There are other choices available. — noAxioms
By what definition of 'available' is that not the case? I mean, given unitary time evolution, entirely free choice (however you choose to envision it), some outcome will be chosen and the alternatives not chosen. It will never be chosen. So how is your use of the word 'available' any different that you consider the unchosen alternatives available?I am, in fact saying your use of the word "available" is nonstandard. If an "alternative" will never be selected, is it really available? — LuckyR
I seem to not be the only one noticing this lack of distinction that lends meaning to the word 'free'.Why do you all like to speak theoretically and hypothetically without any examples? Not a single example here. How can one relate all this with reality, the world, life and so on? How can one understand what do you actually have in mind? What is your frame of reference, the context in which you are referring to free will? — Alkis Piskas
Do the non-determinists say otherwise?? I mean, the statement simply says that each state is a function of prior state. Determinism doesn't seem to come into play since that's true even with non-deterministic interpretations.Determinists (that I commonly interact with) say that the brain state BEFORE Determines what happens DURING and therefore afterwards. — LuckyR
For the record, as a relationalist, I think I qualify as a non-determinist since multiple different states can claim the same prior state. — noAxioms
It's not about the word "free"! Is this all that you got from my whole comment?I seem to not be the only one noticing this lack of distinction that lends meaning to the word 'free'. — noAxioms
Every single group of observational data ever collected is consistent with Free Will, — LuckyR
It's not about the word "free"! Is this all that you got from my whole comment? — Alkis Piskas
1) What world is this? Physical, human, both? Because it's one thing talking about deterministic laws in Physics (the physical world) and another thing talking about deterministic actions in humans. — Alkis Piskas
2) Where or how does free will --which is the main subkect here-- come in here? Can the physical world have free will? Of course not. So it leaves us with human free will. — Alkis Piskas
3) What (kind of) laws/rules/regulations are these? — Alkis Piskas
4) Don't you think that at least one example is needed? — Alkis Piskas
No, you were not the ony one. And, as I see, I wasn't the only one either! :smile:I seem to not be the only one noticing this lack of distinction that lends meaning to the word 'free'. — noAxioms
Certainly. But it was the fault of @noAxioms, who has included different replies to and quotes from different people in a single message ...I think I'm the one you mean to be speaking to lol. — Jerry
It is ineed contentious. It tastes like a soup with different vegetables mixed with meat. Good for meat-eaters but not for vegetarians. :smile:This world can be likened to something of a formal system, which I liken to our universe. This is contentious; — Jerry
What would be a "possible world"? I have in mind one but I don't know what you have in mind. See here's a classic case where an example is needed! Just a "possible world" for me means nothing.[Re: space, time, particles, energy, matter, etc. all related and obeying certain laws] I would say none of these features of the world, despite their supposed indispensability, are necessary in any possible world. — Jerry
Alright, but can the same laws apply to the vegetables as well as to the meat?The only thing that is necessary are that there are laws that determine how things work. — Jerry
OK, this follows the same line of thinking. (Re: "everything"]Free will comes in because even this sort of hypothetical world seems deterministic, because everything obeys the laws — Jerry
Well, can the physical world have free will? If yes, in what sense? If no, then it will always be deterministic --which it is-- so what's the point to hypothetize any kind of (different) world?You say the physical world of course doesn't have free will.
This is what I'm trying to ascertain. — Jerry
OK. But again, what are these pre-determined causes have their effects and in what world? Does this world you are envisioning or hypothetize includes human manifestations, actions, behaviour?Because the difficulty it seems for free will in our world is that pre-determined causes have their effects on us, so we're just a domino in the chain. — Jerry
Good example. But on a physical level only of course. And it involves randomity. Which is totally different than free wiill. And one can see randomity everywhere in the physical universe, As simple coin tossing shows that very clearly. Coins do not have free will but neither does tossing follow any deterministic paterm. (Assuming of course that the coins are not fake or unfair, in any way.)let's talk about Conway's Game of Life. Because this is an example of a possible world: it is entirely composed of well-defined rules that govern the cells, their states, and determine the evolution of the game. — Jerry
Yes, of course I understand better your position now. But, as I mentioned several times, the human factor is missing from your hypothetical world, which, for that reason seems to be clearly a physical world. And alll that would be just fine if you had not involved free will at all.I would like to hear your input if you better understand my position. — Jerry
I will agree that you don't use a definition that makes the two cases distinct. Others, especially proponents of free will, probably do. There is a difference using the definition I gave, but many people don't use my definition, or worse, they do, but word it like possession is a good thing.I think I agree with you that there isn't really a difference between "will" and "free will". — Jerry
Again, I think you should ask said proponent, since providing your own definition smacks of a strawman fallacy. It's why I'm trying to get a clear reply from those that I think are proponents.So just understand that I'm really just using the term "free will" because it's what most people use to denote this idea of one making choices not determined by anything else
Disagree here. A choice based (partly or entirely) on randomness would still be your choice, but it wouldn't be a better one.I also tend to agree that an indeterministic selection of choice based on randomness wouldn't be desirable; it runs into the same problems as determinism, that being the choice isn't yours.
