Determinism and free will .

[Sarkus]

Well then, if zero is unable to be included [ meaning suicide, death, unconsciousness etc] then Sarkus's case could be seen as valid.

Where have I said that death, unconsciousness etc is unable to be included?
(And please, let's stick to calling it death rather than "zero" which is introducing all manner of confusions through you trying to mix the discussion with mathematics.)

I heartily include death in my case - it is merely the cessation of patterns of activity. The cessation is no more chosen than any other "decision" - and I am not sure of your purpose of raising it as a separate matter, as though it somehow fits outside?

You have moved this conversation from discussion of cause/effect, freewill and determinism to trying to prove whether zero exists in the material world??
Yet you have singularly failed to explain how this impacts any of the previous discussions.

Your argument seems to be: Zero can't be included - ergo freewill exists.
Perhaps you would do well to clearly - and I do mean clearly describe the line of argument from the initial statement to the conclusion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I heartily include death in my case - it is merely the cessation of patterns of activity. The cessation is no more chosen than any other "decision" - and I am not sure of your purpose of raising it as a separate matter, as though it somehow fits outside?

Would you then go on to say that the dead will of a corpse is somehow being determined? [I don't think you would btw]
Because as far as I know the will of a corpse is nonexistent and permanently so. [ metaphorically zero.]

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have moved this conversation from discussion of cause/effect, freewill and determinism to trying to prove whether zero exists in the material world??
Yet you have singularly failed to explain how this impacts any of the previous discussions.

I have indeed explained but alas it appears to be missed.

If Humans have this infinite regression into paradox as part of every choice we may or may not make and IMO is essential in discussing "What makes life, alive" we can therefore state we can be infinitely/eternally "undecided" if we choose to be, thus the notion of Freewill comes to the fore.

As we are able to break the influence or causal chain and do nothing, die or become irrational we can not categorically claim that we are able to be determined other than by self. If we are only self determined then we have power of self determination and because we can contra even this [defy self or in religious terms God*] we have freewill as a result.

Another key point:

Determinism of any sort requies rationality, logical progression, etc and we humans are very capable of generating chaos which defeats any notion of determinism.

So to summaries the main point:

It is the ability we have to be undecided and deliberately so if we choose to be that grants us the freedom to choose [freewill and not just freedom of will] and we can be undecided our entire life if that is what we choose to be or we can force a decision when appropriate. This allows us to break any chain of causality or influence which leads to a "Null" deterministic result.


* re: the case of original sin in the Garden of Eden.

and,
Now that a NULL state [ zero] is dis-allowed in this debate there appears to be no point...as the use of a null state [zero - nothingness] in a closed system which this universe is deemed to be as held by the laws of Thermo Dynamics. generates a paradox. [ which appears to be a no no]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just to show how the communication is failing:
you have stated this:

Your argument seems to be: Zero can't be included - ergo freewill exists.

and I have stated this:

Well then, if zero is unable to be included [ meaning suicide, death, unconsciousness etc] then Sarkus's case could be seen as valid.

meaning that :
If zero or any NULL state is excluded from the debate then freewill is an illusion as proposed by Sarkus.
which is exactly the opposite to what you think I am arguing with my post quoted above.
So until this problem with communication is rectified there is little point in continuing as I know you and I can do a lot better that this.

 

[Sarkus]

Now that a NULL state [ zero] is dis-allowed in this debate there appears to be no point...as the use of a null state [zero - nothingness] in a closed system which this universe is deemed to be as held by the laws of Thermo Dynamics. generates a paradox. [ which appears to be a no no]

Where has anyone said that "zero" is disallowed?
And how on earth do you conclude that use of zero creates a paradox?? Your examples so far have been flawed - as explained previously.

All I am asking is that you actually be more coherent in your explanations of your arguments / points.
Why does a "null state" generate a paradox?
How does a "null state" have any bearing on whether free-will is an illusion or not?

