Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Write4U]

of course we do....

Not without Cause.

 

[Write4U]

I just can not see how this leads to the exclusion of a situation where by that same output is the ability to self determine ( aka freewill)
Can any one explain why self determination can not be an "output"?

Motive? Is there any reason to change your mind, once it's made up?

And would you choose differently if you were to do it over again?

 

[iceaura]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you have the ability to do otherwise?

Same thing, from you. The ability to do otherwise is supernatural, by assumption, in all your posts.
Look at this:

So you do think you have the ability to do otherwise? Where do you think this "supernatural" (your assumption, not mine) state of affairs suddenly manifests?

See? You simply assume ability to do otherwise involves supernatural powers, in everyone's posting, by projection.

I have a sense of being able to do otherwise. Don't you?

Mine is based on a physical description of the choices and criteria involved in my future decision, and the mental events involved in making it - observed physical facts and events, measurable and verifiable degrees of freedom. They are in point of observation constituent parts and aspects of the entity "me" - mental events on the same level. It's not a "sense", but an observation and analysis.

Which has nothing to do with anything supernatural - regardless of how many times (like right there) you automatically assume it does.

Oh, there are undoubtedly a myriad of things you at least think you can do, and you will probably think that way right up until the point that you actually make your "choice".

And they are laboratory verified - my choice can be altered, moved among a wide field of available choices, experimentally, by simply flashing a light at me. I can alter my decisions by taking a sip of coffee or a nap, by blinking my eyes.

Doesn't seem "free" to me.

Of course not. It's not supernatural, so it doesn't meet your assumed criterion.

Knowing that, in a deterministic universe, what you do is actually nothing but part of an unbreakable causal chain set in stone at the start of time, and that will go on until the end of time itself?

Says the guy who denied his determinism was built on cause and effect.
I have paid more attention to the nature of the "causes" in the chain, is maybe the difference. My decisions, for example, are causal. So are my dreams. The constituent links of this unbreakable chain of yours are very much underestimated, methinks, and symptomatically obscured by little throwins like "nothing but".

 

[DaveC426913]

I keep telling myself that I'm going to stop reading this thread. But, for some reason, I keep coming back to it.

 

[Write4U]

Looks like that locomotive is just spinning its wheels.......

 

[Sarkus]

Probability does not negate determinism, IMO.

Probabilistic systems are indeterministic. That is, a given input can lead to multiple outputs. This is the opposite of what it means to be strictly deterministic.

It just means that the chance of occurring is uncertain, until it does, at which time deterministic laws determine the how.

You seem to be speaking of hidden variables, with the probability of outcome only due to not knowing what those hidden variables are doing?

I agree that natural laws are omnipresent in the universe. But that is a result of the properties of spacetime, not pre-existing properties of an external influence.

Did spacetime, as we know it, not exist at the moment after the BB?

However, it is demonstrable that these laws may not have existed before the BB which was a chaotic event, where FTL metric expansion of spacetime was "allowed", until physical patterns emerged from a "cooling" chaotic plasma and the universal laws of physics began to emerge along with the relative values and functions (potentials) of physical matter.

Let's at least stick to the moment time began and thereafter, shall we?

IMO, which laws where/when? Before the BB the universe as we know it did not exist, including its laws.

Sticking to post-BB, are you suggesting that since then there are pockets where no laws apply? Sure, the applicability of some laws was may change with the conditions of the local area, but that is a matter of applicability and conditions, not whether there are laws or not.

Physical laws are very specific in expression and exacting, but the mathematics of dynamic biological systems seems to be flexible, witness evolution. Local overwhelming dynamic conditions which do not allow the orderly formation of mathematical patterns, except perhaps as fractal patterns.

And your point is...?

Chaos is such a pattern. Absence of order.

Most would consider a pattern to be the evidence of order. We recognise a pattern because of that order. To refer to chaos as a pattern seems paradoxical. And I still think you are confusing various notions of chaos. It has specific meaning in physics, especially with regard chaos theory.

Vacuum is such a pattern. Absence of measurable values.

