Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

[river]

river said: ↑
Logic is not just based on numbers.

Numbers and mathematical equations are based on logic.

Yet 1+1=2 cannot be proved mathematicly . Logically , Yet is shown to be physically true .

Where is the quality ? In the physical .

 

[Quantum Quack]

It doesn’t fail at all. What it does do is say that if you want to consider freedom to exist in any form then it has to be a different notion to the one that the logic concludes does not exist in a deterministic universe.
But this has been stated from the beginning of each thread, along the lines of: different notion, different conclusion.
And duck eggs are relatively expensive. So what?
So what? Why are you linking determinism to “material freedom” (whatever that is)?
I repeat:

So what?
You’ve introduced a distinction between a “material freedom” and an “immaterial quality called freedom”. Care to ever explain what you mean by the terms, how they are to be considered different, examples of each etc? So that we can actually understand what otherwise appears to be mere obfuscation?
You’re going to need to do better than explaining the difference by merely stating that a logical arguments forbids one but not the other. Please actually explain what you mean by them. Or are we to guess?

I repeat:

So what?

Your post only indicates you simply do not have the capacity to understand the difference between immaterial values, qualities and material ones....
I suppose you think that energy is a substance?
It isn't a substance yet it exists, but in what form if it is not a substance?
So what you ask?

Do you think you are competent enough to actually discuss logic in a sensible fashion?

 

[Quantum Quack]

ou’ve introduced a distinction between a “material freedom” and an “immaterial quality called freedom”. Care to ever explain what you mean by the terms, how they are to be considered different, examples of each etc?

if I need to then this discussion is pointless..you simply are not intellectually equipped to cope with the reasoning involved.

How about you explain what you mean by "freedom is impossible in a deterministic universe" first and we can compare notes?

Why do you even have to say that genuine freedom is impossible in a deterministic universe?

What sort of freedom are you talking about?

Gosh! even flying pigs exist as a imaginary quality.... unless of course you forbid them too along with the yellow submarine you are living in...

For those who are not familiar with the Music title Yellow submarine ~ Beetles.
it arguably refers to the" conditioning box" we live in.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Determinism is either absolute or it is not determinism.

well then it is not determinism due to chaotic indeterminism...
because determinism can never be considered to be absolute.. period.
Your point has been that even if we make an exception for proven indeterminism then determinism is absolute, is illogical nonsense.
Even mentioning your silly thermostat and it's trivial freedom contradicts your own statement of absoluteness...
One can only wonder what other exceptions you are making to your absoluteness...Bah!
Absolute is an absolute ... period.
As I said if you are not capable of discussing logic at the level required to nail this issue then perhaps you should at least know your limitations.

Co-determinism makes no prohibition to indeterminism. It is unnecessary to do so... because the quality of freedom gained by genuine self determination is not hindered by it.

 

[Write4U]

Yet 1+1=2 cannot be proved mathematicly . Logically , Yet is shown to be physically true .

Where is the quality ? In the physical .

The physical is the proof. The equation is the symbolic representation of the deterministic mathematical function and solution.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A single deterministic cause and effect would be a single causal quantum function and effect.

There is no such thing as a single cause...
and yet Sarkus who should know better agrees with you...

If you are gong to use a microscope on infinity always remember you are scoping infinity.

 

[river]

There is no such thing as a single cause...
and yet Sarkus who should know better agrees with you...

If you are gong to use a microscope on infinity always remember you are scoping infinity.

Indeed there is no such thing as a single cause of anything .

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Yet 1+1=2 cannot be proved mathematicly . Logically , Yet is shown to be physically true .

Where is the quality ? In the physical .

The physical is the proof. The equation is the symbolic representation of the deterministic mathematical function and solution.

Don't get your thinking .

Explain your thinking further .

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's bit like talking about the past as if it exists when it doesn't, or the future that has yet to happen as "over there some where".
It takes discipline to deal with these sorts of concepts. The only thing that arguably exists is the present moment, which is the sum of the past, generating a potential for the future.

 

[river]

It's bit like talking about the past as if it exists when it doesn't, or the future that has yet to happen as "over there some where".
It takes discipline to deal with these sorts of concepts. The only thing that arguably exists is the present moment, which is the sum of the past, generating a potential for the future.

Agreed . The Universe as a completely physical energy and matter based only .

But life is different .

