Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

[George-ananda]

Yes but you can't do that from within the universe because it requires a complete representation of the universe to exist within the universe. The idea is killed by infinite recursion: the machine would need to model itself and its answers, so its model of the universe would need to include itself which would need to include its model of the universe with includes itself and its answers and so on...

It's also worth noticing that in the simpler daughter example, she behaves entirely predictably. If you can defeat the predicting machine by being predictable, then that should be a massive clue that the whole scenario is flawed.

These are good points. You can't create such an experiment from within the universe.

 

[Skwim]

.
What insertion? Everything was included in the initial calculations. You can't insert something that has always been there.

And I agree; however, his presumption is that it's possible.

"If you calculated that X is going to happen with perfect certainty, but could prevent it from happening,"​

The "but could prevent it from happening," implies additional action that would not have been part of the calculation. The insertion of his act of prevention into everything that was calculated.

The point is that in a deterministic universe it should be calculable with perfect certainty which does mean inevitability.

Yup. In theory it would.

​

So some other factor (perhaps those mysteries things like consciousness and free will) must be involved.

Which would be part of the calculable deterministic universe. As I said, his is a strange contention that barely makes doesn't make any sense.

.

 

[George-ananda]

It certainly refers to an interesting concept, I'm not denying that. It claims to definitively prove something though - that free-will exists - and that proof I'm very much denying.

In a deterministic universe, everything would be predetermined. That isn't the same as it being possible for an entity within that universe to hold and process all the information necessary to perfectly predict that predetermined outcome. That would be like having a photograph be of itself.

I agree that it is not proof of anything.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So why can it not predict the actions of conscious entities too?

Simple: It's a poorly constructed thought expiremint. We are told this machine makes precise and accurate calculations (premises), then we are told the husband asks who will win a game as is told (premises), we are then told the wife thwarted this plan (premesis), and then we are told the free will exists because the wife was able to thwart the husband's plans (conclusion). But the conclusion contradicts the first premises of this claim, which is that this machine makes accurate and precise predictions, something the conclusion fails to follow.

 

[Nous]

This thought-experiment proves free-will:

Proof of free-will - Pandora's Contraption - Part 1

My criticism is this: The thesis of determinism is refuted by a variety of evidence from modern physics. Quantum mechanics refutes the thesis of determinism. Nevertheless, even though the false thesis of determinism is, even today, often used to deny the ability to act willfully, refuting determinism does not prove free will. After all, a non-deterministic universe could be one in which every event is random. The universe obviously isn't random, and human (and other animals') behavior obviously isn't random. Nevertheless, refuting the thesis of determinism doesn't establish those facts.

 

[ratiocinator]

You can't create such an experiment from within the universe.

And even if you imagine the contraption is somehow removed from the universe, as soon as you make its prediction affect the universe, there is the potential for contradiction if it tries to predict something that its prediction directly affects. There need be nothing complicated about it. How could it predict the output of a simple logical NOT process, if its prediction was the input? It predicts true and the output is automatically (and deterministically) false and vice versa...

 

[Skwim]

My criticism is this: The thesis of determinism is refuted by a variety of evidence from modern physics. Quantum mechanics refutes the thesis of determinism. Nevertheless, even though the false thesis of determinism is, even today, often used to deny the ability to act willfully, refuting determinism does not prove free will. After all, a non-deterministic universe could be one in which every event is random. The universe obviously isn't random, and human (and other animals') behavior obviously isn't random. Nevertheless, refuting the thesis of determinism doesn't establish those facts.

". . . at a deep level, quantum mechanics is not random at all. Schrödinger’s equation is completely deterministic and time-symmetric."
source​

And even if randomness did take place at the quantum level it wouldn't make it's way out of that level.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. Michael Price, for example, says that quantum effects rarely or never affect human decisions and that classical physics determines the behaviour of neurons."
Max Erik Tegmark as quoted in Wikipedia​

And, even if it did, the randomness would not infuse the will with any freedom. The will would simply be at the mercy of the all existing determining factors plus the quantum randomness.

.

 

[Nous]

". . . at a deep level, quantum mechanics is not random at all. Schrödinger’s equation is completely deterministic and time-symmetric."
source​

No one denies that the Schrodinger equation describes a deterministically evolving wave. The Schrodinger equation nevertheless does not predict a deterministic result of a measurement:

Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the statement of the inherent measurement uncertainty in quantum mechanics. It states that the more precisely a particle's position is known, the less precisely its momentum is known, and vice versa.

The Schrödinger equation describes the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle. However, even if the wave function is known exactly, the result of a specific measurement on the wave function is uncertain.​

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia

And even if randomness did take place at the quantum level it wouldn't make it's way out of that level..

