Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Quantum Quack]

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.

"Mathematical" refers to mathematics, a human discipline. The universe at large does not engage in that activity. It does not work with concepts and abstract affairs. You are reifiying the latter.

reification
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/reification.htm

reification

reification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

If someone points to apples on the ground, and remarks that there are eight under the tree, what is there are the phenomenal objects (apples), not the idea of eight. The latter in everyday application is the conception of the apples as belonging to a set or group, it is a symbol for either a visual or manual measurement (counting) that was carried out using a system for expressing magnitude, etc. You can kick apples, you can kick a box with the sign of "8" written on it -- but you can't kick the idea of eight.

If roads outline an overhead pattern called a square, what's there are the physical details, not the geometrical concept an observing mind is projecting upon the appearances (for recognition and identification purposes).

Abstract entities require a a cognitive and intellective orientation which invents them, finds them interesting, useful, etc. The cosmos as a whole does not possess such. It does contain smaller organisms which do, however.

~

Now there is a word I have been looking for for years... thanks.
Reification!

Perhaps Write4U could provide the mathematics that is Reification?

 

[Sarkus]

and you are referring to the Human will yes?

Yes

Why do you exclude the human from the will?

Because it adds nothing to the argument.

Is it because it isn't compatible with your conception of determinism with regards to a will that somehow isn't human?

No, it's because it doesn't add anything. Either something constrained is free, or it is not, that is the argument. Whether that is a dog's will, human will, a train, a sandwich, or anything else.

Until you include the owner of the will, your argument is going no where.

Not with you, at least. But then you can't seem to answer seemingly straightforward questions. If you want to change my argument to suit your own view then by all means do so, just not here.

I have merely attempted to include the human in this discussion. A human that is sadly lacking in the discourse.

I just wish to avoid irrelevancies, QQ.

The owner of the will has the capacity to oppress or other wise constrain his will.

So you're still not answering the question. Is something that is constrained to be considered free? I am not asking about the thing doing the constraining, but that which is constrained.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes

good!

Because it adds nothing to the argument.

ahh but that is where you are mistaken it does.

No, it's because it doesn't add anything. Either something constrained is free, or it is not, that is the argument. Whether that is a dog's will, human will, a train, a sandwich, or anything else.

While on the face of it this may be relatively true ( out of context) it doesn't apply to the human who can restrain his own will (in context).

It is that very ability to restrain his own will that affords him freedom to choose, to self determine. With out that restraint the human is in lah lah land singing booh booh bah bah bang doing circles thinking about the determinism of an ashtray.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Question :
How does a completely reflexive organism manage it's reflexes?

key : completely reflexive, absolutely reflexive, nothing but reflexes... etc

 

[Sarkus]

ahh but that is where you are mistaken it does.

No, it really doesn't. If something is not free if constrained then it is irrelevant what that something is, or who or what is doing the constraining.

While on the face of it this may be relatively true ( out of context) it doesn't apply to the human who can restrain his own will (in context).

But it does apply, QQ. Humans are a "something". Human will is a "something". A dog's appetite is a "something". A brick is a "something". The output of an interaction is a "something". Is something that is constrained to be considered free, QQ? You haven't yet answered that. Are you going to?

It is that very ability to restrain his own will that affords him freedom to choose, to self determine. With out that restraint the human is in lah lah land singing booh booh bah bah bang doing circles thinking about the determinism of an ashtray.

And is that ability (to restrain) free if it similarly constrained, or are you simply going to keep begging the question?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, it really doesn't. If something is not free if constrained then it is irrelevant what that something is, or who or what is doing the constraining.

false!
think about it some more...
The "who" is pivotal...

But it does apply, QQ. Humans are a "something". Human will is a "something". A dog's appetite is a "something". A brick is a "something". The output of an interaction is a "something". Is something that is constrained to be considered free, QQ? You haven't yet answered that. Are you going to?

I have... but you simply can't get it ....
I even offered a way for you to grasp the logic but you have so far refused to even consider it... ( see post # 484)
The first step in learning the logic involved is to find an answer to the question raised in post #484.
Once that is understood the rest is easier....
so to help I'll repeat it here:

Question :
How does a completely reflexive organism manage it's reflexes?

key note : completely reflexive, absolutely reflexive, nothing but reflexes... etc ( all moving parts are reflexive)

 

[Sarkus]

false!
think about it some more...
The "who" is pivotal...

I get that you want to change the argument to something more palatable to you, but while you continue to think that the "who" is pivotal I'll be ignoring you, since based on your error you'll just be spouting irrelevancies to the argument presented. I'll reserve my efforts to those with something to offer that shows they at least comprehend the position they're looking to counter, and do so within the context of that argument. You? No.

