Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Quantum Quack]

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.

No I have not... You have...
Sure, using your form of low level binary logic you could incorrectly conclude that to be the case. Your refusal to understand or grow your understanding has left you caught in your own logic trap for over 10 years now and I do not see that changing any time soon...

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

You don't see how ridiculous the above statement of yours is do you?
If a universe is liberated from strict determinism not only could there be pink elephants disguised as unicorns, they could also do "otherwise" and possibly other than other wise....
So you will counter with your inane logic by saying that:
"Ah...QQ believes in a strictly determined universe using my context"
and I would counter by saying:
"No I do not"
and you will say:
"But then what else are you talking about" ( not quoting all the ad hom, arrogant patronizing, and denigration you typically throw in to the mix )
and I will venture that:
"Your limited understanding precludes you from grasping how self determination has nothing to do with probability or randomness or any such theoretics because you are still hung up on a deterministic universe that can not allow the autonomy of humans to freely determine their future (but not their past) in parallel or collaboration or compromise or etc. with what has been predetermined"

I am not interested in getting caught up in your own logic trap... sorry about that.
You can take some consolation in knowing that you are not alone in that trap.

I will however attempt to extend your use of logic if I can.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You don't know the logic behind consciousness so how the hell are you supposed to comprehend the logic behind self determination and freewill in a deterministic universe?

You can not even handle the straightforward logic that for something to exist it must have time >0 to do so. (see the other thread)

Ergo sum V2: "I have time (to think) so there for I exist"

 

[Write4U]

Ergo sum V2: "I have time so there for I exist"

Just don't take my time, I need it for myself....

 

[Sarkus]

QQ, seriously, I suggest you give up while you're still only several laps behind. You don't understand the terms you‘re using and every new post you make seems to send you further backwards. I'm sure in your own head you have the answer to this philosophical conundrum, and I'm sure you honestly think your posts actually do make sense. Unfortunately that doesn't translate to you actually making sense to other people.
So I'll do you a favour and I'll stop responding to you, because you seem hell bent on responding to me and displaying your ignorance for all to see. And it really isn't fair on you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just don't take my time, I need it for myself....

Merry Christmas!

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ, seriously, I suggest you give up while you're still only several laps behind. You don't understand the terms you‘re using and every new post you make seems to send you further backwards. I'm sure in your own head you have the answer to this philosophical conundrum, and I'm sure you honestly think your posts actually do make sense. Unfortunately that doesn't translate to you actually making sense to other people.
So I'll do you a favour and I'll stop responding to you, because you seem hell bent on responding to me and displaying your ignorance for all to see. And it really isn't fair on you.

no problemo.
There are plenty of people following this thread that would strongly suggest other wise... so best of luck!
In my lingo I call it Cognitive Dyslexia and mainly occurs when a person is feeling pressured to accept something that they are not prepared to accept. - Don't worry it eventually passes..

and oh... have a merry festive season!

 

[iceaura]

The question is, and has always been, whether that "decision" was one where there was an "ability to do otherwise".

That question is settled by observation - in the lab, in the field, brain activity recorded, the whole shot. The answer is yes.
And if you quit putting quote marks around perfectly valid terms, you might see that more easily.

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.

Or, in the case of traffic lights and the like, able to make many different decisions and take many different actions of will depending on the information it will be given.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is in quotation marks (decision) because even the need to "decide" is considered as an illusion.

 

[Sarkus]

no problemo.
There are plenty of people following this thread that would strongly suggest other wise... so best of luck!

Or maybe they're just too polite. Agreeing with them doesn't mean that you are making sense.

In my lingo I call it Cognitive Dyslexia and mainly occurs when a person is feeling pressured to accept something that they are not prepared to accept. - Don't worry it eventually passes..

Then I look forward to when your affliction passes.

 

[Sarkus]

That question is settled by observation - in the lab, in the field, brain activity recorded, the whole shot. The answer is yes.

Wow. Thanks. I never realised. It's so simple. If only all those Incompatibilist philsophers were here to listen to such a well argued position then the debate would surely be over tomorrow.

Or, in the case of traffic lights and the like, able to make many different decisions and take many different actions of will depending on the information it will be given.

It can certainly appear that way. But until you start to address the actual question at hand, your repeated assertions continue to be irrelevant. I'll come back when you start being relevant.

 

[iceaura]

Wow. Thanks. I never realised. It's so simple.

It is, in fact, a straightforward and easily replicable observation of physical reality.

But until you start to address the actual question at hand, your repeated assertions continue to be irrelevant.