Your reposted line of discussion was mooted in #388 - you seem to think that death (or even the choice of not-choosing) is a means of breaking a causal chain - but is in fact just the continuation of it. Yes, a pattern of activity (consciousness) ceases - but this is just part of the chain. Yes, the pattern of activity "dies" - becomes a NULL state - but this is just with respect to the pattern, not the underlying substance / energy.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Where has anyone said that "zero" is disallowed?
And how on earth do you conclude that use of zero creates a paradox?? Your examples so far have been flawed - as explained previously.

re: Glaucon;

There are two (competing) systems described in your sentence there, not one.
One can be closed, or open.
The conjunction of both under a single predicate is an absurdity.

by absurdity he means paradox I presume.

All I am asking is that you actually be more coherent in your explanations of your arguments / points.
Why does a "null state" generate a paradox?
How does a "null state" have any bearing on whether free-will is an illusion or not?

I wrote:

It's like being trapped inside a sealed bottle full of deterministic "influences" and the only escape from the bottle is to become zero. [ unconsciousness, death, coma, trance, etc]
The buddhist ideology is about just this. By becoming zero one acquires freedom from the cycle of suffering and pleasure [ duality] Thus obtaining control over the deterministic universe [bottle- Sansara].
By removing compulsion [ attachment ] they master the infleunces that commonly drive us. [ or at least attempt to do so as so far none have succeeded]

Possibly I would have been more accurate to have written:
That one does not escape the bottle by becoming zero but one can render all deterministic influences null and void by being so, thus escaping the influences and not the bottle....persee.

Your reposted line of discussion was mooted in #388 - you seem to think that death (or even the choice of not-choosing) is a means of breaking a causal chain - but is in fact just the continuation of it. Yes, a pattern of activity (consciousness) ceases - but this is just part of the chain. Yes, the pattern of activity "dies" - becomes a NULL state - but this is just with respect to the pattern, not the underlying substance / energy.

so if the entire universe became nothingness and was so for ever, would you still hold to a deterministic universe? eh?

Another line of arguement:
The will has to be self determined regardless and if it is determined by the wielder is this not the fullfuillment of self determination thus freewill as decided by the wielder?
If not decided by the weilder of the will then what is determining the will other than the wielder?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'll represent my arguement again later as I think I can see a way to clarify it using the universe in a bottle analogy.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It will have to wait as Christmas Festivities are under way.
Wishing a Merry Christmas to those that are of that faith and happy festivities to those that are otherwise inclined.

 

[Quantum Quack]

After giving it some thought over the break, I have reached the conclusion that as any logical proof concerning the reality of freewill requires support from science, yet to be accepted, attempting to do so with out that support would be an exercise in futility.

So alas I rest my case untill that support is forthcoming.

 

[Cyperium]

I would guess that free will is a part of the determinism, as such why would it NOT determine? Why would it NOT be a component that determines the final outcome?

Even if free will is only a perception, that perception is a part of the determinism and thus changes the outcome. Why would those believing in determinism argue that some parts are a part of it and some parts are not. It would be self-contradicting. Thus free will (illusion or not) is not merely a illusion but part of the determining process just as much as it seems to.

 

[Sarkus]

After giving it some thought over the break, I have reached the conclusion that as any logical proof concerning the reality of freewill requires support from science, yet to be accepted, attempting to do so with out that support would be an exercise in futility.

So alas I rest my case untill that support is forthcoming.

Science works on what is rational rather than "proven". At best the evidence can demonstrate applicability of a theory / understanding to the circumstances of the observation. Beyond that it is a matter of what is rational.

But as you would expect, I would say rationality is on my side.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Science works on what is rational rather than "proven". At best the evidence can demonstrate applicability of a theory / understanding to the circumstances of the observation. Beyond that it is a matter of what is rational.

But as you would expect, I would say rationality is on my side.

egad !! did you miss the qualifying word "logical" as in "logical proof"?
surely not!

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would guess that free will is a part of the determinism, as such why would it NOT determine? Why would it NOT be a component that determines the final outcome?

Even if free will is only a perception, that perception is a part of the determinism and thus changes the outcome. Why would those believing in determinism argue that some parts are a part of it and some parts are not. It would be self-contradicting. Thus free will (illusion or not) is not merely a illusion but part of the determining process just as much as it seems to.

yey! well said! IMO

 

[Cyperium]

Thanks!

