Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Quantum Quack]

Determination isn't determinism. You are just playing with words which is why it's gibberish.

What do you find interesting about this topic (other than playing with words)?

James is interested because if there is no free will then he wonders if we should punish people who break the law because "it's not their fault".

I would have no problem punishing them even if it's not their "fault". Society can't have killers (for example) running around killing people even if it were not their "fault".

What is your interest in this subject? It can't just be playing with words....talking about someone being determined when we are talking about determinism or talking about "self-determinism is self-determinism".

What is your end-game?

I'll let your paranoia work it out...

 

[Seattle]

I'll let your paranoia work it out...

You do that...your lava lamp needs polishing anyway, right?

 

[iceaura]

Self-determination is free will and not determinism.

Supernatural free will is not determinism.
Nonsupernatural freedom of will is part of the causal chain that determines outcomes - it is both determined and determining.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Determination isn't determinism. You are just playing with words which is why it's gibberish.

What do you find interesting about this topic (other than playing with words)?

James is interested because if there is no free will then he wonders if we should punish people who break the law because "it's not their fault".

I would have no problem punishing them even if it's not their "fault". Society can't have killers (for example) running around killing people even if it were not their "fault".

What is your interest in this subject? It can't just be playing with words....talking about someone being determined when we are talking about determinism or talking about "self-determinism is self-determinism".

What is your end-game?

Self determination leads to self responsibility.

I am advocating for self responibility.
The fatalist is abrogating that responsibility to "other" than self.
Which one do you go with?

 

[iceaura]

If you got up and got a drink, it's because the atoms were configured by their history that resulted in you being thirsty (more atoms) and getting up.

And that configuration - actually, the pattern of behavior emergent from that configuration and various other causes, which is at least one logical level removed from the configuration and at least two from the atoms - is causal.

Not the substrate, the atoms: the configuration (loosely defined to include behavior). The larger pattern.

Substrates in general - by definition, almost - do not determine the patterns that form on or in them.

 

[DaveC426913]

looks like a duck , smells like a duck , tastes like a duck, has no logical refutation, then it is a duck....

Great for laypeople. Not sufficient for a scientific discussion.

For the logic of determinism to be valid it is essential that a genuine actor be present to make the determination that that logic is indeed valid or not.

I don't know what that means. It will be the physics that demonstrates how the world actually works, not some referee.

Why does determinism ( all current mainstream branches) arbitrarily limit the capacity of a deterministic universe to evolve a human that is capable of learning how to determine for him self?

You use the term "limit", as if something existed but is being constrained.
It is not granted that that something exists in the first place.
Show how atoms - even trillions of them - can "choose". I don't mean the end result - I mean show where a bunch of atoms with determined trajectories results in them acting with free will.

If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?

There are no alternatives and there are no choices. Photons from a distant source (such as a lion) stimulate your retinal atoms. Your retina sends a signal to your brain's atoms. Your brain has trillions of atoms with pseudo-conducting connections between them that are weakened or reinforced by previous signals from previous sources. The pathway that permits the strongest signal, send signals to other atoms of the brain (such as the motor cortex), and you duck.
None of these atoms or photons has any choice in what it does. How does having lot so them result in actual choice?
.

In my posting there are no such dots. There is no such connection, either.

I know. It's a mid-air leap from one statement to a non sequitur. That's the problem.

The only supposed "argument" so far presented here in support of that assertion is that in the assumed universe nothing can do other than it must, therefore (the conclusion) nothing has freedom - and that argument is based on the supernatural assumption.

Those aren't our words; those are yours.

How do you jump from "... nothing can do other than it must, therefore (the conclusion) nothing has freedom..." to "supernatural"?

You appear to have inverted and bollixed the reasoning in my posts, lost track of their context and content, and reworded stuff confusingly.
Try reading the actual posts, attending to the actual vocabulary, and ignoring the various paraphrases.

I thought I was making it clear that I am obviously so obtuse as to not get the connection. Sometimes a recap or summary is necessary, such as in a thread that is so long it had to be carried over from another thread. I'm asking you to indulge me. After all, you are branding me with this supernatural assumption - something I have explicitly stated is not so.

But you would have to drop your supernatural assumption...

I've stated a half dozen times I make no such assumption. You are attacking a straw man of your own creation.

.

There's no need to keep repeating "in a deterministic universe". If you've determined for certain that this is a "deterministic universe" then there is no more to discuss.

Since we aren't certain that the universe is deterministic, it does bear repeating.
It is a premise of this thread.
The thread title is a question, not a statement.

Beyond that, saying atoms do what they do is also a cop out. They can do what they do but what they do can be directed by your thinking.

Our "thinking" is simply the consequence of determined atoms. Atoms - no matter how many - don't just decide to go left instead of right.

If we had no consciousness would things still turn out the same?

