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

[ratiocinator]

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.

Because you said you had an argument...

Transparent evasion and general buffoonery it is then - and an attention span down to one word!

As I said: your choice.

 

[Nous]

Transparent evasion and general buffoonery it is then - and an attention span down to one word!

As I said: your choice.

If you ever become able to actually deduce your conclusion from your premises, then alert me. I will then challenge you to show that your premises are true. (You won't be able to do that with the premises you used above.)

 

[ratiocinator]

If you ever become able to actually deduce your conclusion from your premises, then alert me.

It's odd, I've untangled and challenged may incoherent arguments on forums. Sometimes I've asked people to list premises and conclusions but even when they couldn't or wouldn't do that, I've never hidden behind that as an excuse for not tacking whatever they had said.

It requires no intelligence at all to say that somebody hasn't made a valid argument - being able to explain why, is another matter. If you ever have the intellectual courage to read, digest and challenge what I said (more than a word or sentence, taken out of context, at a time), let me know.

My offer of explaining the mathematics stands or I could draw a diagram if that would help.

 

[Nous]

It's odd, I've untangled and challenged may incoherent arguments on forums. Sometimes I've asked people to list premises and conclusions but even when they couldn't or wouldn't do that, I've never hidden behind that as an excuse for not tacking whatever they had said.

The fact that you conclusion is not deduced from your premises renders your collection of 4 enumerated propositions useless.

You should learn how to make a simple deduction. Generally people don't make them by mistake.

 

[ratiocinator]

The fact that you conclusion is not deduced from your premises renders your collection of 4 enumerated propositions useless.

It requires no intelligence at all to say that somebody hasn't made a valid argument - being able to explain why, is another matter. If you ever have the intellectual courage to read, digest and challenge what I said (more than a word or sentence, taken out of context, at a time), let me know.

My offer of explaining the mathematics stands or I could draw a diagram if that would help.

 

[Nous]

It requires no intelligence at all to say that somebody hasn't made a valid argument

It obviously requires more intelligence to recognize when someone hasn't formulated a deduction than it does to enumerate 4 sentences that do not constitute a valid conclusion.

being able to explain why, is another matter.

You need an explanation as to why your thing is not a deduction? Your 4 sentences do not form a valid argument because, in the first place, a syllogism consists of exactly 3 terms in various particular orders. That's obviously not what you did. Yours is also not a sorites or a polysyllogism, which just carries through a valid conclusion as the next premise of an argument. Again, yours didn't do anything like that.

Much less have you been able to demonstrate that your premises are true.

 

[ratiocinator]

You need an explanation as to why your thing is not a deduction? Your 4 sentences do not form a valid argument because, in the first place, a syllogism consists of exactly 3 terms in various particular orders. That's obviously not what you did. Yours is also not a sorites or a polysyllogism, which just carries through a valid conclusion as the next premise of an argument. Again, yours didn't do anything like that.

Ah, I see your problem: because you can't instantly see how it fits into some argument patterns you've learnt, your brain shuts down and you can't think about it at all - despite the fact that I have proved the result mathematically.

That was the point I made before - if you dismiss something simply because it is presented in an unfamiliar (to you) format and refuse to even think about it and challenge it as presented - that says more about your abilities than those presenting the arguments.

I already compared the first two premises to a categorical syllogism back in #91 (where all you noticed was the typo). Do you really need me to fill in the rest and label it for you, or can you manage it for yourself?

Do you need some hints?

 

[Nous]

I already compared the first two premises to a categorical syllogism back in #91 (where all you noticed was the typo). Do you really need me to fill in the rest and label it for you, or can you manage it for yourself?

Do you need some hints?

Go right ahead and prove that your conclusion is deduced from the premises. You will need to be able to identify your terms.

After you do that, be sure to substantiate that your premises are true.

 

[ratiocinator]

Go right ahead and prove that your conclusion is deduced from the premises.

You will need to be able to identify your terms.

I already did prove it - and you've ignored it. I really don't know what you think you are achieving by this silly demand for a particular format and wanting me to identify the terms. Do you totally lack any argument analysis skills?

The argument is not complicated and I've explained it in several ways (including mathematics). However, if you really can't think without your chosen format, I have identified the first syllogism for you already - there are only two more steps (the next one involving "P2.1" that all free will choices are conscious choices) - are you sure you can't do it yourself?

If you really can't, I'll set it out in my next post - but if you don't even try, I will have to conclude that you lack either the ability or the inclination to engage in sensible discussion at this level.

After you do that, be sure to substantiate that your premises are true.

One step at a time.

 

[Nous]

I already did prove it

False. Your 4 enumerated propositions do not constitute a deduction; your conclusion is not deduced from the premises. It's unfortunate that you lack such elementary knowledge.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No. See #11, #19 and #26 (if you've proved free will, then a logical not gate has free will).

You cannot do the prediction from inside the system you are trying to predict and, even if you do it from outside, if your prediction is allowed to affect the outcome, it could lead in infinite recursion - as it would in the attempts at subversion you outline.

Sorry I do not know what a 'logical not gate' is.

If the second part of what you say is true, then you are claiming that it is not possible to know that the universe is deterministic,
because then your own analysis is subject to the same problem.

The entire issue hinges on the notion that the future is always outside any analysis of the system,
that is why it is not possible for it (the universe or system) to be entirely deterministic.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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.

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.

That itself is not a problem computationally.
The formula z=y/x
can hold infinite values in z,y & x.

We can always be certain that 1+1=2 - so we can know things for certain.

But we can alter the contraption and work with probabilities.
We can claim that we can know with 80% probability that it will rain on a certain day.
But as Pandora herself makes us realize, her behavior is such that we always
will get the color of her dress wrong.

