Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Baldeee]

and that is the point...
You can't have an objective reality if the logic prohibits objectivity.

Logic doesn’t prohibit it at all.
That is merely your continued assertion, unsupported as it is.
You have disputed the Law of Identity, and now you claim that logic prohibits objectivity.
I look forward to you supporting these claims.

it is a state of self contradiction.
A liars type of paradox (x-x) = 0 =/= (x-x)

A flawed abstraction

Do you not recognise that it is actually a contradiction to assert that objective reality, at least in terms of the nature of that reality, is not possible?

Do you accept that it is logically true that either objective reality exists or that it does not, that one, and only one, of those options must be the case for everyone, for everything, irrespective of what we personally believe?
You accept that?
If so, whichever it is must be objective, in that it applies to everyone and everything.
As such, if you think objective reality does not exist then it objectively doesn’t exist for everyone and everything.
Which is a contradiction, which means that the only conclusion is that an objective reality exists.
Now, how much we can know of that objective reality is a different matter, but we at least know that one exists, at least one that pertains to the nature of the universe even if not our experience of it.

 

[Write4U]

and that is the point...
You can't have an objective reality if the logic prohibits objectivity. It is a state of self contradiction.
A liars type of paradox (x-x) = 0 =/= (x-x)

Except for the fact that the universe does not lie.

A flawed abstraction

It would be if you example were mathematically correct. But it isn't. The equation you posted cannot be found anywhere in the universe, because it does not process a value and is therefore altogether invalid.

The equation (x - x) = 0 = / = (x - x), is not even wrong. It's nonsense.

As I said before, we can come up with bad mathematics but that does not mean the universe does. In fact it never does. That's why it is deterministic......

Fantasy is fantasy and does not describe reality, which deals with "real" values and processes them in chronological order.

........etc, etc.

 

[Baldeee]

As I said before, we can come up with bad mathematics but that does not mean the universe does. In fact it never does. That's why it is deterministic......

Not so.
I agree with the sentiment regarding the universe’s adherence to correct maths, but that is not what determinism is, or why it is deterministic.
The same would be true of an indeterministic universe, after all.
The maths is slightly different at the level of indeterminism (e.g. QM) but the universe still never uses bad maths.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In mathematical terms you would be saying that 1 = 1 + something else.

nope...
you obviously do not know the distinction between "Is" and "equal to"
Compare:

X is X.

In mathematical terms you would be saying that 1 = 1 + something else.

which one do you wish to argue about now?
the equals to or the IS?

x is x is not the same as x=x
Why do we use the word "equivalence" to begin with?


try:
x is x only because it isn't y.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The equation (x - x) = 0 = / = (x - x), is not even wrong. It's nonsense.

yep ...and it describes the objectivity/subjectivity contradiction nonsense in fatalistic hard determinism perfectly... that is to say it is also nonsense...
just like the liars paradox is nonsense.

fatalistic hard determinism is only true because the starting conditions have predetermined it to be true... type nonsense...

 

[Write4U]

yep ...and it describes the objectivity/subjectivity contradiction nonsense in fatalistic hard determinism perfectly... that is to say it is also nonsense...
just like the liars paradox is nonsense.

You are completely on the wrong track. You are positing Human nonsense, because humans (as observers) have a problem with objectivity/subjectivity. We make up nonsense!

The universe cannot make up nonsense. It can only do what it must by mathematical functions, based on prevailing causal potentials.

fatalistic hard determinism is only true because the starting conditions have predetermined it to be true... type nonsense...

No, what you are talking about is human speculation, "What if" is not a term that applies to the Universe. This is a question asked by scientist in order to understand the observed universal action from different perspectives. This allows for better understanding.

The laws of the universe do not allow for universal speculation, nor the need for universal understanding. (there never was; "and the universe saw that it was good")
However, there seems to be universal law which appears to direct any movement in the direction of "greatest satisfaction" (pendulum coming to "rest" at its lowest point).

There is only "when this (deterministic cause), then that (deterministic result)"
There are no causal deterministic events which do not have a caused deterministic result, except perhaps with the exception of the BB, but I'm willing to bet that somehow the BB was a result of some kind of causality, even if that causality was a vacuum.

It's simple, universal actions have no choices except that which is mathematically allowed and determined. If something is not mathematically allowed, it cannot occur.

And the mathematical function is not nonsense! It is the way the world works and man's ability to observe, learn, understand, and make use of functional symbolic mathematics to unlock the mysteries of how it all works is man's greatest achievement.

And our greatest intellectual challenge.

 

[Write4U]

You have disputed the Law of Identity

Thank you for bringing attention to this Law.

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

And characteristics (properties) can be symbolized with mathematical values and functions.

 

[Baldeee]

nope...
you obviously do not know the distinction between "Is" and "equal to"

You are obfuscating, Quantum Quack.

x is x is not the same as x=x

Which is why I said "in mathematical terms you would be saying" - i.e. using maths as an analogy.

Now, are you actually going to address the point that you are disagreeing with the Law of Identity, or are you going to continue to obfuscate, avoid, and derail?

try:
x is x only because it isn't y.

