Free Will

[Souron]

Other other: No past and no future plus complete and utter chaos at the heart of matter, this pretty clearly would indicate free will if it were proven to be true, DNA for example refines it's activities according to QM laws, if the building blocks of life itself are subject to such laws, then what in that makes determinism real? Given the proviso of only a moment or quanta if you like in time actually exists in reality. And that both the past and future are non existent except as part of a memory or perhaps a desire for the future.

If this is the case your theory of random not being free will, or predeterminism not being free will, so since there is no other it must not exist, is baloney essentially, not only that but claiming ignorance of other means it must be true is hardly a good basis for a theory or suggestion?

Please state your argument clearly, an politely. I'm confused about what you are trying to say.

And there is no other other. There is causality, there is randomness, and there is a hypothetical "other". The obvious problem with the hypothetical other is that randomness it by definition the lack of cause, so the options are A, ~A, and Neither A nor ~A.

You have to grasp the difference between random and chaotic, random has rules it is ultimately bound by x number of states, QM can have an unimaginable number of states or just 2 or virtually infinite none of which is more likely than another, thus it is completely and utterly disordered it is not even random it does not obey the definition of random it is chaotic.

What is the definition of random, according to you?

Also, I'm not sure how relevant this is (because I don't understand what you are saying), but:
QM is not completely random, otherwise it would be useless. Instead each particles has an infinite set of possible paths it could take. Each path is given a probability amplitude. Based on the amplitudes of different paths, it is possible to calculate the probability a particle will end up in a given location. Sometimes that probability comes out to zero, sometimes 1, and sometimes something in between.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Ah but if determinism is the outcome of an extra-universal will (i.e. God), then no amount of quantum wrangling will save you, right?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It does in conjunction with no past and no future, only the here and now, or even no future; which is currently the way physics believes the Universe operates, to the extent that it's not even a contraversial view point generally.

Whith the Copenhagen Interpritation and no future, free will exists. In other words according to physics theory free will has to exist.If you want scientific proof, try Feynmans two slit experiment, or perhaps the fact that no ones ever gone forward in time or back. So they rationalise that there is no past or future or we would have seen evidence of matter behaving in such a fashion, Ie things travelling back in time. AFAIK no ones observed this, so it may well not happen, hypothesis? Although according to Einsteins theory if it were possible for something to travel faster than the speed of light then it would move back in time - thus tachyons - but these are hypothetical particles, much like the Higgs Boson and the Graviton.



Unless physics theory is right in which case you have no argument.

I confess that I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I'm studying computer science not theoretical physics.

I don't see how the existance or nonexistance of past or future shows that there is freewill. I do not see how particle-wave duality of light(I assume Feynman's two slit experiment is the same as Young's double slit experiment) shows free will. I also do not see how our inability to go back in time shows free will.

 

[Souron]

Predictable, even forseeable - but not inevitable. "Will happen" doesn't imply "must happen", and "won't happen" doesn't imply "can't happen". A deterministic physics, if such happens to be true, would tell us what will happen and what won't happen at some particular time, but not what must happen and what can't happen at that time. See above on modal logic.

You keep talking about "modal logic" as if it some how validates you claim, but it doesn't. Modal logic assumes certain axioms to be true, it order for it to apply. If those axioms are not true in a given situation, that means that modal logic does not apply.

Determinism is the theory that every action has a measurable reaction -- each cause has one effect. The inverse is also true, each effect has only one proximate cause. So a cause is a necessary and sufficient condition for it's effect. Therefore, if something happens a certain way, we can

Much better to go the route Souron flirted with for a while there, and focus on the fact that self-aware beings perceive their intentions to be the cause of their actions. Now that is where the free will action is.

Yeah, I'm going back and forth here aren't I. Perhaps in a while, I'll formalize the argument in favor of free will.

 

[Sidhe]

Please state your argument clearly, an politely. I'm confused about what you are trying to say.

And there is no other other. There is causality, there is randomness, and there is a hypothetical "other". The obvious problem with the hypothetical other is that randomness it by definition the lack of cause, so the options are A, ~A, and Neither A nor ~A.

What is the definition of random, according to you?

Also, I'm not sure how relevant this is (because I don't understand what you are saying), but:
QM is not completely random, otherwise it would be useless. Instead each particles has an infinite set of possible paths it could take. Each path is given a probability amplitude. Based on the amplitudes of different paths, it is possible to calculate the probability a particle will end up in a given location. Sometimes that probability comes out to zero, sometimes 1, and sometimes something in between.

