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

[ratiocinator]

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

You didn't actually read all my post and think, as I asked, did you? If you had, you would have understood exactly what I meant.

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia (my emphasis)

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.

From your own references:

Determinism - Wikipedia (my emphasis)

The probabilities discovered in quantum mechanics do nevertheless arise from measurement (of the perceived path of the particle). As Stephen Hawking explains, the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities.

Causal Determinism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (my emphasis)

The evolution of a wavefunction describing a physical system under this equation is normally taken to be perfectly deterministic.

As I have said repeatedly - the wave function time development is deterministic but only provides probabilities.

A good part of my post, and many of the preceding ones, was an outline of exactly these points - and yet you apparently think that I meant a strictly deterministic universe.

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.

I posted a detailed argument about this - in the format you asked for - that you have completely ignored. It's easy to find it if you want another go, the points start with "QM_".

Yet again, you've simply not addressed the argument I have presented...

 

[ratiocinator]

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As an aside, this article also says "Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times!".

 

[Nous]

You didn't actually read all my post and think, as I asked, did you? If you had, you would have understood exactly what I meant.

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia (my emphasis)

From your own references:

Determinism - Wikipedia (my emphasis)

Causal Determinism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (my emphasis)

As I have said repeatedly - the wave function time development is deterministic but only provides probabilities.

A good part of my post, and many of the preceding ones, was an outline of exactly these points - and yet you apparently think that I meant a strictly deterministic universe.


I posted a detailed argument about this - in the format you asked for - that you have completely ignored. It's easy to find it if you want another go, the points start with "QM_".

Yet again, you've simply not addressed the argument I have presented...

I don't know how to be any clearer about it. Your P1 is at best false, but literally nonsensical. You have not deduced the conclusion from your premises. If your 3 premises and conclusion were a deduction, you (or someone) would be able to identify the terms. No amount of words can make a false statement true or an invalid set of propositions a deduction.

And where has it gotten you? Your conclusion states a proposition that you can't even explain. I've asked you several times to show that there is some coherent idea of free will that is compatible with determinism, to which you haven't responded.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't know how to be any clearer about it.

Well you could start by actually responding to what I've said - instead of scanning it for sentences you can contradict if you don't read the context or think about it.

Your P1 is at best false, but literally nonsensical.

Yet you have essentially given a perfect example of it yourself in your repeated explanations of quantum mechanics.

You have not deduced the conclusion from your premises.

Given my premises, in what way can the conclusion not be true?

Your conclusion states a proposition that you can't even explain. I've asked you several times to show that there is some coherent idea of free will that is compatible with determinism, to which you haven't responded.

Since you seem to be unable to read an entire post or even a sentence in the context of the following one - this is probably beyond you - but you could always look up compatibilism for yourself.

 

[Nous]

Well you could start by actually responding to what I've said - instead of scanning it for sentences you can contradict if you don't read the context or think about it.

I responded to precisely what you said. Your P1 is at best false, and literally nonsensical.

Yet you have essentially given a perfect example of it yourself in your repeated explanations of quantum mechanics.

If you believe anything I've said on this thread is false, then just quote it and demonstrate its error.

Given my premises, in what way can the conclusion not be true?

I don't know what you're asking here. You need to learn how to make a deduction: Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia

Since you seem to be unable to read an entire post or even a sentence in the context of the following one - this is probably beyond you - but you could always look up compatibilism for yourself.

I have read about "compatibilism." That's why I asked you to explain how a person is actually able to choose between available options in a world where the thesis of determinism is true (i.e., in a world where there are no options).

 

[ratiocinator]

I responded to precisely what you said.

Nonsense. You appear to be studiously avoiding addressing the actual argument. You've literally ignored the majority of what I've said.

Your P1 is at best false, and literally nonsensical.

Your objections to this consisted of taking one word out of the context and 'misinterpreting' the whole statement (despite the fact that I had explained what I meant several times before and afterwards) and then insisting that determined probabilities did not represent a combination - and totally ignoring my argument that it did.

If you believe anything I've said on this thread is false, then just quote it and demonstrate its error.

This makes absolutely no sense as a response to my comment: "Yet you have essentially given a perfect example of it yourself in your repeated explanations of quantum mechanics."

I don't know what you're asking here.

It wasn't a difficult question - you claim my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises - so there must be some way in which my premises can be true and the conclusion false. Just saying "your conclusion is not deduced from your premises" isn't very impressive.

You need to learn how to make a deduction: Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia

Once you learned to read a whole post and digest the points being made, you could perhaps move on to this yourself...

I have read about "compatibilism." That's why I asked you to explain how a person is actually able to choose between available options in a world where the thesis of determinism is true (i.e., in a world where there are no options).

I'm more than happy to discuss this just as soon as you show some ability and inclination to engage with what I'm saying.

 

[Nous]

Nonsense. You appear to be studiously avoiding addressing the actual argument. You've literally ignored the majority of what I've said.