What are the "levels"? Define them.

 

[1137]

From the OP link.

"This thought experiment shows that the Universe is intrinsically indeterminable. Because if I can calculate that X is going to happen with perfect certainty, I could then prevent X from occurring for the sake of simply being subversive. Determinism in any absolute sense is therefore a contradiction."​

If you calculated that X is going to happen with perfect certainty, but could prevent it from happening, then it's obvious you failed to take into account your own participation in the equation, giving lie to your contention that you calculated that X is going to happen with perfect certainty.

.

That's basically the entire point, that the independent will can override the system.

 

[Skwim]

No one denies that the Schrodinger equation describes a deterministically evolving wave. The Schrodinger equation nevertheless does not predict a deterministic result of a measurement:

Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the statement of the inherent measurement uncertainty in quantum mechanics. It states that the more precisely a particle's position is known, the less precisely its momentum is known, and vice versa.

The Schrödinger equation describes the (deterministic) evolution of the wave function of a particle. However, even if the wave function is known exactly, the result of a specific measurement on the wave function is uncertain.​

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia

What are the "levels"? Define them.

Define them yourself. You know what they are.

.

 

[Curious George]

Absolutely!

It's a strange contention Brian has made to be sure, (why does it take the ability to calculate X with perfect certainty in order to change it?), one that barely makes any sense.

His contention is that, "if I can calculate that X is going to happen with perfect certainty" I could change it. I assume this "perfect certainty" is equivalent to inevitability, in which case X would have to happen. Like a god he foresaw---through calculations---what would (have to) happen. Now. . . .

If he was able to insert himself into the mix as a variable that changed X then

1) X wasn't the certainty he calculated, which obviously means his "perfect certainty" isn't equivalent to inevitability.
or
2) What he calculated actually did included his involvement
​

But neither of these makes any sense in light of what he's said.

​

And, of course, none of this contradicts determinism. Everything that happens in the scenario happened because it was determined to happen, including his involvement.

And indeterminability, (the inability to determine something) as alluded to in "This thought experiment shows that the Universe is intrinsically indeterminable." has nothing to do with determinism. Whether or not a mind or machine can determine why something happens the way it does doesn't have any impact on why something happens the way it does.

.

It is referred to as begging the question.

 

[Curious George]

Define them yourself. You know what they are.

.

Quantum realm - Wikipedia

Word choice is likely the problem here but the simple fact is that quantum events do have an effect in our everyday world which about which we think when discussing the subject. There are not two different realms of reality. There is one reality and quantum mechanics is part of that reality.

 

[Skwim]

Quantum realm - Wikipedia

Word choice is likely the problem here but the simple fact is that quantum events do have an effect in our everyday world which about which we think when discussing the subject. There are not two different realms of reality. There is one reality and quantum mechanics is part of that reality.

Not a fact, simple or otherwise.


.

 

[Curious George]

Not a fact, simple or otherwise.


.

I'm sorry is your contention that quantum events do not have an effect in our everyday world about which we think when discussing the subject?

This would mean that you are claiming quantum events are unobservable. Otherwise, please explain how the simple fact is not such.

 

[jcforever]

This thought-experiment proves free-will:

Proof of free-will - Pandora's Contraption - Part 1

A St Patrick's day blessing

The unknown source who created the program we're involved in used computing technology that physicists only dream of. They had free will to create but we are just a product of their thoughts. That means we have no free will to choose our destiny.

 

[Nous]

Define them yourself. You know what they are..

There are no "levels". Empirical reality is not divided into "levels". That's how we can determine that empirical reality is actually nonlocal.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry is your contention that quantum events do not have an effect in our everyday world about which we think when discussing the subject?

Sorry, but I misspoke before recalling the effect radioactive decay can have. Of course this has no bearing on free will.

.

 

[Nous]

Of course this has no bearing on free will..

Yes, the ability to choose to perform certain acts is proven by such commonplace activities as promising to do something by way of entering into a contract, then, 30 years later, actually fulfilling that contract.

 

[Akivah]

This thought-experiment proves free-will:

Proof of free-will - Pandora's Contraption - Part 1

A St Patrick's day blessing

I'm not seeing the proof either. Since this machine was created in the 29th century, then it is only recording the history of what was actually done. When someone does an action in our time that they think will contravene what will actually happen, their contravention action was already recorded as happening.

This is like trying to outwit your destiny. It can't be done since whatever you're going to do is already known by the future. The future isn't controlling you, but it is aware of what you will be doing.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, the ability to choose to perform certain acts is proven by such commonplace activities as promising to do something by way of entering into a contract, then, 30 years later, actually fulfilling that contract.

.