Just finished watching the series last night, and i do recommend:

Another:

Suppose that the universe has infinite space, and let's also say that there is an infinite number of particles in this space. For there to be space between the particles, would that not make space a bigger infinity than the infinite number of particles in the infinite space?

The statement that some infinities are bigger than others comes from set theory. The OP talks about infinities in the context of counting procedures. These are two different concepts of infinity. — DanCoimbra

Most of what i think about infinities comes from my own intuitions, so forgive me if i sound a bit ignorant of the well-established terms and procedures involved.

The "counting procedure" aspect is what i relate to the temporal sense of speaking or thinking about it. The other side seems to be more spatial in character, which instantiates an infinity all at once, outside time, so to say. It's just something i noticed recently and thought it might be useful to know when thinking about infinities. There are probably proper terms for these distinctions, and if there aren't then there should be.

Welcome to TPF! :smile:

Yea, like i said im not up on all the terminology. I'm a little bit motivated now to look a little deeper into it, because i do find it interesting. I'm going to look up some of these concepts you mentioned like transfinite cardinals, and ordinal arithmetic. But i'd like to ask.

What was i describing in my last example about the infinite hotel. What is the correct terminology for what i described?

Is it?

That's not Hilbert's paradox. — Michael

Yes, i am aware of that, but i didn't see the point in describing something one could just read anywhere. I was trying to show a different way of conceptualizing different sizes of infinities. That's all, but i'm more interested in if my example is a reasonable one or not.

Another example that just came to mind related to Hilbert's infinite hotel thought experiment.

Consider a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of which are occupied. Due to the infinite guests, there are no vacant rooms. However, if each room in the hotel were to magically double into 2 rooms, the hotel would then have an additional infinity of rooms to accommodate an extra infinity of guests. Although the number of rooms seems the same in both cases, the capacity differs in some sense. In the first case, no more guests can be accommodated, while in the second case, an additional infinity of guests can be accommodated. This doubling (spacial sense) can continue (temporal sense) indefinitely in both time and space.

If there is no end to something, how can another thing with no end be twice as large as it? Don't they both have no ends? — Philosopher19

I believe the the concept of infinity is often misunderstood because it can be applied to different contexts, such as time and space, which are not necessarily equivalent. To explore the differences in sizes between different infinities, let's consider a few thought experiments that illustrate how infinity can vary in magnitude.

First, imagine you have achieved immortality and are presented with two options: to receive $1 every day forever or $1 every year. Intuitively, you would choose $1 every day because, over the same infinite duration, you would accumulate more money. This illustrates that while both options extend to infinity in time, the rate at which you receive money differs, leading to a larger "size" of wealth in one scenario over the other.

Now, let's consider a spatial analogy. Imagine two pipes, both of infinite length, but one has a diameter of 1 inch and the other has a diameter of 10 inches. Despite their lengths being equally infinite, the pipe with the larger diameter has a greater volume. This demonstrates that even with one dimension being infinite, other finite dimensions can contribute to a difference in "size" or capacity.

Interestingly, if we were to expand the diameter of the pipe to infinity as well, we would lose the essence of what makes a pipe a pipe. To maintain its identity, certain characteristics, like diameter, must remain finite. This constraint allows us to differentiate between pipes of different diameters, even if their lengths are infinite.

Lastly, consider an infinite number of pencils, each 6 inches long, laid end to end to form a line of infinite length. If we compare this to another line composed of an infinite number of 3-inch pencils, both lines would stretch to infinity. However, if you were to take one pencil from each line, there would be a clear difference in their lengths. This paradox highlights that while the total lengths of both lines are infinite, the "size" of their components is different, and this difference is observable when comparing individual elements.

So, the concept of infinity can indeed vary in magnitude depending on the context. Temporal infinity can differ based on the rate or frequency of an event, while spatial infinity can vary when other dimensions are considered. These examples show that not all infinities are created equal, and it is the nuances in their properties that allow us to distinguish between them.

When considering a sequence of numbers, such as those between 0 and 4, where there are an infinite number of elements (including fractions and irrationals) between 0 and 1 and every other natural number in the sequence, the set of numbers between 0 and 2 would contain more elements than between 0 and 1. If one were to continuously move through this sequence of numbers, they would never reach the number 1 since one would have to move through an infinity of fractions first. In contrast, if the infinite sequence consists simply of natural numbers, reaching 1 would happen almost instantly.

This comparison illustrates that the "distance" covered between 0 and 1 in the first example is different from the "distance" between 0 and 1 in the last example. It can be concluded that the first example which includes the rationals and irrationals represents a larger infinity than simply an infinite series of natural numbers.

