INVESTIGATING FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM

[bahman]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality.

Well, some correction is needed to your thought experiment. The question is whether Lorikeet A and B always choose the same film, what you called scenario (1) which is determinism, or they sometimes choose different films, what you called scenario (2) which is non-determinism/free. What do these scenarios tell us about reality? First, one of them is right and another is wrong. Which one is true? We have been through this. The second scenario.

What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

I already answered that.

[Skepdick]

Well, some correction is needed to your thought experiment. The question is whether Lorikeet A and B always choose the same film, what you called scenario (1) which is determinism, or they sometimes choose different films, what you called scenario (2) which is non-determinism/free.

Being able to create IDENTICAL copies of a given system is already a sufficient condition for determinism.

If Lorikeet A and B make different choices then you can rest assured you fucked up the replication process - your copies weren't identical.

[Sculptor]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality.

Well, some correction is needed to your thought experiment. The question is whether Lorikeet A and B always choose the same film, what you called scenario (1) which is determinism, or they sometimes choose different films, what you called scenario (2) which is non-determinism/free. What do these scenarios tell us about reality? First, one of them is right and another is wrong. Which one is true? We have been through this. The second scenario.

What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

I already answered that.

It seem you do not understand the problem.
Why not read it through before you answer it and then respond to the 2 outcomes.

[Sculptor]

Well, some correction is needed to your thought experiment. The question is whether Lorikeet A and B always choose the same film, what you called scenario (1) which is determinism, or they sometimes choose different films, what you called scenario (2) which is non-determinism/free.

Being able to create IDENTICAL copies of a given system is already a sufficient condition for determinism.

If Lorikeet A and B make different choices then you can rest assured you fucked up the replication process - your copies weren't identical.

So you are a determinist.

[Skepdick]

So you are a determinist.

What I am is undecidable.

I understand and use the concepts of determinism and non-determinism on daily basis. Naturally. There's a clear conceptual difference between the two types of algorithms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... _algorithm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm

[attofishpi]

On what basis does a choice "best suit"?

How we make most of our decisions, by bouncing our perceived notions about something (in this case some films) comparing them to how we 'feel' about similar past experiences (memory) and ultimately the decision in this case will be based on our emotional feelings.

Of course determined by who and what we are.
QED choices are either deterministic or random, they cannot be "free".

Well what's all this talk of 'free will' then?

[attofishpi]

At first they do exactly the same thing.
But they are in different places, and so there is always the potential for differentiation.
The voice they hear will be a micro-second different. The walls cannot be perfectly uniform so the pencils will be slightly different.

EVERYTHING at the point of instanciation for each Boony is identical, including the source of the sound, and the pencils that are in their pockets.

Tiny differences grow, but there is nothing yet to change their minds about their favorite fruit. Eventually they diverge.

Absolutely, they would almost certainly have the same fruit in mind.

However, I think there is something key to the quantum indeterminacy that would make both Boony's operate very differently from perhaps the first words uttered to each other. Observers would note that both Boony's are typical of Boony, but I think from the get go the differences would be apparent.
The drawings of the fruit would probably be on different parts of the opposing wall, and I can't believe they would be in anyway identical beyond representing a particular choice in fruit.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the Boony's drops his pencil when fishing it from his pocket!

In your example they are not the same, since they exist in a different location and orientation of space time. In my example they are in fact purely the same.
But if you want to insist that they are the same then they will be locked in a mirror dance until they die. Even if they each had a dice and resolved to do something different when one of them threw a six, they would just throw the same value dice, and the prison of their mirror world would remained locked.
The choices they make can only be made by who and what they are; from their personal depositions, volitions, experiences, and visceral reality.
The only thing that can interrupt that is true randomness which I do not think can exist.
Even quantum phenomena produce reliably predictable unpredicted results.
The double slot experiment is infinitely replicable, and the result unvarying.

Poor old Boony and Boony then! But nah, I don't agree with the above.

There are fluctuations within the wave patterns of each brain that are not purely deterministic, hence differences will take place immediately after instanciation. Apparently there are more logical gateways in the human brain than there are atoms in the entire universe. A slight will of thought from either that is ever so slightly different to the other will totally flaw your statement.
They may initially attempt to speak at the same time, likely with the same words...but I believe they will manage to agree that one keeps quiet long enough for things to truly diverge on their own individual free will trajectory.

[Sculptor]

How we make most of our decisions, by bouncing our perceived notions about something (in this case some films) comparing them to how we 'feel' about similar past experiences (memory) and ultimately the decision in this case will be based on our emotional feelings.

