free will-how can it exist?

[MGL]

Response to Chaz

Summary of my understanding of Chaz’s points:

1) There are many reliable causal theories for a wide range of events and this suggest that all events are caused rather than most events because there are so many examples of determined events and none of free will, although there are still many currently unexplained events.

2) Concurrent events can be in a causal relation despite the usual understanding that the cause has to precede its effect. Thus a bolt of lightning – which is reducable to the exchange of electrons between the ground and the atmosphere - is therefore caused by the exchange of electrons even though the lighting and the electron exchanges occur simultaneously and they both actually have the same cause – the build up of positive and negative charges.

3) Successful criticism of an argument that determinism is necessarily true is an argument for non-determinism. Successful criticism of an argument claiming the logical impossibility of free will is an argument in favour of its existence.

4) Random events make the concept of free will bankrupt because free will has nothing to do with randomness. The reason why it has nothing to do with randomness is because random events make the concept of free will bankrupt.

5) The idea that random actions are nevertheless constrained by experience, skills, knowledge etc somehow implies that the efforts of education and experience are random. Because this inference turns the idea of constrained random actions into a joke, the idea itself must be considered humourous.

6) Because there is no conclusive example of a free-willed cause, we should close our mind to its possibility, despite the impossibility of any conclusive evidence in its favour. By the same reasoning we should close our mind to the possibility that we are not a brain in a VAT because there is no conclusive proof we are not. While Occam’s razor allows us to reject the brain in the VAT it allows us to keep our mind closed to the possibility of free-willed causes because it makes the world simpler to understand, despite the increased complexity that might be required to understand currently unexplained events.

7) It is not the case that nothing could count as conclusive evidence that something is uncaused because Karl Popper’s criteria for a scientific theory was that it should be falsifiable. Although the theories that everything has a cause and most things have a cause are both unfalsifiable, the former can still be falsified because Karl Popper’s name can be mentioned.

8 ) Because mathematical models only simulate reality and may not be true, it is important to ignore the possibility that they might be true. This seems especially advisable if the theories are probablistic because someone might interpret this as implying reality itself as probablistic, which is of course impossible because it would mean that reality would somehow be immune to the laws of physics even if our theories about them are probablistic.

[chaz wyman]

Response to Chaz

Summary of my understanding of Chaz’s points:

1) There are many reliable causal theories for a wide range of events and this suggest that all events are caused rather than most events because there are so many examples of determined events and none of free will, although there are still many currently unexplained events.

2) Concurrent events can be in a causal relation despite the usual understanding that the cause has to precede its effect. Thus a bolt of lightning – which is reducable to the exchange of electrons between the ground and the atmosphere - is therefore caused by the exchange of electrons even though the lighting and the electron exchanges occur simultaneously and they both actually have the same cause – the build up of positive and negative charges.

3) Successful criticism of an argument that determinism is necessarily true is an argument for non-determinism. Successful criticism of an argument claiming the logical impossibility of free will is an argument in favour of its existence.

4) Random events make the concept of free will bankrupt because free will has nothing to do with randomness. The reason why it has nothing to do with randomness is because random events make the concept of free will bankrupt.

5) The idea that random actions are nevertheless constrained by experience, skills, knowledge etc somehow implies that the efforts of education and experience are random. Because this inference turns the idea of constrained random actions into a joke, the idea itself must be considered humourous.

6) Because there is no conclusive example of a free-willed cause, we should close our mind to its possibility, despite the impossibility of any conclusive evidence in its favour. By the same reasoning we should close our mind to the possibility that we are not a brain in a VAT because there is no conclusive proof we are not. While Occam’s razor allows us to reject the brain in the VAT it allows us to keep our mind closed to the possibility of free-willed causes because it makes the world simpler to understand, despite the increased complexity that might be required to understand currently unexplained events.

7) It is not the case that nothing could count as conclusive evidence that something is uncaused because Karl Popper’s criteria for a scientific theory was that it should be falsifiable. Although the theories that everything has a cause and most things have a cause are both unfalsifiable, the former can still be falsified because Karl Popper’s name can be mentioned.

8 ) Because mathematical models only simulate reality and may not be true, it is important to ignore the possibility that they might be true. This seems especially advisable if the theories are probablistic because someone might interpret this as implying reality itself as probablistic, which is of course impossible because it would mean that reality would somehow be immune to the laws of physics even if our theories about them are probablistic.

Mainly bollocks

[MGL]

MGL: If event A and its constituent sub-events occur at exactly the same time how can the latter cause the other? ...

Not wanting to butt-in but can you give an example of such an event?

