Free Will has long been taken as a given. It makes a good deal of sense to assume it; it fits with the everyday model of the world we generate from simple experience. You can think. You can choose. You are self-aware. I am going to argue the case against Free Will. I apologise if I am misinformed on any particular point.
The universe has long been assumed to operate simply. But as science has progressed and our models of the universe have been revised, what has become clear is that things don't often work in ways you'd expect. For example, quantum theory, and the idea that particles do not have a fixed position, but merely a probable position. We don't know much about the workings of the brain - but we do know that it is incredibly complex. It is estimated to consist of 10^11 neurons, passing signals to each other via about 10^15 connections. That complexity is what allows us to think. But it does not mean that we choose our thoughts.
Take a pocket calculator. Given certain inputs, you can expect certain outputs. The calculator does not think. It operates in a logical manner, and produces a logical output.
Now make it more complex. Take a personal computer. It can take a lot more inputs, perform more complicated calculations. The computer does not think. It operates in a logical manner, and produces a logical output. But it might take a very long time for a person to understand that logic, and agree that the output was expected.
Take a water molecule. Given complete information about it, you might be able to infer some of the properties of water. But it would be a tall order indeed to use that to model the oceans. An ocean is a complex system, with billions of particles influencing each other, and being influenced by the result of other influences...et cetera. But at it's heart, given complete knowledge of the states of every molecule in the ocean, and enough processing power, it should be possible in theory to model the interactions of every molecule in the ocean. We would know the inputs, understand the calculation, and find the output logical, like the calculator.
The human brain is amazingly complex. It's like the ocean, with billions of cells and trillions of interactions. But it would be even harder to form a model of the brain than of the ocean. The brain forms connections based on the inputs from our senses, and each of us perceives the universe differently. No two people will have the same experience of the world, - even if they did, no two people's brains would process that input in the same way. Each of us forms a unique perception and understanding of the world. We can take the inputs to the brain - or at least, an approximation of what a person has experienced - and look at the outputs, their thoughts and actions, and find ourselves unable to form a model that would explain it. You can present an identical scenario to a million people and get a million different responses.
Enter the idea of Free Will.
I propose that, given complete knowledge of the inputs and interactions in a person's brain, and enough processing power, it would be possible to accurately predict that individual's response to any situation.
They would act in the way they chose. But given identical inputs and conditions, the cells in the brain would be interacting in the same way, and you'd get the same output. If this was not the case, then that would imply to me that the brain was functioning randomly - which is to me a far more troubling notion than the lack of free will.
This idea is of course impossible to test. You can't reset someone's brain to the state it was in before an event - that would require time travel. If you merely present someone with the same test twice, and measure the outcome, the two will not be the same. The state of the brain in the second test is altered with the knowledge of the first test, the events in between, and countless other interactions we couldn't even begin to speculate at.
The point I'm getting at is this: the brain is merely a system, and operates in a deterministic way. It is however an incredibly complex system, with incredibly complex inputs, that we could not even begin to wrap our heads around. Every event, from the moment the universe began, to this moment now as you read my words, has combined, influencing each other, to shape your brain and your thoughts at this very instant. You did not choose them. They have been determined.
People often wonder why the atheist does not get disheartened by their beliefs - that you're born into a life without purpose, die without consequence only to be swept away utterly by the tide of history, and in this case live out your life without choice, predestined. I would say this: The most beautiful universe I can image is the one I find myself in. Unimaginably huge, where a simple cloud of protons can be shaped only by the blind, uncaring force of nature into a staggeringly complex and diverse collection of self-replicating patterns, that one day stopped and wondered where they came from.
Yikes. I went to wikipedia to look up free will and got slightly freaked out. I thought free will would have been obvious.
The point I'm getting at is this: the brain is merely a system, and operates in a deterministic way. It is however an incredibly complex system, with incredibly complex inputs, that we could not even begin to wrap our heads around. Every event, from the moment the universe began, to this moment now as you read my words, has combined, influencing each other, to shape your brain and your thoughts at this very instant. You did not choose them. They have been determined.
I dont think every event in the universe has an impact on me (or anyone). Sure those events have shaped the universe into its current form, and the input i receive from my little section of it.
I think we do have free will. I dont get why been able to predict what someone is going to do would mean they have no free will. I dont get why the influences on me (physical, emotional, mental) would render free will false.
Could you explain a bit more about the deterministic point of view?
This biggest flaw with determinsim in my opinion is that if everything is predetermined and every event is caused by an event which came before it and so on and son on. The series of which is also an event. Then said event, and the series of events which make it ultimately, needs an initial cause.
In other words, If that's to be taken as objective fact and everything is a predetermined event culminating from this single creation event, you've just proved there is a god.
ChaosGalvatron wrote:I dont think every event in the universe has an impact on me (or anyone). Sure those events have shaped the universe into its current form, and the input i receive from my little section of it.
I think we do have free will. I dont get why been able to predict what someone is going to do would mean they have no free will. I dont get why the influences on me (physical, emotional, mental) would render free will false.
Could you explain a bit more about the deterministic point of view?
As I understand it, free will is about choice. The idea is that you can't be made to do things, that you have independent thoughts and act upon them. What I'm saying is that those those choices aren't really choices, they're just the logical outcome of your circumstances - and it couldn't be any other way. Given a set of circumstances, a certain response is inevitable - and those circumstances are themselves inevitable given the earlier state of the universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:In other words, If that's to be taken as objective fact and everything is a predetermined event culminating from this single creation event, you've just proved there is a god.
I have done no such thing. The ultimate nature of the universe still eludes us, and a "single creation event" is just one theory. Assuming the universe did spring into being from a singular point, that still does not prove the existence of a god - it merely shows us the limitations of our understanding. Throwing gods into the holes in our knowledge achieves nothing.
whatwhat wrote:In other words, If that's to be taken as objective fact and everything is a predetermined event culminating from this single creation event, you've just proved there is a god.
I have done no such thing. The ultimate nature of the universe still eludes us, and a "single creation event" is just one theory. Assuming the universe did spring into being from a singular point, that still does not prove the existence of a god - it merely shows us the limitations of our understanding. Throwing gods into the holes in our knowledge achieves nothing.
But if everything is predetermined there has to be an initial event which triggered the events which followed, by basic maths. Something has to flick the first domino. If everything is determined by what has come before it then there has to be one event at the start of it all prior to which there was no event. Which leaves us nowhere.
Bear in mind when I say god I'm talking about something we have no understanding of, a creator or creation event. i'm not talking about a guy with a big white beard and a son called jesus.
The only other way to fix the problem of an event without a cause besides a god/creation event is to say that time is looped and the first event is caused by the last event. But that again leaves us nowhere as to how and why there came to be a loop in the first place.
On the other hand if the universe isnot pre determined and has the ability to be make undetermined events and alter direction then these problems are less of an issue. And something can be born from nothing.
whatwhat wrote:But if everything is predetermined there has to be an initial event which triggered the events which followed, by basic maths. Something has to flick the first domino. If everything is determined by what has come before it then there has to be one event at the start of it all prior to which there was no event. Which leaves us nowhere.
Bear in mind when I say god I'm talking about something we have no understanding of, a creator or creation event. i'm not talking about a guy with a big white beard and a son called jesus.
I follow you. I don't see much of a way around it though. And to be honest a lot of Hawking's last book went over my head, so I'm not full of alternative scenarios right now.
And even if the very beginning of time wasn't predetermined, are you saying that following events were not? To go back to the ocean analogy, you don't need to know how the water molecules were formed to use them to predict future states of the ocean. You don't need to know the beginning of time to say that a persons brain architecture - determined by their life experience - determines their thoughts.
whatwhat wrote:But if everything is predetermined there has to be an initial event which triggered the events which followed, by basic maths. Something has to flick the first domino. If everything is determined by what has come before it then there has to be one event at the start of it all prior to which there was no event. Which leaves us nowhere.
Bear in mind when I say god I'm talking about something we have no understanding of, a creator or creation event. i'm not talking about a guy with a big white beard and a son called jesus.
I follow you. I don't see much of a way around it though. And to be honest a lot of Hawking's last book went over my head, so I'm not full of alternative scenarios right now.
And even if the very beginning of time wasn't predetermined, are you saying that following events were not?
The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.
Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is not pre-determined then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.
Sorry, i still dont get how our actions been influenced by our lives, our genetics and external input/influences, renders free will null and void.
Even if this is true:
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways, and our mind is made up of atoms and particles. How can free will exist?
You know it took me about an hour to type up that post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.
If the universe is deterministic then our actions, by extension, will be deterministic. If the nature of the universe is chaos, would our actions too not be chaotic? That also seems to me to preclude choice.
The Dreadnote wrote:To go back to the ocean analogy, you don't need to know how the water molecules were formed to use them to predict future states of the ocean. You don't need to know the beginning of time to say that a persons brain architecture - determined by their life experience - determines their thoughts.
Think about what you are actually saying there though. If ever thought in your brain is determined by its intitial set up then it's intitial set up is also determined, lets say by genetics, which again are determined by something else...and so on...you end up going all the way back through evolution, past the formation of the solar system etc etc. Your basically saying it's all one big series of events determined by their previous event.
The Dreadnote wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.
If the universe is deterministic then our actions, by extension, will be deterministic. If the nature of the universe is chaos, would our actions too not be chaotic?
Exactly, hence if that is the case we do have free will.
whatwhat wrote:
Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random
Chaos and randomness are only valid in deterministic systems. Look into chaos theory.
whatwhat wrote:
then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.
Why?
Even in a deterministic universe it makes no sense to say that the action of one electron governs the action of one atom. Rather, the actions of the electrons, protons, and neutrons govern the action of the molecule. That may seem to remove the capacity for unique atomic behavior, but since the atom is a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons we're merely considering the atom as the sum of the actions of those parts. Parts that would act differently under alternate conditions; thsu establishing uniqueness for atomic behavior.
By the same token human beings are the sum of their various parts, behaving according to a will that is "free" in the sense that we can behave in accordance with what we are: a collection of various parts that would not act in the same manner were it not for the sequence in which they were arranged.
whatwhat wrote:
Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random
Chaos and randomness are only valid in deterministic systems. Look into chaos theory.
