I wasn't discussing freedom, I was discussing self determination. A human can self determine it 's own vector and remain a cog in the machine where as a billiard ball can not self determine it's own vector.
The notion of freedom is only a quality.
Human says, "White ball wants me to go over there and I am not going to do that. I am going to use the energy given by the white ball and go over somewhere else instead..."
Once you realise the distinction between self determination and freedom it will all make sense...
When you assert self determinism you imply freedom from universal determinism. Since you are composed of universally determined elements, and exist in an environment composed of the same, there is no independent self to determine its actions.
A dictation of one moment to the next is not a script, and the attempted analogy has muddled the discussion.
An implicit order that dictates that a given universal momentary state will determine the state of the following universal momentary state does amount to a script. The determined past deterministically authors the future, that’s the essence of determinism.
iceaura said:
Capracus said:
Do the constituents of the self belong to the self?
Yes. By definition.
In the same way that the constituents of a hurricane are thought to belong to the hurricane, even though the hurricane is actually just a manifestation of oceanic and atmospheric dynamics. Just as the hurricane is an effect of that dynamic mix, humans too are an effect of their environmental dynamics.
Water has no will. It lacks the necessary logical level of organization.
Water does what it does because of its relationship with its environmental elements, the same goes for the behavior of humans. If you want to label that dynamic as will for humans, you must also do the same for water and any other universal element. And if the self is composed of a collection of individually willed elements, where does that leave the self? Mob rule? Anarchy?
That is false, as the example of chaotic amplification posted above illustrates.
Chaos is essentially undefinable cause and effect that results from incomplete knowledge.
For starters, there is no such thing as "complete knowledge" of any momentary state of the universe as a whole - it's a contradiction in terms, theoretically impossible, meaningless combination of words, etc.
As theoretically impossible as infinity? Yet infinity is an accepted theoretical standard. If one can postulate the infinite, then infinite knowledge becomes a theoretical possibility.
Second, the momentary state does not determine the subsequent states of the universe. One must measure over time - not at an instant or "moment" - to enable even approximate predictions.
Time is a collection of moments, therefore the concept of one moment determining the next is definitionally an expression of time. Additionally, complete knowledge implies total understanding of the behavior of universal elements, which allows for a determination of past and future universal states.
They are not billiard balls, and they don't behave like billiard balls. They are not material entities, and they do not "collide" as material entities do.
I didn’t say that quarks behave like billiard balls, or that chicken eggs behave like billiard balls, but only that all material entities do behave in sequentially determined fashion.
Apparently you still haven’t bothered to review you knowledge of quarks, because just like other material entities such as billiard balls, they do materially collide with other material elements.
During proton collisions, quarks and gluons interact –they brush past each other or collide. Head-on collisions usually produce sprays of highly energetic collimated particles called hadronic jets. The patterns of hadronic jets in such collisions could provide the first indication of whether quarks are complex objects.
https://atlas.cern/updates/physics-briefing/are-quarks-fundamental-particles
That human beings have established their theoretical impossibility - by mathematical proof, among other means - does negate their theoretical possibility.
You can mathematically postulate countless theoretical possibilities that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Like I mentioned earlier, if infinity can be theoretically postulated, then so can infinite knowledge.
Nobody is ascribing freedom of will to "chemistry and physics".
One investigates the various freedoms of human will by measuring and recording and analyzing the relevant behaviors of the human brain/mind - an entity that has a will in the first place - among other methods.
But all of the subject material in your analysis are manifestations of determined chemistry and physics, where there is no presumed freedom of anything. So where does this freedom of behavior originate in regards to the bag of chemistry and physics we call the brain?
