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). — Kenosha Kid
Ok better put, how can determinism exist without a first cause? — john27
If you consider my wife a natural law, then yes. But a real existing law, like a god? — Raymond
Determinism isn't an event though. Effects need prior causes. Determinism doesn't. — Kenosha Kid
In this way, no prior cause is needed for determinism, as it's an emergent characteristic from another, more fundamental version of the principle of least action (sum over histories, essentially the integration of action over all possible paths). — Kenosha Kid
Like genes playing puppeteers of our body, as I once saw depicted? This exists in the mind only. — Raymond
OK, but the second law of thermodynamics, is a practical view of determinism. Would then, the second law of thermodynamics necessitate a first cause? — john27
It's difficult to imagine it. Whatever the initial conditions, whatever the strength of gravity, if you have a partioned box with gas in one side and a vacuum in the other, and you remove the partition, there are many more configurations where the gas occupies the whole box than where it stays in its original side, and one would expect this equilibrium to be attained after a while. This would suggest that it is independent of first causes — Kenosha Kid
It might be dependent on reference frame though. — Kenosha Kid
Dang. I want a refund. I don't remember reading being a slave to causality in the terms and conditions.:broken:Although we're all slaves of, and none of us masters to, causality! :scream: — Kenosha Kid
I'm not getting what you are saying makes will free. That it evolves? Sounds interesting.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. — Raymond
Another possibility is that final, as well as initial, boundary conditions of systems should be specified — Kenosha Kid
Determinism does not suggest a godlike overseer anymore: that's what science has done for us. — Kenosha Kid
Well how do I choose? Today I chose healthy: a tasty vegetable stir fry. Was this random? — Kenosha Kid
Whoever runs the place. But what influenced them to make all the choices? — Yohan
But maybe I'm just clinging to an excuse to believe I have some power over my life. — Yohan
What's reference frame? — john27
The shortest route between A and B is not always the most efficient. There may be other factors that can be applied to evaluate efficiency. One of them is "cost". If we travel from Italy directly to London by plane may cost more than through Germany. The direct way can be called "time-efficient" and the indirect one "cost-efficient". So, if we mind more about the cost of travel than how long it takes, its more efficient to take the indirect route. Other criteria can be "quality", "pleasure", etc.we do things in very inefficient ways, most of the times failing to take the shortest route between beginning (of a project) and its end — Agent Smith
But it's us who vary the path, it's us who determine the track. It's not that the particle chooses it beforehand. more paths are in fact possible. — Raymond
Does determinism need a first cause? I think it does. At the BB singularity particles needed a first push to come in existence. Without such a first push, nothing could have come into existence.The initial pushes determined the subsequent development, which would result in life for a wide, maybe continuous and infinite set of initial conditions. Maybe these pushes were even determined by a previous big bang, where time has reached infinity (I tend to think that once the universe has accelerated away to infinity, this triggers a new big bang behind us). — Raymond
In reality, there exist practically no reversible processes. — Raymond
The will is a determined one. Will can't exist without determination. Determination doesn't rob the will from its freedom. The determined action of a will can impair the will of fellow men though. It's in this context that we can speak of a free will, or a free wont. — Raymond
If you are honest, then I wonder how the hell you determined going to a philosophy forum is "as rational as possible."It's essential to me that my decisions are as rational as possible or, if irrational, I can at least explain them in retrospect. — Kenosha Kid
I see what you're saying, but it's not like a hydrogen atom is figuring out the frequency it should oscillate at: it is constrained to aim toward a particular frequency by purely physical behaviour. That said, the best computer you could design for modelling the universe exactly would be... the universe. You could think of it that way. — Kenosha Kid
In reality, almost all elementary processes are reversible. — Kenosha Kid
I'm not getting what you are saying makes will free. That it evolves? — Yohan
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. — Raymond
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. — Kenosha Kid
It sounds about right, to me. Combine this with the fact that no other force, being, or object can be shown to cause or direct a person’s decisions but the person himself. — NOS4A2
The shortest route between A and B is not always the most efficient. There may be other factors that can be applied to evaluate efficiency. One of them is "cost". If we travel from Italy directly to London by plane may cost more than through Germany. The direct way can be called "time-efficient" and the indirect one "cost-efficient". So, if we mind more about the cost of travel than how long it takes, its more efficient to take the indirect route. Other criteria can be "quality", "pleasure", etc.
So, if I am not wrong, you tried to prove the existence of free will based on human inefficiency. Yet, the above examples I gave are better, I think, than inefficiency. The willingness to apply personal criteria of efficiency and decide on a different way than the default, easiest or shorter way to a destination or end purpose, is a better proof of free will than following the shorter, easier, safer, more comfortable or common path. — Alkis Piskas
The point is we can take an unreasonable course of action - prolong our journey and pay a hefty sum - and that's what I feel is free will at work. — Agent Smith
It's not unreasonable if it's what I feel (determined) I really want. We are not going to take a vote on what I "should" choose. I can be "determined" by influences that you don't approve of. — Monitor
Right, as far as time and cost are concerned. But we may want the opposite --increase the criterion to a maximum-- as in the example of "quality" and "pleasure". However, maximums can certainly create problems. E.g. drinking. That's why they also require setting llimits, whereas minimums don't.it all depends on keeping one of the many variables involved at a minimum. — Agent Smith
Right. That's why I mentioned setting "limits". Anyway, the essential point is that acting based on setting, deciding on and applying any criterion for any action is enough to prove the existence of free will.The point is we can take an unreasonable course of action - prolong our journey and pay a hefty sum - and that's what I feel is free will at work. — Agent Smith
Right, as far as time and cost are concerned — Alkis Piskas
llimits — Alkis Piskas
If you are honest, then I wonder how the hell you determined going to a philosophy forum is "as rational as possible." — Yohan
I don't think the universe computes all these different histories, assigns them complex probabilities, and ĺets these interfere. All these procedures are human inventions, not truly present in nature. — Raymond
Well, in theory all processes are time reversible. Just reverse all motion present in the system... in practice this needs quite some effort, and the means you reverse all motion with go forward in time. — Raymond
You mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics — Agent Smith
You mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics
— Agent Smith
You think that the 2nd law is antiscientific new age guff? Or was a rofl emoji warranted there? — Kenosha Kid
I don't get that ... Example?More than that I'm afraid. Nature, I was told, is lazy — Agent Smith
No, no. I am referring to the limits/restictions selected and applied by ourselves. Hence, free will.Limits are restrictions, restrictions are imposed, imposed implies absence of, not presence of, freedom. — Agent Smith
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.