I read your posts about nothing providing the means of free will and I understand what you mean, nothing holds the greatest possibility, in fact anything and everything could be derived from nothing as it has no assumptions, the universe just doesn't matter at all to nothing, and nothing is always just one step ahead of time / before time. However, this calls for a different meaning of *nothing* than just non-existence, cause there must exist potential and possibility. Why would particles start to exist from nothing if this wasn't the case?

That the universe came from nothing may be unproven, but to science we didn't exist before we were born (mentally/spiritually, that is).

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thanks!

I read your posts about nothing providing the means of free will and I understand what you mean, nothing holds the greatest possibility, in fact anything and everything could be derived from nothing as it has no assumptions, the universe just doesn't matter at all to nothing, and nothing is always just one step ahead of time / before time. However, this calls for a different meaning of *nothing* than just non-existence, cause there must exist potential and possibility. Why would particles start to exist from nothing if this wasn't the case?

That the universe came from nothing may be unproven, but to science we didn't exist before we were born (mentally/spiritually, that is).

all valid IMO.
There is a way to logically prove the non-existence of relative nothing [ that is nothing relative to something] using sciences own limitations/methodology. I have done so in previous threads which when referred to, or commented upon are considered as necromacy by those who may feel let us say, uncomfortable about what they reveal.

Also a scientifically demonstratable and actual paradox has also been discussed on a couple of occassions and again delegated to the too hard basket. [ the essense of metastability] and the case for a correlationship between nothingness, paradox, therefore freewill, can be made.
So there is some support from science but science yet to be accepted by the mainstream. But alas, the key scientific support that more or less settles the debate has yet to be seriously considered.
[regarding the universal constancy of Gravity, quantum entanglement and tunnelling.]

 

[Cyperium]

Nothing is indeed a paradox in itself as it can't exist. Even the brain has to paint it black because it can't be truly represented by itself (how can we describe nothing?). It does make a good job at it though and black seem like a very natural color for missing visual information.

I'm thinking that perhaps the brain creates a lack of information which it doesn't represent, forcing natural law to represent it instead, giving rise to free will - or, it doesn't even have to create the missing information as it is already missing and we are filling the gap. This may be the source for free will and also, perhaps our self-awareness.

In some ways our self is very naturally connected to our body, who can ever explain that? It is a paradox, missing information. If information is missing it must first be advocated that it should be there in the first place. So if we are represented by lack of information then the natural order must be that everything has a inner-self and that this information is missing in the world.

I can't make this follow naturally from one idea to the other though, and it might be logically inconsistent (you would have to make many assumptions for this idea to be true), but it's a idea that if the assumptions are true then it would be valid logic I think.

 

[Incompatibalist]

No, not what I asked for. No one can prove the non-existence of anything (out side of mathematics) as the universe is mostly unexplored. For example unicorns may be pulling plows on some distant planet.

You made an assertion that if there is a causal chain, then free will can not exist -that is only your assertion and I wanted your assertion to be proved.

Your assertion was of the form: If A, then B. I want you to show that B follows from A. Show that "if selection is made by causal chain" (= "A") Then "choice cannot exist." (= "B") follows.

I think our impasse is caused by my POV that the self can and does make a choice if it, and it alone, makes the selection. You claim it can not if the self is a set of logical steps in a dynamic program.

last two or three pages of it. If you think there is an agruement against my POV, tell the post number.

Speaking of not answering, you have yet to tell what would be a choice or correct my definition, which was:

A choice is made by an agent with desires and beliefs when that agent selects an alternative that it believes will aid in achieving its desires.

You simply assert that choice does not exist because everything has a cause. - Is product of an unbroken causal chain. Yet you also, in conflict with this, claim thing are not predestined.
Do you not understand that if everything now happening was caused by prior happenings, that is an unbroken causal chain extending back to the big bang origin of the universe? (Yes you need to use logic, but don't here with these mutually contradictory positions.) When two statements mutually contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong. You can chose which of yours is wrong: "Choice does not exist" or "World is not predestined."

