Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[C C]

Internal contradiction, same as last time. At the end you admit it is ABOUT (language, modeling, representation, map, etc). But before that you declare IT IS.

You cannot re-present something unless it already exists. You cannot map the terrain unless there is terrain. [...] Humans do not dictate the mathematics to the universe. It dictates the mathematics to us.....

"What we have here is FAILURE to communicate!" And thus the last time bothering with this utter futility: You _ are _ calling _ the _ terrain _ the _ map. You _ are _ conflating _ the _ map _ with _ the _ terrain. You _ have _ the _ map _ even _ causing _ the _ terrain.

That said, if mathematical realism is your thing, then so be it. Different ghosts for different folks. For the spiritual reader it's seeing Papa Smith hovering above his grave. For the STEM reader it's seeing abstract formulae imbued in the environment (reification).

~

 

[Write4U]

What we have here is FAILURE to communicate!" And thus the last time bothering with this utter futility: You _ are _ calling _ the _ terrain _ the _ map. You _ are _ conflating _ the _ map _ with _ the _ terrain. You _ have _ the _ map _ even _ causing _ the _ terrain.

No I am not. I know the difference.

You are speaking from a subjective viewpoint, i.e. bookkeeping of universal values (geometric patterns) and interactive functions.

I am coming from an objective viewpoint, i.e. universal values and functions are inherent in the fabric and physics of spacetime itself. (Tegmark is qualified to offer such an explanation and I like it).

If Cause, then Effect = function
If A, then B = mathematical function

I believe we can safely say that the essence of the universe recognizes this dynamical "mathematical" imperative: If A, then B........., no?

What is it we have recognized in the terms "universal constants"?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you think quarks cause blood to clot - does that make sense to you?

Ultimately, yes.
If quarks didn't operate the way the do, atoms would not form. No atoms no blood.
A cause doesn't have to be a direct link.

Like erosion. River valleys are ultimately caused by oceanic evaporation. There's a lot of steps in between, sure, but no evaporation = no air moisture = no rain.

So you are positing an illusion without an observer.

No.

You said:
"...clearly the observer and the illusion would have to be separate entities, no?"

Why would they have to be separate? We do not have access to the processes that shape our thoughts and perceptions. We only observe the end result.
This is why, for example, we can't fully trust our vision, or our memories.

 

[DaveC426913]

... universal values and functions are inherent in the fabric and physics of spacetime itself.

No they are not.
'Values' are numbers - a human invention.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can I ?
We are very capable of altering our chemistry through the use of micro psycho-somatics, changing our mind states through mental imagery, affirmations etc.

All of which is derived from the only components that make up our brains: neurons and the chemicals that alter them.

 

[Write4U]

No they are not.
'Values' are numbers - a human invention.

No, you are wrong. Universal values are "translated (explicated) physical assets and potentials" (patterns). We can "account" for them with our invented symbolic "numbers".....difference. The natural emerging patterns and phenomena would still occur , even if humans are not around.
("wet" is a value, not a number)

The universe needs no accounting, therefore no symbolic language of any kind.
Mathematical imperatives are the essence of spacetime geometry......

I believe this concept is of such simple practical elegance, to not merit consideration.....

Allow me a question: If the universe is essentially mathematical in structure, how would that relate to the question of human FW?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If something is constrained such that it can only act in a certain way, would you consider it free?
Perhaps this point will be missed by those who need to see it most.

If I was the one doing the constraining ( self oppression by way of discipline, self restraint etc) then certainly I am as free as I wish or need to be.

but then I might take a nip or two of a fine malt and find I have gained more freedom but alas more chaos as well. ( in case of misunderstanding: drinking alcohol generally reduces self restraint leading to greater freedom with the trade off being greater disorder or chaos.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you think quarks cause blood to clot - does that make sense to you?

Ultimately, yes.
If quarks didn't operate the way the do, atoms would not form. No atoms no blood.
A cause doesn't have to be a direct link.

Like erosion. River valleys are ultimately caused by oceanic evaporation. There's a lot of steps in between, sure, but no evaporation = no air moisture = no rain.

Or the biochemical states they created - that would make more sense.

Sure, but those patterns that created the-biochemical-states-that-we-created were created by the biochemical states.

The states are, as you say, the substrate. No biochemical states in the first place = no patterns = no states created by patterns.