Vacuum is rather a state than a pattern, IMO.

BH seem to be such pattern. Dynamic presence of infinite destructive values.
Cosmic nebulae contain such patterns. Dynamic presence of infinite potential values. Keyword "can lead", which suggest a probability (potential) value for a deterministic event in the future, which means that when the butterfly does flap its wings, there exists an extremely low probability of one superposed potential from an infinity of less destructive potentials.
It's a theoretical mathematical function. Superposed states.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the term butterfly effect. It is with regard to sensitivity of initial conditions in a deterministic system, nothing to do with probability.

Determinism is a quantum function.

Many don't think so, and consider quantum mechanics to be indeterministic, due to inherent randomness not due to hidden variables.

It is one or more superposed implicate (enfolded) potentials what become expressed (unfolded) and determine the quantum change. So, while the butterfly effect is theoretically possible, the actual enfolded dynamic potential is at such minute scale as to prevent its sequential occurrence into any kind of regular pattern. It is a low probability anomaly.

Again, a misunderstanding of the butterfly effect.

Throwing a pebble in the ocean is not likely to cause a tsunami, but it is theorically possible, no?

Nothing to do with the butterfly effect.

 

[Sarkus]

Same thing, from you. The ability to do otherwise is supernatural, by assumption, in all your posts.
Look at this:
See? You simply assume ability to do otherwise involves supernatural powers, in everyone's posting, by projection.

Wtf?? I specifically said that I would follow your assertion that I'm equating "freedom to do otherwise" and "supernatural" when I asked the questions, and now you're using that as evidence that I've always been equating the two?? Get a grip, iceaura.

Mine is based on a physical description of the choices and criteria involved in my future decision, and the mental events involved in making it - observed physical facts and events, measurable and verifiable degrees of freedom. They are in point of observation constituent parts and aspects of the entity "me" - mental events on the same level. It's not a "sense", but an observation and analysis.

None of which speaks to whether the process you go through is genuinely free or not, whether the "choice" is in reality a simple matter of following the unavoidable path defined at the start of time (as it would be in a deterministic universe).

Which has nothing to do with anything supernatural - regardless of how many times (like right there) you automatically assume it does.

It also has nothing to do with whether the process is free or not. You can go on and on about degrees of freedom in the engineering sense, but if we are on a path that we can not escape from, how do you explain "choice" and "free will" other than as a process that merely gives us the sense that we are in control?

And they are laboratory verified - my choice can be altered, moved among a wide field of available choices, experimentally, by simply flashing a light at me. I can alter my decisions by taking a sip of coffee or a nap, by blinking my eyes.

No one denies the process exists. The question is whether the decision is actually free or not. And nothing you have offered thus far even comes close to answering that. You effectively hide a black box over part of the causal chain and go "look, this is choice, this is free will".

Of course not. It's not supernatural, so it doesn't meet your assumed criterion.

So you honestly think that you can be considered free if everything you do and have done was set in stone at the dawn of time?

Says the guy who denied his determinism was built on cause and effect.

Stop lying. I have previously separated the argument from determinism from the argument from cause and effect. The two arguments are different. However determinism is by definition a relationship between cause and effect. So your comment here is both wrong and pathetic.

I have paid more attention to the nature of the "causes" in the chain, is maybe the difference.

Not enough attention, more like. You limit yourself to the "causes" you are consciously aware of in the proces, not to what is actually going on, not to the entire state of things. And it is that limited view, that we all consciously have as part of the process, that gives us the notion that we are in control of our destiny, that we can consider the "same causes" and yet reach different decisions. Free will gives us the sense that we can consider a system and treat it indeterministically, that we can consider the same inputs (dreams etc) and reach a different output. This is the sense of free will that we all have, a sense of indeterminism in a deterministic universe.

My decisions, for example, are causal. So are my dreams. The constituent links of this unbreakable chain of yours are very much underestimated, methinks, and symptomatically obscured by little throwins like "nothing but".

It doesn't matter whether they are causal or not if the process is deterministic. Of course your dreams and decisions form part of the process, but you're not actually free, you're still a slave to what was set in stone at the dawn of time, regardless of what it may feel like.

