There is nothing to say that a person cannot freely choose a predetermined path. Even in the case of a biological machine-brain, there is nothing to say that a person cannot choose exactly what his brain has been programmed to choose. — FreeEmotion

Yes, the illusion of free will is often used to explain the experience humanity by both Buddhism (some branches that is) and science. Once we go down this path, anything and everything can be an illusion and there is nothing left to say other than welcome to the world of magical illusions.

It gets complicated since God has already decided and has the final say.
— Rich

God, in their minds, does not decide what they will do, at least in the sense that precludes moral responsibility. God could determine actions, but refrains from doing so to preserve creaturely freedom. Again, the compatibilist thinks that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible with each other.
Unrepentant murderers do not go to heaven.

But not too worry, it's better than determinism that has us all killing each other because some gene it's obsessed with surviving.
— Rich

Not all determinists are materialists. And I do not see what this has to do with anything I said. It seems like you are just saying things to try to get a rise out of people — Chany

There are relevant historical social, political, and moral contexts for all of these strange descriptions of human existence. They don't spin out of the blue. All that is necessary is to have each person make choices with uncertain outcomes, but for those in positions of power, throughout history, this often does not fit the playbook. Hence the concoction if determinism and compatibilism.

This is insulting to the religious person, even to the more Calvinistic Christians I know. Some religious folk are compatibilists; they think responsibility holds even if determinism is true. There are those who are free will libertarian as well, so they think that determinism is not true and they effectively choose their fate. Neither believes one can break the laws of their religion and get away with it. They are not fatalists about salvation. A person who murders, cheats, and steals will not go into heaven, even from a Calvinist perspective. — Chany

It gets complicated since God has already decided and has the final say.

But not too worry, it's better than determinism that has us all killing each other because some gene is obsessed with surviving.

I think I see what you are getting at. Let's compare life to a maze. To me, I am walking through the maze, constrained by the walls, at the same time making limited choices whether to stop or go on. The exit point is pre-determined, lets' say I have some control over how long I take to get there.

This, to me is determinism + free choice. Compatibilist. This may be an imperfect example, but let's use it for now. — FreeEmotion

Indeed, this it's how religious people think of responsibility, God, and life. Heaven is their destination picked for them by God and it matters naught how many people they lie, steal, cheat, and even kill along the way (maybe kill is not allowed).

You're welcome. Hoping your talk goes well.

There certainly is much symmetry and duality in nature and therefore physics. The primary insight of Daoism was that the fundamental stuff off the universe was a moving wave with negative and positive polarity (yin/yang), and the negative and positive created motion (qi). The Dao itself can be imagined as a universal intelligence, curling in within itself and thus creating the moving wave form. There is much to be gleamed from the Dao symbol.

I remember learning years ago that the law is just the observed regularity in our observations, and the theory is the explanation for why those regularities occur. So, massive bodies do predictably behave in a certain way, which we can describe mathematically, and we call that description the the law of gravitation. It's nothing like an explanation for why massive bodies behave this way, just a description. General relativity would be a theory that attempts to explain why massive bodies behave the way they do.

Do I have that distinction wrong? Or is there some other way people talk about this now? — Srap Tasmaner

An observed regularity (or habitual behavior) had practical application but there is nothing that is 100%, precisely predictable. So there is the spectrum of approximate regularities upwards to complete surprises and everything in between. This is not a law but rather a description of every day life. Scientific theories and speculations (whether or not they have any ontological foundation) are precisely that. They are ideas that are subject to constant changes, interpretations, re-evaluation, and reformulation.

One gathers such insights via observation (which early Daoists excelled at because they were all about observing nature), personal experiences, and if course intuition based upon their observations. The essential thought is that everything is undergoing continuous wave-like change Yin/Yang) which is the manifestation of the movement created by the interaction of opposites (negative/positive). Given that this insight came thousands of years ago, speaks highly of their ability to observe and intuit.

The famous Daoist story about the farmer and the son speaks to the indeterminism of the universe:

"There was a farmer whose horse ran away. That evening the neighbors gathered to commiserate with him since this was such bad luck. He said, “May be.” The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses, and the neighbors came exclaiming at his good fortune. He said, “May be.” And then, the following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg.

