Question regarding free will

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

rea·son
ˈrēzən/
noun
noun: reason; plural noun: reasons
1.a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
"the minister resigned for personal reasons"
synonyms: cause, ground(s), basis, rationale; More

'

So an explanation is thus a cause?

Because it's the way our universe works. The only other option is that events arise absolutely, completely randomly, a state which has not been shown to definitely exist

Our universe works causally because it works causally?

randomness is not the only other option: free creative will of God is a third option.
But you freely choose to ignore it.

Just keep in mind that events can only arise through one of two ways;

1) Causation
2) Randomness

So take your pick.

3)...

And yet again you freely choose to ignore the clear 3rd option
because you 'believe' it does not exist.

Still your only argument is to say that the reason causality exists is because it does.

 

[Skwim]

'

So an explanation is thus a cause?

It certainly could be. Why not? Haven't you ever been given an explanation that caused you to do something? You picked up your room because it was explained to you that if you didn't you wouldn't get any dessert after dinner.

Our universe works causally because it works causally?

Well, if you want to phrase it as a tautology, sure. But tautologies "An F is an F because it's an F" are absolutely meaningless and without value.

randomness is not the only other option: free creative will of God is a third option.

Then you'll have to explain just how this third option works. What is the mechanism by which god does what he does and not do something else? Merely claiming it exists, and leaving it at that, is no more convincing than claiming five-legged, flying elephants exist.

And yet again you freely choose to ignore the clear 3rd option
because you 'believe' it does not exist.

No, it's because I haven't seen sufficient reason to believe. Show me the five-legged, flying elephants you claim to exist (the evidence).

Still your only argument is to say that the reason causality exists is because it does.

So, do you deny that causality exists? Really??? There is no such a thing as "Because . . . ."

.

 

[viole]

Why 2? Why specify?

What examples are there of identical reactions producing separate effects?

Current QM observations are all theoretical.

I don't know any either. If I knew of some, I would not be a determinist. And I am a determinist even under QM, mutatis mutandis.

Fact is, physical reality seems to globally preserve information and does not create new one. Which entails determinism and reversibility. Nothing new under the sun, so to speak.

By the way, what do you mean with theoretical observations?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Just to get this out of the way, there are several kinds of determinisms (different people have slightly different lists).

Determinism (hard or scientific): the philosophical view that all events (including mental events) have a cause. In other words, all states of affairs, both physical and mental, are conditioned by their causes and are describable by scientific law.

Determinism (soft): the philosophical view that all physical events are caused but mental processes are uncaused. Choices have only to do with mental processes and have no actual effect in the external world.

Predeterminism: the philosophical and theological view that combines God with determinism. On this doctrine events throughout eternity have been foreordained by some supernatural power in a causal sequence.

Fatalism: the philosophical and sometimes theological doctrine that specific events are fixed in advance (either by God or by some unknown means) although there might be some free play in minor events.
source
​

That done, just what is this easy falsification of determinism that you claim exists? I know you told Sleeppy

"If the same identical state on two insulated systems produces a different change of state on each of them."​

But this is as convincing as saying that Superman could fly if he can zoom around in the air without any kind of aid. Thing is, your if here is meaningless. What you need to do is show how two such different states could arise.

I don't really need to say how. i don't know how because all viable physical theories we have are intrinsically deterministic. But I can experiment. I can see if there are violations that go beyond our error tolerance in setting the initial conditions on two otherwise identical systems.

And close only counts in horseshoes. Moreover, your "prima facie" is the qualifier that acknowledges determinism as the only mechanism of change. Intrinsic Randomness, the kind of randomness that is utterly without cause, is only supported in QM with the caveat that it doesn't exclude the existence of effective hidden variable theories that could allow for partial predictions of the evolution of the systems....
.

Actually, all QM equations are deterministic at the bottom. Even without hidden variables. You just need to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation and reduce the process of observation to entanglement between observer and observed.

The advantage is that you will be totally QM compliant without introducing weird wave collapses induced by conscious observation, that are nowhere to be seen in the equations of the theory.

True, this leads to the observer also splitting itself in different observer depending on what they observed and both in a superpostion of states, like entangled particles that share only a limited set of compatible states, which is slightly counterintuitive.

