Well the origin is probably the 1930's Popeye cartoons by the Fleischer Bothers. Popeye use too say, "I am what I am and that's all's that I am". Credit where it is due.

It seems to be different for each observer. So what is is?

The metaphysical issue is "what is it?". Different for each observer?

If I can choose then that is it. If course, outcomes are always uncertain.

You are choosing the words, but you are choosing based on all of your previous choices and experiences. — CasKev

The words are influenced by memory but my mind makes the decision in what words to use and how to use them into sentences. If you don't believe me, I'll construct the same idea in a different sentence. Exactly what do you believe is creating these sentences?

The key to understanding the Bohm solution is the quantum potential. There is a lot there so rather than actually studying it, people just copy errors.

Similarly for the Many-World interpretation the key is to understand the ontological implications of an Infinite World Meta-World and deciding whether it has any ontological meaning in the world and universe we live in - it doesn't.

A partner is someone with whom there is mutual caring, sharing, and comfort.

He writes in his book Science, Order and Creativity:

"Although the interpretation is termed causal, this should not be taken as implying a form of complete determinism. Indeed it will be shown that this interpretation opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality."

What's the difference? Is causal compatible with uncaused indeterminism? — Mr Bee

There is a cause but outcomes are probabilistic not deterministic.

I'm sorry, but it's actually common knowledge that the Bohm interpretation is deterministic. — Mr Bee

You mean it is a common mistake. Bohm himself stated otherwise as his model, the Implicate Order, actually incorporates creative novelty, a concept that Bohm cherished. He wrote an excellent essay on the nature of creative intuition and novelty.

The only person I've heard that seems to be suggesting otherwise is you. — Mr Bee

I just told you my source is Bohm himself. Read the source and not some chart. That is what I did.

Like I told Rich and the OP, there are different interpretations of QM, and not all of them are deterministic. A deterministic worldview is just as compatible with the science as any. — Mr Bee

Not really. The only stretch is the Many-Many-Infinity-Many-Worlds for which there is zero evidence and forever will be zero evidence. That is what Determinism had evolved into.

You realize that Bohm himself said that his equations are causal but not deterministic. They can't be because the quantum potential has to be probabilistic and it's right there as a probabilistic function in his equation. So that person who created that chart is just copying someone else's error. It happens when people are lazy.

Do you have any idea what the ontological ramifications are off the Many-World Interpretation? How everyone is smeared across an infinite number of imaginary worlds creating and equally imaginary meta-mega-world. Is this your ontological construct? No matter, in this world, in this universe, the one we love and love in, all remains probabilistic. I'll let the science fiction writers deal with the infinite worlds interpretation. But if that is your belief, so be it. You don't have choices but you are smeared across an infinite number of ever growing worlds. To each his own.

Schrodinger's equations are probabilistic in this world and this universe. There is plenty of evidence to support Bohm's interpretation (verification of Bells Theorem), zero for the Many-Many-Infinite-Many-Worlds interpretation.

Try to fly and see what happens. Try to make a choice and see what happens.

It's tough arguing with the faithful, so let's call it quits. Really, there is no discussion when it comes to faith.

I said it was my mind doing the writing. We have minds. We don't need the Laws of Nature to make decisions for us. Why would someone want to make up something like the Laws of Nature in order to discard their own mind? Why? This question goes to the heart of why people embrace religion.

Yeah, determinism has zero evidence, apart from the fact that we find that everything in the physical universe is determined by the laws of nature. That's what science is all about. — Mr Bee

Well that is a mouthful. Unfortunately for your purposes:

1) There is no such thing as the Laws of Nature. It is a made up please with no definition. It is precisely equivalent to God and has its roots in religion.

2) Science says that events are non-deterministic. If they were we could throw out Schrodinger's equation and replace it with Newton's. But, alas, science decided 100 years ago that Newton's Laws do not correspond to experimental evidence including Bell's Inequality which demonstrate non-locality.