Again the neighbors came to offer their sympathy for the misfortune. He said, “May be.” The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to seize young men for the army, but because of the broken leg the farmer’s son was rejected. When the neighbors came in to say how fortunately everything had turned out, he said, “May be.”

Source: Tao: The Watercourse Way, by Alan Watts

erhaps as one member said, it's as close an approximation to the truth as language will allow. Then I began to wonder if Lao Tze were alive today would his work be accepted in a reputed philosophical journal? If yes, why? If no, why? — TheMadFool

From my own studies, Lao Tze probably did not exist as a single person but probably more of a composite, like Aesop. The Dao de Jing itself appears to be a compendium of stories, chants, advice probably gathered from many sources. Translations (of which there enumerable) are more or less a function of the skills and biases of the translator and are quite often at odds with each other. Words change and meaning of words change and of course context changes over time. There are some interesting ideas that can be found in the Dao De Jing if one wishes to study it, but my feeling is that actual experience via the arts is a better way. With that said, the Dao De Jing Genesis story it's probably the best I've read in describing the nature of the universe. Very succinct and to the point and quite prescient of quantum physics (note the wave symbol that represents the Genesis).

I don't know how to give good definition. — kris22

This is the essential problem. The term is bandied about as is the term God, but any discussion about it v is without end because it is the omnipresent, omnipotent, unknowable forever that is guiding the universe. In other words, the term laws of nature is a religious substitute for atheists (and others) and thus is a religious discussion. There is nothing concrete-it is changing all the time.

The definition presented it's as ambiguous as the term. What is true and undeniable and constant? What is gravity (where is it in the microscopic world of quantum). Is it a law or a presence? Is gravity all there is or is it just a example? If we are to talk about the laws of nature we need a comprehensive and concrete definition. As I said, without such, we are discussing God who is also True, undeniable, and constant-for those who believe in God.

I have seen this question before.

First you have to define what you believe (and I emphasize the word believe) to be the laws of nature. Until they are defined (and I have yet to ever see them defined) then it is difficult to discuss them in the abstract. It is rather like discussing God, which may be all they are, the adopted term for the unknowable omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent force that rules the universe.

But that is not what we are talking about here, it is like the question - do parallel universes exist at the point of each possible action? — FreeEmotion

Choice (I hesitate to use the concept of Free Will) is an attempt to move in a particular direction that is constrained. Constrained by what? Memories (habits) that are within us and the forces that we perceive applied too us, e.g the choices of others. All of this yields a probabilistic outcome that manifests as what we perceive as quantum waves. Consciousness is not outside attempting to direct (control) the waves but rather are imbued within the waves. There is no duality. It is all done. That is why it is impossible to separate consciousness from perception or imagination.

What I meant was that there it was not necessary to imagine a universe devoid of humans but we could do with imagining (hypothizing?) a part of the universe outside the scope of human influence. — FreeEmotion

You could try to imagine such a situation but it is your consciousness that is doing so. One cannot disentangle consciousness from any discussion or exploration-either philosophically or scientifically. A thought experiment is an experiment of the mind (consciousness).

For me, there is no such thing as free will. What is possible (and this is reflected in everyday life) is to make a directed (willful) choice in a particular direction. Outcome is never certain (though probabilistic) and is completely unknown until it unfolds in psychological time (the time of life). We try and we then observe what happened in memory.

The paper is muddy with it's descriptions of concepts, but with some background of the deBroglie-Bohm real wave interpretation (the electron is a perturbation of a wave being guided by the quantum potential) then it is all very easy to understand the probabilistic nature of the wave. What remains to be answered in what causes the perturbations (the swerve)? One could speculate that it is conscious choice that imbued in the wave. The beauty in this model is it dissipates all quantum paradoxes and fully explains how "the swerve" manifests as a reflection of conscious choice.

Also, there is no need to imagine a universe without humans - take a location far away from the earth, even beyond the distance light could travel from the times humans appeared - isn't this area purely mechanical in its operation? Yes, but I then rule out quantum mechanics — FreeEmotion

You say that there is no need to imagine a universe without humans but then you try to imagine one. It is compatible to discuss anything without the concept of conscious observation. What ever is outside of observation is simply unknown an inaccessible. Consider the observer as an active participant (totally entangled in any discussion) and not parenthetical.