However, the Copenhagen interpretation is equally counter intuitive and has no support from the theory. It is just an ad hoc explanation of observation that suffers from the fallacy of trying to adapt our classical intuition to something that is fundamentally not classical.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

I don't really need to say how.

Then there's no reason to take you seriously. You may as well have said that elephants can fly, and leave it at that. And because you refuse to support your claim that you have an easy falsification of determinism I'll simply assume you were kidding---to be kind.

i don't know how because all viable physical theories we have are intrinsically deterministic. But I can experiment. I can see if there are violations that go beyond our error tolerance in setting the initial conditions on two otherwise identical systems.

Then I await the results of your experiment, and its explanation.

Actually, all QM equations are deterministic at the bottom. Even without hidden variables. You just need to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation and reduce the process of observation to entanglement between observer and observed.

Never took it into consideration.

.

 

[viole]

Then there's no reason to take you seriously. You may as well have said that elephants can fly, and leave it at that. And because you refuse to support your claim that you have an easy falsification of determinism I'll simply assume you were kidding---to be kind.

That is incoherent. I am positing that elephant cannot fly (same initial conditions do not lead to different results) . Is that falsifiable? Of course it is.

Well, the hows should follow the observation. And again, set two identical systems, with the exact same initial conditions (within error margin) and check that they produce results which are different and not explainable by the error margin. If you manage that, then you would have falsified determinism. You can try with simple things. Play billiards and tell me if kicking the cue ball with the same angle and momentum, produces vastly different results. If you can, you would have falsified determinism. The same with shooting things, apples fallng, etc.

When is the last time you have observed an apple flying to orbit when it leaves a tree? That would be a great falsification of determinism.

The burden is on you, I am afraid.

Alternatively, you can show how physical information is lost. For instance by falling into a black hole. That is more or less the same if we consider the symmetry of time direction. For losing information, means producing new information if we revert time. Also a defeater of determinism.

Can you do that? Caveat emptor: Hawking lost a wager while he tried exactly that.

So, it appears there are no known violation of determinism and its time reversal equivalent: reversibility. Even though people tried to falsify it. Bacause it is perfectly falsifiable.

Physical information is known to be constant, at the time of this post. We know how we can falsify this, but we have not been successful.

And things like soft determinism seem to be only ad hoc exceptions that are nowhere to be found in the laws of nature and seems to serve the only purpose of preserving our ego as agents in control of our destiny. Or do you think that we have souls not subject to the laws of physics?

Not much different from the claim that evolution by natural selection is unfalsifiable. Of course it is, like determinism. And all things that can be wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't know any either. If I knew of some, I would not be a determinist. And I am a determinist even under QM, mutatis mutandis.

Fact is, physical reality seems to globally preserve information and does not create new one. Which entails determinism and reversibility. Nothing new under the sun, so to speak.

By the way, what do you mean with theoretical observations?

Ciao

- viole

Theoretical. What is observed in QM isn't adequately interpreted.

 

[viole]

Theoretical. What is observed in QM isn't adequately interpreted.

What is not adequately interpreted, in your opinion?

What about not interpreting it? What about following the advice of some phyisicists to shut up and just follow the math, as long as it explain things?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

That is incoherent. I am positing that elephant cannot fly (same initial conditions do not lead to different results) . Is that falsifiable? Of course it is.

You miss my point, which is: you made a claim that "determinism . . . is easy to falsify." but refused "I don't really need to say how." to back it up. All else is inconsequential blather. However, now you tell us how:

Well, the hows should follow the observation. And again, set two identical systems, with the exact same initial conditions (within error margin) and check that they produce results which are different and not explainable by the error margin. If you manage that, then you would have falsified determinism. You can try with simple things. Play billiards and tell me if kicking the cue ball with the same angle and momentum, produces vastly different results.

NOPE. They have to be absolutely identical.

If you can, you would have falsified determinism. The same with shooting things, apples fallng, etc.

And if elephants had wings they could fly. So, go right ahead with your experiment and disprove determinism. But until then all you have is an untested hypothesis, which is as convincing as the assertion that elephants could fly if they had wings.


.