Does this explanation make sense? I admit that I haven't spent much time studying the intricacies of infinities and am not completely familiar with the technical terms and notations that mathematicians typically use to discuss these concepts.

Yes, if you were to measure both distances at a specific point in time, but outside the context of a finite time measurement, the distance is probably equally infinite for both.

I think that to make sense of infinities, one has to have a system for extracting their finite properties, as I mentioned in my prior post, or by looking, for example, at the difference between one element in a sequence and the next, which has a specific finite value. This specific value for example can be considered a fundamental component of a periodically regular sequence, by which any periodically regular sequence can be constructed, including infinite ones.

Any infinite sequence is equal in terms of number of elements to any other infinite sequence, but i do not think they are equal in terms of magnitude or value.

Considering these two infinite sequences:
sequence 1 = {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}
sequence 2 = {.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, ...}

Take for instance the first 4 elements of any 2 infinite sequences, and observe the last number. If the last number of one series is bigger than the last number in the other series then that sequence has a larger magnitude. In this case then sequence 1 is larger in magnitude than sequence 2.

sequence 1 = {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} = 4
sequence 2 = {.5, 1, 1.5, 2, ...} = 2

Therefor sequence 1 is greater than sequence 2 in terms of magnitude or value.

Alternatively, if one selects two arbitrary numbers that are common to both sequences such as the numbers 1 and 4 then sequence 2 is larger than sequence 1 because more numbers are included by sequence 2 between values 1 and 4.

sequence 1 = {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} = 4
sequence 2 = {1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, ...} = 7

Therefor sequence 2 is greater than sequence 1 in terms of magnitudes or values represented. It can be said that sequence 2 has higher resolution than sequence 1.

The first one is the sentence “The sun is yellow”, and the second one is “this sentence is false”. — Skalidris

This is how i look at it:
If it is true that the Sun is yellow then the first sentence is a true statement, else it is false regardless of any other sentences that may exist. If we do not know what is or is not true then in any case...

If the second sentence is referring to the first sentence:
If it is true that the first sentence is false then the second sentence is true in stating that the first sentence is false. (= True)

If it is true that the first sentence is true then the second sentence is false in stating that the first sentence is false. (= False)

If the second sentence is referring to itself:
If the sentence is true that it is false then the sentence is true that it is false. (= True)

If the sentence is false that it is false then the sentence is false that it is false. (= False)

I have multiple questions that need answering. — an-salad

Ask multiple questions and you shall receive multiple answers.

First, if there are infinite whole numbers, and there are infinite decimals between 0 and 1, and there are infinite decimals between 0.1 and 0.12, does that mean that infinity itself is infinitely infinite infinitely (etc.) ? — an-salad

Definitely.

Also, will there be a manned mission to m87 by 2030? — an-salad

Tickets are on sale now!

What if u brought a talisman from Cambodia? — an-salad

Then it would not be in Cambodia anymore.

Also, Ive never left Chicago in my life. How is it different out there? — an-salad

I've never left Chicago either, nor have i gone there. The biggest difference is that i am not in Chicago.

Is the sky purple? — an-salad

I'm assuming the sky is purple in Chicago. The sky here where i live is iridescent, and it's located up and slightly to the left, but i'm not worried.

Are there dinosaurs? — an-salad

Many in fact, they come here for retirement.

Are there three large moons? — an-salad

Not always.

Thnx for your answers in advance. :3 — an-salad

You're welcome, and now they're your answers too. :-)

Nisi Dominus - Vivaldi - Collegium 1704

I Just finished watching this, and thought it was sufficiently thought-provoking to post here.

bonus track:

agr? — Changeling

6 out of 10

I do indeed :up:

Currently listening to:

DIE ANTWOORD - FAT FADED FUCK FACE

Merry Christmas music, and a happy new year!



Psalm 58 (KJV)
1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

Cuban descent, currently living in Miami Beach, Florida, USA.

There are many things in the world which are understood by reason, but not controlled or determined by reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

Understanding is inherently tied to reason, which serves as an explanation or justification. If something cannot be articulated in a logically consistent manner, it implies a lack of understanding. Reason and mathematics are effective precisely because the universe operates fundamentally on principles of reason and mathematics, which leads to determinism. "In the beginning was the Logos", the fundamental logic behind the universe, underlying the natural order of things.

This primordial logic, while maximally simple, serves as the dynamo of the universe, perpetually executing its function. Primordial time can be likened to a unitary logical NOT operator, representing the creative and destructive force of time, while space is dualistic and represented by binary logical operators [AND, OR]. The logic of being and determinism in our universe is intertwined with these temporal and binary spatial operators, likening the universe to a literal computer with time as the processor and space as the working memory. This perspective views fundamental particles and numbers as essentially the same, and 'quantum mechanics' can be reframed as 'number mechanics' or 'number logic,' emphasizing the fundamental connection between math and logic and the way the universe works.