Life takes energy from matter . Even in the depths of Earths crust .

There are biological forms that takes energy from minerals .

 

[Write4U]

In furtherance of a previous side-note.

QQ said,
If you have ever heard of Rare earth Hypothesis you would know that the chances of our initial or even subsequent causal conditions generating the cause and effect pre-determinism to evolve complex life as it has, are incredibly and mind-boggling remote.

W4U said,
Not any longer.

QQ said,
Yet here we are with a planet with a huge amount of biodiversity including intelligent humans that demonstrate complex social, intellectual activity, via schools, universities, research institutions and other forms of self generated learning.

W4U said,
Because the Rare Earth Hypothesis is just not true.

Seems we are discovering new viable planets regularly now that we know what to look for.

Two Potentially Earth-Like Alien Planets Found Around Nearby Star
There are even more potentially habitable planets near Earth than we ever imagined. A research team discovered two Earth-like planets in our cosmic backyard, and they're located in the perfect zone for water to form on their presumably rocky surfaces.

The planets orbit a sun known as "Teegarden's star," which is only 12.5 light-years from Earth. (A light-year is the distance that light travels in a year, or roughly 6 trillion miles or 10 trillion kilometers.) The two planets look an awful lot like Earth and our neighboring worlds, the researchers said.

https://www.space.com/teegarden-star-two-earth-like-planets.html?utm_source=notification&jwsource=cl

 

[Write4U]

Don't get your thinking .
Explain your thinking further .

Equations actually have functional meaning in the physics of the universe. The symbolic mathematical representations of equations are conceptually true in an abstract mathematical sense.

This is why we have symbolized universal mathematical (physical) constants" such as E = Mc^2.

A little like the idealized Platonic solids are abstractly representative of regularly occurring universal mathematical patterns.

Both perspectives seem to have a natural ability for self-referential organization.

 

[river]

Equations actually have functional meaning in the physics of the universe. The symbolic mathematical representations of equations are conceptually true in an abstract mathematical sense.

This is why we have symbolized universal mathematical (physical) constants" such as E = Mc^2.

A little like the idealized Platonic solids are abstractly representative of regularly occurring universal mathematical patterns.

Both perspectives seem to have a natural ability for self-referential organization.

But not in a physical sense .

E=mc^2.

Is about the energy from the mass .

So if the equation is equal , then mc^2 = energy .

 

[Write4U]

But not in a physical sense .
E=mc^2. Is about the energy from the mass .

Right, energy is a latent physical property of mass. The mathematical symbolic language explains this inherent latent energetic potential contained in mass.

So if the equation is equal , then mc^2 = energy .

And so it is as well. That's why it is called a self-referential equation, it functions both ways. That is why it has earned the title "equation".

Equation,
a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =).
synonyms:mathematical problem, sum, calculation, question;
equality
"a boy was solving a quadratic equation"

In logic this is called the law of "necessity and sufficiency"

Necessity and sufficiency,
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between statements. For example, in the conditional statement "If P then Q", we say that "Q is necessary for P" because P cannot be true unless Q is true. Wikipedia

 

[river]

Right. The mathematical symbolic language explains this inherent latent energetic potential contained in mass.
And so it is as well. That's why it is called a self-referential equation, it goes both ways. That is why it has earned the title "equation".

In logic this is called the law of "necessity and sufficiency"

Okay

Now why is the speed of light squared ?

Why is the speed of light times its self ?

 

[Write4U]

Okay

Now why is the speed of light squared ?

Why is the speed of light times its self ?

I don't know, but it has a specific purpose in the calculation. Perhaps it is founded on a GR principle of referential framing. Perhaps in a self-referential equation of a function involving (c), (c) must be calculated at (c^2)

Example; when two light beams approach each other @ c, their combined (shared) closing speed = c^2.

But that's just a guess on my part.....

p.s.

E = mc^2. An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself. (See relativity.)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/e=mc2

 

[Sarkus]

Yet 1+1=2 cannot be proved mathematicly . Logically , Yet is shown to be physically true .

I suggest you give Principia Mathematica a read, byAlfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.

 

[Sarkus]

Your post only indicates you simply do not have the capacity to understand the difference between immaterial values, qualities and material ones....

