I think you arrived already convinced, no? — Kenosha Kid

I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated.
(PS. I don't believe in stupid free will after all)

Free will, as we all know, is central to ethics. — Agent Smith

It's the constriction of the will that should be part of ethics. The will is not "determined" by physical processes, it is just part of them, and they are a necessary a priori for the will even to exist.

The will simply is. — Raymond

The will simply is what?

No, it's funded by the second law of thermodynamics. You can choose to be ignorant about something (or do your own research in contemporary parlance), but it doesn't follow that all ignorance is voluntary. — Kenosha Kid

My partial ignorance could be funded by an enormous chain of deterministic causes, or I could just have free will. Occam's razor?

A process unfolding, with or without possible consequences on processes somewhere around it. The fact that these processes are determined doesn't render them "not free". In fact, without being determined, the process can't develop in a way that's necessary for freedom. The very notion of determinism is a subjective feature we project on processes. A process isn't "determined" by a deterministic law. That's how we view it only. The will wouldn't care less, and can be pretty determined in that.

Occam's razor? — john27

Occam's shaving gell seems more appropriate.

A process unfolding, with or without possible consequences on processes somewhere around it... The very notion of determinism is a subjective feature we project on processes. — Raymond

Sure, although wouldn't that mean that free will isn't free, to us?

Free will, as we all know, is central to ethics. Does ethics make scientific/mathematical sense? The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) implies that disorder (evil) is more likely than order (good). — Agent Smith

I'm not going to get drawn in to antiscientific new age guff about disorder being evil. The basis for the argument in your OP was a scientific one: the principle of least action.

If I act contrary to the principle, which I do, by every action I perform. My will is nor free, nor tied to determinism or any other abstract principle. The will simply is. — Raymond

But you don't act contrary to the principle. This is a conflation of mechanics and ethics. When you decide to walk the long way home, every molecule of you is still obeying the principle: when a conservative force acts on it, it changes via the trajectory of least action. This has nothing to do with your decision about which way you're going. If you fancied the scenary, your choice was an effective one. If you wanted to burn some calories, your choice was an effective one. If you were pressed for time, your choice would be a questionable one, but still every molecule in you subject to conservative forces would obey the principle of least action. It isn't something effected by choice.

Even if it were so, the principle doesn't hold for real processes, maybe by approximation only. Are we approximately subjected to it? — Raymond

That's true of everything. If you pretend gravity is all there is, you're disobeying it right now by not falling through the floor thanks to electrostatic repulsion. Gravity isn't all there is: there's also electromagnetism. Likewise the principle of least action is not all there is when you're applying it at a macroscopic level. (The Langrangian does specify the laws of motion in quantum field theory though, though so if you _could_ calculate a human being catapulted through the air at this scale, the principle of least action would be sufficient. Something being mathematically intractable is not the same as it being approximate or untrue.)

The principle is even teleological, as it supposes a final point in spacetime that can't be known at the start, except for isolated systems. — Raymond

I think that's you imposing your preferred interpretation, ironically. Fundamentally these are boundary conditions only. An alternative interpretation is that causality proceeds in both directions of time. The usual interpretation is that the final point is merely one of many explored by the system until measurement occurs, after which the true final point is selected probabilistically. None of this requires sentience.

I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated. — Yohan

It's very related, since there's a huge gap between the OP and your convincing.

My partial ignorance could be funded by an enormous chain of deterministic causes, or I could just have free will. Occam's razor? — john27

Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will.
Since determinism itself is not being disputed here.

Also, Occam's razor is not an excuse to make stuff up. You could say everything is a goat, that's nice and simple, but counter to empiricism.

Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will. — Kenosha Kid

Well in terms of the predictability of humans and their choices, regarding the analysis of consciousness and thought I'd say 2. is simpler. Maybe consciousness and thought is predictable, but the amount of different variables one would need to make an accurate assessment is in my belief gigantic.

Well in terms of the predictability of humans and their choices, regarding the analysis of consciousness and thought I'd say 2. is simpler. — john27

Just checking your arithmetic here. (2) consists of two things. (1) just one thing. To clarify, you're going on record that two things is simpler than one thing, yes?

Sure, although wouldn't that mean that free will isn't free, to us — john27

If you feel like that, then yes. But where is this principle situated, and how does it determine? Is there some mad Principle Puppeteer directing processes with strings?

Just checking your arithmetic here. (2) consists of two things. (1) just one thing. To clarify, you're going on record that two things is simpler than one thing, yes? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, because in my belief non-deterministic free will is an organization of unknown material in a deterministic setting. In other words, it's not actually another thing, it's a subcategory of the first thing, a clarification of things, which would make it simpler.

So it'd be like saying, do you wanna hit the target or the bullseye? I'd say the bullseye.

Yeah, you misunderstand Occam's razor. It's not saying "go with what's easiest for you personally to grasp". It says "go with the theory with the fewest free parameters". 2 is twice as many as 1.

For the will not to be free, in the academic sense of determism determining free will, you have to know what happens exactly. This is only possible for isolated, pre-meditated, processes, to be left isolated after started. If that evil spirit knows exactly what will happen, he can't participate in what he knows everything about. And his own thoughts he can't predict by definition, as his knowing is part of what he wishes to know about. Only a new and more evil genie, isolated from his twin brother, can predict the thoughts of his evil counterpart.

And now brothers and sisters, let's hold hands, pray, and worship our Divine Creator, an... oops, wrong thread!

It says "go with the theory with the least free parameters". 2 is twice as many as 1. — Kenosha Kid

Could determinism not incorporate non-deterministic free will?

