Is Everything Predetermined?

[Stryder]

It's far simpler to equate that if you have a box and attempt to put things in it, there is only a finite amount of room available, although the options for it's content can be numerous variations.

You could suggest that you can only go with one variation (The observable world) and all other potential variations of content are merely an illusion. However the observations of the quantum world do support that those illusions *Do* actually exist, in the sense that those variations are encoded within atomic wave formations as 'paradoxical waveforms'. (Admittedly the fundamentals of Schroedinger theories do spring to mind.)

Of course to weigh all this potential 'illusionary' worlds where the boxes are packed differently, is itself placing those worlds/boxes in their own box. Which in turn is just a higher level of finite possibility.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The existence of the "laws of nature" in no way depenhds upon our knowledge of them. I assume by postulating that "laws of nature" do exist only that siciece is possible becuase the universe is controlled by a fixed but clearly not completely known by man "physics."

If you are a "scientist" you also make this postulate of regularity (including the quantum effects, deterministicly governed by the Schrodering equation until A "classical interaction," if man's current understanding is correct.)

Are you a scientist or one who beleives in "miracles"?

I don't believe in anything but rational thought.

I can explain though were you go wrong in your line of reasoning.

You are looking for an ultimate cause of free will. You seek that in the fundamental laws of nature.

This is understandable but wrong. And to see where you go wrong we must address the question more specifically.

We are asking if free will is possible in the human species? Or at least in some kind of conscious entity.

Since we only know how one conscious entity (and have a slight idea on how the others work, such as chimp) works, the human, I will focus on this example.

The question of free will is a matter of action. Are we capable of a free action (a thought can be an action too). The decision to generate action or free will is not taken on the level of physics. It is made on the level of biological structure. The brain is the black box that decides action. It will decide if free will is possible. Not quantum mechanics. The brain operates through very distinct mechanisms and structures which define the action. There is no need to look further down the road, because it is the structure of the brain that limits the output, and not atomic forces. The biological structure is what counts.

The biology of the brain gives it its distinct output characteristics!

And therefore to look at physics when searching for an answer to the question whether we have free will is a fools errand.

It is merely a matter of logic. To determine the nature of the output you do not go further than to look at the level of the output generating structure that defines the possible outcome.

This is also why physics has nothing to do with biology. Because biology operates with different rules as physics. Biology generates different answers and questions because it is different. Life has added unique qualities to the universe.

Note, that I actually didn't explain yet why I said we do not have free will. That is mostly because it is an on-off question, while the biological characteristics of the brain itself dictate that the true answer is gradual.

Hence the real answer is: sometimes we have no free will, sometimes a little, sometimes a little bit more, but never really a lot.

And this answer cannot be found with physics because it does not address the proper characteristics of the system.

Maybe it is possible to generate a system capable of free will, but not in a living system as we know it. If we would create a system on a more fundamental level, then indeed fundamental laws might come into play.

I sincerly hope you see the real issue now.

 

[Billy T]

...You are looking for an ultimate cause of free will. You seek that in the fundamental laws of nature. ...

I have not read all this post yet, but this part (about me) is false. I am strongly inclined still, despite my essay opening a POSSIBILITY only for free will to exist, to believe it does not. I.e. that "free will" is only a very universal illusion.

I was not seeking anything about "free will" when my studies of the neural processes of achieveing 3D perception from 2D retinal data ACCIDENTLY open the possibility that free will might be possible without a violation of "Physics" (not the physics of man, but the postulated regularity of nature all true scientist assume)

 

[Billy T]

OK, I have read all of your post 42 now.

...The question of free will is a matter of action. Are we capable of a free action (a thought can be an action too). The decision to generate action or free will is not taken on the level of physics. It is made on the level of biological structure. The brain is the black box that decides action. It will decide if free will is possible. ... The brain operates through very distinct mechanisms and structures which define the action. There is no need to look further down the road, because it is the structure of the brain that limits the output, and not atomic forces. The biological structure is what counts.