 

[Write4U]

Probabilistic systems are indeterministic. That is, a given input can lead to multiple outputs. This is the opposite of what it means to be strictly deterministic.

Thanks for responding. I need to be challenged, lest I become lazy....
Seems to me that rare events are probabilistic, but when they do occur they are deterministic. They just do not occur often.

You seem to be speaking of hidden variables, with the probability of outcome only due to not knowing what those hidden variables are doing?

I do like Bohmian Mechanics.

Physicists supporting De Broglie–Bohm theory maintain that underlying the observed probabilistic nature of the universe is a deterministic objective foundation/property—the hidden variable. Others, however, believe that there is no deeper deterministic reality in quantum mechanics

Did spacetime, as we know it, not exist at the moment after the BB?
Let's at least stick to the moment time began and thereafter, shall we?

OK, I believe spacetime emerged within the hot dense plasma after the inflationary epoch, when sufficient cooling allowed the formation of early elements and the opaque plasma became transparent.

I don't see how any universal laws could exist for as yet non-existent physics. Laws pertaining to the behavior of hydrogen did not emerge (become expressed) until Hydrogen atoms formed, Helium atoms formed, etc, etc, until all the elements that make up our current spacetime had emerged from the initial cosmic plasma and SOL became a universal constant. Can't have expressed laws for non-existent things.

Sticking to post-BB, are you suggesting that since then there are pockets where no laws apply? Sure, the applicability of some laws was may change with the conditions of the local area, but that is a matter of applicability and conditions, not whether there are laws or not.

True, I agree completely, but as you said, its a matter of local variables which affect the mathematical function. The natural law pertaining to Hydrogen is dependent on the local temperature conditions affecting the behavior of hydrogen, i.e. solid, liquid, gaseous.

And your point is...?

Whereas the laws of universal physics are "enfolded" (potential form) in spacetime, they can become unfolded (expressed form) for the pertinent expressed physics.

Most would consider a pattern to be the evidence of order. We recognise a pattern because of that order. To refer to chaos as a pattern seems paradoxical. And I still think you are confusing various notions of chaos. It has specific meaning in physics, especially with regard to chaos theory.

I believe I added that as a superfluous afterthought.
I certainly believe that patterns are a sign of order. Moreover, they are mathematical orders.

Vacuum is rather a state than a pattern, IMO.

I agree, and I suggest that vacuum is a perfectly permittive condition. A state of nothing does not prohibit anything.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the term butterfly effect. It is with regard to sensitivity of initial conditions in a deterministic system, nothing to do with probability.

I see the butterfly effect as a form of mathematical exponential function.

Many don't think so, and consider quantum mechanics to be indeterministic, due to inherent randomness not due to hidden variables.

Bohmian Mechanics solve that problem and inherent paradox of duality.

Again, a misunderstanding of the butterfly effect. Nothing to do with the butterfly effect.

Ok, I'll make the metaphor more exact. A fish can wag its tail eventually resulting in a tsunami a 1000 miles away. This is a direct parallel metaphor to a butterfly flapping its wings and become causal to a storm a 1000 miles away. IMO, the butterfly effect is a probabilistic deterministic event. It becomes part of a set of superposed potentials. Why is one a valid theoretical probability and the other not?

I believe Roger Antonsen explains this with this mathematical example; x + x = 2 . x
Two mathematical functions are superposed. One is an "addition", the other a "multiplication", but yielding the same result (2 + 2 = 2 x 2 = 4)

 

[Sarkus]

Ok, I'll make the metaphor more exact. A fish can wag its tail eventually resulting in a tsunami a 1000 miles away. This is a direct parallel metaphor to a butterfly flapping its wings and become causal to a storm a 1000 miles away. Note, the butterfly effect is a probabilistic deterministic event. Why is one a valid theoretical probability and the other not?