The statement that "an event at the present which was not caused by an event in the past, but which will still cause an effect in the future" does not make sense. — punos


You have not explained why this does not make sense to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

The statement appears to be logically contradictory. According to the principle of causality which i have no reason or evidence to deny, every event is caused by a preceding event or set of circumstances. The idea of an event in the present not being caused by a past event but still causing an effect in the future seems to defy this principle. I can see why someone who doesn't accept the principle of causality might agree with the statement. Alternatively, you can simply provide me with an example of an event, any event that was not caused by a prior event. I would prefer an actual real and verifiable kind of event, but i'm willing to consider a hypothetical, yet logically consistent one.

The alternative implies an infinite regress of events. Do you not believe that there was a beginning to time? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, i do not believe that time had a beginning, because time itself is the measure of beginnings and endings, and thus to ask if time had a beginning is like asking at what time did time start? If you are speaking of entropic or thermodynamic time then yes it did have a beginning, but primordial time never did. You should think about this: If there were ever a 'time' before time where time was not, then why would time decide to start all of a sudden? Notice how incoherent the question is, like asking what's north of the north pole?. If time were ever not, then nothing could have ever happened to make anything happen ever. Nothing would change since there is no time to change it. That is why primordial time necessarily must have always been and will always be. Primordial time was active before our universe, and will be way after our universe is long gone.

Something falling has a reason for falling, the effect of gravity, but that activity, falling, is not justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Every force in the universe including gravity manifests as a result of some broken symmetry. The topology of space is such that it is repelled by matter or mass (like opposite charges), and as a result causing a rarification or thinning of spacial energy in the vicinity of that matter. Matter which is the inversion of space, is attracted (not repelled) towards gravity wells simply as the universe's attempt to "fill the hole" so to say, and repair the broken symmetry of space.

Therefore, contrary to your claim, "a deterministically willed event" is actually very reasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are right, i apologize. I did not mean to construct a strawman, my mistake. I should then clarify here that i myself do not preclude the possibility of non-deterministic events either, but these events do not count as free will, simply random. Never the less i am still somewhat skeptical as to the veracity of true randomness. Either way this doesn't convince me that free will is possible or probable.

This inclines many, such as Newton himself, to state that Newton's laws are upheld by God's Will. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not have a problem with the concept of God really. My concept of God is non-personal, and in my view it simply equivocates to the whole of the universe, not some creator outside of it with complex knowledge and intentions, and a fully developed and infinite consciousness. That's the old outdated anthropomorphic view of God, and we should know better by now, but many still lag behind. I believe in Father Time, and Mother Space, and if that specific wording bothers some people then i have no problem changing it back to simply time and space... no big deal, because it's still the same thing. God is not a useful concept to explain anything anyway, its optional as long as logic and reason is not violated.

The concept or more precisely the word 'free will' was introduced to Christianity i believe by the theologian Tertullian in the 2nd century. The reason for the introduction was to solve the "problem of evil" and absolve God of any evil that might exist in the world. This essentially scapegoated humanity for the sake of God. A legal loophole to let God off the hook for all the things people didn't like about the world. All good things come from God, and all bad things come from humans.. is that right?

I've already stated that i'm not convinced that quantum fluctuations are random; they are most likely caused. The only thing that does not have a cause in my book is time, since in my view, time (primordial time) is the first cause of all things that exist in time, but it has nothing to do with free will because it did not choose to cause anything, it is forced to cause, it has no choice to cause, and the only thing it can cause is the manifestation of simple and fundamental virtual particles in the quantum foam. The rest is up to determinism to work out.

Once you allow for the reality of such causation, an act at the present which is not caused by anything in the past, then many such events which are "called" random will be reasonable, instead of being random. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Once you allow the reality that 2 + 2 = 17, then it would be reasonable for of course 2 + 2 to equal 17, since you decide. This is true because 17 is not caused by 2 + 2, but the free will of the person doing the calculation to freely choose the answer. This explains everything. When an engineer for example with free will wants to build a bridge, he can choose whatever numbers or measurements feel right, by the unfathomable power of his free will. The resulting bridge will hold up perfectly because of the free will of the engineer willing it to be correct. The bridge is not caused by the engineer, even though he did design it. What is there not to understand?". That is the kind of thing i'm hearing you say.

