A mental experiment about free will

[Peskanov]

Hello everybody; I have been reading most this forum for a while, and I've seen most of the discussions finish talking about the "free will" concept.
UCE and others seems to imply that determinism forbids free will, which is an observable human quality, and they offer the soul concept as the solution.
IMO the problem is that most people try to use "freedom" as an absolute concept, while it should be always used as relative.
To show that absolute freedom in free will is a paradox I propose this mental experiment. Take note that this is not my own model; IMO the human brain is deterministic in quality, like a computer.

Let's guess that the study of the brain shows that the somewhat unpredictable nature of the sub-atomic world is meaningful at the behaviour level, and let guess we learn that this phenomena can't be assumed as random. We learn that an unkown (in our physical models) set of forces is acting in the brain. Let's say this set of forces is evidence of a system we call "soul".
Now, let's make some hypothesis:
1.- Soul is a truly deterministic system. The nature of soul is rigid and has his own set of rigid relations. Therefore, absolute freedom has no meaning. Every action has one/several causes.
2.- Soul is a random system, and some other system acta as filter in the relation with our known physical system. This soul could be said to be free, as it doesn't have any restriction in its decision framework. The problem is that a random system CAN'T show any degree of coherence, as human mind does; hence, this hypothesis can be discarded.
3.- Soul is a partially random system. Some relations of this system are unpredictable, but of finite nature. Hence, free, unrestricted behaviour can happen BUT in a restricted enviromnet. Like a ship, which can move freely over water surface, but has a whole dimension (height) forbidden.

As I said, the purpose of the experiment is to show that "free will" as an absolute is not a conceivable or useful concept.
Why? Because, as shown by the experiment, at the end, only "absolute freedom = pure randomness" makes sense taking the terms to the absolute.
Is randomness a desirable concept to explain the human mind? If it is, do we need a external system (soul) to find this randomness?
My opinion is that soul concept just push the problem a level up, which is useless. Like the god theory, we create a unknown entity (the soul) and we attribute it with every quality we can't explain at the moment. In the past, memory, thought, and feelings were attributes of the soul, not of the brain. Now, most people say the soul is just the conscience, which owns the will.

Is the will random or deterministic?
No matter which is the solution, the soul concept does NOT help to solve it, nor it's needed!

I hope this focus provides som new though on the question of free will. As everybody seem to focus on "no evidence of soul", I think this side of the problem has been overlooked...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Hello everybody; I have been reading most this forum for a while, and I've seen most of the discussions finish talking about the "free will" concept.

Hello, welcome. You jump right into the fray. The reason so many discussions end this way is that it seems imperative to a few people to deny free will.

UCE and others seems to imply that determinism forbids free will, which is an observable human quality, and they offer the soul concept as the solution.
IMO the problem is that most people try to use "freedom" as an absolute concept, while it should be always used as relative.

I think the problem is that some people like to use the straw man that free will equals random behaviour.

To show that absolute freedom in free will is a paradox I propose this mental experiment. Take note that this is not my own model; IMO the human brain is deterministic in quality, like a computer.

OK, its just that the human brain doesnt seem very deterministic, but we cant know for sure

Let's guess that the study of the brain shows that the somewhat unpredictable nature of the sub-atomic world is meaningful at the behaviour level, and let guess we learn that this phenomena can't be assumed as random. We learn that an unkown (in our physical models) set of forces is acting in the brain. Let's say this set of forces is evidence of a system we call "soul".

Quite a lot of presumptions, but no problem..

Now, let's make some hypothesis:
1.- Soul is a truly deterministic system. The nature of soul is rigid and has his own set of rigid relations. Therefore, absolute freedom has no meaning. Every action has one/several causes.
2.- Soul is a random system, and some other system acta as filter in the relation with our known physical system. This soul could be said to be free, as it doesn't have any restriction in its decision framework. The problem is that a random system CAN'T show any degree of coherence, as human mind does; hence, this hypothesis can be discarded.
3.- Soul is a partially random system. Some relations of this system are unpredictable, but of finite nature. Hence, free, unrestricted behaviour can happen BUT in a restricted enviromnet. Like a ship, which can move freely over water surface, but has a whole dimension (height) forbidden.

Well these three suggestions seem to cover it, but since you did not presuppose anything about the properties of the hypothetical soul, there is really no way to choose the right one. According to your presumption that non-deterministic properties in the QM level have some impact on the function of the mind, I suppose we can rule out #1.

As I said, the purpose of the experiment is to show that "free will" as an absolute is not a conceivable or useful concept.
Why? Because, as shown by the experiment, at the end, only "absolute freedom = pure randomness" makes sense taking the terms to the absolute.
Is randomness a desirable concept to explain the human mind? If it is, do we need a external system (soul) to find this randomness?

I am not able to see that the experiment leads to any conclusion (as noted above). Adding a soul is not parsimonious, but attributing an observed quality to an unknown factor is quite acceptable, if said quality cannot be explained using known factors. The way I read you, you also seem to claim that we must choose between "purely random" and "purely deterministic"; I disagree on this: Most things are probabilistic.

My opinion is that soul concept just push the problem a level up, which is useless. Like the god theory, we create a unknown entity (the soul) and we attribute it with every quality we can't explain at the moment. In the past, memory, thought, and feelings were attributes of the soul, not of the brain. Now, most people say the soul is just the conscience, which owns the will.

Is the will random or deterministic?
No matter which is the solution, the soul concept does NOT help to solve it, nor it's needed!

I hope this focus provides som new though on the question of free will. As everybody seem to focus on "no evidence of soul", I think this side of the problem has been overlooked...

Basically, I agree that the discussion of soul and the discussion of free will are separate issues



Cheers,
Hans

Hi Peskanov.

I'm not sure your experiment is very useful because it limits the characteristics of the soul to either determinism or randomness. We already know that the physical world is either deterministic, random or a combination of both, and it has been stated many times that neither randomness nor determinism leave any scope for Free Will. For Free Will to be Free it has to have a characteristic which goes beyond both of these things - it doesn't make any difference whether the soul is random or determinstic.

Geoff.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

I'm not sure your experiment is very useful because it limits the characteristics of the soul to either determinism or randomness. We already know that the physical world is either deterministic, random or a combination of both, and it has been stated many times that neither randomness nor determinism leave any scope for Free Will. For Free Will to be Free it has to have a characteristic which goes beyond both of these things - it doesn't make any difference whether the soul is random or determinstic.

Unfortunately, random and nondeterministic mean exactly the same thing.

Dr. Stupid

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
it doesn't make any difference whether the soul is random or determinstic.

what does this mean?
;)

Originally posted by wraith


what does this mean?
;)

It means that neither being a slave to determinism nor being at the whim of quantum randomness amounts to Free Will.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
UCE,



Unfortunately, random and nondeterministic mean exactly the same thing.

Dr. Stupid

dont forget "magic" aswell
:cool:

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


It means that neither being a slave to determinism nor being at the whim of quantum randomness amounts to Free Will.

Ive never heard of anyone who believed in determinism and claimed free-will myself :eek:

[LW]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Unfortunately, random and nondeterministic mean exactly the same thing
Depends on the context. In computational complexity they mean two different things. A non-deterministic machine is one where there may be more than one alternative for the machine to choose, and intuitively it always makes the "correct choice". You get a random or probabilistic machine by making the machine to make the choice according to some probability distribution.

In most cases you can remove the "true" nondeterminism by constructing a deterministic machine that is (potentially) exponentially larger than the original one.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

What about actual experiments about free will?

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:A4AQHcKj1sIC:scbe.stanford.edu/hallett.pdf+tms+experiment+%22free+will%22&hl=es&ie=UTF-8

"Freely Chosen Movements Can Be Externally Biased Without Perception of Influence The phenomenon that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can bias motor choice was first reported by Ammon and Gandevia.(Ammon and Gandevia 1990) Subjects were asked to movement right or left hand randomly upon hearing the click of the magnetic coil. There was a bias to right hand movement with left hemisphere stimulation and to left hand movement with right hemisphere stimulation. We pursued this phenomenon to learn more of its physiology.(Brasil-Neto et al. 1992) The task consisted of extension of an index finger in response to the click produced by the discharge of the magnetic coil (go-signal). The subjects were asked to choose the right or left finger randomly, and only after the go-signal was delivered!"

[Peskanov]

MRC_Hans wrote:

Basically, I agree that the discussion of soul and the discussion of free will are separate issues

--

Well, you hit on the nail! This was the main purpose of the idea, to show that no matter how do you make the soul hypothesis, the free will concept problems remain the same.


UCE wrote:
I'm not sure your experiment is very useful because it limits the characteristics of the soul to either determinism or randomness. We already know that the physical world is either deterministic, random or a combination of both. For Free Will to be Free it has to have a characteristic which goes beyond both of these things - it doesn't make any difference whether the soul is random or determinstic.

--

But determinism or randomness are basic concepts we use in all thinking. I mean, we imagine entitities and relations between them, and sometimes we try to adjust these models to the world. Mathematics for example describe relations and entities not found in our known nature.
Between logical, probabilistic and pure random relations, I think all the posibilities are covered. We can't even make hypothesis beyond that. Have you any idea about other posibilities?

1.- A always implies B
2.- B has some random degree, with X% chances of happening after A.
3.- B is a totally random (independent of A or any other entity).

In fact you could resume all 3 into 1, saying that all is probabilistic, and option 1 has 100% in probabilities and 3 has 0% ( or chance is infinitely small?).
Which more relations can we conceive outside of this?


Lucifuge Rofocale wrote:

What about actual experiments about free will?

--

Well, the purpose of my post to find was to split soul/free will, but also to find that the "free will" concept is being used paradoxically. I mean, without restrictions, "free" loss any useful meaning as it becomes "random", and random has few interest.
I think I should have resisted the temtation to especify a possible physical reality, as I wanted to address only the problem in the semantic/logical level...
Maybe I will participate in other thread about mind/free will/conscience with my knowledge about neural net and computers, but in this thread I would like to find if is posible to isolate a clear paradox in the use of "free will".