I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated. — Yohan
It's very related, since there's a huge gap between the OP and your convincing. — Kenosha Kid

I did arrive wanting to believe in free will.
I still do, but can't. Free will doesn't appear to have any explanatory power.

Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will.
Since determinism itself is not being disputed here. — Kenosha Kid

Master and slave is a co-dependent relationship. If determinism rules all, then there must be an 'all' that is ruled. If I can be ruled, it implies I could also be free.
Edit: I don't 'think it makes sense for determinism to determine itself.
Edit 2: I don't believe there are things, laws, which exist separately from phenomena. Phenomena and laws are one and the same. Therefor everything happens "freely" but without a free will.

where is this principle situated, and how does it determine? Is there some mad Principle Puppeteer directing processes with strings? — Raymond

Well like kenosha kid said, it could involve the second law of thermodynamics. I don't really know though.

Well like kenosha kid said, it could involve the second law of thermodynamics. I don't really know though. — john27

That would be exactly the same. All global systems show decreasing order, and local increments. That just happens. Is the system determined by this law? Only in the eye of the beholder, though it merely expresses the feeling of not knowing what is gonna happen, to compensate for it.

"Your actions are determined... whatever you might think or do..." Yeah yeah... My foot is determined, to arrive in your... eeehh... ear.

Therefor everything happens "freely" but without a free will. — Yohan

That's it! There is will only.
I comment determined.

That's it! — Raymond

Something feels off though. I think there is a determinism, in the sense of a harmony and order to the way things happen. So it's free but also determined. Just not determined in a master and slave sort of way.

The will even needs determinism. Without it it can't be determined. Which doesn't make it unfree or free. The will simply is. We are not subject to natural laws like slaves to masters indeed. Only other people can limit its freedom. Master and servant.

Could determinism not incorporate non-deterministic free will? — john27

By definition, no. Determinism covers deterministic process only.

I did arrive wanting to believe in free will.
I still do, but can't. Free will doesn't appear to have any explanatory power. — Yohan

Ah okay,I misunderstood sorry.

Master and slave is a co-dependent relationship. — Yohan

Is it? The slave might seem to depend on the master feeding him and sheltering him, but only in the context of the slave's maximally restricted liberty. Remove the master and the slave is free, including free to obtain food and shelter by other, less criminally insane means. So off-topic now... :rofl:

where is this principle situated, and how does it determine? Is there some mad Principle Puppeteer directing processes with strings? — Raymond

The trend in scientific history is that such laws derive from fewer, more fundamental laws. The principle of least action is not fundamental according to quantum field theory, but derives from systems exploring every possible path from the initial point to the final point and the interference effects across those paths (sum over histories). The second law of thermodynamics also reduces to quantum mechanics, in particular the concept of degeneracy. Perhaps there are other simplifications to be made. If the principle of least action and the second law of thermodynamics derive from the five postulates of QM, what is making those postulates manifest in reality? And so on...

By definition, no. Determinism covers deterministic process only. — Kenosha Kid

How then can determinism verify itself? A deterministic view necessitates a first cause, does it not?

Kenosha okay,I misunderstood sorry.[/quote]
Well you were kinda right though. My bias was already in place so I kinda had my mind up to find an excuse for believing in free will.

unfree or free. The will simply is — Raymond

The question is like asking if the stomach has a free will to be hungry or is it determined to be hungry. I do wonder what is the right course of action for one who feels like a victim of the universe though. Is it wise to will freedom? Or better to let it go? But this is more a question of the good life / ethics than metaphysics.

If the principle of least action and the second law of thermodynamics derive from the five postulates of QM, what is making those postulates manifest in reality? And so on... — Kenosha Kid

Even if we are determined sums over histories, and if bound systems could be described non-perturbatively, or if some truly fundamental particles were found, do the laws of qft govern us? From where operate operators creating, destroying, or propagating? Is it not us doing this, wrongly assuming this happens in nature?

The question is like asking if the stomach has a free will to be hungry or is it determined to be hungry. — Yohan

That's another question, I think. Is the stomach driven by external will or internal will? All will evolves. Some wills have a lust for power and constrain other forms of will. I think it's that what makes will free, not if they are determined by deterministic abstract entities apart from them, like a natural law or God.

Is it? The slave might seem to depend on the master feeding him and sheltering him, but only in the context of the slave's maximally restricted liberty. Remove the master and the slave is free, including free to obtain food and shelter by other, less criminally insane means. So off-topic now... :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Remove the master and there is no slave. Remove the slave and there is no master. They can't exist, as slaves or masters, without each other. Good grief of course nobody NEEDS someone to enslave them!

How then can determinism verify itself? A deterministic view necessitates a first cause, does it not? — john27

Determinism doesn't verify anything at all, it's not in assurance.

Even if we are determined sums over histories, and if bound systems could be described non-perturbatively, or if some truly fundamental particles were found, do the laws of qft govern us? — Raymond

Or something very like them, along with general relativity or something very like it, along with the particular boundary conditions of our universe. At least, the idea hasn't been contradicted, and has been verified in all conceived and possible tests (out of-the-gaps window of opportunity).

Remove the master and there is no slave. Remove the slave and there is no master. They can't exist, as slaves or masters, without each other. — Yohan

True. I cede the point intended. Although we're all slaves of, and none of us masters to, causality! :scream: Fatuous but technically on-topic :rofl:

Determinism doesn't verify anything at all, it's not in assurance — Kenosha Kid

Ok better put, how can determinism exist without a first cause?

Here's maybe a better analogy of my thoughts:

1. determinism

2. determinism -(minus) non deterministic free will

Hence, according to occam's razor choice one is more likely to be correct.