Of course determined by who and what we are.
QED choices are either deterministic or random, they cannot be "free".

Well what's all this talk of 'free will' then?

It just means that you can make a choice not being compelled by another person; like they have a gun at your head or you're unders some other threat.
And this is the "compatibilist" position.

[Sculptor]

EVERYTHING at the point of instanciation for each Boony is identical, including the source of the sound, and the pencils that are in their pockets.




Absolutely, they would almost certainly have the same fruit in mind.

However, I think there is something key to the quantum indeterminacy that would make both Boony's operate very differently from perhaps the first words uttered to each other. Observers would note that both Boony's are typical of Boony, but I think from the get go the differences would be apparent.
The drawings of the fruit would probably be on different parts of the opposing wall, and I can't believe they would be in anyway identical beyond representing a particular choice in fruit.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the Boony's drops his pencil when fishing it from his pocket!

In your example they are not the same, since they exist in a different location and orientation of space time. In my example they are in fact purely the same.
But if you want to insist that they are the same then they will be locked in a mirror dance until they die. Even if they each had a dice and resolved to do something different when one of them threw a six, they would just throw the same value dice, and the prison of their mirror world would remained locked.
The choices they make can only be made by who and what they are; from their personal depositions, volitions, experiences, and visceral reality.
The only thing that can interrupt that is true randomness which I do not think can exist.
Even quantum phenomena produce reliably predictable unpredicted results.
The double slot experiment is infinitely replicable, and the result unvarying.

Poor old Boony and Boony then! But nah, I don't agree with the above.

There are fluctuations within the wave patterns of each brain that are not purely deterministic, hence differences will take place immediately after instanciation. Apparently there are more logical gateways in the human brain than there are atoms in the entire universe. A slight will of thought from either that is ever so slightly different to the other will totally flaw your statement.
They may initially attempt to speak at the same time, likely with the same words...but I believe they will manage to agree that one keeps quiet long enough for things to truly diverge on their own individual free will trajectory.

Are you saying that some things happen without a cause - as if they are truly random?
Well that might be true.
But where is "free will" in all this - are you saying free will is just random, not intentional?

If you are saying things are going to be different by "some will of thought", you are saying that free will is random!

[bahman]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality.

Well, some correction is needed to your thought experiment. The question is whether Lorikeet A and B always choose the same film, what you called scenario (1) which is determinism, or they sometimes choose different films, what you called scenario (2) which is non-determinism/free. What do these scenarios tell us about reality? First, one of them is right and another is wrong. Which one is true? We have been through this. The second scenario.

What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

I already answered that.

It seem you do not understand the problem.
Why not read it through before you answer it and then respond to the 2 outcomes.

It seems that you don't understand the definition of determinism and free.

[attofishpi]

In your example they are not the same, since they exist in a different location and orientation of space time. In my example they are in fact purely the same.
But if you want to insist that they are the same then they will be locked in a mirror dance until they die. Even if they each had a dice and resolved to do something different when one of them threw a six, they would just throw the same value dice, and the prison of their mirror world would remained locked.
The choices they make can only be made by who and what they are; from their personal depositions, volitions, experiences, and visceral reality.
The only thing that can interrupt that is true randomness which I do not think can exist.
Even quantum phenomena produce reliably predictable unpredicted results.
The double slot experiment is infinitely replicable, and the result unvarying.

Poor old Boony and Boony then! But nah, I don't agree with the above.

There are fluctuations within the wave patterns of each brain that are not purely deterministic, hence differences will take place immediately after instanciation. Apparently there are more logical gateways in the human brain than there are atoms in the entire universe. A slight will of thought from either that is ever so slightly different to the other will totally flaw your statement.
They may initially attempt to speak at the same time, likely with the same words...but I believe they will manage to agree that one keeps quiet long enough for things to truly diverge on their own individual free will trajectory.

Are you saying that some things happen without a cause - as if they are truly random?
Well that might be true.
But where is "free will" in all this - are you saying free will is just random, not intentional?

If you are saying things are going to be different by "some will of thought", you are saying that free will is random!

No, I think that our will of thought sits upon 'random' fluctuations in matter, quantum intedeterminancy and the will of our thought upon these fluctuations. Perhaps our will of thought refines the boundaries of what might seem random down to the point of being able to make an ultimate decision.

