major at the time knew the answer. "It's to blow up volley balls, basket balls..."

Pragmatists don't ponder the imponderables. We just "Git-er-done", to quote another comedian.

[Toontown]

Is quantum uncertain uncertain because we don't have the capacity to predict it?

Or is it uncertain because it is absolutely theoretically impossible to predict?

...

I'll agree to that "IF" the x-ray from the sun is indeed random, rather than appears random because it is too complex for us to determine.

The consensus among physicists is that quantum indeterminacy is real indeterminacy. Not simply due to our lack of complete knowledge. Bell's inequalities are widely considered to have eliminated the possiblity of "hidden variables" being the unseen cause of the apparent indeterminacy.

According to quantum theory, which has never failed experimentally, the hypothetical X-ray did not have a precise position or momentum until one of your hypothetical neurons interacted with the X-ray and forced it to assume a precise particle-like location and momentum, which turned out to be an unfortunate set of attributes for the neuron. It could have gone either way. Another neuron could have taken the hit, or the X-ray could have missed your head entirely.

You really should learn the basics of quantum mechanics. You haven't lived until you've comprehended the implications of the double-slit experiment, or been in the spirit with Einstein, Bohr, and Shrodinger during one of their arguments.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
I agree that random is necessarily not determined.

And if it is determined, then it is necessarily predictable "in theory" isn't it?

This is one of the contradictions I asked (but got no answer to) with regards to people saying (example with chaos theory) that some things were determined AND un predictable.

I still don't know how that works?
There are deterministic processes so complex that they are essentially unpredictable. In particular, if we don't have complete information on the initial conditions of a chaotic process, we will eventually lose track of it.


Paul, that's what I mean, what makes them unpredictable in this example is "our lack of information on the initial conditions".

ie the unpredictability only refers to our capacity to predict

not : to whether it is actually possible in theory to predict (even if only potentially)

Quote:
Unless it is possible to "create" something random?
If a process involves at least some randomness, then it is call stochastic. Obviously if there is true randomness involved, then the process is not purely deterministic and we cannot predict it.

The question for libertarian free will: Is there some way of making a decision that is neither deterministic nor random. I just don't see how.

~~ Paul


Then if I understand your position correctly, it is that it is not possible to "create" something random (even a process) if there is no randomness to begin with.

Whatever we call random in these cases actually "technically" means "unpredictable".

Correct?

The problem with libertarian free will and your question (as I see it) is that no one knows how consciousness emerges and works, otherwise we'd be able to reproduce it.

Also, a few relevant quotes :

Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[44] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[45] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_science

where stochastic is :

Stochastic (from the Greek στόχος for aim or guess) refers to systems whose behavior is intrinsically non-deterministic. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic


Other reference in this thread, the post by Toontown :

The consensus among physicists is that quantum indeterminacy is real indeterminacy. Not simply due to our lack of complete knowledge. Bell's inequalities are widely considered to have eliminated the possiblity of "hidden variables" being the unseen cause of the apparent indeterminacy.

Conclusion : the universe contains randomness.

And to answer your question, what happens to a process if it is both deterministic and random, (a mixture), could that be the same principle as making a new colour from two colours?

Or, if that illustration doesn't work, could it be similar in principle to creating something unique from the combination of two things which are not unique? (example : atoms and energy)

Or making a new ingredient from two ingredients?

At any rate, if randomness exists (which seems to be now agreed), then I would consider randomness a "cause" of events. A "force" in its own right, even if an undefined one.

Which, in my mind, wouldn't explain free will on its own, but could when "mixed" to other elements.

On the other hand, I'm not claiming libertarian free will, I'm suggesting a possible answer to your question.

[Inzababa]

"Am I the cause of anyhting?"

Two men have thanked me for saving their lives. Does that count, as in the "Four Forces"? Or along the lines of the subsequent discussion re: karma-like stuff?

So far as creativity, here's a link to my Imageevent site: <http://imageevent.com/bigchriscase/casebrothersfurnituremaking> You might also peruse the pulldown menu for other fields of endeavor.

From my point of view, if you ain't the "cause" of anything, your ain't worthy of the air you breath.

Though this kind of philosophical question seems idiocy to me. I remember Bill Cosby's take on a philosophy class that asked the question "Why is there air?" Cosby, an athletics major at the time knew the answer. "It's to blow up volley balls, basket balls..."

Pragmatists don't ponder the imponderables. We just "Git-er-done", to quote another comedian.

I intuitevly agree with your point of view, but am not sure (which is why I asked the question).

However the point of your post, as I understand it, is to ask "why is that relevant?"

right? Or maybe I mis understood.

Anyway, the relevance of physics is one that is confined to a specific "domain". While physics aims to discover universal laws, its theories lie in explicit domains of applicability. Loosely speaking, the laws of classical physics accurately describe systems whose important length scales are greater than the atomic scale and whose motions are much slower than the speed of light. Outside of this domain, observations do not match their predictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Core_theories

The "point" is to attempt to study and understand "reality" as a whole, by combining the different "fields" in which each theories work and making all of them "agree" (so to speak).

Which, in standard terms, would mean that there would be no contrdiction betwen Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, Classical Mechanics, and Relativistic Mechanics.

Though I would add "Information Theory".

And what I would suggest, is that we also add whatever is related to "consciousness" and "free will" (even if free will does not exist but is an illusion).

Because it strikes me as important, that if we want to "explain everything", all the tools used to explain everything need to be synchronised.

Meaning, there should be no contradictions between one field and another, no paradoxes between one domain in which a theory is true and one where it isn't.

At least, none which could not be explained.

And to answer the question "why?"

Because "we", operate in a field or domain in which all of these are relevant (at least potentially).

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Is quantum uncertain uncertain because we don't have the capacity to predict it?

Or is it uncertain because it is absolutely theoretically impossible to predict?

...

I'll agree to that "IF" the x-ray from the sun is indeed random, rather than appears random because it is too complex for us to determine.

The consensus among physicists is that quantum indeterminacy is real indeterminacy. Not simply due to our lack of complete knowledge. Bell's inequalities are widely considered to have eliminated the possiblity of "hidden variables" being the unseen cause of the apparent indeterminacy.

According to quantum theory, which has never failed experimentally, the hypothetical X-ray did not have a precise position or momentum until one of your hypothetical neurons interacted with the X-ray and forced it to assume a precise particle-like location and momentum, which turned out to be an unfortunate set of attributes for the neuron. It could have gone either way. Another neuron could have taken the hit, or the X-ray could have missed your head entirely.

You really should learn the basics of quantum mechanics. You haven't lived until you've comprehended the implications of the double-slit experiment, or been in the spirit with Einstein, Bohr, and Shrodinger during one of their arguments.

That is what we would call stochastic right?

You really should learn the basics of quantum mechanics. You haven't lived until you've comprehended the implications of the double-slit experiment, or been in the spirit with Einstein, Bohr, and Shrodinger during one of their arguments.




I think that argument could be applied to many things ;)

"you haven't lived until X"

Anyway thanks for that post, because if it is true, it answers one of the important (at least to me) questions that I was asking.

[Toontown]

That is what we would call stochastic right?

"Stochastic" is putting it mildly. If you play your cards right, you can flip the spin of an electron on the other side of the galaxy. Instantaneously. Much to Einstein's distress and dismay.

Seriously, if you are looking for an engine of "free will", then quantum mechanics would be a logical stone to look under.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Pi is fairly normal (the digits 0-9 are evenly represented), but it is not random. If it were random we wouldn't have simple formulas for calculating it.
Just because we can generate the digits with a formula doesn't mean they don't pass random sequence tests. We generate pseudo-random numbers with algorithms, after all.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then if I understand your position correctly, it is that it is not possible to "create" something random (even a process) if there is no randomness to begin with.

Whatever we call random in these cases actually "technically" means "unpredictable".

Correct?
I think so. A process is either deterministic, or, if true randomness is available, then it is stochastic. Even if it is partly deterministic and partly random, it is called stochastic.


Conclusion : the universe contains randomness.
We believe this, yes. It's possible that all the randomness is actually explainable with hidden variables.

~~ Paul

[Inzababa]

"Stochastic" is putting it mildly. If you play your cards right, you can flip the spin of an electron on the other side of the galaxy. Instantaneously. Much to Einstein's distress and dismay.

Seriously, if you are looking for an engine of "free will", then quantum mechanics would be a logical stone to look under.

ok thanks.

I'm not "looking" for an engine of "free will", I'm looking for truth, one way or another.

[Inzababa]

Quote:
Conclusion : the universe contains randomness.
We believe this, yes.


But if I follow this thread correctly, the presence of randomness does not necessarily cause indeterministic events (in so much as they can be calculated with probability).

Is that right as well?

It's possible that all the randomness is actually explainable with hidden variables.

Well in that case it isn't random but unpredictable, as you agreed in the same post to what I wrote :

Whatever we call random in these cases actually "technically" means "unpredictable".

[Inzababa]

If you play your cards right, you can flip the spin of an electron on the other side of the galaxy. Instantaneously. Much to Einstein's distress and dismay.

Sorry, I ignored that so as not to confuse points.

Is that "verified", "tested", "reproduced", "accepted by the scientific community", "peer reviewed" etc etc (I know you said it was earlier, but seeing as it sounds "unbelievable", I'm asking again : are you really sure?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But if I follow this thread correctly, the presence of randomness does not necessarily cause indeterministic events (in so much as they can be calculated with probability).

Is that right as well?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Some processes do not involve random factors and so are deterministic. Others do involve them, and so are stochastic. I'm not sure how you're defining "indeterministic."


Well in that case it isn't random but unpredictable, as you agreed in the same post to what I wrote:
If something turns out to involve hidden variables, perhaps we could learn to understand it and so predict the process. Or it could be chaotic and so unpredictable for all practical purposes. Or it could still involve real randomness and thus be unpredictable.

~~ Paul

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
But if I follow this thread correctly, the presence of randomness does not necessarily cause indeterministic events (in so much as they can be calculated with probability).

Is that right as well?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Some processes do not involve random factors and so are deterministic. Others do involve them, and so are stochastic. I'm not sure how you're defining "indeterministic."


Ok I might have made up that word :xD

Where : indeterministic = the opposite of deterministic

or at least, means "not" deterministic.

Meaning that a chain of events may remain deterministic even if there are random elements in that chain of events.

Meaning that "the universe" may still be deterministic even if there are "random" influences in them.

(ps that's not what I think, this is a rephrasing of my question).

Quote:
Well in that case it isn't random but unpredictable, as you agreed in the same post to what I wrote:

If something turns out to involve hidden variables, perhaps we could learn to understand it and so predict the process. Or it could be chaotic and so unpredictable for all practical purposes. Or it could still involve real randomness and thus be unpredictable.

~~ Paul


Yeah, if those hidden variables are random, that's different (or not? see question above).

I'll try back up a step or two :

The way I see it, a chain of events (in absolute terms) is either deterministic or not.

If it is deterministic, that does not mean it is predictable, because whether something is predictable or not is only a question (in this case) of our capacity to predict it.

If it is not deterministic, then whatever capacity we have, we will never be able to predict it.

So :

"If all randomness is actually explainable with hidden variables".

That doesn't change anything because those hidden variables could be random or not.

Also, it does not change anything to the point and questions I'm attempting to deal with, because if there are hidden, none random variables, then it's all deterministic (in absolute terms).

How's that? :)

[Toontown]

"Stochastic" is putting it mildly. If you play your cards right, you can flip the spin of an electron on the other side of the galaxy. Instantaneously. Much to Einstein's distress and dismay.


Sorry, I ignored that so as not to confuse points.

Is that "verified", "tested", "reproduced", "accepted by the scientific community", "peer reviewed" etc etc (I know you said it was earlier, but seeing as it sounds "unbelievable", I'm asking again : are you really sure?

I'm sure. It's based on a phenomenon called "entanglement", which, along with it's effects, have been the subject of lots of experiments. But I exaggerated a bit. The technical difficulties of flipping the spin of a particle on the other side of the galaxy would be daunting. It was just my way of saying that distance has no influence on the entanglement phenomenon.

According to this article, entanglement can involve a lot of particles, and can be seen with the naked eye:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/quantum-entanglement/

Which somewhat supports the Everett interpretation of QM, which postulates that the observer of a quantum event involving multiple possible outcomes becomes entangled in the "quantum system", from whence matters become progressively more odd as the system evolves.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meaning that a chain of events may remain deterministic even if there are random elements in that chain of events.
I can't see how. Can you give an example?


Yeah, if those hidden variables are random, that's different (or not? see question above).
The idea with hidden variables is that an apparently random process turns out to be deterministic, using some mechanism that is difficult to discover.


So :

"If all randomness is actually explainable with hidden variables".

That doesn't change anything because those hidden variables could be random or not.
When one says "hidden variable" one means a currently unknown mechanism that makes the process deterministic. It's possible, of course, that an apparently random process is actually partly deterministic (hidden variable) and partly still random.

~~ Paul

[AlBell]

Then where does that leave free will?

What exactly do you mean by free will?
The undefined and undefinable status of libertarian free will is the first problem, followed closely by the problem that it can't be falsified even if it exists.

And it can't exist given the choice of monism as ontological materialism which most here appear to subscribe to. That's also one reason your idea that 'ideas exist' independently of the 4 forces doesn't work (which I hope you see also ties back to this thread).

[AlBell]

Yes, but this is assuming that we are the sum total of our environment.
Either 4 forces are what exists, or a fifth one must; and there is no data whatsoever (except subjective anecdotal) that even suggest a fifth force could exist.


....


To answer your original question, if we are controlled by the state of the universe then there is no such thing as free will, love, hate, life, death etc. The universe is just a machine running through its motions (with some random outcomes here and there). The universe would effectively be just a simulation.
Not sure why you think that would make existence a simulation; as always we are being reprogrammed every moment that becomes 'now-the present', and within us emotions provided by the 4 forces exist for love, hate, etc.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Meaning that a chain of events may remain deterministic even if there are random elements in that chain of events.

I can't see how. Can you give an example?


Remember it's not my argument, it's one that I'm using that comes from your points :p

But I can still think of an example :

If the "random" elements are confined to a specific domain, or have an irrelevant effect and/or influence, then the chain of events can remain deterministic regardless of those random elements.

Or do you want a "physical" example?

Quote:
Yeah, if those hidden variables are random, that's different (or not? see question above).
The idea with hidden variables is that an apparently random process turns out to be deterministic, using some mechanism that is difficult to discover.


Yeah I got that. (the first time lol)

What I'm saying is that in this case the "apparently random process" is wrongly called "random".

It's a mistake, an error, because it isn't random at all.

The reason for that mistake is that the "mechanism" is too difficult to discover, not that there isn't a mechanism.

Quote:
So :

"If all randomness is actually explainable with hidden variables".

That doesn't change anything because those hidden variables could be random or not.

When one says "hidden variable" one means a currently unknown mechanism that makes the process deterministic. It's possible, of course, that an apparently random process is actually partly deterministic (hidden variable) and partly still random.


yeah, both are possible so this is irrelevant.

Either a process is deterministic (regardless of whether anything is too difficult to discover) or it isn't.

If it is predictable depends mostly on our own capacity to "discover", not on whether it is actually predictable or not.

[Inzababa]

The undefined and undefinable status of libertarian free will is the first problem, followed closely by the problem that it can't be falsified even if it exists.

And it can't exist given the choice of monism as ontological materialism which most here appear to subscribe to. That's also one reason your idea that 'ideas exist' independently of the 4 forces doesn't work (which I hope you see also ties back to this thread).

It's only a problem if I were claiming anything.

There's a relation between this thread and the other (which I stated in the first post), but as I've said before, they are not at all the same "topic".

[Inzababa]

Either 4 forces are what exists, or a fifth one must; and there is no data whatsoever (except subjective anecdotal) that even suggest a fifth force could exist.

That depends on your definition of "force".

For example, if "randomness" exists (ie, there are random occurrences in the universe) that "randomness" is a force in itself, even if an undefined one.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yeah I got that. (the first time lol)

What I'm saying is that in this case the "apparently random process" is wrongly called "random".

It's a mistake, an error, because it isn't random at all.

The reason for that mistake is that the "mechanism" is too difficult to discover, not that there isn't a mechanism.
You should use the Quote feature so your quoting is tagged with the person's name.


yeah, both are possible so this is irrelevant.

Either a process is deterministic (regardless of whether anything is too difficult to discover) or it isn't.

If it is predictable depends mostly on our own capacity to "discover", not on whether it is actually predictable or not.
Right, but I'm not sure what your point is now.


For example, if "randomness" exists (ie, there are random occurrences in the universe) that "randomness" is a force in itself, even if an undefined one.
Huh?

~~ Paul

[dlorde]

That depends on your definition of "force".

For example, if "randomness" exists (ie, there are random occurrences in the universe) that "randomness" is a force in itself, even if an undefined one.
The four forces in question are the fundamental forces of physics (http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/f/fund_forces.htm). Randomness is not a force in this respect, nor does it fit any other common definition of force (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force).

[Inzababa]

You should use the Quote feature so your quoting is tagged with the person's name.


Right, but I'm not sure what your point is now.


Huh?

~~ Paul

then scroll back? ...

Quote:
For example, if "randomness" exists (ie, there are random occurrences in the universe) that "randomness" is a force in itself, even if an undefined one.
Huh?

~~ Paul


If a chain of events is not deterministic because there are random events happening within that chain of events.

Then the "fact" that events can be random is a source of influence on the result of those events.

The randomness itself is what explains certain events.

ie 4 forces cause all events in the universe is wrong

4 forces + random events

is right.

[Reality Check]

4 forces + random events

is right.
4 forces + random events is wrong. You have stated that yourself:
For example, if "randomness" exists (ie, there are random occurrences in the universe) that "randomness" is a force in itself, even if an undefined one.
An undefined force is one that does not exist in science.

[Inzababa]

4 forces + random events is wrong. You have stated that yourself:

An undefined force is one that does not exist in science.

hah

I don't know whether you're being ironic or not.

But it's very funny :)

So science recognises that there is something which it calls "random" which has an "undefined" influence on invents.

But then says it does not exist because it is unable to define it?

I like your name by the way, and here's a reality check :

A well-defined function must carry every element of its domain to an element of its codomain. For example, the function f defined by
f(x) = 1/x has no value for f(0).

If "science" is a function, you're saying (metaphorically) that "random" is "0".

So, because the set of all "reality" can not be its domain, in cases like this, the function "science" is defined on reality minus {randomn} because "the gap can not be plugged by explicitly defining "randomn".

[Inzababa]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.

Then where does that leave free will?

The reason I ask, is because I sort of enjoyed thinking until now that when I chose to do something, I was the cause of that event.

Not the result of random interactions between 4 forces.

FYI (source and background)

This question is one that I hit on while discussing something else in this thread :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=229555

The question arose from this post :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8068002#post8068002

In which, I quote :

what causes a chair to come into existence and to "then exist and continue to exist" are the composites / molecules / atoms and energy that it is made of.

In fact, all forces involved can be attributed to how these interact.

I can imagine you nodding your head while reading what is in bold here, and saying, "well that's true...."

Yes it is, I'm not disputing that.

However, there would be no chair of the sort without intelligent, creative design in the first place.

You need someone to make that chair, to have the idea to make that chair, to be creative to make that chair.

To disregard that influence, or "cause" of that event is to me, the equivalent of dis-regading me!

What I am, who I am, my free will, my independent of thought and action, the very fact that I may, on my own, of my own will, be the cause of any event.

Now you may call this mystical, but I don't see it as mystical. You may call this philosophical, I think philosophy is very concerned about this topic.

On the other hand, as pointed out in one of those posts that is buried in this thread, if something is true, then whether you approach the problem from a philosophical or physicist' perspective, the conlusions should converge.

There's no reason why a philosopher shouldn't or can't agree with a physicist and vice versa.

At the end of the day Myriad, if that's how you see the world, then your world contains no free will, no independent choice, and you, as a person, are the cause of nothing at all.

See what I mean?

Wanted to edit my first post but couldn't, so here's an illustration I saw recently and like :)

You know Samual Jackson? :)

http://youtu.be/CyU7JNBDkuI

[Damien Evans]

It leaves free will where it has always been: as an ill-defined concept.

And an awesome song.
OnxkfLe4G74

[Toontown]

"Free will" is indeed an ill-defined concept.

The laws of nature conspire in such a way as to cause sentient beings to make conscious decisions, after having caused them to evolve. We may, if we wish, define said decisions as "free will" decisions. Or not. Depends entirely on how we choose to define "free will". We may insist that said decisions are forced upon us by the deterministic universe (to the extent that it is deterministic at the level that decisions are generated). However we choose to look at it, the fact remains that "something" is forcing decisions to be made. Decisions presumably cannot simply pop unbidden out of the Void. Well, actually they do, but not willy-nilly. Emergence is required.

At any rate, we may call that "something" free will or the agent of free will if we wish. Alternatively, the (?deterministic?) laws of nature may force some of us to insist that anything forced is not free. And then the (?deterministic?) laws of nature may force some of us to argue otherwise, in which case we have laws of nature (which may well have popped unbidden out of a Void) arguing with themselves about whether they are free or not.

It is to laugh. It also is what it is.

What it is is what it is. Are you what you are, or what?

[Inzababa]

"Free will" is indeed an ill-defined concept.

The laws of nature conspire in such a way as to cause sentient beings to make conscious decisions, after having caused them to evolve. We may, if we wish, define said decisions as "free will" decisions. Or not. Depends entirely on how we choose to define "free will". We may insist that said decisions are forced upon us by the deterministic universe (to the extent that it is deterministic at the level that decisions are generated). However we choose to look at it, the fact remains that "something" is forcing decisions to be made. Decisions presumably cannot simply pop unbidden out of the Void. Well, actually they do, but not willy-nilly. Emergence is required.

At any rate, we may call that "something" free will or the agent of free will if we wish. Alternatively, the (?deterministic?) laws of nature may force us to insist that anything forced is not free. And then the (?deterministic?) laws of nature may force some of us to argue otherwise, in which case we have laws of nature (which may well have popped unbidden out of a Void) arguing with themselves about whether they are free or not.

It is to laugh. It also is what it is.

What it is is what it is. Are you what you are, or what?

I like what you wrote, just one question :

is the universe deterministic yes or no?

(ps we are part of the universe)

[Toontown]

I like what you wrote, just one question :

is the universe deterministic yes or no?

(ps we are part of the universe)

Semi-educated opinion:

The macro universe behaves deterministically. The quantum universe behaves indeterministically, but does follow it's own rules, and does influence parts of the macro universe in it's own mysterious ways.

The macro universe, according to standard big bang theory, emerged out of a primordial quantum soup, which, according to standard quantum theory, was anything but deterministic. Thus, if all the above is true, the macro (deterministic) universe is essentially a series of randomly-generated events, continuously influenced somewhat by indeterministic quantum events.

And the whole thing may well have popped unbidden out of a Void, possibly as a result of an acausal quantum energy fluctuation.

So, all in all, I would call it pseudo-deterministic.:D

[Inzababa]

Semi-educated opinion:

The macro universe behaves deterministically. The quantum universe behaves indeterministically, but does follow it's own rules, and does influence parts of the macro universe in it's own mysterious ways.

The macro universe, according to standard big bang theory, emerged out of a primordial quantum soup, which, according to standard quantum theory, was anything but deterministic. Thus, if all the above is true, the macro (deterministic) universe is essentially a series of randomly-generated events, continuously influenced somewhat by indeterministic quantum events.

And the whole thing may well have popped unbidden out of a Void, possibly as a result of an acausal quantum energy fluctuation.

So, all in all, I would call it pseudo-deterministic.:D

understood.

Two questions :

a) now (as in, not at the time or even close to the big bang) :

do random events that happen in the quantum universe have any "potential" to have an influence on the "macro" universe?

b) regardless, as a matter of principle, within the quantum universe, why would anyone not consider "randomness" not to be the cause of something if there are events that are not deterministic?

Oh, one last question ; is there any way to determine (no pun intended) whether that semi educated opinion is correct or not? :)

[Inzababa]

re stated / re phrasing another point which was touched on recently :

A deterministic universe tautologically kills the concept of free will.

We've (almost?) established that the universe is not deterministic. Therefore (almost) establishing that free will isn't dead.

I still don't think we're even close (yet) to establishing whether it is "alive" or not.

[Toontown]

a) now (as in, not at the time or even close to the big bang) :
do random events that happen in the quantum universe have any "potential" to have an influence on the "macro" universe?

Yes. People, in particular, can be influenced a good deal by quantum events.

Ever been in an atom bomb? That will influence the hell out of you.

But seriously. Yes. I gave one example earlier, with the X-ray influencing your thoughts by taking out some neurons.

The macro world is always influenced in some ways during quantum experiments involving the observation of elementary particles/waves. The observation apparatus is affected. The observer is affected. People who are informed of the results of the experiments are affected. The development of technology is deeply affected. And so on.

An X-ray could also influence your offspring's genes by impacting one of them in your offspring's zygote. The general direction of evolution could be influenced by such an event. Your existence could have been adversely affected, had one of your monocellular ancestors been killed by something like an X-ray. And so on.

etc...I could dream up some complicated scenarios, but surely you get the drift.


b) regardless, as a matter of principle, within the quantum universe, why would anyone not consider "randomness" not to be the cause of something if there are events that are not deterministic?

I didn't say anyone would or wouldn't consider this or that, although obviously some do or don't. I just answered your question.


Oh, one last question ; is there any way to determine (no pun intended) whether that semi educated opinion is correct or not? :)

Not absolutely. But you can do your own independent investigation. The internet is good for that. It's worldwide, you know.;) I've stumbled across more than one quantum physicist on the internet who was willing to talk. But try to stay away from the crackpots. They're not crackpots just because they explain that QM is strange and counterintuitive. It is. The more you learn, the better you'll be able to differentiate the crackpots from the ones who are simply "crazy enough".

Libraries are also a good source of info, but a lot of books are outdated. Knowledge is advancing at a rapid pace.

[Inzababa]

(1) Yes. People, in particular, can be influenced a good deal by quantum events.

Ever been in an atom bomb? That will influence the hell out of you.

But seriously. Yes. I gave one example earlier, with the X-ray influencing your thoughts by taking out some neurons.

The macro world is always influenced in some ways during quantum experiments involving the observation of elementary particles/waves. The observation apparatus is affected. The observer is affected. People who are informed of the results of the experiments are affected. The development of technology is deeply affected. And so on.

An X-ray could also influence your offspring's genes by impacting one of them in your offspring's zygote. The general direction of evolution could be influenced by such an event. Your existence could have been adversely affected, had one of your monocellular ancestors been killed by something like an X-ray. And so on.

etc...I could dream up with some complicated scenarios, but surely you get the drift.

_________________________

(2) I didn't say anyone would or wouldn't consider this or that, although obviously some do or don't. I just answered your question.



(3)Not absolutely. But you can do your own independent investigation. The internet is good for that. It's worldwide, you know.;) I've stumbled across more than one quantum physicist on the internet who is willing to talk. But try to stay away from the crackpots.

Libraries are also a good source of info, but a lot of books are outdated. Knowledge is advancing at a rapid pace.

(1) thanks. I remembered your example as I read your post.

(2) wasn't saying that's what you said, was simply asking the question because of what was written in this thread by other people.

So what's the answer?

In case the phrasing is troubling you, I'll rephrase :

If you consider the "quantum universe" not to be deterministic.

What makes it not deterministic?

If the answer to that question is : randomness.

Would you say that "randomness" is the reason why it is not deterministic ; ie the cause of those random events is "random" ; ie "random" is a cause of events?

(3) This is me doing my investigation ;)

Would any real Quantum Physicist please stand up?

[Toontown]

(1) thanks. I remembered your example as I read your post.

(2) wasn't saying that's what you said, was simply asking the question because of what was written in this thread by other people.

So what's the answer?

In case the phrasing is troubling you, I'll rephrase :

If you consider the "quantum universe" not to be deterministic.

What makes it not deterministic?

If the answer to that question is : randomness.

Would you say that "randomness" is the reason why it is not deterministic ; ie the cause of those random events is "random" ; ie "random" is a cause of events?

(3) This is me doing my investigation ;)

Would any real Quantum Physicist please stand up?

Of course random events cause other events. An event can hardly occur in the universe without affecting something. But we're into semantics now.

What is "randomness"? A truly acausal event, by definition, has no cause, not even "randomness", whatever that is. That's why it's acausal. If you conjure up a cause, and call it "randomness", then you are essentially saying there are hidden variables at work, hiding under the guise of "randomness", causing the apparent pseudo-randomness.

So we're down to the question: do you believe Bell's inequalities eliminate the possibility of hidden variables, or not? I think the majority position is that there are no hidden variables - Acausality is really acausal.

[Inzababa]

Of course random events cause other events. An event can hardly occur in the universe without affecting something. But we're into semantics now.

What is "randomness"? A truly acausal event, by definition, has no cause, not even "randomness", whatever that is. That's why it's acausal. If you conjure up a cause, and call it "randomness", then you are essentially saying there are hidden variables at work, hiding under the guise of "randomness", causing the apparent pseudo-randomness.

So we're down to the question: do you believe Bell's inequalities eliminate the possibility of hidden variables, or not? I think the majority position is that there are no hidden variables - Acausality is really acausal.

then the cause is necessarily something we don't know about

or

deterministic but unpredictable

[Toontown]

then the cause is necessarily something we don't know about

or

deterministic but unpredictable

Something acausal, by definition, has no cause. Nothing caused it. That's what makes it acausal.

I can't absolutely prove acausality is real, but I can give pause. I can suggest that something must exist without having been created, else nothing could exist. For example, if you believe God created the universe, then God must be acausal. Nothing could have made Him. The alternative being an acausal universe. I've seen people try to explain the universe by setting up a causal loop, but then the entire causal loop exists acausally, with only elements in the loop being caused by other elements in the loop.

Looked at in this way, acausality is seen as the driving wheel of all existence.

[Inzababa]

Something acausal, by definition, has no cause. Nothing caused it. That's what makes it acausal.

I can't absolutely prove acausality is real, but I can give pause. I can suggest that something must exist without having been created, else nothing could exist. For example, if you believe God created the universe, then God must be acausal. Nothing could have made Him. The alternative being an acausal universe. I've seen people try to explain the universe by setting up a causal loop, but then the entire causal loop exists acausally, with only elements in the loop being caused by other elements in the loop.

Looked at in this way, acausality is seen as the driving wheel of all existence.

ok can you give examples of things that are acausal?

(or is that just "the 4 forces" to begin with?)

[Toontown]

ok can you give examples of things that are acausal?

(or is that just "the 4 forces" to begin with?)

Not in the sense that you seem to be thinking of, because I don't know absolutely what the first thing that ever existed was. I simply provided reasoning that shows how something must exist acausally, the purpose of which was to show that acausal events are hardly unthinkable.

Edited to add: if you're looking for a more mundane example, the decay of an unstable isotope of uranium is generally considered acausal. And that can cause a city to disappear.

[Inzababa]

Not in the sense that you seem to be thinking of, because I don't know absolutely what the first thing that ever existed was. I simply provided reasoning that shows how something must exist acausally, the purpose of which was to show that acausal events are hardly unthinkable.

ok, I don't agree with your reasoning :p

but never mind

[Toontown]

ok, I don't agree with your reasoning :p

but never mind

Wow. What a surprise.

Obviously, I don't agree with yours either. But I think I understand yours better than you understand mine.:p

[Inzababa]

Wow. What a surprise.

Obviously, I don't agree with yours either. But I think I understand yours better than you understand mine.:p

what reasoning?

I've only been asking you questions.

Except for this

then the cause is necessarily something we don't know about

or

deterministic but unpredictable

which includes acausal in "we don't know about"...

[Toontown]

what reasoning?

I've only been asking you questions.

Except for this

which includes acausal in "we don't know about"...

Right, but you said "the cause" was something we don't know about.
Something truly acausal, by definition, does not have a cause. It's not that we don't know the cause. There is no cause to know. If there is a cause, then the event is not acausal, and belongs in the category of deterministic events.

And it's not that we don't know or can't observe an acausal event. We can know and observe an acausal event when it happens. We just can't know 'why' it happened, because there is no reason why it happened if it is truly acausal.

[Inzababa]

Right, but you said "the cause" was something we don't know about.
Something truly acausal, by definition, does not have a cause. It's not that we don't know the cause. There is no cause to know. If there is a cause, then the event is not acausal, and belongs in the category of deterministic events.

And it's not that we don't know or can't observe an acausal event. We can know and observe an acausal event when it happens. We just can't know 'why' it happened, because there is no reason why it happened if it is truly acausal.

ok, I understand that.

However, when providing an "example" of this (or rather, illustration), you used "the creation of the universe".

That's something we don't know (unless anyone has been able to absolutely demonstrate that we at least know that is acausal without being able to prove it?)

Point being : no one can give an example of something which is acausal without someone else replying : "well, maybe there is a cause which we don't know about".

Is there? Because if there is, I'd like to know of such examples.

I looked it up on Wikipedia, but the only thing I got was this :

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up acausal in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Acausal, as an adjective, may refer to:

In Jungian psychology, acausal may be a synonym of synchronistic, i.e., related by meaning rather than causation.

In engineering, acausal describes a system or filter whose output at time T depends partly on its input for some later time T+n.

I'd never heard of this term until you used it.

I have trouble "conceptualising" something which is not caused by anything, which is why I'm asking for an example.

[Inzababa]

But I think I understand yours better than you understand mine.

If there are things that are truly "acausal", then you're right about that ;)

[Toontown]

ok, I understand that.

However, when providing an "example" of this (or rather, illustration), you used "the creation of the universe".

That's something we don't know (unless anyone has been able to absolutely demonstrate that we at least know that is acausal without being able to prove it?)

I was trying to show that something must be acausal, else nothing could exist. The universe is either caused or uncaused (acausal). If created, then the creator must be acausal. What could have created the creator? If not created, then the universe is acausal. There was nothing else to create it.

So either way, something ends up being uncaused. It's just to show that the concept of uncaused events is not unthinkable. In fact, everyone who tries to explain the existence of the universe invariably ends up with something which is uncaused. God, a causal loop, eternal universe, aternal universe, whatever. Whatever ends up being the proposed explanation, is, at bottom, uncaused.


Point being : no one can give an example of something which is acausal without someone else replying : "well, maybe there is a cause which we don't know about".

Someone is always going to say that. And we don't really know absolutely whether the universe itself is acausal or whether something acausal caused the universe. I'm just proposing that something must be acausal, else nothing could exist. Even if you propose an infinite regression of causes, then the entire infinite regression simply exists, acausally. The infinite regression does no more than explain the genesis of the individual elements inside the entire system of infinite regression. The entire system itself remains unexplained.

I'm saying something will always end up uncaused.


I'd never heard of this term until you used it.

I have trouble "conceptualising" something which is not caused by anything, which is why I'm asking for an example.

google "physics, acausal". You'll get a lot of links relating acausality to physics. Or try "cosmology, acausal" for links relating acausality to the universe.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
ok, I understand that.

However, when providing an "example" of this (or rather, illustration), you used "the creation of the universe".

That's something we don't know (unless anyone has been able to absolutely demonstrate that we at least know that is acausal without being able to prove it?)

I was trying to show that something must be acausal, else nothing could exist.



I think I understood that, but don't agree with it.

The universe is either caused or uncaused (acausal).



Why? (ie : why is it necessarily one or the other?)

If created, then the creator must be acausal.

Not sure about this.

I create things all the time.

I am not acausal.

However that does not mean that what I create is caused by what causes me to "be".

Does it?



(maybe this is too "meta" physical and confusing, and I'm happy to disregard this, the point is to show an example which (if true) shows a flaw in the argument without then providing an explanation on how to make it right)

Because some elements of what I "am" may be autonomously acquired by myself from outside myself in the first place.

AND because some elements of what I am may be created by me in the first place.

Blunt example : I can acquire food which is not natural to me

In other words, I think we may not understand each other on this part of that phrase :

"if created"

even though it's a short part :p

If I "create" a baby (example used in this thread previously), will everything that baby "is" stem from what I "am"?

If I "create" anything at all, does anything that I create stem from what I am?

Or does what I am have the capacity to use elements that are not part of what I am in order to make something not made 100% of me?

(again, this questioning and its answers do not solve the problem, they merely point to how the argument that you're using works, to which I ask : "what is creation"

What could have created the creator?

Well, let's start with something we are both familiar with.

Is there anything at all (anything) which is created here and now? Today, in what you call "reality"? (anything).

The reason for this is that it may be that when you and I speak of "creation of something which is created in our lifes or reality as we know it", we don't mean it in the same way as when we speak of "creation of the universe itself".

If not, we're gona have a problem here. (If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.)

If yes, what is its "creator"?

Secondly, that argument relies (amongst other things) on a linear perspective of time, it wouldn't even be relevant if, for example, the universe was never created but always existed. (which you may refer to as : a causal loop, eternal universe)

So either way, something ends up being uncaused.

Not "tautologically". ie I am not rejecting the claim that results from your argument. (unless I am assigning meanings to words you are using which you are not assigning, for example, when you say "creation" you don't mean it in the same way as when I say it, in which case your argument may be right, simply that I don't see why)

I am rejecting your argument (possibly because I simply still don't understand it even though I thought I did).

It's just to show that the concept of uncaused events is not unthinkable.

I'm happy to agree with that. What I'm trying to say (and was saying) is that it is unthinkable to me right now.

And I'm requesting nicely whether anyone (including you :p) may have the generosity of taking some time out and "showing" me how to think that.

If not, I will (as you suggested) have to turn to other sources of information, like google :)

In fact, everyone who tries to explain the existence of the universe invariably ends up with something which is uncaused. God, a causal loop, eternal universe, aternal universe, whatever. Whatever ends up being the proposed explanation, is, at bottom, uncaused.

This phrase hit home. (so to speak).

Because it's kind of what I did in "secondly".

Which can be summed up like this : if the universe was not created, and always existed, then nothing caused it to exist because it always existed, there is no "in the first place", which means its existence has no cause.

Correct?

(that's quite a mind **** :D)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Point being : no one can give an example of something which is acausal without someone else replying : "well, maybe there is a cause which we don't know about".

Someone is always going to say that.


How would someone say that in response to the following phrase? (I have one or two intuitions but haven't checked them out yet)

--> if the universe was not created, and always existed, then nothing caused it to exist because it always existed, there is no "in the first place", which means its existence has no cause. <--

Isn't that an example?

And we don't really know absolutely whether the universe itself is acausal or whether something acausal caused the universe.

Is there anything which we absolutely know is acausal?

Maybe if we started with that rather than anything else? (although this may be off topic, however, I guess no one else at this point is really going to stay on topic since most "participants" consider the matter "closed".)

So :

Can you provide 10 examples (more would be ideal, but I wouldn't dare ask that of you, got better things to do) of things we know absolutely?

I'm just proposing that something must be acausal, else nothing could exist.

Now I think I understand your argument, which I rephrased and will rephrase again here :

If nothing created what exists, then what exists (including what was not created but simply exists and always has existed) is acausal.

Correct?

Even if you propose an infinite regression of causes, then the entire infinite regression simply exists, acausally. The infinite regression does no more than explain the genesis of the individual elements inside the entire system of infinite regression. The entire system itself remains unexplained.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "mind ****" heheh, it's the kind of thread of thought which can send a mind spiralling if clinged too.

When this used to happen when I was a kid, I would react by thinking "**** it, its not solvable, I either let it go or go crazy lol"

Because even in the case where you could explain it, that explanation requires a cause as well and so on and so on.

I'm saying something will always end up uncaused.

I'm not rejecting what you're saying, I'm rejecting the reasoning that brought you to conclude this.

Which relies on (and is true in my case as well) "I can't solve the problem in any way, by definition, because any answer then produces a new question infinitely".

The reason I don't agree with it is simply because my answer to that is :

1.
what does this mean? : "you can not solve a problem from the level that created it"

This "fractal" or "vicious and endless circle of reasoning" is created at one level of thinking isn't it?

If I'm not able to explain it, maybe it's because variables required to explain it come from "another level".

Which is impossible for me to conceptualise and explain (define), however that possibility sounds reasonable, because there are other cases in which this kind of "principle" can be shown to work and be true.

ie : the problem here is not that there is no explanation, the problem here is that you and I do not (at least not now) have the "capacity" to explain it.

(that does not leave out the possibility that there may absolutely not be an explanation, but that's something which I find even harder to conceptualise).

Conclusion : both may be true

1. we don't have the capacity to solve this problem because we created it at one level and are unable to look at it from another

2. there actually is no solution to this problem but we can't prove it.

2 makes less sense to me than 1

[Inzababa]

Just read a quote by Sagan which I thought might be relevant to this discussion (indeed, to this whole forum)

There is no other species on the Earth that does science. It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be.

[Inzababa]

even more on toipc, from Sagan :

But we don't yet know wherther the Universe is open or closed. More than that, there are a few astronomers who doubt that the redshift of distant galaxies is due to the doppler effect, who are skeptical of the expanding Universe and the Big Bang. Perhaps our descendants will regard our present ignorance with as much sympathy as we feel to the ancients for not knowing the Earth went around the Sun. If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.

[Toontown]

I think I understood that, but don't agree with it.

Why? (ie : why is it necessarily one or the other?)

What lies between caused and uncaused?


Not sure about this.
I create things all the time.
I am not acausal.

You are not a "creator". You've never created anything. You've only reorganized things that already exist.

The things we do are not analagous to what I was talking about.


Well, let's start with something we are both familiar with.

Is there anything at all (anything) which is created here and now? Today, in what you call "reality"? (anything).

Nothing physical, that I know of.


Secondly, that argument relies (amongst other things) on a linear perspective of time, it wouldn't even be relevant if, for example, the universe was never created but always existed. (which you may refer to as : a causal loop, eternal universe)

Not necessarily so. Inflation theory, for example, does not rely on time at all to explain the existence of the universe. Inflation theory has the universe emerging acausally from a timeless Void, the result of an acausal energy fluctuation.



This phrase hit home. (so to speak).

Because it's kind of what I did in "secondly".

Which can be summed up like this : if the universe was not created, and always existed, then nothing caused it to exist because it always existed, there is no "in the first place", which means its existence has no cause.

Correct?

(that's quite a mind **** :D)

You have a brain that visualizes in 3 dimensions, relies heavily on linear time, and makes mockups of physical reality rather than seeing it as it really is.

For example, you see light in color. But it's not really colors your brain is representing, it's varying distances - wave lengths.

Just saying...If you're going to look the universe in the eye, prepare to be mind-fracked.;)


How would someone say that in response to the following phrase? (I have one or two intuitions but haven't checked them out yet)

--> if the universe was not created, and always existed, then nothing caused it to exist because it always existed, there is no "in the first place", which means its existence has no cause. <--

Isn't that an example?

Yes. As I said, any way you look at it, you end up with something acausal.



Is there anything which we absolutely know is acausal?

Maybe if we started with that rather than anything else? (although this may be off topic, however, I guess no one else at this point is really going to stay on topic since most "participants" consider the matter "closed".)

I don't know anything absolutely. I know things probabilistically, with degrees of certainty, so to speak.

I think the decay of a uranium atom is acausal. But I really doubt if that will help you conceptualise that things can happen or exist causelessly. You've spent your whole life assuming causality is the bottom turtle. When your brain glimpsed the fracking truth, you tried to causalify it, then gave up. You need a paradigm shift to start thinking of acausality as the bottom turtle.


Can you provide 10 examples (more would be ideal, but I wouldn't dare ask that of you, got better things to do) of things we know absolutely?"

It wouldn't help.

Turn, and face the strange.


Now I think I understand your argument, which I rephrased and will rephrase again here :

If nothing created what exists, then what exists (including what was not created but simply exists and always has existed) is acausal.

Correct?


What else would it be, if nothing created/caused it? Semi-causal? But whether it "always existed" is not the determining factor. It is conceivable that something that always existed is caused to exist by something else. And you can keep going with that until you end up with a whole string of something else's, and the existence of the entire system of explanations will remain unexplained.


Yeah, that's what I meant by "mind ****" heheh, it's the kind of thread of thought which can send a mind spiralling if clinged too.

When this used to happen when I was a kid, I would react by thinking "**** it, its not solvable, I either let it go or go crazy lol"

Because even in the case where you could explain it, that explanation requires a cause as well and so on and so on.

Like I said. No matter how many causes and effects you string together, the entire system of (... cause ---> effect ---> cause ...) remains unexplained. Just there. Acausal.

Nothing to get hung about. Strawberry fields forever.


I'm not rejecting what you're saying, I'm rejecting the reasoning that brought you to conclude this.

It's more observation than reasoning. I observe that no matter how many causes I string together, I end up with an unexplained string of causes.

You saw it, and ran away. Hint: if you run from the unexplained, the universe will keep you on the run indefinitely.

Turn, and face the strange.



ie : the problem here is not that there is no explanation, the problem here is that you and I do not (at least not now) have the "capacity" to explain it.

(that does not leave out the possibility that there may absolutely not be an explanation, but that's something which I find even harder to conceptualise).

God Himself could not explain something that has no explanation attached to it. Think of the explanation as the price tag, and your ability to understand is the amount of money you have. How much does the unexplainable cost? It doesn't cost anything. It is what it is. You can have it. You don't need to understand why it's there. There is nothing to understand. You have reached the bottom turtle, and, to your astonishment, the bottom turtle is free.


Conclusion : both may be true

1. we don't have the capacity to solve this problem because we created it at one level and are unable to look at it from another

2. there actually is no solution to this problem but we can't prove it.

2 makes less sense to me than 1

That which is not a problem does not require a solution.

The questions on a test require answers. The paper the test is written on does not require an answer.

And now, a message from your friendly neighborhood universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

[Inzababa]

What lies between caused and uncaused?


creation

right?

You are not a "creator". You've never created anything. You've only reorganized things that already exist.

Then I was right, we were using the same word with different meanings ;)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Well, let's start with something we are both familiar with.

Is there anything at all (anything) which is created here and now? Today, in what you call "reality"? (anything).

Nothing physical, that I know of.


ok well if that's true, we're in trouble lol

(I'm not disputing that by the way, I think I agree.)

Just saying...If you're going to look the universe in the eye, prepare to be mind-fracked.

Oh I'm ready :)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
How would someone say that in response to the following phrase? (I have one or two intuitions but haven't checked them out yet)

--> if the universe was not created, and always existed, then nothing caused it to exist because it always existed, there is no "in the first place", which means its existence has no cause. <--

Isn't that an example?
Yes. As I said, any way you look at it, you end up with something acausal.


Ok. Only problem is, there's an if in front of it, and (as far as I've understood) it's never been proven.

You've spent your whole life assuming causality is the bottom turtle. When your brain glimpsed the fracking truth, you tried to causalify it, then gave up. You need a paradigm shift to start thinking of acausality as the bottom turtle.

no that was my early years (teens etc) :)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Can you provide 10 examples (more would be ideal, but I wouldn't dare ask that of you, got better things to do) of things we know absolutely?"

It wouldn't help.

We wouldn't know that until it happened, but you admitted it wasn't possible, so not a problem.

Turn, and face the strange.

(off topic) Pink Floyd fan? :)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Now I think I understand your argument, which I rephrased and will rephrase again here :

If nothing created what exists, then what exists (including what was not created but simply exists and always has existed) is acausal.

Correct?
What else would it be, if nothing created/caused it? Semi-causal? But whether it "always existed" is not the determining factor. It is conceivable that something that always existed is caused to exist by something else. And you can keep going with that until you end up with a whole string of something eles's, and the existence of the entire system of explanations will remain unexplained.


I could think of a few things, I think, most of which would cause eyes to roll, none of which I could prove, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Although, for the sake of providing an answer : an illusion caused by our perspective.

I don't think we should ever forget that all of this understanding we are trying to do, is done from one specific point of view.

Even when that "perspective" is abstractly changed, it always ends up tracing its way back to that original subjective perspective, doesn't it?

That in itself is often the cause of errors.

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Yeah, that's what I meant by "mind ****" heheh, it's the kind of thread of thought which can send a mind spiralling if clinged too.

When this used to happen when I was a kid, I would react by thinking "**** it, its not solvable, I either let it go or go crazy lol"

Because even in the case where you could explain it, that explanation requires a cause as well and so on and so on.
Like I said. No matter how many causes and effects you string together, the entire system of ... cause ---> effect ---> cause ... remains unexplained. Just there. Acausal.

Nothing to get hung about. Strawberry fields forever.



hah I'm not letting that go though, since you like strawberries, maybe you'll like what I heard, "there's no problem, only solutions"

:)

for example one solution to that problem may be to point out that there could be a problem in the logic, in the variables taken into account, in how perspectives influence reasoning etc etc etc

When scientists looked through Galileos' telescope and saw another planet, they could not believe it.


"They were not convinced at all; they could see the moons of Jupiter but they said, 'They must be inside the telescope, it can't possibly be like that.' source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17221490

The problem in this example, was not the truth, they were the problem, their reasoning was the problem, their own perspective was the problem, the way they had constructed the world in their minds was the problem.

If this is true, it could very well apply to the issue we're on about here.

(again, not at all, not even remotely starting to claim that I could even suggest an answer, simply that this point may part of the problem)

You saw it, and ran away. Hint: if you run from the unexplained, the universe will keep you on the run indefinitely.

hah when I ran away, I was trying to see things from your perspective, what I expressed was an attempt of how you would see things when following that reasoning.

Not an expression of my perspective :D

(ie "what ran away" was my interpretation of what you would do with that reasoning, which isn't even true since you're not running away)

Originally Posted by Inzababa
ie : the problem here is not that there is no explanation, the problem here is that you and I do not (at least not now) have the "capacity" to explain it.



(that does not leave out the possibility that there may absolutely not be an explanation, but that's something which I find even harder to conceptualise).


exactly, something which I stated myself at the end of that post

God Himself could not explain something that has no explanation attached to it.

How about this :

he could not explain it to you
he could explain it to another God (never heard of a religion with more than one "creator" (example, greek gods)

Maybe there's a star man waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us, but he thinks he'd blow our minds? :)

Think of the explanation as the price tag, and your ability to understand is the amount of money you have. How much does the unexplainable cost?

LOL I'm loving this conversation :D:D

it's not about the money :)

anyway, to reply : more than I got (probably).

But that won't stop me trying either, because maybe one day, one thing I say may contribute to what someone else thinks, maybe one day what that person says (which he wouldn't have said if I hadn't tried) may do the same.

And maybe, though it's a relatively a speck of dust or a grain of sand, the simple act of trying could be part of the foundations of a collective understanding that is reached in X many years from now.

That's what matters. (to me).

It doesn't cost anything. It is what it is. You can have it. You don't need to understand why it's there. There is nothing to understand. You have reached the bottom turtle, and, to your astonishment, the bottom turtle is free.

Then if I let it go, that doesn't matter right? Cause it'll come back.

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Conclusion : both may be true

1. we don't have the capacity to solve this problem because we created it at one level and are unable to look at it from another

2. there actually is no solution to this problem but we can't prove it.

2 makes less sense to me than 1
That which is not a problem does not require a solution.

The questions on a test require answers. The paper the test is written on does not require an answer.


In that context, yes.

However, there are other contexts in which this matters very very much.

Because this kind of thing causes wars. And with the state our technology advancement has reached today, that's one hell of a problem.

And now, a message from your friendly neighborhood universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

here's two from my sponsor :

1. http://youtu.be/K3oz0zhEwZk

2. http://youtu.be/r-XtvR6-ckg

and thanks for one great conversation, loves this :)

[Inzababa]

lol at one point, you forgot to include something which I said in your quote.

When I read it, I didn't recognise it replied :

exactly

lol of course exactly, I *********** said it in exactly those words :xD

[Toontown]

creation

right?

No. creation is causation.



Ok. Only problem is, there's an if in front of it, and (as far as I've understood) it's never been proven.

And again, the alternative is to string together a string of causes. Make the string as long or as short as you like:

(...Super-Duper Creator ---> Super-Creator ---> Creator ---> universe )

The whole of which simply exists. An entire System Of Creation which simply exists acausally.


for example one solution to that problem may be to point out that there could be a problem in the logic, in the variables taken into account, in how perspectives influence reasoning etc etc etc.

Good luck fixing the logic without knowing what the problem in the logic is.

You keep saying there is a problem. What problem? The problem is that there might be a problem, but you don't know what it is? :boggled:

Yeah, that's a problem all right. But not my problem. I've got a song for that:

http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/53510

;)

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
Ok. Only problem is, there's an if in front of it, and (as far as I've understood) it's never been proven.

nd again, the alternative is to string together a string of causes. Make the string as long or as short as you like:

(...Super-Duper Creator ---> Super-Creator ---> Creator ---> universe )

The whole of which simply exists. An entire System Of Creation which simply exists acausally.



Toontown, not that I'm messing around, but you said that you could not give me an example of something which was an absolute certainty.

Did that include the existence of the universe in the first place?

Or is that something so obvious you didn't think of that?

Since you say again, I say again, if we don't see how or why does not mean (and this "principle" has been proven time and time again in scientific history) that there is no how and why.

We can't be certain that the universe is acausal one way or another.


Originally Posted by Inzababa
for example one solution to that problem may be to point out that there could be a problem in the logic, in the variables taken into account, in how perspectives influence reasoning etc etc etc.
Good luck fixing the logic without knowing what the problem in the logic is.


It's happened before in similar circumstances, I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

One day "we" (the human race, science etc) will find out. I'm sure of it.

It's the kind of inspiration that comes to scientists when they aren't thinking about it intently, for example, when having a bath ;)


You keep saying there is a problem. What problem? The problem is that there might be a problem, but you don't know what it is?

That you do not know for certain what the truth is (and why).

If we find a solution to this problem, we will also maybe find a solution to any other problem that is related.

Yeah, that's a problem all right. But not my problem. I've got a song for that:

http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/53510
;)

And I've got two songs for that (for every one you give me, I give you two ;) )

http://youtu.be/y11yMCnhxZE

http://youtu.be/OGk2qmDmvT8

[Toontown]

Toontown, not that I'm messing around, but you said that you could not give me an example of something which was an absolute certainty.

Did that include the existence of the universe in the first place?

Or is that something so obvious you didn't think of that?

I don't recall you actually asking that question. You asked about something created, and something acausal. I don't recall you asking about anything that exists with absolute certainty.

FYI, I am more than willing to grant the almost certain existence of observables.


Since you say again, I say again, if we don't see how or why does not mean (and this "principle" has been proven time and time again in scientific history) that there is no how and why.

I said at the outset that I can't prove absolutely that acausality is for real. I just said I can support it.


That you do not know for certain what the truth is (and why).

If we find a solution to this problem, we will also maybe find a solution to any other problem that is related.

I continue to maintain that it is not a problem that I don't know for certain what the truth is (and why). It would be more of a problem if I did. They would want to find out how this human came to know everything.

I am still betting that acausality is for real. That's were my "money" is. 7 come 11. Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Roll them bones:D

[Inzababa]

I don't recall you actually asking that question.

ok, maybe mis communication, here's my point of view :


Originally Posted by Inzababa
Can you provide 10 examples (more would be ideal, but I wouldn't dare ask that of you, got better things to do) of things we know absolutely?"
it wouldn't help.


I guess I mis interpreted your answer, thought it meant "no".

don't know anything absolutely. I know things probabilistically, with degrees of certainty, so to speak.


Originally Posted by Inzababa
Since you say again, I say again, if we don't see how or why does not mean (and this "principle" has been proven time and time again in scientific history) that there is no how and why.
I said at the outset that I can't prove absolutely that acausality is for real. I just said I can support it.


Sounds like faith, religion to me. Since you support something which is not certain.

(no offence intended, I personally have faith, also much respect religions)

continue to maintain that it is not a problem that I don't know for certain what the truth is (and why). It would be more of a problem if I did. They would want to find out how this human came to know everything.

That's fine.

It's not a problem for you, it's a problem for me, no problem at all in this conversation :)

I am still betting that acausality is for real. That's were my "money" is. 7 come 11. Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Roll them bones

Would you be willing to bet your life on this?

[Toontown]

ok, maybe mis communication, here's my point of view :

I guess I mis interpreted your answer, thought it meant "no".



Yeah. It's a miscommunication on your part. That wasn't the question you referred to in your previous post. In your last post, you claimed that you asked if I knew of anything that absolutely exists. You had not done so, but I answered the question in my last post.

Do you plan to spend a long time on this particular merry-go-round?


Sounds like faith, religion to me. Since you support something which is not certain.

That's just plain stupid.

Now you're beginning to piss me off. Now it's a religion if I support something I consider to be rationally supportable?

And if your posting here is driven by your "faith", then I can say unequivocally that I am not interested in learning all about your faith.


Would you be willing to bet your life on this?

Did you not believe what I said?

As I already indicated, I consider acausality more likely to be a real phenomenon than not.