Everything is essentially memory. The difference lies in the substantially of that which created the memory. To try to draw a demarcation line it's impossible. One can only differentiate by sharing different perceptions with others and await answers. P1.Did you hear that? P2.No, I heard nothing. P3.I heard something! And so it goes. Unfortunately, one would like to believe they have a privileged position to objectivity (of existence it otherwise) but no such privilege exists.

If Harry Potter exists, then tell me, what size shoes does he wear? — geospiza

One does not have to wear shoes to exist. Right now I I'm not wearing shoes.

Everything is energy and everything that we perceive is in the form of some memory that exists in some form of energy. The difference between memory (Harry Potter, the Empire State Building) is merely the difference in substantiality. Some are more tangible (outwardly shareable) than others. The energy forming the object it's more or less substantial. It's all energy no matter what.

The point is just that interactions between systems result in the entanglement of those systems. Observers are not special in this regard. — Andrew M

Schrodinger's equation and the Heisenberg Principle is about a measurement and a measurement requires an observer. What happens outside of the measurement it's speculation, assumptions and forever inaccessible. Bohm's real interpretation suggests something is happening, but what? Totally unknown and forever unknown.

It is impossible to unentangle the observation from quantum physics. Both the Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg Principle are strictly about observation. One cannot arbitrarily separate observation (for convenience sake) from the essentiality of Quantum physics. If one does, one goes pact 400 years to Newtonian physics.

an universe without any human beings or any living things, all events can be said to be strictly deterministic, is this not correct? — FreeEmotion

Since everything is quanta, the above statement it's incorrect.

In any case, any speculation about a universe without humans is strictly outside the realm of science. It is not even philosophy. I guess it is pure imagination and pretty much inapplicable to humans.

However, your question about what switch was pulled and who pulled the switch to go from the non-living to the living is a reasonable one. Religion claims god did it. Biologists claim... It magically emerges?

Isn't quantum physics about randomness? If it is then it sabotages determinism but that still isn't enough to infer free will. After all, we still can't be sure that the quantum randomness is within our control.

So, if you're trying to say free will exists (are you?) based on the above I don't think the argument work — TheMadFool

Quantum physics it's basically the probabilistic Schrodinger equation which leaves plenty of room for choice but pretty much crushes determinism. But hope springs eternal for scientists who desire to play God and control everything as they insist somewhere, sometime in the distant future, far, far away, the Law of Quantum Physics will change and no longer be probabilistic and absolute predictably will once again become possible. And who am I to dash such dreams. After all, Scientific Laws are indeed always changing.

When someone starts claiming that something is applicable everywhere but not applicable everywhere we start getting into the realm of religion which I rather stay of. However, such an argument is very suitable for a thread where deterministic free will is seriously being discussed.

As much as possible, I try to stay with the concrete because I actually apply my philosophy to my life and it's not simply a game to pass the time of day. I am always on the lookout for a new idea that can advance understanding of the human condition.

Free will is does not fight causality/determinism but that partakes in it, allowing us to determine our future one way or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Choice doesn't determine anything. It gives impetus in a direction. The outcome is always indeterminate and resolves itself as time flows. Everyone is making choices and something will happen. The universe is composed of probabilistic (choice) waves.

F=MA was never designed to describe the quantum scale though. Your objection to F=MA would be like an architect telling an astronomer that the standard candle principle doesn't apply to bridge design. — VagabondSpectre

This is the fundamental problem work science. Speculative ideas are just bandied about and people are suppose to unquestioningly accept them because "science"is attached to it. Just a new form of religion. You said that F=ma is applicable every where in the universe and had been and will forever be a force of law. It clearly isn't and never was and never will be, yet you still insist. Why? Because you used it as an example?

Instead of trying to explain to me quantum physics, because you or no one can't (it is basically Schrodinger's equation + the Heisenberg principle), go back and look at your claims and observe how outright absurd they are, just like any religious belief. The problem with scientists is they v demands c proof from everyone else but themselves, because as all evangelists, they are on a mission.