Certainly it is possible to take a high level view and ignore the more basics processes. (For example, speak in terms of "id" "ego" etc. as Freud did.) and certainly the structure of the brain is very important. (Although as I am sure you know, it is now thought to be more "plastic" than it was a few decades ago. - For example, in the congentially blind, the visual cortex does take on other non-visual functions. I have even assisted in several experiments where very small part of a rhesis monkey's motor cortex was excised and the precise movement control initially lost was fully recovered in about a month, but not when we also (even in a prior operation) removed a small specific part of the "premotor" cortex) Recovery following strokes is also at least in part by this "brain plasticity," which is extreme in a very young child. Doctors treating intractable eplisey can remove half the brain cortex with no easily measured defects in the development of the child, (Corpus Colosium must remain intact to avoid unilateral paralisis) etc.

However your High Level structral POV is like saying the motion of the car is determined by the "motor structure" - certainly true, but very incomplete. The details of how the gasoline is oxidized (burns vs explodes) is also very important. Thus, the inability (in some brains, especially in the cerebellum section), to produce adequate quanties of neurotransmiter domamine, etc. is very important to function. (You have Parkinson's disease in that case - perhaps can not even walk or talk in the most sever cases).

SUMMARY: It is much too simple a POV to stop at the high level "structure only" and ignore the neurotransmiter fluxes in the synaptic gaps. These flows are controlled by rules, some of which are well undestrood, as simple difussion laws. These flows collective determine which nerves discharge and when. That is what contolls how the structure they act in then controlls your behavior. Your POV is much too simple.


I sincerly hope you see the real issue now.

 

[Dinosaur]

I got bored before I read all of the posts to this thread. Sorry if I am posting views already covered by others.

BTW: I find some of the posts a bit difficult to understand. Perhaps it merely requires more concentration on the obscuring pose to find hidden gems of information.

The classical world shown to us by our senses is based on quantum processes which are random.

While I do not see how a probabilistic universe allows free will, at least it does not obviously exclude it as is the case with a deterministic universe.

Based on the probabilistic nature of quantum processes, a determiinistic view of the universe is invalid. Until early in the 20th century, the universe was believed to be deterministic. It was believed that (in principle) the current positions, velocities, et cetera of every particle in the universe could be used to predict the future and deduce the past in precise detail. Of course, nobody believed that the data could be collected (even in principle) and nobody believed that the required computations could be done.

It is interesting that the deterministic view was accepted by many Christian theists. It was consistent with the belief that god knew everything, including the future.

A deterministic view of the universe does not permit free will. Christian theology also included free will. Of course, free will and god knowing your actions in advance is a bit paradoxical, but then theists never seem to have trouble with inconsistent beliefs.

Quantum randomness implies that if the universe could be rewound to its exact state as of 100 years ago, the history of the last hundred years would deviate chaotically from that which we have recorded. The quantum level differences would build up to extreme differences at the classical level of our senses. Many of those existing today might never have been born in that alternative universe.

 

[Billy T]

To Dinosaur:

You are 100% correct in your post 45. I probably spent more time stating the same thing (and a little more)* in the first paragraph of my essay on free will, which is:

"Before the advent of Quantum Mechanics, the future appeared to LaPlace to be exactly determined by the past state of the universe, even if it was clearly unpredictable. Chaos theory and measurement errors plus ignorance about small asteroid orbits, rupture stresses in tectonic faults or vascular systems, etc. makes LaPlace’s future unpredictable, perhaps fatally so in only a few seconds for some individuals. Quantum Mechanics destroyed LaPlace’s deterministic world. Thus, thanks to QM, a “probabilistic will” is at least possible. I.e. we can have the illusion of making “choices” that are actually made by the chance results of QM; however, Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes."

