It would be useful to first know why you want to define free will. That is, for what kind of consideration is it necessary to establish whether or not something has or is acting according to free will. — Echarmion
There is no way to prove freedom except by exercising it, but to put it in doubt is to refrain from exercising it, thus proving its inexistence through a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Rafaella Leon
The way I understand it, that principle is a law of physics, so any actual physical process will conform to it. It's not strictly possible to will an action that takes a path not in conformity with the principle of least action. — Echarmion
Personally I would prefer a long essay if it is at least self-contained. — Mijin
Think of the goal like categorizing a bin of unknown objects as one kind or another (apples or oranges) according to the most simple observable definition that works and is practical to implement. — Sir Philo Sophia
according to my definitions, an object can deviate from PLA if it has at least "primitive free will" and excess PE to spend, at very high cost, to avoid PLA. For example, if you balletically shoot a missile from the ground into the air it must follow the PLA path under the force field of gravity making a parabolic path back down to the ground. However, when you turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against PLA, indeed it is taking the path of most action, going directly upward against gravity, and can continue to do so until it burns all of its PE (fuel) to achieve the least KE efficient motion possible. — Sir Philo Sophia
In other words, the laws of Newton could be stated not in the form F=ma but in the form: the average kinetic energy less the average potential energy is as little as possible for the path of an object going from one point to another.
Why would I do this if I have no purpose in mind? I don't see how the result could be useful. — Echarmion
But by adding excess kinetic energy, you obviously change the entire flightpath and so rather than violating the PLA, you have simply moved from one path to another, both being the paths of PLA for the given input of kinetic and potential energy. — Echarmion
Note that for a given "path of least action", the start position, end position and the time it takes to get from one to the other are given. So if you're going to add kinetic energy from the outside, one of these variables needs to change. — Echarmion
This is a quote from a lecture from Feynman, available online, on the principle of least action:
In other words, the laws of Newton could be stated not in the form F=ma but in the form: the average kinetic energy less the average potential energy is as little as possible for the path of an object going from one point to another. — Echarmion
sorry to break it to you, but that is what all definitions do. — Sir Philo Sophia
when the ballistic motion turned into motion that defied gravity it required excess PE — Sir Philo Sophia
and free will control of exactly how and where to and when to enact and direct converting PE to KE. — Sir Philo Sophia
PLA only applies where motion/actions are dictated purely by Lagrangian dynamics as the general mathematical model. So, please explain what dynamics model can account for "turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against the downward force of gravity"? — Sir Philo Sophia
no. that only works if all the forces on object are a constant field throughout the path, such that a Lagrangian equation can be formed. no dice! violates PLA per my above. — Sir Philo Sophia
sure, but does not apply to my example as I mentioned above. — Sir Philo Sophia
Clearly, the goal of changing the missile's trajectory from natural ballistic to instead take the path of most action required spending KE and negentropy not accounted for by PLA as it brings new forces and dynamics to the equation governing the objects motion, for which there is no Lagrangian equation that can be formed to model. Thus, PLA violated at some point during the transformation process, from natural ballistic to controlled path of most action . I'm all ears, how otherwise... — Sir Philo Sophia
Why would any control be necessary? Clearly particles have been subject to the influx of energy from some source, so as to change their paths, before life was around? — Echarmion
so see above. You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it, so PLA obviously does not apply to predicting the path of a virus, but does perfectly for a dust particle. Thus, among satisfying other requirements, my definition says a virus is alive, and a dust particle is inanimate.Control is only necessary if you intend the eventual part to align with the desired part, which incidentally is how I would describe having a "will". But the principle of least energy only tells you what path an object will actually take, not whether that path conforms to some goal. — Echarmion
Which would imply any change of conditions would violate the PLA, but as I noted outside energy doesn't need to come from a sentient source. — Echarmion
Again, the laws of physics don't apply? — Echarmion
Are you under the impression that a missile cannot be explained by physics? All of the things you named can be physically described, and each step conforms (presumably) to the known laws to a large extent. The fuel in a rocket is just another source of energy that, if activated, will naturally affect the path it takes.
The only thing that's missing from a purely materialistic take would be the internal act of choosing. — Echarmion
If a situation falls outside a model, it does not violate it. It's — Echarmion
It's like saying the laws of thermodynamics are wrong because a forming planet clearly lowers entropy by pressing particles into a sphere. — Echarmion
You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it. — Sir Philo Sophia
only changes where the matter inefficiently spends addition KE and employs intelligence to reconfigure its own matter and redirect its own KE against all the natural forces, and resist giving up its PE when PLA would otherwise dictate it. I say no inanimate matter can do that combo. Please give me your best example of inanimate matter can do that combo. thx. — Sir Philo Sophia
sure. why does that hurt your head? what laws of physics apply to intelligence or consciousness??? — Sir Philo Sophia
nope. see my above. physics does not apply to contextual algorithms under self control that have the ability to gain and not spend PE when PLA would ask for it (efficiently) back. those can manipulate physics and environment to serve their needs/goals, not be completely controlled/limited by local physical dynamics, can shift physics limits to other parts of the (dead) system. locally alive using physics to beat/avoid physics in achieving its goals, which goals are greater than what PLA would have dictated otherwise. — Sir Philo Sophia
bad example. 2nd law covers that by saying the entropy had to shift to outside of the lowered entropy system. my virus example is not shifting PLA anywhere. PLA completely does not apply to predict the virus path or behavior or future potential energy. — Sir Philo Sophia
Why not? Clearly we can predict how viruses act generally to for medical purposes. From a physical perspective, a virus is of course very complex, but why would it be unpredictable? — Echarmion
I disagree with that in general terms. That is, an example of "intelligence" includes the molecular program of the virus, which is otherwise inanimate matter but for that molecular program.Obviously inanimate matter cannot employ "intelligence", whatever that means. — Echarmion
Obviously it does apply, or else PLA is simply wrong as a description of the physical world, of which viruses are a part. — Echarmion
Your definitions simply sidestep the core problem — Echarmion
, which is how do we know what happens inside the intelligent system is not just another physical process, following the standard laws? — Echarmion
In your glider example, one could easily replace the human pilot with a robot that operates the gliders to land at a random, suitable point, the randomness provided by some form of random number generator. — Echarmion
This would also be unpredictable in practice. The question is whether both the robot and the human are fundamentally predictable, but very hard to practically predict, or whether there is something about life that's fundamentally unpredictable.
You assert the latter, but your argument doesn't actually support that conclusion. — Echarmion
A quantum can take any path except the path with the minimum action has the highest probability.1. Quantum Free Will: the freedom for pure quantum systems to probe all possible valid paths and/or states of energy in space and time, but no freedom to make an action on any of them except for the actions prescribed by the Principle of least action (PLA).“
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.