Free Will - Does it exist?

[brennan]

But the <orthodox QM> of gaps' is equally valid, some would argue.

In fact, theres an interesting article on just this subject in the New Scientist this week. Isn't that convienient.

I haven't read that in years.

The trouble with hidden variables theories is that they assume there is another layer of causation beyond what we can see. This leads to a rather unsatisfactory regression in which every layer of reality requires an underlying layer to explain it. The question is: does the regression end? I suspect it does. I further suspect that this requires the bottom-most layer to be indeterminate (a determinate layer would simply require another layer of explanation).

 

[Ayatollah So]

I disagree. Let us posit that control is equal to (some degree of) self determination. I fail to see at what point the baby in this scenario achieves the ability to directly determine it's own actions. Ie, act as a first cause for them.

Your "i.e." introduces an unjustifiable premise. First cause is beside the point. To tell whether a person is in control of a situation, you don't need to look in the "rear view mirror". You only need to look at their beliefs and desires and how these factors impact their future.

When the baby 'learns' this is a (given determinism) inevitable result of (superficially) 500 million years of evolution, genetics and enviroment. When the baby moves its foot again, this is naturally the result of some stimuli, it is not spontaneous. If it moves its foot thanks to stimuli, I fail to see where 'choice' comes in.

Choice requires stimuli, for without stimuli the organism would know nothing of its environment! "Spontaneous" is not the opposite of "caused". Not all an infant's acts are knee-jerk responses. Some are motivated from within - though of course if you go far back enough in time you will find causes in the DNA, nutrition, stimuli etc - but those far-back causes do not contradict spontaneity.

What is the fundemental difference between people and a ball? Ultimately arn't both made up of the same things, working under the same physical laws?

Diamonds and charcoal are both made of carbon. Tell you what. Give me all your diamonds, and I'll give you an equal mass of charcoal in return.

Thus to your example. Let us say the person walks away from the cliff face. He then claims he could have jumped. This sounds like a truly (to borrow the phrase) 'incredible ability' to have. He is claiming that he could have gone back in time and changed the factors that led him to walk away, rather then jump.

Not at all. That he could have jumped, implies nothing about changing the past. The latter "claim" is a figment of your imagination.

I will give that the future does 'depends on us', however that doesn't imply that we can change the future, just that we are a necessary cog in creating the future.

Equating cognizers with cogs, eh? Gimme all your diamonds! You'll get an equal quantity of carbon in return.

We don't need to change the future. We will create it.
Edit: who was it who said, "the future isn't what it used to be"? I guess someone changed it I wonder what it used to be Enough silliness!

 

[warpus]

But see where I'm going? Since every frame of reference necessarily assumes that there must be an observer to observe it (it is Presence that defines frame of reference in the first place), and since our own frame of reference is subjective rather than objective, who or what could possibly be the universal observer that defines this objective frame of reference? I can only imagine Divinity fulfilling this role.

I don't think that this role is required, nor that it exists.

If what you are looking for is the "Truth", how will you know that you have found it?
Will it be labeled? What makes you think that you would even recognize it? Will I recognize it if I "meet it on the street" or read it in a book?
Will everyone recognize "Truth" when it appears?

Or are you only looking for "little truths" that can perhaps be "summed" into something larger and more meaningful? seeking Truth is not the problem, knowing it when it is in front of you is what is difficult. Some kind of "measuring stick" is necessary. What is yours?

What is your concept of "Truth"?

Nobody knows that a fact is a truth when they come across it; that's why you need outside verification, peer review, further observation, and experiments, if any are warranted. The more you learn about the phenomenon, the more you learn about its truthness(tm).

Going with a gut feeling that something is true is not a good indication of truthness; and not only is that exactly what you're doing.. but it's also the only thing that you are doing.

How do you know? Bohmian mechanics has it that the universe is deterministic. Orthodox QM says it's not. Bohm's theory and orthodox QM, as far as I have read, make all the same predictions in the cases in both make a prediction. Apparently, in various other areas of physics, one of them handles it well while the other still needs to be worked out, with orthodox QM having the advantage in some areas and Bohmian in others.

From what I can gather, Bohmian mechanics postulates the existence of hidden variables.

But,

However, Bell's inequality complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there is no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with quantum mechanics.

We don't know whether the universe is deterministic.

Most signs post to the fact that it isn't.. How many experts support Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics?

We do know that we make choices.

No we do not. That's what this entire discussion is about! If this was so obvious and well known, this thread would not exist.

We don't know whether the universe is deterministic.
We do know that we make choices.
If we knew that "if determinism is true, people can't make choices," then either we'd know that determinism is false or we wouldn't know that we make choices.
Therefore, we don't know that "if determinism is true, people can't make choices."

That is faulty logic.

You assume that free will exists in your second step, and use that to show that free will exists.

