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

[HonestJoe]

If it is impossible to access that information then nobody can claim that they know absolute determinism to be true.

Yes. I don't believe we can know anything for certain. That's why I was questioning the OP's suggestion that it could be possible to know something for certain.

A math equation can hold more information than the details of that information.
example:
"xxxxxxx"
can be crunched into:
7 x's

The key point is that the machine would have to store information about itself. It wouldn't just have to hold "7 x's" but also the fact it is holding "7 x's" and the fact is is holding "the fact it is holding "7 x's" and so on infinitly.

 

[Nous]

Wow - did you even read what I said? Whether the universe is actually deterministic or not is totally irrelevant to my central point.

If determinism is irrelevant to the issue of free will, then why have you been making claims (that you haven't been able to substantiate) about humans being "deterministic entities"?

A process (or part or aspect of a process) that is not determined by anything is random.

False. (1) The wave function provides for outcomes of a measurement within a range of probabilities. (2) The fact that events are not determined by a prior set of circumstances (which they are not--i.e., the thesis of determinism is false: Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) , determinism - definition of determinism in English | Oxford Dictionaries , Definition of DETERMINISM ) does not imply that humans cannot determine their own volitional acts.

 

[ratiocinator]

If determinism is irrelevant to the issue of free will, then why have you been making claims (that you haven't been able to substantiate) about humans being "deterministic entities"?

It was a tangent you went off in. I was just pointing out that most macro scale processes are, actually deterministic.

(1) The wave function provides for outcomes of a measurement within a range of probabilities.

Yes - as I said before - the probabilities are determined but individual outcomes are not determined - they are random. It's like throwing a dice (except that the dice is chaotic, not truly random) - it must indicate 1 to 6 with equal probability but each result is random within those constraints.

(2) The fact that events are not determined by a prior set of circumstances ... does not imply that humans cannot determine their own volitional acts.

I didn't say they couldn't. I think you're missing the point.

Humans need to reach their decisions somehow - there must be some internal process that produces them - and that process can only be made up of deterministic and/or random elements. I fail to see how adding randomness can help to produce "free will".

 

[Nous]

most macro scale processes are, actually deterministic.

False. The world is not deterministic, according to the most accurate theory of the most fundamental level of empirical reality. All "macro scale processes" that are the product of this fundamental level of empirical reality are likewise not deterministic. That doesn't mean that you personally observe the absence of determinism.

Yes - as I said before - the probabilities are determined but individual outcomes are not determined - they are random.

No, what you said was, "There can only be deterministic processes or not deterministic ones."

I didn't say they couldn't. I think you're missing the point.

Your "point" seems to be a moving target.

Humans need to reach their decisions somehow - there must be some internal process that produces them - and that process can only be made up of deterministic and/or random elements.

Your claim here rests on (inter alia) the fallacy of false dilemma. Whatever you mean by "elements," my decision to order red wine rather than white wine does not have to be either "deterministic" or "random". (What are "elements"?)

 

[ratiocinator]

Whatever you mean by "elements," my decision to order red wine rather than white wine does not have to be either "deterministic" or "random".

It might not be wholly either, but you really don't have anything else to play with. Take your quantum collapse example: the probabilities and the allowed outcomes are deterministic but the outcome of a particular measurement is not deterministic, it is random (like throwing a dice).

Making a decision to order red wine is a complex process (even if you perceive it to simple for you) that ended in your choice (an event). All aspects of all the processes that lead to that event had to be either determined or with added random element (like a random variation within determined limits cf. quantum measurement).

 

[Nous]

It might not be wholly either, but you really don't have anything else to play with. Take your quantum collapse example: the probabilities and the allowed outcomes are deterministic but the outcome of a particular measurement is not deterministic, it is random (like throwing a dice).

Again, the fallacy of False Dilemma. You have already acknowledged that “outcomes,” “processes” or “elements” can be probabilistic. (The probabilities that the Schrodinger equation define are not analogous to the equal probability of one side of a die landing up.)

