That's the crux of my argument though, the idea of determinism vs. non-determinism specifically depends on knowledge. Unless we are certain we know everything (unlikely), then we cannot know it is non-deterministic. This is also why I said determinism is non-falsifiable.
Derakon wrote:
so by Occam's Razor there's no reason to assume that one exists.
Yet learning from mistakes of history, there's reason to assume one does exist.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your argument can be boiled down to "because classical physics is deterministic, all physics must be deterministic." Is that accurate?
If so, I don't find it be very convincing. There's no particular reason why we should assume that things behave sensibly when you look at them very closely.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your argument can be boiled down to "because classical physics is deterministic, all physics must be deterministic." Is that accurate?
No, not at all.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your argument can be boiled down to "because classical physics is deterministic, all physics must be deterministic." Is that accurate?
No, not at all.
Then please explain why you have any reason to expect that physics be deterministic at any level.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
It's useful for determinists to say what kind of determinism they are defending here: simple determinism or superdeterminism. According to the link, superdeterminism would avoid Bell's theorem by virtue of being completely deterministic and forbiding free will at all.
Analogy: the games we TAS in this website can be said to be deterministic, because the user input are not predetermined, but all the rest is.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
Then please explain why you have any reason to expect that physics be deterministic at any level.
Because based on everything I've ever seen and experimented with myself: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
I can't even comprehend how exactly we can know all the variables for something, and all the algorithms involved, and not know what the result would be. It even leads to all kinds of questions how that something even operates being known through and through. It would essentially mean that something has free will, which this topic is about. I have a hard time believing humans have free will, let alone minute particles that cannot be subdivided further. If we then postulate those particles have free will to do whatever, why aren't very strange things happening occasionally?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I was working on a longer reply to your previous comment but accidentally refreshed the page and lost that work. I'm afraid I won't be retyping it, but please let me know if you would like my input on any particular points. In lieu of that, let me address your latest post.
Nach wrote:
Derakon wrote:
Then please explain why you have any reason to expect that physics be deterministic at any level.
Because based on everything I've ever seen and experimented with myself: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
Then you have never seen or experimented with quantum mechanics. In it, there are limits to how much we can know about a system and the output is probabilistic in nature. This probability is not governed by hidden variables or the chaos seen in complex systems, rather it strongly appears that it enters into the theory "on the ground floor" so to speak.
Nach wrote:
I can't even comprehend how exactly we can know all the variables for something, and all the algorithms involved, and not know what the result would be. It even leads to all kinds of questions how that something even operates being known through and through.
That's the thing about quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you cannot know all the variables! And although the uncertainty principle is relatively easy to grasp to the point that high school students are regularly exposed to it, it is actually a consequence of deeper principles at work. For the sake of this argument, however, if you believe Heisenberg, you've already refuted your own notion of determinism.
Nach wrote:
It would essentially mean that something has free will, which this topic is about. I have a hard time believing humans have free will, let alone minute particles that cannot be subdivided further. If we then postulate those particles have free will to do whatever, why aren't very strange things happening occasionally?
Despite what New Age hucksters will tell you, quantum mechanics has essentially nothing to say about free will. It does have plenty to say about determinism and it is strong indication that we live in a probabilistic, not deterministic universe. But if your own desires are governed by the laws of probability and not by some underlying volition on your part, does that somehow reignite free will?
The one thing that quantum mechanics does is free us from the bounds of strict determinism, which is what you have talked about throughout much of this thread. It does so by swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction, saying that probability governs the universe and there is nothing within the theory that suggests that particles (or human beings) have anything resembling free will. From a very optimistic viewpoint, there may be some sort of new theory that either subsumes quantum mechanics or perhaps bridges the quantum and macroscopic worlds and this new theory might allow for the intuitive notion of free will, but that is purely speculative. No such theory exists-- not while passing the muster for scientific rigor, at least.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
That's the thing about quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you cannot know all the variables!