So if you want to be a a determinist, go right ahead but science says no and everyday experience says no.

Absolutely not. The choice were my own. Of all the words I know, I chose these. I can choose different words if you would like me to demonstrate. Exactly who or what do you believe is choosing the words?

Evidence? I decided to respond and I did in this post. The words I wrote were chosen by me. My own mind.

You figure God/Laws of Nature did the writing and posting?

Forgive me, but is pontificating about faith and experience the best way to conduct this debate? If I have faith in determinism, then you have faith in in-determinism. So what? I've brought up some fairly specific points which I'd like you to address directly. — VagabondSpectre

Wrong. I have everyday experience to support my views and there is nothing in science that stands in opposition to free choice. Any interpretation of quantum physics is non-deterministic which means there is nothing that is determined. Nothing.

So determinists come in with this story that I am not making choices but some Laws of Nature are doing it all. Where did this come from?? Determinism has zero evidence. There is absolutely nothing to support the notion that everything is determined or anything it's determined and the choices we make are either governed by some supernatural God or Laws of Nature which in turn are mystically creating the illusion of choice.

Why do people embrace such faith in a fated universe? Why do people wish to transfer their lives to God or to the Laws of Nature? This is the key question. I believe it has most to do with hope, which is the business of those who sell faith. Do such people have faith that science or God will fix everything? Faith is interesting.

Everything you write is purely a matter of faith. Faith that someday, somewhere, somehow the robotic nature of the universe and yourself will be confirmed. You even have faith that evidence of determinism is growing while it had been shot to pieces by physics over a century ago. Absolutely amazing. It gives some insight into how deeply dogma have has crept into so many belief systems. Why you embrace such a faith? Who knows? But others do also and it is not for me to say otherwise. I have learned to respect faith and not to argue it.

As for me, my beliefs stem from everyday experiences. I am choosing and outcomes are always unpredictable. And there is no mystical Laws if Nature that have revealed themselves to me or to anyone else. I choose to believe in the universe I am observing and not one that I desire. To buy into your view of the universe would be tantamount to embracing Calvinism and I have no interest in such religions.

First it must be decided that there are real choices made by the mind and directed by will, and then it must be decided to what extent real choices are constrained and influenced. The issue of our choices in a subjective morality context just one branch if the general question.

If we have real choices (none of this illusion stuff) then we can readily observe that we have constraints and influences on what is termed moral actions - no greater or less than any other action we can take.

Causal is not equivalent to deterministic. Bohm's quantum equations are causal and non-deterministic. They have to be, always, because quantum theory it's probabilistic. There is no definite outcome until the system is observed, and this is inherent in quantum theory. Whatever interpretation you choose to use, quantum stays that in the world we live in and experience, quantum events are probabilistic. This destroys determinism.

The choices our minds are making and the will it is generating to action its choices are causing tons of casual non-deterministic events every day. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural God (Calvinism) or the equivalent supernatural Laws of Nature (Determinism) that are making the choices for us. If you believe your life is fated by either of these undefinable, unknowable forces, that is a matter of faith and religious in nature.

If you compare belief in determinism to religion, then belief in free must be like outright cult worship... — VagabondSpectre

Check out Calvinism. I believe you will find it quite appealing.

The evidence that refutes determinism must come in the form of evidence which proves some kind randomness necessarily exists, but again, quantum uncertainty does not equate to free will. Let's just bury free will and give it the funeral it deserves. — VagabondSpectre

Quantum says that there is no determined outcome - not until the observer gets in the act. I know it must be difficult for people of such deep deterministic faith but there is always Calvinism. Of course there is always the possibility of resurrection with hidden variables.

Anyway, I respect faith. Such is the nature of religion.

In short: determinism might be right to due some kind of hidden non-local variable we have yet to discover. — VagabondSpectre

Equally so we may discover proof of God. Faith is something to cherish. However, zero evidence of snow kind and with contrary evidence pretty much the foundation of modern physics, let's just bury determinism and give it the funeral it deserves.

As for choice, science is certainly free to continue to call it an illusion. Heck, 10s of millions of Hindus will agree. Hindus believe a god creates the illusion. Similar for science?

Speaks for itself.

Of course we make choices. ...choices that are mostly, almost entirely, or entirely determined by our prior inclinations and predispositions, and events and conditions in our surroundings. — Michael Ossipoff

There is nothing more beautiful than a kind-of-determinism that rests on the kind-of-things that determine bound together and neatly packaged by a whole bunch of choices. Is there such a thing as Muddy Philosophy?

Anyway, you're happy with it, so who am I to argue.

But we're mostly deterministic, with built-in and acquired inclinations and predispositions. ...responding, of course, to environmental conditions. — Michael Ossipoff

Sure. We have habits - which can be disrupted by choice. Just one choice destroys determinism. If it can be done once it can be done again and again. There is no such thing as kind-of-determinism.

I am to those who have studied the industry and how it works with government. Just what one would expect if they understand human nature and history.

Do you think that anti-vaccination, climate change denial, and young-earth creationism are valid forms of scepticism with respect to science? — Wayfarer

Don't trust and definitely verify.

Observe the numbers of people being killed, sit back and meditate on the numbers. They are astronomical.

The issue is there is no such thing as a peer review that is not subject to prejudice, economic influences, biasses, and outright fraud.

Opioid studies were subjected to all kinds of peer reviews, creating a sense among the less cynical population that all is well. So far, over 150,000 prescription users have been killed and who knows what shape the other users are in (presumably a bit better than those who are dead).

Bottom line, peer review means nothing when big money is at stake. Check out the history of talc that is now receiving lots of press because of yesterday's $400 million judgement and the role that science and government plays in the industry.

No, this is wrong. Are you seriously telling me Nietzsche advocated his metaphysical scheme based on faith?! — darthbarracuda

Precisely what happened. At the time there was these belief, this faith, that at some point humans will understand all of the Natural Laws (God's Laws) and with such knowledge be in control of everything. It was (is) just a new religion under the guise if science.

Just because someone substitutes a new phase for God (Natural Laws, Natural Selection) does't make it different - just more appetizing got atheists. The essence of the belief, faith,. remains the same. In today's world such faith remains for Determinists that in some way, in some time, in the future these Laws will be revealed.

No, this is also wrong. Quantum mechanics is difficult to predict but that does not make it necessarily indeterminate. — darthbarracuda

And here lies the Faith. Quantum theory is not only fully probabilistic it also states that it can not be anything but. However, faith in the discovery of some hidden variables remains. However, at this point, determinism is dead.

The same could be said about libertarian free will, which is overwhelmingly argued for by religious believers. — darthbarracuda

Those who believe in an omnipotent force it nature whether it be God or Natural Laws will always have a tough time reconciling Real Choice with their faith. That is not my problem. Real Choice is something I experience everyday and I do not need to appeal to any type of religion to affirm my everyday experiences.

That, and the representational theory of mind, have been blown out of the water by phenomenology and contemporary cognitive science. — darthbarracuda

Such ideas are heavily funded and propagated. The computer brain, only accessible by ....

One can study academic philosophy by reading books over and over and over again. This is sufficient for such an endeavor. However, this is not studying philosophy in the sense of achieving greater personal, experiential insight into the nature of nature. To do this, one needs to experience all aspects of life during their life. For myself, I have found that studying the arts as well as various sports have given be new eyes, but so has everyday interactions with humans in and out of work. All fields of study have influenced me including psychology, physics, literature, history, etc.

It is literally one's lifetime journey and one becomes more skilled as one learns.

Here's a suggestion, rest of the world: instead of trying to master manipulating, controlling and dominating, try to master mutually respectfully co-existing for a change. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It has always been, since the dawn of time, a matter of some trying to dominate others because that is what that they are good at. The Mongols a good case study. Nowadays it is different. If people want to retain freedom to choose they have to be aware of how it is being continually taken away, mostly via a collaboration between big industry and the government they control.