I think you will find the entire essay interesting. See it at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
Begin to read at the bold text" Genuine Free Will is Possible
------------------------
*I did not comment on the obvious logical inconsistents of the Christians, as you correctly did, because I have already enough difficulty in getting people to read those approzimately 8 pages. Perhaps I should put out a "muslim edition" :shrug:

 

[spuriousmonkey]

OK, I have read all of your post 42 now. Certainly it is possible to take a high level view and ignore the more basics processes. (For example, speak in terms of "id" "ego" etc. as Freud did.) and certainly the structure of the brain is very important. (Although as I am sure you know, it is now thought to be more "plastic" than it was a few decades ago. - For example, in the congentially blind, the visual cortex does take on other non-visual functions. I have even assisted in several experiments where very small part of a rhesis monkey's motor cortex was excised and the precise movement control initially lost was fully recovered in about a month, but not when we also (even in a prior operation) removed a small specific part of the "premotor" cortex) Recovery following strokes is also at least in part by this "brain plasticity," which is extreme in a very young child. Doctors treating intractable eplisey can remove half the brain cortex with no easily measured defects in the development of the child, (Corpus Colosium must remain intact to avoid unilateral paralisis) etc.

However your High Level structral POV is like saying the motion of the car is determined by the "motor structure" - certainly true, but very incomplete. The details of how the gasoline is oxidized (burns vs explodes) is also very important. Thus, the inability (in some brains, especially in the cerebellum section), to produce adequate quanties of neurotransmiter domamine, etc. is very important to function. (You have Parkinson's disease in that case - perhaps can not even walk or talk in the most sever cases).

SUMMARY: It is much too simple a POV to stop at the high level "structure only" and ignore the neurotransmiter fluxes in the synaptic gaps. These flows are controlled by rules, some ofwhich are well undestrood, as simple difussion laws. These flows collective determine which nerves discharge and when. That is what contolls how the structure they act in then controlls your behavior. Your POV is much too simple.


I sincerly hope you see the real issue now.

I still see it. You are lost.

unlike physics biology actually works with hierarchy. The characteristics of a lower level can be completely inconsequential for the characteristics of a higher level.

The brain structure and the associated mechanisms are the only thing that matters. And they prohibit free will.

The car is engine is a good example. You can examine the atomic forces in an iron atom of the engine and never find out how combustion energy is transfered into kinetic energy. That's because the iron atom doesn't have the information of design of the engine in it. The design of th engine makes energy transfer possible. Not atomic forces. The iron atom contains no information whatsoever on this level.


Well, I warned you. My job is done.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

brain plasticity doesn't equal free will btw. It just shows plasticity to restructure the brain in order to create a functional organism.

 

[Billy T]

...The car is engine is a good example. You can examine the atomic forces in an iron atom of the engine and never find out how combustion energy is transfered into kinetic energy. That's because the iron atom doesn't have the information of design of the engine in it.....

Agreed. Iron atoms are iron atoms. I never spoke of the structure of iron atoms or of neurotransmiter. I spoke of the flow of neurotransmitters. In the "motor analogy" the spacing between the iron atoms, for example in the tie rod linking the piston to the crank shaft, would be where the "information" about how the motor actually works is hidden. If one takes this more fundamental, less "structrual" POV, one can understand why tie rods break.

I assure you that the designers of you car's motor did consider the "stains" (a fancy term for the small dispacements of atoms when their object is under "stress") in the tie rod to design it. Only your "structural POV" (motor has piston, crank shaft, cylinders, etc.) is much too simple. Much too "high level" to be adequate for understanding how the motor really works, when, why and how it fails etc.

This is not to say that high-level descriptions are not useful. I am only stated that if you really want a more complete understanding, they are inadequate incomplete. In the case of the brain, you must at least go down to the level of neurotransmitter fluxes (Most modern efforts also include detail models of the Na ion flux dynamics as the discharge propigates down the axon also - discusse the dynamics or time variation of the intially -70mV "resting potential" of the axion interior etc. (I will quit showing how wrong you are without giving much relalted to the electron microscope level of studies of the "micro-tubular filbers" etc. now underway to really try to understand it all.)

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Agreed. Iron atoms are iron atoms. I never spoke of the structure of iron atoms or of neurotransmiter. I spoke of the flow of neurotransmitters. In the "motor analogy" the spacing between the iron atoms, for example in the tie rod linking the piston to the crank shaft, would be where the "information" about how the motor acxtually works is hidden. If one takes this more fundamental, less "structrual" POV one can understand why tie rods break.

I assure you that the designers of you car's motor did consider the "stains" (a fancy term for the small dispacements of atoms when their object is under "stress") in the tie rod to dewsign it. Only your "structural POV" (motor has piston, crank shaft, cylinders, etc.) is much too simple. Much too "high level" to be adequate for understanding how the motor really works, when why and how it fails etc.