An insightful question indeed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Our "thinking" is simply the consequence of determined atoms. Atoms - no matter how many - don't just decide to go left instead of right.

Correct... in fact a very important point...
The atoms dont get to decide... living humans do....
Aka self determination.
(Since when has a hydrogen atom told any one what to decide?)

 

[DaveC426913]

And that configuration - actually, the pattern of behavior emergent from that configuration and various other causes, which is at least one logical level removed from the configuration and at least two from the atoms - is causal.

Not the substrate, the atoms: the configuration (loosely defined to include behavior). The larger pattern.

Substrates in general - by definition, almost - do not determine the patterns that form on or in them.

OK, I don't see in there where it leads to free will.

You've stated what doesn't happen, but none of that states how it does happen (if it happens) i.e. the emergence of free will from a bunch of atoms.

 

[DaveC426913]

Correct... in fact a very important point...
The atoms dont get to decide... humans do....

Humans are atoms.

What you are saying here sounds perilously close to what iceaura et al are attacking: the notion that free will is something magical - some ineffable spark. It isn't.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Humans are atoms.

What you are saying here sounds perilously close to what iceaura et al are attacking: the notion that free will is something magical - some ineffable spark. It isn't.

It is not up to us to prove your limitation to your atoms. It is up to you...
Big claims require big support and so far the fatalist determinist offers nothing...
You wish to claim humanities most significant driving ability as an illusion you have to do more that just say so.
=====
So a bunch of atoms predetermine a human to evolve into a self determining entity...
why do you think that is impossible?
What physics do you wish to quote that prevents such an evolution? Any?

If you offer no sound reason to believe freewill is an illusion why would any one actually agree with you?
Why would you expect any one to?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Humans are atoms.

What you are saying here sounds perilously close to what iceaura et al are attacking: the notion that free will is something magical - some ineffable spark. It isn't.

I don't even have to invoke LIFE or even consciousness as being that magic spark to refute your position..... I am quite happy just dealing with your limited atomic theory to do it instead...

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not up to us to prove your limitation to your atoms. It is up to you...
Big claims require big support and so far the fatalist determinist offers nothing...

You need me to prove that atoms can't make decisions? That's a "big claim"?

You wish to claim humanities most significant driving ability as an illusion you have to do more that just say so.

You are starting with your conclusion: that this free will objectively exists in nature, as opposed to in our philosophy and beliefs.

If you offer no sound reason to believe freewill is an illusion

It is an assumption on your part that free will is truly free, and not the chemistry of your brain.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am quite happy just dealing with your limited atomic theory to do it instead...

So ... atoms are "just theory" to you now?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So ... atoms are "just theory" to you now?

"...and then one day a couple of gaseous hydrogen atoms decided to talk to a gaseous oxygen atom and they collectively decided to form a band called Liquid Water, other wise known as the "Molecules"....

so one can conclude that 2 gasses equals a liquid....

so go figure...
(chuckle)

 

[Seattle]

Our "thinking" is simply the consequence of determined atoms. Atoms - no matter how many - don't just decide to go left instead of right.

I don't know what a "determined atom" is but atoms are all there is so whatever gets done is ultimately done by atoms.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are starting with your conclusion: that this free will objectively exists in nature, as opposed to in our philosophy and beliefs.

we are surrounded by empirical evidence to support it's objective nature yes....
you know... cities, cars, machinery, farms, agriculture, military, politics and so on...

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know what a "determined atom" is but atoms are all there is so whatever gets done is ultimately done by atoms.

Yes.

I'm trying to be judicious with words, or descriptions would get onerous.

Every atom has been placed where it is, moving in the direction and at the speed it is by actions with other atoms or photons, which are, in turn placed where they are.

In principle (well, the principle of the argument itself) is that this cause-effect chain goes all the way back to the Big Bang.

No atom since the Big Bang has done anything other than what other atoms and photons caused it to do. Adding 10^20 or more atoms doesn't change this.

 

[wegs]

QQ - just wondering, how does this belief of yours affect your daily life? If you were to change your thinking on it, would your life be affected either way?

 

[DaveC426913]

we are surrounded by empirical evidence to support it's objective nature yes....
you know... cities, cars, machinery, farms, agriculture, military, politics and so on...

No. Applying the term 'free will' to such things does not make it so.

There are plenty of examples in nature of complex behaviors, structures and organization, for which you would have a hard time applying the label 'free will'.

A moth does not choose to fly toward a light. The light interacts with photo sensors on its wings, and one wing beats faster than the other, causing it to turn toward the light. It has no choice in the matter. Ants, termites, fish nests, bird mating behavior, etc.

Adding several zeros to the number of atoms in a brain does not automatically produce 'free will'.

 

[Quantum Quack]

interestingly:
Liquid Oxygen has a boiling point of -182.96 C
Liquid Hydrogen has a boiling point of -252 C

Yet liquid H2O has a boiling point of +100 C