Then you can understand what Aristotle called "final cause", as completely distinct from what we call "efficient cause". — Metaphysician Undercover

here is my understanding of the four kinds of causes:

Material Cause: primordial energy, or simply energy (same as primordial time)
Formal Cause: logic, reason, mathematics
Efficient Cause: force (directed energy, or vector) = (energy + logic) = (material + formal)
Final Cause: universal symmetry, complete matter annihilation, universal unification of all opposites

That is a very real logical problem, because any current state of existence can only be understood as the logical result of the initial conditions, which constitute the boundary conditions. But the infinite regress renders true initial conditions as impossible, and this renders any state at any time as fundamentally unintelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

All things begin with initial conditions, but since prime time never began, it never had an initial condition, it is also not a 'thing', but things begin, exist, and end in it. Prime time is what sets the initial conditions for things to manifest and exist. Nothing exists until symmetry is broken.

See, here you propose two types of time, coexisting at the present moment, primordial time which keeps an objects persistent, and entropic time, which allows for deterministic change. But you propose nothing to establish a relationship between these two "times". — Metaphysician Undercover

In my understanding there is only really one kind of time, and if it was completely up to me i would never mention a second kind of time (entropic). Most people it seems are not able to perceive or comprehend what i mean by primordial time (except you apparently), and insist that thermodynamics is actually time. For me thermodynamics or the entropic or thermodynamic state is not time, but simply the arrow of time. Time and the arrow of time are not the same thing. Thermodynamics emerges only in the context of extended space or dimensions where things have the probability of being in different states, and are constantly changing their relationships to each other.

Are you kidding? "Carefully chose" signifies an activity as a verb, and the phrase implies an agent acting with care. How can you interpret this otherwise? Is there an effect of this act of carefully choosing? If so, there is necessarily an agent by your definition, "a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect". You could deny the need for an agent by denying that there is an effect from the act of choosing, but that would leave selection as irrelevant to our discussion of causation. — Metaphysician Undercover

choose: pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

carefully: in a way that deliberately avoids harm or errors

I've already stated that i believe that every part of the universe has agency of some kind, including the universe as a whole. Consider how electro-magnetism works and how careful it is to never move towards a charge equal to itself (or move away from an opposite complimentary charge to itself) since this would be an error and harmful for the overall purpose of the universe. Electro-magnetism picks out or selects the charge it will move towards as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives. It is so deliberate that it never makes a mistake... that is how careful it is.

An agent, like the definition says is a person or thing. That it mentions 'person' is redundant since if a thing can do something, then obviously a person can too. So the definition is not making a distinction between something or someone, it means anything can be an agent.

There is nothing there that supports your claim, only an indication that "a neuron" cannot be sufficiently isolated from its environment to test what you claim. In other words you have made a very simplistic claim about something which is much more complex and that complexity invalidates your claim. — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't matter, since i don't think you'll agree with it anyway. The Wikipedia article about 'threshold potentials' should have been enough to answer your question, and the video was just supplementary.

what is your reason to believe in the world, when you are not receiving it? Or do you claim that you have no reason to believe in the existence of the world when you don't perceive it? I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

I suppose it is possible to some degree that the world i'm perceiving is an illusion of some sort and it probably is in some way, but i still believe regardless of the uncertainty in this one; that at a minimum a world does exist. For certain at least one world exists and i'm somewhere in the middle of it. If this weren't the case then i wouldn't be experiencing anything at all. Experience is the subjective litmus test for existence, and every existence contains a world, or itself is a world no matter how big or small, long or short lived.

To believe in the world in the first place i must first experience the world, that would provide me the necessary evidence (not proof) to conclude that indeed, it appears that a world does exist apparently out there beyond myself. Alternatively, if somehow i was never exposed to an external world (brain in a vat, no external access situation), i would still have my inner experience, which tells me something about existence. Existence is true, it's happening now, and here. I feel, therefore i think i am. This is either the anthropic principle or something close to it maybe.

It's interesting to note that people when placed in sensory deprivation tanks, after a sufficient amount of time the brain begins to starve for sensory stimulus, then it goes on to hallucinate, and some people hallucinate entire realities like in a dream. It's also interesting to note that when at least the average person dreams, their brain automatically assumes it's all real, and perfectly normal, even when impossible things are happening.

The brain can't tell the difference between a self-generated world and an exogenous one. We almost always automatically believe the world that we are presented with, real or not. It appears that we are 'programmed' to believe in something, no matter what.

I notice that you tend to put the cart before the horse when you say things like:

"I think that it is necessary to conclude"
"must be supported by a type of causation known by the concept of "free will""
"This (deterministic principles) excludes the possibility of a free will event"

I would prefer to use the null hypothesis in a situation like this since it seems more reasonable to assume nothing outside the box until what is in the box has been investigated thoroughly.