Do the math. If my life depended on choosing correctly, then why in monkey hell would I choose an alternative I consider to be less likely?

It's probably just me, but I'm almost beginning to feel as if I'm being badgered by a time-consuming troll. Such a troll, if it existed, would be completely insane, and badly in need of a repeat of that previous message from our friendly neighborhood universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

[Inzababa]

Yeah. It's a miscommunication on your part. That wasn't the question you referred to in your previous post. In your last post, you claimed that you asked if I knew of anything that absolutely exists. You had not done so, but I answered the question in my last post.

Do you plan to spend a long time on this particular merry-go-round?



That's just plain stupid.

Now you're beginning to piss me off. Now I'm a religious fanatic if I support something I consider to be rationally supportable?

And if your posting here is driven by your "faith", then I can say unequivocally that I am not interested in learning all about your faith.



Did you not believe what I said?

As I already indicated, I consider acausality more likely to be a real phenomenon than not.

Do the math. If my life depended on choosing correctly, then why in monkey hell would I choose an alternative I consider to be less likely?

It's probably just me, but I'm almost beginning to feel as if I'm being badgered by a time-consuming troll. Such a troll, if it existed, would be completely insane, and badly in need of a repeat of that previous message from our friendly neighborhood universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

So.

Can you provide 10 examples of things we know absolutely and (since I need to be very specific) exist? (ie, can you provide 10 examples of things which absolutely exist (and that we are 100% certain about).)


That was number one.

Number two :

If you support something which you are not certain of, it sounds like faith to me, sorry if it pissed you off, but that's not my fault, is it?


Number three :

I believed you believed what you said.

I didn't ask if you'd bet your life on a choice between one or the other or even any other alternative.

I asked whether you would be willing to bet your life on that thing you believe which you said yourself was not 100% certain (irrespective of anything else).


Number 4 : if you give the same information (youtube video) two times at different times, it doesn't mean the same thing.

Which is why (amongst other things) I won't "reply" with the same reply :

http://youtu.be/VLPRQUbhIT0

http://youtu.be/9WbKBKima4Q

tell you what though, if it pisses you off and if you think I'm trolling, then why not simply drop the conversation?

[Toontown]

So.and(sinceIneedtobeveryspecific)exist?(ie,canyou provide10examplesofthingswhichabsolutelyexist(andt hatweare100%certainabout).)Thatwasnumberone.Number two:Ifyousupportsomethingwhichyouarenotcertainof,i tsoundslikefaithtome,sorryifitpissedyouoff,butthat 'snotmyfault,isit?
Numberthree:Ibelievedyoubelievedwhatyousaid.
Ididn'taskifyou'dbetyourlifeonachoicebetweenoneort heotherorevenanyotheralternative.
Iaskedwhetheryouwouldbewillingtobetyourlifeonthatt hingyoubelievewhichyousaidyourselfwasnot100%certai n(irrespectiveofanythingelse).
Number4:ifyougivethesameinformation(youtubevideo)t wotimesatdifferenttimes,itdoesn'tmeanthesamething.
Whichiswhy(amongstotherthings)Iwon't"reply"withthesamereply:
http://youtu.be/VLPRQUbhIT0
http://youtu.be/9WbKBKima4Q
tellyouwhatthough,ifitpissesyouoffandifyouthinkI'm trolling,thenwhynotsimplydroptheconversation?

There. Troll trash all compacted and ready for the dumpster.

And now I'll be needing a list of 20 of your most deeply-held religious beliefs.

Hop to it. And when you're finished with that, I'll think of some other busy-work for you.

And you better stop dragging her heart around.

[Inzababa]

There. Troll trash all compacted and ready for the dumpster.

And now I'll be needing a list of 20 of your most deeply-held religious beliefs.

Hop to it. And when you're finished with that, I'll think of some other busy-work for you.

And you better stop dragging her heart around.

nothing that I believe is relevant to this conversation (or any other in which I participate on this forum) because it can not be proved or shown to be true and so on.

So it doesn't matter does it?

On the other hand :

If you support something which you are not 100% certain about, how is that not belief? How is that not faith?

[Inzababa]

I think I could almost quote Sagan for anything I would like to say :)

There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly alright; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.

[Toontown]

If you support something which you are not 100% certain about, how is that not belief? How is that not faith?

Maybe I'm 90% certain, based on observation and reasoning. And maybe I won't die if I'm wrong about that. Maybe that is enough to support the idea. Maybe, when I drive my car, I am 99.9% certain that the brakes will function when I need them, which explains why I drive the car at all.

Maybe people who build nuclear weapons are 99.9999999999% certain that their calculations are correct, so that the bomb has the exact amount of material so that it will explode if detonated, but not accidentally.

And maybe (none) of the above is "religion". Do you have any idea how many times that tired old line has been attempted on atheists, usually just before attempting to slip in the 'real' religion?

And where is my list? Goddammit, I want that list. I want it as badly as you wanted that one you kept obsessively badgering me about for several posts.

[Inzababa]

Maybe I'm 90% certain, based on observation and reasoning. And maybe I won't die if I'm wrong about that. Maybe that is enough to support the idea. Maybe, when I drive my car, I am 99.9% certain that the brakes will function when I need them, which explains why I drive the car at all.

Maybe people who build nuclear weapons are 99.9999999999% certain that their calculations are correct, so that the bomb has the exact amount of material so that it will explode if detonated, but not accidentally.

And maybe (none) of the above is "religion". Do you have any idea how many times that tired old line has been attempted on atheists, usually just before attempting to slip in the 'real' religion?

And where is my list? Goddammit, I want that list. I want it as badly as you wanted that one you kept obsessively badgering me about it for several posts.

I agree, it's not religion.

It's faith.

Sorry for the mis understanding.

[Toontown]

I agree, it's not religion.

It's faith.

Sorry for the mis understanding.

Right. The kind of faith that expects the sun to rise in the east.

You got that list yet?

[Inzababa]

Right. The kind of faith that expects the sun to rise in the east.

You got that list yet?

yeah, not the sceptical scientific approach.

[Toontown]

yeah, not the sceptical scientific approach.

Oh? Well, I admit to being blissfully unaware that scientists have no faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Frankly, dude, your posts have been getting progressively less rational for some time. I may have to give you another dose of Stevie.

[Inzababa]

Oh? Well, I admit to being blissfully unaware that scientists have no faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Frankly, dude, your posts have been getting progressively less rational for some time. I may have to give you another dose of Stevie.

Maybe that's because I actually started telling you what I think, rather than asking questions and expressing what I think you think.

If you "support" a claim which you can not prove or show evidence for, what does that mean?

[dlorde]

If you "support" a claim which you can not prove or show evidence for, what does that mean?

If you're "90% certain, based on observation and reasoning", it's called pragmatism.

[Inzababa]

If you're "90% certain, based on observation and reasoning", it's called pragmatism.

Fair enough.

Claims can not be pragmatic though, unless they integrate the possibility that they are wrong.

Which means that they can not (scientifically) be used as fundamental assumptions.

[Toontown]

Maybe that's because I actually started telling you what I think, rather than asking questions and expressing what I think you think.

If you "support" a claim which you can not prove or show evidence for, what does that mean?

I can "show" evidence for acausality all day long, if you want to go the hard way. I already told you how to find it. Simply google "physics, acausal, acausality", and you will get enough links to keep you perusing the evidence for a long time. It will be good practice for you, figuring out what is woo and what is good science.

Hint: you can google the authors' names, and find information about them.

[Toontown]

Fair enough.

Claims can not be pragmatic though, unless they integrate the possibility that they are wrong.

Which means that they can not (scientifically) be used as fundamental assumptions.

nevermind

[dlorde]

Claims can not be pragmatic though, unless they integrate the possibility that they are wrong.I guess that's what "90% certain" means.

Which means that they can not (scientifically) be used as fundamental assumptions.
Fortunately, nobody did that :rolleyes:

[Inzababa]

Yeah, fortunately.

No one claimed there was no free will.

No one claimed free will didn't exist.

That was fortunate !

[Toontown]

Yeah, fortunately.

No one claimed there was no free will.

No one claimed free will didn't exist.

That was fortunate !

My, what strict rules you have, grandma. Almost makes a little red riding hood think you might be a big bad wolf in disguise.

I'm uncertain whether I can even understand your strict rules, grandma. Let me see...If I support something I am not 100% certain of, that's a religion, unless it's pragmatic, in which case it can't be a fundamental scientific assumption, because those are never pragmatic. Oh, and I almost forgot: no one can claim there is no free will, or else it's a religion if I support the possibility of acausality being a real phenomenon. Unless I point to evidence, which will be totally ignored like an ugly fat girl at a prom.

Damn, gramma. Those are some tough rules.

Whatever. I'll take "pragmatic", behind door number 2, since I wasn't going for any Nobel prize. And if, at any time, I decide to try to make acausality a fundamental scientific assumption, I'll take issue with your little rules.

Or maybe I'll just start a new religion. The Real Nitty Gritty No Kidding Church Of Acausality.

Jeez, gramma...How do I know you're not a freaking big bad wolf who ate gramma? You better be showing me some gramma creds. Don't make me call the woodsman.

You can start by providing a list of 10 fundamental scientific assumptions, none of which can possibly be wrong. Then I will know the truth, and the truth will make me free.

[Inzababa]

nope it's not religion, it's faith, belief

And there isn't anything pejorative about it, I don't see why you get so pissed off, as if it was insult to have faith or belief in anything you were not 100% sure of.

If you claim free will exists, or that it doesn't (as has been done in this thread), I want to know how and why.

And if your answer is "well I don't *********** know, I'm only being pragmatic", then that's not good enough.

Lastly, quit insulting me or this conversation is over.

[Toontown]

nope it's not religion, it's faith, belief

And there isn't anything pejorative about it, I don't see why you get so pissed off, as if it was insult to have faith or belief in anything you were not 100% sure of.

Oh, that's not the only thing that pissed me off. That was just the last straw. You think I'm a stupid little red riding hood? You think I don't know badgering when I see it?

Look. When I post something, and come back and find that every stinking sentence I typed has been isolated and made the catalist for several ostensible, usually incredibly vapid 'questions', interspersed liberally with equally vapid requests for further clarification, evidence, lists, etc...

That's badgering. And it pisses me off. I don't know why. It just does. Maybe because I know the purpose of it, and the purpose pisses me off.


If you claim free will exists, or that it doesn't (as has been done in this thread), I want to know how and why.

Or what? You'll badger me to death?

What did I say about free will? If you want to know all the hows and whys of acausality in physics, go to university and major in particle physics, or go to a library, check out some books (and read them yourself), or use the internet (for purposes other than badgering).

Do any combination of the above, and you will get all the hows and whys you want.


And if your answer is "well I don't *********** know, I'm only being pragmatic", then that's not good enough.

Well, I'm afraid it's going to have to be good enough. You got a hard-on for "pragmatic", that's your problem.


Lastly, quit insulting me or this conversation is over.

You promise?

[Inzababa]

So you know my purpose.

A purpose which pisses you off.

Maybe what pisses you off is having what you say being critically analysed? That's what pisses religious people off as well, and politicians.

On the other hand, when I tell you what my purpose is, you think it's a demand.

If you claim free will exists, or that it doesn't (as has been done in this thread), I want to know how and why.

It's not a demand, I want to know how and why, if you're not capable of answering, no problem, but why not quit breaking my balls?

And no, a pragmatic reply to whether there is free will is not good enough, sorry, not for a sceptic, not for me.

[Toontown]

So you know my purpose.

A purpose which pisses you off.