 

[Baldeee]

So you have concluded (shaky, but we're giving you this)
that the larger system is deterministic. So far so good.

If you refer to the original formulation I provided, it is actually a premise that if a system is constructed from deterministic interactions then it, too, is deterministic.
As such, on what grounds do you consider it "shaky"?
I'm not averse to the premises being questioned, but please try to offer something other than personal opinion.

The conclusion does not bear on freedom of will - unless you make one more assumption.

So you say the logic is valid, and then say that the conclusion is invalid.
You seem to be accepting the logic as valid, then looking at the conclusion it arrives at, not like it, and so assert that it must therefore be invalid.
In all this time you've offered nothing else, other than this assertion that it requires an additional assumption, yet you can't bring yourself to show how the argument is invalid without it?
Moreover you seem to accept that it is valid.
Please can you explain this apparent inconsistency?

Depends on how it was "tracked", and what it was.

Why does it depend on how it was tracked?
Or by what it was?
Are you looking to special plead?
Either the logic is valid or it is not.
Valid logic has nothing to do with what things are... it is valid by dint of the logic itself.

If the self steering system included making decisions based on moment by moment evocations of dreams and split second conscious acquisitions of meaningful information and so forth, so that the "tracking" was being enforced by the dreams, information, and other stuff that is "me", then considerable freedom of will for "me" - the causal agent - seems to be involved. From an engineering pov, anyway.

Why does it seem to be involved?
Are you not already begging the question by assuming that dreams, information, and other stuff that is "you" is not beholden to the same logic?
If those systems are also similarly subject to the same logic then your efforts to move outside seemed fallacious, due to the question-begging.
Are you therefore suggesting that those systems are not subject to the same logic?
If so, on what basis?

And it would make absolutely no difference whether this tracking was "beknownst" to "me" or not.

Why do you put beknownst in quotations?
Is there some emphasis you are trying to make?

 

[DaveC426913]

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

"They" is not a concept the universe has.

"This" rock doesn't know that "that" rock - or those eight other rocks - even exist. Each moves according to the forces directly affecting it, and nothing else. Aside from those local forces, each rock lives in a figurative vacuum.

It requires a human to step back and say "Hey, those ten rocks are all in a line. That's a pattern."
A pattern is a human association.

 

[Write4U]

"They" is not a concept the universe has.

The universe has no concept that it is the "universe". Does that mean it doesn't exist?

 

[DaveC426913]

The universe has no concept that it is the "universe". Does that mean it doesn't exist?

No, it doesn't mean that. And that is not any kind of counter-argument.

 

[Write4U]

It requires a human to step back and say "Hey, those ten rocks are all in a line.

That's a pattern." (Does it know it is a manifold?)

A pattern is a human association

I agree, but it is also a physical expression (pattern) to itself . Determinism is a strict chronological set of mathematical patterns which determine the consistent orderly development of future patterns.

No, it doesn't mean that. And that is not any kind of counter-argument.

Yes it is. The Universe itself is a pattern.

There are two perspectives, the subjective human perspective of observed actions and the independent objective universal mathematical imperatives of the actions themselves.

That's why we can call it Determinism. The mathematics of physical interaction demand consistent adherence to (what we call) mathematical (physical) permissions and restrictions.
consistent with prevailing dynamical potentials.

You cannot say the universe is both deterministic because of its regularities and not deterministic because humans gave names to these regularities? That's just wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree, but it is also a physical expression (pattern) to itself . Determinism is a strict chronological set of mathematical patterns which determine the consistent orderly development of future patterns.

This is simply an assertion.

The Universe itself is a pattern.

You can't have a pattern with a dataset of one.

(what we call) mathematical (physical) permissions and restrictions.

No, we don't. You do.

 

[Write4U]

This is simply an assertion.

A demonstrable one.

You can't have a pattern with a dataset of one.

Of course you can. The single dataset is a pattern all by itself. That's why we call it a "set". One point is not a pattern, three points create a geometrical pattern

Triangles do exist, no?
No, we don't. You do.

No, I call human symbolic representations of mathematical values and functions "mathematics" just like everyone else. I just propose the universe actually functions in a way which is translatable into our symbolic representations of natural orderly functions.

I also call the actual relative values and functions as being translatable into human symbolic mathematical language. It's the way the universe works. It's really not complicated as a concept. I believe we call them "universal laws". Are you asserting there are no "universal behavioral laws" ?

Tegmark estimates a total of some 33 values (relative mathematical potentials) and a handful of equations which combined can account for all universal dynamical actions and conditions (patterns).

 

[DaveC426913]

A demonstrable one.

In all this time, you have not been able to do so.

Of course you can. The single dataset is a pattern all by itself.

A dataset with a single datapoint is not a pattern.

