Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Quantum Quack]

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.

If we can agree that infinite unpredictability is an adequate definition of indeterminism and include infinity in your strictly deterministic reality then perhaps we may make head way...

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?

I believe that once the infinite is included in your understanding the issue of freewill vs physics become known. No point including freewill in the discussion until you get the "strictly determined" bit right.

Let us start with:
My claim:
As per Heisenberg it is impossible to determine the starting conditions of a proposed strictly deterministic reality.
(it is impossible to determine any cause entirely or effect entirely etc)

If you believe it is possible then you need to show how that is so...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Note: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was not just about the limitations of measurement it was about a reality that is unable to be measured. (determined) It was about a "real" paradox that exists that prevents determinism.
Agree?
Disagree?

 

[Write4U]

Note: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was not just about the limitations of measurement it was about a reality that is unable to be measured. (determined) It was about a "real" paradox that exists that prevents determinism.
Agree?
Disagree?

I disagree. Just because humans cannot measure both location and momentum (at the same time), does not mean that the physics themselves are so restricted.

One of the human problems is that we can only measure "position" with a "still" frame and measure "momentum" only with "moving" frames. It is thus impossible to measure both at the same time, but does not present a problem measuring each separately.

Spacetime itself is not burdened with that separation, it knows both at the same time.

 

[Sarkus]

If we can agree that infinite unpredictability is an adequate definition of indeterminism and include infinity in your strictly deterministic reality then perhaps we may make head way...

Well, I guess we won't be making headway, then. What do you mean by "infinite unpredictability"? Do you mean absolute unpredictability? Do you unpredictability due to there being infinite variables? Or something else?

I believe that once the infinite is included in your understanding the issue of freewill vs physics become known. No point including freewill in the discussion until you get the "strictly determined" bit right.

You seem to be confusing the infinite with the absolute? And that would be a mistake.

Let us start with:
My claim:
As per Heisenberg it is impossible to determine the starting conditions of a proposed strictly deterministic reality.

So when we are discussing the strictly deterministic universe, which is what we are doing, you want to argue that the conclusion doesn't follow the logic because of something that applies only to an indeterministic universe? I.e., QQ, the HUP is not something that as any relevance when discussing a strictly deterministic universe, because in such a universe it is possible to measure the starting conditions. It is only when looking at a non-deterministic universe that such things as the HUP have any part.

So please, get your thinking sorted out. We are discussing the case of the strictly deterministic universe. Only bring to the table things that apply to that, please.

 

[Quantum Quack]

because in such a universe it is possible to measure the starting conditions.

yeah and apples are logically melons if you say so as a starting condition....

 

[Sarkus]

Note: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was not just about the limitations of measurement it was about a reality that is unable to be measured. (determined) It was about a "real" paradox that exists that prevents determinism.
Agree?
Disagree?

Yet it has no bearing on a strictly determined universe, which is the nature of the universe currently being considered.
The discussion at present is about whether freewill can be considered "free" in a strictly determined universe. You initially said it couldn't and then have since tried to suggest ways in which it could. So let's stick to the strictly determined universe, shall we, and resolve this before moving on to an indeterministic one?
And in a strictly deterministic universe the HUP simply does not apply.

 

[Sarkus]

yeah and apples are logically melons if you say so as a starting condition....

Look, QQ, if you can't keep up then just say so, okay. We're discussing the case of the dedeterministic universe, so stop trying to argue against things pertaining to that assumption by introducing things that have no relevance.
Let's get things bottomed out about the deterministic universe before moving on, okay?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You seek to arbitrarily state the nature of your reality. You will need to tell us all what physics apply and what do not apply. Imaginary universes can be fun, I must admit but a tad difficult to discuss with out establishing all the rules and not just a few.
In your imaginary universe does gravity function in the same way as this one. Does energy exist and does it share similar or the same properties as this one...
Lay it all out so we have some basis for rational discussion.

or alternatively,
what laws of physics do not apply to your imaginary universe?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The discussion at present is about whether freewill can be considered "free" in a strictly determined universe.

That question has been answered many times to the negative. Of course in a strictly determined universe as per your understanding freewill is non-existent.
There is no problem IMO.
hee hee Just thought about the absurdity of the silly if/then logic

if freewill is impossible
and the impossible is possible
then freewill is possible

... just for fun


=====

The question now though is:

Does your so called strictly determined universe that forbids freewill exist?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I disagree. Just because humans cannot measure both location and momentum (at the same time), does not mean that the physics themselves are so restricted.

One of the human problems is that we can only measure "position" with a "still" frame and measure "momentum" only with "moving" frames. It is thus impossible to measure both at the same time, but does not present a problem measuring each separately.

Spacetime itself is not burdened with that separation, it knows both at the same time.

there a quite a few examples of "real" paradox that I could describe but I wont bother here.

 

[iceaura]

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?

And can contain entities with significant degrees of freedom in their behavior - including, at any given moment, the ability to make decisions among alternatives, and carry out these decisions by acts of will.

 

[Write4U]

there a quite a few examples of "real" paradox that I could describe but I wont bother here.