You also assume that the Universe is deterministic, which most experts would disagree with.

You will have to argue, point by point, exactly how free will would be possible in a deterministic Universe. If you can do that, I would be very impressed.

You don't even need to do that, if you stopped postulating that the Universe is deterministic. The deterministic aspect of your hypothetical Universe is what prevents free will.. Free will would be fully possible in a nondeterministic Universe.. which is probably the type of Universe that we live in.. So why not just accept that and move on?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Or are you only looking for "little truths" that can perhaps be "summed" into something larger and more meaningful? seeking Truth is not the problem, knowing it when it is in front of you is what is difficult. Some kind of "measuring stick" is necessary. What is yours?

Concepts are ways of talking about things. they are constructs that enable us to "point at" things that are difficult if not impossible to accurately describe or expereince. What is your concept of "Truth"? Does it fully encompass what actually is "true"?

Nobody knows that a fact is a truth when they come across it; that's why you need outside verification, peer review, further observation, and experiments, if any are warranted. The more you learn about the phenomenon, the more you learn about its truthness(tm).

Going with a gut feeling that something is true is not a good indication of truthness; and not only is that exactly what you're doing.. but it's also the only thing that you are doing.

So you are only looking for "little truths" that can be peer reviewed. The problem with all those "little truths" is that they have little real value out side of an academic or commercial environment.

For me the bigger truths are both more interesting and significantly more meaningful. I was hoping you had a way to get at the bigger questions of life and existence.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If this [viz, that we make choices] was so obvious and well known, this thread would not exist.

Meh, people pretend not to know it, during philosophy discussions. After which, they immediately go back to acting like they know that people make choices.

But you're right - I was wrong - my premise isn't acceptable in this context.

Let's try a different tack. Because this whole determinism/causality thing reminds me of that joke, where the guy is looking for his wallet under the street lamp.

A helpful lady asks the guy where was the last place he definitely remembered having his wallet. "Oh that's easy," replies the guy, "I was coming out of that bar over there, drunk, trying to put the wallet back in my pocket, when I felt it fall out."

"Well then why aren't you looking for it over there?" the lady asks.

"Because the light is so much better over here!" he says.

Looking for free will in indeterminism is like that, except that the street light is burnt out

As English speakers, we learn the word "choice" by example. We hear it used in conversation, as people go over the pros and cons of various hypothetical actions they are considering. These are the contexts of use that define the meaning of the word.

Imagine you visit a faraway tribe. You notice they use the word "asldijifr" whenever there are (what you would call) rabbits around. You sit around the campfire with them and offer rabbit meat, and one of them says "Mmmm, asldijifr <some more words in their language>". Would you would then conclude that ... "asldijifr" means "uncaused swerving of subatomic particles in a rabbit"?? No, you'd conclude that it refers to rabbits, plain and simple.

The incompatibilist reading of "choice", "freedom", etc. adds a bizarre, and to my mind unjustifiable, complication to the interpretation of our language. How on earth are young English speakers supposed to learn this alleged meaning of these words?

Free will would be fully possible in a nondeterministic Universe.. which is probably the type of Universe that we live in.. So why not just accept that and move on?

Free will would be possible in an indeterministic Universe too, that's true. But even though (I agree) determinism is probably false strictly speaking, it might still be "true enough for all practical purposes" at the neuronal level (which is practically macroscopic, as far as these things go.) But worse, much worse, incompatibilism distorts our thinking about freedom in many ways. For example, in the justice system, it forces us into a false dilemma of either looking for and addressing the causes of crime or holding criminals responsible. (Hint: the right answer is both.)

 

[RalofTyr]

No. Free will doesn't exist. IFF, there is an O3 god in which all of our actions are known and god as the power to stop them. So, as being his creations, he knows everything we will do and can stop us.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nobody knows that a fact is a truth when they come across it; that's why you need outside verification, peer review, further observation, and experiments, if any are warranted. The more you learn about the phenomenon, the more you learn about its truthness(tm).

Going with a gut feeling that something is true is not a good indication of truthness; and not only is that exactly what you're doing.. but it's also the only thing that you are doing.

I had to have an x-ray of my ankle today and as while I waited, I spent some time thinking about your post. these seem to be evident from it:

*Truth is a bunch of facts nothing more
*You subordinate individual opinion to group opinion
*Denote that "observation/experimentation" is the only path to getting to truth
*Truth is uncertain and cannot be known for sure

Those seem to imply that:
*Truth changes as group opinion about facts change
*An individual is incapable of learning something truth on their own
*True "facts" do not add up to something larger than the sum of their total.

 

[Mise]

*Truth changes as group opinion about facts change

Group opinion about facts change when more, more reliable, or better information is gathered.

*An individual is incapable of learning something truth on their own

One individual is less likely to learn some truth than several individuals. This seems obvious to me

*True "facts" do not add up to something larger than the sum of their total.

