Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm »

OuterLimits wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:49 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:28 pm That said, we don't need to focus, as philosophers, on QM. I believe our attention is better directed toward analyzing the premises of causal determinism. To do this, we can disregard QM.
QM is statistical. If one were impatient, looking only at a few results, one would have no "theory" at all. The inputs don't specify the outputs.

Bell's inequality is the most revolutionary when we imagine we are "freely choosing" the orientations of our measuring devices. If we don't have that bias, it's less interesting. http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-06.htm

'...
In fact, when Bell contemplated the possibility that determinism might also apply to himself and other living beings, he coined a different name for it, calling it “super-determinism”. Regarding the experimental tests of quantum entanglement he said

>> One of the ways of understanding this business is to say that the world is super-deterministic. That not only is inanimate nature deterministic, but we, the experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment rather than another, are also determined. If so, the difficulty which this experimental result creates disappears. <<

But what Bell calls (admittedly on the spur of the moment) super-determinism is nothing other than what philosophers have always called simply determinism.
...'
The above is mostly correct as I understand it, except for the last bit.

See Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will theorem, which also invokes super-determinsim. It's not the same as standard determinism. Super-determinism implies that all our choices in experimental setups are biased in such a way that we will never be able to form a correct theory. This seems wildly implausible to say the least. If true, all of science is invalid
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by OuterLimits »

davidm wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:09 am See Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will theorem, which also invokes super-determinsim. It's not the same as standard determinism. Super-determinism implies that all our choices in experimental setups are biased in such a way that we will never be able to form a correct theory. This seems wildly implausible to say the least. If true, all of science is invalid
Why on earth should science be 100% valid. If there is a pilot wave which moves us as it moves what is being measured, then there will be some correlation which prevents the measurements from being quite as we expect. I think making QM out to be 100% valid, when it is completely statistical, and results only converge toward particular percentages without ever reaching them, doesn't really make sense anyway.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re:

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:57 pm Unrestricted chooser...cuz, again, 'will(ing)' is what the willer does.

Can you have walking without the walker?
I agree, Henry, Free Will implies unrestricted chooser.
Let's take it from there.
To begin with a small example. You are hungry and have not chosen of unrestricted Free Will to be hungry, okay we agree that one doesn't control natural hunger feelings, so we can say that just as Free Will restricts you to not walking through walls so Free Will does not restrict feelings of hunger. Even with Free Will there are some restrictions on you.

Next consideration is that perhaps for reasons beyond your control you have not eaten meat for several day and are protein hungry so when you use your unrestricted Free Will whether to eat meat or bread and butter your body naturally prefers meat. You have no scruples about eating meat and it's available so you are willing to eat meat.

At this juncture I'd say to you that your will was restricted by the circumstances that caused you to be more willing to eat meat than bread and butter, despite that both sorts of food were easily available.You will be more willing to eat meat than bread and butter.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda,

In the same way the way the world works to prevent me from walkin' through walls even if I choose to, so to my own substance won't allow me to successfully stop being hungry just cuz I will it to be. That is, choosing in and of itself doesn't guarantee success in doing. A free will (an unrestricted chooser) is not superman, just 'free'. I can't prevent hunger by choosing to, but absolutely I can ignore hunger, delay satisfaction. I can't walk through walls just cuz I choose to, but I can pick up a sledgehammer and get through that wall.

I crave meat...a big influence over my selection of a meal. In the same way, I crave sex 'right now'...a big influence over what I may do in the next hour. Neither influence, however, determines what I do (eat meat, have an orgasm). 'I' determine what I do, for whatever reasons I suss out for myself.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re:

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:07 pm Belinda,

In the same way the way the world works to prevent me from walkin' through walls even if I choose to, so to my own substance won't allow me to successfully stop being hungry just cuz I will it to be. That is, choosing in and of itself doesn't guarantee success in doing. A free will (an unrestricted chooser) is not superman, just 'free'. I can't prevent hunger by choosing to, but absolutely I can ignore hunger, delay satisfaction. I can't walk through walls just cuz I choose to, but I can pick up a sledgehammer and get through that wall.