 

[viole]

NOPE. They have to be absolutely identical.
.

Why? If you let a ball falling from the same altitude several times, and you have different outcomes, without any further explanation (no time depeding changing gravitational field, for instance) ....

then you would have falsified determinism. You would have experimental evidence that the same experiment, with the same initial conditions, does not provide a unique solution. Which would destroy determinism.

If that is not a falsification of determinism, then, well, it is clear why you think it is not falsifiable.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Why? If you let a ball falling from the same altitude several times, and you have different outcomes, without any further explanation (no time depeding changing gravitational field, for instance) ....

then you would have falsified determinism. You would have experimental evidence that the same experiment, with the same initial conditions, does not provide a unique solution.

Then you're stuck with explaining WHY there are different outcomes. It isn't enough to simply take the results, pack up your brief case, and go home. Things happen for a reason, and if the thing that's happening happens to be different outcomes then as a responsible investigator you're obligated to investigate the reason for the different outcomes, or at least acknowledge that there had to be different factors at work that caused the differences. Or is it your contention that the different outcomes are a result of complete and utter randomness?

 

[viole]

Then you're stuck with explaining WHY there are different outcomes. It isn't enough to simply take the results, pack up your brief case, and go home. Things happen for a reason, and if the thing that's happening happens to be different outcomes then as a responsible investigator you're obligated to investigate the reason for the different outcomes, or at least acknowledge that there had to be different factors at work that caused the differences. Or is it your contention that the different outcomes are a result of complete and utter randomness?

Nothing of the sort. I am a determinist. I never experienced different outcomes if the initial conditions are the same and the environment of the experiment did not change.

I was just pointing out that it is possible to defeat determinism. It is actually very easy. I made a couple of examples. The day that it will be defeated, I will stop being a determinist. But I am not holding my breath.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

You miss my point, which is: you made a claim that "determinism . . . is easy to falsify." but refused "I don't really need to say how." to back it up. All else is inconsequential blather. However, now you tell us how:.

There's no point in arguing with a determinist as they lack the ability to change their mind.

It's not their fault they believe in determinism as they had no choice in the matter. In fact their belief is not even a matter of sound reasoning. It is just the result of a electro-chemical process in their brain in which no real evaluation was made. No decision of what the truth of determinism should be based on. The feeling that they made a logical choice to believe in determinism is just an illusion. Their brain could have told them to believe in anything. They have no real reason to believe in determinism over freewill. They could as easily believed in either if the universe had had a different start to it.

 

[Skwim]

There's no point in arguing with a determinist as they lack the ability to change their mind.

Not true at all. Changing one's mind is a matter of cause/effect impacting one's thinking. If I change my mind it's because various factors have come together to make it happen.

It's not their fault they believe in determinism as they had no choice in the matter. In fact their belief is not even a matter of sound reasoning. It is just the result of a electro-chemical process in their brain in which no real evaluation was made.

Very true; although, sound reasoning can very well be the mechanism by which belief arises.

The feeling that they made a logical choice to believe in determinism is just an illusion. Their brain could have told them to believe in anything.

Hardly true at all. Their brain does what it does because it can't do any differently.

They have no real reason to believe in determinism over freewill.

Then you haven't read much of what they've said at all.

They could as easily believed in either if the universe had had a different start to it.

How so?

.

 

[Falvlun]

Nothing of the sort. I am a determinist. I never experienced different outcomes if the initial conditions are the same and the environment of the experiment did not change.

I was just pointing out that it is possible to defeat determinism. It is actually very easy. I made a couple of examples. The day that it will be defeated, I will stop being a determinist. But I am not holding my breath.

Ciao

- viole

I think the problem is that we can never know the conditions are exactly the same. Your examples certainly didn't account for all conditions: for example, the felt in the pool table will be slightly more crushed from the roll of the first ball.

So, if we ever do have a situation where the outcomes are different, is it because determinism has been shown to be false, or is it merely because we did not account for all possible conditions?

 

[viole]

I think the problem is that we can never know the conditions are exactly the same. Your examples certainly didn't account for all conditions: for example, the felt in the pool table will be slightly more crushed from the roll of the first ball.

