see post #859
Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?
- Thread starter M.I.D
- Start date
That is to do with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and seems to be irrelevant when considering a strictly deterministic universe.
If the unpredictability is due to practical considerations then it is simply practical unpredictability, irrespective of the nature of the system.
If it is theoretically not possible to predict, no matter how much information is available, then you are looking at an actual indeterministic system.
But in a strictly deterministic universe, it is theoretically possible to know everything about a given state (but not practically possible), and as such it would be possible (but not practically possible) to determine any future state. So indeterminism is not even theoretically possible, although practical unpredictability is.
Hence it continues to seem that you are arguing for the existence of your square circle.
So if practical unpredictability is 100% then it can be considered as indeterministic....
I suggest you re-read the "1000 dice" solution again... and think on it some....
Perhaps you may be interested in dissecting it properly?
Last edited:
as an aside:
Both the circle and the square are purely imaginary constructs as they do not exist in reality as with any human geometry that fails to take in the "organic" nature of reality.
Straight lines do not exist either except in our imaginations.
Perhaps Sarkus, your fascination with circles and squares needs to be upgraded somewhat?
Strict determinism requires "straight lines" of causality to effect and these "straight lines" do not exist in reality. (Even space is curved)
Theoretically there is no mechanism demonstrated or even explained to support the idea of strict determinism.
The determinism acting upon the thrower in the "1000 dice" solution is unable to be even rudimentarilly explained in the immediate time frame, let alone in a way that accommodates 14 billion years of evolution.
Essentially you have an infinite variable ( cause) throwing an infinite variable (effect) therefore infinitely unpredictable. (thus indeterminate)
Both the circle and the square are purely imaginary constructs as they do not exist in reality as with any human geometry that fails to take in the "organic" nature of reality.
Straight lines do not exist either except in our imaginations.
Perhaps Sarkus, your fascination with circles and squares needs to be upgraded somewhat?
Strict determinism requires "straight lines" of causality to effect and these "straight lines" do not exist in reality. (Even space is curved)
Theoretically there is no mechanism demonstrated or even explained to support the idea of strict determinism.
The determinism acting upon the thrower in the "1000 dice" solution is unable to be even rudimentarilly explained in the immediate time frame, let alone in a way that accommodates 14 billion years of evolution.
Essentially you have an infinite variable ( cause) throwing an infinite variable (effect) therefore infinitely unpredictable. (thus indeterminate)
Last edited:
I dissected it properly the first time. You need to show how the system that the produces the die results is indeterministic, rather than just practically unpredictable. At the moment you are just asserting that it is indeterministic, seemingly on the basis that it is practically unpredictable. But the 1000 dice are not theoretically unpredictable. If we knew the initial starting point of the system, including of the system that results in the painting of the face, then the result is determined because (per the assumption) the universe is strictly deterministic.
You need to show how, rather than merely assert, that an indeterministic system (not just practically unpredictable) can arise in a strictly deterministic universe.
see post#865
No, it doesn't, QQ. The "square circle" is simply an analogy to your assertion that the indeterministic system can exist within the deterministic universe. It is sufficient for them (the square and the circle) to be mere imaginary constructs for them to hold up as the analogy.
So trying to rebut the analogy because those things don't match anything in reality isn't going to work. You have to rebut the principle of the analogy, not claim an irrelevancy about it.
Equivocation, QQ. You are mixing (deliberately or otherwise) the geometric notion of "straight line" with one step following another.
Except mathematics, perhaps?
Except the computer system you are using, perhaps?
Irrelevant. The notion of determinism doesn't require actual practical knowledge of the initial state, nor actual calculation of subsequent states. You are confusing the notions with what is practically possible.
In a system that adds one to the initial number to arrive at the output, for example, then there are an infinite numbers we can choose from... but if we know what the initial number is then we know what the output number is. That is the point of a deterministic system: if we know the input, and know the system, we know the output. We don't need know it on a practical level but it is enough that if we know the inputs and if we know the nature of the system (i.e. how things interact) then we know the output, not just the immediate output but every subsequent output.
If you assume a finite number of variables - true, but if you assume an infinite number of variables - false
Why do you think that there is only a finite number of variables impacting on this system of yours?
The point that you are unable to gather was that there is no perfect cause to effect relationship. There is no "straight line" between cause and effect. Indeed there is no "between" either. No gap, no void of impact. Every millisecond or nano second is filled with an infinite number of variables impacting and causing all the time, not just some of the time..