I have addressed your assumption of supernatural ("actual") freedom only - it's fine if you want to stick with it, your argument follows, but if you have to deny it to make your case you have a problem. And obscuring it by way of vague language such as "actual" is a form of denial.

I have also addressed the matter of degrees of freedom, and the reality of decisions - noting that they are observable, physical, events; also that they happen at a high logical level of pattern you have yet to come to grips with.

Is there another question at hand?

 

[Write4U]

Question: Can we consciously choose something which is detrimental to our being, or is that considered a mental anomaly caused by an external compelling reason, i.e. "give me your wallet or I kill you"?

It certainly would not be a free choice, even though we could physically refuse to hand over the wallet and die. If you are 6'6" and the robber is 5'6' and has no gun, you might refuse, no?

But is this scenarion not the very same with any last minute information at the traffic light. At all times you do have the ability to choose, but the actual choice you make is dependent on the last piece of compulsory information, i.e. light turns orange when you are a hundred feet away and turns red when you are 25 feet away. What's you gonna do?
Go insane and run the light? Like crazy teenagers, who believe the adrenalin rush is more important than obeying traffic law?

 

[iceaura]

but the actual choice you make is dependent on the last piece of compulsory information, i.e. light turns orange when you are a hundred feet away and turns red when you are 25 feet away.

The light compels nothing. It informs a decision that it has no other influence on. It might not even do that, if the driver is not paying attention.

Go insane and run the light? Like crazy teenagers, who believe the adrenalin rush is more important than obeying traffic law?

Maybe.

 

[Sarkus]

It is, in fact, a straightforward and easily replicable observation of physical reality.

If only that were true, philosophers old and new wouldn't be disputing it, would they. But I look forward to your academic publication on the matter, that so succinctly puts the question to bed.

I have addressed your assumption of supernatural ("actual") freedom only - it's fine if you want to stick with it, your argument follows, but if you have to deny it to make your case you have a problem.

There is no assumption, as has been repeatedly explained, with your so called "addressing" of what you claim to be an assumption similarly addressed.

And obscuring it by way of vague language such as "actual" is a form of denial.

There is no obscuring of anything within my position. But you ignoring the logic of the argument that clearly shows there to be no such assumption is your flaw. End of.

I have also addressed the matter of degrees of freedom, and the reality of decisions - noting that they are observable, physical, events; also that they happen at a high logical level of pattern you have yet to come to grips with.

You have yet to show how such is relevant. Whether it is a complex object in space or a brick, a degree of freedom is still just a degree of freedom. But if you think a brick is able to do otherwise, that's fine. There really isn't anything further to discuss.

 

[Baldeee]

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

You're stuck?
Well, I could have told you that.
It's because you're not following the logic.

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.

And you accuse others of being vague?
Oh, the irony.
So do explain: how do different levels of complexity make a difference?
Make your case.
Show that you argument leads to an ability to do otherwise.

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.

Specifically to no will that is free.
If you are referring to "freedom of will" in the same manner as degrees of freedom then this is trivial: even a brick has such freedom.
But is a brick able to do otherwise?

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.

All of it is also judged accoring to how it appears.
It is not being judged on what is actually going on.
The process that we call "will" is recorded, and noone disputes this.
The process that we call "making a decision" can be evidenced, and noone disputes this.
So when you keep resorting to the evidence of the lab monitoring brain function, none of this is disputed, because whether the process exists is not in question.
The evidence you keep reverting to is simply irrelevant, as the question was whether these processes are free, whether they demonstrate that we are able to do otherwise, not simply whether they possess degrees of freedom, no matter how much more complex than those an orbiting brick might have.

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

Because when you look at what is actually going on, logic suggests that those processes do not offer an ability to do otherwise.
And you can't get past the logic, no matter how clearly explained, without claiming that there are additional assumptions that aren't there.
So no wonder you're stuck.

 

[Baldeee]

To the rest of your post, good luck with trying to explain things to those that seemingly can't grasp it, and insist that you have introduced additional assumptions.

You weren't joking, were you!

 

[Write4U]

The light compels nothing. It informs a decision that it has no other influence on. It might not even do that, if the driver is not paying attention.

That would not end well, would it? No one says that determinism always produces a good outcome.
That's because it is deterministic only. Of what is another story.

Maybe.

Either way, it would be deterministic. Unless the choice is uncaused, then it would be free will and most likely completely useless.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's kinda funny, it is being proposed that if humans do not make decisions because they believe they are already made for them, therefor no need to, nothing gets to be determined. (done)
The world grinds to a halt and everyone dies.

 

[iceaura]

Unless the choice is uncaused, then it would be free will and most likely completely useless.

The supernatural assumption, for freedom of will. It is not necessary, and its effects are crippling.