With your request in mind, I have given the example of a bolt of lightning and the exchange of electrons in my last post. Point 2 I think.

[chaz wyman]

MGL: If event A and its constituent sub-events occur at exactly the same time how can the latter cause the other? ...

Not wanting to butt-in but can you give an example of such an event?

With your request in mind, I have given the example of a bolt of lightning and the exchange of electrons in my last post. Point 2 I think.

"Instantaneous" is actually the speed of light. According to Einstein (a famous determinist) time and causation is no bar to determinism. Incidentally he also rejected the possibility of randomness.

[Arising_uk]

With your request in mind, I have given the example of a bolt of lightning and the exchange of electrons in my last post. Point 2 I think.

Forgive me, my physics is limited but I'm confused here, as it seems to me that until this build-up of electrons reaches the stage where they earth then there is no bolt of lighting? Hence the build-up is the cause. If not you appear to be saying that the build-up of electrons is the bolt-of-lighting and then making them two separate things so you can claim a contemporaneous cause and event? But in this case would not the cause be the potential electrical difference between the atmosphere and the earth?

[MGL]

With your request in mind, I have given the example of a bolt of lightning and the exchange of electrons in my last post. Point 2 I think.

Forgive me, my physics is limited but I'm confused here, as it seems to me that until this build-up of electrons reaches the stage where they earth then there is no bolt of lighting? Hence the build-up is the cause. If not you appear to be saying that the build-up of electrons is the bolt-of-lighting and then making them two separate things so you can claim a contemporaneous cause and event? But in this case would not the cause be the potential electrical difference between the atmosphere and the earth?

Thank you. That it precisely the point I make in point 2. It was Chaz that seemed to be suggesting that that there can be a contemporaneous cause. I was merely trying to demonstrate it as nonsense. My point was that if an event A ( eg a bolt of lightning ) is composed of\reducable to sub events ( eg exchange of electrons ) then these events are concurrent and the latter could not be considered the cause of the other.

[chaz wyman]

With your request in mind, I have given the example of a bolt of lightning and the exchange of electrons in my last post. Point 2 I think.

Forgive me, my physics is limited but I'm confused here, as it seems to me that until this build-up of electrons reaches the stage where they earth then there is no bolt of lighting? Hence the build-up is the cause. If not you appear to be saying that the build-up of electrons is the bolt-of-lighting and then making them two separate things so you can claim a contemporaneous cause and event? But in this case would not the cause be the potential electrical difference between the atmosphere and the earth?

Thank you. That it precisely the point I make in point 2. It was Chaz that seemed to be suggesting that that there can be a contemporaneous cause. I was merely trying to demonstrate it as nonsense. My point was that if an event A ( eg a bolt of lightning ) is composed of\reducable to sub events ( eg exchange of electrons ) then these events are concurrent and the latter could not be considered the cause of the other.

You have not demonstrated it to be nonsense. All you have done is to give a prime example of one.
When are you going to address the question?
Do you think that lightning is an example of free will?

[MGL]

Chaz: You have not demonstrated it to be nonsense. All you have done is to give a prime example of one.
When are you going to address the question?
Do you think that lightning is an example of free will?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGL:

I addressed the question in my first post. Since then I have been addressing your objections, but to remind you, I will recap and try and make things clearer.

The following is the structure of my argument, which is not intended to prove that free-will exists, but merely to assert its possibility, given the assumption that the universe is non-deterministic. Again, please note, I am not presenting an argument proving the universe is non-deterministic, I am only claiming that it is a reasonable possibility.

If there is such a thing as a will, then it is presumably something we would identify with some deliberating process in the brain, which would presumably be neurologically based.

If that deliberating process is inherently probabilistic, because the underlying laws of physic are inherently probabilistic and not deterministic, then the will has a certain degree of freedom to make decisions that are arbitrary but still constrained by the options that the probabilistic laws allow. I would consider this as a case of free-will.

Chaz’s latest objection and my responses.

You claimed that this does not make the will free because it is being caused by the underlying neurological processes. My point was that because the mental event of deliberation is equivalent to the collection of neurological sub events and therefore concurrent with them, there can be no causal relation involved.

You then seemed to suggest that one event can cause another, despite their occurring at precisely the same time, but failed to provide me with an example and for some reason expected me to provide one despite my claim that it was nonsense. The example I provided of lighting and electricity was an example of a macroscopic event being reducable to sub-atomic events and I used this example to illustrate the nonsense of the suggestion that the latter were a cause of the former. It was not meant as an example of free will because, I hope you will agree, it is not a deliberating process. So, if you still think simultaneous causation, as you call it, is possible, and not nonsense, perhaps you could now provide an example?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: You have not demonstrated it to be nonsense. All you have done is to give a prime example of one.
When are you going to address the question?
Do you think that lightning is an example of free will?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGL:

I addressed the question in my first post. Since then I have been addressing your objections, but to remind you, I will recap and try and make things clearer.