This is not to say that high-level descriptions are not useful. I am only stated that if you really want a more complete understanding, they are inadequate incomplete. In the case of the brain, you must at least go down to the level of neurotransmitter fluxes (Most modern efforts also include detail models of the Na ion flux dynamics as the discharge propigates down the axon also - discusse the dynamics or time variation of the intially -70mV "resting potential" of the axion interior etc. (I will quit showing how wrong you are without giving much relalted to the electron microscope level of studies of the "micro-tubular filbers" etc. now underway to really try to understand it all.)

similarly evolution has considered the characteristics of nerve cells and the action potential etc. (metaphorical considered) This does not mean though that the brain and its output can be understood on a lower level.

The higher level overrides the lower level.

It may well be that fundamental forces allow for free will. But nobody send this memo to the brain.

And it is the brain which decides the output.

 

[Billy T]

brain plasticity doesn't equal free will btw. It just shows plasticity to restructure the brain in order to create a functional organism.

A total "red hearing." I never even implied it did. You must be getting despirate to attack this "strawman" of your own creation!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

A total "red hearing." I never even implied it did. You must be getting despirate to attack this "strawman" of your own creation!

why mention it yourself then in this discussion if plasticity is a strawman?

 

[Billy T]

... The higher level overrides the lower level. ...

Absolutely false. The lower level processes DETERMINE THE HIGHER LEVEL ACTIONS. (admitedly these higher level consequeces do depend upon what structure the more fundamental process are occuring, but if you change the nature of the lower level process, yet keep the higher level constant, there is a change in the performance - for example (again) - Parkinson's disease is a result of the inadequate production of dopamine in the unchange at the structural level of the cerebellium.) You must go to the lower level to learn how to treat Parkinson disease (L-dopa, a precurser of dopamin makes big improvement for several years in most cases - that is something no amount of Structural level knowledge can explain, but was learned by a more complete understanding of how that part of the brain is functioning - at the neuro-transmitter level.)

Simply admit that the high level is useful (as I have) for an "overview" but totally inadequate for a deep understanding of how the brain functions.

 

[Billy T]

why mention it yourself then in this discussion if plasticity is a strawman?

Because I honestly admit that there is some adaptation, at the structural level, in brains to cope with the enviromental or internal brain changes (such as the surgery we did in rhesis monkey).

What you fail to admit is that the structural level is totally inadeqate for any thing but an extremely simple minded understanding of how the brain actually functions.

Address my Parkinson disease example from the "structural level" POV if you think that is even possible. (I do not think it is as there is no structural level difference between the brain of a Parkinson disease victum and a gold metal winning gymastics! - the difference is in the neurotransmitter production rates.)

 

[Zephyr]

Free will is the obvious intelligent thing to assume. Because if it doesn't exist, your assumption makes no difference anyway. But if it does, assuming predestination may lead you to waste opportunities.

 

[Billy T]

Free will is the obvious intelligent thing to assume. Because if it doesn't exist, your assumption makes no difference anyway. But if it does, assuming predestination may lead you to waste opportunities.

This line of thought is usually associated with Gauss - his argument for believing in god.

 

[Enmos]

Nope. Even that was influenced by what you read in the previous posts.

Baron Max

Influenced maybe, but I still made the choice myself.
See, I wasn't going to post but then I thought "Oh what the heck..".

 

[Reiku]

How do we know that choice isn't simply the collective function of particles on a preordered path?

 

[Enmos]

Enmos
''We have free will. I could just as easily have chosen to not post this''

Ah... But you did. Choice and free-will are the biggest illusion of them all.

Reiku - live and be happy

Same as I said to Baron Max (see above).

"live and be happy" ? What choice do I have according to you ? That's a mute wish according to your own reasoning, so why say it ?

 

[Enmos]

How do we know that choice isn't simply the collective function of particles on a preordered path?

And how do you know it is ? It's true that we're influenced (maybe heavily) by our heritage, upbringing and environment but that fact doesn't exclude free will. We always have a choice.