Let me try to alter that to something closer to that which I might agree.So to me, to salvage our idea of free will, it must be the case that either: 1) we are capable of making our own choices despite being determined by prior causes, or 2) our choices are indeterminant in the sense that they are not determined by prior causes, but the mechanism by which the choice is selected is not random chance.
Well that eliminates a good deal of the deterministic options then.For what it's worth, btw, I don't think there must be a hidden variable of sorts in quantum mechanics,
Under my relational view, events don't have outcomes. Only measured things exist relative to a given event, and outcomes of an event cannot be measured by that event.For the record, as a relationalist, I think I qualify as a non-determinist since multiple different states can claim the same prior state.
— noAxioms
Isn't this what I asked when I talked about events with multiple outcomes?
MWI says that.In other words, causes that have multiple potential effects?
A very weak statement since gathering even rudimentary knowledge of the antecedent state would kill a person. Over short periods and at the bio-chemistry level, human physiology is very classical and would be quite predictable if the state could be measured. That is also a weak statement, amounting to an unbacked assertion. Still, the negation of it is pretty simple: Somewhere inside a human, physics is either violated, or (for unexplained purposes) quantum randomness is amplified. It would be a simple matter to look for structures where either takes place. Nobody has found one. Descartes put it in the pinial gland, probably due to the fact that it was safely inaccessible to falsification at the time. Any study of it would kill the subject.No one has been able to predict human decision making, no matter how detailed their knowledge of the antecedent state might be. — LuckyR
The are already far simpler systems that are nevertheless unpredictable, and that doesn't prove indeterminism. The ability to predict a classical system would similarly not constitute any kind of evidence of determinism.If such predictions could be made, it would be concrete proof of Determinism and a solid refutation of Free Will.
I figured that out pretty quick when you quoted the OP and said 'your thesis'.BTW my last comment ... that I addressed to you was actually meant for ↪Jerry! — Alkis Piskas
Disagree here. Yes, cellular automata is usually entirely deterministic, although one can design one that isn't. I can create something in a cellular automata, or say a Turning machine (also entirely deterministic), that makes choices, so I disagree that there's no room for anything that 'has a say', unless, like LuckyR, you deny the existence of choice just because they're the product of the laws chosen.Free will comes in because even this sort of hypothetical world seems deterministic, because everything obeys the laws, and if things obey laws (like a cellular automata for example), there doesn't seem to be room for anything in the world to have a say in the matter. — Jerry
You seem to completely deny the concept of choice at all. Why? Are you trying to argue that you should be held responsible for any actions? That would be like putting your hand in the fire and subsequently complaining that it's not your fault that you no longer have a hand.
That is, what does a non-deterministic world with free will look like/how would it behave? — Jerry
All that would be the same even under hard determinism. Are you changing your definition here?As a Free Will believer, I completely support the concept of (true) choice. In other words I believe that the conversation we each have in our minds where we go over the pros and cons, possible and probable outcomes, memories of similar incidents in the past, what have you, is where the choice is made, ie exactly as we perceive it in real time. — LuckyR
This is pretty funny since by this definition, we have free will even in a deterministic world because antecedent brain state X does not always lead to the same decision being made since decisions are not solely a function of the brain state. The decision of when to cross the street depends far more on the traffic than it does the antecedent brain state.Just to be clear, the ANTECEDENT brain state is what I describe as the physical and electrical state of the brain.
...