So you’re not going to explain what you mean by “material freedom” and “immaterial quality called freedom”? You’re not going to provide examples of what you mean? You’re simply going to come up with some phrases and leave everyone guessing as to what you mean by them?
Please, provide an example of “material freedom”? You have made the distinction and it is thus up to you to provide explanation.

well then it is not determinism due to chaotic indeterminism...

We have assumed that the universe is deterministic. To then introduce indeterminism and thus claim the premise is no longer to be held is dishonest in the extreme.
Furthermore, chaos itself can be either deterministic or indeterministic. So chaos itself, if that is your position, need not introduce determinism.

because determinism can never be considered to be absolute.. period.

Mathematics would suggest otherwise.

Your point has been that even if we make an exception for proven indeterminism then determinism is absolute, is illogical nonsense.

No, my point is that if one assumes determinism then one can not suddenly look to introduce indeterminism. If you assume determinism then that determinism is absolute. To do otherwise, as to are looking now to do, is simply dishonest.

Even mentioning your silly thermostat and it's trivial freedom contradicts your own statement of absoluteness...

In what way does it contradict determinism? Please, QQ, actually provide some support for these claims of yours.

One can only wonder what other exceptions you are making to your absoluteness...Bah!

Ah, so it’s really just a case of realising your understanding is woeful, and looking to deflect and a evade by casting aspersions on others. I get it.

Absolute is an absolute ... period.

Indeed, and if we assume determinism we assume it to be absolute. It wasn’t an assumption of “mostly determinism but with some indeterminism along the way” but of determinism. Absolute.

As I said if you are not capable of discussing logic at the level required to nail this issue then perhaps you should at least know your limitations.

I have no intention of lowering my standards, thanks. Your dishonesty in this regard speaks volumes of yours.

Co-determinism makes no prohibition to indeterminism. It is unnecessary to do so... because the quality of freedom gained by genuine self determination is not hindered by it.

So in a discussion premised upon determinism, your position is to introduce indeterminism.
Dishonesty on your part, QQ.

 

[Write4U]

This may be useful.

Logic and Information
First published Mon Feb 3, 2014; substantive revision Wed May 30, 2018
At their most basic, logic is the study of consequence, and information is a commodity. Given this, the interrelationship between logic and information will centre on the informational consequences of logical actions or operations conceived broadly. The explicit inclusion of the notion of information as an object of logical study is a recent development.

It was by the beginning of the present century that a sizable body of existing technical and philosophical work (with precursors that can be traced back to the 1930s) coalesced into the new emerging field of logic and information (see Dunn 2001).

There is a bi-directional relation between logic and information. On the one hand, information underlies the intuitive understanding of standard logical notions such as inference (which may be thought of as the process that turns implicit information into explicit informaiton) and computation. On the other hand, logic provides a formal framework for the study of information itself.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-information/

p.s. this is an awesome link to scientific papers on a wide range of subjects.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you’re not going to explain what you mean by “material freedom” and “immaterial quality called freedom”? You’re not going to provide examples of what you mean? You’re simply going to come up with some phrases and leave everyone guessing as to what you mean by them?
Please, provide an example of “material freedom”? You have made the distinction and it is thus up to you to provide explanation.
We have assumed that the universe is deterministic. To then introduce indeterminism and thus claim the premise is no longer to be held is dishonest in the extreme.
Furthermore, chaos itself can be either deterministic or indeterministic. So chaos itself, if that is your position, need not introduce determinism.
Mathematics would suggest otherwise.
No, my point is that if one assumes determinism then one can not suddenly look to introduce indeterminism. If you assume determinism then that determinism is absolute. To do otherwise, as to are looking now to do, is simply dishonest.
In what way does it contradict determinism? Please, QQ, actually provide some support for these claims of yours.
Ah, so it’s really just a case of realising your understanding is woeful, and looking to deflect and a evade by casting aspersions on others. I get it.
Indeed, and if we assume determinism we assume it to be absolute. It wasn’t an assumption of “mostly determinism but with some indeterminism along the way” but of determinism. Absolute.
I have no intention of lowering my standards, thanks. Your dishonesty in this regard speaks volumes of yours.
So in a discussion premised upon determinism, your position is to introduce indeterminism.
Dishonesty on your part, QQ.

Why do you want me to respond Sarkus, you only ignore what I post any way... it doesn't make sense to you...so why ask for a response ?

Please explain what you mean by the words "IF we"?

I suggest you reread the post you are referring to and have a think about it more before embarrassing your self even more so...