That there is a reason for the choice does not imply that the choice was determined. To be determined, the choice must be consistent with determinist principles. Determinist principles dictate that there is a direct causal relation between past events and future events. This excludes the possibility of a free will event. This is an event at the present which was not caused by an event in the past, but which will still cause an effect in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

If it is free should it not be free from reason as well? A reason determines what one selects, or it's not a reason; just a random selection. Here is the definition (from Google) for 'a reason': a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. A justification or explanation consists of providing evidence, or logical arguments to support a claim. The term 'free will' is simply a claim and not an explanation or justification. One must show how it works or potentially works. What is the explanation, or justification for how an event (choice) occurs. The term 'free will' front-loads the word 'will' with the word 'free' seemingly only to contradict the meaning of 'will'. Here is the meaning of the word 'will': expressing the future tense; expressing inevitable events. Sounds like determinism.

The statement that "an event at the present which was not caused by an event in the past, but which will still cause an effect in the future" does not make sense. Once you move into the future, which you affected in the present, the present becomes the past, and now your present has been affected by your past present moments. Therefore the past affects the future in every way. The statement should read "an event at the present which was caused by an event in the past, which will cause an effect in the future".

Such an event, the freely willed event, is not unintelligible (as it is explained above), and it is not without reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

Like i said it wasn't an explanation. It was a claim without a justification, i presume because according to you free will doesn't need a justification even though you claim it does have a reason.

The determinist however, allows only determinist principles to be the reason for an event, and therefore excludes the possibility of a freely willed event as an unreasonable proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

This says nothing because i can restate it like this: "The free willy however, allows only free willy principles to be the reason for an event, and therefore excludes the possibility of a deterministically willed event as an unreasonable proposition."

The determinist then argues that any event which cannot be understood under the precepts of determinism must be "random". Here, "random" really means a cause, or reason for the event which cannot be understood by determinist principles. This allows for the reality of causes and reasons for events which the determinist classifies as "random" simply because they are not able to be understood by determinist principles. Examples might be random mutation to genes in evolutionary theory, and random occurrence of life on the planet, to begin with. — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither you, nor i can understand or predict something that is experienced as random, so it makes no difference between free will and determinism. My suspicions are that there is no such thing as true randomness. Randomness is a word that we have applied to describe our ignorance while saving face. Scientists used to wonder why particles and dust would move or jitter apparently randomly, until they discovered Brownian motion and random motions suddenly became deterministic (determined by Brownian motion).

Things will continue to be in the future, as they have been in the past, unless a "force" is applied. This is a statement of necessity. It is necessary to apply a force to break the continuity of existence at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is precisely what free will does; not determinism. Free will is the claim that some external force to the universe impinges on the present moment to cause an action that would violate a deterministic path. Determinism does no such thing because determinism is simply what the universe is doing and what it will do free from external influence. It can be argued that the definition of free will is the freedom of determinism to do its will without interference from an external will to the universe, including personal free will.

There is no such necessary continuity of existence at the present, and evidence demonstrates that absolutely everything, and anything has the possibility of changing at any moment of passing time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe that everything changes at every moment without exception, but in a deterministic manner. Time is change and it is inescapable, the only true constant in the universe.

From this perspective, "random" means that at every moment of passing time, every aspect of what we know as "existence" could be scrambled in any possible way. However, we observe continuity therefore the continuity must be caused. — Metaphysician Undercover

The continuity is caused because of previous effects which is the reason why existence suddenly doesn't collapse into chaos. It is in fact free will which would cause a collapse of reality as soon as it begins to violate the natural order. Entropic time is deterministic as opposed to primordial time which is not. This concept that you're describing is what i call primordial time which is what keeps an object persistent through multiple moments of existence. Without it the universe would at most be a virtual soup of virtual particles that never exist past one Planck moment. Entropic time is dependent on and emerges from primordial time.

About words and meanings in particular about the word 'select'. Here is the meaning of 'select': carefully choose as being the best or most suitable; carefully chosen from a larger number as being the best or most valuable. And to clarify further the meaning of the word 'choose': pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

There is no implication that selection must be performed by an agent, and if one insists that it does then it means that something like an environment is an agent. One should not add arbitrary qualifications to a definition if that definition does not include that qualification. Of course one can do whatever one wants with their definitions, but it doesn't help in the arena of discourse, which i suspect is the main reason for most misunderstandings and inability to agree and come to consensus, apart from other more personal reasons one might have.

Here is the definition of 'agent': a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.

Let me mention also that an organism such as an animal, or human is an environment all unto itself. An environment with it's own biological intelligence making decisions, having a desire or will for homeostasis, and being an agent of the whole system. Each cell in your body is also an environment all unto itself with a molecular intelligence, an agent with desires, and a will to maintain itself. You and every person inherits these features from the very components that make them up.