Is not clear that:
Totally unrestricted behaviour = no cause->effect = randomness?

Have you any idea about other posibilities?



Yes. What if the physical world is considered to be a finite algorithm, and the thing which has Free Will has the characteristic of Infiniteness?

If it is Infinite it can 'Will' itself to be whatever 'value' it needs to be in order to impose its will.

:)

[Peskanov]

HRC_Hans wrote:

OK, its just that the human brain doesnt seem very deterministic, but we cant know for sure

--

I forgot to to make a note about that, although it's outside the scope of my original question.
Why the brain seems not deterministic?
The basis of neural activity were identified, isolated an reproduced by minsky & co. decades ago. Even small artificial neural nets display extremely confussing and unexpected behaviour. Neural nets feedback themselves, "learn", and there are not short rules/algorithms to predict any output at time T. The whole sequence has to be repeated point by point to obtain the same data, and this in an empirical deterministic system (digital electronics with error control).
A similar behaviour than biological neural nets show...

UCE wrote:


Yes. What if the physical world is considered to be a finite algorithm, and the thing which has Free Will has the characteristic of Infiniteness?

If it is Infinite it can 'Will' itself to be whatever 'value' it needs to be in order to impose its will.

--

This is hard for me. I don't know if I understand what you are implying.
You are saying:
- System A: The world, a finite algorithm: this is, a finite system, finite number of entities and relations.
- System B: The origin of the will: an external system which has infinite entities/ infinite relations/ both of them.

To have influence in A, B has to reach a finite number of relations involving finite time, therefore this subset of B has the same posible qualities than any other finite system (at least in a value of T; you could argue the number of relations is infinite for infinite time). The "will" is then the result of a finite system, which bring us back to the my first statements.
Ummm...I introduced time in my models. This is surely a Bad Thing (TM).

I have to say that dealing with infinities is not my preferred theme.
I never liked that old saying: "two parallel lines crosses in the infinite". Yeah, go there, come back and tell me... ;)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

Yes. What if the physical world is considered to be a finite algorithm, and the thing which has Free Will has the characteristic of Infiniteness?

If it is Infinite it can 'Will' itself to be whatever 'value' it needs to be in order to impose its will.

Infinity is defined as a mathematical limit. I know of no definition for the word "infinity" that makes sense in the context that you are using it here. Unless you can provide such a definition, your statement is meaningless.

It seems to me that you are just using the word "infinity" as a all-purpose fudge-factor for anything that you cannot logically explain.


LW,

Unfortunately, random and nondeterministic mean exactly the same thing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends on the context. In computational complexity they mean two different things. A non-deterministic machine is one where there may be more than one alternative for the machine to choose, and intuitively it always makes the "correct choice". You get a random or probabilistic machine by making the machine to make the choice according to some probability distribution.

I don't follow you. If the machine is making choices according to some probability distribution, then that is random.

In most cases you can remove the "true" nondeterminism by constructing a deterministic machine that is (potentially) exponentially larger than the original one.

Are you referring to pseudo-randomness, or determinstic chaos, or something? I don't follow you. There's a big difference between a system that is unpredictable due to complexity, and a nondetermistic system.


Dr. Stupid

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Lucifuge Rofocale wrote:

What about actual experiments about free will?

--

Well, the purpose of my post to find was to split soul/free will, but also to find that the "free will" concept is being used paradoxically. I mean, without restrictions, "free" loss any useful meaning as it becomes "random", and random has few interest.
I think I should have resisted the temtation to especify a possible physical reality, as I wanted to address only the problem in the semantic/logical level...
Maybe I will participate in other thread about mind/free will/conscience with my knowledge about neural net and computers, but in this thread I would like to find if is posible to isolate a clear paradox in the use of "free will".

Is not clear that:
Totally unrestricted behaviour = no cause->effect = randomness?

Why discuss semantics when you can TEST?
I started that thread some time ago...but this topic is like the living dead.

Peskanov,

I am having as much trouble understanding your reply as you have dealing with my proposed Infinity.

Suffice to say that if anything can confound the laws of physics it is Infinity.

:)

Infinity is defined as a mathematical limit. I know of no definition for the word "infinity" that makes sense in the context that you are using it here. Unless you can provide such a definition, your statement is meaningless.


I am not talking about +infinity or -infinity. Those are mathematical limits.

If we talk about MWI then we are talking about an Infinite number of possible 'worldlines'. If we talk about multiverse theory and endless possible configurations of the laws of physics allowing the anthropic principle to select our Universe as the one which supports life then we are talking about a Real Infinity. The Real Infinity of which the objective Universe is a subset. That is the Infinity to which I refer. The Absolute. Infinity itself.

[Peskanov]

UCE wrote:

I am having as much trouble understanding your reply as you have dealing with my proposed Infinity.

Suffice to say that if anything can confound the laws of physics it is Infinity.

--

OK; so let's try to recover the thread and let's go back to the purpose of my experiment..If you wish :)
I feel that free will as you and others use it hides a contradiction/inconsistency somewhere, so I try to build a mental experiment which can show it.
I am not allocating the failure in the aplication to our physical models, but in the concept itself.
As you recognised, we can't model a coherent system which reflect this free will concept with our common object relations: always/maybe/unpredictable.
For me this imposibility is already the death of the concept, but I would like to understand your models to see if I can verify its consistency.
Reading your last post and your reply to Stimpson, can you tell me if you are proposing this model as "free will compatible"?

- The "world" where free will exerts it's influence, is in reality an infinite (or just huge) set or individual worlds or systems in continous exponential multiplication
- The "will" is a system wich just travel or "selects" the world which fits his choice.

Is this the model you are sugesting? One will, infinite worlds?
In this case I believe my experiment still holds up, because to complete the model we have to specify how the "will" select or makes the choice. Again, to take a decision, some mechanism must be described, and again, it must boil down to the relations we can conceive (see previous posts). I can describe a system which makes decisions in any of the 3 flavours of relations, but not outside of them.
I hope this time I am being more clear about my reasonings and why I think the "free will" concept, as an absoulte term, is flawed. I believe we can't conceive any model which will satisfy your requirements.

BTW, famous mathematic Cantor loose his sanity trying to defend his mathematics of infinity against his most conservative peers. The jury seems to be still pondering the real value of his works...a century later. Look what happens when playing with infinity! ;)



Lucifuge Rofocale wrote:

Why discuss semantics when you can TEST?
I started that thread some time ago...but this topic is like the living dead.

OK, but as I am a newbie I still have interest in discussing it :)
IMO, society is pragmatic. People acknowledged the shape of the earth centuries after most astronomers, but they did when evidence was heavy enough.
As I said, methodic studying of the brain stretches the circle over things like soul or free will, and eventully, people will stop wondering about them...But when?
These things are relevant now, so I am interested in untapping flaws in these models.

Peskanov...

Yes, Cantor went mad. Godel wasn't far behind him.


The "world" where free will exerts it's influence, is in reality an infinite (or just huge) set or individual worlds or systems in continous exponential multiplication

- The "will" is a system wich just travel or "selects" the world which fits his choice.


Not really. The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity. It isn't an infinite set of worlds - it is Infinity itself - the Source of all things, including individual consciousness and will. This may sound crazy, but if you think about what is spoken about by mystics of all traditions then this is precisely what they say : Atman=Brahman, "Thou art That" - the source of individual consciousness is one and the same as the Source of all things - You would find you are Infinity, if only you could stop being you for a while. I still can't really apply your list of options to this model. It seems like you are trying to squeeze Infinity into a box, and it can't be done.

:)

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity. It isn't an infinite set of worlds - it is Infinity itself - the Source of all things, including individual consciousness and will.

Please explain this to me. I do not understand what you are saying ;)

Originally posted by wraith


Please explain this to me. I do not understand what you are saying ;)

Yeah, right, Franko. I have explained this to you loads of times and you understood it perfectly well beforehand anyway.

Atman=Brahman. Type "Hinduism" into google.....

:)

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Yeah, right, Franko. I have explained this to you loads of times and you understood it perfectly well beforehand anyway.

Atman=Brahman. Type "Hinduism" into google.....

:)

no, thats too much effort.
You can just tell me here ;)

Hinduism (http://www.angelfire.com/la/mysterion/hindint.html)


BASIC PRINCIPLES

The Upanishads define Brahman as Absolute Reality, Pure Being, Pure Consciousness, Pure Bliss. Brahman is in all things and is all things but Brahman is also beyond all things. Brahman transcends our understanding, our definition, our naming. Brahman is "neti, neti":

"Brahman is not this, not that [neti, neti]. It is incomprehensible, for it is not comprehended. It is indestructible, for it is never destroyed. It is unattached, fo it does not attach itself. It is unfettered. It does not suffer. It is not injured."

And also,

"Brahman encircles all things, radiant and bodiless, unharmed and untouched by evil. All-seeing, all-wise, all-present, self-existent, he has made all things well for ever and ever."

Brahman isn't a god but is above all gods. It is in Brahman that the gods, as all existing things, have their being. Brahman is. Everything else derives its power and essence from Brahman, hence is inferior and less real than Brahman.

The Upanishads introduced a second concept, related to Brahman: Atman, meaning "inner self". Atman is nothing less than Brahman. In other words, Atman is the unchanging, true and infinite self that all persons and things possess. It is different from the apparent self of each creature which changes with time and space, which suffers and dies. The Atman neither dies nor changes because it is Brahman.

[wraith]

Oh thats beautiful Elephant ;)

NOW how about explaining to me what you meant by this:

The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity.

;)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

UCE,

I am not talking about +infinity or -infinity. Those are mathematical limits.

If we talk about MWI then we are talking about an Infinite number of possible 'worldlines'.

The set of such Worlds is an infinite set, and the cardinality of that set is +infinity. Specifically, it is aleph-nought, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.