Chaos theory does not equal chaos neither does it equal randomness. A better term for what I am saying I may require but chaos theory is nowhere near what I am getting at.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.
Why?
Even in a deterministic universe it makes no sense to say that the action of one electron governs the action of one atom. Rather, the actions of the electrons, protons, and neutrons govern the action of the molecule. That may seem to remove the capacity for unique atomic behavior, but since the atom is a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons we're merely considering the atom as the sum of the actions of those parts. Parts that would act differently under alternate conditions; thsu establishing uniqueness for atomic behavior.
But none is independent of the other. Hence whatever came first governs all.
dogma wrote:By the same token human beings are the sum of their various parts, behaving according to a will that is "free" in the sense that we can behave in accordance with what we are: a collection of various parts that would not act in the same manner were it not for the sequence in which they were arranged.
Yes and the sequence by which you were aranged in a determinstic view is determined by something else, wihcih is determined by something else. And so on.
This thread will end badly How do I know. Experience of seeing many a Dakka metaphysical discussion go awol.
Bloody determinists. I thought quantum mechanics went against certainty, hence Eistein's quip about God not playing dice? (He was again the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics so I have been fish)
whatwhat wrote:Think about what you are actually saying there though. If ever thought in your brain is determined by its intitial set up then it's intitial set up is also determined, lets say by genetics, which again are determined by something else...and so on...you end up going all the way back through evolution, past the formation of the solar system etc etc. Your basically saying it's all one big series of events determined by their previous event.
I do understand this, you know. You don't need to repeat it for me.
whatwhat wrote:Exactly, hence if that is the case we do have free will.
I don't follow this, though. I don't see how chaos equates to choice of actions.
whatwhat wrote:The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.
Why? An initial cause isn't a prerequisite to causality still functioning. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.
whatwhat wrote:
Chaos theory does not equal chaos neither does it equal randomness. It's another issue.
Chaos theory is literally the study of chaotic behavior. This implicitly involves distinguishing chaos from randomness, and determining how, and why, either only applies given a deterministic state; because only deterministic states can be studied.
Its not a separate issue so much as the study of the issues we're talking about.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I thought quantum mechanics went against certainty, hence Eistein's quip about God not playing dice?
(He was again the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics so I have been fish)
Of course if neurons don't actually act deterministically then my idea doesn't work. It is entirely possible for the brain to spontaneously disappear and reappear on neptune...it's just very unlikely. I was under the impression that things operate on a large enough scale in the brain that they behave mostly in the expected manner.
whatwhat wrote:The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.
Why? An initial cause isn't a prerequisite to causality still functioning. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.
whatwhat wrote:The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.
Why? An initial cause isn't a prerequisite to causality still functioning. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.
Yeah, this is what I'm getting at whatwhat.
Well then now you require an explanation as to how this came to be, something which exists as far back to infinity. If no explanation can be given than you prove yourself wrong again. As what you have is just one big long infinate event with no cause. Your in quite a conundrum.
I require nothing else, and I am fully prepared to be wrong on the internet if it'll get you to stop pointing out that causality implies an infinite chain of events.
Laughing Man wrote:Why? Who's to say reality isn' an infinite chain of events? As I said, the universe doesn't require either a beginning or an end. It's just there.
The law of 'it's just there' undermines your whole argument though as it suggests something exists which wasn't pre-determined.
The Dreadnote wrote:I know two things.
1) I can't explain the beginning of the universe.
2) I believe, and perceive, that causality works.
I require nothing else, and I am fully prepared to be wrong on the internet if it'll get you to stop pointing out that causality implies an infinite chain of events.
I'm not saying your wrong. The fact is, no known science knows the answer to this question. All I am doing is playing devils advocate with your theories, I welcome you to chalenge what I say to. This is how scientists form theories, throwing stuff back and forth to each other. One disproving something, the other then finding a way for it to still work and putting it back to them.
whatwhat wrote:
A better term than chaos I may not ahve but chaos theory is well off what I am getting at.
I know, but the point I'm making is that what you're talking about, randomness or noise, is only possible in a deterministic universe where bits of information are determined by themselves. The lesser form of this argument, that randomness is not incompatible with determinism, still refutes your argument that the acceptance of randomness eliminates the possibility of deterministic universe.
If you're talking about the sort of randomness that does refute a deterministic universe, one in which bits of information do not determine themselves, then you're basically positing two things:
1) An indeterministic universe that is indeterministic because its indeterministic.
2) A universe in which people lack any sort of will, free or otherwise, because they lack the ability to determine their own actions.
dogma wrote:randomness is not incompatible with determinism
If something is already determined how can it be random? If the idea that 'randomness is not incompatible with determinism' is what you think I'm stating somewhere in what I have said then you have misread me.
whatwhat wrote:
If something is already determined how can it be random?
If you really think "random" means completely undetermined, then you can't talk about a thing of any sort at all.
A thing must determine itself in order to exist in any meaningful sense.
When randomness is discussed its essentially just a reference to the total absence of patterns. I'd argue that such a state cannot exist, simply because such a state is essentially just nonexistence as any given thing that exists must be able to define its own properties through being.
So if I'm getting this right there are two possibilities: we live in a deterministic universe and can not have free will or we live in an indeterminate universe and can not have free will?
What is required for free will to exist and is it possible?
whatwhat wrote:
If something is already determined how can it be random?
If you really think "random" means completely undetermined, then you can't talk about a thing of any sort at all.
Ok then dogma whathever does actually mean 'completely undetermined' is what I actually mean.
I'm talking about something predetermined and something not pre determined. As simple as that. Any ideas on the definition of random I couldn't really care about.
Scrabb wrote:So if I'm getting this right there are two possibilities: we live in a deterministic universe and can not have free will or we live in an indeterminate universe and can not have free will?
That's the way it looks to me.
What is required for free will to exist and is it possible?
whatwhat wrote:If the idea that 'randomness is not incompatible with determinism' is what you think I'm stating somewhere in what I have said then you have misread me.
Not at all, that's what I'm arguing. I think that you're arguing that randomness is incompatible with determinism. I may have made an error in my post, I'll go back and look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
Ok then dogma whathever does actually mean 'completely undetermined' is what I actually mean.
Alright, then your first step should be to establish how a thing can exist while not defining itself.
Free will exists, it just does. Why, because I will freely accept that it does.
Actually, it can't be proved nor can it be disproved. All this theory business comes down to is a lot of "I think..." statements.
Now sometimes things can be proven, like gravity, and then sometimes things can't be proven and it bugs the hell out of the people trying to prove/disprove it.
whatwhat wrote:
If you want to get into a conversation about random cant be random cause it must something must determine itself etc. I'm not your man.
Fair enough, its probably a bit too esoteric for this format anyway.
halonachos wrote:Free will exists, it just does. Why, because I will freely accept that it does.
That's circular.
halonachos wrote:
Now sometimes things can be proven, like gravity, and then sometimes things can't be proven and it bugs the hell out of the people trying to prove/disprove it.
Well, they can't be proven yet. We'll never be able to state that something can't be proven unless people continue to try until trying is impossible.
whatwhat wrote:
If you want to get into a conversation about random cant be random cause it must something must determine itself etc. I'm not your man.
Fair enough, its probably a bit too esoteric for this format anyway.
Nurglitch wrote:I've got an extra free will with this kit, and I was wondering if I could trade it to anyone for a spare Boson Higgs, or perhaps three gravitons.
halonachos wrote:Free will exists, it just does. Why, because I will freely accept that it does.
That's circular.
halonachos wrote:
Now sometimes things can be proven, like gravity, and then sometimes things can't be proven and it bugs the hell out of the people trying to prove/disprove it.
Well, they can't be proven yet. We'll never be able to state that something can't be proven unless people continue to try until trying is impossible.
Now that's circular my friend, so I guess that means its not free will after all. I guess time is really circular so chances are we'll have this argument again. OMG, its true, we had an argument like this earlier!
Dakka just proved that time is not linear, but circular.
halonachos wrote:Free will exists, it just does. Why, because I will freely accept that it does.
That's circular.
halonachos wrote:
Now sometimes things can be proven, like gravity, and then sometimes things can't be proven and it bugs the hell out of the people trying to prove/disprove it.
Well, they can't be proven yet. We'll never be able to state that something can't be proven unless people continue to try until trying is impossible.
Now that's circular my friend, so I guess that means its not free will after all. I guess time is really circular so chances are we'll have this argument again. OMG, its true, we had an argument like this earlier!
Dakka just proved that time is not linear, but circular.
That doesn't make sense though. Because if our timeline is looped and every event tumbles against the next in one big circle. There needs to be something which determined said circular timeline. i.e. there would be no explanation for why time is like this in the first place.
Otherwise what you have is magic, like a magic roundabout. Which looks like this...
So if we have a magic roundabout, that means a few things or only one of those few things.
1) All roundabouts are magic.
2) Some roundabouts are magic.
3) All roundabouts are circular.
4) If all roundaouts are magic, Washington DC and England are magic.
5) If some roundabouts are magic then only parts of Washington DC and England are magic or not magic at all.
6) It is proven that Washington DC is magic(its called politics there though).
7) So that means either all roundabouts are magic or only some roundabouts in England are magic.
8) DC was designed by a frenchman so it is the opposite of England, therefore England is not magic.
9) That means only certain roundabouts are magic.
10) If some roundabouts are magic, that means some circles are magic.
11) If some circles are magic then circular timelines could exist because magic exists.
So whatwhat, are you telling me that you don't believe in magic?
Maybe he's holding an invisible woman's chest, ever think of that Mr. Nomagic?
In fact, I am a magic scientist and can tell you that this fellow is not summoning anything nor grasping at any invisible object, he is merely tripping on acid.
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways, and our mind is made up of atoms and particles. How can free will exist?
Probable isn't exactly predetermined though, is it?
Thing is, I'm a product of my genes, and all the events that have happened since conception until now. Everything that follows from there is purely mechanistic, whether the universe is pre-determined or has a random element. For there to be free will there would have to be something inherent in me that is outside of the material, and I have no idea what that thing might be. I have no idea what it might be, and I don't make a habit of believing in things that I not only can't even begin to conceptualise.