Your objections to this consisted of taking one word out of the context and 'misinterpreting' the whole statement (despite the fact that I had explained what I meant several times before and afterwards) and then insisting that determined probabilities did not represent a combination - and totally ignoring my argument that it did.


This makes absolutely no sense as a response to my comment: "Yet you have essentially given a perfect example of it yourself in your repeated explanations of quantum mechanics."


It wasn't a difficult question - you claim my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises - so there must be some way in which my premises can be true and the conclusion false. Just saying "your conclusion is not deduced from your premises" isn't very impressive.


Once you learned to read a whole post and digest the points being made, you could perhaps move on to this yourself...


I'm more than happy to discuss this just as soon as you show some ability and inclination to engage with what I'm saying.

I provided a link to the Wikipedia article on deduction for your benefit. Either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it.

If you believe your list of 4 enumerated propositions states a deduction, then just identify you subject, predicate and middle terms.

And if you believe your P1 is a true statement, then provide a link showing that the probability specified by the Born rule is "a combination of determinism and randomness".

 

[ratiocinator]

If you believe your list of 4 enumerated propositions states a deduction, then just identify you subject, predicate and middle terms.

P1: Every event is the result of determinism and randomness in some combination.

Any event E is the result of some combination of determined things and random things - informally, we might express it as
D + R → E​

P2: Conscious choices are events.

A conscious choice (C) is a type of event (E). Combining with P1 we get
D + R → C​

P3: Randomness cannot be purposeful and so cannot contribute to 'free will'.

This excludes R from being involved in a "free will" choice. So, for a choice made entirely by "free will" (F), we now have
D → F

Which says that a "free will" choice (if there is such a thing) is deterministic.​

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

And if you believe your P1 is a true statement, then provide a link showing that the probability specified by the Born rule is "a combination of determinism and randomness".

Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia

Quantum indeterminacy is information (or lack of it) whose existence we infer, occurring in individual quantum systems, prior to measurement. Quantum randomness is the statistical manifestation of that indeterminacy, witnessable in results of experiments repeated many times.

I don't really understand why you find this a difficult concept. Once the probabilities of the situation have been calculated from the wave function - what word would you use to characterize the 'process' that decides on the specific outcome of a measurement within said probabilities?

If you were going to model the process on a computer, would you be able to do so without a random number generator?

 

[Nous]

If you believe your list of 4 enumerated propositions states a deduction, then just identify you subject, predicate and middle terms.

So do you understand now that the 4 propositions that you have enumerated is not a deduction?

And if you believe your P1 is a true statement, then provide a link showing that the probability specified by the Born rule is "a combination of determinism and randomness".

So do you understand now that the probability described by the Born rule is not some "combination" of "determinism" and randomness?

 

[ratiocinator]

Did you even read my last post (#88)? You seem to have resorted to talking to yourself...

So do you understand now that the 4 propositions that you have enumerated is not a deduction?

I've just explained the deduction - if you're still confused about some part of it, let me know and I'll explain further.

So do you understand now that the probability described by the Born rule is not some "combination" of "determinism" and randomness?

I see you didn't answer either of my questions.

I'll answer one: to model the Born rule (or any other probability distribution) you would generate random numbers and then feed them through an algorithm (such as inverse transform sampling or rejection sampling) to produce the required probabilities.

That's random numbers which are, err, random and an algorithm which is deterministic. As I said, probabilistic is a combination.

 

[ratiocinator]

@Nous - as you seem to be struggling so much with deductive reasoning and I'm not sure what your problem is, here are two further ways to look at it:

1. Comparison to something simpler

Take the classic example.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

So we have a logical form
All A are B
C is an A
Therefore, C is A.

Which is the structure of my first two premises (using the abbreviations from #88)
All E are {the result of (D + R)}
C is an E
[Therefore C is {the result of (D + R)}]

So, do you think the example argument is flawed or do you think my argument falls down at a later stage? If the latter, then explain where and we can continue from that.

2. More formal

P1: E = D ∪ R
P2: C ⊂ E
(P2.1: F ⊆ C) - I thought that would be obvious!
P3: F ∩ R = ∅
C: F ⊂ D \ R

Proof:
Let f ∈ F
⇒ f ∈ C ∧ f ∉ R (from P2.1 and P3)
⇒ f ∈ E ∧ f ∉ R (from P2)
⇒ f ∈ (D ∪ R) ∧ f ∉ R (from P1)
⇒ f ∈ D \ R
Hence any member of F is also a member of D \ R, so F ⊂ D \ R.

Where
E - Events
D - Events that result from deterministic processes
R - Events that result from randomness
C - Conscious choices
F - Conscious choices that are entirely the result of free will

Remember that you challenged the validity of my argument. As far as the validity goes, it doesn't matter whether you think the premises are true or not.

 

[Nous]

I've just explained the deduction

You haven't made a deduction. Apparently you understand so little about logic that you haven't even comprehended that fact.