Long story short, in Determinism antecedent state X always leads to resultant answer Y, never Z. In Free Will antecedent state X can lead to resultant answer Y or Z depending on the decision making process which occurred. — LuckyR
What is this other factor? Because there is only one in physics, which is randomness. There is no other information that can help. So if you go by that, the only way to make a true choice is to ponder up two or more viable options and then make a true random (not determined) choice between them, perhaps weighted. There are physical ways to do that in a non-deterministic interpretation of QM, but human physiology doesn't seem to have any mechanism to leverage it.I happen to believe that while brain states can and do INFLUENCE decision making, that there is another factor beyond brain states that participate in TRUE decision making — LuckyR
This is pretty funny since by this definition, we have free will even in a deterministic world because antecedent brain state X does not always lead to the same decision being made since decisions are not solely a function of the brain state. The decision of when to cross the street depends far more on the traffic than it does the antecedent brain state
Well, under MWI it can, but I never said MWI was my view, so the above comment seems to be just something you made up. Bohmian mechanics is the only other prominent deterministic interpretation and state X cannot lead to different resultant states according to it.Well, since in your view, Determinism can have antecedent state X leading to many possible resultant states — LuckyR
Ah, so your 'other factors' are simply antecedent states of something other than the brain. Yes, hopefully all decisions are based on such things, else sensory organs would be pointless. But if you include all antecedent states and not just the brain ones, then under determinism 'antecedent state X leads to' only one resultant state (not an actual choice by your assertions), and under non-determinism, it still leads to only one resultant state unless either randomness or some physics violation goes on, the only two choices I could think of.I am somewhat amused that you're stumped as to what additional factors might be responsible for multiple resultant states that are not "randomness", yet you provided one yourself. Namely traffic patterns when deciding when to cross the street. — LuckyR
OK, the street crossing example pretty much shoots that idea down, but I seriously doubt a determinist would make any such assertion unless they're incapable of logic, which I admit plenty are.Bottom line, I have previously conversed with Determinists who do believe 1) it's all about the antecedent brain state, — LuckyR
I think I know what they mean by that, but it makes it sound like we don't actually ponder at all. Why did humans evolve such an expensive brain (that has killed so many of us due to its cost) if it doesn't actually help make better decisions by 'pondering' better? Pondering is there since it is simply a deterministic mechanism doing what it's supposed to do. The illusion is that it is free, by the definition where multiple subsequent states can result from an antecedent state. But by those assertions, not sure why 'free' would be a good thing. I have a different definition of a free choice, one where it very much is a good thing.2) what we subjectively experience as pondering is an illusion
That sounds like Bohmian thinking. If so, they're right about that one. Still, I'm not impressed with the quality of the determinists with which you speak if they actually say especially the first thing, but I am also not impressed with your ability to actually convey somebody else's position, especially given the statement above headed by the words "in your view" and then stating something that isn't my view.3) there is only a single possible resultant state.
The third one was, but again, it's not my view. Again, MWI is deterministic and it doesn't even assert the 3rd point. It says you choose both flavors, but not equally. The percentages of worlds with each choice getting less imbalanced the further back the antecedent state is. Far back enough and there are worlds where you don't even find yourself at the ice cream shop. Further back than that there's worlds without a you to make a decision.You've been clear, though that none of those 3 features of other's Determinism is part of your understanding of it.
I never said I was a determinist. I'm just trying to figure you out, and I still don't know the factor that allows you to not choose the same flavor each time given multiple identical antecedent states. You seem to evade the question, like it's embarrassing. You say you believe in free choice, but you don't identify the mechanism via which the choice might be different given the same antecedent state. Is it something only humans can do? Can I build a device that leverages the same technique? If so, how? If not, why not?I apologize for assuming your brand of Determinism was similar.
I have a different definition of a free choice, one where it very much is a good thing
If they state a contrary opinion, sure, since opinions are often based on beliefs. I try not to let my beliefs clutter a topic that isn't mine. I've been known to attack posters expressing beliefs in line with mine if I think their reasoning doesn't hold up.You may be unimpressed with those who I have conversed with before (which is entirely reasonable) yet at least when they state a contrary opinion or fact those represent their beliefs. — LuckyR
What, the different definition? I've mentioned that a few times. My choices are free if I'm the one making them, and not something else making them for me. Rabies was one example. I consider myself free willed because I'm not rabid, with my will being bent to the purposes of the Rabies instead of to my own purposes.could you please enlighten me with what you're referring to above. — LuckyR
Doesn't work, per Godel. One can know the initial conditions perfectly and still not be able to predict the outcome. Pretty trivial to set up an experiment that illustrates this. Determinism or not is an unknown. Predictability is not an unknown.One explanation of this is that initial conditions Determine decision making but we just don't currently know those conditions with enough detail. — LuckyR
One can know the initial conditions perfectly and still not be able to predict the outcome
You have a machine that is entirely deterministic and classical: It executes instructions, and its purpose is to win rock-paper-scissors. Make it as simple or complex, slow or fast as you want. Its opponent is an identical robot, and both of them know that. The way the program works is to predict what the other robot will do (something that is completely determined ahead of time) and play the output that beats that.I’d love to hear the details of this trivial experiment. — LuckyR
Who ever claimed that the view had a practical value? I suppose its value lies in the fact that true randomness doesn't come into play, a priority that ranks high in some people's opinion, notably Einstein who was quite vocal about his distaste of randomness (and non-locality).If a Determinist can’t use his Determinism to predict outcomes, what is the practical value of this Determinism?