But for other folk, they have a pretty good idea of what that thing might be. In many cases it's a core part of their worldview, in fact their world doesn't make sense if there's no such thing as free will. So that's cool, if it makes inherent sense and there's nothing to say it isn't true, it only makes sense to believe.
Until we discover Laplace's Demon the answer to this question is inevitably "I don't know, does it matter?".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, economics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Chaos theory is the study of the chaotic, not the truly random. It posits that systems have deterministic behaviors and outcomes, just that they're really hard to predict. As an aside, I hate how it's named chaos theory,it's damaged the concept of predictive physics in the public eye and laymen often have the outcomes of it backwards.
dogma wrote:I'm still waiting for anyone, here or elsewhere, to describe how a random universe is possible outside those that are only initially conditioned.
Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.
If a determinist world ultimately means there must have been something which wasn't pre-determined, that kind of tells us other things can be too. Otherwise your giving this one event, the only event which wasn't determined a very big "god like" status by saying it is the only thing to have ever happened which wasn't pre-determined.
What we call God, destiny, or my personal favorite, Fate, is essentially an admission that we do not and cannot know everything about the world. To a certain extent, you can predict what people would do in a given situation. Perhaps you may even be able to force someone to act in a certain way by applying stimuli. But they always are changing.
The brain's chemical levels and neural pathways changes every second. to call it a system and compare it to a computer is a false analogy. The brain is self-altering, and the hardware switches as rapidly as the software. If your own body will be different every time you are faced with a choice, then one entity could choose both ways at different points in their life- how can that be anything but free will?
Gitzbitah wrote:What we call God, destiny, or my personal favorite, Fate, is essentially an admission that we do not and cannot know everything about the world. To a certain extent, you can predict what people would do in a given situation. Perhaps you may even be able to force someone to act in a certain way by applying stimuli. But they always are changing.
The brain's chemical levels and neural pathways changes every second. to call it a system and compare it to a computer is a false analogy. The brain is self-altering, and the hardware switches as rapidly as the software. If your own body will be different every time you are faced with a choice, then one entity could choose both ways at different points in their life- how can that be anything but free will?
Well a determinist would say that the whatever your brain has been "self-altered" to is just a result of the pre-ceding event. Hence it is pre-determined as the decision you are making is being made by a brain which has came to be in such a state at that point in team because of all the other events leading up to it, each of which are determined by the preceding event.
Your computer system reference is a good one though, it is impossible for a computer to generate a true random number because of the binary digital system it works on. In it's simplest terms the whole argument of whether free will exists or not comes down to whether the universe is digital or analogue.
Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.
To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...
Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.
To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...
Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.
All that really does is knock down the concept of a predictive universe, not a deterministic one. Actions can be pre determined through mechanical principles without us ever being able to observe the system well enough to predict them. A deterministic and mechanical universe is still the core of virtually every field of physics because that concept has never been damaged in the slightest.
Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.
To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...
Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.
All that really does is knock down the concept of a predictive universe, not a deterministic one. Actions can be pre determined through mechanical principles without us ever being able to observe the system well enough to predict them. A deterministic and mechanical universe is still the core of virtually every field of physics because that concept has never been damaged in the slightest.
Shuma... that's just incorrect.
Read this and get back to me. What you are describing is classical physics and that went out the window about 100 years ago.
Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.
To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...
Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.
All that really does is knock down the concept of a predictive universe, not a deterministic one. Actions can be pre determined through mechanical principles without us ever being able to observe the system well enough to predict them. A deterministic and mechanical universe is still the core of virtually every field of physics because that concept has never been damaged in the slightest.
Shuma... that's just incorrect.
Read this and get back to me. What you are describing is classical physics and that went out the window about 100 years ago.
A deterministic existence doesn't cease just because factors violate time and conventional physical laws within this universe, string theory has never invalidated deterministic study, it's just greatly expanded the scope of it and expanded the need for observation well past the wall of what is possible within conventional science. However string theory is a theory that seeks to explain chaotic and random phenomenon through the prism of multidimensional interaction, not invalidate determinism by stating that such effects are randomly determined. Determinism doesn't require fluidity of time, it requires an absolute snapshot of all existence as it was and ever will be, time is not a static concept, especially outside of this conventional universe. You should probably read that book again.
Physical determinism and the ability to observe and predict are not the same concept. They aren't even connected.
whatwhat wrote:
Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.
Just because you don't realize that something affects you does not indicate that the universe is not initially conditioned.
Knowledge has almost nothing to do with reality.
whatwhat wrote:
If a determinist world ultimately means there must have been something which wasn't pre-determined, that kind of tells us other things can be too. Otherwise your giving this one event, the only event which wasn't determined a very big "god like" status by saying it is the only thing to have ever happened which wasn't pre-determined.
Sure, but a determinist world doesn't necessarily mean that there must have been something that wasn't predetermined. It is also possible to have an infinite regress.
If you want to have any kind of proof they most certainly are.
I started out in the thread with a quote about laplaces demon, that should make obvious that I'm not certain such a thing is actually possible outside of some sort of omniscient presence. The problem with an infinite observable universe is that it requires an outside observer, which would thus require another observer above that and then another above that. The mechanics themselves can be soundly deterministic, their observance logically can not. I do believe that with enough understanding though the universe can be reliably predicted on a reasonable scale by players still functioning within that universe.
Besides, string theory could be going the way of Classical Physics in the very near future.
whatwhat wrote:
Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.
Just because you don't realize that something affects you does not indicate that the universe is not initially conditioned.
Knowledge has almost nothing to do with reality.
I'm talking about things science doesn't understand not what we literally don't know about. So was Sebster.
Dark matter for example is something we can't sense yet has an effect on our material world.
Besides I was responding to this statement....
dogma wrote:I'm still waiting for anyone, here or elsewhere, to describe how a random universe is possible outside those that are only initially conditioned.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
If a determinist world ultimately means there must have been something which wasn't pre-determined, that kind of tells us other things can be too. Otherwise your giving this one event, the only event which wasn't determined a very big "god like" status by saying it is the only thing to have ever happened which wasn't pre-determined.
Sure, but a determinist world doesn't necessarily mean that there must have been something that wasn't predetermined. It is also possible to have an infinite regress.
No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.
Monster Rain wrote:
If you want to have any kind of proof they most certainly are.
Besides, string theory could be going the way of Classical Physics in the very near future.
No, he's absolutely right. The whole point of both quantum mechanics and chaos theory is that physically deterministic systems can be unpredictable.
I see your point.
To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.
whatwhat wrote:
I'm talking about things science doesn't understand not what we literally don't know about. So was Sebster.
Dark matter for example is something we can't sense yet has an effect on our material world.
That doesn't impact my argument at all. Not understanding something does not indicate that the universe is not deterministic. It indicates that we don't understand something.
whatwhat wrote:
No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.
No, there doesn't. This has been proven mathematically and logically. We naturally assume causation because we have finite lives, but there is no reason to apply the same reasoning to what is essentially "everything".
No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.
Then how do you explain something that is deterministic and cyclical?
You can't thats the major flaw with determinism.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.
No, there doesn't. This has been proven mathematically and logically. We naturally assume causation because we have finite lives, but there is no reason to apply the same reasoning to what is essentially "everything".
I'd love to hear the mathematic proof for getting something from nothing dogma, what is that?
No an infinate regression of events through time is itself an event, an event with no cause.
Monster Rain wrote:
To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.
But we can predict the probability of any given event, which indicates determinism. It changes what determinism constitutes, but it doesn't eliminate it.
We're sort of hitting a point where we cross the looking glass here, because a lot of the terms that we use in conventional parlance no longer mean the same thing that they once did when we're speaking philosophically.
Monster Rain wrote:
To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.
But we can predict the probability of any given event, which indicates determinism. It changes what determinism constitutes, but it doesn't eliminate it.
I see what you're getting at, but something with that type of caveat just doesn't seem... I dunno... scientific. I know, I know, if its observed with the scientific method blah blah blah.
whatwhat wrote:
You can't thats the major flaw with determinism.
It's actually pretty easy to do, watch: X > Y > Z > X
Logically fallacious, but logic applies only to argument. If we're talking about physical process, then logic isn't necessarily important.
whatwhat wrote:
I'd love to hear the mathematic proof for getting something from nothing dogma, what is that?
1) That's not what I said. I said that an infinite series has been mathematically proven to be possible. Its a huge part of basic differential calculus. In fact, its the part that let's you model curves, so you probably use it all the time without realizing it.
2) I argued that an infinite series does not need a cause. This is true by literal definition. If something is caused, then it is not infinite.
So it would appear to be the case that we cannot predict, even given complete information, the future. Instead we can only say what the probability of a given future state is. I'm cool with that; still suggests the absence of free will.
Man, spend a year out of school and you forget all sorts of things...
The Dreadnote wrote: I'm cool with that; still suggests the absence of free will.
Not really. If free will is the ability to do anything that you want, then there must still be a "you" to do the wanting. That "you" will determine the "want", and thereby limit what you might do.
We cannot be free from ourselves, not without dieing.
whatwhat wrote:
Things determine themselves? That's not determinist at atll.
Sure it is. Well, technically its compatiblist, but that's a subset of determinism.
Everything in a determinist world is bound by causality. You can't use an infinite regress to explain the cause of a determinsit world then flunk out of exlaining the cause of said infinite rgress by saying it determined itself. If that was the case you never needed the infinate regress in the first place did you.
The Dreadnote wrote:Okay I didn't follow that at all.
I'll try different phraseology:
We are things. All things have properties. Properties define the nature of the thing. The nature of thing defines the behavior of the thing. The behavior of the thing is indicative of the wants of the thing.
Therefore: The wants of the thing are defined by the properties of the thing.
whatwhat wrote:
Everything in a determinist world is bound by causality.
Yes, but causality doesn't have to be linear, predictable, or finite.
whatwhat wrote:
You can't use an infinite regress to explain the cause of a determinsit world then flunk out of exlaining the cause of said infinite rgress by saying it determined itself. If that was the case you never needed the infinate regress in the first place did you.
You're not understanding. An infinite regress cannot have a cause. If it had a cause it would be a finite regress because it would have an end point. Positing an infinite regress is to state that a general state of being has always been.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Dreadnote wrote:Is that not what I was arguing in the OP?
Sort of, but you reached the conclusion that we have no free will. I'm saying that to even talk about the possession of will we must talk about a possessor.
whatwhat wrote:
Everything in a determinist world is bound by causality.
Yes, but causality doesn't have to be linear, predictable, or finite.
whatwhat wrote:
You can't use an infinite regress to explain the cause of a determinsit world then flunk out of exlaining the cause of said infinite rgress by saying it determined itself. If that was the case you never needed the infinate regress in the first place did you.
You're not understanding. An infinite regress cannot have a cause. If it had a cause it would be a finite regress because it would have an end point. Positing an infinite regress is to state that a general state of being has always been.
Remember what you are arguing here. What you are explaining is not determinist.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.
No, there doesn't.
Was the argument.
We are not arguing whtehter an infinate regress needs a cause we are arguing if it needs one in a determinst world.
whatwhat wrote:
Remember what you are arguing here. What you are explaining is not determinist.
I know full well what I'm arguing. I think that perhaps you aren't well versed in what determinism constitutes. Your position is essentially the one that was popular in the '80's.
Recall that linearity, predictability, and finitude are all human properties. There is no necessary reason for the universe to obey them, and simply because it does not do so does not indicate that it isn't deterministic.
whatwhat wrote:
Remember what you are arguing here. What you are explaining is not determinist.
I know full well what I'm arguing. I think that perhaps you aren't well versed in what determinism constitutes. Your position is essentially the one that was popular in the '80's.
We are not arguing whether an infinate regress needs a cause (what you just explained) we are arguing if it needs one in a determinst world.
Of course you would try and get out of that by telling my definition of determinsm is wrong, rather than your own.
whatwhat wrote:
We are not arguing whether an infinate regress needs a cause (what you just explained) we are arguing if it needs one in a determinst world.
Yes, I know, and I'm saying that it doesn't. An infinite series cannot have a cause by definition. If a deterministic world involves an infinite series, then said series would be an infinite progression of deterministic events.
The series itself needs no cause because it is literally the sum of all caused events.
Again your argument is held up on your own definition of determinism which seems to be far beyond it's simplest terms. And also seems to undermine much of your earlier arguments about it.
whatwhat wrote:
Of course you would try and get out of that by telling my definition of determinsm is wrong, rather than your own.
I didn't say that your definition was wrong. I said that your definition seems old, and therefore does not encompass the position that I'm arguing from.
That might mean that its wrong, or it might not. But it does mean that there may be a clear reason that we cannot come to an understanding.
Dogma's law is he can argue anything is anything provided anything is not constant.
If you believed me to be arguing from one standpoint of determinism from the start what was the point in rebuting me using your own definition of determinism?
whatwhat wrote:
Simplest terms is the wrong choice of words. How about recognised terms.
Recognized by whom?
I mean, I know the definition that you're using. You're basically arguing from the same sort of determinism that made Einstein create the cosmological constant. A definition that turns on predictability. I'm arguing that there is not reason for any sort of determinism to consider predictability at all. Instead, we should only be concerned with whether or not things have causes. Once we get to that point we can conclude that any deterministic universe (where universe is used in the classical sense, or meaning "all things") must be an infinite series of caused events. In your parlance, even the infinite series would have been caused by another infinite series.
This is true both of God burdened universes, and God free universes.
whatwhat wrote:Dogma's law is he can argue anything is anything provided anything is not constant.
Well, yeah. That's pretty much how argument works.
whatwhat wrote:
If you believed me to be arguing from one standpoint of determinism from the start what was the point in rebuting me using your own definition of determinism?
That's not what I said. I said you're arguing against a certain sort of determinism that I don't consider to be valid, and that my definition of determinism escapes your criticism.
whatwhat wrote:Dogma's law is he can argue anything is anything provided anything is not constant.
Well, yeah. That's pretty much how argument works.
So you can argue black is not black provided black is not constantly black? That's how argument works?
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
If you believed me to be arguing from one standpoint of determinism from the start what was the point in rebuting me using your own definition of determinism?
That's not what I said. I said you're arguing against a certain sort of determinism that I don't consider to be valid, and that my definition of determinism escapes your criticism.
Again your definition of determinism is the akward one, not mine. This determinism pre 80s crap is nonsense.
whatwhat wrote:ftr your own definition of determinism is unlike anything I have heard before,...
Then you aren't very widely read, because this isn't even my argument. I'm paraphrasing Dennet.
whatwhat wrote:
...and contrasts most scientific theory on the subject.
Actually, that's not the case. String theory (especially Susskind's), quantum mechanics, and just about all of theoretical physics turn on an infinite series of caused events.
whatwhat wrote:
Determinism is strictly reliant on causality.
I didn't say that it wasn't. I've basically been explaining to you what the word "infinite" means in the context of causality.
whatwhat wrote:
So you can argue black is not black provided black is not constantly black? That's how argument works?
Yes. In fact, you just made a pretty good argument for black not being black. I mean, if we discovered a black that was unlike any other black that we knew, then we would at least need to revisit our conception of black.
whatwhat wrote:
Again your definition of determinism is the akward one, not mine. This determinism pre 80s crap is nonsense.
Who said anything about pre-80's? I said you definition was popular in the '80's. I said nothing of pre-80's.
Perhaps if you read my posts more closely we wouldn't have this issue.
In any case, my definition is quite clear. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the meaning of "infinite".
whatwhat wrote:This reminds me of when you argued with the generic dictionary definition of atheism.
It was a bad definition.
I mean, it isn't as if dictionaries are inerrant. They don't spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. At best they basically catalog the use of words, and I'm not interested in how most people use words in a definitive sense; I'm interested in what they actually mean given the general implications imposed by context.
whatwhat wrote:This reminds me of when you argued with the generic dictionary definition of atheism.
It was a bad definition.
I mean, it isn't as if dictionaries are inerrant. They don't spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. At best they basically catalog the use of words, and I'm not interested in how most people use words in a definitive sense; I'm interested in what they actually mean given the general implications imposed by context.
And the context was, your argument was being dismissed on the common definition of atheism, therefore you saw fit to change it.
Nurglitch wrote:There's a common definition? Why wasn't I informed?
Erm, yes. What did you think? one person thought it meant bananas, the other thought it mean coconuts?
I know the english language can be implicit at times but are words do have to have some basis so we know twhat the hell other people are talking about.
whatwhat wrote:
And the context was, your argument was being dismissed on the common definition of atheism, therefore you saw fit to change it.
If we're thinking of the same thread, then I was always arguing with the same definition in mind.
Generally what happens is this:
Me) X does not entail Y
Someone else) Nuhuh! X means this according to the dictionary!
Me) I was arguing from Z definition of X, and dictionaries are not inerrant
You may have processed that as dodging a point, but that's likely because you seem to treat dictionaries as inerrant. Whether or not you believe me, I've had most of these debates before, and I come into them with preconceived and well developed notions of the philosophical definitions of terms.
whatwhat wrote:
And the context was, your argument was being dismissed on the common definition of atheism, therefore you saw fit to change it.
If we're thinking of the same thread, then I was always arguing with the same definition in mind.
Generally what happens is this:
Me) X does not entail Y
Someone else) Nuhuh! X means this according to the dictionary!
Me) I was arguing from Z definition of X, and dictionaries are not inerrant
You may have processed that as dodging a point, but that's likely because you seem to treat dictionaries as inerrant. Whether or not you believe me, I've had most of these debates before, and I come into them with preconceived and well developed notions of the philosophical definitions of terms.
Were obviously thinking of a different argument. Because what happened was this.
Somone else) Atheisim is the rejection of theism.
You) nuhuhuh atheism is what I say it means on the basis of if it meant what you said it meant I wouldn't win the argument.
whatwhat wrote:
Were obviously thinking of a different argument. Because what happened was this.
Somone else) Atheisim is the rejection of theism.
Me) nuhuhuh atheiusm is what I say it means
Well, all words are what we say they mean.
That aside, I have no faith in your judgment; particularly in this case given that I always posit atheism as the rejection of theism. Its simply that I don't necessarily follow the same track of implications that are commonly associated with that fact. Notably, I tend to consider in light ternary logic.
whatwhat wrote:
Were obviously thinking of a different argument. Because what happened was this.
Somone else) Atheisim is the rejection of theism.
Me) nuhuhuh atheiusm is what I say it means
Well, all words are what we say they mean.
That aside, I have no faith in your judgment; particularly in this case given that I always posit atheism as the rejection of theism. Its simply that I don't necessarily follow the same track of implications that are commonly associated with that fact. Notably, I tend to consider in light ternary logic.
Yeh we know. Your track of implications change with whatever point your rebuting.
The Dreadnote wrote:Could you leave your baggage at the door, please?
Well this has developed from the argument at hand and how he is making his case. It's not like I just wandered into the thread and called dogma a drama queen or anything. I don't do things like that. But yeh I guess I'll leave it there.
You could aways work with him to build an argument rather than having to chase him down every third branch.
That's not what he does? Really? On the contrary Dogma nitpicks every branch of everyones argument. Your almost guaranteed to end up trying to follow several arguments at once where dogma is concnerned. Just check his previous posts and see the amount of mulitquoting he does.
ITT people with a laymens grasp of physics engage in semantics debates to cover for a lack of deeper understanding of the principles and theories at work.
Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.
And if he is on ignore, does he exist?
But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.
dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.
It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.
Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.
ShumaGorath wrote:ITT people with a laymens grasp of physics engage in semantics debates to cover for a lack of deeper understanding of the principles and theories at work.
ShumaGorath wrote:ITT people with a laymens grasp of physics engage in semantics debates to cover for a lack of deeper understanding of the principles and theories at work.
Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.
And if he is on ignore, does he exist?
But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.
dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.
It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.
Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.
Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.
And if he is on ignore, does he exist?
But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.
dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.
It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.
Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.
Do you actually believe dogma knows all of the gak he comes out with on this forum? No you have the wrong idea of things. Most posters don't air their thoughts on a topic unless they have something to say about it, usually going on what they believe to be right from knowledge they have gained in the past. The likes of Dogma look around for any moment someone expresses what could be a wrong opinion then researches it with google before ragging the gak out of what you got wrong. Your idea that they are the fountain of all knowledge and you can't challenge what they say does more to suggest your own self esteem than theirs. I'd be prepared to put a bet down on the fact that dogma knew less about determinism before this topic was posted than he does now, and not because he learnt anything in this thread. When your challenging dogma your challenging what he's just learnt five minutes beforehand. But yeh, that's not something you really want to compete with I guess. The idea that dogma has a "vast pool of knowledge" is false. Obviously he's not dim but he's not fricking heredotus neither.
Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.
And if he is on ignore, does he exist?
But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.
dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.
It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.
Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.
My genious continues to go under appreciated.
That often happens. If its any consolation, your heirs will get stinking rich living off your name.
In the words of the immortal bard: "I won't lie to you about your chances, but you have my...sympathies."
Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.
And if he is on ignore, does he exist?
But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.
dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.
It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.
Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.
Do you actually believe dogma knows all of the gak he comes out with on this forum? No you have the wrong idea of things. Most posters don't air their thoughts on a topic unless they have something to say about it, usually going on what they believe to be right from knowledge they have gained in the past. The likes of Dogma look around for any moment someone expresses a wrong opinion then researches the it with google before ragging the gak out of what you got wrong. Your idea that they are the fountain of all knowledge and you can't chalenge what they say does more to suggest your own self esteem than theirs. I'd be prepared to put a bet down on the fact that dogma knew less about determinism before this topic was posted than he does now, and not because he learnt anything in this thread. When your challenging dogma your chalenging what he's just learnt five minutes beforehand. But yeh, that's not something you really want to compete with I guess. The idea that dogma has a "vast pool of knowledge" is false. Obviously he's not dim but he's not fricking hurterado neither.
Oh crap, he knows my secret technique. Fortunately he spelled my name wrong. I better change my avatar and signature to maintain my secret.
Nurglitch wrote:I like that. "Dogma doesn't know anything. He just reads a lot of books."
That's not what I said at all, read again. Dogma may know quite a bit but a large amount of what he posts on this forum he will have learnt five minutes beforehand. I imagine if you had a conversation with him in person he'd be half the genius he is on here.
Sorry but I generally don't see many people outside of the internet who happen to know everything about everything and never confess to lack knowledge in an area. You might, I don't.
The meaning of the word drama queen means so much to me now I really couldn't care less if I was one or not. If expressing my opinions on someone make me a drama queen so be it.
No, but I did know a lot of professors, graduate students, post-docs, and other academics who did indeed talk like dogma writes. And I know a guy who publicly keeps track of the number of times that he's been wrong, who happens to be a professor of logic, under whom I studied the problem of determinism vs free will.
dogma's doing pretty good for a guy that's just reading what he finds on the 'net, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
No, but I did know a lot of professors, graduate students, post-docs, and other academics who did indeed talk like dogma writes. And I know a guy who publicly keeps track of the number of times that he's been wrong, who happens to be a professor of logic, under whom I studied the problem of determinism vs free will.
dogma's doing pretty good for a guy that's just reading what he finds on the 'net, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I think your overestimating how hard hunting out information on the net is, if my brain was the internet I'd be a fairly knowledgable person. I don't doubt dogma is a high acedemic achiever, but there's no way hes such the expert he seems on dakkadakka.com. Knowledgeable professors may well exist but they are usually only an expert in their own field.
The fact I've never seen him be humble on this site or show any humility at all for that matter doesn't help his case either where my views are concerned.
Okay, let me put it this way: he displays knowledge and behaviour consistent with that of a logician. They seem like know-it-alls because they are familiar with the logical underpinnings of science, it's not arrogance, they are simply trained to think better than the average joe on the street.
Okay, let me put it this way: he displays knowledge and behaviour consistent with that of a logician. They seem like know-it-alls because they are familiar with the logical underpinnings of science, it's not arrogance, they are simply trained to think better than the average joe on the street.
Let me put it this way. Dogma isn't presenting us with any theories or ideas of his own he's just pointing out flaws in others. The later is far easier. Especially when all the knowledge on the internet is at your disposal. Yes you have to have a grasp of logic when your doing that, that's obvious. Your seemed belief that their level of logic is so far above everyone elses is wrong though.
“It is easier to be critical than correct.”
And arrogance or not a lack of humility doesn't do much to suggest other wise.
dogma shouldn't be trying to pass of his homebrew thoughts. The problem of determinism and free will is such an ancient (non)problem precisely because there aren't any new solutions that can't be recognized as the same old failures. The ground is mapped out to a sufficient extent that you would actually be a genius for coming up with something original to add. He doesn't need humility if he's not claiming to be a genius.
And yes, the level of logic required for being able to adequately consider problems like free will and determinism does take a graduate level background in mathematics and philosophy. That's something I always find curious: people don't feel offended when they're told they don't understand the math needed to handle relativity, quantum mechanics, the Universal Turing Machine, evolution, architecture, or finance.
People that don't understand relativity believe it has implications for the truth of moral theories (that it implies relativism), people that don't understand quantum mechanics don't get that it has nothing to do with the mind or soul, people that don't get the UTM think it has something to do with the possibility of artificial intelligence, people that don't understand evolution think natural selection is the whole of it, people that don't get architecture design buildings that fall down, and people that don't understand finance usually don't believe in insurance.
Yet people need to be offended when they find out that their notions of logic and philosophy are inadequate and ill-formed. Personally I think it's a reaction to being deprived of the happy brain chemicals that we get when we're right. The other part of the problem is philosophy sticks to talking about concepts using words, when more productive fields have moved onto using topic-neutral languages. Mind you, after Kripke everyone is too embarrassed.
dogma shouldn't be trying to pass of his homebrew thoughts. The problem of determinism and free will is such an ancient (non)problem precisely because there aren't any new solutions that can't be recognized as the same old failures. The ground is mapped out to a sufficient extent that you would actually be a genius for coming up with something original to add.
I didn't mean that in the context of this discussion. I was referring more the the way his posting is 9 times out of 10 him criticising someone else rather than making a statement himself.
Nurglitch wrote:And yes, the level of logic required for being able to adequately consider problems like free will and determinism does take a graduate level background in mathematics and philosophy. That's something I always find curious: people don't feel offended when they're told they don't understand the math needed to handle relativity, quantum mechanics, the Universal Turing Machine, evolution, architecture, or finance.
You're presuming the background of others here.
Nurglitch wrote: The other part of the problem is philosophy sticks to talking about concepts using words, when more productive fields have moved onto using topic-neutral languages..
Which was the problem in this thread. There was no dispute on a mathematical or physical level beneath the definitions of terms used.
Nurglitch wrote:He doesn't need humility if he's not claiming to be a genius.
No he doesn't. He does if he doesn't want to look arrogant when doing so, that's the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At the end of the day the idea that dogma is supposed to be revered as some fountain of all knowledge on this forum is lost on me. I've seen him prove nothing other than his ability to criticise others with ivy league logic and an internet search engine. The fact is he does get stuff wrong and the idea that I shouldn't challenge him on anything is absurd. I know for a fact he was clueless on a issue about betting he raised me up on the other day for example, I'm sure he would find argument with me on that statement though - another sign of his arrogance. Sorry but in that respect I judge people based on their own work not how they critique others.
Firstly, who gives a rat-rear-end if anyone comes off as 'arrogant' on the internet? Everyone does.
Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion. So he does something more constructive, which is point out that they're wrong.
Third, there is in fact a mathematical level at which the concepts designated by the terms being used in the free will vs determinism discussion. Take 'infinity' for example. You used that term wrongly. Don't take it personally though, as people have always had problems with it, and it was only recently that a mathematically adequate description was possible.
And no, I'm presuming my background here. Okay, I never got as far as expert-level, but I take some pride in knowing the secret handshake.
Firstly, who gives a rat-rear-end if anyone comes off as 'arrogant' on the internet? Everyone does.
Well going by a series of pms myself and dogma had discussing that issue, he himself does. Perhaps full of himself is more what I'm getting at though.
Nurglitch wrote:Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion. So he does something more constructive, which is point out that they're wrong.
Third, there is in fact a mathematical level at which the concepts designated by the terms being used in the free will vs determinism discussion. Take 'infinity' for example. You used that term wrongly. Don't take it personally though, as people have always had problems with it, and it was only recently that a mathematically adequate description was possible.
And no, I'm presuming my background here. Okay, I never got as far as expert-level, but I take some pride in knowing the secret handshake.
If no one made any statements on this site he would have nothing to rebut.
Where did I use the term infinity wrongly? I'm fairly confident of all my logic in this thread. If the terms I have used are wrong it makes little difference to me, understanding is not based on language.
And it's my background you're presuming here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Dreadnote wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion.
Call me naive but I thought this was the point of forums.
Yep, it's certainly more important than...
Nurglitch wrote:So he does something more constructive, which is point out that they're wrong.
Again, it is easier to be critical than correct. Plus what your describing is only contructive if he also pointed out where someone is correct, which he never does because he's purely for himself when he rebuts someone. It's as if the only reason he posts on this forum is for the thrill of mentioning and proving others are wrong, and therefore in a foolish way that he is right. He certainly doesn't come here for anything to do with wargaming as far as I can tell.
I think the best thing I was ever told in school was that the course I was in was not a writing course because I had nothing useful or interesting to add to the material.
It's funny, because five years later I was given the task of subbing for a friend on a lecture about 3rd way abortion issues, with my allotted task being that she didn't have to read thirty fatuous, garbled, and triumphant papers heralding the possibility of a third option in the abortion argument.
My point? A particularly good philosopher named Margaret Boden once noted the difference between historical creativity and personal creativity. Her point is the same as mine: While you may regard your opinion as unique and valuable, it is not unique, and often not valuable either. If it was any good someone probably wrote it down hundreds of years ago, and if it wasn't any good, there's probably a nice latin phrase describing why it isn't very good.
I mean imagine if you happened on a thread where people consistently made inane comments like "1+1=3" and saying that other the people pointing out it was wrong never made any contribution of their own. Would you be arrogant for pointing out people being wrong about basic arithmetic?