If we talk about multiverse theory and endless possible configurations of the laws of physics allowing the anthropic principle to select our Universe as the one which supports life then we are talking about a Real Infinity.

No, this is still an infinite set of possibilities, and the cardinality of that set is +infinity. Specifically, it is c, the cardinality of the set of real numbers.

The Real Infinity of which the objective Universe is a subset. That is the Infinity to which I refer. The Absolute. Infinity itself.

I still have no idea what you mean. The two examples you gave both clearly refer to the limit definition of infinity. You need to give a formal definition for what is meant by "Real Infinity".

It sounds like you are vaguely referring to "real infinity" as being an infinite set of things that "really exist", but that doesn't make any sense in the context of the way you have used it with respect to the concept of free-will.

Not really. The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity. It isn't an infinite set of worlds - it is Infinity itself - the Source of all things, including individual consciousness and will. This may sound crazy, but if you think about what is spoken about by mystics of all traditions then this is precisely what they say : Atman=Brahman, "Thou art That" - the source of individual consciousness is one and the same as the Source of all things - You would find you are Infinity, if only you could stop being you for a while. I still can't really apply your list of options to this model. It seems like you are trying to squeeze Infinity into a box, and it can't be done.

And here you are clearly trying to define Infinity as being something other than an infinite set. Once again, what you are describing doesn't seem to make any sense. It sounds like you are just using the term "Infinity" as a catch-all for any part of your belief system that you can't logically explain.

Dr. Stupid

Stimpson,

However intellectually unsatisfying you may find this answer, only a fool tries to define the Absolute as anything other than "INFINITY". Any further description simply renders it less than Infinity. It isn't a label, it isn't a limit, it isn't anything that you can define, it is Everything That Can Be. No other 'definition' can suffice. And it doesn't care that human beings cannot label it, define it, put it into a box and incorporate it as just another component of their theories - that somebody would even try to do that indicates that they don't understand what is meant by the term. Defining it renders it Not-It.

:)

Geoff.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Stimpson,
it is Everything That Can Be.

Hi Geoff.
And, what possible use can this concept have?

[Peskanov]

UCE wrote:

--

Yes, Cantor went mad. Godel wasn't far behind him.

--

It seems it's not unusual in great mathematicians, but Godel didn't work on the study of infinities, did him? Just curiosity...


UCE wrote:

--

Not really. The thing which exerts Free Will IS Infinity. It isn't an infinite set of worlds - it is Infinity itself - the Source of all things, including individual consciousness and will. This may sound crazy, but if you think about what is spoken about by mystics of all traditions then this is precisely what they say : Atman=Brahman, "Thou art That" - the source of individual consciousness is one and the same as the Source of all things - You would find you are Infinity, if only you could stop being you for a while. I still can't really apply your list of options to this model. It seems like you are trying to squeeze Infinity into a box, and it can't be done

--

I have read about hinduist concepts, and also your comments on this and other threads. Not very deeply, as you can guess ( I didn't have prior knowledge about hinduist ideas).
However I find both models of free will (hinduist atman and yours) incomplete, lacking fundamental details. I can't discuss these models or integrate them on my experiment unless I have more details.
Your concept "Infinity" is not the concept I see used commonly.
Can we use another name for it, which does not coincide with the mathematical one?
Can you tell me which properties does your Infinity have? It is complex? Can we identify diferent parts (infinite quantity or not) on it?
Free will is defined as the capability to choose, and humans choose in a multitude of different situations. Wondering ideas, moving, working, etc... And all this usually in a coherent fashion. To deal with these facts I must asume that your concept "Infinity" is a complex system and has the capability of not choosing at random (at minimum sometimes).
Do we agree on something? I hope yes, because I see the thread is sinking fast :)

Peskanov :


--

Yes, Cantor went mad. Godel wasn't far behind him.

--

It seems it's not unusual in great mathematicians, but Godel didn't work on the study of infinities, did him? Just curiosity...


Godels "Incompleteness theorem" is intricately linked with infinity.

http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/godeldef2.htm


…The fact that the first incompleteness proof can be formalized in S allows one to derive Godel's second incompleteness theorem as a corollary. This theorem states that the consistency of a formal system of arithmetic cannot be proved by means formalizable within that system. This result was damaging to the prospects of completing Hilbert's programme for the foundations of mathematics, for Hilbert had hoped to justify the use, in calculus for example, of the notion of infinity by showing that a formal system governing its use could be shown to be consistent using only finitistic methods. This would have demonstrated that the notion could be regarded merely as a calculating device whose use was legitimate, in that it would never lead one astray, and justified in terms of economy of labour. But the finitistic methods envisaged are formalizable with a formal system of arithmetic and were thus shown to be inadequate to Hilbert's task.


...thus infinity is more than a calculating device, and no finite explanation of existence can ever be complete.


Your concept "Infinity" is not the concept I see used commonly.
Can we use another name for it, which does not coincide with the mathematical one?


That is why I use the term "Infinity" instead of "+infinity" or "-infinity". Call it 'The Infinite' if you like.


Can you tell me which properties does your Infinity have? It is complex? Can we identify diferent parts (infinite quantity or not) on it?


No it has no seperate parts. I am struggling to be able to give it any characteristics than its Infiniteness. Characteristics belong to finite entities, not Infinite ones. Hindus call it "Neti, neti, neti..." which means "Not this, not that,....."


Free will is defined as the capability to choose, and humans choose in a multitude of different situations. Wondering ideas, moving, working, etc... And all this usually in a coherent fashion. To deal with these facts I must asume that your concept "Infinity" is a complex system and has the capability of not choosing at random (at minimum sometimes).


It is the individual ego and mind which is complex and supplis the context for the decision to be made. All that comes from the Infinite source is the Will itself.


Do we agree on something? I hope yes, because I see the thread is sinking fast


I think it might be difficult for me to specify the characteristics of Infinity well enough for your thought experiment to work. I don't see how I can avoid this - specifying characteristics for Infinity render it less than Infinity which is why anyone who tries to do it eventually goes mad.....

:)

Luci


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Stimpson,
it is Everything That Can Be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And, what possible use can this concept have?


If you are an idealist then it is the root of all things. It is the root of existence. It is Everything.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


If you are an idealist then it is the root of all things. It is the root of existence. It is Everything.

And also if you are a materialist, physicalist or whatever. The way the concept is defined implies it.

[c4ts]

Why do you assume the influence of the soul must be external?

[Peskanov]

Hi, c4ts

--

Why do you assume the influence of the soul must be external?

--

Because the purpose of the experiment was to show that an external system couldn't help in the problem that presents the concept "free will" as an absolute.
I am not saying there is an external "free will". I am creating an scenario which has it, to show it's shortcomings.
Most people say that a true "free will" can't be subjected to any rules or restrictions, and therefore they negate the posibility of "free will" creation in our common physic models. Then, they sugest an external system.
My intention was to show that any external system presents the same problem that the physic model: It has to be subjected to restriction in some degree, or the result would end in incoherent random decisions...
My conclusion from the experiment: an external system is unneeded, and free will has restrictions. It would rest a case of debating if there is some space for randomness or not, which in my opinion wouldn't make any important diference.

I think that pretty covers it...

[Peskanov]

UCE, talking about godel:

--
quote:
...thus infinity is more than a calculating device, and no finite explanation of existence can ever be complete.
--

Beware of confusing ideas with realities! It seems to me that you talk here of infinite like something more that a concept. The whole quote you posted talks about formal systems and the paper of infinity on them, that is, it talks about pure mental artifacts and buildings.


--
quote:
That is why I use the term "Infinity" instead of "+infinity" or "-infinity". Call it 'The Infinite' if you like.
--


Ok. Although I don't see why a mathematical infinity must have sign. In the set of natural numbers there is also place for infinity, not?


--
quote:
No it has no seperate parts. I am struggling to be able to give it any characteristics than its Infiniteness. Characteristics belong to finite entities, not Infinite ones. Hindus call it "Neti, neti, neti..." which means "Not this, not that,....."
--

Well, you already gave me one characteristic. We can't distinguish parts on it, like for example, in the physical concept "energy". We are getting closer.


--
quote:
It is the individual ego and mind which is complex and supplis the context for the decision to be made. All that comes from the Infinite source is the Will itself.
--

Ok, that's more info about your model. "The Infinite" is a simple entity (as it's simple I will try to avoid the word system): it can't recognize events or object, it can't feel emotions, it can't learn, it can't doubt...But it can and must be present in all these actions of a system (like the human brain), in a similar same sense that energy it is present.
I am assuming it is ubiquitous, which would be another characteristic of it. Or it's influence is limited to subsets of the world (for example a living being)?
Am I right about this, is it ubiquitous?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


And also if you are a materialist, physicalist or whatever. The way the concept is defined implies it.

Not so.... ;) Monastic Idealism actually does cover all eventualities, although not the way Stimpy wants which would be(scientific) closure to "what-is".

Hi Peskanov


UCE, talking about godel:

--
quote:
...thus infinity is more than a calculating device, and no finite explanation of existence can ever be complete.
--

Beware of confusing ideas with realities! It seems to me that you talk here of infinite like something more that a concept. The whole quote you posted talks about formal systems and the paper of infinity on them, that is, it talks about pure mental artifacts and buildings.


No, it's more than a concept. I gave two examples already, but did not bother challenging Stimpsons attempt to rebutt them. MWI and multiverse theory are two attempts (one at the atomic level and one at the cosmic level) to explain some very hard questions in physics. Both resort to infinity to solve the respective problems. In QM we have an apparent problem that an entity is a wave - it follows all possible routes - until measured/observed, at which point the "wavefunction collapses" and it becomes a particle. MWI states that there is no collapse, and that all outcomes occur in an ever increasing number of potentially infinite parallel Universes. In cosmology we have a set of fundamental constants which have to be the way they are for atoms to be stable, for stars to burn, for carbon to join in long strings. To escape the appearance of 'engineering' cosmologists have posited that our Universe is just one of a infinite set of possible Universes, all with different configurations of laws of physics - and then they turn to the anthropic principle to say that we just happen to be in the one with the right conditions for life. In both these theories you can argue that infinity appears as an 'idea', but both of these theories also refer to the real world we live in. If we are going to posit MWI as a solution to the schroedingers cat paradox, and if we are going to posit multiverse theory to avoid the creationist 'argument from cosmic design' then we have to accept that we are literally embedded in a physical Infinity. There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists.


