Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

Capracus said:
You seem to be implying that Fred is in some way independent of the universal constituents that he is composed of and exists in.
Click to expand...
He is, at the moment of observation (while approaching the traffic light, say) separate from, not composed of, and not existing in, the color that light will be when he first perceives it.
Capracus said:
Under some conditions Fred’s behavior could be perceived as more dynamic, and in other conditions the brick would take the prize
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Under no circumstances does a brick have more freedom of action - degrees of freedom in its response to stimuli - than a Fred.
Capracus said:
Their is no entity called Fred without the universal constituents that comprise his being and existence.
Click to expand...
Is there an entity called "Fred", for us to talk about, or not?
Capracus said:
Fred is an effect in a universal landscape, just as a whirlpool is an effect in a body of liquid.
Click to expand...
Sure. Now let's direct our attention to the nature of that "effect" - its properties, its abilities, etc
Note that whirlpools can move around, shrink and grow, remain in place, gather debris, all while the water they borrow and the river they are in continue to behave as such entities in the universe will.
Perhaps that suggests an approach toward discussing the much more complex and "independent" Fred.
Capracus said:
You seem to want to grant Fred single entity status even though he is a composition of countless states of material configuration, but the expanded version of that material soup we call the universe, doesn’t qualify?
Click to expand...
Reread. Nothing in my posting even suggests that the universe is not an entity. The opposite, in a sense - I object to identifying the universe as the only entity.
And yes, I do want to grant Fred single entity status. Also bricks, etc. Things with names.
Capracus said:
Think of chain reaction, where everything is both cause and effect. As long as time and non-homogeneity exist, so does causality.
Click to expand...
And if you get rid of time and non-homogeneity, you get rid of causality. That is one of the problems with denying observable abilities to Fred now because of what will happen to him in the future, or denying qualitative differences between entities because they are all immersed in a "universal" soup.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
He is, at the moment of observation (while approaching the traffic light, say) separate from, not composed of, and not existing in, the color that light will be when he first perceives it.
Click to expand...
He never is. He exists as an interconnected aspect of the local and global environments he inhabits. He doesn’t become separate from his universal ties because he is perceptively isolated through observation.
Irrelevant. Under no circumstances does a brick have more freedom of action - degrees of freedom in its response to stimuli - than a Fred.
Click to expand...
Neither have any degrees of freedom. The behavior of each is determined by the dictates of their constituent interaction with the greater whole.
Is there an entity called "Fred", for us to talk about, or not?
Click to expand...
In describing Fred as entity, what exactly are we supposed to include in that mix? All of the atoms. molecules and compounds contained in his body? Or just the small percentage of that material collection devoted to consciousness?
Sure. Now let's direct our attention to the nature of that "effect" - its properties, its abilities, etc
Note that whirlpools can move around, shrink and grow, remain in place, gather debris, all while the water they borrow and the river they are in continue to behave as such entities in the universe will.
Perhaps that suggests an approach toward discussing the much more complex and "independent" Fred.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the that the whirlpool represents a condition imposed on the body of water by itself and the greater universe? The same is also true of Fred and the environmental body of material that is continually conditioned to determine his form and behavior. Perceived complexity isn’t relevant to the issue of causality, substitute whirlpool for galaxy and you dwarf any complexity advantage granted to Fred.
Reread. Nothing in my posting even suggests that the universe is not an entity. The opposite, in a sense - I object to identifying the universe as the only entity.
And yes, I do want to grant Fred single entity status. Also bricks, etc. Things with names.
Click to expand...
The nature of perception allows us to contextually describe reality in various ways. The universe can be described as a single entity or a collection of its constituent parts and processes. The same can be said for any subset contained in the universe such as Fred, or subsets of Fred. But separating these various universal aspects contextually does not separate their connected functionality.
And if you get rid of time and non-homogeneity, you get rid of causality. That is one of the problems with denying observable abilities to Fred now because of what will happen to him in the future, or denying qualitative differences between entities because they are all immersed in a "universal" soup.
Click to expand...
I’m not denying that Fred or any other aspect of universal existence has unique identifiable qualities, but I do deny the proposition that those qualities can arise independently from behavior established in the greater whole.
 
Hmmm, do we have free-will?? Should one argue a deterministic response to stimuli, this is STILL an admission of the response! Should we TRULY have free-will, one should be able to REPEAT a possessive action, with different outcomes. :) COME AT ME, SEE WHAT HAPPENS!
 
TheFrogger said:
Should we TRULY have free-will, one should be able to REPEAT a possessive action, with different outcomes
Click to expand...

