If its actions are truly random, then the mind would not be "setting its own initial conditions". To set its own initial conditions in any coherent way, there would have to be some consideration of inputs and expected outputs. — CasKev

No

Even a random number generator requires a seed before it can generate a meaningless random number. — CasKev

That would be a pseudo-random number generator.

How does the Butterfly Effect play a role in this ? Is it just a coincidental phenomenon we made up to make sense of the world or does it actually “exist”?

If I grab a pin and poke myself in the arm, am I not causing myself to experience the pain of being poked by a pin? — CasKev

What is the cause, and what is the effect?

What is the cause, and what is the effect? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It may be difficult to pinpoint the root cause... but I could say that this discussion caused the idea of poking myself. I could say my intent to poke myself caused me to pick up the pin. I can definitely say that the pressing of the pin's point into my arm caused a pain signal to reach my brain! There is no gap to be filled, other than the fraction of time it takes for the signal to reach the brain and be interpreted.

When something is seamless that means there are no gaps in it.

You are saying that there are gaps with events being effects of events that preceded them. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's not what I'm saying, though. I am saying nature is seamless, that's what "interconnected" means--when two things are connected it means they lead directly to one another with no space in between. I'm saying literally everything in nature is interconnected so that there is no space in between anything.

And you are injecting necessity into nature — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No I'm not. "Necessarily interconnected" means they cannot be disconnected. Everything is dependent on everything else, nothing can be isolated from the rest.

I'm familiar with the notion that causality is an illusion; this Tallis person is not the first to come up with this idea. I just don't find it to be a very compelling claim. But you seem to be misrepresenting the argument you're in opposition to. With the kind of causation I'm talking about, there are no gaps between events--that's the whole point. Maybe this is just a semantic issue, though. We seem to have different understandings of some of the terms we're using.

It may be difficult to pinpoint the root cause — CasKev

The root cause of everything would be the event which began the universe, "the unmoved mover" as Aristotle said.

Certain theories in Quantum Mechanics claim that there is randomness, but randomness isn't the same "freedom". Or are you referring to something other than randomness that I'm not aware of?

How does the Butterfly Effect play a role in this ? Is it just a coincidental phenomenon we made up to make sense of the world or does it actually “exist”? — Abdul

The butterfly effect describes the fact that in some situations, a very small action may lead to a very large reaction in an unpredictable way. In my understanding it is associated with phenomena described in chaos theory, which I understand very marginally. Quantum mechanics has been around for a bit more than 100 years, chaos theory less. To say that any recent scientific results answer metaphysical questions that have been around for thousands of years is not justified. It shows a misunderstanding of the difference between facts in the world and metaphysical principles. That's a common and understandable misunderstanding given the disorienting changes in our understanding of the world in the past 100 years.

An understandable misunderstanding resulting from changes in understanding. Yes!

Is free will an illusion? Are our lives already mapped out? — Abdul

Free will can be totally incoherent. Determinism can be utterly and unexceptionally correct, and it also be true that our lives are not mapped out.
Since our paths ahead, fully determined, are unknown, then the idea that it is mapped out is false.
This only becomes an issue if you posit an omnipotent omniscient god. And in fact it is historically that this issue between dichotomy between freedom and causality has come to us.
The future remains unknown.
In astronomic terms nothing we shall ever do will have a noticeable effect, so nothing matters.

It may be difficult to pinpoint the root cause... but I could say that this discussion caused the idea of poking myself. I could say my intent to poke myself caused me to pick up the pin. I can definitely say that the pressing of the pin's point into my arm caused a pain signal to reach my brain! There is no gap to be filled, other than the fraction of time it takes for the signal to reach the brain and be interpreted. — CasKev

I haven't participated in this thread except back at the beginning, but I've read all the posts. It's an interesting discussion - better than most dealing with free will and causation. I have gone back and forth thinking about causation. I get the idea of saying there is none, but that runs up against very simple situations where it seems silly not to use the idea of causes, e.g. the usual suspect - billiard balls.

We can go all Aristotelian on it and talk about proximal, immediate, ultimate, or whatever those damn things are, but we can decide not to. Let's keep it a closed system - Me, the cue, the balls, the table. I hit one ball. It travels over the table and hits the other ball. The other ball moves. Saying I caused the second ball to move makes sense. Saying the first ball made the second ball move makes sense. It depends on context and which I am interested in. Of course there are other factors, even other causes, but it makes sense for there to be a word, "cause," for such a common human experience. It would be silly not to.

That doesn't mean the idea that there are no causes is wrong. That might make sense in some situations also. As I said, I get it and I think it can be useful.

In astronomic terms nothing we shall ever do will have a noticeable effect, so nothing matters. — charleton

The verb "matter" is a human concept. For that reason, it is most applicable to events affecting humans. Whether or not we are pimples on the ass of microbes living for microseconds on a small planet about to crash into its star in one of an infinite number of multiverses is irrelevant.

According to physics, the answer is YES!

I don't particularly like the flavour of quantum mechanics that the Free Will and the Strong Free Will Theorems are expressed in, but Kochen and Conway explicitely cover this. The freedom they claim to have identified is not a function of the past. — tom

As I said in one of my other posts, conflating causal issues related to QM with causal issues that are metaphysical and have been around for thousands of years shows a misunderstanding of both science and metaphysics.