I crave meat...a big influence over my selection of a meal. In the same way, I crave sex 'right now'...a big influence over what I may do in the next hour. Neither influence, however, determines what I do (eat meat, have an orgasm). 'I' determine what I do, for whatever reasons I suss out for myself.
All you describe, Henry, is relative freedom. For instance your sledgehammer to break down a wall is yours because of your knowledge , experience, and reasoning, so there is no need to introduce a mystical thingy called Free Will.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

What I've described is 'agent causation' -- me, choosing and causing -- but if you wanna use my post to wage your war against 'words', go ahead.

The thing the words hold place for -- me -- got no problem with that.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re:

Post by davidm »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:34 pm What I've described is 'agent causation' -- me, choosing and causing -- but if you wanna use my post to wage your war against 'words', go ahead.

The thing the words hold place for -- me -- got no problem with that.
If I understand rightly, what is being described here is agent-causal libertarian free will -- which most philosophers (and most of that subset of scientists who think about philosophy) -- reject. I don't reject it, however.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"what is being described here is agent-causal libertarian free will"

Yep.

#

"which most philosophers (and most of that subset of scientists who think about philosophy) -- reject"

To heck with them.

#

"I don't reject it, however."

Good to know... *thumb up*
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re:

Post by davidm »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:52 pm "what is being described here is agent-causal libertarian free will"

Yep.

#

"which most philosophers (and most of that subset of scientists who think about philosophy) -- reject"

To heck with them.

#

"I don't reject it, however."

Good to know... *thumb up*
You can actually do a real emoji thumbs up here:

:thumbsup:

There appear to be a bunch of hidden emoji from the ones listed. One just needs to know the script (bracketed by colons).
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Yeah, every so often I stumble across the right formulation for sumthin' not offered...and then I forget about it and then actually forget about it.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Henry Quirk, and Davidm, what caused you ?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

My parents 'caused' me; I 'cause' my actions and I 'cause' the reasonings and choices underpinning those actions.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re:

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:10 pm My parents 'caused' me; I 'cause' my actions and I 'cause' the reasonings and choices underpinning those actions.
Some of your actions are involuntary for instance breathing, spinal reflexes, and digesting food.

Are you aware that your consciously aware reasonings and choices occur after your brain has involuntarily 'decided' ?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Viveka »

Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:14 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:10 pm My parents 'caused' me; I 'cause' my actions and I 'cause' the reasonings and choices underpinning those actions.
Some of your actions are involuntary for instance breathing, spinal reflexes, and digesting food.

Are you aware that your consciously aware reasonings and choices occur after your brain has involuntarily 'decided' ?
Just because our hearbeat and respiration are unconscious doesn't mean we can't make them concscious, such as through biofeedback. And even though they are unconscious most of the time, that does not imply determinism. Simply instinct.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Viveka »

OuterLimits wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:40 am
davidm wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:09 am See Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will theorem, which also invokes super-determinsim. It's not the same as standard determinism. Super-determinism implies that all our choices in experimental setups are biased in such a way that we will never be able to form a correct theory. This seems wildly implausible to say the least. If true, all of science is invalid
Why on earth should science be 100% valid. If there is a pilot wave which moves us as it moves what is being measured, then there will be some correlation which prevents the measurements from being quite as we expect. I think making QM out to be 100% valid, when it is completely statistical, and results only converge toward particular percentages without ever reaching them, doesn't really make sense anyway.
Exactly! There must be something more to quantum mechanics than statistics of Wave-Particle Duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Just because a wave-front is supposed to be non-quantum doesn't mean it isn't quantum in the sense of collapsing its entirety into one 'point' on a screen showing particle and wave-interference-pattern appearance. The wave apperance is due to waves, or h*v=E, while the particle appearance is due to concentric cylinders of mass expanding themselves according to E=mc^2. Both of these are two different expressions of the same Energy, yet manifesting themselves differently due to differing geometries. For instance, concentric cylinders of mass is c^2 because of its expansion into (surfaces)*(frequency^2). While the wave-appearance is due to Planck's Constant, or h, multiplied by a frequency, which is a wave, into Energy total.
Post Reply