I suggest that you spend your limited time studying logic so that you can formulate a deduction. Spouting beliefs that have no basis in reality is hardly a worthwhile activity.

 

[Nous]

@Nous - as you seem to be struggling so much with deductive reasoning and I'm not sure what your problem is, here are two further ways to look at it:

1. Comparison to something simpler

Take the classic example.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

So we have a logical form
All A are B
C is an A
Therefore, C is A.

Which is the structure of my first two premises (using the abbreviations from #88)
All E are {the result of (D + R)}
C is an E
[Therefore C is {the result of (D + R)}]

So, do you think the example argument is flawed or do you think my argument falls down at a later stage? If the latter, then explain where and we can continue from that.

2. More formal

P1: E = D ∪ R
P2: C ⊂ E
(P2.1: F ⊆ C) - I thought that would be obvious!
P3: F ∩ R = ∅
C: F ⊂ D \ R

Proof:
Let f ∈ F
⇒ f ∈ C ∧ f ∉ R (from P2.1 and P3)
⇒ f ∈ E ∧ f ∉ R (from P2)
⇒ f ∈ (D ∪ R) ∧ f ∉ R (from P1)
⇒ f ∈ D \ R
Hence any member of F is also a member of D \ R, so F ⊂ D \ R.

Where
E - Events
D - Events that result from deterministic processes
R - Events that result from randomness
C - Conscious choices
F - Conscious choices that are entirely the result of free will

Remember that you challenged the validity of my argument. As far as the validity goes, it doesn't matter whether you think the premises are true or not.

I asked you to identify your middle, subject and predicate terms? Why can't you?

 

[Nous]

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

So we have a logical form
All A are B
C is an A
Therefore, C is A.

Wow. Just wow. "C[?] is an A[?]. Therefore, C is A." ????????

You don't know how to formulate a syllogism. Yet you are here claiming that you have made a deduction. Wow.

 

[ratiocinator]

You haven't made a deduction. Apparently you understand so little about logic that you haven't even comprehended that fact.

Wow. Just wow. "C[?] is an A[?].

OK - so I've now put it in plain English, I've added a commentary to it, I've compared part of it to a classic example of deduction and I've finally re-expressed it as statements about sets and mathematically proved that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Despite that, all you can come up with is a lame "you haven't made a deduction" and a typo...?

 

[Nous]

OK - so I've now put it in plain English, I've added a commentary to it, I've compared part of it to a classic example of deduction and I've finally re-expressed it as statements about sets and mathematically proved that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Despite that, all you can come up with is a lame "you haven't made a deduction" and a typo...?

So you still can't formulate a simple syllogism?

You don't see a problem with concluding that "C is an A" from the premise "C is an A"?

 

[ratiocinator]

You don't see a problem with concluding that "C is an A" from the premise "C is an A"?

Look at the context (that means what came before and what follows) - it's a typo.

I dunno - maybe this sort of thing is a distraction tactic or maybe you really can't concentrate enough for long enough to take in more than a sentence or a few words at a time.

Either way, it's very difficult to take you seriously...

 

[Nous]

Look at the context (that means what came before and what follows) - it's a typo.

Are you saying that you can now identify the M, S and P terms in your thing? If so, do so.

 

[ratiocinator]

Are you saying that you can now identify the M, S and P terms in your thing? If so, do so.

Why? Can't you think unless somebody labels the parts for you? You seem intent on avoiding actually addressing what I'm saying and it's boring.

I have mathematically proved the result follows from the premises. Now, I'll admit that just using the notation was a little unfair but I'll explain it all to you (or anybody else) if you want - just let me know if you know anything at all about sets. I won't take your comments out of context and I won't try to trip you up.

I can make the mathematics more compact and add English, if you want:

E - Events
D - Events that result from deterministic processes
R - Events that result from randomness
C - Conscious choices
F - Conscious choices that are entirely the result of free will

From P1, P2 and P2.1:
F ⊆ C ⊂ E = (D ∪ R)
⇒ F ⊂ (D ∪ R)
F are all or part of C. All C are E. E are D or R or both. Hence, all F are D or R or both.

Adding P3:
F ⊂ (D ∪ R) ∧ F ∩ R = ∅
⇒ F ⊂ D \ R
All F are D or R or both (from above) and F is not R. Hence, F is D and not R.

So - if the premises are true, then conscious free will choices (if there is such a thing) are deterministic.

I think that's the fourth way I've explained it. Now, you can actually engage with the argument itself or continue with your increasingly transparent distraction tactics and general buffoonery.

Your choice.

 

[Nous]

Why?

Because you said you had an argument; I challenged you to list your premises and conclusion to demonstrate your claim of a deduction, which you obviously cannot demonstrate.

It's beyond ironic that someone with "ratiocinator" as a screen name is unable to formulate a deduction.

And if you were able to show that you have deduced your conclusion, I would ask again for the evidence by which to conclude that your premises are true propositions.