To us humans something may seem paradoxical, but it would always be a product of a natural mathematical function.

 

[Sarkus]

You seek to arbitrarily state the nature of your reality.

Not reality, no, but the possible nature of the universe so as to limit consideration at this juncture. It is with regard to this type of universe, the strictly determined one, that Compatabilists and Incompatibilists disagree whether free will is possible or not. So this is where the current focus is.

You will need to tell us all what physics apply and what do not apply. Imaginary universes can be fun, I must admit but a tad difficult to discuss with out establishing all the rules and not just a few.
In your imaginary universe does gravity function in the same way as this one. Does energy exist and does it share similar or the same properties as this one...
Lay it all out so we have some basis for rational discussion.

or alternatively,
what laws of physics do not apply to your imaginary universe?

Stop being facetious, QQ. Either keep up, as to what is being discussed and why, or drop out. At the moment, though, you seem utterly confused as to what your actual position is with regard the deterministic universe.
To wit:

That question has been answered many times to the negative. Of course in a strictly determined universe as per your understanding freewill is non-existent.
There is no problem IMO.

Then why have you been continuing to argue that a "free" freewill is possible in a strictly determined universe? You accepted that it is not possible, then proceeded over the last number of posts to try to explain how it was possible. Muddled, QQ. Muddled.

As explained earlier, the reason to concentrate on the strictly deterministic is because it is the simplest to understand (usually). Indeterminism brings in the additional variable due to randomness, and once you're satisfied with the notion that a strictly deterministic universe does not allow the ability to do otherwise (although allows the appearance of it) the question then becomes whether you see a genuine ability to do otherwise arising due to randomness.
Do you? Do you see a random output as offering an ability to do otherwise? If so, how?

 

[Sarkus]

And can contain entities with significant degrees of freedom in their behavior - including, at any given moment, the ability to make decisions among alternatives, and carry out these decisions by acts of will.

Sure, significant degrees of freedom, much like a brick in space has degrees of freedom, able to move in many directions and speeds, depending on the inputs it is given. If along those lines is what you consider "the ability to do otherwise" is, then great.
Making decisions is just a process, though. Noone has disputed that such a process exists, and noone has disputed that the body can then carry out the "decision" of that process. The question is, and has always been, whether that "decision" was one where there was an "ability to do otherwise". But as said, if you're happy that a brick in space is free, then okay. Different notions, different conclusions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

As explained earlier, the reason to concentrate on the strictly deterministic is because it is the simplest to understand (usually). Indeterminism brings in the additional variable due to randomness, and once you're satisfied with the notion that a strictly deterministic universe does not allow the ability to do otherwise (although allows the appearance of it) the question then becomes whether you see a genuine ability to do otherwise arising due to randomness.
Do you? Do you see a random output as offering an ability to do otherwise? If so, how?

Nope, because according to a certain poster at this forum a strictly deterministic reality is described as:

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.

Randomness is incompatible with strictly deterministic reality. So basically I am saying that your line of arguing your point is terribly flawed.
I have not been arguing the case for free will in about the last 10 or so posts. I stated quite clearly that freewill is impossible in your imaginary strictly determined universe.
I have been arguing the case for indeterminism which I consider a form of randomness or absolute unpredictability. You have spent many posts stating categorically that none of those features are possible in your strictly deterministic reality. Now you are asking the most bizarre question about whether randomness affords freedom in a strictly deterministic reality.

To remain self consistent, I would have to say no to your question as in a Sarkus strictly determined reality there IS NO Free will, no freedom, zip, zero, nill, because as you stated we are discussing a theoretical strictly determined reality that doesn't allow for randomness or any other form of indeterminability.

 

[Sarkus]

Nope, because according to a certain poster at this forum a strictly deterministic reality is described as:

For Pete's sake, QQ.
Are you not able to follow a fairly simple sentence??
The introduction of randomness (i.e. non-deterministic) is introduced AFTER the parties are in agreement that a strict deterministic universe can not possibly allow the ability to do otherwise. I.e. it moves the discussion from the strict determinism case to the indeterminism case.
So - IF we are in agreement that a strictly deterministic universe can not possibly allow the ability to do otherwise THEN we can move on to discuss the indeterministic universe, where randomness plays a part.
Following so far?

So to say "nope" as you have done is to fundamentally fail to understand what I had written.
I am not asking if you see randomness offering the ability to do otherwise in a strictly deterministic universe, but having reached agreement on the strictly deterministic case, do you see the indeterminism of randomness offering an ability to do otherwise - i.e. not in a strictly deterministic universe but in a universe that has randomness!? If so, how?

Hopefully I have now clarified your obvious misunderstanding of what I had written.
So care to respond again in light of your misunderstanding?

 

[Quantum Quack]

For Pete's sake, QQ.
Are you not able to follow a fairly simple sentence??
The introduction of randomness (i.e. non-deterministic) is introduced AFTER the parties are in agreement that a strict deterministic universe can not possibly allow the ability to do otherwise. I.e. it moves the discussion from the strict determinism case to the indeterminism case.
So - IF we are in agreement that a strictly deterministic universe can not possibly allow the ability to do otherwise THEN we can move on to discuss the indeterministic universe, where randomness plays a part.
Following so far?