Humans' volitional acts are not predetermined (you haven't been able to argue for determinism), nor, obviously, are they random (there is an unmistakable pattern in my act of logging on to website of the utility company once every month and clicking specific buttons to pay my utility bill by a certain day each month).

Neither classical nor quantum mechanics limits “processes,” “outcomes” or “elements” (whatever you mean by those terms) to a dichotomy of being either predetermined or random. In the first place, in measurements of quantum systems, an outcome that is consistent with the behavior of a particle or a wave depends solely on and is perfectly correlated with the observer's choice of which measurement to perform (the Heisenberg choice). Moreover, by choosing to perform a series of frequent measurements on an unstable particle, which would normally decay, one can freeze the evolution of the system--this is called the Quantum Zeno Effect. Physicist Henry Stapp (et al.) has proposed the QZE as a mechanism or explanation for executing volitional acts.

Your anti-free will ideas are bad religion from the 19th century. It needs to stay there--with it, you haven't been able to make sense of the most commonplace activity and ability of humans (and undoubtedly other animals) . Come into the 21st century.

 

[ratiocinator]

Humans' volitional acts are not predetermined (you haven't been able to argue for determinism)...

You really need to understand that I'm not trying to argue for determinism in nature. I don't know if the universe is deterministic or not - and neither does anybody else.

Your statement that "Humans' volitional acts are not predetermined" is, however, merely an assertion.

Again, the fallacy of False Dilemma.

Except none of your talk of quantum mechanics actually points to anything at all that isn't a combination of the two. The predictions of the result of a measurement in QM are indeed probabilistic - but that just combines determinism with randomness - random variation within determined probabilities. The Schrödinger equation defines the time-development of the wave function in an entirely deterministic way and that defines the probabilities.

The interpretation of QM has been discussed since its inception but there are few who take any direct connection to consciousness seriously. Even those that do regard the two to be linked don't actually agree. The best known being the "conscious causes collapse" interpretation but Roger Penrose proposed the reverse - effectively that a physical process of wave function collapse causes consciousness.

At the other extreme, there are still those working on a fully classical underlying theory - see: Quantum Mechanics from Classical Logic - Gerard ’t Hooft

At present the interpretation and the 'measurement problem' is unresolved, although decoherence does provide a partial answer.

All of which (fascinating as it is) is actually beside the point because the case can be made without reference to physics. As I said, it doesn't matter whether you think the universe is deterministic or not (or probabilistic if you insist on thinking of that as different).

Take an event X. Either there are reasons why it happened or there aren't. Obviously, if it happened for no reason whatsoever, it must have been random. If it happened for reasons, then we can (in principle) make an exhaustive list of them, say A, B and C. Now we can ask if A, B and C would inevitably lead to X. If so, then X was fully determined. If, on the other hand, A, B and C could have led to a number of different outcomes, say X, Y and Z, then the choice between X, Y and Z must have been random.

To go back to QM (as you seem to like it) - if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement. But that only provides us with probabilities - within those probabilities, there is no reason at all (according to the theory as it stands) why the result on this occasion was up or down - to that extent it was random.

At the end of the day, there isn't a logical get-out for conscious choices, they are events - and they have to come about somehow. You can't build magic out of determinism and randomness (or probabilities).

 

[Nous]

You really need to understand that I'm not trying to argue for determinism in nature.

Yes, what you're trying to argue for seems to be a moving target. Why don't you state what you're trying to argue for, then state your argument?

You did say earlier (something to the effect) that the only reasonable idea of "free will" is that which is consistent with compatibilism, did you not? Why did you say that? Please define that concept of free will, and explain how it could possible entail freely choosing between A and B.

Your statement that "Humans' volitional acts are not predetermined" is, however, merely an assertion.