So, if we ever do have a situation where the outcomes are different, is it because determinism has been shown to be false, or is it merely because we did not account for all possible conditions?

Good question.

If we dogmatically declare determinism as true and we just claim ignorance about the possible conditions that seem to have violated it, we are not better than religious people. And determinism is indeed unfalsifiable.

If, on the other hand, we keep the option open that determinism can be violated, then, I think it is rational to infer that determinism has been violated, if no explanations can be presented that can recover it.

To misqote Hume: determinism can be considered violated if all available explanations involve a bigger violation of determinism.

Does that method leads to truth? Not necessariliy. It could be that determinism is indeed true and we are missing something.

However, letting fall a premise instead of defending it ad infinitum, seems to have been a more reliable vehicle towards finding actual truths.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

Not true at all. Changing one's mind is a matter of cause/effect impacting one's thinking. If I change my mind it's because various factors have come together to make it happen.

But you didn't actually change your mind. You would not be able to consciously make a decision.

Very true; although, sound reasoning can very well be the mechanism by which belief arises.

This would assume reasoning could alter the outcome. The outcome could not be altered by conscious activity. Any sense you have of reasoning would just be an illusion.

Hardly true at all. Their brain does what it does because it can't do any differently.

What I meant was that they had no choice in what to believe. Under different circumstances, they would have be caused by their brain to believe something else.

Then you haven't read much of what they've said at all.

That's the irony. The determinist's argument counters determinism.

How so?
.

Because according to determinism what they believe is a mater of circumstances not choice. So different circumstances would cause different belief.

 

[Skwim]

But you didn't actually change your mind. You would not be able to consciously make a decision.

Changing ones mind doesn't entail choosing to do so.

This would assume reasoning could alter the outcome.

And why couldn't it. I set out walking to the grocery store, (the outcome of setting out on my walk being the arrival at the grocery store). On the way there I'm told it burned down. Reasoning that it would be fruitless to continue my walk I turn around and walk home. The outcome of setting out to walk to the grocery store has been altered by my reasoning.

The outcome could not be altered by conscious activity.

Why not?

Any sense you have of reasoning would just be an illusion.

Why? (I take "illusion" as meaning, in part, incorrect.)

Then you haven't read much of what they've said at all.

That's the irony. The determinist's argument counters determinism.

In what manner?

Because according to determinism what they believe is a mater of circumstances not choice. So different circumstances would cause different belief.

Necessarily? Why necessarily? Keep in mind that there is more than one way to get to New York city.

 

[Nakosis]

So, cosmological arguments like Kalam's, are actually based on a possibly wrong premise?

For one, that the universe had a beginning could be a false premise.

By the way, determinism (yes, there is only one kind thereof) is easy to falsify.

Ciao

- viole

Not if it is true. The only way it could be falsified is if it were untrue. It you take the position that determinism is true you also have to take the position that it can't be falsified.

 

[Nakosis]

Changing ones mind doesn't entail choosing to do so.

Changing from what to what? You would have to alter what it could have been. You would have to defeat determinism in order to change your mind.

And why couldn't it. I set out walking to the grocery store, (the outcome of setting out on my walk being the arrival at the grocery store). On the way there I'm told it burned down. Reasoning that it would be fruitless to continue my walk I turn around and walk home. The outcome of setting out to walk to the grocery store has been altered by my reasoning.

Determinism doesn't allow you to consciously alter anything. You would continue on, possibly to see the burned down store or heading home before having made a conscious choice to do either. You only felt you made a decision.

Why not?

Because you're saying you've could have done other than what you did. Your conscious reasoning altered the outcome. If our conscious reasoning can alter the outcome then determinism is not true.

Why? (I take "illusion" as meaning, in part, incorrect.)

Because determinism doesn't allow you to alter outcomes. For your reasoning to have any effect, you'd have to be able to alter the outcome.

In what manner?

Because they use reasoning to justify their belief. This would imply that conscious reasoning altered the outcome. If conscious reasoning can alter the outcome then determinism is not true.

Necessarily? Why necessarily? Keep in mind that there is more than one way to get to New York city.

No there's not. Not if determinism is true. There is only one way for you to get to New York city. That way was determined long before you were born at the beginning of time.