I don't see how this follows from "truth is a bunch of facts, nothing more". Truth requires no more than a bunch of facts, but the value we gain from truth is sometimes greater than the value of the individual facts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Group opinion about facts change when more, more reliable, or better information is gathered.

How can something be "true" if it is relative to the time, place and people talking about it? What are the standards used to determine whether or not something is true? Are those standards fixed or do they change? If all things are relative, is anything really true? Or are all facts just our best guess for today?

One individual is less likely to learn some truth than several individuals. This seems obvious to me.

It is not obvious to me at all. What is it about the nature of "truth" as you see it, that its revelation is more likely through a group process than an individual one?

I don't see how this follows from "truth is a bunch of facts, nothing more". Truth requires no more than a bunch of facts, but the value we gain from truth is sometimes greater than the value of the individual facts.

If the "facts" are true, where does the extra value come from? If facts are like Legos and you build 'cool stuff' with them, where does the 'coolness' of what you built reside before or after the construction?

Is that 'extra value' only relevant to those who perceive it as valuable? If you think that your Lego rocket is fabulous, but I don't see it as anything but a bunch of poorly stacked blocks, then is there any real (true) value beyond the blocks themselves?

Or perhaps it is the ability to impart value (coolness) into the facts (Lego blocks) that is actually important as opposed top the facts themselves.

 

[Mise]

How can something be "true" if it is relative to the time, place and people talking about it?

A truth is always true. Whether or not we acknowledge it as true is relative to the time, place and people talking about it.

What are the standards used to determine whether or not something is true?

Some intellectually rigorous process, e.g. scientific method.

Are those standards fixed or do they change?

They've improved over time.

If all things are relative, is anything really true? Or are all facts just our best guess for today?

Facts are always true. Our interpretations of those facts, and how we assign meaning or value to them, is our best guess for today.

It is not obvious to me at all. What is it about the nature of "truth" as you see it, that its revelation is more likely through a group process than an individual one?

Everyone is capable of knowing true things.

If the "facts" are true, where does the extra value come from? If facts are like Legos and you build 'cool stuff' with them, where does the 'coolness' of what you built reside before or after the construction?

Is that 'extra value' only relevant to those who perceive it as valuable? If you think that your Lego rocket is fabulous, but I don't see it as anything but a bunch of poorly stacked blocks, then is there any real (true) value beyond the blocks themselves?

Different people gain different value from different things. Value is subjective, IMO. That's why I say that the value we gain may be more than the sum of its parts -- it may be no more, it may be less.

Or perhaps it is the ability to impart value (coolness) into the facts (Lego blocks) that is actually important as opposed top the facts themselves.

It's important to us, obviously, or else the word "value" would mean something entirely different.

TBH I'm not sure what you're getting at. All you've done so far is reinforce the idea that value is based on truth, truth is based on understanding, and understanding is based on rationality and intellectual rigour.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A truth is always true. Whether or not we acknowledge it as true is relative to the time, place and people talking about it.

Some intellectually rigorous process, e.g. scientific method.

They've improved over time.

Facts are always true. Our interpretations of those facts, and how we assign meaning or value to them, is our best guess for today.

Everyone is capable of knowing true things.

Different people gain different value from different things. Value is subjective, IMO. That's why I say that the value we gain may be more than the sum of its parts -- it may be no more, it may be less.

It's important to us, obviously, or else the word "value" would mean something entirely different.

TBH I'm not sure what you're getting at. All you've done so far is reinforce the idea that value is based on truth, truth is based on understanding, and understanding is based on rationality and intellectual rigour.

I am looking for two things: Your (and Warpus' orginally) assumptions about truth and your assumptions about how one discovers it. Your last sentence is a nice summary. I guess I would add that you consider 'facts' the building blocks of 'truth'. 'Facts' are required to determine if something is 'true' or not.

This raises some questions:
In this model, subjectivity and value would be at odds with 'truth'; adding to or subtracting from any particular set of facts that constitute some 'truth'. Subjectivity/value does not require facts and appear to be independent of 'truth". I am not sure how that would work. They would be by their very nature 'not true'. They might be useful, in spite of being untrue.

I guess the assumptions that stand out are that 1) you limit 'truth' to things that can bee 'seen' in what I'll loosely call the 'physical universe' and 2) that 'facts' are the fundamental building blocks of existence. That would make the sum total of 'facts' equal to the sum total of what is 'true', nothing more or nothing less.

With that as an assumption you then define that the only way to 'understand' facts it is through reason and intellectual rigor. No other path is permitted when looking for truth. Which makes perfect sense given the assumptions you've made.

Am I accurretly representing your position? BTW, I am not planting some trap door post that will spring a 'gotcha' on you. I just want a clear understanding of how your universe is put together.