So her mind is entirely unpredictable for that behavior,
thus her mind MUST be at least partly indeterminate, and thus she is free.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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.

A claim you make without giving any reason.

But perhaps you had not considered this part of the article:

In a universe that is entirely deterministic, all things would of course be entirely deterministic,
and so all theories,would also be entirely deterministic, and thus there could be no theories of in-determinism.
Seeing as though we do have theories of in-determinism, it follows that not everything is determined.

Its like saying in a universe where all colors are blue, there could be no concept of red.

But in a world that does contain in-determinism, the converse does not hold.
Remember nobody is claiming that determinism does not exist.
We are only claiming that not everything is deterministic.
(Specifically, something in the mind: free will)

Now I realize that often we think we are free, when we are not,
so it is entirely reasonable to get caught thinking we are free when we are not,
but the mistake is to then assume, that this is now true for all things everywhere.

 

[Skwim]

.

A claim you make without giving any reason.

But perhaps you had not considered this part of the article:

In a universe that is entirely deterministic, all things would of course be entirely deterministic,
and so all theories,would also be entirely deterministic, and thus there could be no theories of in-determinism.
Seeing as though we do have theories of in-determinism, it follows that not everything is determined.

To rephrase in part, if I may

1) In a universe where everything is determined, all things would, of course, be determined

2) and so all theories would be determined, and thus there could be no theories of in-determinism.
​

Just to be clear here "theories of in-determinism" (in other words, about indeterminism) does not mean such theories would not be concocted deterministically. Like all other concocted theories, such a particular theory would also have been determined. It doesn't matter what a theory is about in order to have been determined by prior cause/effect events. So, your contention that,

"Seeing as though we do have theories of in-determinism, it follows that not everything is determined"
​

is erroneous.

If you have any issue with either of my rephrasings, please point them out by line. Either 1) or 2) as labeled.

.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

.

To rephrase in part, if I may

1) In a universe where everything is determined, all things would, of course, be determined

2) and so all theories would be determined, and thus there could be no theories of in-determinism.
​

Just to be clear here "theories of in-determinism" (in other words, about indeterminism) does not mean such theories would not be concocted deterministically. Like all other concocted theories, such a particular theory would also have been determined. It doesn't matter what a theory is about in order to have been determined by prior cause/effect events. So, your contention that,

"Seeing as though we do have theories of in-determinism, it follows that not everything is determined"
​

is erroneous.

If you have any issue with either of my rephrasings, please point them out by line. Either 1) or 2) as labeled.

.

So are you suggesting in universe where all colors are blue,
we could theorize that the color red exists?

 

[Skwim]

So are you suggesting in universe where all colors are blue,
we could theorize that the color red exists?

I didn't respond because it isn't relevant.

However, because the color blue is merely a range of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum (generally taken to be 430-500 nm) it's more than a theory but a fact that there exists electromagnetic wavelengths of 625 - 740 nm, which we call the color red.
OR,
If in that universe the only visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that existed was 430 - 500 nm, then the ES, being oddly discontinuous, would rang as follows: 100-380nm (ultraviolet range), 430-500nm (blue), 740 - 10,000 (infrared). In which case there would be no reason to theorize there are wavelengths of 625 - 740 nm (red).

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A claim you make without giving any reason.

(Specifically, something in the mind: free will)

Free will does not exist. The universe is not entirely deterministic, but the idea of people always making rational free of external sources is something that doesn't exist either. The very fact we have "culture," and myriads of them alone demonstrates people are not free to will their lives as a captain would a ship.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry I do not know what a 'logical not gate' is.

It just inverts its input: 1 to 0, 0 to 1. If you feed the machine's prediction of the gate's output into its input, the prediction is confounded - yet the system it's trying to predict is simple and deterministic.

The problem is with recursion if the prediction itself affects what it is trying to predict - nothing to do with whether it's deterministic or not and certainly nothing to do with "free will".

 

[ratiocinator]

False. Your 4 enumerated propositions do not constitute a deduction; your conclusion is not deduced from the premises.

And the inane repetition goes on.

It really is stunning that somebody can be so arrogant/complacent/inattentive as to completely ignore a claim of mathematical proof - especially one that comes with the offer of a full explanation if you don't have the knowledge to understand it for yourself.

Anyway, I'll repeat it here - followed by the deduction in the format you've been whingeing about.

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

P1: E = D ∪ R
P2: C ⊂ E
P2.1: F ⊆ C
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.

Or, in your preferred format:-

P1: All E are (D or R)
P2: All C are E
IC1: All C are (D or R) [syllogism - Middle: E, Subject: C, Predicate: (D or R)]
P2.1: All F are C
IC2: All F are (D or R) [syllogism]
P3: F not R
C: F are D [disjunctive syllogism]

Obviously you are incapable of engaging in logical thought, even in a simple case like this - and I have wasted more than enough time trying to prise some sense out of you.

 

[ratiocinator]

But as Pandora herself makes us realize, her behavior is such that we always
will get the color of her dress wrong.

So her mind is entirely unpredictable for that behavior,
thus her mind MUST be at least partly indeterminate, and thus she is free.

I seriously can't believe you wrote this without seeing the obvious flaw!

If Pandora only had two dresses - then her behaviour is to look at the prediction of the contraption and wear the other dress - so far from being unpredictable - she is being entirely predictable (a human NOT-gate). Anybody else (or another simple prediction machine) could look at the contraption's output and predict what colour dress she would wear with no problem at all.

As I said: the problem arises when the prediction affects what is being predicted. It has nothing to do with indeterminism.

Also, why do you imagine indeterminism would make us "free"?