The following is the structure of my argument, which is not intended to prove that free-will exists, but merely to assert its possibility, given the assumption that the universe is non-deterministic. Again, please note, I am not presenting an argument proving the universe is non-deterministic, I am only claiming that it is a reasonable possibility.

If there is such a thing as a will, then it is presumably something we would identify with some deliberating process in the brain, which would presumably be neurologically based.

In other word relies on material/physical reality.

If that deliberating process is inherently probabilistic, because the underlying laws of physic are inherently probabilistic and not deterministic, then the will has a certain degree of freedom to make decisions that are arbitrary but still constrained by the options that the probabilistic laws allow. I would consider this as a case of free-will.

No, here is where it breaks down. I think you have a problem with 'inherently probabilistic". You would have to expand that thought, but is seems you are simply trying to get random in by the backdoor. Throwing a dice is not what we normally mean by free will. THought this might answer the 'ass and the two bales of hay problem', it does not help the subject make a free choice.


Chaz’s latest objection and my responses.

You claimed that this does not make the will free because it is being caused by the underlying neurological processes. My point was that because the mental event of deliberation is equivalent to the collection of neurological sub events and therefore concurrent with them, there can be no causal relation involved.

Which is meaningless.

You then seemed to suggest that one event can cause another, despite their occurring at precisely the same time, but failed to provide me with an example and for some reason expected me to provide one despite my claim that it was nonsense.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this. Zeno's arrow and Achileus and the Tortoise are not really problem but just artefacts of our conception of unitised time.
The example I provided of lighting and electricity was an example of a macroscopic event being reducable to sub-atomic events and I used this example to illustrate the nonsense of the suggestion that the latter were a cause of the former.

Then I asked you why this was important. All you did was provide an example of two ways to describe an event which can be offered for any number of casual pictures. Tell me what you do when you want to turn on the light?


It was not meant as an example of free will because, I hope you will agree, it is not a deliberating process.

Which begs the question why you think it is relevant.

So, if you still think simultaneous causation, as you call it, is possible, and not nonsense, perhaps you could now provide an example?

I did not call it that - you did. This whole part of the discussion is your problem and your invention.

[MGL]

Chaz: In other word relies on material/physical reality.
MGL: I don't know why you felt the need to emphasis your agreement with me here.

-----------------

Chaz: No, here is where it breaks down. I think you have a problem with 'inherently probabilistic". You would have to expand that thought, but is seems you are simply trying to get random in by the backdoor. Throwing a dice is not what we normally mean by free will. THought this might answer the 'ass and the two bales of hay problem', it does not help the subject make a free choice.

MGL: What exactly is my problem with inherently probablistic? I can't expand it if you don't clarify what the problem is. What do you normally mean by free-will? How can I realise where I am going wrong if you don't point me in the right directions with clear instructions? What is a free choice if it is not a choice wholly constrained by deterministic forces? In what other sense could a choice be free and what would it be free from? What is an act of choosing if it is not a deliberative process?

----------

Chaz: [ referring to the assertion that an event composed of sub-events is not caused by them ]Which is meaningless.

MGL: What exactly makes it meaningless? Are you objecting to the reduction of mental events to neuroligical processes or to the claim that the reduction is not an example of cause and effect?

---------

Chaz: I'm not sure why you have a problem with this [ Simultaneous causation ]. Zeno's arrow and Achileus and the Tortoise are not really problem but just artefacts of our conception of unitised time.

MGL: How does this demonstrate that simultaneous causation is not nonsense?

--------

Chaz: Then I asked you why this was important.[ to the argument that 2 ways to describe an event does not imply one event casues the other ] All you did was provide an example of two ways to describe an event which can be offered for any number of casual pictures. Tell me what you do when you want to turn on the light?

MGL: Why did you miss out the important part that asserted that the two ways to describe an event did not imply one description of the event causes the other, thereby challenging your suggestion that they can?

------

Chaz: I did not call it [simultaneous causation ] that - you did. This whole part of the discussion is your problem and your invention.

MGL: How can your assertion of simulataneous causation ( leaving aside who coined the term ) be my invention? Are you not asserting this? If not then what are you claimimg when you deny that two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect. When you put it in your terms of different ways of describing events it sounds even more ridiculous.