And although the uncertainty principle is relatively easy to grasp to the point that high school students are regularly exposed to it, it is actually a consequence of deeper principles at work. For the sake of this argument, however, if you believe Heisenberg, you've already refuted your own notion of determinism.
Your logic doesn't follow for me, unless you're saying because we cannot know the variables, therefore they do not exist.
Just because we cannot know how something is determined does not mean nothing is determining it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
That's the thing about quantum mechanics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you cannot know all the variables!
And although the uncertainty principle is relatively easy to grasp to the point that high school students are regularly exposed to it, it is actually a consequence of deeper principles at work. For the sake of this argument, however, if you believe Heisenberg, you've already refuted your own notion of determinism.
Your logic doesn't follow for me, unless you're saying because we cannot know the variables, therefore they do not exist.
Just because we cannot know how something is determined does not mean nothing is determining it.
This is exactly what people keep trying to hammer home for you and is the central point of Bell's theorem. There are no hidden variables. Your phrasing that "they do not exist" is troublesome because it's not clear what you mean. Measurable quantities exist (i.e., knowing a particle's position does not mean its momentum "does not exist", it just means it is undetermined) but having information about one quantity certainly affects how much we can know about other quantities simultaneously. You cannot know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously and you cannot know the spin states of a particle along two axes that aren't colinear.
As was described in the Wired article earlier, this argument is distinct from the old "If a tree falls in a forest..." adage. I am not simply saying that we cannot know the underlying variables and so they might as well not exist. I am saying that if such variables existed, their predictions would be inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics. We can (and have) run experiments to show that there are no underlying variables.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
We can (and have) run experiments to show that there are no underlying variables.
That show there are no underlying variables? Or that there is no explanation yet which accounts for the possibility of underlying variables?
Further all the experiments I read about said they only proved no local variables. Has there been more tests?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Then please explain why you have any reason to expect that physics be deterministic at any level.
Because based on everything I've ever seen and experimented with myself: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
So in other words, your personal experience is what leads you to extrapolate that the world is deterministic. To rephrase pithily, because classical physics is deterministic, all physics is presumed to be deterministic.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
We can (and have) run experiments to show that there are no underlying variables.
That show there are no underlying variables? Or that there is no explanation yet which accounts for the possibility of underlying variables?
Further all the experiments I read about said they only proved no local variables. Has there been more tests?
No underlying variables.
You can quibble about potential non-local hidden variables, but you need to get up to speed with the theory first. Non-local hidden variables are generally scoffed at because they are non-falsifiable and violate special relativity.
Because based on everything I've ever seen and experimented with myself: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
Sure, if we were all-knowing, we could determine very accurately what happens in the future, but nobody knows everything because infinity can't be known.
I have a hard time believing humans have free will, let alone minute particles that cannot be subdivided further. If we then postulate those particles have free will to do whatever, why aren't very strange things happening occasionally?
The less consciousness a life form has and the less complex its body is, the less it can express itself. That's why humans, insects and particles behave differently.
What makes "physical laws" more believable than free will? A physical law is just a concept created by humans to describe predictable behavior in nature. Just because it's predictable doesn't mean it's controlled by something else than willpower. Unlike physical laws, willpower is something we all have experience of, so it's something everybody knows is real, unless they are educated/indoctrinated out of that knowledge.
The reason people nowadays believe in the laws of nature instead of the laws/wills of God, is because people worship nature (materialism) instead of God.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm a devil worshiper (slave of material desires), like the rest of humanity, so I'm not any better, but I know that the world is controlled by lifeforce instead of deathforce (The "laws of nature" are dead. They are not alive). So it all depends on if you think death is God, or if you think Life is God. Which is the creator/preserver of everything?
If the laws of physics rule, then death rules. That belief system renders everything, including humans, dead, because everything is controlled by the laws of physics, and nothing has will/life.
Sure, if we were all-knowing, we could determine very accurately what happens in the future, but nobody knows everything because infinity can't be known.