It's a true statement deduced from facts such as that there is no programming in human bodies that determine our acts, and which would be the only way to account for the commonplace fact that people can "predict" (state beforehand then execute) voluntary acts--even 30 years in advance--but cannot predict non-autonomic involuntary bodily occurrences.

Except none of your talk of quantum mechanics actually points to anything at all that isn't a combination of the two. The predictions of the result of a measurement in QM are indeed probabilistic - but that just combines determinism with randomness - random variation within determined probabilities.

No, again, the probabilities defined by the Schrodinger equation are not analogous to the equal probability of one of the 6 faces of a die landing up.

The interpretation of QM has been discussed since its inception but there are few who take any direct connection to consciousness seriously. Even those that do regard the two to be linked don't actually agree. The best known being the "conscious causes collapse" interpretation but Roger Penrose proposed the reverse - effectively that a physical process of wave function collapse causes consciousness.

At the other extreme, there are still those working on a fully classical underlying theory - see: Quantum Mechanics from Classical Logic - Gerard ’t Hooft

At present the interpretation and the 'measurement problem' is unresolved, although decoherence does provide a partial answer.

All of which (fascinating as it is) is actually beside the point because the case can be made without reference to physics. As I said, it doesn't matter whether you think the universe is deterministic or not (or probabilistic if you insist on thinking of that as different).

Take an event X. Either there are reasons why it happened or there aren't. Obviously, if it happened for no reason whatsoever, it must have been random. If it happened for reasons, then we can (in principle) make an exhaustive list of them, say A, B and C. Now we can ask if A, B and C would inevitably lead to X. If so, then X was fully determined. If, on the other hand, A, B and C could have led to a number of different outcomes, say X, Y and Z, then the choice between X, Y and Z must have been random.

To go back to QM (as you seem to like it) - if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement. But that only provides us with probabilities - within those probabilities, there is no reason at all (according to the theory as it stands) why the result on this occasion was up or down - to that extent it was random.

At the end of the day, there isn't a logical get-out for conscious choices, they are events - and they have to come about somehow. You can't build magic out of determinism and randomness (or probabilities).

So it seems you do not dispute any of this:

Neither classical nor quantum mechanics limits “processes,” “outcomes” or “elements” (whatever you mean by those terms) to a dichotomy of being either predetermined or random. In the first place, in measurements of quantum systems, an outcome that is consistent with the behavior of a particle or a wave depends solely on and is perfectly correlated with the observer's choice of which measurement to perform (the Heisenberg choice). Moreover, by choosing to perform a series of frequent measurements on an unstable particle, which would normally decay, one can freeze the evolution of the system--this is called the Quantum Zeno Effect. Physicist Henry Stapp (et al.) has proposed the QZE as a mechanism or explanation for executing volitional acts. ​

And I assume that you are unable to show that the Heisenberg choice is the product of some hybrid deterministic/random cause.

So, again, I ask: what is your argument?

 

[ratiocinator]

It's a true statement deduced from facts such as that there is no programming in human bodies that determine our acts, and which would be the only way to account for the commonplace fact that people can "predict" (state beforehand then execute) voluntary acts--even 30 years in advance--but cannot predict non-autonomic involuntary bodily occurrences.

Quite clearly, from the evidence we have, behaviour - including planning - evolved. We can see simpler examples of planning in other animals. I can see no reason why you seem to want to call it "programming" and "prediction" - and no sign of any deduction.

No, again, the probabilities defined by the Schrodinger equation are not analogous to the equal probability of one of the 6 faces of a die landing up.

Why not? I understand that it isn't exactly the same but it makes my point. To take a totally different example from QM: if you want to measure position, you get a probability density from the wave function. When you get the result, there are reasons why there was a probability of finding in any given volume - but there was no reason at all (from the theory as it stands) as to why it was measured exactly in that place and not another, on any given occasion. To that extent, the result is random.

So, again, I ask: what is your argument?