Can he now? Maybe if the program is really trivial, making no attempt to work out what the other robot would do. Otherwise, you need to back that statement up.Well the programmer of the robot can predict with 100% accuracy what his robot is going to choose. — LuckyR
These are deterministic algorithms. A computer has no instruction for randomness, so no, there is no equal probability. Neither do you have such a randomness amplifier, even though creatures would have evolved one had there been any survival benefit to it.Unless his program notes (accurately) that the three options are equally probable and therefore it chooses randomly.
I think the word 'pondering' went by. Anything (human, machine, whatever) can do that much even under hard determinism, so thinking" or "choosing" only lets you make a better choice. It isn't what is going to make it possible for an antecedent state leading to many possible resultant states. You seem to conflate a good choice with a free one. Your choice is not free by the definition you give.As to the factor, lay persons call it thinking" or "choosing". I'm not much into labels.
I disagree about it not thinking, but yes, it leverages its far faster reaction time to see what the human hand is going for and bases its choice on that. For that to work, it must think, and very quickly. It would be instructive to put the robot in front of a mirror.First, the robots that beat humans at rock, paper, scissors 100% of the time essentially cheat (that is they don't have any "thinking" algorithm) — LuckyR
Well, the data is that it knows exactly how the other robot is programmed, and thus it knows that its choice is determined. But the programmer knows the task to be mathematically impossible, leaving him with nothing to attempt the task.As to robot vs robot, since there is no "data" to enter into the algorithm to truly predict what the other robot will choose, the programmer has used some other way to come up with a choice.
But the robot does know its opponent's algorithm, and is nevertheless incapable of predicting its outcome. That's the point I'm trying to make: illustration of the difference between determinism and predictability. You seem to see it.If one knows what the algorithm is, one can reproduce it.
That it is, but the antecedent states are never the same. Something critical is different when a different choice is made. Humans cannot be aware of that because they're never get to do anything twice. An antecedent state is never repeated. So the common human experience is of not always choosing the same thing, which, coupled with a naive assessment of identical antecedent state, results in what others have called 'the illusion of freedom'.in choice. Perhaps this is what you're getting at. The 'other factors' is simply antecedent states that are not identical. A huge factor is simply memory of the last time this choice came up, and wanting to not do the same thing all the time, hence picking a different ice cream today because you remember vanilla from last time.As to pondering leading to different choices with the same input, I agree with you that humans commonly use the same analysis based on memories, emotions, objective variables such as price etc, however the priotization of the numerous variables leading to different choices in essentially identical situations is a common human experience.
Humans don't freeze in that scenario. It's called a metastable state, and we have a very fast mechanism to break such states, as is necessary for survival.If what you imagine is going on in the Black Box of human decision making was actually true, when faced with a decision between two choices of equal merit, humans would be unable to make a choice, yet we do every day.
If you accept this, which you may not, I want to then bring it back to our reality and ask this: if such a system is possible, can we know for certain that it is impossible for a system isomorphic to what I described may emerge from the goings on in our universe? So might those axiomatic truths in a possible world be actualized in our world through whatever interactions occur that produce our mind? It isn't clear to me that this is impossible. — Jerry
I disagree. The act of pondering could be a deterministic process and still not be an illusion. Peter Tse ("The Neural Basis for Free Will") has proposed a neurological basis for mental causation. Even if an individual's pondering can only produce one possible result, it's still the case that this pondering was a necessary part of the causal chain that produced this result.Determinism that tells us that what we perceive as decision making every single day is, in fact an illusion and that in reality "decisions" are not the product of pondering, rather are determined by the physical and electrical state of the brain before the supposed "decision" is made — LuckyR
Even if an individual's pondering can only produce one possible result, it's still the case that this pondering was a necessary part of the causal chain that produced this result. — Relativist
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.