Also, note that according to the likes of Sir Roger Penrose, consciousness is not computable. It is not 'programmable', so attempting to ascribe mathematics - determinism to our consciousness is folly.

So this EXTREMELY important consideration to what guides our decision making process - our feelings our emotions is still far from being understood.

Not sure which video was the one where Penrose best explains this, it might actually be neither of these, I just don't have time to watch them right thru atm.
https://youtu.be/43vuOpJY46s
https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0

Hard determinism is lunacy.

[Sculptor]

Well, some correction is needed to your thought experiment. The question is whether Lorikeet A and B always choose the same film, what you called scenario (1) which is determinism, or they sometimes choose different films, what you called scenario (2) which is non-determinism/free. What do these scenarios tell us about reality? First, one of them is right and another is wrong. Which one is true? We have been through this. The second scenario.


I already answered that.

It seem you do not understand the problem.
Why not read it through before you answer it and then respond to the 2 outcomes.

It seems that you don't understand the definition of determinism and free.

BYE

[Sculptor]

Hard determinism is lunacy.

This is a different issue.
DO you think that randomness is what is meant be free will?

[attofishpi]

Hard determinism is lunacy.

This is a different issue.
DO you think that randomness is what is meant be free will?

No you don't appear to be comprehending what I am stating in relation to quanutm indeterminacy which scrubs any notion that consciousness IS determined.

My 'hard determinism' statement I made in reference to your consideration that the two Boonys would be in a 'mirrored' state for the rest of time *where all things at poiint of instantiation were equal, including no differing causal effect from being in slightly different positions in spacetime - that they would be in a precisely same state in every way for ad infinitum.

Since consciousness is operating at the quantum level, and as Penrose points out, is not computable thus not able to be determined in any mathematical way, this throws any idea that the two Boonys would be 'mirrored' for any period of time out of the window!

Years ago I was considering developing AI, and without researching it I came to the idea of how I would 'invoke continual thinking' and I considered mimicking 'emotions' using some sort of probability field between 0 and 360 - where various quadrants or less would cause the AI to have an 'emotion' and this in turn would trigger the way it feels for the days investigation - for example if it was 'happy' it would research things that make 'it' (humans) happy...etc..and it then follows if I asked it how if was feeling it would respond it was happy, and that these 'things' make it happy...bla bla

The reason I mention that is that since our emotions are the key driving force to most of our decisions in life, our will, and the fact that emotions are a component of consciousness - and is not computable, and not able to me precisely determined in a similar way as projected by quantum indetiminacy that is at play throughout the matter of our brains. It seems that the fluctuations within the matter of our brains - brain waves - are this continual 'loop' similar to what I was considering mimicking in a rather crude fashion 0-360 where our brain is in a constant state of flux, but our will of thought manipulates this flux to come to decisions.

[Sculptor]

Hard determinism is lunacy.

This is a different issue.
DO you think that randomness is what is meant be free will?

No you don't appear to be comprehending what I am stating in relation to quanutm indeterminacy which scrubs any notion that consciousness IS determined.

If you think yo understand QM, then you don't understand QM.

My 'hard determinism' statement I made in reference to your consideration that the two Boonys would be in a 'mirrored' state for the rest of time *where all things at poiint of instantiation were equal, including no differing causal effect from being in slightly different positions in spacetime - that they would be in a precisely same state in every way for ad infinitum.

Since consciousness is operating at the quantum level, and as Penrose points out, is not computable thus not able to be determined in any mathematical way, this throws any idea that the two Boonys would be 'mirrored' for any period of time out of the window!

Years ago I was considering developing AI, and without researching it I came to the idea of how I would 'invoke continual thinking' and I considered mimicking 'emotions' using some sort of probability field between 0 and 360 - where various quadrants or less would cause the AI to have an 'emotion' and this in turn would trigger the way it feels for the days investigation - for example if it was 'happy' it would research things that make 'it' (humans) happy...etc..and it then follows if I asked it how if was feeling it would respond it was happy, and that these 'things' make it happy...bla bla

The reason I mention that is that since our emotions are the key driving force to most of our decisions in life, our will, and the fact that emotions are a component of consciousness - and is not computable, and not able to me precisely determined in a similar way as projected by quantum indetiminacy that is at play throughout the matter of our brains. It seems that the fluctuations within the matter of our brains - brain waves - are this continual 'loop' similar to what I was considering mimicking in a rather crude fashion 0-360 where our brain is in a constant state of flux, but our will of thought manipulates this flux to come to decisions.

You have no answered the question