Free will is an epistemic problem

[creativesoul]

One's ability to recognize all the choices available is not free from influence.

It is humanly impossible to make a mistake on purpose.

We all choose to do what we think is best at the time(for whatever reason), it is only after reality doesn't match our expectations that we realize and call it "a mistake".

The will is not free from influence... so what is it free from... why call it "free" if it is not?

Firstly. Before we can even speak of 'free will' a choice must exist. 1 option is NOT a choice. So 2 or more options are required.
I don't think agency is required to influence you. Necessity is sufficient.

Here is a thought experiment: You are skydiving. Your primary parachute opens up partially. It looks fixable.

Choice A: Try fix it.
Choice B: Cut it away (risk losing a good parachute) and go for your backup which may bring its own set of problems.

You have a choice! Therefore - free will!
BUT you are on a time constraint. If you wait too long you WILL lose option B and by our definition of "free will" (2 or more option) you risk losing your "free will".

But it seems to me we actually have way more than 2 choices in front of us? Simply by asking this question: When do you commit to Plan B?

Exercise Option A for 5 seconds then B.
Exercise Option A for 10 seconds then B.
Exercise Option A for 15 seconds then B.

Do you have free will? Of course! You have at least 2 options!

Obviously we will appeal to the Lesser of Two Evils principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of ... _principle

So only the epistemic problem remains: Which one is the lesser evil?

These kinds of "thought experiments" are tailored to and for specific situations. Only an experienced skydiver would even be able to "perform" what's set out here.

In times of crisis, whatever one does(if it's a choice) is influenced directly by virtue of how they've previously envisioned being in such a scenario. If the scenario is genuinely unexpected, the choice is not a voluntary action.

As before...

"Free will" presupposes volition.

[TimeSeeker]

These kinds of "thought experiments" are tailored to and for specific situations.

The experiment itself is specific, but the problem generalizes just fine.

Let C be the set of choices available to you [ C1, C2,...Cn ]
Let T be the time limit you have to make a choice.

lim t->T C= [ ]

As time t approaches T your choices disappear. T is scale-invariant e.g it is valid for values of T measured in seconds, days, hours or centuries.

Only an experienced skydiver would even be able to "perform" what's set out here.

Red herring, but I will address it quickly. Parachute failure is part of the process of becoming a skydiver. If you are a skydiver - you have been required to think and perform these steps in advance in training.

In times of crisis, whatever one does(if it's a choice) is influenced directly by virtue of how they've previously envisioned being in such a scenario. If the scenario is genuinely unexpected, the choice is not a voluntary action.

As before...

"Free will" presupposes volition.

Is you conception of "crisis" timescale invariant? For what values of T would you consider something to be a "crisis" which robs you of your volition e.g you default to reflex? Naturally - there is some extremely low value for T where reflex is all you have. In the skydiving example - that is not the case. You have 60 seconds of freefall and therefore 60 seconds to make some decisions/choices.

Either way, since any wise person could recognise that reality is chaotic and crises are a natural part of living, somebody with "free will" might choose to learn how to maintain composure in genuinely unexpected situations even where T is measured in seconds. You can control the fight or flight reflex.
If you choose to. That is what soldiers are trained to do.

Decision-making under duress and uncertainty.

[-1-]

Here is a thought experiment: You are skydiving. Your primary parachute opens up partially. It looks fixable.

Choice A: Try fix it.
Choice B: Cut it away (risk losing a good parachute) and go for your backup which may bring its own set of problems.

You have a choice! Therefore - free will!

So your free will will choose option A or option B. Say it chooses option A. Why? Because your free will decided that it's a better option? Or because your free will decided that it's the worse option of the two?

Your life is in danger. Why would you decide with the worse option? Because your will is free. You can choose to make a mistake.

I don't know which you'd choose, TimeSeeker, seeing that you are a contrarian, and seem to naysay to every logical thing, but I'd not consciously choose death over life.

So whatever seems to me better at that time, is the option I would choose.

I would be influenced by my view of which option is better.

This is not to say that that option is better; it is to say that it seems to me at that time that that option is better. I mean, why else would I choose that option? Obviously not because it's worse. Only you would do that, Timeseeker.

So... why don't we go skydiving one day. You and I. You can even wear the faulty equipment if you want to.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't know which you'd choose, TimeSeeker, seeing that you are a contrarian, and seem to naysay to every logical thing, but I'd not consciously choose death over life.

You have a long way to go before you could understand my contrarianism. Logic is just a tool. It serves your subjective goals. Like all tools it has optimal and sub-optimal uses.