Maybe what pisses you off is having what you say being critically analysed? That's what pisses religious people off as well, and politicians.

On the other hand, when I tell you what my purpose is, you think it's a demand.

It's not a demand, I want to know how and why, if you're not capable of answering, no problem, but why not quit breaking my balls?

And no, a pragmatic reply to whether there is free will is not good enough, sorry, not for a sceptic, not for me.

Badger, badger, badger, badger....

Yeah, right. I have to submit to full interrogation or I'm a godboy. Yeah, right. In a false-dilemma kind of way. Tell you what else pisses me off. People who try to justify badgering by saying they're just being skeptical. That makes me think of an alternative for them which would be against the rules to actually suggest.

Yeah, I know nothing I say or suggest is ever going to be good enough for you big manly "skeptics", who don't allow anything that can't be absolutely, 100% proved. Which makes me wonder how a 'skeptic' ever manages to convince himself that it is safe to drive a car...but that's another can of worms.

Uh...I can think of one thing, offhand, that you said that hasn't proven to be 100% true. That part about how the conversation was going to be over. I was so counting on that, and it turned out not to be true at all. How many more of your big ol skeptical assertions will turn out to be equally vapid?

OK. For the third stinking time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

[Inzababa]

No you don't have to do anything at all

except follow the rules of this forum.

Which you are hardly doing (like most people on this forum actually).

It's simple :

I want to know whether there is free will or not.

You can't help me, why bother replying?

If no one on this forum can help me, then thread dies, end of story.

Why make a big personal issue about it all? Why character assassinate? Why get all pissed off?

Although those questions are rhetorical since off topic....

[Toontown]

Here lies an incredibly stupid thread about free will

Wherein people were badgered incessantly with incredibly vapid questions

Until it finally died

Because no one could prove absolutely...well, much of anything, really




R.I.P.

[Inzababa]

it's just a thread, and not the first ;)

[Bill Thompson 75]

If the 4 fundamental forces (in physics) are the cause of all events in the universe.
Then where does that leave free will?


The quantification of the 4 fundamental forces is empirical in nature, and therefore, the forces are not known to be invariant, which is to say, they are not exact nor perfect.
Free will is how the mind has evolved to use the imperfections in the physical forces to direct its own destiny.
The processes of the mind are neither determined nor random, and that is a false dichotomy.

[Inzababa]

The quantification of the 4 fundamental forces is empirical in nature, and therefore, the forces are not known to be invariant, which is to say, they are not exact nor perfect.
Free will is how the mind has evolved to use the imperfections in the physical forces to direct its own destiny.
The processes of the mind are neither determined nor random, and that is a false dichotomy.

Interesting.

I'm wondering :

What do you mean by "empirical in nature"?

My understanding of that word is :

The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment. (source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical)

Which makes me think that what you mean is that their quantification is "objective" (ie, whether one person is observing it or another person is observing it is irrelevant to what that quantification is). Is that right?

However, that does not necessarily mean that those quantifications are exact or perfect. (I think that's what you're saying).



Free will is how the mind has evolved to use the imperfections in the physical forces to direct its own destiny.
The processes of the mind are neither determined nor random, and that is a false dichotomy.

Could you direct me to some reading with regards to this, and/or elaborate a little?
(also rephrasing (not putting words in your mouth, this is how I interpret what you said)

a) free will is a process that uses imperfect data in a "not fully aware" self aware decision making process
(it is "how" the mind has evolved)

b) Is it possible to conceptualise a dichotomy in which one part of the processes of the mind can be described tautologically irrespective of whether the other is or not? (is or not tautologically true).

c) Are there any other descriptions that could apply to the processes of the mind?

Or are you implying that the processes of the mind are a mixture of random and deterministic variables which could not be said to represent one or the other? (the mixture produces something which is neither one or the other)

Lastly,

thanks :)

[dlorde]

No you don't have to do anything at all

except follow the rules of this forum.

Which you are hardly doing (like most people on this forum actually).

Oh the irony (or is it hypocrisy?) - are you aware of rule 10 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744)?

[Reality Check]

I like your name by the way, and here's a reality check :
...
If "science" is a function, you're saying (metaphorically) that "random" is "0".

So, because the set of all "reality" can not be its domain, in cases like this, the function "science" is defined on reality minus {randomn} because "the gap can not be plugged by explicitly defining "randomn".

No - that is an equation randomly picked followed by gibberish.
You need to learn some basic English since it seems to be a second language:

Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) is not a function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)).
Randomness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness) is not a force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force).
Anything that is undefined cannot be something that is defined. It has to be one or the other not both.
Writing gibberish is not a coherent argument.
It could be a sign that a poster is yet another ignorant troll.

[Reality Check]

(If you consider the "quantum universe" not to be deterministic.

What makes it not deterministic?
...
Would any real Quantum Physicist please stand up?
A real ex-solid state physicist standing up:
The universe at a quantum level ("quantum universe") is not deterministic. Take radioactivity for example. There is no way to predict when an atom will decay. All you can do say that in a given sample in a given period a certain % of the atoms will have decayed (half-life).

It is not deterministic because the mathematics of QM give probabilities of getting a measurement.

[Reality Check]

Just read a quote by Sagan which I thought might be relevant to this discussion (indeed, to this whole forum)
Notghing to do with this thread - just the opinion that we are the only species on the planet that does science.
Even that is a bit debateable since we have no idea what the species that can do problem solving are thinking - they could be doing science!

[Reality Check]

even more on toipc, from Sagan :
even more off topic, an uncited quote from a dead astromomer.
The basic problem is that Carl Sagan died in 1996. So any quote from him misses out the enormous process in astronomy that has happened over the last 16 years, e.g. the WMAP measurements of the CMB.
We know now that the universe is flat (to within 1%), there does not seem to be enough matter to make it collapse again and the measurement of dark energy makes it likely that it will expand forever (is open).

A lot of the quote is an argument that gods (God) are unnecessary.

[Solitaire]

Yeah. Without it, whom should I say is calling?

Why... nature... of couse. :whistling

[Inzababa]

no comment

[bobdroege7]

Yeah,

don't go there, but I am the cause of this

http://www.real-science.com/

I said cause, and am in no way responsible for and make no endorsement of content of said site.

[Inzababa]

Yeah,

don't go there, but I am the cause of this

http://www.real-science.com/

I said cause, and am in no way responsible for and make no endorsement of content of said site.



There are at least 2 ways of looking at reality. (that we are able to) and they are radically different.

1. objective
2. subjective


1. objective reality is (hypotheticly) not reflexive

ie X does not = X


2. subjective reality is

ie X = X



Example :

The abstract word "apple" (X)
1. refers to a physical object (X)
2. also refers to an abstract concept (X)

1. is not identical as soon as time passes
(apple at t1 is never = apple at t2)

2. is always identical at any time unless "we" say so

(apple at t1 = apple at t2, whether at t1 or t2, we call it apple)

if it's different, we say it's an "older" apple or "hotter" apple and so on.





Science uses a reasoning which attempts to reconcile both realities.

Physics does not.
(because physics defines what exists in an abstract way, then assigns reflexive relationships to what it empirically observes, it only attempts to reason abstractly and THEN test and verify and reproduce the results of that reasoning in objective reality)

Phyisics, bob, as it is now, is not science.

A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.

The more you know the more you realise you didn't know which makes you hypothesise that you don't know.

Which is why :

testing is proof of existence, but existence is not defined by testing

there are things which may exist which we can not test (if only because we don't know about them).

which can be summed up in this metaphor :

a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square







Which is why it's not possible for you to prove, demonstrate, explain, and empirically reproduce what consciousness is until you are able to assign it an abstract meaning which has a reflexive relationship that "works" and "fits" with objective reality.

Which I'm suggesting might be impossible by definition, because "time passes" in objective reality, which changes the state and components of anything that "objectively is" (including what "free will is")




Recursion happens because whatever abstract word we use as reflexive "is not reflexive in objective reality"

Conclusion and position and hypothesis :

(because we've never been able to describe free will accurately)

"Free will" (if described abstractly in an argument that demonstrates what "defines" free will) is "in reality", "objectively speaking" "a contributor to the explanation of what it is"

So you won't ever be able to empirically test that until you create it in the first place.

[Inzababa]

I like this quote from Sagan :)

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.

[Toontown]

I like this quote from Sagan :)

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science." - Sagan



We were getting along until you started trying to suppress my uncomfortable ideas about acausality. Then you got all wierd on me, started badgering and trying to chop up everything I said with ludicrous, vapid 'questions', fake re-phrasing, vaporous assertions, list-seeking, declarations of incredulousness, and such. The final straw came when you skidded into the turn, swapped ends, and tried to religify my absence of absolute certainty, rendering the words you had been spending a good deal of time soliciting, hound-dogging, and attempting to chop up, "not good enough", because there might be some problem with the logic, but you don't know what it is. Good enough for particle physicists, but not good enough for the great Skeptic Inzababa, as he unknowing utilizes the products of particle physics to vapidly demand Absolute Certainty after it has been laboriously explained that such probably does not exist in the realms under discussion.

So you had a little trouble in town. Now you're keeping some demon down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

[Inzababa]

We were getting along until you started trying to suppress my uncomfortable ideas about acausality. Then you got all wierd on me, started badgering and trying to chop up everything I said with ludicrous, vapid 'questions', fake re-phrasing, vaporous assertions, list-seeking, declarations of incredulousness, and such. The final straw came when you skidded into the turn, swapped ends, and tried to religify my absence of absolute certainty, rendering the words you had been spending a good deal of time soliciting, hound-dogging, and attempting to chop up, "not good enough", because there might be some problem with the logic, but you don't know what it is. Good enough for particle physicists, but not good enough for the great Skeptic Inzababa, as he unknowing utilizes the products of particle physics to vapidly demand Absolute Certainty after it has been laboriously explained that such probably does not exist in the realms under discussion.

So you had a little trouble in town. Now you're keeping some demon down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UD0c58nNCQ

How to make simple things complicated.

You have ideas about acausality, great, keep them, I don't want them personally because they don't make sense, but thanks.

I established (and you agreed) that you weren't certain about them, that's all I needed to know (which pissed you off and for which I apologies).

Notice I haven't replied expressively to any of your insults and mockery (since you started many posts back).

enter Donald Rumsfeld


http://youtu.be/NXbCwq4ewBU

[Loss Leader]

Several off-topic posts have been sent to AAH.

Quotation marks are used to indicate a direct quote from a source. If a person pretends to directly quote another member, that person may be behaving uncivilly. Of course, it depends a great deal on what exact words one is pretending to put in another poster's mouth. The best practice is to avoid altering the words of another member under any circumstance.

[Inzababa]

edited by myself cause off topic

(how to delete my own post? I don't know if it's possible.)

[Toontown]

How to make simple things complicated.

You have ideas about acausality, great, keep them, I don't want them personally because they don't make sense, but thanks.

Then you shouldn't have kept interrogating me. And you certainly shouldn't have falsely indicated your readiness to be mind-boggled by the apparent nature of the universe - a subject of which you are clearly blissfully unaware.

Most of my posts were responses to your interrogations. I was in the undesirable position of either responding to your verbose ignorance or appearing to aquiesce to it.


I established (and you agreed) that you weren't certain about them, that's all I needed to know (which pissed you off and for which I apologies).

That wasn't what pissed me off. I already knew where you were headed.

You didn't establish anything. You asked and I told you. Had I not told you, then you would have remained ignorant of my state of certainty on the subject. Now you know my position, but know nothing about my momentum.