If you are tempted to remind me of quantum uncertainty, I note that it only produces chance or random events. Logic is not produced by chance. Where would the logic you say you use to "put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" come from if the causal chain is broken only by random chance events? I think you are making selections based on your beliefs that your CHOICES will aid your desires to be achieved.

Yes you can prove the non-existence of something outside of mathematics. Where are you drawing these claims from?

 

[Billy T]

Yes you can prove the non-existence of something outside of mathematics. Where are you drawing these claims from?

Then give me at least one proof that X does not exist, where X is something, not logically self contradictory. (logic is math, especially evident when expressed and manipulated in its symbolic form.) For example prove that naturally red elephants or unicorns do not exist.

As no one has yet proved the non-existence of things like unicorns, I simply concluded that such proofs are impossible.

To save time, I note that the universe is large and we can not be sure that there are no red elephants or unicorns on some distant planet, etc.

 

[Incompatibalist]

Then give me at least one proof that X does not exist, where X is something, not logically self contradictory. (logic is math, especially evident when expressed and manipulated in its symbolic form.) For example prove that naturally red elephants or unicorns do not exist.

As no one has yet proved the non-existence of things like unicorns, I simply concluded that such proofs are impossible.

To save time, I note that the universe is large and we can not be sure that there are no red elephants or unicorns on some distant planet, etc.

You my friend are absolutely retarded. I thought I read moderator in your name. Is this the type of idiot SF chooses to judge posts? Bah, in any case. I stated... and I quote (not using forum quote but the symbols we use... simply because I am too lazy to type in all the coding)

"Yes you can prove the non-existence of something outside of mathematics. Where are you drawing these claims from?"

And as you have pointed out... they came from that air head yours... and I quote you again bahaha "As no one has yet proved the non-existence of things like unicorns, I simply concluded that such proofs are impossible." What proofs is he trying to refute?.. you ought to ask. Well I'll tell ya. He's referring to the so called "proof" (I am not calling it that because really it isn't, it's more of a claim) that "the non-existence of something can be proven outside of mathematics" (that's me just changing a few things in what I have said previously)

The proof is in the pudding pal. That is to say it's almost in the claim itself. What you should be asking yourself... pal, is... no asking me because obviously you are too dumb to figure it out by yourself... is 'how can the nonexistence of something be shown to be factuality or proven'

A claim is something that asserts some truth and this truth is a concept. (I say concept for a reason but I won't get into it to save time... let me be the one to save us time because obviously you trying to save yourself time didn't afford you the opportunity to catch an error... if you are even capable of catching the error and I doubt it) A claim is also a conclusion (at least any logical claim is) which is also to say from whatever facts which may be presented we can make the assertion. (The assertion that something else is also true given the factuality of the presentations) These presentations are premises if we are still sticking to strict logical jargon.. I doubt you ever do though. Now I claim "the non-existence of something can be proven outside of mathematics" from the premise that "the factuality of the nonexistence of something can be be proven if it is shown that it MUST not exist"

Now... when I gave you the claim, I gave you a chance to figure it out on your own Viz. figuring out how I can make such a claim. But you couldn't so now you are at step two. And that's figuring out the question you should be asking yourself now.. and I won't even tell you what you should be asking, I will only show you when you make more of fool of yourself.
Now I'm already predicting you will ask "okay what is it then", but let me point out before you make THIS error that I want to see you make more of a fool of yourself.

And maybe, just maybe, I will enlighten you... I will point out your fundamental error.

And by the way... logic is not math... you make me laugh. You crack me up sir. Keep on agreeing Viz. not thinking Viz. not coming to the conclusions on your own. God I feel like I'm talking to a complete imbecile... some infant of a man.

 

[arfa brane]

And by the way... logic is not math

Careful with that.
Math is logical, in fact, mathematics is a subset of logic.

If that were false, digital computers wouldn't "understand" addition and multiplication of numbers.
You could probably also claim that logic is a subset of mathematics, or at least that mathematics manipulates logical symbols, which we call numbers, so that logic manipulates symbols which can be numbers (or anything you want them to be).