I am a contrarian because philosophers abuse logic. If the is-ought gap can't be traversed, how is it that there are "valid" and "invalid" arguments? Who decided and how what the rules and axioms of logic OUGHT to be? And yet - 'laws' of logic we have, so I guess somebody, somehow jumped over the is-ought gap? Aaaaaah, that sneaky pole-vaulting Aristotle! Teleology (subjective values, oughts!) is the only way to justify fundamental philosophical choices! Even when it comes to CHOOSING the "laws" of logic!

How did you CHOOSE your favourite logic system? There are as many logics as there are religions. Why do you think your favorite logic is the 'right' one? I CHOSE my logic based on my goals - Constructivist epistemology requires constructive logic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

I despise nothing more than hypocrites who adhere to their self-imposed 'laws' only when it suits them.

Because logic is my bread and butter, and because breaking logical systems is part and parcel of what I do - I know how to construct a logical argument that concludes ANYTHING I want it to conclude! And I also know how to spot where in your argument a different choice would lead you to a very different conclusion than the one you've reached given the choices you've made! Philosophers are surprised when they stumble upon this fact by accident - they are slaves of logic. A man-made authority! I am not.

So it is imperative that I understand exactly what it is that I want to achieve before I even resort to USING logic or formulate any elaborate rationalizations (colloquially called arguments)

There are no hard problems in logic - it's all mechanical. All hard problems are in strategy and decision-making under uncertainty! Computation.

And so if you want to choose death over life - you are free to. You already have all the information you need to achieve your goal while skydiving. Do nothing. Don't open your parachute! In fact - don't even wear a parachute!

If your goal is not-dying - the problem stands...

Your life is in danger. Why would you decide with the worse option?

You wouldn't! Hence the problem. Using logic tell me which one is the 'worse' option.

[creativesoul]

These kinds of "thought experiments" are tailored to and for specific situations.

The experiment itself is specific, but the problem generalizes just fine.

Let C be the set of choices available to you [ C1, C2,...Cn ]
Let T be the time limit you have to make a choice.

lim t->T C= [ ]

As time t approaches T your choices disappear. T is scale-invariant e.g it is valid for values of T measured in seconds, days, hours or centuries.

Only an experienced skydiver would even be able to "perform" what's set out here.

Red herring, but I will address it quickly. Parachute failure is part of the process of becoming a skydiver. If you are a skydiver - you have been required to think and perform these steps in advance in training.

In times of crisis, whatever one does(if it's a choice) is influenced directly by virtue of how they've previously envisioned being in such a scenario. If the scenario is genuinely unexpected, the choice is not a voluntary action.

As before...

"Free will" presupposes volition.

Is you conception of "crisis" timescale invariant? For what values of T would you consider something to be a "crisis" which robs you of your volition e.g you default to reflex? Naturally - there is some extremely low value for T where reflex is all you have. In the skydiving example - that is not the case. You have 60 seconds of freefall and therefore 60 seconds to make some decisions/choices.

Either way, since any wise person could recognise that reality is chaotic and crises are a natural part of living, somebody with "free will" might choose to learn how to maintain composure in genuinely unexpected situations even where T is measured in seconds. You can control the fight or flight reflex.
If you choose to. That is what soldiers are trained to do.

Decision-making under duress and uncertainty.

You can have this one... Free will is bunk. Strict determinism is bunk. Not interested.

[TimeSeeker]

You can have this one... Free will is bunk. Strict determinism is bunk. Not interested.

What gave you the idea that I am arguing for strict determinism?

Quite the opposite in fact. I am pretty sure the probability of you landing safely on the ground as a function of T (time when you execute Plan B) could be graphed as a statistical distribution ( Monte Carlo simulations).

To say that 'free will' is bunk is to say that you don't have a choice in exercising plan B. That is obviously false! You have 60 seconds till you hit the ground. For every second you DON'T exercise plan B you are making a choice!

[creativesoul]

You can have this one... Free will is bunk. Strict determinism is bunk. Not interested.

What gave you the idea that I am arguing for strict determinism?

Quite the opposite in fact. I am pretty sure the probability of you landing safely on the ground as a function of T (time when you execute Plan B) could be graphed as a statistical distribution...

To say that 'free will' is bunk is to say that you don't have a choice in exercising plan B. That is obviously false! You have 60 seconds till you hit the ground. For every second you DON'T exercise plan B you are making a choice!

Actually I had no firm idea of what you were/are arguing for here. That wasn't about you. I'm not interested in free will twaddle. It's all twaddle.

[TimeSeeker]

Actually I had no firm idea of what you were/are arguing for here. That wasn't about you. I'm not interested in free will twaddle. It's all twaddle.

So you didn't just choose to respond to my response out of your own volition?

The moment you make a proposition testable and define it in calculus all philosophers seem to disappear

Hypotheses non fingo!