--
quote:
That is why I use the term "Infinity" instead of "+infinity" or "-infinity". Call it 'The Infinite' if you like.
--

Ok. Although I don't see why a mathematical infinity must have sign. In the set of natural numbers there is also place for infinity, not?


It is important to distinguish between the Infinite to which I refer and the mathematical concepts of +infinity and -infinity. For a start people have tried adding 1 to +infinity and claiming it is something more than +infinity. You cannot do that to The Infinite itself because it is already Everything that is. You cannot add anything to it. You can only take things away.


--
quote:
It is the individual ego and mind which is complex and supplis the context for the decision to be made. All that comes from the Infinite source is the Will itself.
--

Ok, that's more info about your model. "The Infinite" is a simple entity (as it's simple I will try to avoid the word system): it can't recognize events or object, it can't feel emotions, it can't learn, it can't doubt...

But it can and must be present in all these actions of a system (like the human brain), in a similar same sense that energy it is present.


This is all correct.


I am assuming it is ubiquitous, which would be another characteristic of it. Or it's influence is limited to subsets of the world (for example a living being)?
Am I right about this, is it ubiquitous?


It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.

[Peskanov]

--
quote:
There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists .
--

Of course; actually exists in THESE models!
I'm aware of these theories, I was just pointing that all concepts are our creations; our mental creations and models, whichcould have or not an equivalent in the world. Of course Plato thinked otherwise :)
Anyway I think I am getting closer to understand your model of free will, I think it's just your language that confuses me; also English is not my native tongue, which helps my confusion :)

About infiny; yes I agree some operations with infinities must be different than operating with finite values.
However, take in acount this situation:
Imagine a long string, with waves moving along it. You cant see any end of the string, so you don't know it it's finite or not.
No matter of it's lentgh, you can distinguish parts in it (the waves) and measure it to get the frequency or amplitude.
In other words, sometimes we still can operate, with restrictions, in objects with properties of infinite value. I can't discard operating with your model yet.

--
quote:
It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.
--

No thanks, it would be clearly off-topic. What I would like to find out is if there is any conceivable model of free will generation which can escape the bounds of my experiment.

I would like to show you an brutally oversimplified example of free will in action which I think it could fit your multiverse model. Please correct me where needed:

A person is pondering about to eat meat or vegetables. It's brain parlamient is so balanced that in a moment we can put the whole weight of the decision in the state of one electron.
As the universe splits, 2 new worlds born. In one, the electron contibuted to choose meat, in the other vegetables.
If you study a frozen multiverse over time, and choose a single branch over the tree, you see that nobody in this "selected" universe could predict the result of the decision.

I understand that this is a discreet example, when your model would be continous. Still, between all the infinite worlds, you could find infinite worlds with the guy eating meat, and infinite worlds with the guy eating vegetables. Also I acknowledge that putting a complex decision in the weight of just 1 electron is too unlikely, I made it for the sake of understanding.

How am I doing? If this model fits with yours, I think I can integrate it in the experiment.

[LW]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I don't follow you. If the machine is making choices according to some probability distribution, then that is random.
In theoretical computer science there are a number of different models for computation. The simplest one is a deterministic state machine where the state of the system on time step I+1 is a deterministic function of its state in step I and the input it receives then.

A finite state machine acts as a recognizer for some language: it takes a word as its input and then either accepts or rejects it depending on whether the computation ends in an accepting or in a rejecting state.

A nondeterministic finite state machine has potentially more than one possible successor state for each state/input combination. Thus, there may be more than one possible computation for each input word. Such a machine accepts a word if at least one of the computations lead to an accepting state. So, even if 999 possible computations fail and only 1 succeeds, then the word is always accepted. So, intuitively, the machine always guesses the "right" transition to make so that the end state is reached.

Of course, it is not possible (at least according to current understanding) to construct a machine that is nondeterministic in the above sense. This is unfortunate because nondeterministic machines are usually much easier to design than deterministic ones. However, one of the most surprising theorems in tcs is that everything that can be done using a nondeterministic finite state machine can be done with a deterministic one; there is a systematic way of determinising an automaton. The intuition behind the conversion is that all possible nondeterministic computations are encoded into states of the deterministic machine.

A random finite state machine is otherwise similar to the nondeterministic machine, but instead of always guessing the right choice (if such exists), it chooses the next state based on a probability distribution. So, if there are 1000 equally probable computations where only 1 is accepting, then the machine accepts the input with the probability of 0.001, while a similarly constructed nondeterministic one would accept it always.

In conclusion, in this context (theoretical computer science) the words random and nondeterministic have different meanings. Of course, physical world and free will are not subjects of computer science so this terminological difference doesn't necessarily apply. It was just that my inner pedant woke up.and forced me to post.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

LW,

In theoretical computer science there are a number of different models for computation. The simplest one is a deterministic state machine where the state of the system on time step I+1 is a deterministic function of its state in step I and the input it receives then.

I see what you are getting at. What you are talking about is causality, which is a specific type of determinism.

You are correct that acausality is not necessarily equivalent to randomness. For example, consider a digital filter that takes one signal, x, and produces another, y.

The signal y is completely determined by signal x, so the filter is deterministic. But the filter can be acausal, or causal. A causal filter is one in which the value of y at any given time is completely determined by the value of x at previous times. An acausal filter is one where the value of y also depends on x at future times.

This also goes to the heart of the whole hidden quantum variable thing. The fact that there are no hidden local variables implies that QM is not causal. It could still be deterministic, though, which is what the nonlocal hidden variable hypothesis claims.

It is clear that by "nondeterministic and nonrandom" UCE is not referring to acausal determinism, though, because his arguments for why his conception of free-will are not compatible with causal determinism are equally applicable to acausal determinism.


UCE,

No, it's more than a concept. I gave two examples already, but did not bother challenging Stimpsons attempt to rebutt them. MWI and multiverse theory are two attempts (one at the atomic level and one at the cosmic level) to explain some very hard questions in physics. Both resort to infinity to solve the respective problems. In QM we have an apparent problem that an entity is a wave - it follows all possible routes - until measured/observed, at which point the "wavefunction collapses" and it becomes a particle. MWI states that there is no collapse, and that all outcomes occur in an ever increasing number of potentially infinite parallel Universes. In cosmology we have a set of fundamental constants which have to be the way they are for atoms to be stable, for stars to burn, for carbon to join in long strings. To escape the appearance of 'engineering' cosmologists have posited that our Universe is just one of a infinite set of possible Universes, all with different configurations of laws of physics - and then they turn to the anthropic principle to say that we just happen to be in the one with the right conditions for life. In both these theories you can argue that infinity appears as an 'idea', but both of these theories also refer to the real world we live in. If we are going to posit MWI as a solution to the schroedingers cat paradox, and if we are going to posit multiverse theory to avoid the creationist 'argument from cosmic design' then we have to accept that we are literally embedded in a physical Infinity.

But as I already explained, that is nothing more than saying that Reality contains infinite sets. "infinity" is still defined as a mathematical limit. Your above argument doesn't make Infinity something that physically exists, an more than the fact that I have two eyes makes the number Two something that physically exists.

There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists.

That may be, and it may not. But the fact remains that this would only imply that Reality contains an infinite number of things. It does not in any way establish Infinity as anything more than a cardinality of sets. And it certainly doesn't explain how you can claim that infinity is the source of anything.

It is important to distinguish between the Infinite to which I refer and the mathematical concepts of +infinity and -infinity.

Good idea. Maybe you should do so by describing what "Infinity" is. Your MWI and Multiverse examples are clearly referring to the mathematical concept of +infinity.

For a start people have tried adding 1 to +infinity and claiming it is something more than +infinity.

Only people who don't understand mathematics.

You cannot do that to The Infinite itself because it is already Everything that is. You cannot add anything to it. You can only take things away.

So the Infinite is "everything that is"? How does that constitute a source for anything? That is contradictory. And how does "everything that is" make Libertarian free-will noncontradictory?

It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.

This doesn't make any sense. How can "everything that is" be the source of consciousness? Certainly consciousness is something that "is"?

And what does it mean to say that "everything that is" is the thing that each of us refers to as "I".

And how can it be only indirectly present in the physical world? You have defined it such that the physical world is a part of it.

And what does any of this have to do with consciousness?

What you are saying simply doesn't make any sense. It is an incoherent stream of intuitive concepts with no logical connection between them, or at least, none that you seem to be able to express.

Dr. Stupid

Stimpson

[QUPOTE]
But as I already explained, that is nothing more than saying that Reality contains infinite sets. "infinity" is still defined as a mathematical limit. Your above argument doesn't make Infinity something that physically exists, an more than the fact that I have two eyes makes the number Two something that physically exists.
[/QUOTE]

Infinity isn't a number. MWI and multiverse theory both imply that Existence is Infinite. If an infinite number of cosmoses exist and an infinite number of paralell worldlines exist then Existence IS Infinite. Your argument would only work if infinity was a number. It isn't. It is INFINITY. If all possible cosmoses exist it is no use just saying that the number of universe which exist is +infinity. The totality of existence is Infinite. Infinity exists. Aristotle was wrong. (Again).



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be, and it may not.


It IS, unless you reject both MWI and multiverse theory, and rejecting multiverse theory leaves you open to the theist argument from cosmic design, re-introducing Infinity in the form of God.


But the fact remains that this would only imply that Reality contains an infinite number of things.


An Infinite number of cosmoses each containing an infinite number of MWI worldlines.


It does not in any way establish Infinity as anything more than a cardinality of sets.


It does unless you want to claim that the physical Universe is a number......the Universe actually exists, Stimp - and therefore so do all the other worldlines and cosmoses. They aren't just numbers - they are an infinite set of Universes.



Good idea. Maybe you should do so by describing what "Infinity" is.


It cannot be described. Describing it renders it no longer Infinity. It is beyond description.


Your MWI and Multiverse examples are clearly referring to the mathematical concept of +infinity.


Do we inhabit a mathematical concept? ;)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a start people have tried adding 1 to +infinity and claiming it is something more than +infinity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only people who don't understand mathematics.


Some mathematics professors do this, Stimp. :(


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot do that to The Infinite itself because it is already Everything that is. You cannot add anything to it. You can only take things away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the Infinite is "everything that is"? How does that constitute a source for anything? That is contradictory.


Infinity is the one place where a paradox exists. It is the paradox at the end of Reality. It is where Nothing=Everything, where Zero=Infinity, where "I"="ALL", it is the No-Thing which is the source of all things, The Abyss. Infinity is a paradox. The above can only be comprehended intuitively. The analytical mind has trouble coping with an actual Infinity because the analytical mind is itself finite.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is ubiquitous, but not always present in the same way. It is directly present as the source of consciousness - it is the thing each of us refers to as "I". It is only indirectly present in the physical world, as its ultimate source. The question boils down to "are inanimate objects minimally conscious?', and we can discuss this if you like, but it may be taking the thread off-course.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't make any sense. How can "everything that is" be the source of consciousness? Certainly consciousness is something that "is"?


It can be if you are a mental monist. Remember I consider the physical Universe to be a mathematical construct derivable from the empty set, which itself is analagous to Zero, which can also be considered to be Infinity. Then we have the celebrated 'Hard Problem' which is based on the observation that although we can account for the whole content of consciousness via materialism we cannot account for the awareness of the content. For an idealist the content is just a mathematical construct anyway - and if everything which exists is numerical/mathematical where is there for the awareness to come from? Well there is only one thing in existence apart from the numbers and that is the Zero/Infinity that gave rise to the numbers - so it seems only parsimonious to assume that the awareness comes from the Zero/Infinity. By this scheme the relationship between "I" and the perceived world is simply the relationship between Infinity/Zero and finite mathematical constructs which it turns into an experience of a physical world.

For me this model is very compelling because I came to my own conclusions regarding maths and Infinity, and later discovered that the Hindu concept of Atman(personal inner self)=Brahman (source of everything) was in fact direclty analagous to my own model.


And what does it mean to say that "everything that is" is the thing that each of us refers to as "I".


This is what led Schroedinger to declare "I am God Almighty". I wouldn't claim such a thing. Schroedinger did, and I have explained above why he did. He also considered himself a philsophical Hindu (see book : "What is Life?").


And how can it be only indirectly present in the physical world? You have defined it such that the physical world is a part of it.


The physical world is derived from it.


What you are saying simply doesn't make any sense. It is an incoherent stream of intuitive concepts with no logical connection between them, or at least, none that you seem to be able to express.


It does make sense, but only if you turn your materialists model of reality outside-in and downside-up and get the Ouroborous to swallow its tail.

:)

[Peskanov]

Hello Hammegk;
just tell you that when copy-pasting "Monastic Idealism" from your post into google search, you can obtain some really fancy pages. :)
BTW, once I looked for "monistic" instead of "monastic" I got few hits, is monistic idealism an obscure idea or is it just unrepresented on internet?

Originally posted by Peskanov
Hello Hammegk;
just tell you that when copy-pasting "Monastic Idealism" from your post into google search, you can obtain some really fancy pages. :)
BTW, once I looked for "monistic" instead of "monastic" I got few hits, is monistic idealism an obscure idea or is it just unrepresented on internet?

Monastic refers to monks....

Try "mental monism"

[Peskanov]

Thanks UCE, I found more a few more hits under "mental monism"; still, there were just 80 hits for "mental monism" and 300 for "monistic idealism". It seems a really obscure topic...Interesting reading anyway.

BTW, did you read my reply for you yesterday?

Peskanov


Originally posted by Peskanov

Thanks UCE, I found more a few more hits under "mental monism"; still, there were just 80 hits for "mental monism" and 300 for "monistic idealism". It seems a really obscure topic...Interesting reading anyway.

BTW, did you read my reply for you yesterday? [/B]

That it is obscure is interesting in itself. It tends to be rejected on the grounds that it is 'ridiculous', rather than being given any proper thought. Materialists tend to point to dualism, moan about the binding problem, and say...."well that only leaves us with materialism, and it has no more problems than dualism so lets stick with it." Mental monism just gets 'forgotten' regardless of the fact that it solves the mind-body problem before it even gets started.

And I missed your reply yesterday. I will respond now.

:)


--
quote:
There are actually an infinite set of paralell MWI worldlines - there are actually an infinite set of cosmoses with different laws of physics. So in this respect The Infinite actually exists .
--

Of course; actually exists in THESE models!
I'm aware of these theories, I was just pointing that all concepts are our creations; our mental creations and models, whichcould have or not an equivalent in the world.


They are our creations, but multiverse theory is important because it is the only way of arguing against the creationist/deist claims that God designed the cosmos - the 'just seven numbers'/fine-tuning argument for God. If you reject it then there is no way of rebutting that argument. One way or another you are left with a Infinite entity responsible for the existence of the Universe.


Of course Plato thinked otherwise
Anyway I think I am getting closer to understand your model of free will, I think it's just your language that confuses me; also English is not my native tongue, which helps my confusion


Philosophy gets difficult enough even in your native tongue. I'm trying to understand Hegel at the moment. :(


A person is pondering about to eat meat or vegetables. It's brain parlamient is so balanced that in a moment we can put the whole weight of the decision in the state of one electron.
As the universe splits, 2 new worlds born. In one, the electron contibuted to choose meat, in the other vegetables.


This is an MWI scenario. I don't actually accept MWI, for the precise reason that it makes Free Will impossible. I may have misled you with my examples about Infinity. I was trying to explain to Stimpson how a real Infinity could be said to exist. In fact the model of QM I go for is the Bohm/De-Broglie hidden variable interpretation.

Sorry to complicate things further...but my position on QM is more like this :

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmback.html


By the term "back-action" I mean that the quantum wave field is "directly affected by the conditions of the particles". It is qualitatively obvious that such a direct dependence is the counter-force or reaction to the quantum force. The combination of the quantum force of wave on particle with the counter-force or back-action of particle on wave forms a feed-back control loop which is able to control the formerly uncontrollable guidance of the particle by its wave. This results in a distortion of the statistical patterns of orthodox quantum mechanics. This is the mechanism of intent or free will.


For Free Will to work, there has to be a link between the thing we call "I" - our inner self - and the probabalistic outcomes of quantum events. In essence, it is us who are the 'hidden variable'. I am at the limit of my own understanding of this here.

[Peskanov]

UCE;

--
quote:
That it is obscure is interesting in itself. It tends to be rejected on the grounds that it is 'ridiculous', rather than being given any proper thought. Materialists tend to point to dualism, moan about the binding problem, and say...."well that only leaves us with materialism, and it has no more problems than dualism so lets stick with it." Mental monism just gets 'forgotten' regardless of the fact that it solves the mind-body problem before it even gets started.
--

I have to give it a good read, although the "mind-body problem" and "the hard problem" were unknown to me. I guess I will have to read a bit about them first, to understand better the intention of the model.


--
quote:
They are our creations, but multiverse theory is important because it is the only way of arguing against the creationist/deist claims that God designed the cosmos - the 'just seven numbers'/fine-tuning argument for God. If you reject it then there is no way of rebutting that argument. One way or another you are left with a Infinite entity responsible for the existence of the Universe.
--

I never heard of the multiverse as a theory which invalides the creator concept. I guess it's a model that explain well the existence of such a complex thing like life, because an infinite set of options makes it unavoidable.
If I understand you correctly, the multiverse would provide counter-evidence against those who afirm that the physical constants which caracterizes our universe are designed to raise complexity by itself. If I remenber well this was Martin Gardner position (universe it's desgned), correct?
It's a fascinating notion, although I fear that our knowledge of the universe it's too small to make such statements.
BTW, you could also adapt the multiverse theory to fit a designer just removing some propierties; and you could insert infinity posibilities in a "only 1 universe" model just using the "infinite sequence of consecutive big-bangs" theory which makes some buzz lately.

--
quote:
This is an MWI scenario. I don't actually accept MWI, for the precise reason that it makes Free Will impossible. I may have misled you with my examples about Infinity. I was trying to explain to Stimpson how a real Infinity could be said to exist. In fact the model of QM I go for is the Bohm/De-Broglie hidden variable interpretation.
--

Actually, I was going to point that the multiverse was a deterministic model of free will, as you can predict the result of any selection: all posibilites are chose.
However, this model was not looked when I thinked my experiment, and it really has some wonderful propierties...Thanks for bringing my atention about it.

About the QM interpretation, I am going for it. Hard reading, it will take me a while, but I will came back here for more :)

--
quote:
For Free Will to work, there has to be a link between the thing we call "I" - our inner self - and the probabalistic outcomes of quantum events. In essence, it is us who are the 'hidden variable'. I am at the limit of my own understanding of this here.
--

But this was what I sugested at the beginning of the thread. Supossing that "free will" makes itsel present in our physic model by quantum events...then you still have to specify the nature of the system which produced these quantum values, and this system will have to fall into determinisc/not deterministic. Which renders "free will" an slave of the system which produces it, whatever is it (with maybe some degree of randomnes).

Well, now I will take a view for that Bohm/De-Broglie hidden variable interpretation...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

For Free Will to work, there has to be a link between the thing we call "I" - our inner self - and the probabalistic outcomes of quantum events. In essence, it is us who are the 'hidden variable'. I am at the limit of my own understanding of this here.