You are saying that in distinct cases when the same neuron is subjected to what can be said as "the same conditions", it will sometime fire under those conditions, and sometimes not fire under those conditions. Can you provide some supporting documentation which I can read? — Metaphysician Undercover

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_potential

This video may also help, the relevant part to your question is addressed between 1:50 and 4:00.

The fact that not one of the multitude of contributing factors can be said to be the cause of the choice, and that the agent chooses from a multitude of options is enough to demonstrate free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not sufficient, how do you know that the agent is not selecting at random, or based on some deterministic criteria? How does the agent make a 'determination' or 'choice'? Do you at least have a probable model for how an agent makes a decision happen?

besides contributing factors, there is the thing which selects, we might call this the agent. The multitude of contributing factors provide a mutitude of options for "the agent", and a selection is made. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is there a reason why an agent might select one option over another? If there is a reason then it's determined, and if it has no reason then it's random.

Additionally, environments are able to select genetic expressions in organisms for example and whether they live or die. Selection happens all up and down the hierarchies of nature and the universe, it's what evolution is made of (variation and selection). Even fundamental particles make decisions in how they respond to different electrical charges for example. A simple particle can be seen behaving the same way a cell does when it moves towards food or away from toxins and when the particle moves toward its complimentary charge and away from a self-similar charge.

You may not be comfortable with this definition of 'decision' or 'choice', but when one can generalize the concept then one can recognize it everywhere. A thing means nothing if it does nothing, and so the optimal way of thinking about things is to ask 'what does it do?', and not 'what is it?'. A thing's function is the origin of its meaning.

We know now that intelligence is substrait independent (AI), and that consciousness doesn't appear to be necessary for intelligence, at least not in the way we generally define consciousness now, and that signals to me that intelligence can exist at any level in nature including at the level of atoms and molecules (atomic intelligence, and molecular intelligence respectively) without needing to be defined as conscious.

Are you proposing that a neuron itself makes a selection, it decides whether or not to fire when stimulated? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, of course what did you think they do? Why do you think it fires sometimes and sometimes not, even when in both cases it is receiving signals (contributing factors). It obviously has a preference for certain signals.

Simpler cells than neurons make decisions all the time like moving towards food or away from toxins, fungus as well. Just because they are not complex decisions like we make doesn't mean they are not making decisions. One neuron can only make very simple decisions, but when connected to a vast network of other neurons 'talking' to each other you get the emergence of swarm intelligence capable of more complex decision making.

How is "better"defined here? — Patterner

Faster and more accurate. These systems generally outperform humans at games of almost every kind, which demonstrates the power of their decision making capabilities.

https://medium.com/@evyborov/ai-vs-humans-a-noise-audit-in-decision-making-7093a8e25edb

How is it they do not understand what is going on if there is nothing else going on aside from the mere calculations they programmed into it? — Patterner

Because of the enormous computational complexity involved and its non-linear nature (complex adaptive system), not because there are extra ingredients in the sauce. There are ongoing efforts to develop "Interpretable AI", which aims at making AI systems more transparent in order to understand how these deep learning systems make decisions. These machine learning model systems are very new and moving fast ahead, and the science necessary to understand them is very new as well. It's an extremely exciting field in science and philosophy in my opinion providing much insight into how minds work, including our own minds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explainable_artificial_intelligence

Of course, if the Hard Problem is real, if there is subjective experience that is not explained by physicalism, it could be decision making is not entirely neuronal. — Patterner

Whatever the solution to the Hard Problem, it must involve some other process that is also determined, but it may also be that we don't understand how all the already known components involved work, and how information flows through those components to be processed.

Take for instance how an artificial deep neural network makes decisions based on the weights and activation thresholds of its artificial neurons. These AI systems can in many instances make decisions on par with humans, or better. Modeled after biological neurons, but much simpler it is still able to make decisions, even without the biological complexity. The problem may be simpler than some may anticipate.

The very scientists that create these neural networks themselves do not understand what exactly is going on in these artificial decision processes (black box). What is clear is that there is nothing else going on in those neural networks than mere calculations (deterministic math and logic). And so it seems clear to me that we don't need to look for some external arbitrary thing to explain it, especially something outside the laws of a determinism. Determinism is sufficient for any problem we are trying to solve. If it were not deterministic then it would not be possible to solve since nothing would determine a solution, and that is just not how the world works.

I would like to address the issue of contributing factors first to keep things simple and uncluttered so that we can potentially make some progress here. I'll address the issue of time, and making choices in the present later if you wish me to. For now...

It is only a contributing factor. There is also many other factors, like what Patterner argues, the force of habit. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would be very interested in seeing a comprehensive list of these contributing factors if you can provide one. Also, am i to understand that contributing factors no matter how many or which ones are not responsible for any choice determination? Besides contributing factors, what else is there? Once the contributing factors are in place what makes or determines the choice according to you? It appears to me that without a final determination a choice is not possible, free or not.