Ok for one I never said he was arrogant on the basis that he points people out on their wrongs. I said his lack of humility suggests arrogance when he poses to ba an expert on every subject.
What's more I never said that pointing out something was wrong, is wrong.
Somewhere you've jumped to a completely different page.
My point? A particularly good philosopher named Margaret Boden once noted the difference between historical creativity and personal creativity. Her point is the same as mine: While you may regard your opinion as unique and valuable, it is not unique, and often not valuable either. If it was any good someone probably wrote it down hundreds of years ago, and if it wasn't any good, there's probably a nice latin phrase describing why it isn't very good.
So therefore there is not point expressing your own opinions? Like Dreadnote was saying, that's what a forum is for. Why are you here? Or are you like dogma and feed off pointing out the fallacies of others?
Interesting to see some personal view points, upsetting to see some of the ignorance, which of course is a display of my ignorance from my preconceived mind set.I like the way people have statements based off of so many unsaid things; as i will do right now!
It is possible to fully predict someones actions and that does not mean that person does not have free will. They are not a slave to fulfilling the prediction, the prediction is merely an observation on such person. (Possibly done from the ability to transcend the normal passage of time, or is done by something not physically bound to area and therefore is free from time).
I think we have free will, because we even have the choice to choose if god exists or not. I mean there is no proof he is or is not, and therefore is a reflection of how our creation around is not intended to oppose our free will. And of course i am speaking with reflection on the nature of mans rebellion against god.
(Now for something completely off topic, have a conversation with a non religious person from a christian view point, and in that conversation every point about free will and choosing your own path ect they will mention is symbolized in the garden of Eden in mans natural rebellion.)
I/You Believe we have free will. Is that not enough? You ask a question that can only be answered by uncaring gods who taunt us from the abyss with their inaction...
whatwhat wrote:
You're presuming the background of others here.
That isn't terribly far off from presuming that I don't do anything beyond mine the internet for information in order argue with people. I do, admittedly, use Google to refresh my memory regarding topics I haven't considered in a while, but why should that be a reason to criticize me?
Shouldn't we all check our own reasoning when we feel we're in doubt?
whatwhat wrote:
The fact is he does get stuff wrong and the idea that I shouldn't challenge him on anything is absurd.
No one has said that you shouldn't challenge me. Rather it seems people are taking issue with your seeming inability to hold yourself back from frustration when I don't agree with you.
whatwhat wrote:
I know for a fact he was clueless on a issue about betting he raised me up on the other day for example, I'm sure he would find argument with me on that statement though - another sign of his arrogance.
Why is it arrogant for me to question you when I believe that you're wrong (and I still do with regard to bookmaking, by the way), but seemingly not when you do the same to me?
That seems like an unfair standard of behavior. Something which, oddly enough, tends to indicate arrogance.
whatwhat wrote:
Sorry but in that respect I judge people based on their own work not how they critique others.
Criticism is work. In fact, its basically the heart of the academy. You have to first show why something is an inadequate explanation in order to create an adequate one, which is often done by the person that's being criticized.
As Nurglitch said earlier, you have the option of accepting my criticism and using it to reformulate your position. Unfortunately you almost always choose to become defensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
Where did I use the term infinity wrongly? I'm fairly confident of all my logic in this thread.
Every time you stated that an infinite series must have a cause.
whatwhat wrote:
If the terms I have used are wrong it makes little difference to me, understanding is not based on language.
There are a great many eminent philosophers who disagree with you. I'm willing to acknowledge that a great deal of understanding is not predicated on language in the sense that "language" is used colloquially. However, to the extent that out ability to formulate and communicate ideas is dependent upon symbolism, it really is dependent upon language in the sense that the word is meaningful philosophically.
It just so happens that this particular format feature the English language, and while you may understand what you're talking about any inability to communicate effectively is going to make people treat you as if you don't.
whatwhat wrote:
Plus what your describing is only contructive if he also pointed out where someone is correct, which he never does because he's purely for himself when he rebuts someone.
There is a phrase often used in high school education called "constructive criticism". Its a fairly apt explanation of what I'm usually trying to do.
After all, it isn't really useful to point out where people are correct. That's not how you improve ideas. If something isn't criticized, then its fair to assume that the critic in question finds it to be correct or acceptable.
whatwhat wrote:
He certainly doesn't come here for anything to do with wargaming as far as I can tell.
I rarely post in the other segments of the board because there honestly isn't much that I'm interested in discussing. After roughly 10 years here I've seen nearly every topic in Dakka Discussions at least a dozen times. I hang around now for news, rumors, and the modeling forums.
Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.
And if he is on ignore, does he exist?
But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.
dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.
It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.
Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.
Do you actually believe dogma knows all of the gak he comes out with on this forum? No you have the wrong idea of things. Most posters don't air their thoughts on a topic unless they have something to say about it, usually going on what they believe to be right from knowledge they have gained in the past. The likes of Dogma look around for any moment someone expresses what could be a wrong opinion then researches it with google before ragging the gak out of what you got wrong. Your idea that they are the fountain of all knowledge and you can't challenge what they say does more to suggest your own self esteem than theirs. I'd be prepared to put a bet down on the fact that dogma knew less about determinism before this topic was posted than he does now, and not because he learnt anything in this thread. When your challenging dogma your challenging what he's just learnt five minutes beforehand. But yeh, that's not something you really want to compete with I guess. The idea that dogma has a "vast pool of knowledge" is false. Obviously he's not dim but he's not fricking heredotus neither.
Alright. I'll go along with this.
I don't believe that dogma knows all. I do know that he has a higher educational background than me. I also know that his capacity for logic is higher. He's not an omnipotent machine capable of running your life to the thousandth-millonth decimal place because he is better in debate than others.
I ask questions because then it allows me to gauge where their level of knowledge and determine whether I agree or not. I don't argue because what do I have to argue with if they honestly have a broader knowledge base than I do.
Assumptions are fun. In fact, I encourage general ignorance for practical applications (i.e. I don't want to stand around attempt to understand why someone said "Hi." to me or do a thorough investigation into what that meant when I can assume it was a greeting with no other intention behind it).
When it comes to things like:
Person A: George W. Bush is an idiot.
Person B: How do you base that off of?
PA: My opinion.
PB: Where are the facts?/facts to the contrary.
PA: You should not contradict me/straw man argument/your stupid/ignorant.
PB: What do you base that off of?
PA: I'm right. Your wrong.
Or something along the lines of an argument that goes south of the border when one side fails to appreciate the environment from which the other side hails from. You have to be the Devil's Advocate at times in order to enhance and continue a debate. Assuming knowledge is correct is not how it should work.
Now if I seem to be unable to detach my emotional state from the argument, I just close up shop and accept they are right/don't argue further because what point is there to continue a fight when I won't be able to rationalize at the level my opponent will be at.
Someone may have more knowledge than you, so you gain that knowledge rather than reject it. Learn what they know before making a decision to oppose their ideas.
whatwhat wrote:
Plus what your describing is only contructive if he also pointed out where someone is correct, which he never does because he's purely for himself when he rebuts someone.
There is a phrase often used in high school education called "constructive criticism". Its a fairly apt explanation of what I'm usually trying to do.
After all, it isn't really useful to point out where people are correct. That's not how you improve ideas. If something isn't criticized, then its fair to assume that the critic in question finds it to be correct or acceptable.
If your idea of constructive criticism is picking out all the negatives and noting none of the positives then you've just reasured my opinion of you.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
He certainly doesn't come here for anything to do with wargaming as far as I can tell.
I rarely post in the other segments of the board because there honestly isn't much that I'm interested in discussing. After roughly 10 years here I've seen nearly every topic in Dakka Discussions at least a dozen times. I hang around now for news, rumors, and the modeling forums.
bs. You hang around here so you can be condescending to a bunch of people you believe to be less intelligent than you.
As for my opinion on the subject (which I haven't actually gave yet, I've just been putting ideas forward) the universe exists for billions upon billions of years we each exist for, what? about 80 of them. In billions of years time when humans are extinct who or what is going to give a dam about you? Whether we have free will or not it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, as your insignificant life is probably going to be exactly the same in either case: forgotten.
whatwhat wrote:
If your idea of constructive criticism is picking out all the negatives and noting none of the positives then you've just reasured my opinion of you.
Again, if I don't critique something, then it was probably alright.
I'm not in the business of reassuring people.
whatwhat wrote:
bs. You hang around here so you can be condescending to a bunch of people you believe to be less intelligent than you.
You can believe whatever you want, I don't really care; especially given that you've never met me.
Should I assume that you're a useless "train spotting" yob because you have an art degree? Because I can totally do that, it just doesn't end well for either of us.
whatwhat wrote:
As for my opinion on the subject (which I haven't actually gave yet, I've just been putting ideas forward)...
Well played. It takes a significant set to criticize another for not advancing their opinion while also withholding theirs.
My, its almost as if you were creating a double standard. But no, that could never be the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:....as your insignificant life is probably going to be exactly the same in either case: forgotten.
I have a feeling I've already posted words to this effect, but really we don't need to refer to physics when attempting to assess the free will of human beings. Our 'belief structures (i.e. the way in which we 'read' the world) determine the ways in which we interact with our peers and the world at large. These impact upon other people, as theirs impact on ours - meaning that our 'will' can never be truly 'free'. It has borders.
That's one reading of it anyway. There are contrary positions.
In the Newtonian sense Brownian Motion is random. However, part of what made Einstein Einstein was his discovery that Brownian Motion can be described, and predicted, via probability.
It is honestly an even more elegant equation than the one that describes special relativity.
In the Newtonian sense Brownian Motion is random. However, part of what made Einstein Einstein was his discovery that Brownian Motion can be described, and predicted, via probability.
It is honestly an even more elegant equation than the one that describes special relativity.
Gitzbitah wrote:The brain's chemical levels and neural pathways changes every second. to call it a system and compare it to a computer is a false analogy. The brain is self-altering, and the hardware switches as rapidly as the software. If your own body will be different every time you are faced with a choice, then one entity could choose both ways at different points in their life- how can that be anything but free will?
The changes you talk about come from the brain adapating to the outside world, which is a mechanistic reaction.
