Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Quantum Quack]

As far as I am aware the two are mutually exclusive. A universe that is strictly determined can not have things that are indeterminate.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
Compare to human endeavor to construct an artificial number generator vs throw 1000 dice. While the dice may fall according to strict determinism the numbers displayed may not.
or is the logic too tough for you to comprehend?

If absolute determinism leads to the existence of "indeterminism" then that "indeterminsim" is absolutely (pre)determined.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Also I see both you and Baldeee disagree with the prime rational behind Darwin's evolution aka Natural selection.
Evolution by natural predetermined design seems to be what you are suggesting.
If you wished to state a case for the existence of God you are going a long way towards it.... IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

The flaw in your argument is a misunderstanding of the notion of chaos. Chaos is simply the sensitivity of the end state of a system to small changes in the initial state, usually of a deterministic system. To say that chaos can not be absolutely determined is just wrong. In a deterministic system it would be.

If you apply infinite reduction to the initial conditions of the mythical butterfly you will find that determinism in absolutum is impossible. ( re: Heisenberg if you want)
By the time those "impossible to determine initial conditions" become a "hurricane in Texas" the indeterminacy that was infinitesimal becomes quite significant. Certainly the mythical butterfly would not survive the hurricane that it initialized...

 

[DaveC426913]

If you apply infinite reduction to the initial conditions of the mythical butterfly you will find that determinism in absolutum is impossible. ( re: Heisenberg if you want)
By the time those "impossible to determine initial conditions" become a "hurricane in Texas" the indeterminacy that was infinitesimal becomes quite significant. Certainly the mythical butterfly would not survive the hurricane that it initialized...

That is simply a measurement issue.

Just because we can't track the motion of the molecules that the butterfly caused does not mean that they were magic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That is simply a measurement issue.

Just because we can't track the motion of the molecules that the butterfly caused does not mean that they were magic.

I think if you look deeper into it it is not merely a measurement issue. It proves a real physical paradox exists.

 

[iceaura]

Indeed. What I find interesting is that even compatabilists (those who think freewill is compatible with determinism) aren't all agreed as to whether or not we actually have the ability to do otherwise,

Lots of people make your mistake of confusing "actual" with "supernatural", and ignoring the observational evidence. So?
- - - -

Is anyone stopping you from presenting your case?
Go ahead.

Yes. Stuck on step one, here - as predicted pages ago, btw: no surprises so far.

And a brick in space is able to move in many directions according to what impacts it and when.

Logical levels. Complexity. Substrates and patterns. Information. These are not arcane, esoteric, concepts.
Do try to pay attention, eh? Your brick silliness misses the point rather badly.

you can't let go of the mistaken claim that I am assuming a supernatural concept of freedom in the logic presented?

It's not mistaken. You are assuming exactly that. It's how you get from no ability to have done otherwise to no freedom of will.

You seem to have mentioned lab-verified observations as if that ends the matter, yet no detail other than, as Sarkus has rightly pointed, such detail that describes judging the "ability to do otherwise" by appearance and not by what is actually going on.

The ability of a human driver to either stop or go according to the color of a traffic light is not an "appearance" - unless all of physical reality is similarly an "appearance". This ability is judged by repeated experiment - driver approaches light, over and over, and each time behaves according to the last minute info from the light color, demonstrating thereby the ability to do so.
This ability includes the driver making a decision - as recorded by laboratory equipment monitoring brain function - and acting on it. Nothing supernatural is involved. Everything here is a physical event in real time. All of it is determined accordingly.

In what sense is none of this "actually" going on?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think if you look deeper into it it is not merely a measurement issue. It proves a real physical paradox exists.

I think that that is not true.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think that that is not true.

you are not alone in thinking that... that's for sure.

 

[Sarkus]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A system as a whole can not be both indeterministic and deterministic. It is one or the other. Either something is determined by prior events, or it is not.

Compare to human endeavor to construct an artificial number generator vs throw 1000 dice.