[creativesoul]

Actually I had no firm idea of what you were/are arguing for here. That wasn't about you. I'm not interested in free will twaddle. It's all twaddle.

So you didn't just choose to respond to my response out of your own volition?

The moment you make a proposition testable and define it in calculus all philosophers seem to disappear

Hypotheses non fingo!

No seriously... I'm not interested in free will. I told you earlier of it's origin. It is a fabrication of theologians as a means to exonerate the God of Abraham from the existence of evil. I couldn't care any less about it.

Choices are influences. Recognition of choices is influenced. Making one is thus influenced. That which is not free from influence is not free. Que sera sera...

Have fun.

[TimeSeeker]

No seriously... I'm not interested in free will. I told you earlier of it's origin.

Its origin is irrelevant when I formalize my conception of 'free will' in Mathematics

It is a fabrication of theologians as a means to exonerate the God of Abraham from the existence of evil. I couldn't care any less about it.

My parachuting thought experiment is a fabrication of theology ?

Que sera sera...

That's ironic. That phrase IS an argument for strict determinism. Maybe you aren't on good terms with probability theory...

[creativesoul]

Maybe you aren't on good terms with probability theory...

In order to know what one is talking about when it comes to the probability of X happening, one must first know all of the relevant influencing factors. So, no... I do not place much confidence in probability... as a general rule of thumb. The sheer number of examples where probability fails stands in favor of my position.

[TimeSeeker]

In order to know what one is talking about when it comes to the probability of X happening, one must first know all of the relevant influencing factors.

Not even remotely true. The probability of my kettle boiling water within 10 minutes can be determined empirically using statistical methods and to any statistical significance of my choosing without so much as even understanding anything about physics!

The sheer number of examples where probability fails stands in favor of my position.

Unless you have a better mechanism for real-world decision making then you are guilty of this fallacy: https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

To insist on understanding the influencing factors is to insist on perfect knowledge. If that is your threshold for making real-world decisions, then good luck functioning in this reality.

[creativesoul]

In order to know what one is talking about when it comes to the probability of X happening, one must first know all of the relevant influencing factors.

Not even remotely true. The probability of my kettle boiling water within 10 minutes can be determined empirically using statistical methods and to any statistical significance of my choosing without so much as even understanding anything about physics!

The probability of a kettle boiling within ten minutes is determined by influencing factors. Knowledge of these factors is used when gathering data for statistical analysis.

If you do not know any of the influencing factors, then you do not know what you're talking about. That would come out upon close scrutiny concerning the justification of your claims about boiling kettles.

The sheer number of possible outcomes is determined solely by the relevant influencing factors. Which outcome actually happens is determined solely by the relevant influencing factors. The accuracy of prediction based upon probability is determined solely by getting those right.

To insist on understanding the influencing factors is to insist on perfect knowledge. If that is your threshold for making real-world decisions, then good luck functioning in this reality.

It does not follow from the fact that I understand how probability works, that I insist on omniscience. Rather, it's more like I understand how probability works, and temper my confidence in it's use - more or less - depending upon how and what it's being used to claim...

[creativesoul]

No seriously... I'm not interested in free will. I told you earlier of it's origin.

Its origin is irrelevant when I formalize my conception of 'free will' in Mathematics...

It's no wonder you've no idea about how meaning is attributed and/or works... The origen of the idea is entirely relevant to any and all discussions about what free will is...

It is an ad hoc idea invented with the sole purpose to exonerate the God of Abraham from the existence of evil.

[TimeSeeker]

The probability of a kettle boiling within ten minutes is determined by influencing factors. Knowledge of these factors is used when gathering data for statistical analysis.

Nonsense. Either the kettle boils in 10 minutes or it does't. I can do the experiment 100 times and I can draw some conclusions without any understanding of physics whatsoever.

If you do not know any of the influencing factors, then you do not know what you're talking about. That would come out upon close scrutiny concerning the justification of your claims about boiling kettles.

What are you on about? Are you telling me that I need to understand physics to operate a kettle? What planet are you from? Why do I need to justify any claims to anybody? All I want to know is whether my kettle is likely to boil in 10 minutes or not. I am OK with 20 decibels of certainty.

The sheer number of possible outcomes is determined solely by the relevant influencing factors.

There are only two outcomes that I care about. Either the kettle will boil in 10 minutes. Or it won't.

The accuracy of prediction based upon probability is determined solely by getting those right.

You will be terribly disappointed that the entire area of machine learning cares not one bit about causality. All of its predictive utility comes from correlation.

It does not follow from the fact that I understand how probability works, that I insist on omniscience. Rather, it's more like I understand how probability works, and temper my confidence in it's use - more or less - depending upon how and what it's being used to claim...

Except, I am not sure you understand how probability works in practice...