The criteria is not the number of of variables, but whether they are knowable or not. In a deterministic system they are theoretically knowable even if not practically.
According to who? You? You'll have to support that claim, QQ. If the relationship between cause and effect is not perfect, upon what is the effect based? And why is it not perfect? What is the criteria for judging that criteria perfect or not? Surely if something else is affecting the effect then in a deterministic universe that would be considered a cause. And what you have is not an imperfect relationship but merely an imperfect initial understanding.
Further you are saying that in a deterministic universe things aren't actually deterministic, which means you're trying to defeat the validity of a logical argument by claiming the premises to be false.
Number of variables, finite or infinite, is irrelevant. If the variables, however many there are, are known, and the nature of the interactions are known, then in a deterministic system the output can be determined. It's as simple as that.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I would suggest that cause-->effect is a mathematically perfect physical function, regardless of any apparent anomaly.
Last edited:
Hmmm. I would say it could theoretically be modelled or described via such, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that that is what it is. But then whether reality is mathematics is another discussion for another thread, and not this one.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Just had a thought....remarkably...
It occurred to me that the True/False dichotomy at quantum scale is not a random choice, but a question of say, two superposed perspectives. What is True from one perspective may be False from the other perspective, and vice versa from the other perspective.
IMO, this is the essence of Schrodinger's cat hypothesis. The superposed states of Truth and False are both true and false at the same time, until the mathematics of the "becoming" (function) demand a separation of the superposed states into expressions of True or False.
To human observation this may seem an arbitrary function of probability, but unless mathematics break down completely at that level, it would seem that mathematical imperatives should always prevail.
It occurred to me that the True/False dichotomy at quantum scale is not a random choice, but a question of say, two superposed perspectives. What is True from one perspective may be False from the other perspective, and vice versa from the other perspective.
IMO, this is the essence of Schrodinger's cat hypothesis. The superposed states of Truth and False are both true and false at the same time, until the mathematics of the "becoming" (function) demand a separation of the superposed states into expressions of True or False.
To human observation this may seem an arbitrary function of probability, but unless mathematics break down completely at that level, it would seem that mathematical imperatives should always prevail.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, I agree, but at these levels of subtlety, it becomes difficult to make sense (separate) of the powers in play.
The single constant I see at this level of physics is the mathematical function by which all other "modes of choice" must be compared.
IOW, determinism.
But I'll try to follow your advice in the spirit of relativity......
So why are we discussing such an unrealistic theory here in a thread that is titled as it is?
Are you suggesting that a thought experiment is proof against the existence of free will?
It 's like using the logic
if apples are oranges
and oranges are melons
then apples are melons
or
if circles are squares
and squares are triangles
then circles are triangles
as proof against freewill....
Last edited:
People are essentially unpredictable in their behavior and thoughts but with regards to actioning self determined choices, timing would be the most unpredictable. Ever thought about how important a nanosecond may be to the outcome of every actioned choice?
Unrealistic in what regard? It seems yon miss the point. If a system is deterministic then the output is predetermined whether we are aware of it being so or not, whether we can predict future states or not. If something is predetermined then it is, per the argument, not free. The process we call freewill exists, no-one is disputing that much, but it is disputed that it is free.
So far we have been primarily discussing the strictly deterministic universe. If it can be accepted that in such a universe everything is predetermined (whether we are aware of it or not), and that this means that the will can not be free, then perhaps we can move on to the deterministic universe and see if that offers any grounds for such a system being considered "free".
But at the moment you are confusing unpredictability with indeterminism. Practical unpredictability can give the appearance of indeterminism while actually being predetermined. And the issue is whether the will is actually free or merely appears free (e.g. due to the appearance of indeterminism).
Now do you understand why we are discussing this?
The thought experiment itself, no, but the principles and arguments it throws up, yes.
Nothing like that at all. We are discussing the strictly deterministic universe as a starting point. Either you agree with the logic from that assumption or you don't. If you do agree with it then we can move on and discuss the non-deterministic universe, but if you have disagreement with the arguments around the deterministic universe, as you seem to do, then it is necessary to bottom them out before moving on to the non-deterministic universe.
Yes, thanks. Have you ever stopped to realise you are equating practical unpredictability to indeterminism, even though a strictly deterministic system can also be practically unpredictable?
You are thus committing a logical fallacy: affirming the consequent.
Is your argument that in a deterministic universe our will can be considered "free" because it is (or can be) practically unpredictable? I.e. you are judging "free" not on the fact that it is predetermined but on whether that predetermination can be practically established?