Another analogy: Conway's Game of Life. It could, in theory, create some fabulously complex, inter-functionally-looping structures - replete with constructs that detect states and storage units. But nothing can come from it - no patterns can be made - that the rules of the game board do not permit. Those fabulously complex inter-functionally looping structures cannot attain any kind of decision-making that transcends the deterministic nature of the states of all the cells.

It may look like it can, because it's so complex - but ultimately, one could erase the whole board, set it back to its initial conditions - and the exact same structure will be created - and it will repeat the exact same "decisions".

Even if you throw in a randomizing monkey-wrench - one that occasionally mis-copies the state of a cell or two - that's still not the Game having a will. That's just the same determined structure-and-flow with some uncontrolled elements thrown in.

So you are positing an illusion without an observer.

No.

You said:
"...clearly the observer and the illusion would have to be separate entities, no?"

Why would they have to be separate? We do not have access to the processes that shape our thoughts and perceptions. We only observe the end result.
This is why, for example, we can't fully trust our vision, or our memories.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, you are wrong. Universal values are "translated physical assets and potentials" (patterns). We can "account" for them with our invented symbolic "numbers"

Patterns are what humans create when observing self-similarity in nature.

Other than your personal ideas, what else have you to back this assertion up?

("wet" is a value, not a number)

No. 'Wet' is a word that describes a relative comparison of a state of an arbitrarily-chosen (i.e. by an observer) quantity of a substance.

Is one molecule of water 'wet'? Is a million?

Is an ocean wet? Why? Because wet means water. That's how we defined it. And because we make an arbitrary distinction that an 'ocean' stops at the shore, and at the surface. Planets don't know water from moist land or ocean from humid sky. So, is a whole planet 'wet'? Judgement call. Is a solar system wet? Judgment call.

The universe understands only atomic particles and forces. It has no labels and no values.

 

[Write4U]

Patterns are what humans create when observing self-similarity in nature.

I believe we translate and recreate sensory information we actually perceive rather than mentally create what we wish to see.

IMO, it's not a matter of "either, or". We all experience physical sensory reality by general agreement,
But if there is general consensus of any kind it is a proportionate assurance of me having a pretty good "recognition" of my own reality and environment.
(Anil Seth's "controlled hallucinations")

 

[Sarkus]

I might consider the situation to display a significant degree of freedom.

Just as an object floating in space has degrees of freedom. But it is still not free, it must still do as it must, obligated by the laws of physics - if those laws are deterministic

For the third or fourth time: Depends. What did the constraining? When and where and why and how?

That doesn't matter. If the item is constrained, regardless of what constrains it, would you consider it free? That is the question. The rest is irrelevant to that question. If B must follow A, can you say the interaction is free? The ouput is constrained by the input. It is not free, per this understanding of "free".

And so that "notion of freedom" is supernatural.

Note the word "so". I.e. it is a conclusion, not an assumption. And if that is indeed the conclusion one draws from the term, that in order to exist it must be supernatural, then so be it.

That "conclusion" only follows from the added assumption that freedom must contravene physical law, that nothing bound by natural law is free - only the supernatural can be free. Drop that assumption, and the entire argument evaporates.

You once again seem to be struggling with the difference between assumption and conclusion. The conclusion follows as assuredly as we conclude that Socrates is mortal. I.e. the argument is indeed valid.
If you honestly think otherwise then please do explain what formal fallacy is being committed? Please do not just repeat ad nauseam that it requires the assumption that freedom is supernatural. Detail the formal fallacy, please? If one exists I am as eager as anyone to understand it.
But I'm going to bet that you'll be unable.

 

[Write4U]

Patterns are what humans create when observing self-similarity in nature.

Because they were there before we were here to "see" them.....

 

[Write4U]

The output is constrained by the input. It is not free, per this understanding of "free".

Superposition?

 

[Sarkus]

If I was the one doing the constraining ( self oppression by way of discipline, self restraint etc) then certainly I am as free as I wish or need to be.

As explained to iceaura, it's not about who or what does the constraining, but simply about whether something that is constrained can be considered free. Can a train on the tracks be considered free in which direction it moves? If B must follow A how is the situation free?
Note, I'm not saying that if we don't change the perspective or notion of "free" that we can't reach different perspectives on many things. All I am asking is the simple question regarding a specific notion of "free". It doesn't matter who or what is doing the constraining. It is solely about that which is constrained.

 

[Sarkus]

Superposition?

What about it?

 

[Write4U]

That doesn't matter. If the item is constrained, regardless of what constrains it, would you consider it free? That is the question. The rest is irrelevant to that question. If B must follow A, can you say the interaction is free? The ouput is constrained by the input. It is not free, per this understanding of "free".