F=MA it's inapplicable at the quantum level and is at best a good approximation for practical purposes at larger levels. If this is example of a law of physics then it demonstrates my point very nicely.

Of course, if you change something things change. No one is suggesting it otherwise. However, exactly what will happen it's totally unpredictable, demonstrating once again that determinism is fluffy myth. I wonder why people hold on so tightly to such an idea with zero evidence supporting it. What we are all doing all the time is choosing yet determinists are so desperate they become Buddhists and start declaring the world as we experience it is all an illusion. And what is creating this illusion (there is no who in the world of robots)? Molecules??

Harry Potter does not exist, we are told. Harry Potter is a fiction; Harry Potter is our imagination, the thinking goes.

But if Harry Potter does not exist, how are we able to talk about Harry Potter?

Harry Potter does not exist outside of our imaginations? Okay. But that is different than saying that Harry Potter does not exist, period.

Everything exists, right? The question is what form it exists in (as a concrete being; only as an abstraction in our minds; etc.), right?

Or do things categorically not exist? If so, how? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree.

Are you suggesting that we have no reason to believe that the laws of physics are consistent?

(There's ton's of strong evidence for this actually, namely the fact that science keeps working).

What about quantum mechanics actually undermines determinism or supports free will?

You can replace determined will with random will, but "random" does not equate to "free".

In the face of quantum randomness, we might just propose a non-local hidden variable theory and blame that for our actions anyway...

Judge: "Why did you do it?".
Defendant: "The uncertainty in the the "spin" of a quantum particle made me do it."... — VagabondSpectre

I have no idea what a so-called Law of Physics is (a term that is bandied about with absolutely no definition) and since science is changing all the time and our understanding is changing all the time, there is zero evidence for such godlike claims of such a never changing, omnipresent, spiritual-like presence. But it doesn't stop people from using such concepts hoping no one will notice the lack of concreteness.

It might difficult for anyone to take a Newtonian position of determinism in the face of quantum probabilistic equations (probabilistic is very akin to potential choices) but again, those who wish to robotize humans will insist that somewhere, somehow humans should continue to deny their obvious everyday capacity to choose. If someone wishes to be a robot, be my guest, but there is zero evidence for such a notion.

we want our dialogues to be meaningful, we must accept both free will and determinism. — Mariner

What you are asking for is a totally new description of the problem, which it's reasonable. But to say that a person had the ability to choose and at the same time everything is determined (even the choice) sorry if leaves the problem in midair and doesn't advance understanding. There must be some concrete understanding of the problem so that it can be practically applied to life. Knowing that I have the ability to choose actually provides meaning to life, hence it's a practical philosophy.

The laws of nature, as discovered in science, are inviolable and immutable over time and spac — TheMadFool

This appears to be one of the many beliefs upon which determinism is founded. There is no reason to believe this actually is so, especially since everything is constantly changing. In any case, current understanding of quantum physics (probably the closest we can come to a fundamental understanding of nature and this time) pretty much undermines determinism.

However there are also the distinct photon/slit interactions that occur. These constitute "measurements" between the photon and the apparatus independent of observer interaction and so also result in branching. The observed interference effect when we detect the photon on the back screen just is the interference of those branches (which is quantified as the sum of the wave amplitudes from both branches). — Andrew M

An interesting notion. A measurement is being taken without a conscious observer. Exactly how is this known? Something indeed may be happening, and if course, one is free to speculate about anything but a fundamental notion of quantum physics it's that impossible to separate the observer from the experiment. What ever is happening prior to the observation it's totally unknown and inaccessible. Everything in the system is totally and irrevocably entangled. That's the whole point.

1) Developing awareness is great. Best way to do this is via the different arts.

2) One can't stop judging. We are continuously judging in order to set direction (this is coupled with awareness).

3) No way to discard the ego except via suicide. It is who we are. What we can do is moderate desires. Lower highs and higher less lows. Moderate waves. The Middle Path.

As far as happiness it's concerned, it comes and goes like waves, always followed by sadness. Best we can do is moderate the cycles.