This is off-topic, but the butterfly effect is nothing to do with probability. It is to do with sensitivity of a dynamic system to initial conditions. The idea is that a butterfly flapping its wings is part of a set of initial conditions that one day leads to a tornado. If you change something at the start, like the butterfly not being there, then the system results in the tornado not happening, for example. So from small changes at the start you can get huge changes at the end. That is all it is.
You are seeing it as though it is to do with how likely an event is based on a given set of initial conditions: throw a pebble in the water and it could cause a tsunami, etc. This is the wrong way to look at it. Yes, if you start with probabilistic starting conditions then you can alter the starting conditions each time, and the result might vary significantly, but that probabilistic initial condition is merely one way of altering the starting conditions, and the butterfly effect is about the sensitivity of the outcome to the starting condition, not probability.

But as said, this is pretty much off topic.

 

[iceaura]

It doesn't matter whether they are causal or not if the process is deterministic.

The nature of the cause establishes the degree of freedom.

Wtf?? I specifically said that I would follow your assertion that I'm equating "freedom to do otherwise" and "supernatural" when I asked the questions, and now you're using that as evidence that I've always been equating the two??

Horse, water: next step?

I have previously separated the argument from determinism from the argument from cause and effect.

And then you post as quoted - slaves to chains of cause and effect set in stone from the beginning of time.

However determinism is by definition a relationship between cause and effect.

Finally. Hold that thought.
Now: pay attention to the nature of the "cause", when a person makes a decision.
If you, making a decision, are the causal link, making the decision, determining which of the possible effects will happen, how exactly is that an illusion?

You can go on and on about degrees of freedom in the engineering sense, but if we are on a path that we can not escape from, how do you explain "choice" and "free will" other than as a process that merely gives us the sense that we are in control?

By paying attention to what the word "we" means.
If "you" aren't making the decision, you don't exist in the first place. There's nothing there to have any sense of anything. There can be no "process" giving "us" any sense of anything - that's all equivalent in its reality to the perception of making a choice.

Meanwhile, when a person is approaching a traffic light, they have the ability to stop and the ability to not stop. Both. That's a fact.

You limit yourself to the "causes" you are consciously aware of in the proces, not to what is actually going on, not to the entire state of things.

I am in fact not consciously aware of the mental activity involved, any more than I can monitor how my mind adds numbers.

Of course your dreams and decisions form part of the process, but you're not actually free, you're still a slave to what was set in stone at the dawn of time,

At this point we remind ourselves that according to modern physics nothing is set like that, chaos and quantum theory and so forth say no.
Not that the human will is involved at that level - but degrees of freedom in response do come into play in response. Consider a traffic light rigged to change in response to radioactive decay or some quantum event - the approaching person is going to be choosing, deciding. They have the ability to stop, and the ability to not stop - both.

 

[Write4U]

Consider a traffic light rigged to change in response to radioactive decay or some quantum event - the approaching person is going to be choosing, deciding. They have the ability to stop, and the ability to not stop - both.

Does the timing instrument make any difference? Traffic lights are already timed.

When you come to a changing traffic light, your choice is if you wish to obey the traffic laws or break them. That's the choice. If you are a law abiding citizen you will always stop. If you are driving your wife to the hospital because she is delivering that baby, you may not stop and with "good" reason. But it's still deterministic.

You have the physical ability to stop whether the light changes or not. It is your final decision which was determined by available information and your innate (intuitive) response to the environment.

If Joe likes chocolate and Mary likes strawberry ice cream, Joe will always choose chocolate over strawberry and Mary will always choose the strawberry over the chocolate. There is no compelling reason why each should change their preference at the time they are making their choice, which was made with your first lick from a chocolate ice cream cone when you were three years old. If you do pick a different flavor it is for some "reason" which "made you do it". Deterministic.

Where does that logic fail?

 

[iceaura]

Does the timing instrument make any difference?

It removes the illusion of "set in stone" from the deterministic informational inputs to the decision.

When you come to a changing traffic light, your choice is if you wish to obey the traffic laws or break them. That's the choice.

That's not the decision I used to illustrate the principle of degrees of freedom. That decision is simply whether or not to stop, and the illustrative scene includes the presumption that it will be made by the person according to the color of the light.