The artificial number generator is entirely deterministic.
While in our indeterministic reality the throw of 1000 dice is indeterministic, in a deterministic universe those roles of 1000 dice would be deterministic. They would not individually be predictable by us due to sensitivity to initial conditions, however. But practical predictability is irrelevant to the issue.

While the dice may fall according to strict determinism the numbers displayed may not.

Eh? If the universe is strictly determined then the roll, and the result, are determined by any state previous to the outcome. There would be no actual indeterminism, only practical unpredictability (to an extent - as we would expect 1/6 of the dice to land on each face).

or is the logic too tough for you to comprehend?

The illogic of your argument is clear. But the basic principles of the terms seems too tough for you.

If absolute determinism leads to the existence of "indeterminism" then that "indeterminsim" is absolutely (pre)determined.

Aka, a square circle. Unfortunately absolute determinism does not lead to actual indeterminism, only a perceived indeterminism because we, as humans, are unable to know the exact initial state etc. So we would rely on probability based on what we would know, and things would appear indeterminate. But they would remain absolutely deterministic.

Also I see both you and Baldeee disagree with the prime rational behind Darwin's evolution aka Natural selection.

Not really. In a strictly deterministic universe there may well be explanations for what otherwise appear random mutations.

Evolution by natural predetermined design seems to be what you are suggesting.
If you wished to state a case for the existence of God you are going a long way towards it.... IMO

In a strictly deterministic universe it might be a compelling argument for some. But you are confusing using the scenario of the strictly deterministic universe with a claim of our universe being strictly deterministic.

If you apply infinite reduction to the initial conditions of the mythical butterfly you will find that determinism in absolutum is impossible. ( re: Heisenberg if you want)

On what grounds do you assert that? Remember, we are discussing a strictly deterministic universe, and in such a universe chaos still exists. A butterfly can flap its wings entirely due to a deterministic chain of events, and that flap could be an input into a larger system that, due to chaos within that system, leads to a hurricane - and without that flap then maybe no hurricane would have happened.
That is the mark of chaos within the system: sensitivity to initial conditions.

By the time those "impossible to determine initial conditions" become a "hurricane in Texas" the indeterminacy that was infinitesimal becomes quite significant. Certainly the mythical butterfly would not survive the hurricane that it initialized...

You seem to simply be assuming indeterminacy, which as explained above, is the square circle in a strictly deterministic universe.
Sure, in a universe that has inherent indeterminism, e.g. a probabilistic universe where the same inputs can lead to a probability function of outputs, then that small change in starting condition might simply be the result of such indeterminacy. But that is irrelevant to the nature of chaos itself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Eh? If the universe is strictly determined then the roll, and the result, are determined by any state previous to the outcome. There would be no actual indeterminism, only practical unpredictability (to an extent - as we would expect 1/6 of the dice to land on each face).

I must admit it was a hidden scenario...mainly to see if you would have recognized it.
You appear not to have so I'll try to explain....

You are assuming a standard number system on the standard cube dice. You know 1-6.
But what if the 1000 dice had random numbers or symbols placed on them, self determined by the thrower just prior to the throw.
1-6000 or 100-1000000 or any number or symbol of choice etc what then?

The dice may fall as predetermined by your strictly deterministic reality, this according to your theory would be true.... but can the same be said of the numbers or symbols showing face up.

In the classic case the numbers on the 1000 dice are predetermined 1-6 thus any throw will display a predetermined result.

In this case the numbers or symbols on the 1000 dice are self determined and could be literally anything, and whilst the final positioning of the dice may be predetermined the displayed self determined symbols are not predetermined. ( for a first single throw)

You may argue that both the position and the symbols are predetermined somehow, however the resultant display is a combination of two forms of determinism; one being for all intents and purposes, the standard determinism, the other being self determined by the thrower. The displayed result for the first throw of the new 1000 dice is indeterminable and utterly unpredictable.
( a random number/symbol generation that transcends strict determinism.)