Can we ask if it is necessary to assume an "either, or" position? Is it possible there are levels of mathematical "orders". As far as we know the laws of physics break down in BH, but it is a geometrically "localized" anomaly,

 

[Write4U]

What about it?

Lol, was musing at what point determinism is overwhelmed by complexity?
Or if it ever will.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

As explained to iceaura, it's not about who or what does the constraining, but simply about whether something that is constrained can be considered free. Can a train on the tracks be considered free in which direction it moves? If B must follow A how is the situation free?
Note, I'm not saying that if we don't change the perspective or notion of "free" that we can't reach different perspectives on many things. All I am asking is the simple question regarding a specific notion of "free". It doesn't matter who or what is doing the constraining. It is solely about that which is constrained.

You asked:

If something is constrained such that it can only act in a certain way, would you consider it free?
Perhaps this point will be missed by those who need to see it most.

I responded:

If I was the one doing the constraining ( self oppression by way of discipline, self restraint etc) then certainly I am as free as I wish or need to be.

I don't see a problem with my response unless I consider your later post.
The problem with this topic is, you are referring to free will, in particular Human free will.
The will does not exist in just a thing. It exists in this case with regards to human function.

It's a bit like asking the ridiculous: Does an ashtray that is constrained have freewill?

If you wish to change context by all means do so, but you need to specify that you are doing so.
The topic of free is about the human will.
The will does not exist with out the human.
The human has the capacity via self restraint and self discipline to constrain his own will and is free to do so as he may see fit. (self oppression to maintain order)
The key that you are missing is being able to maintain context in your discourse. Otherwise it appears disingenuous and other wise inept. ( of which I believe you to be neither)

 

[Sarkus]

You asked:

I responded:

I don't see a problem with my response unless I consider your later post.

The question asked was not whether what does the constraining can be considered free or not, but whether what is constrained can be considered free. The clue was in the words, and the order they were used. You therefore simply answered a question that wasn't asked. Do you intend to answer the question that was asked?

The problem with this topic is, you are referring to free will, in particular Human free will.

Yes, and whether it is "free". If we all accept, for example, that the will is not "free", and that "free will" in no way implies that it is "free" then okay. Do you want to do that?

The will does not exist in just a thing. It exists in this case with regards to human function.

Yes. Is the will "free"? Is human function "free"?

It's a bit like asking the ridiculous: Does an ashtray that is constrained have freewill?

I didn't ask if it had free will but if it could be considered "free".

If you wish to change context by all means do so, but you need to specify that you are doing so.

I've changed no context, QQ. I've been quite clear from the outset that the terms I'm using are in the context of the argument from determinism.

The topic of free is about the human will.

Yes, and whether or not it is free.

The will does not exist with out the human.

Are you suggesting that other animals don't have will? That would be an interesting side conversation if it is indeed what you are implying?

The human has the capacity via self restraint and self discipline to constrain his own will and is free to do so as he may see fit. (self oppression to maintain order)

That is the question in hand: whether or not the will is actually free or not. Just stating that you think it is really doesn't help the argument one way or the other. Unless one looks to argue from consensus, of course.

The key that you are missing is being able to maintain context in your discourse. Otherwise it appears disingenuous and other wise inept. ( of which I believe you to be neither)

I have been nothing if not consistent in my context, QQ. I am arguing here from the determinist pov. That is the context here. To suggest that I have been inconsistent is what is actually disingenuous, and shows an actual ineptness on your part. Try reading the entire thread, QQ. Especially the posts that were merged into this from the other thread.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have been nothing if not consistent in my context, QQ. I am arguing here from the determinist pov. That is the context here. To suggest that I have been inconsistent is what is actually disingenuous, and shows an actual ineptness on your part. Try reading the entire thread, QQ. Especially the posts that were merged into this from the other thread.

and you are referring to the Human will yes?
Why do you exclude the human from the will?
Is it because it isn't compatible with your conception of determinism with regards to a will that somehow isn't human?
Until you include the owner of the will, your argument is going no where. I have merely attempted to include the human in this discussion. A human that is sadly lacking in the discourse.
The owner of the will has the capacity to oppress or other wise constrain his will. In fact it, self restraint and self discipline could be the main reason the human remains sane and rational.
To maintain order, freedom is restrained, but this in no way limits the potential freedom (insanity/chaos/disorder) available.