========

I am obviously doing a pitiful job at explaining myself and an equally poor job of understanding you.
It seems we are talking a different language and every time I try and tease out of you your objections to free-will or non-determinism I only get more and more bewildered by your responses.
As I seem to be getting no-where can I ask you perhaps to post a comment listing of books or websites that might give me a better idea of where you are coming from?
Especially of interest to me would be anything that informed your notions of will, free-will, determinism, causation and the laws of physics ( especially QM ) because I have failed miserably to make sense of the points you infer from them.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: In other word relies on material/physical reality.
MGL: I don't know why you felt the need to emphasis your agreement with me here.

-----------------

Chaz: No, here is where it breaks down. I think you have a problem with 'inherently probabilistic". You would have to expand that thought, but is seems you are simply trying to get random in by the backdoor. Throwing a dice is not what we normally mean by free will. THought this might answer the 'ass and the two bales of hay problem', it does not help the subject make a free choice.

MGL: What exactly is my problem with inherently probablistic? I can't expand it if you don't clarify what the problem is. What do you normally mean by free-will? How can I realise where I am going wrong if you don't point me in the right directions with clear instructions? What is a free choice if it is not a choice wholly constrained by deterministic forces? In what other sense could a choice be free and what would it be free from? What is an act of choosing if it is not a deliberative process?

Define: Inherently. Define: Probabalistic. By any definition of these words I know does not reduce to non-deterministic. The probability of a dice is 1-6, but the outcome is determined by how it is thrown, wind speed, hardness of the table, rotation etc. The more these are controlled the more easily you can predict (determine) the outcome.

----------

Chaz: [ referring to the assertion that an event composed of sub-events is not caused by them ]Which is meaningless.

MGL: What exactly makes it meaningless? Are you objecting to the reduction of mental events to neuroligical processes or to the claim that the reduction is not an example of cause and effect?

I'm objecting to your assumption of linear monovalent causality. mental events and neurological processes are clearly corollaries, just like electrons/protons and electric light. No one is saying reality is not complex.


---------

Chaz: I'm not sure why you have a problem with this [ Simultaneous causation ]. Zeno's arrow and Achileus and the Tortoise are not really problem but just artefacts of our conception of unitised time.

MGL: How does this demonstrate that simultaneous causation is not nonsense?

You need to make a case why it is supposed to be nonsense, which we have not had yet. I'm simply thrashing about trying to find out what your problem is. And if it is nonsense - how does that lead to free will?

--------

Chaz: Then I asked you why this was important.[ to the argument that 2 ways to describe an event does not imply one event casues the other ] All you did was provide an example of two ways to describe an event which can be offered for any number of casual pictures. Tell me what you do when you want to turn on the light?

MGL: Why did you miss out the important part that asserted that the two ways to describe an event did not imply one description of the event causes the other, thereby challenging your suggestion that they can?

Obviously I'm too stupid. Now answer the question.
Oh and this last sentence is rubbish as if you are saying the description of an event is a cause. Please re-write. Better still hold off on the attack and just answer the question.

------

Chaz: I did not call it [simultaneous causation ] that - you did. This whole part of the discussion is your problem and your invention.

MGL: How can your assertion of simulataneous causation ( leaving aside who coined the term ) be my invention?

Because you brought up the unconvincing anecdote about the lightning, I seem to remember.

Are you not asserting this? If not then what are you claimimg when you deny that two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect. When you put it in your terms of different ways of describing events it sounds even more ridiculous.

Let's talk though and example? That's why I asked you about turning the light on. If we accept the concept of time (yes/no?) as normally understood. You go from a condition of darkness to one where there is light. Some action or actions is the cause, whilst the changed state of reality is called the effect. Given our concept of time and succession of events which as Kant remarked are part of the basic Categories with which all humans are endowed, it is a simple enough convention to understand events of causation in this way. I hardly see how we can escape them.
If you don't get that then maybe it is you who is being ridiculous?



========

I am obviously doing a pitiful job at explaining myself and an equally poor job of understanding you.
It seems we are talking a different language and every time I try and tease out of you your objections to free-will or non-determinism I only get more and more bewildered by your responses.
As I seem to be getting no-where can I ask you perhaps to post a comment listing of books or websites that might give me a better idea of where you are coming from?

Now you are just taking the piss.

Especially of interest to me would be anything that informed your notions of will, free-will, determinism, causation and the laws of physics ( especially QM ) because I have failed miserably to make sense of the points you infer from them.

[MGL]

MGL: Are you not asserting this? If not then what are you claimimg when you deny that two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect. When you put it in your terms of different ways of describing events it sounds even more ridiculous.