What am I supposed to be trying?
Is "x is x only because it isn't y" an explanation of why you think the Law of Identity is false?
If so, you are claiming the Law of Identity to be false, so don't expect me to do your work for you - please actually explain why/how you think it explains how the Law of Identity is wrong?


To cut to the chase, Quantum Quack, you are doing nothing here but obfuscating.
You have avoided addressing the bulk of the points I posted from your post #604 onward, which is the height of irony given your pathetic threats within that post.
You have instead chosen to try to focus on something which you clearly do not comprehend, such that you are now in the middle of trying to refute the Law of Identity.

Good luck with that, as unless you have something more sensible to offer I will leave you to your doomed nonsense.

 

[iceaura]

. For the sake of elementary analysis one can perspectively imagine such boundaries, but the reality is that due to the inherent unity assumed to to exist in the universal whole, such distinctions on a universal scale are pointless.

Defending the supernatural assumption has brought that poster to the point of denying the existence of human beings as identifiable entities and the locations of specific behaviors not found elsewhere in the universe.

The word "crippling" is an understatement.

By compartmentalizing universal action into that of the universe vs that of humans,

I did no such thing. I simply identified the locations - in the universe, and part of the universe - of certain behaviors of the universe.
Perhaps a more neutral example would clarify: The universe makes leaves via plants. This is not a setup of universe "vs" plants, it is observed behavior of the part of the universe that is plants, behaving as it has been set up to behave by the universe as a whole.

For example, it’s not the human performing thought, it’s done by a collection of neurons that are perspectively distinct from the human whole.

If that were the case, sure. The evidence indicates otherwise, of course.

You could continue these distinctions all the way down the material chain into the quantum realm, with innumerable claims of functional responsibility.

No, you can't.
Try it and see. Substrates do not determine patterns. They do not have functional responsibility.

But why bother, since it's actually the collective action of all universal elements that determines the actions of any of it’s parts and the whole.

No, it isn't. Human decisions do not modify the minute by minute behavior of Jupiter's Red Spot, for example.

Things exist, in other words. We give them names for a reason.

 

[Capracus]

Defending the supernatural assumption has brought that poster to the point of denying the existence of human beings as identifiable entities and the locations of specific behaviors not found elsewhere in the universe.

The word "crippling" is an understatement.

From the standpoint of identifying a complete description of cause an effect in a proposed deterministic universe, a narrow focus on individual entities is pointless.

I did no such thing. I simply identified the locations - in the universe, and part of the universe - of certain behaviors of the universe.
Perhaps a more neutral example would clarify: The universe makes leaves via plants. This is not a setup of universe "vs" plants, it is observed behavior of the part of the universe that is plants, behaving as it has been set up to behave by the universe as a whole.

It would be a setup if you claimed that the universe makes leaves that exhibit behavior that defies the very determinism that defines and controls their nature. Like when you claim that the a determined universe makes choices through human behavior. Universally determined universes don’t by definition make choices.

If that were the case, sure. The evidence indicates otherwise, of course.

No, from the same kind of narrow perspective you use the describe human behavior, one could similarly describe the behavior of a set of neurons that are defined as a distinct entity. Universe vs. human vs. neuronal set.

No, you can't.
Try it and see. Substrates do not determine patterns. They do not have functional responsibility.

A distinct set of neurons in your brain don’t functionally determine your behavior?

No, it isn't. Human decisions do not modify the minute by minute behavior of Jupiter's Red Spot, for example.

At some level, of course they do. Because you don’t have the capacity to measure such an interaction, you’re going to claim that in a proposed unified universe that such unity doesn’t exist? Entangle particles separated by light years exhibit determined unified properties, how could this be? If I go take a piss in the pacific ocean, have I not momentarily changed its volume? Should we treat conditions regarding the space in our solar system any differently?

Things exist, in other words. We give them names for a reason.

Yes, things exist, in a unified deterministic universe. Giving them names doesn’t change this fact.

 

[TheFrogger]

A will that is "free" is a contradiction in terms. Something that "will" is determined, since it has been stated that it "will."

 

[Baldeee]

At some level, of course they do. Because you don’t have the capacity to measure such an interaction, you’re going to claim that in a proposed unified universe that such unity doesn’t exist? Entangle particles separated by light years exhibit determined unified properties, how could this be? If I go take a piss in the pacific ocean, have I not momentarily changed its volume? Should we treat conditions regarding the space in our solar system any differently?

Agreed, although it is true that something I do now has zero chance of affecting Jupiter’s atmosphere for at least 30 minutes or so, simply because of distance, and information not being able to travel faster than light.
The overall system involving human activity and Jupiter may also, however, have quite significant dampening processes meaning that no matter what we do we do day-to-day does not affect Jupiter’s atmosphere.
E.g. the system has no chaos such that small changes in input of the system has zero effect.
This is a matter of the specific system in question, though, not its deterministic nature per se.