The limitation to this scenario is that after the initial throw of the new dice, any subsequent throws ( assuming no changes to the symbols) falls more and more into deterministic reality because the symbols are now fixed and a part of the strictly deterministic reality you talk of but if the numbers and symbols were changed for every throw ( yeah ... all 6000 of them ) then the result would be indeterminable.
Absolute determinism has led to indeterminism.

Extremely hard to explain but I thought I would throw it in there for something to contemplate.
The solution came up when considering how to construct a truly random number generator by making use of two forms of determinism in combination and a large number of dice.

Once realized , extending the logic to freewill shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Aka, a square circle.

The old guys down the pub reckon a circle is only a square with the corners removed...

 

[Sarkus]

I must admit it was a hidden scenario...mainly to see if you would have recognized it.
You appear not to have so I'll try to explain....

You are assuming a standard number system on the standard cube dice. You know 1-6.
But what if the 1000 dice had random numbers or symbols placed on them, self determined by the thrower just prior to the throw.
1-6000 or 100-1000000 or any number or symbol of choice etc what then?

Then the symbols would similarly have been predetermined by the system that resulted in those faces being what they were.

The dice may fall as predetermined by your strictly deterministic reality, this according to your theory would be true.... but can the same be said of the numbers or symbols showing face up.

Yes.

In the classic case the numbers on the 1000 dice are predetermined 1-6 thus any throw will display a predetermined result.

Not just predetermined to be between 1 and 6 but predetermined as to which number will be face up.

In this case the numbers or symbols on the 1000 dice are self determined and could be literally anything, and whilst the final positioning of the dice may be predetermined the displayed self determined symbols are not predetermined. ( for a first single throw)

In a strictly determined reality they could be "literally anything" that would be predetermined by the system that results in the face being painted.

You may argue that both the position and the symbols are predetermined somehow, however the resultant display is a combination of two forms of determinism; one being for all intents and purposes, the standard determinism, the other being self determined by the thrower.

Both are determined in the same manner. In the strictly determined universe both systems are strictly deterministic. It doesn't matter if you throw a box around one particular system and say "that box is the self, anything that happens in there is to be labelled self-determination", which is what your example is offering up.

The displayed result for the first throw of the new 1000 dice is indeterminable and utterly unpredictable.

No, it would be strictly determined (in a strictly determined universe) and would be predictable. Not practically so, i.e. not by us, but theoretically predictable if you knew everything about the a previous state.

( a random number/symbol generation that transcends strict determinism.)

In a strictly deterministic system you don't get that. You get the appearance of it, but not the actually indeterminism you are suggesting.

The limitation to this scenario is that after the initial throw of the new dice, any subsequent throws ( assuming no changes to the symbols) falls more and more into deterministic reality because the symbols are now fixed and a part of the strictly deterministic reality you talk of but if the numbers and symbols were changed for every throw ( yeah ... all 6000 of them ) then the result would be indeterminable.
Absolute determinism has led to indeterminism.

Your thinking is flawed, as highlighted above.

Extremely hard to explain but I thought I would throw it in there for something to contemplate.
The solution came up when considering how to construct a truly random number generator by making use of two forms of determinism in combination and a large number of dice.

And the answer is that you can't, at least not in a strictly deterministic universe. You can get practical unpredictability, sure, due to us not knowing the initial state of the system, but that is very different to being indeterministic.

Once realized , extending the logic to freewill shouldn't be that difficult.

Once you realise you're looking for a square circle, recognising the flaw in your argument shouldn't be that difficult for you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then the symbols would similarly have been predetermined by the system that resulted in those faces being what they were.

How so?

Both are determined in the same manner. In the strictly determined universe both systems are strictly deterministic. It doesn't matter if you throw a box around one particular system and say "that box is the self, anything that happens in there is to be labelled self-determination", which is what your example is offering up.

like I said, two deterministic systems leads to an indeterminable outcome.
There is no mathematics that could possibly predetermine the outcome. 6000 unknown variables placed upon 1000 known variables are your starting conditions.

