DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. If free will exists then the universe can't be deterministic.
Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree.....
......., but......IMO, the statement that "observation causes wave collapse" is factually wrong.Observation causes wave collapse on the retina and is no different than a photograpic plate being causal to collapse of the wave function, or when a photon strikes ANY and ALL physical obstructions.
Observation does not cause the wave collapse, THAT WOULD BE A FREE WILL ACT! We can only observe that which has already been causally determined or what will be causally determined when the photon strikes the observer's retina and collapses there.
I read the explanation in regard to the double slit experiment, but in view of the FW restriction, I cannot see how a passive observation can cause the collapse of the wave function. IMO, all we can do is observe wave collapse, without being causal to the process at all, unless it is a local phenomenon experienced by the brain.
If the sun's gravity is required to bend light, how can a passive observation possibly affect the behavior of light at all? All we can do is observe (observationally process the phenomenal experience) the wave collapse after it has occurred, no?
Last edited:
well stated!
If they did they would not be self determined, they would be self indetermined in a deterministic universe.
According to your own lack of imagination perhaps... subjective arbitrary limitations with out any rational reason to to "determine" what they may be....
Is there nothing you would not say to defend your illogical position?
Your veiled attempt, twice now, at an Argumentum ad hominem is noted. Which is highly suggestive that you are unable to defend your irrational position....MR Cap!
explain , "If given orders to make itself non-deterministic"
Why are you misinterpreting my position?
While it is possible to learn how to be self determined, it is impossible to learn how to be non-deterministic, in a deterministic universe.
Self determination is simply self ordering, with in order...
A sub-self-ordering system with in a universally ordered system
Last edited:
yes the ability to learn how to self determine, via meta-cognition is set in stone... no problemo...
no, I disagree because:
the ability to learn how to self determine, via the huge assistance of meta-cognition is set in stone... no problemo...
btw : Have you ever observed someone who is deficient in meta-cognition?
when considering self determination:
There are an infinite number of possible outcomes all of which are pre-determined to be valid...
The golf ball, floating in deep space has an infinite number of possible trajectories and timing (event moments) available.
I would call this a hindsight fallacy, a logical fallacy where by the conclusion reached only in hindsight justifies the causation.
- You are saying that it is impossible to predetermine any event except by post determination.
- Then you use that as justification for predetermination.
lol)
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If you read the subject heading, you;ll see that the question is whether or not free will exists.well that settles it, then the universe is not deterministic.... ok next!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not misinterpreting your position; I'm analogizing. It's not perfect.
How can a universe - wherein all things are deterministic - create a sub-component that is not determined by the universe?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That is not an ad hom. All he did was paraphrase your position as he sees it. Your position is a valid target for discussion.
but it is... that is the point...
The universe predetermines that humans evolve the capacity to self determine as part of and with in a deterministic paradigm...
totally deterministic... no indeterminism....yet self determination can and indeed does exist in a fully deterministic universe... or are you suggesting that the universe is somehow limited in it's capacity to predetermine humans in such a way?
BTW there are huge differences between micro and macro events. Human self determination is primarily about macro events, events that the universe is incapable of performing itself, without human intervention. Like building cities, flying man to the moon .. that sort of thingo...
=====
ahh but that is why I called it:
======
perhaps you may think you are, but we are still waiting for your explanation of how you derived:
====
when you can define unambiguously what those terms free and will mean perhaps we may be able to address the topic.If you read the subject heading, you;ll see that the question is whether or not free will exists.
Even defining the term "life" is full of controversy...
Yet life and freewill ( aka self determination) are directly linked in humans.
Perhaps we need to define life properly first before even going into will or freedom...
A big ask I know.... but hey that's uhm... life...
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Not necessarily by definition, but in a deterministic universe causality has to be deterministic, no?
No, I understand the difference in definition of each term.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
but as an aside to the question of free will, IMO, the statement that "observation causes wave collapse" is factually wrong.I agree.....
Observation causes wave collapse on the retina and is no different than a photograpic plate being causal to collapse of the wave function, or when a photon strikes ANY and ALL physical obstructions.
Observation does not cause the wave collapse, THAT WOULD BE A FREE WILL ACT! We can only observe that which has already been causally determined or what will be causally determined when the photon strikes the observer's retina and collapses there.
I read the explanation in regard to the double slit experiment, but in view of the FW restriction, I cannot see how a passive observation can cause the collapse of the wave function. IMO, all we can do is observe wave collapse, without being causal to the process at all, unless it is a local phenomenon experienced by the brain.
If the sun's gravity is required to bend light, how can a passive observation possibly affect the behavior of light at all? All we can do is observe (observationally process the phenomenal experience) the wave collapse after it has occurred, no? Never directly caused by free will. That would make it non-deterministic.......
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Since 'self-determined' pretty much means any organism that is capable if self-motivation and decision-making (as per post 450), it isn't limited to humans, but to pretty much all life, to some degree or another.
So I'm not sure we're exploring much more than a truism. Yes, life is capable of reacting to its environment in ways that optimize its own preservation.
That is true of any situation where one concludes two things to be incompatible.
There is no internal incoherence here, simply the assertion/conclusion that two things are incompatible.
If one holds one of those things to be real, then logic dictates the other to not be.
Alternatively one can hold both to be unreal.
All it does, by concluding that they are incompatible, is to say that they both can not be real.
Where is the incoherence?
It is not a source of the problem, unless one wishes to assert that free will exists and the universe is deterministic.
Otherwise it is a rather concise description of one’s view of how the two things might relate: compatibly or not.
Again, not unlike with any other two items that one concludes to be either compatible or not compatible.
Recall, also, that a causally deterministic universe is one in which every action is predetermined from the start of time, irrespective of our own subjective view of proceedings.