To identify free will you would have to argue for the presence of an element outside of the natural world having an influence on decision making.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Just because you don't realize that something affects you does not indicate that the universe is not initially conditioned.
Knowledge has almost nothing to do with reality.
I was referring to the possiblity of things outside of the natural realm, such as a soul.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.
Deterministic and predictable are related, but you can have one without the other.
I could drop a tennis ball into a box full of table tennis balls. Those table tennis balls will bounce all over the place, and the complexity of those interactions will be far too great to ever properly predict - the slightest change in the speed of the ball drop, or the placement of a single table tennis ball will produce wildly different results.
But despite being incredibly complex, each interaction remains entirely deterministic, just cause and effect.
I thought I might point out that Aristotelians regard the soul as part of the natural world, rather than a super-natural addendum.
But while we're noting that cause and effect (or 'constant conjunction' if we want to follow Hume is sticking with what can be logically inferred) can be applied to the natural world to overlay a deterministic logic over phenomena, we should also note the complementary move that some abstract nonsense (read: layman's quantum mechanics, etc) might imply indeterminacy.
However, indeterminacy is the Scylla to determinism's sucking Charybdis, in that agency no more follows from a magic universe than a block-iron one.
sebster wrote:
I was referring to the possiblity of things outside of the natural realm, such as a soul.
Ah, that makes more sense. I'm essentially a party-line materialist, so I'm usually including such things, to the extent that they can exist, as functionally material; even if they might behave in a way that is classically considered to be characteristic of immaterial things.
In short, if we can be affected by a thing, then it is a material thing. Ghosts, Gods, and Souls (or qualia, as the case may be) included.
Yes, though whether or not that is a step along the road to quining them is something that I'm less certain of.
Essentially, I reject the inverted spectrum and philosophical zombie arguments on the grounds that, if qualia are meaningful, then their existence should affect the behavior of those that possess them. Notably, one can imagine a person who had no "red" quale never being struck by the observation of a particularly vibrant shade of red. At least, he would have no recourse to be unseated unless we also posit that simply considering the existence of that sort of red would also unseat him, which seems strange to do given that I've never been so moved, though perhaps artists have?. But even if artists have been so moved, one might posit that there can be a quale regarding the perception or possession of a given sort of thought; ie. the experience of having a certain sort of thought as a certain sort of person at a certain sort of time. Of course, if we do this often enough we end up with something that doesn't seem all that distinct from a homunculus, which is never good.
In any case, if we accept that people that possess qualia can be distinguished from those that do not, then we have to acknowledge that qualia are material. They are the bits of experiential knowledge that follows from seeing something as a given person at a given time. Directly and immediately conscious and intrinsic in a broad sense (ie. each quale is an intrinsic characteristic of the moment in which it occurs: red at time t for person x), but not ineffable or private.
I thought I might point out that Aristotelians regard the soul as part of the natural world, rather than a super-natural addendum.
Interesting way of looking at things, and fair enough.
Note my point was not that a soul removes the possibility of a deterministic universe, if as you point out the soul can be considered part of nature. I was simply arguing that a soul, or some other supernatural thing would be needed to have a non-deterministic universe, to have free will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Ah, that makes more sense. I'm essentially a party-line materialist, so I'm usually including such things, to the extent that they can exist, as functionally material; even if they might behave in a way that is classically considered to be characteristic of immaterial things.
In short, if we can be affected by a thing, then it is a material thing. Ghosts, Gods, and Souls (or qualia, as the case may be) included.
Is, again, a fair enough interpretation. I'd argue that if a thing is outside of natural world, that it has an agency beyond the stimulus of the natural, and might react two or more different ways to the same stimulus, it can be considered outside the natural.
I don't believe in such a thing, but I can see how it might work if one was inclined towards believing in such.
No one answered (hopefully) because I already pointed out that indeterminacy no more implies free will than determinacy.
Incidentally the conclusion of the argument you gave was invalid, in the logical sense, since the best you could do is conclude that the universe may be indeterministic, so long as you implicitly assumed that indeterminacy rules out determinacy, and your premises were inconsistent on that point if by 'clockwork universe' you were assuming a deterministic universe.
As it turns out, some inconsistencies are worse than others, and the sub-field of para-consistent logics works with that notion, rather than the assumption that anything follows from any inconsistency. However, as some logicians in the field would have it, direct inconsistency such as in the first part of the fourth line of your argument is the worst inconsistency you can have even by the standards of para-consistency.
To top it all off, you managed to insert a conclusion in the same line as a premise, which is bad form. Don't feel bad about it though, as non sequitor arguments are a hazard in this line of discussion.
Kilkrazy wrote:As far as I know, physics thinks radioactive decay is random.
Its either random or chaotic, depending on who you might talk to. I consider the argument from chaos to be superior, but I might also posit that randomness is simply a special sort of chaos in which all outcomes have an equal probability of occurring.
Also, while radioactive decay may be random, it still occurs at a constant rate. We cannot predict which atoms will decay, but we can predict how quickly a group of them will do so. As such, the changes in mass caused by radioactive decay are not random.
Kilkrazy wrote:
What is your idea concerning free will?
If a universe is random in the traditional sense, then no choices can be made according to the freedom of a will, because that will must be itself composed of random (uncoded and unassociated) bits of information that cannot become nonrandom through coding or association without violating the initial premise that a universe that includes randomness is indeterministic.
Essentially, either everything is random, or nothing is. And if everything is random, then nothing exists (as all things are uncoded and unassociated); meaning that a universe which is random cannot sensibly contain a thing called a will.
Radioactive decay at the atomic level is a random process.
When a radioactive atom decays, its mass changes.
This affects the balance of mass in the universe.
Yes, it is random. Or appears random and is influenced by other factors we cannot comprehend. Which is more or less the same thing until we actually identify those factors.
A 'clockwork' universe is affected by changes of mass. Therefore random changes affect it randomly.
A randomly changing universe cannot be deterministic.
Therefore, free will exists.
A randomness by itself doesn't mean there's free will. Randomness just determines whether there's deterministic universe or not. Given that free will is one possible source of randomness, a universe with free will would be, by definition, a non-determined universe. But simply establishing that there's randomness doesn't mean there's free will.
For there to be free will there would have to be some kind of element coming from outside of nature, which has an affect on decision making. Something outside of genetics and environment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Also, while radioactive decay may be random, it still occurs at a constant rate. We cannot predict which atoms will decay, but we can predict how quickly a group of them will do so. As such, the changes in mass caused by radioactive decay are not random.
But we don't know which atoms will, and which atoms won't decay. Across the whole of the object you get a consistent rate, but you are getting atomic level variation. Then those minute changes will, given the incredible complexity and running time of the universe, scale up to have massive effects on the universe. Chaos theory and all that.
sebster wrote:
For there to be free will there would have to be some kind of element coming from outside of nature, which has an affect on decision making. Something outside of genetics and environment.
Not necessarily. We can simply treat the will as an emergent property, or intrinsic characteristic, of the collection of things that constitute our bodies.
sebster wrote:
But we don't know which atoms will, and which atoms won't decay. Across the whole of the object you get a consistent rate, but you are getting atomic level variation. Then those minute changes will, given the incredible complexity and running time of the universe, scale up to have massive effects on the universe. Chaos theory and all that.
Sure, but chaos theory also essentially posits that there is a distinction between randomness and unpredictability. Radioactive decay, as regards individual atoms, is unpredictable because all atoms appear to have an equal probability of decaying at any given moment. This unpredictability render the system chaotic, but not fully random, because we know that atoms will decay. For radioactive decay to be purely random, we would have to accept the possibility that the atoms in question will never decay.
Treating free will as an emergent property is a really bad idea, particularly since we haven't yet cashed out what exactly this "free will" thing is yet. At this point in the discussion it just defers one set of abstract nonsence for another. At a later, perhaps more constructive point, it may be a convenient way for materialists to swallow dualism. Even Dennett's own account of the Intentional Stance keeps it strictly instrumental such that the emergence of mind-like behaviour is an efficient explanation rather than a metaphysical claim about some supervening property of bodies.
dogma wrote:Not necessarily. We can simply treat the will as an emergent property, or intrinsic characteristic, of the collection of things that constitute our bodies.
It would still be drawn from those characteristics, determined by them. The decisions we make still wouldn't be choices, they'd be the product of our environments.
Sure, but chaos theory also essentially posits that there is a distinction between randomness and unpredictability. Radioactive decay, as regards individual atoms, is unpredictable because all atoms appear to have an equal probability of decaying at any given moment. This unpredictability render the system chaotic, but not fully random, because we know that atoms will decay. For radioactive decay to be purely random, we would have to accept the possibility that the atoms in question will never decay.
But that variation alone is enough to produce randomness. When there is variation in decay, so that some atoms might decay and not others, that variation will, sooner or later, across the entirety of the universe, influence whether an object tips to the left or to right. Given the immense complexity and interrelated nature of everything, that's going to have flow on effects.
This is just a random shot in the dark, but isn't there a section of the Bible that explains that God has determined what shall eventually happen, but we are left to find the way there?
I havent read the entire thread, my comments at the moment are largely restricted to the OP and immediate commentaries, so some of this may have been covered already. Apologies in advance.
Dreadnote, what you are advocating is somerthing akin to Order Theory, the idea that if you take everything to its simplest constructed parts all matter is predictable, while this is 'deterministic' its also ordered. Chaos is in fact a subset of order for this reason. What we see as patternless repetition could well be part of a lasger pattern that we cannot easily detect at our scale of reference.
I hacve only dipped my does in Chaos, and that was a long while ago, however most explanatory demonstrations of chaos involve imprefect knowledge of common otherwise predictable events. James Gleiks seminal book on the subject used as example an experiment in progress where data collection was frozen clipped to a long but set number of decimal places (causing presumably an insigncant difference in data) and resumed rather than restarted, causing huge differences in result over time compared to a single process that never had its data clipped. Is this Chaos? Gleick assumed so as a tiny variation in data changed into a huge difference over time, proving the inherent strength of seemingly insignificant randomness. However on the other hand perhaps it wasnt randomness, purely error. Restart the same experiment with the same dataset and the results will be the same not widely different.