There is no way to make sense of Determinism. It was simply a story made up hundreds of years ago when some scientist/atheists hoped that they could control the whole universe with Newton's Laws (never considering that under determinism there is nothing to control). — Rich

You always seem to want to describe scientific thought as the result of a conspiracy. It undermines your argument, some of which I agree with all of the time and all of which I agree with some of the time.

It's as much of a conspiracy as any religion. People of like faith get together to worship the Supreme and there is always someone to pass the plate. If one really wants to understand the nature of religion, study Determinism and its evangelists.

Certain theories in Quantum Mechanics claim that there is randomness, but randomness isn't the same "freedom". Or are you referring to something other than randomness that I'm not aware of? — JustSomeGuy

Actually, most QM theories don't claim randomness. As far as I'm aware, only GRW does.

As I think I mentioned, The Free Will theorem considers actions to be free if they are not a function of the past. This is different from randomness.

Anyway, QM makes it clear, you can't have determinism and causality, unless you dispense with collapse, and and accept the wavefunction corresponds to a feature of reality.

As I said in one of my other posts, conflating causal issues related to QM with causal issues that are metaphysical and have been around for thousands of years shows a misunderstanding of both science and metaphysics. — T Clark

I forgot, you are the only one who understands these things,

But for the rest of us, particularly if you read the works of J.S. Bell and others, perhaps a few well known philosophers of physics like David Wallace, and even the recent papers by 't Hooft (for the unaware, he's the Nobel Prize winning "father of the Standard Model") on superdeterminism, you will find they are the same thing.

It's as much of a conspiracy as any religion. People of like faith get together to worship the Supreme and there is always someone to pass the plate. If one really wants to understand the nature of religion, study Determinism and its evangelists. — Rich

It is funny that you should mention the "conspiracy" because Reality is indeed a conspiracy under determinism.

J.S. Bell coined the term "Superdeterminism" to describe the sort of determinism that must exist in the light of quantum entanglement. Under questioning in an interview he admitted that superdeterminism was no different from what philosophers call determinism.

Sadly, Bell could not anticipate the fact that he would be undermined by devastating critiques such as:

As I said in one of my other posts, conflating causal issues related to QM with causal issues that are metaphysical and have been around for thousands of years shows a misunderstanding of both science and metaphysics. — T Clark

I forgot, you are the only one who understands these things, — tom

Why the snot?

Why would a physicist be good source for information on metaphysics? Most of them deny the value of philosophy. There are a lot of scientists out there with some pretty goofy ideas when they get out of their area of expertise. I'm with Emerson:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,— that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for always the inmost becomes the outmost—and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

When he says "genius" he doesn't mean like "Einstein is a genius." He uses the term to mean sort of your essence, mind.

You should make your own argument, not just depend on what others have said who agree with you. There are a lot out there who disagree too.

Sadly, Bell could not anticipate the fact that he would be undermined by devastating critiques such as: — tom

Snottiness may be an effective rhetorical device in some situations, but it is not reason and it is not a valid response to a serious argument, even if you disagree with it. Grow up and be a philosopher.

The Free Will theorem considers actions to be free if they are not a function of the past. — tom

What exactly does it mean for something not to be a function of the past?

As with any religion Determinists believe that the Laws of Nature are unlimited in their power to do things in ways mortals cannot comprehend.

Determinists exhibit as much faith and dogma as the most fanatical of any religious and by degrading humanity have enabled some of the worst holocausts.

Grow up and be a philosopher. — T Clark

I have to second this, @tom, you're displaying a very juvenile attitude with the tone of some of your comments. Being a smartass is extremely detrimental to intelligent conversation.

I keep seeing you say the same things over and over again in discussions about determinism and free will, but I still have yet to see any actual argument provided in support of your assertions.

Try to convince me that your position is valid using reason. Provide a logical argument instead of conjecture.

I have to second this, tom, you're displaying a very juvenile attitude with the tone of some of your comments. Being a smartass is extremely detrimental to intelligent conversation. — JustSomeGuy

I have been very serious in my posts. I mean what I say. Can you point out a comment I made, other than those about @tom's snottyness, that is juvenile or which constitutes being a smartass. I stand behind my characterization of his posts to me as "snotty."

I was agreeing with you and addressing tom. I feel like that was made perfectly clear.

As with any religion Determinists believe that the Laws of Nature are unlimited in their power to do things in ways mortals cannot comprehend. — Rich

Superdeterminism is not a religion. It is a consequence of the laws of physics being interpreted in a certain way. But you are right about the inability to comprehend bit. In fact it is worse than that: Reality IS a conspiracy!

That Determinism is a religion? I described it in very simple terms without obfuscation. But as with any religion, lacking any evidence whatsoever, Determinists believe in their Truth. That is the nature of religion. Dogmatic faith.

As I said in one of my other posts, conflating causal issues related to QM with causal issues that are metaphysical and have been around for thousands of years shows a misunderstanding of both science and metaphysics. — T Clark

And you have the audacity to complain about "snottiness"?

Allow me to rephrase:

You misunderstand quantum mechanics and metaphysics.

Better?

consequence of the laws of physics being interpreted — tom

The only Law of Physics that I know of is Quanum Mechanics and it would take a great myth maker to interpret QM into superdetermiminism. In fact, it would take an act of your faith.

What exactly does it mean for something not to be a function of the past? — JustSomeGuy

You want some help understanding one of the most important mathematical results of C21?

I have to second this, tom, you're displaying a very juvenile attitude with the tone of some of your comments. Being a smartass is extremely detrimental to intelligent conversation. — JustSomeGuy

So, you're not really interested are you.