Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

And now that you worked it out for yourself, it's your's to keep or discard as per your choice.
Learning requires work. No work no pay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well now that i realize that the free will choice is mine... i have freely chosen to keep it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An now that ive shown that i clearly understand it i dout that i will be challenged... but im ready if i am.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh you will be challenged. No doubt about it. By those who feel threatened by your power of choice and those who seek to keep their power for them selves. And those who are envious of your genuine self esteem.

Human nature 101, "The war of the Gods"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I perdict that those wit free-will will win this war

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All wars are fought over self determination until they learn to co-determine. (Co-operate)

 

Why should it? It doesn't need to know averages. That's for human convenience.
btw. the universe does not have any numbers or patterns. Things with values and patterns emerge from the universal fields.

Yes, that's known as determinism. Determinism produces a sum or a product from trillions of prior causal states, from all directions at every instant, as a dynamic self-referential system does.

 

an updated version of the original diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

it certainly does.. have numbers etc.... unless you are trying to say that humans are outside the deterministic universe...@Sarkus wont be happy I can assure you...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

here's a number now: 3.1457690
Is it part of the universe or not?

 

But it isn't self deterministic. The taste buds are yours but you have no control over what they savor or not.

If you like a flavor that is an independent automotor response. You cannot learn to unlike something.

Nevertheless, even if it is your brain that reacts to external or internal stimuli, that is still just a deterministic response to a causal prior state.

 

Not in that form of representation. As a relative value yes, but not as a human symbolic representation of that value.

Only humans use human symbols. We use algebra to represent equations between relative universal values and functions.
The equation (x + x) = (2 x) consists of two mathematical self-referential functions, a "sum" and a "product". This is how the universe functions.

The actual value measurements are variable according to the complexity of the expressed pattern being measured.
The universe doesn't need to do any of this. The mathematics are already present as inherent potentials of the object to be measured.

But human symbolic language works great for human knowledge, understanding, and the applied sciences....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Both the human mathematical English and Metric systems are equal to the task, but not interchangeably so. That generic type function requires universal abstract algebraic mathematics.

But they all work, as long as we stick within the mathematical limitations of each system. The universe does not require any symbolic language, it reads and processes inherent values or potentials in any form or pattern of value expression by attraction or repulsion.

To the universe a tree leaf is a pattern with specific functional potentials. The leaf pattern is a mathematically allowed biological object, it emerged as a deterministic result of evolutionary cause and effect processes.
A leaf is a naturally self-assembled biological machine!

 

From a human perspective, not from a universal perspective. The universe deals with connecting spacetime coordinates. Numbers are meaningless when you deal with near infinities of exponential causal dynamical triangulations, also referred to as self-similar fractal patterns, from the very subtle to gross expression in reality.

Now, Density (not a number) is a state which the universe recognizes. Density of patterns govern their physical nature and expression in reality.

We speak of universal dense fields of energy and potentials. These potentials lead to Implicates, which leads to expression in reality as commonly recognized mathematical patterns.
A rose is a rose by any other name....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL, this illustration is also used to depict a single celled paramecium within its liquid environment.
It could read ;
Self-deterministic paramecium, "learning the ability to swim"
Would that be a correct analogy?

 

You'll excuse me if I don't take you word for that. What proof shows that in a deterministic universe it is not possible to "do the calculations"? Remember, I am not referring to simple practical capability, but what is inherent within the universe. Stump up this proof, please.

And you'll excuse me if I don't take your claims of "debunking" simply on your say so, given you have needed to completely reformulate my argument for you to claim that you have "debunked" it.

No, it doesn't. It signifies the level at which things are applicable, not necessarily their nature. That's why you'll have do better than simply appeal to complexity.

No, it's not a qualitative difference. It is simply a feedback loop. Yes, your continued appeal to complexity blah blah blah. Anything else to offer?

No, the freedom within the process is the central matter. And it is an observation. You take inputs, you get an ouput. Please try and do that without a process?

Yes, you keep quoting, and you keep mistaking the conclusion for an assumption. You even had to reformulate the argument so that you could "show" how the assumption was being made, but in doing so you completely changed the argument to a rather ridiculous strawman. No different than if I were to reformulate anything you say to be what I want it to be.

You saying so, however much you repeat it, really doesn't make it so. Every attempt you have made at showing how the actual argument is making the assumption has resulted in you concluding it only. Even in the above you have mixed the conclusion in with the actual assumption made. Just like assuming that Socrates is mortal simply because you have assumed him a man.
The one argument you posted that really did show the particular assumption was one you formulated yourself and had no bearing on the initial argument. That should make you pause, but it doesn't seem to.

Yet here you are, yet again, responding to me. On an issue you don't find interesting. I guess the forums take all sorts to keep the wheels turning.

Arguments you think are debunked, but, again, excuse me if I don't take things on what is pretty much only your say so, coupled with blatant dishonest reformulating/amending of argument.

Then discuss your understanding of what QQ is wanting to discuss with QQ, not me. He'll happily tell you if you're right or not, even if he then offers no further explanation. I am still trying to fathom what he wants to discuss, and whether it is anything more than a cog in a watch. You don't find what I am discussing interesting... so don't join in! It's not rocket science. Or do you really have nothing better to do?

 

I quoted your argument, and pointed directly to the assumption you still deny making. More than once.

That never happened. I never reformulated your argument.

You make the assumption, I quote you making it, I point directly at the step where you make it (Baldee did you the favor of explicitly labeling it a "premise", in his version you approved), I explain the problem to you, and no "conclusion" is ever involved. Then you post bs like that. That will happen again, most likely - you guys are very slow learners.

I fully expect you to check that claim, before posting on the matter.

Seriously. I expect you to check one of your claims. You have claimed that with perfect knowledge of the present the future state of any deterministic physical system can be - in theory - exactly predicted, without running the entire system and recording the outcome. That involves doing the calculations and arriving at exact numbers - exact solutions of the equations employed. Your claim requires, in part, that such exact solutions be always possible, in theory. That is what you want to check.

 

Nope...
it's ability would be purely instinctive/reflexive... Why don't you ask it?
Perhaps you could ask also your Paramecium what the word "facile" means... I will bet you don't get an answer...

 

nope... you posted this and are trying to strawman your way out of it...:

which is total nonsense if you include humans as part of that universe..As I suggested you need to take this up with Sarkus and explain why you think humans somehow escape determinism...

btw don't blame me for your foolishness....and lack of emotional discipline...

 

Let's try again....
this number on your screen, is it part of the universe's determination or not?
897.7676

 

Does it matter???

 

No, it is a human symbolic number representing a value.

 

absolutely.... why do you think it doesn't?