One can certainly define the “free” to be compatible, as you have done, and thus question why the whole issue is debated at all, or one can look at what that predetermination might mean, what it means for “free will” when our every action is already predetermined eons prior to any choice we might make.
That is the debate: how can we say that we have genuine choice, how can there be genuine alternatives, when what we choose has been predetermined from the start of time... in a deterministic universe.
And this debate is not consigned to the bin marked “trivial” simply because one focuses on a definition of “free” that ignores that question.
From a practical point of view, from a pragmatic point of view, we all regard “free will” in the manner you describe, but this is a philosophy forum, and you will need to forgive those of us who try to explore that little bit deeper.
I am not debating that the ability to self-determine is predetermined, only what it means to self-determine.
I am saying that it is an entirely subjective view of one’s actions, being unaware of the predetermined nature of them.
You are trying to claim that self-determined actions override anything the universe might predetermine... but those self-determined actions are part of the universe’s predetermined course.
You can not separate the two, as you are trying to do.
There is one predetermined course of events, and that course was predetermined as soon as the initial conditions of all parts of the relevant system were set.
As such, any imagined, or hypothesised scenario involving the golf ball’s trajectory with or without intervention from the human are counterfactual, other than the one course of action that transpires.
Available for consideration by the human, yes, but the course that is ultimately taken was predetermined eons ago.
The predetermined course of events already takes into account everything the human has done, does, and will do.
It is an unbreakable chain of events, otherwise it is not predetermined.
And you would be wrong.
Your analysis here is wrong:Hind sight fallacy... ( yeah ....a new and yet to be published addition to the list of logical fallacies... googling doesn't find anything - so it must be new...
- You are saying that it is impossible to predetermine any event except by post determination.
- Then you use that as justification for predetermination.
I am not saying that it is impossible to predetermine any event except by post determination - I am saying that everything is predetermined, but that in most cases we (humans) don’t know what course actually was predetermined until it comes to pass, due to the complexity of the system and our lack of knowledge.
I am then not using this as justification for predetermination in any way: the justification for predetermination comes from the assumption of the universe being causally deterministic.
Everything else just follows from that.
It has long been understood by most interpretations of QM that “observation” is any event that requires a specific output from the wavefunction.
Interaction with any sufficiently complex system is likely to do.
“Observation” as in being observed by the retina, and necessarily the human consciousness, is one interpretation of QM, but not a particularly popular one.
Well, not quite, in that there are compatibilists, those who define free will in a way that is compatible with a deterministic universe.
CC has done just that here recently.
As with all such debates, this is one that rests on your view of what “free will” is and, more specifically I think, in what way it can be said to be “free”.
I find the versions of “free” along the lines of “unobstructed compared to normal operation” to be somewhat trivial, but they are valid and most likely the most practical understanding.
But I find that within that understanding one can mask the lack of another sense of freedom, the lack of genuine choice, genuine alternatives to our actions, given the predeterministic nature of the deterministic universe being considered.
All good fun, though.
From a limited perspective that’s what appears to be the case, but from a broader universal perspective it’s just a predetermined dance of universal elements.
Until convincing evidence to the contrary is presented, I will continue to support the notion of a reality that operates in a way that any universal state contains all of the information regarding the complete nature of reality, and is essentially a road map for all past and future states. As for the influence of distant elements, if all of reality is at some level materially connected, then there would be expected influence of behavior regardless of distance. An example of such would be that of entangled particles that are seemingly behaviorally linked over vast distances.
Autonomous from what? Biology? No. Environmental stimuli? No. Uuniversal material order? No. Experiential neurological conditioning? No. The more detail that is given about the nature of any human action, the less autonomous the action appears. A compositionally derived universal nature is what is likely behind the expression of the countless behaviors that are acted out every moment in our reality. It’s essentially the whole of reality acting as puppeteer of all its constituent entities.
A deterministic reality isn’t necessarily the work of conscious entities, unless we’re living in a contrived simulation. If the whole of reality is compositionally conditioned to determine all of the outcomes contained therein in a specific sequential order, how would we distinguish that condition from the common subjective perception of a reality composed of independent free actors? In the case of a simulated reality, the actors are deterministically managed in every way, yet they may be unaware of the actual roots of their motivation. The same can be said of our perceived existence in relation to the controlling aspects of our greater reality.
and if all is predetermined as you suggest, then how can you claim anything to be objective, including the difference between true and false? Or determinism and non-determinism?
In the deterministic paradigm, you contend for some unsupported and inexplicable reason, that only one course of action is possible. Therefore there is no ability to consider the veracity of anything as being objectively true or false.
Your paradigm states that the philosophy of Determinism itself is the product of universal determination there fore has no value as a philosophy. Not true or false but just is, as it was predetermined to be.
Determinism with out self determinism included renders all intellectual endeavor utterly subject to universal starting conditions. Thus purely subjective. Not a shred of objectivity is present or possible.
I am not claiming any such thing... self determination is relative to the capacity to learn how to self determine. A baby learning to choose for example between their left or right hand is learning how to determine which hand they wish to move and certainly NOT which atom does what. Self determination is never absolute as you so erroneously hold to. Nor is the quality of freedom that self determination affords the self determiner.
I am amazed that you and others believe the way you do..
An unsupportable claim of only one course of events when there are an infinite potential number of equally predetermined events.
How do you logically conclude that there is only one course of events with out using hindsight to conclude as such?
again you need to do better than just simply saying so...
Your challenge:
Why only one course of action? ( with out using hindsight to explain it)
and of course I am going to write what I have repeatedly written before...
the Universe predetermination evolves a human being capable of learning how to self determine, because every event is and has to be predetermined.
As you have said:
and that includes what is self determined.
nope.. see above
Last edited: