Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

Sarkus said:
Instead of "probability function" in what I wrote, try reading it as "an outcome governed by a probability function". I merely reduced this to "probability function", 'cos most would understand what that is referring to.
Click to expand...
Oh...ok....
It is our understanding that is governed by the probability function, not the actual event.
The reading implies, when talking about events as outcomes, that the probability function is inherant in the event and not the understanding of the event.
Sorry for my confusion....
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Oh...ok....
It is our understanding that is governed by the probability function, not the actual event.
Click to expand...
No, the actual event is probabilistic - i.e. nothing that comes before it can completely determine the specific event. At best one can determine the set of events that might occur, and the probability function that governs the likelihood of each element of the set.
Lack of knowledge can give rise to a subjective view of a system being probabilistic, but here we are talking about the system objectively being probabilistic.
The reading implies, when talking about events as outcomes, that the probability function is inherant in the event and not the understanding of the event.
Click to expand...
It is inherent in the system.
If it was just a matter of our understanding then it would be possible, with that knowledge, to correctly know the specific outcome simply by knowing the cause and the process. But in an indeterministic system it is impossible to know with certainty the outcome. As already explained, numerous times, you can at best, in such a system, reach an understanding of the set of possible outcomes and the probability function that governs which specific outcome will result.
 
Sarkus said:
If it was just a matter of our understanding then it would be possible, with that knowledge, to correctly know the specific outcome simply by knowing the cause and the process.
Click to expand...

it makes no sense...

Quantum indeterminacy: (science)
I understand fully well that absolute precision is impossible (Heisenberg) and this lack of ability to be precise means we can not completely determine the state of the system therefore the outcomes, so we use probability to accommodate our lack of precision. (Retains cause and effect fully)
Probability is nothing more than a calculated guess...

Indeterminism: ( philosophy)
Reality is encoded with inherent probability functions...and is indeterminate.

Again you need to decide what you are talking about: reality or abstraction, science or philosophy.

Also I say "event" and you say "system" thus leaving my question about encoded events unanswered.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
so we use probability to accommodate our lack of precision. (Retains cause and effect fully)
Probability is nothing more than a calculated guess...
Click to expand...
It is not a guess of the probability of "something" happening. It is the guess of the probability of something specific happening.
The occurrence of the event is probabilistic, the event itself is deterministic.....:)
 
Quantum Quack said:
it makes no sense...
Click to expand...
Maybe not to you.
Quantum indeterminacy: (science)
I understand fully well that absolute precision is impossible (Heisenberg) and this lack of ability to be precise means we can not completely determine the state of the system therefore the outcomes, so we use probability to accommodate our lack of precision. (Retains cause and effect fully)
Probability is nothing more than a calculated guess...

Indeterminism: ( philosophy)
Reality is encoded with inherent probability functions...and is indeterminate.
Click to expand...
So what is it in what I wrote that is not making sense to you? Do you not see how the impossible precision (indeterminacy) is the result of the inherent indeterminism?
If there was no inherent indeterminism, we would be able to measure things precisely, and determine things completely. Thus there would be no quantum indeterminacy.
Again you need to decide what you are talking about: reality or abstraction, science or philosophy.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about both, because one informs the other here.
Also I say "event" and you say "system" thus leaving my question about encoded events unanswered.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by "events"?
 
Sarkus said:
Maybe not to you.
So what is it in what I wrote that is not making sense to you? Do you not see how the impossible precision (indeterminacy) is the result of the inherent indeterminism?
If there was no inherent indeterminism, we would be able to measure things precisely, and determine things completely. Thus there would be no quantum indeterminacy.
I'm talking about both, because one informs the other here.
It depends what you mean by "events"?
Click to expand...
Don't worry, you are not the only one. In all the forums I have researched there are plenty of posters out there confusing this issue...

The scientific method demands causality as a fundamental principle, if I am not mistaken...
 
Quantum Quack said:
Not at all...
I see something that can not be measured precisely that is still majorly cause and effect.
Click to expand...
Cause and effect is not the issue, but whether something can be completely determined by previous causes. If it can't, as in if you can't precisely measure every aspect of something, then that is indeterminism. What gives rise to this quantum indeterminacy may be caused or uncaused (depending on interpretation) but it is still indeterministic since it can not completely determine the effect. If the best you can come up with to describe the property being measured is a probability function then that is being not able to completely determine it, thus indeterministic.
Quantum Quack said:
nice dodge...
it certainly doesn't mean system....
Click to expand...
System, or the effect resulting from a system, it really doesn't make too much difference.
Quantum Quack said:
Don't worry, you are not the only one. In all the forums I have researched there are plenty of posters out there confusing this issue...
Click to expand...
You mean in all the forums you are unable to understand the explanations, and you get confused by them?
The scientific method demands causality as a fundamental principle, if I am not mistaken...
Click to expand...
And that principle holds at non-quantum scales. At the quantum level things start to get "weird". The scientific method, though, does not necessarily require it. The method is a case of observation, hypothesis, experiment, analyse, and adjust the hypothesis as necessary. If the hypothesis is for acausal events, and if this is borne out by experiment and analysis, then that is the scientific method at work.
 
Write4U said:
It is not a guess of the probability of "something" happening. It is the guess of the probability of something specific happening.
The occurrence of the event is probabilistic, the event itself is deterministic.....:)
Click to expand...
If i replace or add the word specific with precise would that be ok?
Also you'll need to take your event ( effect) being deterministic up with Sarkus as he reckons it is in-deterministic...

"If it isn't absolutely deterministic then it must be absolutely in-deterministic" type argument will undoubtedly ensue and get nowhere as is just about always the case but sometimes not....the uhm case...uhm...
hey is that indeterminism at work or what? :)

When it really is:
Co-deterministic, in-deterministic determinsim.... ( chuckle)
 
Last edited:
The irony I see is that, because of the use of probability even in-deterministic universes are deterministic. After all is that not what probability is for? To determine the indeterminable?
 
Free-will is an illusion. If something "will" then that is determined by definition. It cannot be changed once it has been stated that it "will". Incidentally, how does someone know what "will"? This will, that will?
 
TheFrogger said:
Free-will is an illusion. If something "will" then that is determined by definition. It cannot be changed once it has been stated that it "will". Incidentally, how does someone know what "will"? This will, that will?
Click to expand...
Here a will, there a will, everybody will will.........:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top