What you actually did was try to equate a lack of 100% certainty with religious belief. And then rejected acausality on the basis that you require absolute certain proof, the nature of which remains a complete mystery which no one apparently cares to try to solve.

Given your absolute certainty requirement, it is ridiculous for you to be soliciting absolute certainty about "free will" in a science forum - an activity which is in itself suspiciously troll-like, particularly when you then have the absolute gall to post Sagan quotes cautioning about the inherent uncertainty of scientific knowledge.

I'm sure there are Southern Babtist forums, or perhaps a forum devoted to devout Muslims would be a happy hunting ground for you. The religious people are the ones who are absolutely certain about their beliefs. I'm sure those folks would be full of absolutely certain beliefs about free will.

[Inzababa]

Originally Posted by Inzababa
How to make simple things complicated.

You have ideas about acausality, great, keep them, I don't want them personally because they don't make sense, but thanks.

Then you shouldn't have kept interrogating me.


I was interrogating you in order to understand your point of view, to make sure I understood your points.

Most people I know would appreciate that.

And I do understand your points.

Most of my posts were responses to your interrogations. I was in the undesirable position of either responding to your ignorance or appearing to aquiesce to it.

Personal influence, which I couldn't care less about on this forum, as I stated over and over again, what matters is whether what is said is true or not, period.

What you assumed was ignorance was simply me trying to make sure I understood what you were saying. You never asked me what I thought. Did you?

What pissed you off was when I switched from rephrasing what you thought and started expressing MY point of view.

At no point did I ever insult anyone or mock or reject anyone's ideas on personal grounds unless I was mocked, insulted, or "rejected" on those grounds first.

Can you say the same thing?

Can many people say the same thing here?

Not in their interactions with me, no.

In French, they have two words which have very close meanings but aren't identical :

contester and opposer

semanticly:
to "contest" can only be done with regards to an object
to "oppose" can only be done to a person

I don't see anything wrong with "contestation" in that sense, quite the opposite, but "opposition" has (in my mind, and I'm not the only one to think this) no place in discussions which have to do with science, critical thinking, and scepticism.

What you actually did was try to equate a lack of 100% certainty with religious belief.

Yup. In my mind, I see no difference between the faith that someone loves you, that you will have a happy life, and that you will go to paradise when you die and so on, it's all faith as long as you can't prove it (or do not prove it) etc.

But that's a personal point of view (again) which is irrelevant isn't it?

You don't agree? How is it relevant then?


And then rejected acausality on the basis that you require absolute certain proof, the nature of which remains a complete mystery which no one apparently cares to try to solve.

What I rejected was that claim.

That it may be a possibility is fine, just as it may be a possibility that there is a God, that's fine as well. It's just a possibility.


However if you admit that you are not certain, yet then use this uncertain claim to build any kind of model or any kind of reasoning and so on, the whole thing will be uncertain as well.

Not only that, but if you do not take into account the "fact" (established fact) that it is uncertain, you got a big problem in the rest of the reasoning that follows.

"free will exists" or "free will does not exist" on what claims?

My intention, attitude, approach is, was, and will be :

"well, let's check them out shall we?" "Let's take a very close look at the premises."

Let's critically analyse those claims, let's be sceptical about them.

And try to find out what is undisputable.

Because until we do, we can't say "free will is this" or "free will is that".


Given your absolute certainty requirement, it is ridiculous for you to be soliciting absolute certainty about "free will" in a science forum

why?

No seriously, why?

I'm very very serious about this.

See the first "famous" scientists were physicians AND philosophers (amongst other things).

Today
a) economics isn't considered a science
b) social studies either
c) psychology hah
d) philosophy? let me laugh

What's wrong with that picture?

Who said "I think so I exist"? A physicist?

Who "founded" physics?

Is it absolutely true yes or no? If YOU think then YOU exist.

Do you think?

Why not start from something absolutely true? (existence has more to do with function than "physical" or "material" or "concrete" or "objective" concepts because anything that "has" "does" or "relates" irrespective of how it "is" necessarily must "be".

On the other hand, there are things which exist which we do not know about and can not "see" (and I'm not talking about flying unicorns).




I'm sure there are Southern Babtist forums, or perhaps a forum devoted to devout Muslims would be a happy hunting ground for you. The religious people are the ones who are absolutely certain about their beliefs. I'm sure those folks would be full of absolutely certain beliefs about free will.

<SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 0.

[Toontown]

I was interrogating you in order to understand your point of view, to make sure I understood your points.

The one question that could have saved us both a lot of time, and in my case, annoyance, was the one you waited until you had badgered me for a good long time before asking:

"Do you know this with absolute certainty?"

I would have said no, and you could have moved on to wherever it is you erroneously think you're going. This could have happened before the long, grueling interrogation, the outcome of which was deterministic.


What you assumed was ignorance was simply me trying to make sure I understood what you were saying.

I didn't assume it was ignorance. I had evidence.


You never asked me what I thought. Did you?

Maybe not. If not, I had my reasons. When I did ask you what you thought lay between "caused" and "uncaused" when you implied a third possibility, you answered, "creation", which is obviously causal. So, yeah. That was a real productive question.


That it may be a possibility is fine, just as it may be a possibility that there is a God, that's fine as well. It's just a possibility.

Stop pretending there is no evidence for acausality. It's mainstream physics.


However if you admit that you are not certain, yet then use this uncertain claim to build any kind of model or any kind of reasoning and so on, the whole thing will be uncertain as well.

Sorry. That's as good as it gets.

What are you trying to build? How are you doing so far in your quest for the absolutely unbreakable structure? How many unbreakable building materials have you amassed?


Not only that, but if you do not take into account the "fact" (established fact) that it is uncertain, you got a big problem in the rest of the reasoning that follows.

No such problem exists. There is no established "fact" that acausality is uncertain. None whatsoever. Acausality is a working assumption in quantum mechanics. And the predictions of quantum mechanics have never failed experimentally.

It's just that there is also no unarguable proof that no causal explanation for acausality will ever be found. If not for that, I'd be 100% certain.


"free will exists" or "free will does not exist" on what claims?

My intention, attitude, approach is, was, and will be :

"well, let's check them out shall we?" "Let's take a very close look at the premises."

Let's critically analyse those claims, let's be sceptical about them.

And try to find out what is undisputable.

Because until we do, we can't say "free will is this" or "free will is that".]

And how many "undisputable" bricks have you collected so far? One? If you want to get anywhere, you had better adopt my probabilistic approach to knowledge. Play the odds. Or else you'll be sitting there for a long long time, waiting for that indisputable truth to fall on your head like an acorn from a tree. And if that acorn does fall, you will very probably reject it because there might be something wrong with it, but you don't know what it is.

Trust me on this. You've got a long wait ahead of you, with that stubborn, inflexible attitude.

And you better stop dragging her heart around.


Who said "I think so I exist"? A physicist?
Is it absolutely true yes or no? If YOU think then YOU exist.
Do you think?"

OK. One brickie-wickie...er...one brickie-wickie...

We've had that brick for a couple of millenia. Found another one yet?

Long, long wait ahead of you.


Why not start from something absolutely true? (existence has more to do with function than "physical" or "material" or "concrete" or "objective" concepts because anything that "has" "does" or "relates" irrespective of how it "is" necessarily must "be".

OK...where do you plan to go from there?

I think, I think, therefore I am
Doo-da, doo-da
I think, I think, therefore I am
Oh, doo-da day

Gonna think all night
Gonna think all day
Bet my money on a bob-tail nag
Somebody bet on the bay


On the other hand, there are things which exist which we do not know about and can not "see" (and I'm not talking about flying unicorns)."

I'm sure there are such things that exist that we do not know about. Some theoretical physicist, mathematician, or philosopher has probably thought of most of them, but can't prove they exist, which effectively prevents you from ever "knowing" about them. But not me. I'll "know" something with 90% certainty, and be right 9 times out of ten. And you won't be right once, having effectively quarantined yourself from such possibilities.

[Inzababa]

Edited, breach of rule 0.
Posted By:Locknar

So is this you form nazzi

Quote:
I'm sure there are Southern Babtist forums, or perhaps a forum devoted to devout Muslims would be a happy hunting ground for you. The religious people are the ones who are absolutely certain about their beliefs. I'm sure those folks would be full of absolutely certain beliefs about free will.

[Inzababa]

Quote:
Edited, breach of rule 0.
Posted By:Locknar

Edited for breach of Rule 0, 10, 11 and 12.

[Toontown]

There is a subtle difference between trying to make a point in a funny way, and attacking the moderator.

However, in the future, if I want the moderator to be verbally assaulted, I'll know how to trigger it.

[Inzababa]

There is a subtle difference between trying to make a point in a funny way, and attacking the moderator.

However, in the future, if I want the moderator to be verbally assaulted, I'll know how to trigger it.

yeah, insult me, cause me to insult you back, but get away with it

it's called trolling ;)

[Toontown]

yeah, insult me, cause me to insult you back, but get away with it

it's called trolling ;)

Thanks for admitting your trollish behavior.

And now, it saddens me to have to inform you of yet another of your contradictions: You are insulted by my suggesting that you seek solace among your 100% certain religious peers (for whom you previously expressed respect). And yet, you said it is "religion" if I support something of which I am only 90% certain.

Just saying. Go where the 100% certainty is, if you will accept nothing less.

[Inzababa]

Thanks for admitting your trollish behavior.

And now, it saddens me to have to inform you of yet another of your contradictions: You are insulted by my suggesting that you seek solace among your 100% certain religious peers (for whom you previously expressed respect). And yet, you said it is "religion" if I support something of which I am only 90% certain.

Just saying. Go where the 100% certainty is, if you will accept nothing less.

no mate, what you didn't get, is that it shows your trolling (and others)

if I 100% stick to forum rules (which I attempt to do unsuccessfully)

how is it possible to troll? since there is nothing "personal" in what I say.

however :

I get trolled

(hint hint)

[Toontown]

Context. Get your context here


ok, maybe mis communication, here's my point of view :

I guess I mis interpreted your answer, thought it meant "no".

Sounds like faith, religion to me. Since you support something which is not certain.

(no offence intended, I personally have faith, also much respect religions)

Would you be willing to bet your life on this?

Backwards, since my "faith" is both evidence-based and incomplete.

Note the "no offense intended" disclaimer, showing you knew it was in fact
offensive, followed later by innocent protestations that there is nothing offensive about equating evidence-based semi-certainty with religion.

Followed by the completely discredited, common theist ploy: Pascal's wager.

I want to know whether there is free will or not.

You can't help me, why bother replying?

Gee, I dunno. Because you kept soliciting replies with questions?

Plus, I can help. I know exactly where to find the 100% certain people:


Given your absolute certainty requirement, it is ridiculous for you to be soliciting absolute certainty about "free will" in a science forum - an activity which is in itself suspiciously troll-like, particularly when you then have the absolute gall to post Sagan quotes cautioning about the inherent uncertainty of scientific knowledge.

I'm sure there are Southern Babtist forums, or perhaps a forum devoted to devout Muslims would be a happy hunting ground for you. The religious people are the ones who are absolutely certain about their beliefs. I'm sure those folks would be full of absolutely certain beliefs about free will.

That set you free.

However, taken in context, my remarks made a point. You're looking for absolute certainty. I told you where to find it.

[Inzababa]

Sorry, I'd rather avoid talking with self acknowledged trolls who accuse me of trolling.

Hope you understand.

[Toontown]

Sorry, I'd rather avoid talking with self acknowledged trolls who accuse me of trolling.

Hope you understand.

And I hope you understand. On faith, of course, in the complete absence of any evidence thereof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=dsx2vdn7gpY