So to say "nope" as you have done is to fundamentally fail to understand what I had written.
I am not asking if you see randomness offering the ability to do otherwise in a strictly deterministic universe, but having reached agreement on the strictly deterministic case, do you see the indeterminism of randomness offering an ability to do otherwise - i.e. not in a strictly deterministic universe but in a universe that has randomness!? If so, how?

Hopefully I have now clarified your obvious misunderstanding of what I had written.
So care to respond again in light of your misunderstanding?

Oh Ok.... I see I think?

I think they are not relevant. If true randomness is involved then freedom is not relevant.
You are mixing categories again, I believe.

However if you are suggesting that indeterminism, when under the control of a willed person then freedom from strict determinsim is available to that willed person.
Think of indeterminism as being a state that is free, of and from, determinism and you can answer your own question.
Randomness is a really tricky word to use. IMO and would take pages to thrash out properly.
In other words randomness would only be another form of determination ( MUST BE RANDOM) therefore no freedom is available. Indeterminism, however may offer said freedom if able to be determined by a willed person ( aka self determination)

Example:
Looking down at an empty soccer field waiting for players to come out.
What is about to happen is indeterminate, until the players determine it. ( Aka self determination)
After play has finished one could rightly say that all activity was determined as no indeterminate states remain. Hindsight is always going to declare a determined history.
Even if the players refuse to play and the ground stays empty, the indeterminate is being determined by the players who have refused to play. What was indeterminate has subsequently been self determined.

Does that help?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The players have the freedom to determine the indeterminate. The degree of freedom is dependent on training, skills and self restraint/discipline (self - oppression) employed.

 

[Write4U]

What is about to happen is indeterminate, until the players determine it. ( Aka self determination)

What about the playbook with the starting time. Don't you dare to be late!

What you are trying to say is that until the players actually enter the field, their presence is "Implicated", not indeterminate. (Bohm's Implicate Order)

I would have more problems with explaining the freedom players have in the game of soccer during play. It is truly an "improvisational game" where players have to instantly recognize the shifting defensive patterns and decide where to place the ball in anticipation of where the receiver will be when the ball arrives.
IOW, we are able to act (anticipate) to an implicated future state.

A quarterback in US Football has the same demands during a passing play.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh Ok.... I see I think?

No, it's quite clear that you don't.

I think they are not relevant. If true randomness is involved then freedom is not relevant.

By "not relevant" do you mean you think it is not possible even in a probabilistic universe?

You are mixing categories again, I believe.

Nope. You are simply confused as to what the key words actually mean and entail.

However if you are suggesting that indeterminism, when under the control of a willed person then freedom from strict determinsim is available to that willed person.

Eh? If we are now talking indeterminism (having agreed that in a strictly deterministic universe there is no ability to do otherwise) then everything is effectively freed from strict determinism, because you have now assumed that things are not bound by strict determinism.
But being "freed from strict determinism" is not the same as an ability to do otherwise.

Think of indeterminism as being a state that is free, of and from, determinism and you can answer your own question.

I know what indeterminism is, QQ. Do you?

Randomness is a really tricky word to use. IMO and would take pages to thrash out properly.

It's reasonably straightforward. Randomness is the measure of uncertainty in a system. If you can't predict something then it has an element of randomness.

In other words randomness would only be another form of determination ( MUST BE RANDOM) therefore no freedom is available. Indeterminism, however may offer said freedom if able to be determined by a willed person ( aka self determination)

Ok - so you've agreed that strict determinism does not allow "the ability to do otherwise", and now you're saying that you think randomness doesn't also offer the ability. So you have ruled out "the ability to do otherwise" in both a strictly deterministic universe and a probabilistic universe, where the outcome of a system/interaction is random within a probability function.
This latter is what most physicists would currently accept the nature of our universe to be, is it not? So you have ruled out the "ability to do otherwise" from existing in our universe.
Congratulations.

Example:
Looking down at an empty soccer field waiting for players to come out.
What is about to happen is indeterminate, until the players determine it. ( Aka self determination)

Unpredictable, perhaps, but on what basis to you claim it is indeterminate? And if that indeterminacy is born purely out of randomness, then just above you have ruled out such randomness from offering anything like "the ability to do otherwise".
So on what basis do you think the system is indeterminate? Or are you simply throwing a box over the part of the process within the person and going "look, ma, it's indeterminate!"?

After play has finished one could rightly say that all activity was determined as no indeterminate states remain. Hindsight is always going to declare a determined history.
Even if the players refuse to play and the ground stays empty, the indeterminate is being determined by the players who have refused to play. What was indeterminate has subsequently been self determined.

Does that help?

No, QQ, it doesn't help, because it is clear you are just throwing words around you don't understand. You put together a word salad and think it means something. Well, perhaps it does to you, but not to anyone else.