Chaz: Let's talk though and example? That's why I asked you about turning the light on. If we accept the concept of time (yes/no?) as normally understood. You go from a condition of darkness to one where there is light. Some action or actions is the cause, whilst the changed state of reality is called the effect. Given our concept of time and succession of events which as Kant remarked are part of the basic Categories with which all humans are endowed, it is a simple enough convention to understand events of causation in this way. I hardly see how we can escape them.
If you don't get that then maybe it is you who is being ridiculous?

MGL: what has this got to do with anything I said other than confirm my point? If you never denied that two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect then just say so. If I am wrongly interpreting a point you made as nonsense I will never understand what you did claim if you just tell me what I said was nonsense.

My asking for a reading list is not an idle request. My humble tone maybe partly ironic, but I have to always consider the possibility I am missing something in another person's perspective, especially if it is about what our words mean. If we understand different things by them our disagreement is probably not even be about the same issue. It is clear that my understanding of your concept of free-will and causation are very different from mine and it clear that given your concept of free-will and causation it is indeed impossible for free-will to exist. However, what is not clear to me is whether I have understood them correctly or why these interpretations should be considered as the only sensible contenders. The strenght of your convictions in this matter must surely rest on something more than hubris. So if you have any suggested reading I would be genuinely and sincerely grateful.

[Notvacka]

It's very common to use quantum uncertainty as some kind of argument for free will. (Or at least as an argument against determinism.)

But on the level of quantum mechanics, time has no arrow.

The moment you open the box and observe whether the cat is alive or dead, that moment there is no uncertainty. And as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, the facts of the moment depend on the past and the future alike.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't imply that we can move freely between universes. In fact, we are stuck in this one, and our position here is determined by our past and by our future. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics don't disagree here.

[chaz wyman]

MGL: Are you not asserting this? If not then what are you claimimg when you deny that two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect. When you put it in your terms of different ways of describing events it sounds even more ridiculous.

Chaz: Let's talk though and example? That's why I asked you about turning the light on. If we accept the concept of time (yes/no?) as normally understood. You go from a condition of darkness to one where there is light. Some action or actions is the cause, whilst the changed state of reality is called the effect. Given our concept of time and succession of events which as Kant remarked are part of the basic Categories with which all humans are endowed, it is a simple enough convention to understand events of causation in this way. I hardly see how we can escape them.
If you don't get that then maybe it is you who is being ridiculous?

MGL: what has this got to do with anything I said other than confirm my point? If you never denied that two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect then just say so. If I am wrongly interpreting a point you made as nonsense I will never understand what you did claim if you just tell me what I said was nonsense.

I have got no idea what you are babbling about. I don't think you have made a "point" - well not clearly enough, maybe?

Is this " two ways of describing the same event can't be considered as cause and effect"; the 'point' you are investigating?
I'm not saying this, nor am I denying it. My reaction to this is that DESCRIBING an event has nothing to do with the cause of it.

My asking for a reading list is not an idle request. My humble tone maybe partly ironic, but I have to always consider the possibility I am missing something in another person's perspective, especially if it is about what our words mean. If we understand different things by them our disagreement is probably not even be about the same issue. It is clear that my understanding of your concept of free-will and causation are very different from mine and it clear that given your concept of free-will and causation it is indeed impossible for free-will to exist. However, what is not clear to me is whether I have understood them correctly or why these interpretations should be considered as the only sensible contenders. The strenght of your convictions in this matter must surely rest on something more than hubris. So if you have any suggested reading I would be genuinely and sincerely grateful.

You might like to start with ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
This web site has all the major issues, entries on determinism, compatibilism and the issues arising.

Maybe you would be so kind as to tell me what your definitions of these terms are and we can start from there.

[chaz wyman]

It's very common to use quantum uncertainty as some kind of argument for free will. (Or at least as an argument against determinism.)

But on the level of quantum mechanics, time has no arrow.

The moment you open the box and observe whether the cat is alive or dead, that moment there is no uncertainty. And as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, the facts of the moment depend on the past and the future alike.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't imply that we can move freely between universes. In fact, we are stuck in this one, and our position here is determined by our past and by our future. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics don't disagree here.

I tend to agree. In fact there is a lot of mumbo jumbo concerning QM at the moment. It seems as soon has science opens up an area of reality that it cannot yet explain there is a long queue of people lining up to offer occult explanations. Platinga among other have used this to declare the death of materialism and the validation of the idea of the immortal soul.
But neither uncertainty, nor randomness contributes to free will, and notions of non-determinism are not necessarily any better than undetermined for explaining 'quantum uncertainty'.