Further, we did send a satellite to Jupiter, and it did crash through the atmosphere.
Who are we to claim that it had no impact on the minute by minute behaviour of Jupiter’s Red Spot?
We could, after all, send every nuclear weapon we have on the planet into the Red Spot and disrupt its behaviour.

 

[TheFrogger]

All will is determined. "I will go to the shop." The moment that decision is made (willed) it becomes determined. Just because there is no free will, does not mean we don't have a choice of how to act. We just need a different word for the difference between "free will" and "choice."

 

[geordief]

All will is determined. "I will go to the shop." The moment that decision is made (willed) it becomes determined. Just because there is no free will, does not mean we don't have a choice of how to act. We just need a different word for the difference between "free will" and "choice."

Can we wish for two things at the same time ?(like a rabbit in the headlights)

Can we be so "out of it: that we actually wish for (and so choose) nothing even when the occasion presents itself?

Is there such a concept as subjective determinism(or "randomism") as opposed to objective determinism (or"randomism")?

 

[TheFrogger]

Everything includes nothing. Should we wish it, we may choose nothing, from everything.

 

[geordief]

Everything includes nothing. Should we wish it, we may choose nothing, from everything.

Not wishing to split hairs or to argue pointlessly ,but can /should we distinguish usefully between choosing nothing and making no choice (or wish)?

Feel free to say that my comment has no real import.
(double entendre unintended)

 

[TheFrogger]

Doing nothing and not acting are the same thing.

 

[Capracus]

Agreed, although it is true that something I do now has zero chance of affecting Jupiter’s atmosphere for at least 30 minutes or so, simply because of distance, and information not being able to travel faster than light.

Just consider the example of entanglement, which involves elements of at least the size of atoms, on down to those in the quantum scale, and the fact that these unified behaviors appear to be instantaneous. Are there other varieties of unitary behaviors present in deeper levels? And when we speak of effects between distant objects, those effects don’t have to be perceptible in our experience to be actual. These notions of deterministic unity are rooted in Bohmian mechanics.

De Broglie–Bohm theory is a theory that applies primarily to the whole universe. That is, there is a single wavefunction governing the motion of all of the particles in the universe according to the guiding equation. Theoretically, the motion of one particle depends on the positions of all of the other particles in the universe. In some situations, such as in experimental systems, we can represent the system itself in terms of a de Broglie–Bohm theory in which the wavefunction of the system is obtained by conditioning on the environment of the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory#Collapse_of_the_wavefunction

The overall system involving human activity and Jupiter may also, however, have quite significant dampening processes meaning that no matter what we do we do day-to-day does not affect Jupiter’s atmosphere.
E.g. the system has no chaos such that small changes in input of the system has zero effect.
This is a matter of the specific system in question, though, not its deterministic nature per se.

Again I’m thinking more along the lines of deep scale effects, that are correspondingly not going to be perceptible in our experience. Since we are assuming a universally determined universe, every deterministic domino is expected to make its contribution to the grand performance, no matter how small the effect.

 

[TheFrogger]

Should I move, the light reaching Jupiter will reflect this movement...

 

[iceaura]

From the standpoint of identifying a complete description of cause an effect in a proposed deterministic universe, a narrow focus on individual entities is pointless.

From the standpoint of describing the locations of given entities, their behaviors, and the properties of those behaviors (such as the degrees of freedom they display), a focus on those entities is both necessary and informative.

It would be a setup if you claimed that the universe makes leaves that exhibit behavior that defies the very determinism that defines and controls their nature. Like when you claim that the a determined universe makes choices through human behavior.

The determined universe makes human choices via the human beings it has determined will make them. This isn't rocket science - how else do you imagine a universe could make a human choice?

Your defense of the supernatural assumption is having you post denials of observed physical reality, the facts in front of you - penny drop yet?

At some level, of course they do.

Not the levels involved in evaluating freedom of human will. Jupiter has no way of detecting them.

Entangle particles separated by light years exhibit determined unified properties, how could this be? If I go take a piss in the pacific ocean, have I not momentarily changed its volume? - - -

Sure. So?

A distinct set of neurons in your brain don’t functionally determine your behavior?

Nope. Many other features - such as the neural wiring throughout my body, and the enormously complicated interactions of the various chemical complexes involved - are also involved. Some of my behaviors barely involve brain neurons at all, any of them, and those scattered few only in retrospect - let alone a "distinct set" in advance - (as causality requires, btw, - you guys keep losing track of what comes first and what second).

Because you don’t have the capacity to measure such an interaction, you’re going to claim that in a proposed unified universe that such unity doesn’t exist?

I am claiming that the unity you pretend to refer to - without noticing the absurdity of your claims about it, such as backwards causality - does not imply the existence of mutual physical influences or effects in all situations or within the time span of a human life.

If you don't like the Red Spot example, pick something outside the light cone of the influence of your internal mental events - the universe is quite large, any human being's internal mental events are quite effectively isolated from most of it.

That's the situation a deterministic universe has determined. We all agreed that this discussion presupposes a deterministic universe, remember? So look at it.