No, I call human symbolic representations of mathematical values and functions "mathematics" just like everyone else.

Good. That's settled at least.

 

[Write4U]

In all this time, you have not been able to do so.

LOL, our entire discipline of study in physics rests on observation of natural patterns.

A dataset with a single datapoint is not a pattern.

A datapoint is not a dataset.....difference.

Good. That's settled at least.

Was it ever in doubt? Don't answer that.......

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL, our entire discipline of study in physics rests on observation of natural patterns.

Indeed. Count how many times in that sentence you had to refer to humans:
'Our', 'discipline', 'study' 'observation'

A datapoint is not a dataset.....difference.

That is exactly my point to you.

The universe is a single thing. It cannot be a pattern, since there is not even another one.

 

[iceaura]

Either something constrained is free, or it is not, that is the argument.

Once the supernatural notion of freedom is set aside, the argument is over the degrees of freedom possessed by the agent - not yes/no, but to what degree and how.
- - - -

If you refer to the original formulation I provided, it is actually a premise that if a system is constructed from deterministic interactions then it, too, is deterministic.

And your conclusion, up to that point, before you jumped to free will, was that since physical systems are so constructed they are deterministic. We agreed - everyone agreed, I think.

So you say the logic is valid, and then say that the conclusion is invalid.
You seem to be accepting the logic as valid, then looking at the conclusion it arrives at, not like it, and so assert that it must therefore be invalid.

Because the logic did not bear on the final conclusion, as explicitly noted. You reasoned, validly from your premises (granted), that physical systems are deterministic. You concluded that freedom of will was impossible. Your premises did not include the necessary assumption for that logical leap, and you deny making that assumption. So - - -

Why does it depend on how it was tracked?

Because that is where a discussion of degrees of freedom would begin. (The deterministic fallacy here rests on bottom up determinism - on locating the "constraints" and "causes" and "tracking" in the substrates, for example)

Why does it seem to be involved?

Because it is the primary candidate for the location of cause, constraint, or whatever - and such things are involved.

Why do you put beknownst in quotations?

Because it derives from a quoted term that is - in this context - dubious. A bottom up deterministic system would have no agents with "actual" knowledge per se - that would be another of those inherent illusions, appearances without actual observers
but the appearance of observers only.
- -

A pattern is a human association.

They have effects as patterns - they cause, as patterns - whether observed by humans or not. They exist, by presumption of physics, without being observed by humans. Their unseen and unmonitored behavior is governed by physical law. The pattern we name a "brick" has a mass and volume and shape of its own, for example, and will fall as a unit through the resistance of air, under the influence of gravity, as none of its constituent atoms individually would. If the human does not see it, make the association of all those atoms by observation, the impact on that human's head will nevertheless be as physical law predicts for the brick as a whole.

 

[Write4U]

Indeed. Count how many times in that sentence you had to refer to humans:
'Our', 'discipline', 'study' 'observation'

To make sure everyone understands the distinction I draw between human "symbolic" mathematics and the inherent universal orderly and consistent (which we have named mathematical) values and functions

That is exactly my point to you.

Not the way I see it. A single data point has no intrinsic value relative to other single points.. A set of points creates a geometric line, a set with a value. A pattern. Thee points create a set , a pattern which we call triangle.

The universe is a single thing. It cannot be a pattern, since there is not even another one.

It's a dynamically changing geometric object, the "change" expressing itself in a myriad of predictable patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence as can be observed in daisies as well as in spiral galaxies.

Ratios are (dynamic) relative mathematical values.

Ratio, noun

1. The quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

1. Google.

IMO, the Universe is a single dynamical compound set of patterns within sets of patterns or fields. A hierarchical ordering system (rational/mathematical in nature) of a near infinite number of points, from the very subtle to gross expression in reality. Hence the terms "manifold" and "dimensions"

Renate Loll calls it "causal dynamical triangulation" or "the fractal order in which the spacetime fabric itself unfolds".

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

notice the emerging patterns (from chaos) at quantum scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

It's all very mathematical, and that is why we can understand what we are observing and use our symbolic language (mathematics) to describe the observed universal physical values and functions, i.e. the mathematical functional physical patterns of the universe itself.

Not your maths, not my maths, the universe has its own maths and it doesn't care how humans symbolize it as long as the symbolic model is compatible with the mathematical way the universe works.

In one of my links a cosmologist observes that, "if we want to know something about the universe we can ask it and if we ask it nicely (using correct mathematics) it will provide us with an answer."

This is a profound statement, IMO

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a dynamically changing geometric object, the "change" expressing itself in a myriad of predictable patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence as can be observed in daisies as well as in spiral galaxies.

Then as I'd guessed all along, what you meant to say is the universe contains patterns - not the universe is a pattern.