In the bit you apparently didn't read:-

Take an event X. Either there are reasons why it happened or there aren't. Obviously, if it happened for no reason whatsoever, it must have been random. If it happened for reasons, then we can (in principle) make an exhaustive list of them, say A, B and C. Now we can ask if A, B and C would inevitably lead to X. If so, then X was fully determined. If, on the other hand, A, B and C could have led to a number of different outcomes, say X, Y and Z, then the choice between X, Y and Z must have been random.

To go back to QM (as you seem to like it) - if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement. But that only provides us with probabilities - within those probabilities, there is no reason at all (according to the theory as it stands) why the result on this occasion was up or down - to that extent it was random.

At the end of the day, there isn't a logical get-out for conscious choices, they are events - and they have to come about somehow. You can't build magic out of determinism and randomness (or probabilities).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

... or else the very notion of free-will would not need debating.

Yes, it wouldn't because it doesn't exist. Our very nature as social animals greatly impedes this notion of free-will. Such as, the way we eat, behave, and think about ourselves is not determined by us, but rather we are told how to do these things by our culture. Even our worldviews are very greatly influenced by our genes, upbringing, and other experiences.

 

[Nous]

Quite clearly, from the evidence we have, behaviour - including planning - evolved. We can see simpler examples of planning in other animals. I can see no reason why you seem to want to call it "programming" and "prediction" - and no sign of any deduction.

Obviously I didn't refer to anything as "programming" or "prediction" that isn't programming or prediction.

Of course,the fact that humans' volitional acts are not predetermined is deducible merely from the fact that the thesis of determinism is false.

No, again, the probabilities defined by the Schrodinger equation are not analogous to the equal probability of one of the 6 faces of a die landing up.

Why not?

The Schrodinger equation does not give equal probabilities to all possible outcomes of a measurement. In contrast, the probability of a die landing with 2 dots up is the same as the probability of it landing with 6 dots up.

I understand that it isn't exactly the same but it makes my point. To take a totally different example from QM: if you want to measure position, you get a probability density from the wave function. When you get the result, there are reasons why there was a probability of finding in any given volume - but there was no reason at all (from the theory as it stands) as to why it was measured exactly in that place and not another, on any given occasion. To that extent, the result is random.

To go back to QM (as you seem to like it) - if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement.

False.

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

 

[Nous]

Our very nature as social animals greatly impedes this notion of free-will. Such as, the way we eat, behave, and think about ourselves is not determined by us

So evidently you cannot choose to state a true proposition rather than a false one. That probably explains the things you post here. Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying

 

[ratiocinator]

To go back to QM (as you seem to like it) - if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement. But that only provides us with probabilities. - within those probabilities, there is no reason at all (according to the theory as it stands) why the result on this occasion was up or down - to that extent it was random

To go back to QM (as you seem to like it) - if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement.

False.

The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement.

When you can be bothered to read all of what I'm saying before jumping in to contradict one sentence ripped ruthlessly out of context, it might be worth continuing with this discussion...

As it is, you seem intent on telling me what I've already explained to you.

 

[Nous]

When you can be bothered to read all of what I'm saying before jumping in to contradict one sentence ripped ruthlessly out of context, it might be worth continuing with this discussion...

Your claim--"if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement"--is false. The wave function equation does not determine the outcome of measurements.

So you have no argument about determinism or free will? You can't explain what you were referring to earlier about the "compatibilist version of free will"?

 

[ratiocinator]

Your claim--"if we were to measure (say) the spin of a particle, then the reasons for the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function at the time, and the orientation of the measurement"--is false. The wave function equation does not determine the outcome of measurements.

Oh for ***** sake! Go back and read the paragraph before and the sentence after. Perhaps then you might, if you concentrate on what I'm saying instead of looking for things to contradict, understand what I meant by "the reasons for the result" and that it didn't mean that the result was fully predicted - only the probability.

So you have no argument about determinism or free will? You can't explain what you were referring to earlier about the "compatibilist version of free will"?

Try the simple exercise above first - when you can digest more than a sentence at a time, I'll give this another go...