I have no idea how to present it in logical terms so your stuffed, we don't learn logic over here unless we go into philosophy or degree level maths, it's considered irrelevant, so you'll just have to take what I say at face value and make assumptions, because I really have no idea how to present an argument in some arbitrary nonsense when applied to the real world terms. And have no wish to learn, it seems to me they would interfere with my logical processes by placing logic outside the realms of reality, thus only in philosophy would they be relevant, and that's no reason to learn them either, again I ask why I need to do it since my prose is clear? For the 4th time this week....

But the definition of random is a result between 1 and x and the definition of chaos is any result between -infinity and infinity with no set value for x or i. I can only do it in mathematical terms sorry

[tex]f(x) = \sum_{i=-infty}^\infty \i[/tex]

if you know latex this is it.

where i can equal any value between -infinity and positive infinity and x = any number between 1 and infinity, random is 1 and x, chaos is anything: i is anything or the sum of any states as a function of i which is defined as infinity positive and negative, and therefore the limit is any value between -infinity and infinity.

 

[Souron]

I have no idea how to present it in logical terms so your stuffed, we don't learn logic over here unless we go into philosophy or degree level maths, it's considered irrelevant, so you'll just have to take what I say at face value and make assumptions, because I really have no idea how to present an argument in some arbitrary nonsense when applied to the real world terms. And have no wish to learn, it seems to me they would interfere with my logical processes by placing logic outside the realms of reality, thus only in philosophy would they be relevant, and that's no reason to learn them either, again I ask why I need to do it since my prose is clear? For the 4th time this week....

Logic helps clear though. Illogical ideas hurt people. Therefore logic is helpful to learn. But even if you don't learn the formal terms, the ability to present your ideas clearly is vital to any field where you want to be understood.

But the definition of random is a result between 1 and n and the definition of chaos is any result between -infinty and infinity with no set value for n. I can only do it in mathematical terms sorry

[tex]f(x) = \sum_{i=-infty}^\infty \i[/tex]

if you know latex this is it.

where i can equal any value between -infinity and positive infinity and x = any number between 1 and infinity, random is 1 and x, chaos is anything i is anything or the sum of any states between i which is defined as infinity positive and negative, and therefore the limit is any value between -infinity and infinity.

Probabilities can only be between 0 and 1. Probability amplitudes can have values greater than 1, but that's not the same thing. (honestly I don't know much about probability amplitudes, other than that they exist, and a little of what they are used for)

I feel like your quoting the textbook without understanding. The result is a logical contradiction. Probability is a ratio between the number of favorable outcomes, and the number of possible outcomes. Since the number of favorable outcomes is always less the the number of possible outcomes, probability is always less then one.

Anyway, regardless of if we talk about probability amplitudes, or probabilities, the fact remains when two events have an irreducibly equal chance of occurring, then they cannot be attributed to free will. (where irreducibly equal means that there are no hidden variables)

 

[Sidhe]

Logic helps clear though. Illogical ideas hurt people. Therefore logic is helpful to learn. But even if you don't learn the formal terms, the ability to present your ideas clearly is vital to any field where you want to be understood.

Probabilities can only be between 0 and 1. Probability amplitudes can have values greater than 1, but that's not the same thing. (honestly I don't know much about probability amplitudes, other than that they exist, and a little of what they are used for)

I feel like your quoting the textbook without understanding. The result is a logical contradiction. Probability is a ratio between the number of favorable outcomes, and the number of possible outcomes. Since the number of favorable outcomes is always less the the number of possible outcomes, probability is always less then one.

Anyway, regardless of if we talk about probability amplitudes, or probabilities, the fact remains when two events have an irreducibly equal chance of occurring, then they cannot be attributed to free will. (where irreducibly equal means that there are no hidden variables)

I think you've lost the plot if you can't understand x in terms of maths then I would suggest you never go into maths, and further you become a philosopher because maths isn't going to be your forte. a probability is always between 1 and 0 but the function that leads to it can be any value under the interpretation of chaos by definition, look it up in a dictionary if you're worried.

Essentially the probability comes out assigning no value to x or i as I defined it, and logic is looking less and less appealing in comparison to maths and statistics, which is it seems to me infinitely more clear, why do you learn this, it's all in maths anyways .

What a waste of time, sheezua no ofenc. but it really is just basic maths repackaged in some trite terminology, we learn this at college if we wish to study maths, and at University when we study philosophy, if, we didn't study the basics in maths first, I really am not meaning to demean your education system, but your learning basic formulism of proofs that we get in GCSE maths and then in A' level? Then we go onto University? Bizarre

 

[Souron]

I think you've lost the plot if you can't understand x in terms of maths then I would suggest you never go into maths, and further you become a philosopher because maths isn't going to be your forte. a probability is always between 1 and 0 but the function that leads to it can be any value under the interpretation of chaos by definition, look it up in a dictionary if you're worried.