 

[iceaura]

Both are determined in the same manner. In the strictly determined universe both systems are strictly deterministic. It doesn't matter if you throw a box around one particular system and say "that box is the self, anything that happens in there is to be labelled self-determination",

But in the small system that does not include all the inputs that will - in its future - help determine its course of action,

and so as yet possesses the ability to take a variety of courses of action,

there are degrees of freedom.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You need to offer a mechanism that:

• makes the physical dice behave in a predetermined fashion ( for starters)
  
• makes the self determination of the symbols occur in a predetermined fashion.

One of the keys to this is that the thrower can not possibly know how the material dice will fall when he places the symbols on the surfaces.
It is his ignorance that leads, in part, to the indeterminable outcome.

Unless you are proposing that the symbols will effect the way the dice fall?
(bolded only to highlight the point)
see?

 

[Write4U]

But in the small system that does not include all the inputs that will - in its future - help determine its course of action,

Schrodinger's cat?

 

[Sarkus]

How so?

Because we're discussing the strictly deterministic universe. Systems are strictly deterministic. It is therefore predetermined what faces will be on the die, just as much as it is predetermined what face will end on top.
If you want to beg the question and say that the will is an indeterministic system and thus the painting of the faces is indeterministic, you at least need to show how an indeterministic system can arise in a strictly deterministic universe.
Without that...

like I said, two deterministic systems leads to an indeterminable outcome.

You can't simply ignore everything that is said and then say "See! It leads to an indeterminable outcome". It doesn't lead to anything indetermined but leads to a strictly determined outcome. Whether you put a box around it or not is irrelevant, the system itself is strictly determined.

There is no mathematics that could possibly predetermine the outcome. 6000 unknown variables placed upon 1000 known variables are your starting conditions.

You are simply referring to practical unpredictability, not whether it can be theoretically determined or not.

Do you appreciate the difference between (in)determinism and practical unpredictability? Determinism is the notion that everything is the result of preceeding causes, on a "same input, same output" basis. This is theoretically predictable but, due to practical limitations of what we can know, the outcome - while being determined - would be unpredictable. This is especially the case when a level of chaos (the sensitivity of outcome to the initial conditions) exists within the system.
Indeterminism, however, is inherently unpredictable, due to the same input leading to one of a number of possible outputs.

But practical unpredictability does not necessarily equate to an indeterministic system - and you can not point to unpredictability and go "See, it's an indeterministic system".

 

[Sarkus]

But in the small system that does not include all the inputs that will - in its future - help determine its course of action,

Exactly. The small system is open with reference to any "decisions" that it appears to make.

and so as yet possesses the ability to take a variety of courses of action,

It appears to possess the ability, only if you look at that box in isolation to the actual larger system that determines the outcome. But because of that larger system - i.e. if you remove the covering box - the system clearly remains deterministic. Putting a covering over part of the system doesn't change that, and any appearance that the box possesses the ability to take a variety of courses of action is simply an appearance, not an actual ability.

there are degrees of freedom.

Yep, even a brick in orbit has them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are simply referring to practical unpredictability, not whether it can be theoretically determined or not.

and when practical unpredictability is absolute (100%) then what would you call it then?

 

[Sarkus]

You need to offer a mechanism that:

• makes the physical dice behave in a predetermined fashion ( for starters)
  
• makes the self determination of the symbols occur in a predetermined fashion.

This would be covered by the assumption of the deterministic universe that we are considering.
All you are doing is asserting that an indeterministic system can arise from determinism, but you are not showing how. You are simply saying "well, this system is indeterministic..." but there is nothing to support that.

One of the keys to this is that the thrower can not possibly know how the material dice will fall when he places the symbols on the surfaces.
It is his ignorance that leads, in part, to the indeterminable outcome.

No, it leads to practical unpredictability, not indeterminism.

Unless you are proposing that the symbols will effect the way the dice fall?
(bolded only to highlight the point)
see?

I'm not proposing that. But I am proposing that you are not fully appreciating the terms you're using (re: indeterminism v unpredictable).