Yup, idealistic monism may well turn to monastic idealism as a reasonable choice. You have moved from the philosophic extreme of solipsistic absolute control to absolute (atman) Non-control. Neither extreme provides a particularly useful worldview.

As atman, to brahman you are infinitely less than a termite is to its' colony, and are again faced with a no-free-will position.

Assuming Big Bang did occur, why would the initial, complete entanglement of everything ever be subject to any influence (brahman would be the hidden variable maybe?). Can atman have an influence is a question; I'd say no if materialism or dualism is the correct view, possibly (hopefully) yes if Idealism is the correct view.

Nope, we won't be building atom bombs with this worldview will we? Hmm, better not discount Ego (seems to be tied up with the bag-of-bones we perceive as our *me*) had we?

;)

Peskanov :


I have to give it a good read, although the "mind-body problem" and "the hard problem" were unknown to me. I guess I will have to read a bit about them first, to understand better the intention of the model.


What is the mind/body problem? (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/mind.htm)
The Hard Problem Considered Easy (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/az98.htm)


I never heard of the multiverse as a theory which invalides the creator concept. I guess it's a model that explain well the existence of such a complex thing like life, because an infinite set of options makes it unavoidable.
If I understand you correctly, the multiverse would provide counter-evidence against those who afirm that the physical constants which caracterizes our universe are designed to raise complexity by itself. If I remenber well this was Martin Gardner position (universe it's desgned), correct?


That is correct. Many people have pointed to the physical constants and claimed that they are evidence of a designer.


--
quote:
For Free Will to work, there has to be a link between the thing we call "I" - our inner self - and the probabalistic outcomes of quantum events. In essence, it is us who are the 'hidden variable'. I am at the limit of my own understanding of this here.
--

But this was what I sugested at the beginning of the thread. Supossing that "free will" makes itsel present in our physic model by quantum events...then you still have to specify the nature of the system which produced these quantum values, and this system will have to fall into determinisc/not deterministic. Which renders "free will" an slave of the system which produces it, whatever is it (with maybe some degree of randomnes).


But I have suggested that thing which produces it is the One Thing which is a slave of no other system - it is the source of all systems. What you are arguing is exactly correct, and what I am arguing is the one and only exception which allows Free Will to exist. The only thing which cannot be a slave of a higher system is the root cause of all the systems. Infinity can be the only source of Free Will. This is quite interesting to me, because I argued this before and Franko insisted that Free Will only required and external input. I didn't challenge him at the time but now I think you may have demonstrated that he was wrong.

Originally posted by hammegk
[B]

Yup, idealistic monism may well turn to monastic idealism as a reasonable choice. You have moved from the philosophic extreme of solipsistic absolute control to absolute (atman) Non-control. Neither extreme provides a particularly useful worldview.

As atman, to brahman you are infinitely less than a termite is to its' colony, and are again faced with a no-free-will position.

Assuming Big Bang did occur,


(I don't)


why would the initial, complete entanglement of everything ever be subject to any influence (brahman would be the hidden variable maybe?). Can atman have an influence is a question; I'd say no if materialism or dualism is the correct view, possibly (hopefully) yes if Idealism is the correct view.


Atman and Brahman are the same thing. :confused:


Nope, we won't be building atom bombs with this worldview will we? Hmm, better not discount Ego (seems to be tied up with the bag-of-bones we perceive as our *me*) had we?



Ego isn't discounted. It has plenty of control. It just doesn't have 'Free' Will because it is doing what TLOP tell it to do.

Although I was struggling to understand your post....

:)

[Peskanov]

Thanks for the links UCE.
A note: reading about "What is the mind/body problem?" I found there where some bizarre asumptions about the materialist position. I have read several interviews with neurologists, and most of them (I would say nearly all) believe in a materialistic interpretation of the mind. However none of them denies the existence of "mental states". In fact, part of his work is finding them! (understand it's working).
How can this misunderstanding be explained? Maybe there are different branches of materialism and the current most common one is not reflected in the article? I read something about this in other thread, but I would thank you if you can point me in the correct direction.

About the Bohm/De-Broglie article, please look this quote:

"The combination of the quantum force of wave on particle with the counter-force or back-action of particle on wave forms a feed-back control loop which is able to control the formerly uncontrollable guidance of the particle by its wave. This results in a distortion of the statistical patterns of orthodox quantum mechanics. This is the mechanism of intent or free will. "

I am not going to pretend that I understood the whole article, because I didn't. Still, I have not found the origin of free will described. If I am undestanding correctly the above paragraph, this article is:
a) Describing a deterministic mechanism which it calls "free will".
or
b) Describing a deterministic mechanism which is used by "freel will" to interact with our known reality.

What do you think it means? A or B? Am I missing something important?


--
quote:
That is correct. Many people have pointed to the physical constants and claimed that they are evidence of a designer.
--

Yes, although an atheist myself, I found this view rational and worth of respect...

--
quote:
But I have suggested that thing which produces it is the One Thing which is a slave of no other system - it is the source of all systems. What you are arguing is exactly correct, and what I am arguing is the one and only exception which allows Free Will to exist. The only thing which cannot be a slave of a higher system is the root cause of all the systems. Infinity can be the only source of Free Will. This is quite interesting to me, because I argued this before and Franko insisted that Free Will only required and external input. I didn't challenge him at the time but now I think you may have demonstrated that he was wrong.
--

Ok; only that I still think this exception which allows free will can't be described without falling into an irrational assertion.
You say "Infinity can be the only source of Free Will". Since this quite a ambiguous assertion it is hard to reply; I can understand it as a metaphor in the multiverse model, but we already stated it was a deterministic model, and that you are not referring to it.
You seem to say that the source of free will is omnipotent. But still, this quality does not make it acausal. The multiverse proposed is also omnipotent, but still deterministic.
I think you are putting an intuition on top of your model, and I think it could be irrational idea .
Maybe we can get our ideas near if we answer this question:
Is acausal a synonim of random?

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Infinity can be the only source of Free Will.

What does this mean Elephant?

Ive asked you this before, sorry, but you gave me a description about Hinduism ;)

...so, do you mind explaining this concept to me? :cool:

Franko-Wraith :

I have described enough already. You know perfectly well what is meant.

:)

Peskanov :


a) Describing a deterministic mechanism which it calls "free will".
or
b) Describing a deterministic mechanism which is used by "freel will" to interact with our known reality.

What do you think it means? A or B? Am I missing something important?


(b). The important word is 'statistical'.


Maybe we can get our ideas near if we answer this question:
Is acausal a synonim of random?


No. Materialists generally refer to two sorts of behaviour in this sort of discussion - random and deterministic. They then equate determinism with causality and declare everything else to be random. This leaves no room for Free Will by definition, before we have even started. Acausal just means non-deterministic.

And as for materialism being the denial of mental states - most materialists will deny this until confronted with a philosopher who examines very closely the relationship between brain/brain-process/qualia. They ultimately find that the only coherent position for them to take is to deny the existence of the qualia, otherwise they end up having to continually make the statement "Brain process = qualia", even though these two things are qualitatively completely different things and qualia are specifically defined to not be brain processes. I don't want to get bogged down in another one of those discussions though. We can do it by PM if you really want to.

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Franko-Wraith :

I have described enough already. You know perfectly well what is meant.

:)

well I dont actually :)
Hence me asking ;)

Elephant, youre not trying to avoid answering the question are you? :cool:

Elephant, youre not trying to avoid answering the question are you? :cool: [/B]

Trying?

I should have thought an open declaration of "I have said enough already" makes my thoughts clear enough. The Upanishads provide the answer far better than I can. Unlike yourself, I do not see the neccesity to invent my own religion.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


(I don't)
Even if "universe" is closed?

Atman and Brahman are the same thing. :confused:

I look at it as a Zen koan.

Ego isn't discounted. It has plenty of control. It just doesn't have 'Free' Will because it is doing what TLOP tell it to do.

Agreed for Bag-o-bones *me*. But for *I*????


Although I was struggling to understand your post....

:)
Doesn't seem so to me.... :)

[Peskanov]

UCE, about QM interpretation:
--
(b). The important word is 'statistical'.
--

Ok, I just wanted to ensure that we were talking about the channel, not the emisor.

--
quote:
No. Materialists generally refer to two sorts of behaviour in this sort of discussion - random and deterministic. They then equate determinism with causality and declare everything else to be random. This leaves no room for Free Will by definition, before we have even started. Acausal just means non-deterministic.
--

Now we are getting somewhere; I always undestood random as lacking cause; from the wikipedia:

http://www.wikipedia.org

Randomness

"In ordinary language, the word random is used to express apparent lack of purpose or cause"

There is a lot more to be said about randomnes, but if you accept this definition, acausal is a synonim of random.
Accepting these semantics, if you want to negate a correlation of free will with quantum acausal phenomena and still say it lacks cause, you would need to find a propierty which differs "random in QM", from "acausal of free will".
Only this way you could get "free will" out of any physic model.
Of course if you prefer other semantics, I coud also deal with it. Just define causal, deterministic, random, and any other relevant word in a coherent manner and I will do fine.

About Qualia, I see you already have discussed long about it in these forums. I am not educated about this thinking field, so I will look at this question much later probably.

I think I will try soon to write and post an scheme containing my understanding of the problem; my position is still that the existence of free will is not a proof of limitations in current physics model.

hammegk


Even if "universe" is closed?


If it were demonstrated that the Universe was closed then I would see this as strong supporting evidence that Big Bang theory is the correct model.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atman and Brahman are the same thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I look at it as a Zen koan.


Fair enough. Personally I consider them to be literally the same thing. They are indistinguishable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ego isn't discounted. It has plenty of control. It just doesn't have 'Free' Will because it is doing what TLOP tell it to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agreed for Bag-o-bones *me*. But for *I*????


"I" may have Free Will. If/When "Me" uses that Will it is no longer Free.


Geoff.

Peskanov :


"In ordinary language, the word random is used to express apparent lack of purpose or cause"

There is a lot more to be said about randomnes, but if you accept this definition, acausal is a synonim of random.


There is indeed a lot more to be said about randomness. I consider it to be one the most poorly understood words in the English language.

We are also getting into the question of Infinite Regression and the Uncaused Cause. If we try to trace the path of causality back to its root we end up with Infinite Regression - there always has to be a higher system. I have defined the Uncaused Cause to be Infinity itself, which presumably is the only logical place to trace the Infinite Regress back to.


Accepting these semantics, if you want to negate a correlation of free will with quantum acausal phenomena and still say it lacks cause, you would need to find a propierty which differs "random in QM", from "acausal of free will".


I am not sure I understand what you mean by " if you want to negate a correlation of free will with quantum acausal phenomena"....

Free Will is not quantum randomness. Free Will and randomness are not the same thing... :confused:

QM is said to be random. If mind is involved in "loading the quantum dice" then it can appear random according to materialistic physics, but be influenced by Free Will. How can you tell whether the observer has any influence over whether or not Schroedingers cat lives or dies? It would look the same from the point of view of physics whether the observer has influence or not.

Try rephrasing it and I might find it easier to understand. From my perspective your semantics still seem to render Free Will meaningless by defining everything to be either random or deterministic.

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Trying?

I should have thought an open declaration of "I have said enough already" makes my thoughts clear enough.

Not to me they arent ;)

So do you mind explaining what you mean by Free-will comes from Infinity ?

:cool:

Originally posted by wraith


Not to me they arent ;)

So do you mind explaining what you mean by Free-will comes from Infinity ?

:cool:

Franko....given the extensive clarifications of what this means which have been presented in this thread, I think this statement is about as clear as it could possibly be. If you want me to 'explain' anything else you'd better try asking me a more specific question.

:)

[Peskanov]

--
quote:
There is indeed a lot more to be said about randomness. I consider it to be one the most poorly understood words in the English language.
--

I don't understand why don't you want to accept random and acausal as the same.
I suspect that you accept free will as acausal, but not as lacking purpose. Could this be the problem?

--
quote:
We are also getting into the question of Infinite Regression and the Uncaused Cause. If we try to trace the path of causality back to its root we end up with Infinite Regression - there always has to be a higher system. I have defined the Uncaused Cause to be Infinity itself, which presumably is the only logical place to trace the Infinite Regress back to.
--

Infinitine regression = infinite chain of causal events; unconceivable, but rational, I think.
Uncaused Cause to be Infinity = irrational?

--
quote:
I am not sure I understand what you mean by " if you want to negate a correlation of free will with quantum acausal phenomena"....
--

Sorry, I think I forced my english. In direct spanish translation, it makes sense, I swear. :)
I think it will get more clear with this quote:

--
quote:
Free Will is not quantum randomness. Free Will and randomness are not the same thing...
--

IMO, the result of my experiment is that what you are saying here is dogmatic.
With free will you define a source of acausal events.
The QM defines a source of acausal events.
You assert that these 2 sources are not the same, and define the QM events to be just the channel, not the source. Why? If you don't take evidence from somewhere we are in dogma territory.
You MUST find some quality which separates both phenomena, you must find a quality in free will not present in the QM model. But as you reject causality in free will our reason is on the frontiers of what can be argued.
If you bring "purpose" as a difference, this will get bring causality back into free will!

--
quote:
From my perspective your semantics still seem to render Free Will meaningless by defining everything to be either random or deterministic.
--

As I said earlier, you are invited to bring other terminology, or other semantics. I don't think I am forcing meanings, still we are all biased in some direction...

Talking about semantics, it think it is time to speak about what I think it's the root of the problem: the definition of "free will".
Thinking about the meaning and use of "free", it turns I find that "free" is used to talk about the lack of a restriction (or a set of restrictions). It's important to tell that these restrictions are often implicit on the context.
"Free entrance" refer to a payment restriction.
"The wagon is running free" could refer to a failure of brakes, which restricted it's movement in the rail. Still nobody says that the wagon is evading the rail, the physics model, or even causality!
In any use of "free" you will find a finite, understable context, which describes some restrictions, but still has others present.
Whe we create the term "free will", why are we trying to add ALL restrictions in the context? I can't think of any other use of "free" which is taken to that extreme. What evidence is making us think of an unlimited "will"? I can observe some restrictions in my will, and in other will as well.

[wraith]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
If you want me to 'explain' anything else you'd better try asking me a more specific question.

:)

omg!
ok Elephant

Do you mind explaining what you mean by Free-will comes from Infinity ?

;)

Franko-Wraith


Do you mind explaining what you mean by Free-will comes from Infinity ?


I mean that Free-Will comes from Infinity. This is stupid, Franko. I have explained exactly what this means. What is the point in continually asking me to 'explain' it, when it has already been explained, and I have already told you that there is no more explanation possible unless you ask me a more specific question. What exactly do you not understand, given what has already been said?

I get the feeling there is some particular question you want answered but you don't actually want to ask it.

:)


Peskanov :


I don't understand why don't you want to accept random and acausal as the same.
I suspect that you accept free will as acausal, but not as lacking purpose. Could this be the problem?


I think the problem comes down to the "Uncaused cause". Free Will can be the cause of other things, but it cannot be caused itself, or it is not free.


Infinitine regression = infinite chain of causal events; unconceivable, but rational, I think.
Uncaused Cause to be Infinity = irrational?


Everything breaks down at Infinity. Whether you wish to label this as irrational is your choice. I don't see it as irrational to trace back the Infinite Regression to Infinity itself.


--
quote:
Free Will is not quantum randomness. Free Will and randomness are not the same thing...
--

IMO, the result of my experiment is that what you are saying here is dogmatic.
With free will you define a source of acausal events.
The QM defines a source of acausal events.
You assert that these 2 sources are not the same, and define the QM events to be just the channel, not the source. Why? If you don't take evidence from somewhere we are in dogma territory.


Some of my beliefs depend on subjective personal experience which provided personal evidence for both the existence of Free Will and the possibility that consciousness can transcend quantum randomness and defy the laws of probability, but only in certain very specific situations. Thus it is not dogma from my point of view, any more than it would be dogmatic for somebody who had actually experienced a visit from aliens to believe in aliens. But my subjective experiences cannot demonstrate this to you and are of no use in this debate. However, there are some highly contraversial results from the people at PEAR which suggest that consciousness can indeed influence quantum probablity. These results are hotly disputed by hardline materialistic skeptics, but I can't help but wonder whether this is also driven by a line of reasoning that goes :

1) Materialism must be true.
2) Therefore consciousness cannot influence quantum probabalistic outcomes.
3) Therefore the people at PEAR are either deliberately falsifying their results or are just incompetent.
4) Therefore there is no evidence that consciousness can influence quantum probablistic outcomes.

Get rid of (1), which is an assumption, and the PEAR results warrant a much closer look, which is why they are so controversial and draw so much interest. I stopped arguing with people who claim (2), (3) or (4) a long time ago and spent my efforts concentrating on (1), which IMO causes a flawed line of reasoning in its wake.


You MUST find some quality which separates both phenomena, you must find a quality in free will not present in the QM model.


The quality is Infiniteness. I apologise for not being able to give a more precise answer. The entity which posesses Free Will is Infinity itself. I think we are stuck going round in a loop.


As I said earlier, you are invited to bring other terminology, or other semantics. I don't think I am forcing meanings, still we are all biased in some direction...


By 'causal' do you mean "Is caused by" or "Is the cause of"?

Free Will must be an Uncaused Cause, or it is not Free. All other causes are themselves caused. This is this the root of the problem I think.


Talking about semantics, it think it is time to speak about what I think it's the root of the problem: the definition of "free will".
Thinking about the meaning and use of "free", it turns I find that "free" is used to talk about the lack of a restriction (or a set of restrictions). It's important to tell that these restrictions are often implicit on the context.
"Free entrance" refer to a payment restriction.
"The wagon is running free" could refer to a failure of brakes, which restricted it's movement in the rail. Still nobody says that the wagon is evading the rail, the physics model, or even causality!
In any use of "free" you will find a finite, understable context, which describes some restrictions, but still has others present.
Whe we create the term "free will", why are we trying to add ALL restrictions in the context? I can't think of any other use of "free" which is taken to that extreme. What evidence is making us think of an unlimited "will"? I can observe some restrictions in my will, and in other will as well.


Even if I have Free Will it doesn't mean I can defy the law of gravity and fly. What is 'freedom' anyway?

We should not understate the place this question takes on the hierarchy of philosophical questions. IMO Free Will is the last thing you can make sense of in philosophy, and as you do so you cross the border into religion. I believe you have to figure out many other things before you can even understand the question properly.

Geoff.

(can't edit that last one....)

Specifically to understand what is meant by 'Free Will', you have to have a meaningfull concept of what is meant by the word "I", which is the thing which does or does not have Free Will.

What do you understand the word "I" to mean?

This keeps going back to ontology. Materialism struggles to define what the mind is at all, without getting into trouble. Dualism tends to associates "I" with the mind leaving us with experiences but no experiencer. In both cases we then end up talking about "Whether or not we have Free Will" before we have a meaningfull concept of what we mean by "we".

[Peskanov]

Hello again, UCE;

Maybe we are near of breaking this circle...Maybe.

---
quote:
I think the problem comes down to the "Uncaused cause". Free Will can be the cause of other things, but it cannot be caused itself, or it is not free.
...
Free Will must be an Uncaused Cause, or it is not Free. All other causes are themselves caused. This is this the root of the problem I think.
---

What I am saying, probably in improper terms, is that this quality you attribute to free will, is already present in QM, a physics model.
For example, the energy of the vacuum: subatomic particles happily pop up from nowhere, radiate some energy and return to the nothingness. In one interpretation of QM this is referred as acausal, but still a bit predictable (probabilistic).
This event could be uncaused; still, it's the cause of subsequent events. An uncaused cause.