They have built a Schrodinger's box, but not one that holds a cat. The before-before experiment relies on taking a measurement, but not revealing the results of it for a time, which requires effectively such a box. Any other QM interpretation seems to require the ability to alter the past to explain that experiment. — noAxioms

The deBroglie-Bohm causal, real, non-deterministic model nicely resolves all quantum paradoxes without resorting to infinite worlds, altering the past, etc. All that it's required is the acceptance of non-local actions which had more-or-less been observed in laboratory experience. Action at a distance via Bohm's quantum field satisfies all issues. Bohm was never properly recognized (and still isn't despite Bell's best efforts) because he dared to be different.

The Dao De Jing, as with other ancient literature, is of unknown origin and intent and seems like a compendium of chants, stories, and advice. Everyone will experience it differently. As far as I can tell, it had its own Genesis story (which makes more sense to me than some religious or scientific stories) that describes the basic philosophy of Daoism followed by a series of other snippets that feel like a combination of interesting ancient spiritual chants, Aesops fables, and military advice. It may provide a path for some and for others some interesting ideas to ruminate. As far as the Dao itself, as I read it, it is only saying that words are inadequate, which confirms my own experiences. But what is, is and there is always something new to discover.

Unfortunately, for those who are looking for Truth, the Dao De Jing, as with all literature, is subject to the same forces of change. You are are reading biased, subjective translations just like any other ancient literature. Unfortunately it cannot replace the Bible though some try. What is left is one's own experiences.

Daoism is fundamentally about continuous, never ending flow and how flow creates that which we are and what we perceive. (It stands in opposition to immobility and concepts like a Truth).

One can visualize it as some intelligence (the Dao), that polarizes to create a positive and negative (a standing wave). The wave is given impetus (movement/qi) by the same intelligence and begins to flow creating all that there is. This is the Dao creating the two, then creating the three, and from the three creating everything else (moving waves of energy). One can see that the Daoists of thousands of of years ago were pretty perceptive.

For more updated versions of Daoism, I like to study Bergson, Bohm (holographic universe), and Rupert Sheldrake as well as any of the arts and Tai Chi.

There is mass agreement that Trump is President but mass agreement does not make something true. Someone can easily come along and say the election was fixed and that Trump is not his/her President. General agreement on any statement does not make something true. It just means lots if people agree. This can change and often does.

Truth implies some immobility and as far as I can tell everything is constantly changing, especially history. The victor writes the history.

The U.S spends 40% more than any other developed nation on so-called healthcare and is absolutely last in life expectancy. In fact, for the the first time in decades, life expectancy has actually gone down in the U.S. last year. More money doesn't equal better health (actually it appears to degrade health) and we need better solutions than to keep giving more and more money to the medical industry. So far prescription opioids have killed over 180,000 people. How many more need to die before we reconsider the direction of our health policies?

Here is the real irony: nothing in the intellectual landscape is maligned and scapegoated more than "postmodernism" (predictably, "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" were even blamed for Donald Trump's victory last November). Yet, while we lament the population's individual and collective lack of critical thinking skills it is postmodern theorists who provide most of an otherwise non-existent body of criticism of a tradition and institution, science, that everybody else seems to blindly submit to. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

In a nutshell, you are suggesting that the science industry (including its academia incubators) have aided and abetted herd mentality for its own benefit. One can see this everywhere how the skeptic police ostracize, marginalize, ridicule, and hound out any one who challenges the most profitable (and therefore most valued) scientific industries. In all manner, science does act as a modern version of the old time religion.

Being older and retired, I view the science industry as nothing more than a money making (and spending) machine which is only marginally interesting to the extent certain aspects of quantum physics research overlaps with my own studies into the nature of life. As long as science provides new paths to increased materialism (and environmental pollution for that matter), it will remain impervious to criticism. If one is interested in the environment, one doesn't have to fund more scientific "studies" to the tune of $billions. One only has to stop using all the junk that it is helping to produce.

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes."

Marcel Proust

Just like there are a multitude of reasons that someone might have voted this way or that way in the last election, so there are a multitude of factors that led up to the Civil War. One thing that all wars have in common is that there is some sort of elite class that monetarily benefits from it in one way or another.