You have the physical ability to stop whether the light changes or not.

Even better. But more complicated.

your innate (intuitive) response

Focus there. What are you actually talking about, there?

If you do pick a different flavor it is for some "reason" which "made you do it". Deterministic.

There is no "reason" in that scene that "makes" / "you" / "do" anything (unless you are positing something like electrodes directly altering the appropriate firing patterns in the brain, anyway.).

 

[Write4U]

That's not the decision I used to illustrate the principle of degrees of freedom. That decision is simply whether or not to stop, and the illustrative scene includes the presumption that it will be made by the person according to the color of the light

But it isn't that simple. For every decision there is an enormous amount information being processed. Agressive action always requires strong motives.
In the case of the traffic light, the red light commands "stop" (on penalty of law). Now your brain is going to have to come up with a strong motive to place yourself in jeopardy with the law.

Wife having a baby is a strong motive, but then the decision is merely a change of greater causal priorities, and back to determinism. I believe the ultimate decision is always deterministically based on the individual's likes and dislikes and intuitions (fight or flight).

We are being programmed from birth how to respond in socially acceptable behaviors. Most behaviors are automotor responses. Empathy.

 

[Write4U]

There is no "reason" in that scene that "makes" / "you" / "do" anything (unless you are positing something like electrodes directly altering the appropriate firing patterns in the brain, anyway.)

Precisely, if there are no obstacles or questions that need answering, your initial preference will always win. The decision will always be the same. It takes an extraordinary influence to "change" your mind.
But then the extraordinary influence becomes the determining factor in the change of mind.

 

[iceaura]

But it isn't that simple. For every decision there is an enormous amount information being processed.

Not for this one. The color of the light is not much info.

In the case of the traffic light, the red light commands "stop" (on penalty of law).

The red light says nothing except "red". The green light says "green".

It takes an extraordinary influence to "change" your mind.

It takes a split second's input of transitory and weightless information to change my decision. It doesn't have to change my mind at all - once past the light, I often do not even remember it.

 

[Write4U]

Not for this one. The color of the light is not much info.
The red light says nothing except "red". The green light says "green".

There is a difference between the order "stop" (RED) and the permission "go" (GREEN). Your brain knows the difference from long years of associated memories and behavioral programming of driving on public streets. You are missing the symbolic value of the colors red, green, blue, and yellow.

It takes a split second's input of transitory and weightless information to change my decision. It doesn't have to change my mind at all - once past the light, I often do not even remember it.

Which actually confirms an automotor response to either light color.
You don't need to think to act on your programmed instincts, you do need to think when deviating from your programmed responses.

And I think you may be underestimating the computing power of the brain, even though we can make it fail in its best guesses of what's "out there". Human sensory and computational processing abilities do have limits, in spite of a few billion neurons in the brain alone.

 

[iceaura]

You are missing the symbolic value of the colors red, green, and blue.

None of that is information coming from the light. The only incoming information is the color of the light.

Which actually confirms an automotor response to either light color.

A decision to stop or not stop. Made by you.

 

[Write4U]

None of that is information coming from the light. The only incoming information is the color of the light.

And what do these colors stand for in traffic law handbooks. How do you know red from green, in the first place. Suppose you're colorblind?

A decision to stop or not stop. Made by you.

No, made by you. We each are free to choose, but neither of us will make a purely arbitrary free choice.........like.....(plucking petals from a daisy; "she loves me, she loves me not")

There are always subjective reason (causalities) for our separate actions.

 

[river]

Motive? Is there any reason to change your mind, once it's made up?

Yes , the truth

And would you choose differently if you were to do it over again?

Yes

Information , the evolution of information

 

[Write4U]

W4U said,
And would you choose differently if you were to do it over again?

Yes
Information , the evolution of information

No, you don't get to go back in time and make different decisions than you made in the first place, based on what you learned in the future.
That would be cheating and probably would cause a fatal spacetime paradox.
The question is if you might have chosen differently given the same historical circumstance. The answer is clearly, NO. Because you didn't in the first place. You cannot undo that action, ever.