Essentially the probability comes out assigning no value to x or i as I defined it, and logic is looking less and less appealing in comparison to maths and statistics, which is it seems to me infinitely more clear, why do you learn this, it's all in maths anyways .

What a waste of time, sheezua no ofenc. but it really is just basic maths repackaged in some trite terminology, we learn this at college if we wish to study maths, and at University when we study philosophy, if, we didn't study the basics in maths first, I really am not meaning to demean your education system, but your learning basic formulism of proofs that we get in GCSE maths and then in A' level? Then we go onto University? Bizarre

First you reply to my long, complete argument with a one liner, then you demean my education. (Really, you say you don't mean to demean my education, but that's really what you are doing.) Is it worth debating with you?

I understand math, I just don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm grasping at straws trying to get you to say something meaningful to me. So far I have failed.

I can understand the difficulty to present things clearly, but it is your fault not other peoples, if they cannot understand you.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What does having free will mean to you?

Well, as Ive said before in other threads, we feel like we have free will and ultimately, thats all that really matters.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Well, as Ive said before in other threads, we feel like we have free will and ultimately, thats all that really matters.

Well, I agree with this...

 

[Souron]

Well, as Ive said before in other threads, we feel like we have free will and ultimately, thats all that really matters.

But what about those people who decide to be lazy because nothing they choose matters, because they don't have free will. What do we say to them?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, I agree with this...

Proving that there is no free will would be sort of like proving that the world is round. Interesting, but it would have no impact on how people live their lives day to day. People still have to go to work, feed the cat, pay the bills, ask Jenny to the prom, etc.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But what about those people who decide to be lazy because nothing they choose matters, because they don't have free will. What do we say to them?

If they havent arrived at that state due to a treatable mental illness like depression, I dont know that theres anything to say. What would we say to a person who believes it would be best to become a monk and spend the next 40 years in a cave meditating? IMO, both are equally legitimate.

Whats 'lazy' anyway? [/OT]

 

[warpus]

But what about those people who decide to be lazy because nothing they choose matters, because they don't have free will. What do we say to them?

We say: "Could I have fries with that?"

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What, too lazy to cook real food for yourself?

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, as Ive said before in other threads, we feel like we have free will and ultimately, thats all that really matters.

No, but what would it mean to have free will? How would you define it?

 

[Sidhe]

First you reply to my long, complete argument with a one liner, then you demean my education. (Really, you say you don't mean to demean my education, but that's really what you are doing.) Is it worth debating with you?

I understand math, I just don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm grasping at straws trying to get you to say something meaningful to me. So far I have failed.

I can understand the difficulty to present things clearly, but it is your fault not other peoples, if they cannot understand you.

I think you know perfectly well what chaos and random mean and I'm getting tired of people talking logos babble that sounds remedial in its application, we don't learn this nonsense, stop expecting everyone to here's a simple English explanation for non logic students who can read.

Quantum mechanics is chaotic at the most fundamental level, there is no past or future, thus free will must exist. Got it yet or do you want a friggin' pie chart? Honestly it's not that hard to grasp, check out the dictionary definition of random and chaotic.

 

[Sidhe]

I confess that I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I'm studying computer science not theoretical physics.

I don't see how the existance or nonexistance of past or future shows that there is freewill. I do not see how particle-wave duality of light(I assume Feynman's two slit experiment is the same as Young's double slit experiment) shows free will. I also do not see how our inability to go back in time shows free will.

The past is not preset neither is the future? If it doesn't exist except in memory then it is no more immutable than the future, do you think that might make a difference?

Also as I explained in depth quantum consciousness and the fact that DNA is subject to quantum mechanic principles. Oh f it I'm getting tired of this, just go back and read the damn thread. I'm not biting any more.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Bohm is generally dismissed as it does not take account of relativity. It's not exactly popular, and it's entirely controversial because it doesn't explain the tenets of GR and SR, in fact it ignores them.

[...]
Under Bohm's theory QET cannot and should not happen. It does? Why?

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of the Universe, QM is inconsistent with general relativity. So it doesn't particularly worry me that Bohm's theory is also inconsistent with relativity.

By QET did you mean QFT, quantum field theory? All I've heard is that it's unknown how (and might be impossible) to derive the predictions of QFT from Bohm's theory. Which is different from saying that Bohm's theory gives opposite predictions from QFT - it might be that some supplemental theory is needed. Which makes the theory dubious, but not dead.

I'm not saying that Bohm's theory is the truth, or even that it's a leading theory - only that it can't be ruled out.

 

[El_Machinae]

But what about those people who decide to be lazy because nothing they choose matters, because they don't have free will. What do we say to them?

Clamp your hand over their mouth and nose: ask them to signal to you when they think that their choices matter. It works every time.