Weather patterns are also seen as chaotic because we are unable to predict them. I suggest that is not so. Just as you summise that if we were able to determine the status of every component in the human brain precisely we could predict human action so I speculate we could predict weather with a good degree of accuracy is we knew more accurate climate data. Weather patterns appear chaotic because our weather measuring is crude at best, we detect weather patterns at certain points but not necessarily the micro-fluctuations between them.
In my opinion Chaos Theory operates in general as a subset of Order Theory based on our inability to create a complete dataset to predict what we are observing. However this is not wholy true, because we have no yet looked at threshold events. I would like to refer you to my earlier example of looking at weather patterns, which poetically at least could bear some resemblance to the storm of neutrons firing in the human brain. We can roughly determine rain catchment basins through their thresholds. Rain falling on one mountainside will run down in a predicatable path to one river, wheras one raindrop from the same cloud falkls on the other side of the slope and ends up in another river. The rain threshold is where a drop hitting the ridge of the mountain and could fall either way. You could argue, successfully I might add that local variants will effect and predetermine the path of each raindrop, however no matter how fine you 'tune' your knowledge of where each raindrop falls there is always a chance a raindrop falls on the 50/50 mark. Perhaps it divides perfectly in balance, perhaps 'fate' decides.
Perhaps there is a threshold event in the neurons of the brain also, times when the human computer has no clear path, this could result in a predictable third state like a balanced raindrop or something else. With something as complex as a human brain could a 50/50 trun up often enough for some underlying will to enact on. Perhaps a thought process generates 50/50 thresholds all the time and we become effective autonoma only when the balance of overwhelming on one isde. One thing is cetain, we are not single process machines, whatever decisions our 'cpu' is making it is doing so with lots of neurons in tandem rather than purely in series. We know this to be the case because neutrons decay all the time and yet we do not consistently fail like a computer with faulty RAM as we would if our decision making was serial rather than tandem processed. Perhaps his is where free will can be seen to reside.
Dreadnote you mentioned in the OP that the deterministic precision of your theory helps you with your atheistic worldview. Kudos to you. I choose to follow this theory in the other direction. If all matter has a predetermined course due to its predictability of action at its most elementary level, then if one could aquire a true understanding of the state of the universe for even a brief instant then it stands to reason one could also extrapolate that data to understand all history and accurately predict all futures. I have long pondered if this is in effect a methodology for onmiscience and a glimpse into the mind of God.
sebster wrote:
It would still be drawn from those characteristics, determined by them. The decisions we make still wouldn't be choices, they'd be the product of our environments.
They would be a product of us interacting with our environments, yes.
Don't eliminate the physical dimension of humanity from humanity. Your body is still you.
sebster wrote:
But that variation alone is enough to produce randomness.
Its enough to produce a highly chaotic system, but not one that is fully random. An absolutely random system is one that lacks any information whatsoever. A system in which there is no signal, and all noise.
sebster wrote:
When there is variation in decay, so that some atoms might decay and not others, that variation will, sooner or later, across the entirety of the universe, influence whether an object tips to the left or to right. Given the immense complexity and interrelated nature of everything, that's going to have flow on effects.
Sure, I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the existence of random events. Granted, its a pretty esoteric argument given the highly technical differentiation between chaos and randomness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:
Treating free will as an emergent property is a really bad idea, particularly since we haven't yet cashed out what exactly this "free will" thing is yet. At this point in the discussion it just defers one set of abstract nonsence for another. At a later, perhaps more constructive point, it may be a convenient way for materialists to swallow dualism. Even Dennett's own account of the Intentional Stance keeps it strictly instrumental such that the emergence of mind-like behaviour is an efficient explanation rather than a metaphysical claim about some supervening property of bodies.
Sure, I'm not necessarily arguing that an emergent form of free will is intellectually satisfying. I'm simply arguing that, given the currently nebulous understanding of the existence of free will, there is no way to postulate by necessity that it either exists or does not exist. Simply because we can treat free will as emergent property in order to escape one claim doesn't mean that we should.
Incidentally, the "define it" criticism is my favorite counter argument when presented with someone who believes dogmatically in the existence of free will.
dogma wrote:They would be a product of us interacting with our environments, yes.
Don't eliminate the physical dimension of humanity from humanity. Your body is still you.
But if it comes from, and has no random element or influence from any non-natural element, it is then the product of nature and nothing else, yeah? It is then a machine built from nature, responding to stimulus and effect, albeit in highly complicated ways.
Its enough to produce a highly chaotic system, but not one that is fully random. An absolutely random system is one that lacks any information whatsoever. A system in which there is no signal, and all noise.
It is enough to produce a universe in which two identical positions can produce differing final positions. Which pretty much sinks pre-determinism.
Think about it, an atom on the left side of a radioactive rock blinks out of existance, instead of an atom on the right. This causes the cliff face to collapse a hundredth of a second sooner than it would have otherwise. Which produces a massive cascade of different impacts with every atom in the cliff face, and those on the ground. Chaos theory takes over from there.
This is true whether you call it chaos or true randomness.
sebster wrote:
But if it comes from, and has no random element or influence from any non-natural element, it is then the product of nature and nothing else, yeah? It is then a machine built from nature, responding to stimulus and effect, albeit in highly complicated ways.
Sure, but then we have to ask the question that Nurglitch and I have come to, which is: "What is free will?"
Its a really slippery idea because even if we don't have it individuals would still make choices according to their desires. Its simply that those desires would be the manufactured result of physical processes.
sebster wrote:
It is enough to produce a universe in which two identical positions can produce differing final positions. Which pretty much sinks pre-determinism.
Absolutely, but you can have a deterministic universe that isn't predetermined. Determinism is only a claim that prior events cause current events in relatively rigid way.
sebster wrote:
This is true whether you call it chaos or true randomness.
Absolutely. I'm not disputing that. I'm simply disputing the notion that randomness, in the sense that it relates to uncoded and unassociated information, doesn't exist. In essence, all processes are to some degree bound by causality, and thus deterministic.
Take the atom in your example. It could decay at any time, but it absolutely must decay eventually. It all must decay in whatever location it happens to be in. It cannot decay in a different cliff face if its in the cliff face in your example. Therefore, while the specific time of the decay of one particular atom is unpredictable, it is still bound by causality due to the necessary realities of position and nature, if nothing else.
Sure, but then we have to ask the question that Nurglitch and I have come to, which is: "What is free will?"
Its a really slippery idea because even if we don't have it individuals would still make choices according to their desires. Its simply that those desires would be the manufactured result of physical processes.
The relevancy of the question doesn't easily survive conceptual discussion concerning the malleability and directionless nature of time in most alternate/expanded universe/dimension/existence theories anyway. Decision making can only really occur in a basic singular time vector.
dogma wrote:Sure, but then we have to ask the question that Nurglitch and I have come to, which is: "What is free will?"
Its a really slippery idea because even if we don't have it individuals would still make choices according to their desires. Its simply that those desires would be the manufactured result of physical processes.
Sure thing. Which is my definition would be 'some element of decision making coming from something other than physical processes'.
Absolutely, but you can have a deterministic universe that isn't predetermined. Determinism is only a claim that prior events cause current events in relatively rigid way.
Ah, see I was thinking of the two terms as the same. That'd be my lack of philosophy training.
Free will is presumably the ability to form and change thoughts of one's own accord, so the nature of what constitutes a thought would seem to be very relevant.
So to get things moving, I'm going to offer a working definition of free will that should probably be revisited and revised as the thread continues, but that makes no assumptions about the metaphysical status of free will:
An agent has 'free will' if and only if they are faced with some decision problems of two or more live options.
This is an appropriate definition for a question relating to existence of an otherwise unknown property related to agency.
As from what I've absorbed from this thread is that the mind works as an autonomous device reacting with its environment without accord or "thought" taken, making the actual event of process of thought actually more mechanical and less filled with meaning than expected. Although I'd like to argue upon the account that "people thinking/expressing emotion= existence of free will", the more I delve upon the very thought, the more I see it as something less-physical and difficult to grasp with my low standards of philosophy and understanding of the universe perceiving it as something non-existent.
Nurglitch wrote:
An agent has 'free will' if and only if they are faced with some decision problems of two or more live options.
Given that definition any universe that can be adequately described by a chaotic model would include free will and determinism if it could be shown that human decision making is unpredictable on a neuroscientific level.
I recall reading a paper on something similar a year or two ago, but I can't recall who wrote. It was in a journal of neuroscience, and the author essentially hypothesized that, while we might be able to determine a given individuals intentional stance at any given moment, it seems unlike that we will be able to determine what that intentional stance regards. As such, we can speak with some certainty that a given subject is feeling discomfort, and that he will be have in accordance with that state, but we will not be able to predict the specific nature of that behavior such that we could say he will scream, rather than cry. In that type of instance it would seem that 'free will' is being exercised with respect to the details of behavior, while still being bound by the realities of human biology.
Sort of, but I wouldn't eliminate the possibility for mental states to cause physical states, but then I might not even commit to the existence of purely mental states.
It really depends on the degree to which neural states can be 'coded' with respect to the possessor of that information; ie. there may exist characteristics of mental states that are perceptible only given excessively judicious context. Perhaps making them ineffable, though I'm not convinced of that.
Honestly, I should have explained it earlier, I haven't even tried yet.
I treat coding in the mind in much the same way that I treat coding in statistics. In statistics one codes variables according to what is going to be attempted to be measured. Similarly, I believe that we might code the information that we absorb in life according to information that we have previously absorbed. We measure our new experiences against our past ones.
A more direct example: I might code a negative intentional stance with pumpkin pie. As such, I will have negative responses to pumpkin pie in the future, and I'm likely to associate negative responses with pumpkin pie. This specific coding of the negative intentional stance may be ineffable, or at least nearly so, because the amount of data required to specify it may not be practically measurable. I mean, what is the generalizable neural state for "pumpkin pie" going to look like such that it will be discernible from, say, apple pie?
And, perhaps more importantly, does this sort of process entail a system that is sufficiently complex in order to escape the sort of specific determinism that requires one event to follow from another such that each successive event can be reliably predicted without duplication.
{