Allow me to articulate my framework for decision-making. Given that decisions originate within the brain, which is comprised entirely of neurons, it is logical to surmise that comprehending the workings of neurons will enhance one's understanding of the decision-making process. By examining the structure and function of neurons, one can gain insight into how decisions are executed at the most fundamental level.

A neuron consists of a central body (soma), dendrites for receiving input, and an axon for transmitting output. Essentially, the neuron receives signals from its surroundings, primarily from other neurons, via its dendrites. These signals enter the neuron's central body and modify its responsiveness to future signals. Each incoming signal serves as a contributing factor towards an adaptive function within the neuron. By considering the cumulative effect of all present contributing factors in conjunction with prior contributing factors, the neuron makes a discerning determination to emit a signal back into the environment, thereby instigating an action that informs the future state of the neuronal environment (the brain). A person's choice is therefor the result of all the elemental "choices" or signals made by these component neurons in their brain to fire or not to fire a signal.

Is there anything else you would add or modify in this neuronal model of decision making to make it compatible with free will?

What you think about the future determines what you will do, but what you think about the future is determined by your past, or more precisely, your memory of the past. You do not know the future; all you can know are your own projections of the future, and your projections are informed by your memory of the past. To paraphrase something Marshall McLuhan would say, you are looking at the future through the rear-view mirror.

The breakthrough part is to do with the use of AI to do the decoding, but the ability to decode has been around for a while now. I remember reading what seems like ages ago about some Japanese scientists that were able to record dream imagery using fMRI.

About Sam Altman getting fired, i wonder if it has anything to do with government and national security, since AI is considered to be as, or more dangerous than nuclear weapons. If OpenAI has achieved AGI or is very close to it then the government might feel the need to step in to take control of the situation in a secretive way. Imagine the government allowing corporations to develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to. I heard that Joe Biden recently saw the last Mission Impossible movie and got spooked by the film's AI villain, along with the recent AI safety executive order he put out seems like a non-zero probability.

It means you are and organism, part and parcel of a larger organism. You are like a cell in a body, traveling, circulating, doing what organisms do. That's what i feel when i walk or drive around.

:up:

Nope, and no one ever will. — Mww

I kinda already knew that.

Your list seeks natural causality for the way the universe behaves in relation to the possibility for free will, but in considerations for how human agency itself behaves, which presupposes free will, natural causality won’t work. — Mww

Nope. In fact the purpose of my list was to lay out all the ways the universe might work, and listed all the ones i know. I was hoping that you or someone had some framework under which free will makes sense. I've tried to steelman the free will argument before, but to tell you the honest truth i don't even know how to begin to describe something so contradictory in a sensible way. Obviously you have a way of thinking about it that makes sense to you, and one of the things i'm trying to do is find out how it makes sense to you.

What considerations of human agency are you referring to, and why would you presuppose free will first before investigating the matter, that seems backwards. It is like i'm going to presuppose the Earth is flat and thus i will only conclude that the Earth is flat, even though all other planets that we know of in the universe are spherical in nature. Explain to me how natural causality won't work, show me where it breaks down, and i'll show you where you are wrong, if you or anyone else can even answer that question.

I’m using free will because you did — Mww

And i only did because that's the topic of this thread, and i had no choice even though i felt i did.

free does not describe the will under every possible condition of its use in human agency. — Mww

Ok good that's a start, how do you know there are some conditions under which free will is not a valid description, and how do you know which ones are, and what makes the difference?

But, as you say, I don’t do debates either. You asked, I offered; do with it as you wish. — Mww

You're right, i'm not debating really, i already know there is no free will, but what i really wish to do is to know where such disconnected ideas from reality come from. I'm actually asking for a coherent explanation of free will. If supernatural is all you got then i get it... you're intellectually bankrupt in that specific area at least (not meant to be offensive, just an observation). If that is the case then so be it.

That's the thing with fighting strawmen, you always win. — LuckyR

What strawman? It sounds to me like you don't have an answer to my question, and you're just trying to excuse your way out of it. I'm not trying to win anything, what i'm trying to do is figure out how one comes to the conclusion that free will exists in the midst of determinism, or indeterminism.

No one I know who believes in Free Will (as well as serious Determinists) supposes that the concept applies to anything more than decision making, ie they agree that physical systems are Determined. — LuckyR

Sounds like those people want to have their cake and eat it too. How do you suppose decision making is not governed by the deterministic laws of the universe? Whomever believes in determinism and yet believes in free will anywhere in the whole of the universe (from quantum particles to human brains) either does not understand determinism, or does not understand what they mean by free will, and are definitely not serious determinists. What exactly is free about free will? What is it about making a decision that trumps the laws of a deterministically evolving universe?