This doesn't follow. Are you claiming that either the future is infinite or that the universe is infinite? If so, on what basis?
nfq wrote:
The less consciousness a life form has and the less complex its body is, the less it can express itself. That's why humans, insects and particles behave differently.
What does this have to do with free will?
nfq wrote:
What makes "physical laws" more believable than free will? A physical law is just a concept created by humans to describe predictable behavior in nature.
Predictable behavior in nature and of nature, yes. Are you suggesting that humans are not naturally occurring beings?
nfq wrote:
Unlike physical laws, willpower is something we all have experience of, so it's something everybody knows is real, unless they are educated/indoctrinated out of that knowledge.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. You cannot fathom how anyone can deny free will because we "all have experience of it." I'd argue that we also all have experience of dreams, but dreams, while a shared experience, are not literally real. However, this fits the criteria of your argument as I understand it. Please explain makes a dream different from free will.
(The "laws of nature" are dead. They are not alive).
In what sense are they dead? In the same sense as a rock is dead? In the same sense as an idea is dead?
If the laws of physics rule, then death rules. That belief system renders everything, including humans, dead, because everything is controlled by the laws of physics, and nothing has will/life.
Will and life are two different terms with two different meanings. You're intentionally conflating them. Do you have anything to back up these assertions?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
This doesn't follow. Are you claiming that either the future is infinite or that the universe is infinite? If so, on what basis?
There are infinite things to know, because every new answer gives rise to another question. Behind every effect in the universe is another cause, because of the law of cause and effect.
And of course the universe/everything and future are infinite too. A finite "everything" would be illogical, because then there would have to be something outside that limits it. The future can't be finite because things can't stop existing, for example because of the first law in thermodynamics.
What does this have to do with free will?
Lifeforms have less free will, the less complex they are.
Predictable behavior in nature and of nature, yes. Are you suggesting that humans are not naturally occurring beings?
Free will and consciousness are supernatural, because we can control nature (our body for example) using consciousness.
In what sense are they dead? In the same sense as a rock is dead? In the same sense as an idea is dead?
The way they are defined, and the way science defines life, the laws of nature are obviously not alive.
Will and life are two different terms with two different meanings. You're intentionally conflating them. Do you have anything to back up these assertions?
Obviously you can't say that humans or anything is alive if they are composed of particles, like atoms, which are completely dead according to science. And on top of that, everything is controlled by laws which have no willpower, they just do things for no reason, lol.
Science defines life as death and death as life. In science, death is the giver of life, and life is just dead matter.
And of course the universe/everything and future are infinite too. A finite "everything" would be illogical, because then there would have to be something outside that limits it. The future can't be finite because things can't stop existing, for example because of the first law in thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics is not held in General Relativity. For instance, the expanding universe causes light to redshift without actually depositing its energy anywhere.
But irrespective of that point, the assertion that a finite "everything" is illogical doesn't seem well supported. Why must there be something "outside" that "limits" it?
We are used to dealing with finite "everything" in daily life. For instance, this is everything in my room. This is everything in my house. This is everything on the surface of planet Earth. "Room", "House", "Earth" are valid categories for describing a set of things, why is not "Universe" also valid?
Lifeforms have less free will, the less complex they are.
I guess my major problem with this statement is twofold.
1) It is a bare assertion.
2) It assumes what you are attempting to prove (that free will exists.)
Free will and consciousness are supernatural, because we can control nature (our body for example) using consciousness.
This is also a bare assertion.
The way they are defined, and the way science defines life, the laws of nature are obviously not alive.
"Dead" and "Not Alive" are two different concepts. A corpse is dead. A rock is simply not alive. You asserted that the laws of nature were "dead." And you made a rather large deal out of it, as I recall. Calling it a "deathforce" instead of a "lifeforce." Or something similarly outrageous.
For the record, most concepts of the Christian God of the Bible also do not fit the scientific definition of life. As the Christian God, as a supernatural being, presumably does not metabolize.