Putting the ideas in order, we have the premise (supported by you, I think): Free Will must be an Uncaused Cause, or it is not Free.
As there are more factors linked to free will than uncaused events, (like memory or recognition, which you link to our physical description of the brain) I will rephrase it like: At least one factor on free will must be composed of uncaused cause/s.
Now, my reasoning:
1- The system in which we observe free will, the brain, is not completely described in functional terms.
2- The physic model of QM include several possible uncaused events.
3- The elements which compose in free will, both caused and uncaused, could be found in physic models (from 1 and 2)
4- Hence, our definition of "free will" does not contain any element which trascends the physical model. Free will could be fully described in terms of QM.
Note that I say "could", not "can".

And that's it. This was the last point of my experiment. The definition of free will describes a model which could fit in a model of physics.
I don't know why are you so reluctant to accept my idea. After all, it's strongly disapointing for any scientist to allow uncaused events in his theorical model; you could say is a bit like putting god in the ecuation. I certainly don't like it myself, I would prefer a deterministic universe with only an original uncaused event.

---
quote:
Everything breaks down at Infinity. Whether you wish to label this as irrational is your choice. I don't see it as irrational to trace back the Infinite Regression to Infinity itself.
---

It looks like pure intuition to me... I can't force myself to map a value to an entity. I can understand saying "I have 2 chairs, or infinite chairs", but not "I have Infinity".

Now, talking about your personal experience and the PEAR experiment. These are different proofs, I was only arguing against the semantic mess which tries to bring the "will" out of the physics. New evidence about "will" could extend it's definition, and then show a shortcomming in physics.
It is obvious I can say very few against a personal experience, you have the final say over it . I can only sugest trying the scientific method to obtain more information from it, whatever it was. Some trascendental experiences can be reproduced several times. For example, astral travelling is frequent in most people. This allows to test if they are really travelling out of his body, asking the person to read numbers or words wrote in their forehead.
I am a follower of Randi work, so you can guess which is my opinion, I don't hide it.
About PEAR, I have seen several experiments in the same direction, most are published on the web.
Your acusation about materialists being biased again the PEAR experiments is a bit unfair. Everybody is biased, they just have their own bias, that's all. If there is any new knowledge to be obtained in these experiences, be sure it will be, sooner or later. Simply don't expect to find much public money put in this bussines...

---
quote:
Even if I have Free Will it doesn't mean I can defy the law of gravity and fly. What is 'freedom' anyway?
---

This is my point. "Free" and "freedom" doesn't mean nothing without a framework. Like "far" or "near".
You must offer evidence that the "free" of "free will" can't obey causality, if not we are again in dogma. It's like saying that "hot" of "hot dog" means infinite temperature. Why? Evidence of the absolute nature of free on the will, please.
Why most philosophers say that the will is free, in a sense of free never used (absolute free)?

A last thing: I don't see the need to define the full mind to talk about "free will". After all, I found interesting debating it because it's less fuzzy that "conscience", for example.I can define "decision" pretty well in a formal language, but conscience... :(

[Franko]

Elephant:
Specifically to understand what is meant by 'Free Will', you have to have a meaningfull concept of what is meant by the word "I", which is the thing which does or does not have Free Will.

What do you understand the word "I" to mean?

This keeps going back to ontology. Materialism struggles to define what the mind is at all, without getting into trouble. Dualism tends to associates "I" with the mind leaving us with experiences but no experiencer. In both cases we then end up talking about "Whether or not we have Free Will" before we have a meaningfull concept of what we mean by "we".

Forget defining “we” or “I”, what the hell is “free will” suppose to mean? Every time I hear that term all I can think of is 4-sided triangles. Honestly, I have only a vague idea what that term is even suppose to mean. Any one who believes in “free will” might as well be claiming they believe in a “Flat Earth”. Although at least Flat Earth, I can comprehend.

So tell me Elephant … are you ready to call yourself a Fatalist yet? You sound like one more and more with every post.

Hi Peskanov


What I am saying, probably in improper terms, is that this quality you attribute to free will, is already present in QM, a physics model.
For example, the energy of the vacuum: subatomic particles happily pop up from nowhere, radiate some energy and return to the nothingness. In one interpretation of QM this is referred as acausal, but still a bit predictable (probabilistic).
This event could be uncaused; still, it's the cause of subsequent events. An uncaused cause.


It may look the same from the point of view of the physicist, and I do see where you are coming from. Pairs of virtual particles appearing from the void do, I suppose, count as an uncaused cause, and allow scope for Free Will. But only if on a higher level the cause of the apparently random appearance of those particles turns out to be 'the Will of God', for want of a better term. Quantum randomness does allow scope for this, but physics would never be able to determine the difference between apparent randomness and 'Gods Will'. This potentially has some startling implications for the evolution/creation debate, and raises questions which aren't so easy to answer, and I'm not going to try.


Putting the ideas in order, we have the premise (supported by you, I think): Free Will must be an Uncaused Cause, or it is not Free.
As there are more factors linked to free will than uncaused events, (like memory or recognition, which you link to our physical description of the brain) I will rephrase it like: At least one factor on free will must be composed of uncaused cause/s.
Now, my reasoning:
1- The system in which we observe free will, the brain, is not completely described in functional terms.
2- The physic model of QM include several possible uncaused events.
3- The elements which compose in free will, both caused and uncaused, could be found in physic models (from 1 and 2)
4- Hence, our definition of "free will" does not contain any element which trascends the physical model. Free will could be fully described in terms of QM.
Note that I say "could", not "can".

And that's it. This was the last point of my experiment. The definition of free will describes a model which could fit in a model of physics.
I don't know why are you so reluctant to accept my idea. After all, it's strongly disapointing for any scientist to allow uncaused events in his theorical model; you could say is a bit like putting god in the ecuation. I certainly don't like it myself, I would prefer a deterministic universe with only an original uncaused event.


I am reluctant to accept anything at all unless I understand exactly what is being proposed.

I never actually claimed that physics couldn't account for Free Will - but I did question whether materialism could. If you are able to accept that Free Will is connected with apparent quantum randomness then I think we are agreeing with each other anyway - this was always my position. But it does indicate a link between consciousness and quantum mechanics that has been strongly resisted in certain quarters. I have never quite understood this resistance - most of the founders of QM believed it to exist.


---
quote:
Everything breaks down at Infinity. Whether you wish to label this as irrational is your choice. I don't see it as irrational to trace back the Infinite Regression to Infinity itself.
---

It looks like pure intuition to me... I can't force myself to map a value to an entity. I can understand saying "I have 2 chairs, or infinite chairs", but not "I have Infinity".


I can see why it looks like intuition. I won't force the point. I do not believe that Infinity is a number at all. +Infinity is a limit, and Infinity is Infinity itself..... :)



Now, talking about your personal experience and the PEAR experiment. These are different proofs, I was only arguing against the semantic mess which tries to bring the "will" out of the physics. New evidence about "will" could extend it's definition, and then show a shortcomming in physics.
It is obvious I can say very few against a personal experience, you have the final say over it . I can only sugest trying the scientific method to obtain more information from it, whatever it was. Some trascendental experiences can be reproduced several times.


I am in no hurry to repeat it. I have seen enough for me. I don't want Randis money, and I have no agenda to prove anything to anyone. I'm here because I like to talk about philosophy. :)


Your acusation about materialists being biased again the PEAR experiments is a bit unfair. Everybody is biased, they just have their own bias, that's all.


Forgive me. I have spent too long debating with materialists on this site. My attitude is also influenced by my memories of what it was like when I saw the world through such a belief system myself. I didn't just think materialism was true and believe paranormal phenomena were nonsense - I knew materialism was true and only total morons believed in paranormal phenomena! ;)


This is my point. "Free" and "freedom" doesn't mean nothing without a framework. Like "far" or "near".
You must offer evidence that the "free" of "free will" can't obey causality, if not we are again in dogma. It's like saying that "hot" of "hot dog" means infinite temperature. Why? Evidence of the absolute nature of free on the will, please.
Why most philosophers say that the will is free, in a sense of free never used (absolute free)?


Maybe the philosophers talk about free will in a greater context - but perhaps there are reasons why the framework cannot be fully specified. Hegel did try to do this, but trying to understand his philosophy is the intellectual equivalent of trying to climb Mount Everest. Few go there. I certainly don't think we can bring the framework down to the level of empirical science. I am reminded of Roger Penrose who when asked "Will we find a theory of everything in your lifetime?", smiled a knowing smile and replied "Oh....I hope not....what would we do then?" How right he was. I am happy for Free Will to remain a bit of a mystery. We need a bit of mystery. ;)


A last thing: I don't see the need to define the full mind to talk about "free will". After all, I found interesting debating it because it's less fuzzy that "conscience", for example.I can define "decision" pretty well in a formal language, but conscience...


Conscience? Yeah, that's a tough one. But I still think that any of these sorts of questions do need a meaningfull definition of "I".

It's been pleasant talking to you, Peskanov. I think we are close to the end of this discussion though.

:)

Franko :


Forget defining “we” or “I”, what the hell is “free will” suppose to mean? Every time I hear that term all I can think of is 4-sided triangles. Honestly, I have only a vague idea what that term is even suppose to mean. Any one who believes in “free will” might as well be claiming they believe in a “Flat Earth”. Although at least Flat Earth, I can comprehend.


There is a large gap between what you say and what you really believe Franko, and I am tired of playing this game with you. I think you know perfectly well what Free Will is.


So tell me Elephant … are you ready to call yourself a Fatalist yet? You sound like one more and more with every post.


Not at all Frank :

MWI is half right.

[Franko]

Elephant:
There is a large gap between what you say and what you really believe Franko, and I am tired of playing this game with you. I think you know perfectly well what Free Will is.

I think you mean there is a large gap between what I believe, and what you are willing (capable) of believing. But in any event, I don’t see how what I believe prevents you from explaining what you believe?

… and no … I don’t know what