Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/19 02:02:35
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/19 02:07:28
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?
Belief in a conventional religion is one option.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/11/19 02:07:26
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/11/19 02:07:27
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
Will you accept a solution to P vs. NP?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/11/19 02:43:07
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