Obviously you can't say that humans or anything is alive if they are composed of particles, like atoms, which are completely dead according to science. And on top of that, everything is controlled by laws which have no willpower, they just do things for no reason, lol.
Sure I can. Humans are composed of particles, like atoms, that individually do not have life. However, in aggregate, because they perform tasks such as metabolism, signaling, etc, the sum total of these interactions can be considered life.
Reducio ad absurdism only really works if you don't turn the argument into a strawman. This is what you just did, and that's why your argument doesn't hold water.
Here is a similarly structured argument to highlight why the argument is a poor one:
Obviously, you can't say that computers can calculate logarithms if they are composed of transistors, which are merely switches according to science. And on top of that, everything is controlled by a CPU which has no knowledge of what a logarithm is, it's just executing instructions for no reason, lol.
Science defines life as death and death as life. In science, death is the giver of life, and life is just dead matter.
This reads like a word salad, frankly. :/ It's also patently untrue when taken at face value.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
But irrespective of that point, the assertion that a finite "everything" is illogical doesn't seem well supported. Why must there be something "outside" that "limits" it?
Because there is no other way of making an object finite, than by separating it from something else. There is no evidence or logical way for an object to be finite and at the same time without having some kind of borders/limits. It's completely illogical, but people believe any foolish thing just because scientists/authorities say so.
We are used to dealing with finite "everything" in daily life. For instance, this is everything in my room. This is everything in my house. This is everything on the surface of planet Earth. "Room", "House", "Earth" are valid categories for describing a set of things, why is not "Universe" also valid?
The universe means absolutely everything, unlike a house, which is limited. There is not "everything" in your house, because your house doesn't contain the universe.
I guess my major problem with this statement is twofold.
1) It is a bare assertion.
2) It assumes what you are attempting to prove (that free will exists.)
Just like it's a bare assertion that "natural laws" exist and control the universe. Like I said, it depends on if you want to believe that death or life rules the universe. Your choice.
This is also a bare assertion.
It's not, because it's demonstrable. You can use your willpower to move your body.
"Dead" and "Not Alive" are two different concepts. A corpse is dead. A rock is simply not alive. You asserted that the laws of nature were "dead." And you made a rather large deal out of it, as I recall. Calling it a "deathforce" instead of a "lifeforce." Or something similarly outrageous.
Even though they are slightly different concepts, the point is that in the mind, people still equate them, which leads to the worship of death and materialism.
For the record, most concepts of the Christian God of the Bible also do not fit the scientific definition of life. As the Christian God, as a supernatural being, presumably does not metabolize.
That's true, but that's because like I said: science defines death as life, and life as death. So obviously it would define God as dead. Science is all about death worship, trust me.
In reality though, the supernatural is obviously life, because if the natural didn't have anything superior that controlled it, it wouldn't be able to do anything.
Sure I can. Humans are composed of particles, like atoms, that individually do not have life. However, in aggregate, because they perform tasks such as metabolism, signaling, etc, the sum total of these interactions can be considered life.
Sure, you can believe that, but that's a completely arbitrary definition of life, which has nothing to do with the reality of life. I mean, why would "performing certain tasks" make something alive? Just because some scientists decided so. They have no evidence that those tasks actually makes it alive. They just arbitrarily decided that that is "life". And by doing that, they reduced life into death, in the minds of those fooled by them.
This reads like a word salad, frankly. :/ It's also patently untrue when taken at face value.