There's something more. It's called peer review. — Harry Hindu

It's all biased. Of course the process of peer review and its inherent biases have been brought into consideration. There are all types of biases flowing through science as it does every other part of our society. The Dredd Scott decision was peer reviewed and look what judicial peer review brought us.

I agree that emotions can be perceived as another sense that feels something. I would say that emotions are guides to choices that we make just as other senses. Possibly deeper in nature.

can't help but think of Nietzschean psychology - "I" am not the originator of my thoughts, my thoughts come on their own terms. That which influences my actions is precisely that which is the most powerful. The most powerful thoughts are those which come to my attention and direct my action. It is not that I "choose" to do some action but rather a thought commands me to do something and I obey it - willing is the combination of command and obey. — darthbarracuda

The problem is there is not one shred of evidence to support such a view other than faith. Such a belief is exactly equivalent to Calvinism and other fated religions.

Determinism on the whole is destroyed by quantum physics. Given this, and given that humans are subject to quanta just like all matter, then determinism can't hold for humans.

So what is left is some localized force in the human mind that is singularly controlling all choices and creating an illusion that there is a choice being made. More than this, this force is creating this illusion while at the same time revealing the true nature of the illusion to some humans - the chosen ones, the Determinists.

This convoluted explanation of how the human mind makes choices wreaks with religious flavor and dogma. It stands in opposition to the simple explanation that humans simply make choices. So why do scientists and philosophers continue to propagate such a ideology? What is the economic benefit of making humans computerized robots that can be tinkered with? As with any religion there is always an economic benefit for propagating a supernatural force that only a certain few have access and knowledge to - the priests.

Why is the human brain being made into a computer is the critical question?

Unfounded idolatry. They are what they are, and human like everyone else.

I would argue bias and outright fraud it's most likely to b be found in the medical industry where the money is beyond imaginable and growing leaps and bounds.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

"He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. '

I agree. Scientists are humans and carry all the biases of any human (economic greed, glory, power, etc.). It is fanciful thinking to believe that somehow science is policing itself. It is as subject to herd thinking and self-protection as any other profession, and the bigger the payoff, the more likely such biases will exist.

Agreed. And sometimes the sailor heads for a giant wave and just overturns. Lessons learned - if the sailor survives.

Life is about learning.

decision making procedure which explains why you 'chose' say the apple instead of the banana — Mike Adams

Yes, but the choice could have gone either way. It was not made until I (my mind) made it and then directed it. I am not suggesting that choices aren't influenced, it is just my mind makes the choice and it is a real choice (I'm not big on illusions).

Determinism tries to make a real process into some sort of illusion. Once one starts calling upon illusions then it must be shown one sort of strange force of nature (actually supernatural force) is creating such illusions. To me this then becomes some sort of religion. In such a car, one merely had to call upon God as the maker of the illusion of choice.

your action was truly neutral then your choice would be random luck and no demonstration of free will — Mike Adams

If one observes daily life, choices are influenced and therefore probabilistic in nature, i.e. I am more likely to make one choice vs. another, but there is always room for a totally new novelty, e.g. today I'll wake up without an alarm clock! What I am describing is exactly, precisely what we experience in life. We make choices.

You are limiting your choices to fixed and random. It is neither, it is probabilistic with the possibility of novelty.

And this has nothing to do with what you were saying earlier. "Having your cake and eating it"? "The Natural Laws that are determining everything is arguing with itself trying to convince itself that it is determined after having convinced itself, through some illusion, that it has created, that it has some free will."? What do these (almost nonsensical) claims have to do with this later claim that determinism is inconsistent with quantum mechanics? — Michael

That's determinism in a nutshell. A whacky idea that gets more and more entertaining (in a comical way) as one seeks to understand its ontological implications. Religion makes much, much more sense since at least they own up to an all powerful God that they have faith in to guide everything. Determinism is nothing more than Calvinism in disguise.