Free Will

Here is a good one.

If I poke a rock. It moves away from me until it dissapates the energy imparted on it and comes to rest. It then stays there until an external force perterbs it again.

If I poke something with agency its actions are unpredictable by newtonian physics. It may run away. It may move toward me. It may stay in one place and emit sounds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you poke a million different rocks of different shapes and sizes, resting on different substances and landscapes, you will notice that no two of them respond the same way. Each bounce, roll, jitter, and skid will be completely unique.

There is no such thing as "Agency". We all have different shapes and rest on different chemical and historical landscapes. Hell, we are different at different times. But never do we have any control over what we do when "poked".

Most people spend most of their time feeling an emotion that they do not want. This alone demands an explanation from the Free Will crowd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We define a chimp by its genetic make-up... but in terms of biology there is not a vast amount different... merely complexity of brain, I'd guess.

But you have yet to show how it is non-deterministic, which was the point of the analogy.

The effect might be probabilistic but it does follow. Unless you have evidence to support your claim?

Me.

"Identical" as in following the identical probabilistic nature of the outcome. The outcome might be "heads" or "tails", but under the identical starting conditions the outcome will always follow the same probability function.
If you do not accept the concept of outcomes being "identical" when following the identical probability function, then (a) I'd like to know why, and (b) we'll forever be disagreeing on this.

See above.
Plus it is impossible to test this theory of yours - as it is IMPOSSIBLE to test someone (i.e. a person) in an "identical" fashion. The person will experience the first test... and memory of that becomes part of the inputs for the second test etc. Plus is it possible to test absolutely identically when you are testing a complex entity that is forever in a state of change?

I am. Does this confuse you? :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That actually was a what-if statement. Especially since I don't believe in that "hypothetical being". Also even without that "hypotheical being" the equation I still wouldn't believe in free will.

In order for someone to have free will, they need individuality. Everyone I've come into contact with in my 17 years of living whether I'm aware of the fact or not leave an impression on me. The end result being I don't really have any of my own thoughts that someone hasn't already thought of. Including that one.... Which also lead into re-occurring actions and choices, choices already made by other people. So it's not really free will, it's only people choosing from a select amount of choices.

 

Free will doesn't exist in our deterministic universe, unless something magical gives people a free pass.

Just because you can't predict a behavior does not mean it is unpredictable, it just means your model is insufficient.

Take flipping a coin. Which side it lands looks like a random event, but that's because you can't measure all the tiny forces acting on the coin. If you could, you would know which side it would come on.

Why should people be any different?

 

This is how scientists (including myself) used to think before they discovered quantum physics

 

And it is how they will think again once they replace quantum physics with the next theory.

 

Possibly, although you sound pretty confident that Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle will be replaced which I cannot see happening since it is a principle!

 

Haha! Very well, I will call "the future replacement of QED" a principle. So there!

What you hear as confidence is really a lack of confidence in the permanence of any scientific theory. History is on my side with this one. The person with abnormal confidence would be you, who seems to think that we have it all sussed out this time.

Good luck with that.

 

Quantum physics does not negate the notion of a deterministic reality, especially if one holds the the Universe is just one wave function.

However, even without the need for a single wave-function, reality can still be deterministic on a probability basis (i.e. outcome obeys a probability function rather than a discrete / specific outcome) even in quantum physics.

HUP merely says that you can't know everything about a particle at a certain time... e.g. you can't know momentum and position with precision - you can know one or the other.

However, this in itself also does not preclude the idea that IF you did know both you could make the necessary predictions for determinism to hold. It therefore just means it is not possible for an observer to make those predictions, but not that determinism does not hold.
Bear in mind that determinism does not require one to be able to make predictions, only that every effect is preceded by an unbroken series of cause and effect - and that IF you knew the state of everything at a certain time you could predict the next moment (within the realms of the probability functions of the outcomes at least). The fact that we can NOT know everything does not invalidate the requirements for determinism.

 

I tend to think that using the Internet as an example can demonstrate the nature of deterministic free will.

There is so much information on the net that if I was to post a HTML page at some non entity web site I would have complete freedom to post and never be read...[ ha a bit like here at sci forums ]
Basically free will is only available in absolutum if the choice is made using everything else as a determiner. Its a numbers a game.

If everything in the universe is used to determine an event then that event is free. So free will for us humans is only a potential that is impossible to achieve and as our knowledge of our "determiners" continues to grow so too does our degree of freedom.

In a sense this is why the universe as a whole is "free" in that it is self sufficient, self sustaining and not dependent on an external resource. However until the free will of an individual becomes and takes in the entire universe it shall never be free in absolutum.

Thus until a human becomes entirely self sufficient, self sustaining and self justified [ aka as the universe is] he will always be in a state of oppression or subservient to his dependencies.

Which begs the question:
Could a God have freewill?
Nope!

 

yet is not Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle based on high energy particles ?

so the less energy a particle has the more certain we are about location and speed are we not ?

 

You are mistaken. They will behave in ways that are quite predictable by the laws of motion. Such as remaining at rest unless effected by an external force.

Don't you just love self denying statements? Agency allows you to move without having to wait for an external force to effect you and over come your inertia.

Agency means that your path in a room free of obstacles is unpredictable.

I do.

So? No where do I say that free will is universal or supreme in its potency. I could feel a million things I don't want to, but it is feeling the one thing I do want to which counts.

 

Something with as much experimental evidence as quantum physics is rarely ever replaced. It usually is just refined so that it accounts for border problems. Just like Newtonian physics was not replaced by Einstein. Newtonian physics is just how things work at 1g STP and nominal velocities and accelerations.

 

That's my point, friend. And when I poke you, you react according to laws just as particular and exacting. The variety of bumps is the same as your genetic factors and environmental history.

 

Its a simple mater to pont out choises which were (at the very least) limited... but give an esample of a free-will/un-influenced choise you have made.!!!

 

Predestinaton is also an interestin issue an i thank "free-will" is an oxymoron... an i also dont thank people deserve punishment... ie... is an "insane" person responsible for ther own actons... do they deserve punishment for anti-social behavior.???

 

Thats a good esample of you'r statments not bein free... they were grately influenced by what the other poster said prevouliy.!!!

But heres a second chanse to demonstrate you'r "free-will"... say somptin on this free-will issue which ant influenced by anythang thats been said in this thred.!!!

 

Name som habits that you know of which was stoped cold turkey "for no reason".!!!

 

oK... say absloute free-will cant esist... which implys that tiny amounts of free-will somtimes do esist... an if so... woudnt these free-will events have to hapen for no reason... but how coud a decison be based on no reason an yet be called "free-will".???