No, think about it. Dead particles came together by natural laws and the dead sun created "life" on earth. Death is the giver of life according to science. And lifeforms are composed of dead particles called atoms, and there is no free will, no meaning in life and everything is pointless according to science. That's why many people become depressed and want to kill themselves when they learn these things about science in school. I've read many times about teenagers who think they are just "meat machines", and there is no free will, no morals, and everything is just random, which makes them very unstable.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
I'm going to drop this here, and then ask:
Every time this subject gets brought up in our little corner of the internet, it very quickly devolves into a discussion about quantum physics. What does that have to do with the question of "free will," whatever that means? The points of debate appear to come down to, "The universe is completely deterministic," verses, "The universe has randomness to it," but both seem to be two sides of the, "Our actions are beyond our control," coin.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
Every time this subject gets brought up in our little corner of the internet, it very quickly devolves into a discussion about quantum physics. What does that have to do with the question of "free will," whatever that means? The points of debate appear to come down to, "The universe is completely deterministic," verses, "The universe has randomness to it," but both seem to be two sides of the, "Our actions are beyond our control," coin.
Not presuming to speak for others here, but the problem we usually run into on this front is that we take as a baseline assumption the fact that humans are simply very complex biological machines. Under such an assumption, it seems reasonable to then assume that any decision made by a human would simply be the expected output of that machine given its current inputs (its environment and current "system state"). Both assumptions appear to be consistent with what we've learned so far of biology, physics, psychology, etc. However, they also lead to the inevitable conclusion that humans are deterministic, and a deterministic entity cannot have free will (the ability to decide things for itself) because its decisions are inevitable and predictable. A clock cannot decide when one second ends and the next begins; the transition is an inevitable fallout from the way the clock is put together. So it is with humans, under these assumptions.
Thus, "free will" in such a system would require some kind of self/identity/soul that is independent of the biological self (not constrained by its rules) but nonetheless able to make decisions on its behalf. We have found no evidence of such a thing yet, which suggests that if it exists, it must "reside" in some part of the universe's rules that we haven't yet satisfactorily plumbed. Since its duty would be to free the biological machine from its deterministic nature, it seems reasonable to look to quantum mechanics, which is by its very nature nondeterministic.
Mind, even if you accept that quantum mechanics is real and that the universe is nondeterministic, that doesn't mean that free will exists. It just means that at a fundamental level, things are unpredictable.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Debating with nfq is like debating the TimeCube guy. I would recommend against it.
Point taken. I'll let him have the last word on his beliefs, such as they are.
Anyway, here's my view, because I have not shared it yet.
Free Will is not a well defined concept, so discussing whether or not one believes in "Free Will" is always going to be contentious because it means different things to different people.
As Derakon noted, as far as I am aware, humans are biological machines, and state in + inputs yields state out. In this case, our state is a quantum one, which is subject to indeterminism. However, like most macroscopic states, the indeterminism seems to be vanishingly small. However, because of chaos effects, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that humans are completely unpredictable beyond a few days as a result (even with maximally certain knowledge about the system state and the inputs.)
So what is "Free Will?"
If "Free Will" is the ability to make any choice given any situation (so-called libertarian free will) then it's pretty clear from the above analogy that such a "Free Will" simply does not exist.
If "Free Will" is the unpredictability of humans. The there is a qualified yes to that answer, with the qualifications because such prediction is possible, but only for a short amount of time. This seems to be a rather unsatisfying sort of free will, however, because the cause of your unpredictability seems outside of your ability to influence, being mostly caused by quantum effects and inputs, rather than any motivating "will" you can bring to bear upon yourself.
What are the implications of this seeming lack of free will on ethics? As far as I'm concerned, nothing. Humans have a very convincing illusion of free will, and even if it is ultimately an illusion, it's still a useful one, like money. Society will still punish those who seek to damage it because that's what's best for the members of the society.
Supporting arguments:
We can see Clive Wearing that the biological machine / state replay hypothesis is at least broadly correct.
We know from the study of quantum mechanics that the universe is fundamentally indeterminant.
We know from the study of biological systems that many systems, including the mind, are non-linear and exhibit chaotic features. And we know from the study of chaos theory that differences between systems accumulate exponentially. It's difficult to guess the state size of the human mind vs the standard uncertainty in the state (mostly because the state is blisteringly complex) vs how quickly the state mutates, so it's difficult to know how long a human is predictable before one would need to gather more information. "A few days" is merely a guess. Could be "a few minutes" or "a few years."
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