There really is only one will, the singular will of a deterministic universe, and free will is no more than a misnomer of a deeply misunderstood nature of the universe by some people. One's decisions do not belong to one self, they belong to literally the universe, yet since each and everyone of us is completely part of the universe, our wills naturally feel free to us, i mean why wouldn't it?. I do not believe in free will in any which way, and still i feel as if my will is free and all my own. I feel just like you except my priority is in accepting truth for what it is, and not for what i feel like it is or should be. If that were the case i would be practicing religion and not philosophy.

We don't have to address this subject any further if you are not willing or comfortable in applying logic and reason to the matter. I'm not in competition with you brother, believe it or not i think we are on the same team (i hope); that is we both want to know (i assume), and we are both philosophers (i'm guessing).

Because you say there would need to be one, would I be correct in assuming you already know there was such a force? If not, there was, introduced in 1785, — Mww

No, i'm not aware of such a force that would enable the occurrence of free will, since every force i know of is of a deterministic nature. What is the name of this force discovered in 1785 that you seem to claim serves as the mechanism for free will? Is it gravity? Is it electromagnetism? Is it the strong or weak force? What other fundamental force is there?

Maybe that given the mere appearance that sufficiently intelligent beings behave in at least one way not available to non-intelligent beings, the case should be granted that they actually do. — Mww

At what level of intelligence does a being acquire free will, and why is there a difference between one insufficient level and another sufficient one? For instance if an egg and a sperm do not have free will, at what point after fertilization does free will come into the picture, and how?

It follows that if such behavior is granted, it is only logical that there be a force serving as both justification and necessary causality for it, that is not available to non-intelligent beings. — Mww

Ok, but what is that force is what i'm asking, along with a complimentary description as to how it achieves this free will? Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided me with a 4th option to my list, do you have one?

I prioritize the pursuit of wisdom over engaging in debates or conforming to popular opinion. My focus lies in what aligns with logical or mathematical reasoning rather than engaging in robust debates. The dichotomy between determinism and indeterminism, fundamental to quantum and classical science respectively, underpins my perspective. If free will were to exist, the universe would descend into chaos, rendering knowledge and existence impossible due to the absence of stable order and structure. The burden of proof, i believe, rests with those advocating for free will. However, i acknowledge the challenge of providing a logically consistent and satisfying account of free will, as it would necessitate introducing a force beyond demonstrable science and outside the laws of our universe.

My understanding is simple and straightforward. The universe can behave in three possible ways:

1) Deterministic: this means that everything is predetermined, rendering free will non-existent.
2) Indeterministic: this means that everything is random, making free will not possible.
3) Both deterministic and indeterministic: this option, like the first two, excludes the possibility of free will.

As for my question: Is there another option not listed that I should be aware of?

Santa Claus (as well as gods) definitely exist. I don't know if that satifies either of them being possible in your way of thinking. — LuckyR

Right, well then don't forget to be a good boy this Christmas, and if you see or talk to him tell him that punos says hi, and that i'm still waiting for my Red Ryder Carbine Action 200-shot Range Model air rifle. Just kidding :joke:

I don't get how your mind works. "Not disproven" doesn't mean: "proven", it means: "possible". — LuckyR

Don't feel bad about it, you're not the first or the last. How is free will possible, or at least how do you think it might be possible? Do you think that Santa Clause is possible?

Free Will is not disproven. — LuckyR

Santa Clause hasn't been disproven either, so he must be real. Is this a valid conclusion?

Neither the shoveling man, nor the painting man had any free will. Both were constrained by some common factor that yielded the ultimate pattern on the field. The two complimentary events were "entangled", and so the case must be that neither had the choice to deviate from the predetermined pattern.

Mentalists or magicians do this sort of thing all the time:

Just for fun: In a speculative and hypothetical scenario, it is possible that the Moon landing was both real and faked simultaneously. It is not uncommon for governments to desire control over the information that the public and rival states are exposed to for various reasons. Given the uncertainty of what could be found or occur on the Moon, government intelligence agencies may have been uncomfortable with the unknown. As it was not feasible to keep the Moon landing a secret from the public, it is plausible that a secret studio was established using the lunar terrain replicas from the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" (the Moon landing happened in 1969, and the film was released a year earlier in 1968). The intention was to broadcast live on television, but if anything were to happen or if they discovered something they wished to keep confidential, they could simply delay the feed (as is done in live TV and radio) to monitor what was being broadcast before it was made public. If necessary, they could switch to the fake feed, and the public would be none the wiser.

This scenario bears some resemblance to the plot of the film "Wag the Dog" starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro, except that it involves the Moon instead of a war.