 

[Nous]

what I meant by "the reasons for the result" and that it didn't mean that the result was fully predicted - only the probability.

I don't know of any experiments on particles that have tested any hypothesis about "reasons". Cite your source.

And why wouldn't someone understand your claim that "the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function" as implying a deterministic process?

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't know of any experiments on particles that have tested any hypothesis about "reasons". Cite your source.

Why won't you read what I said? It wasn't about experiments - it was part of an argument that apparently exceeded your attention span.

And why wouldn't someone understand your claim that "the result are exhaustively captured by the wave function" as implying a deterministic process?

The fact that the very next words were "But that only provides us with probabilities..." might have been a bit of a hint.

Go back, read all of what I said and respond to that, or just don't bother...

 

[Nous]

It wasn't about experiments - it was part of an argument

State your argument--premises and conclusion:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

 

[ratiocinator]

State your argument--premises and conclusion:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

OK, but PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST AND THINK BEFORE REPLYING.

My main argument can be expressed as follows.

P1: Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination.
P2: Conscious choices are events.
P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'.

C: Therefore any notion of 'free will' must be based on determinism (compatibilism).

The problem appears to be that you are disagreeing with P1 and seem to think that quantum mechanics is a counterexample. So:

QM_P1: The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics provides us with a wave function or state vector.
QM_P2: The time development of the wave function is governed by the Schrödinger equation and is deterministic.
QM_P3: The wave function provides probabilities for the values of observables.
QM_P4: A measurement will provide a specific value for an observable.
QM_P5: Apart from the governing probabilities, there is no reason at all for the specific value of an observable obtained on any one occasion.

QM_IC1: The probabilities governing the result of a measurement are deterministic.
QM_IC2: The specific value obtained by a measurement (within the probabilities) is random.

QM_C: Hence QM does not provide a counterexample to P1 in the main argument.

NOTES:
1: Compatibilism does not require a fully deterministic universe.
2: Despite QM, most macro scale processes are, for all practical purposes, deterministic.

 

[Nous]

OK, but PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST AND THINK BEFORE REPLYING.

My main argument can be expressed as follows.

P1: Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination.
P2: Conscious choices are events.
P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'.

C: Therefore any notion of 'free will' must be based on determinism (compatibilism).

The problem appears to be that you are disagreeing with P1 and seem to think that quantum mechanics is a counterexample. So:

QM_P1: The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics provides us with a wave function or state vector.
QM_P2: The time development of the wave function is governed by the Schrödinger equation and is deterministic.
QM_P3: The wave function provides probabilities for the values of observables.
QM_P4: A measurement will provide a specific value for an observable.
QM_P5: Apart from the governing probabilities, there is no reason at all for the specific value of an observable obtained on any one occasion.

QM_IC1: The probabilities governing the result of a measurement are deterministic.
QM_IC2: The specific value obtained by a measurement (within the probabilities) is random.

QM_C: Hence QM does not provide a counterexample to P1 in the main argument.

NOTES:
1: Compatibilism does not require a fully deterministic universe.
2: Despite QM, most macro scale processes are, for all practical purposes, deterministic.

(1) Your P1 is too nonsensical to be merely false. This is what determinism is:

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.​

Determinism - Wikipedia

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A universe in which even a single random or probabilistic event can occur is a universe in which the thesis of determinism is false. .

(2) If you substituted some term for “determinism” in P1, it would still be false: You have already acknowledged that there are probabilistic events. The Born Rule (in which the probability of finding a particle in a particular position is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that position) does not describe some amalgam of deterministic and random events.

(3) Your conclusion is not deduced from your premises.

(4) What is "any notion of 'free will' . . . based on determinism"? See the definitions of determinism above. How is it possible for an entity to choose between the available options in a world where the thesis of determinism is true? (There are no available options to choose from--i.e., there is no set of 2 or more possible futures--in the world where the thesis of determinism is true.)