Think you have that back to front

Not repeat a action (no idea what you mean by possessive) with different outcome

Faced with a choice of some items you pick one

Replace it

Situation has changed in that you know a little bit more about the item you picked and that info has been filled in your brain

Now you are faced with same items with brain in possession of extra info

So test is compromised

Pick another (different) item

Was the second choice influenced in anyway by the extra info?

You may wonder, even suspect, but you will never know
Insert evil laugh here

:)
 
Actually I DO know because I can remember! :)

Remembering the past is a way of bringing the past into the present...

---------------------------------------------------->...

Or travelling from the present into the past!

<--------------------------------------------------

:)
 
Capracus said:
He exists as an interconnected aspect of the local and global environments he inhabits.
Click to expand...
"Fred" does not include the future color of a traffic light that has yet to become visible to him. Agreed?
Capracus said:
In describing Fred as entity, what exactly are we supposed to include in that mix?
Click to expand...
I'd have no problem with anything reasonable. The significant matter here is what we do not include - such as stuff that does not yet exist, is not part of any reasonable description of Fred (traffic lights a mile away), etc.
Capracus said:
Neither have any degrees of freedom
Click to expand...
Do not try to tell your professors that, when they flunk you for making basic errors of analysis in engineering school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(statistics)
Capracus said:
Do you understand the that the whirlpool represents a condition imposed on the body of water by itself and the greater universe?
Click to expand...
The whirlpool exists, and behaves, and can be named and described and measured and photographed and so forth, without reference to the entirety of the body of water it is in - let alone the rest of the universe. The rest of the river is not part of the whirlpool, and does not behave as the whirlpool behaves.
Capracus said:
Perceived complexity isn’t relevant to the issue of causality,
Click to expand...
? You cannot assign causes or effects without perceiving them.
substitute whirlpool for galaxy and you dwarf any complexity advantage granted to Fred.
Click to expand...
We were comparing Fred to a brick - there's no "advantage", there's just different logical levels of organization, different degrees of freedom in behavior. Fred can respond to information, for example - can anticipate and prepare and make decisions.
Capracus said:
But separating these various universal aspects contextually does not separate their connected functionality.
Click to expand...
It does come in handy for describing that functionality, though - describing the stuff that is connected, and how it is connected. That would include the present, current, observed now ability of Fred to either stop or go, in the future, depending on what Fred sees when he gets to a traffic light. That's part of Fred's "functionality", and it is connected to the rest of the universe of course - nothing supernatural going on here.
Notice the difference - in functionality, connection, whatever - between Fred approaching a traffic light, and a brick approaching a traffic light. Note that Fred has all the "functionalities" the brick has. The converse is not true.
Capracus said:
I’m not denying that Fred or any other aspect of universal existence has unique identifiable qualities,
Click to expand...
Hold that thought.
but I do deny the proposition that those qualities can arise independently from behavior established in the greater whole.
Click to expand...
Nobody is proposing any such independence, any more, I hope - the supernatural assumption has been rejected. I rejected it in my first post in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Q.
In an infinite volume of determined space, where would you find it's center?
A.
Any where you want to....
 
Write4U said:
That's geometric free choice, not individual free will.
Click to expand...
?
The infinite volume may be fully determined yet it can not determine it's own center. It takes free will (imagination) to do that...
To prove that it is free is possible because every one tasked with the same question would arrive at a different solution.
 
Capracus said:
That choice is a description of a universally determined action.
Click to expand...
Which is either meaningless or irrelevant.

Suppose that it has been universally determined, somehow, that people are capable of making willful decisions according to their own criteria and perceptions, and willfully acting on them. What's your point?

Mine is that they are actually making decisions, choosing among alternative courses of action that they are also (until after the moment of decision) capable of willfully undertaking - that's not an illusion, but an observation of fact.
 
iceaura said:
Which is either meaningless or irrelevant.

Suppose that it has been universally determined, somehow, that people are capable of making willful decisions according to their own criteria and perceptions, and willfully acting on them. What's your point?
Click to expand...
When you say willful you’re implying that the action can be made independently of the sum of all action. We can define an act by a person as willful for the convenience of describing the act, but the reality is that human action is no more willful than the action of the Earth in regards to its weather.
Mine is that they are actually making decisions, choosing among alternative courses of action that they are also (until after the moment of decision) capable of willfully undertaking - that's not an illusion, but an observation of fact.
Click to expand...
The choosing does not involve alternatives, the choosing is only a determined act of calculation regarding a determined outcome. We don’t say that the Earth has alternatives as to the type of meteorology it expresses, we assume that meteorology is an expression of a determined evolution of the planets historical activity, coupled with that of the universe as a whole.
 
"...and we are born to determine what has, is and will be, determined by that universe for one purpose only... to serve self.."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top