Not necessarily. Proof of an indeterministic universe in which we may be able to exert some agent control is always useful...

It's not scale that the problem, it is the inherent outlandishness of the implications of there really being many parallel universes. — Wayfarer

It could be argued that it's is our humansize-skewed scale perspective that makes the notion seem outlandish, where as in reality (given what we know about quantum mechanics) we should really be open to any theories which make sense mathematically.

Incidentally, I'm using the word 'scale' in a very wide sense, not simply to denote size but the parameters of humancentric experience.

This guy is saying the pilot wave theory is deterministic...

I should really point out that I don't necessarily believe in determinism, I am just yet to hear an acceptable scientific explanation of how we can account for genuine agent control in an indetermistic universe.

I would be grateful is you could elaborate on how Bohms interpretation is 'causal and non-deterministic', because at first sight the coupling of the two appears oxymoronic.

So, the idea that everytime there is a quantum event, which is happening continuously everywhere in the universe, a new world is created for every possibility of that event, seems reasonable. — Rich

The refusal to countenance this as a real possibility just demonstrates the problems human beings have with scale. Due to our arrogance as perceived 'masters of the universe' we relate everything to our own size/perspective and so things going too far either way seem ridiculous. If someone said there were probably 10 alternate universes people would easily believe it, but say there are trillions and trillions and trillions...etc and they can't comprehend it.

But if you consider the sheer numbers of atoms in a small piece of coal, or the space between the nucleus of the atom and the electrons, of the size of the universe etc things outside our tiny scale seem far less ridiculous.

MW theory has been taken seriously by many scientists for decades...

(Plus your apparent hatred for determinists is bordering on the hysterical.)

Also - apokrisis, could you please expand on what you mean by 'epistemic cut.' Thanks

Great thread this.

In response to previous assertions that the reality of multiple universe is 'craziness' is it any more crazy than any of the other interpretations?! (Cat both dead/alive etc)

I count myself as a liberal, and any sensible liberal should realise that Trump is a direct result of elitist liberal arrogance (as is Brexit).

The dogmatic and unrealistic approach to liberal progressiveness by politicians all over the world, the media and many others (at the expense of many ordinary people) completely undermined the good work that has been done over the past decades.

And the liberal response to the inevitable backlash? Yet more, and more vicious, liberal arrogance. Genius.

We are gradually undoing all the progress the liberal project has made and it's much more the fault of the left than the right.

As for Trump, at least he is something different. After 30 years of carbon copy, PR savvy clones we need change. We also need a shock to the system to realize where we've being going wrong. My hope is Trump will be followed by a much more sensible centrist politician who will focus on rational and sensible progressiveness.

I'm afraid we'all have to agree to disagree that what you have offered here is a suitably detailed explanation of how such a mental process could occur.

And, just so you know, my current line of arguments are in no way 'faith' based, but rather grounded in science and logic. I'm happy to be proved otherwise by a sufficiently detailed scientific explanation of how my own psychology could originate undetermined action which is guided by past experiences in such a way that does not lead to an infinite regress.

Please could you then offer an alternative explanation for how a current action can be driven by past influences without leading to an infinite regression.

So if we're right, then, at T, X is not truly free to chose either course of action - leading us back to a form of determinism (albeit of the psychological type rather than the scientific).

Ultimately a persons current action is always in some way going to be 'determined' by the past. I see no way out of this unless we find a way to remove all kinds of prior causation in such a way as to retain Ultimate Responsibility for our actions (i.e. Keep the actions driven by 'us' as opposed to random atomic movement).

I certainly didn't mean to sound nasty, and if I did I apologize. What I'm trying to ascertain is how, on your view, the fundamental mind interacts with the physical world? How could mind make quanta?

For a non-dualist you do seem to quite clearly separate mind from the physical..

"Yep, mind it's fundamental. Once that is understood, life makes sense again."

I'll ask once again - of what substance is the 'fundamental mind' made of and how (specifically) does it interact with the physical world?

That description is not really of sufficient detail to be a great deal of use. Are you saying it can in now way be reduced to a physical substrate in such a way that would allow us to track any kind of volitional particle manipulation?

"X's mind decides for some reason. It is the mind that is deciding for its own reasons."

All that explanation does is raises far more questions. Among them:

- what is 'mind'?
- how does the 'mind' decide?
- once decided, how does this 'mind' instigate the action in the physical world?

Please answer these.

Steve's right here, and this is the biggest problem in debates on consciousness. Until the scientific/philosophical community can agree on some form of model for what consciousness actually is and what it does I don't see how any progress can be made in any of the other areas.

This is all very interesting and informative but none of it really addresses the question of precisely 'how' an autonomous being can exercise their autonomy in the physical world without being subject to some form of antecedent causation. If they are subject to such causation their actions would appear determined and if they're not then their actions appear random.

It seems evident that quantum theory does away with the old Newtonian form of determinism in which all atomic movements etc are ordained since the birth of the universe (and probably before) but, whilst providing a platform for Alternate Possibilites, this does nothing to address the issue of Ultimate Responsibility.

If X has two potential courses of action open to them at T, X must have some kind of reason for favoring one course over the other or his decision to do one or the other would be random. If X does have a reason to favour one over the other then this must be related to some form of past experience which leads us to an infinite regress and back to a parallel determinism (albeit not of the Newtonian variety).

What is the way out of this?

Nothing there answers the question.

"The mind is exactly what everyone experiences." - which is what?

"t is what is creatingthe impetus to move in a direction by use of will." - how (scientifically/mechanically speaking) does it do that?

Oops - I meant to quote the whole last post..

Okay Rich - so you agree the mind/brain is comprised of the same physical substance as everything else and part of the same structure. So I come back to the original question: how does it create original motion amongst matter already in motion? And if it can, what exactly is directing that motion?

You speak a lot of the 'creative mind' without any explanation at all of what that is. Is it a specific part of the brain? Global consciousness? What is it and how does it 'direct' original particle motion to produce its desired effects in the physical world?

So you're a dualist?

And how (scientifically speaking) does the 'creative mind' - which is presumably a physical entity - generate atomic motion without any form of preceding causation?

I'm interested - how do you define your view on the free will debate? Some kind of libertarianist?

You say choices are "probabilistic with the possibility of novelty." - but this doesn't make any sense. If choices originate within us as automnomous beings then they must come at the end of a temporal progression stretching backwards, which would indicate some form of determinism. If at time zero they remain entirely non-influenced then what steers the choice one way or another?

I guess I would like you to explain the scientific/biological base for your 'I'm free and the original cause of all my actions' view.

Interested to see how you would account for 'free choice' within a universe that (seemingly) adheres to a directional flow of time without committing yourself to an infinite regress or accepting randomness.

"My fate has been sealed since the Genesis of the Big Bang."

So you're for Determinism now?

Which objection? Apologies, but your post seemed a bit vague and I'm not sure which objection you're answering.

With regard to the quote you use though, I don't think it's so much about stepping outside the causal web, more finding gaps within it which may permit some sort of mental influence.

The religious and scientific conceptions of determinism are actually very similar - one ordained by an infinite being, the other by a closed, causal universe.

Determinism in the physical sense is really only about antecedent, sufficient causation, and the notion that given a set of physical circumstances only one possible future can obtain. It's a very simple concept in itself but admits of many different interpretations.

You say you chose a piece of food and it's all done by you. I'm not disputing that. But if at time T you make a choice out of several available options, and you want that choice to be truly 'yours' there must be some decision making procedure which explains why you 'chose' say the apple instead of the banana. So your physical 'state' at T was geared towards one or the other choice. If your physical state just prior to your action was truly neutral then your choice would be random luck and no demonstration of free will. So if your state at T is geared towards one choice or the other we are quickly lead into a backwards trajectory and ultimately an infinite regression - and your choice ends up 'determined' by physical circumstances that can be traced back to some point in the past.

There does not currently seem anyway out of this.

There is nothing necessarily supernatural about phenomenal illusions. They happen all the time - just ask the amputee who still 'feels' the missing leg.

As for your utter disavowing of any type of determinism I would ask you this: if my conscious choices are in no way guided by my established psychology, how are they my choices. And if there are, then my choice at time T will rely on time T-1 and so on. This situation seems to obtain even of physical (Netownian) determinism is proved to be false so would suggest another kind of psychological determinism governed by the flow of time.

'Experiencing' choice does not necessarily entail true choice in the metaphysical sense. The human experience is rife with illusion. Determinism questions are also not limited to the realm of sub-atomic physics. Even if you can create some physical space in the causal structure that doesn't automatically mean there is any way you can exert any kind of top-down mental control.

One could argue that the existence of a temporal direction entails some form of determinism even if quantum physics is accurate.

I suppose we would have to agree on a definition of 'caused' here. But ultimately in cases such as atomic decay, exactly when an electron for example would emit a proton is as you say entirely unpredictable. No apparent outside agency prompts the change and no internal clockwork times the 'jump'.

Either way, it challenges the deterministic picture or a clockwork universe.

Determinism is based on Newtonian mechanics, which is now superseded by quantum physics. In quantum physics 'uncaused' events are common place. The question is whether any 'control' can ever be exerted over quantum events. If so this could provide the metaphysical wiggle room that free will requires.