Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Quantum Quack]

The thing about universal dominos is that every one of them is made up of more dominos that tell their stories as well. When you have access to all of those stories, you have a complete history of everything, and that complete history delineates a predictable determined future.

I got this statement from a fortune cookie, so it’s got to be true.

and the freedom gained by learning how to self determine ones future is also predictable...

 

[Michael 345]

The thing about universal dominos is that every one of them is made up of more dominos that tell their stories as well. When you have access to all of those stories, you have a complete history of everything, and that complete history delineates a predictable determined future.

I got this statement from a fortune cookie, so it’s got to be true.

Hence I mentioned the branching rows going back

Thanks for your input

delineates a predictable determined future.

And the random radiation decay?

Determined? Only random to us? Or also random to the Universe because no cause known or even knowable?

 

[Baldeee]

The exact comment was: "The question is not what kind of freedom but what kind of determinism. Classical domain determinism doesn't really speak to mental or quantum states."
Sorry for presuming you'd read/link the second sentence to the "kind" in the first.

There is only one kind of determinism, irrespective of the domains one sees it applicable to.
That is why the second sentence has no bearing on your implication of "kind of determinism".

Some people do seem to assume determinism is universal, across all domains. If you don't consider unlimited and domain-restricted determinism a difference of kind, meh.

They're not different different kinds of determinism, only different domains of applicability.
Whatever you see as deterministic has that same deterministic quality.
Red is still red even if you only paint one thing red rather than everything.
So I guess "meh" it is.

So you've presumed unlimited determinism, across all possible domains? That would seem to be begging the question. Yawn.

It is where the debate between compatibilists and incompatibilists begin.
Since there is no agreement even at that level (there are more than a few compatibilists among us) it is where we have begun.
Feel free to participate if you're not too tired.

 

[Baldeee]

And the random radiation decay?

Determined? Only random to us? Or also random to the Universe because no cause known or even knowable?

We don't know.
Either it is inherently random or it is due to a processes that are beyond our visibility and understanding at present and thus only appears random.

 

[Write4U]

So the question becomes "Is popping a proton random? in the not even nature (the Universe) "knows" which and when and why any particular proton will pop?"

Why should the popping proton not have a specific cause? The only thing we do not know is "when", there is no reason why we should not know "how".

Even a probabilistic event yields a deterministic result. That we cannot predict the time this will happen is due to our lack of knowledge of all the protons in the object. Any uncertainty is always due to lack of "complete" knowledge.

 

[Michael 345]

Any uncertainty is always due to lack of "complete" knowledge.

Well that is the main point you have correctly pick up

You do have all the information and double tripled checked and unable to find any thing you have missed. True, as always we don't know what we don't know Why should the popping proton not have a specificcause? we can also ask why should it?

I guess the guessing game continues

 

[Write4U]

Yes, I wonder how "instability" (of certain atoms) can be known ahead of time.
According to chaos theory, it would take very little to effect a future "change"

Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.

This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

The problem is that humans need to know the immediate future for survival.
This is Bohm's "Implicate order". The imaginary projection of what is mathematically determined to happen in the future. The Potential future. A prediction, a vision, an environmental implication. It allows for planning when sufficient knowledge is present.

The universe doesn't care about tomorrow. It functions only in the present.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is only one kind of determinism, irrespective of the domains one sees it applicable to.

Can you link and quote any credible sources that might support your limited causality position?
Or is it just you calling on your own authority in the form of dogma?

That states there is only one kind of determinism and an arbitrarily limited one at that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, I wonder how "instability" (of certain atoms) can be known ahead of time.
According to chaos theory, it would take very little to effect a future "change" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

The problem is that humans need to know the immediate future for survival.
This is Bohm's "Implicate order". The imaginary projection of what is mathematically determined to happen in the future. The Potential future. A prediction, a vision, an environmental implication. It allows for planning when sufficient knowledge is present.

The universe doesn't care about tomorrow. It functions only in the present.

Why are you excluding humans and other life from the universe?
Life has an interest in the future ( survival, flight or fight etc). The universe does indeed care about the future...as demonstrated by the life that the universe has evolved.
To exclude life from the issue of this thread is in fact the main part of the issue...

 

[Write4U]

Why are you excluding humans and other life from the universe?

Simple, I am not.

Life has an interest in the future ( survival, flight or fight etc). The universe does indeed care about the future...as demonstrated by the life that the universe has evolved.
To exclude life from the issue of this thread is in fact the main part of the issue...

I would suggest you read my post more carefully. I did not exclude anything from anything.

I drew a comparison between sentient beings having the necessity and ability to anticipate the future, and the universe which functions only in the present without knowledge of the future at all, except for a mathematical Implicate (a potential) of that which is about to become expressed in reality.

If you want to make a case that the universe is sentient or has need to know the future, you'll have to come up with some valid arguments why this is a necessary condition for the continued existence of the universe.

Always remember that in order to know the future we must have complete knowledge of all extant values and functions at play up to the present and leading into the next chronological instant of existence, i.e. every quantum event involved in the unfolding of enfolded potentials. Only the universe itself has all that information at that moment.

That's where for humans probability comes into the picture. Still a mathematical discipline.

 

[Michael 345]

Write4U

This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I would have thought there would be no place for approximation in physics. Sure in human mathematical calculations, but in reality physics precision down to the atom

Only the universe itself has all that information at that moment.

And that is the crux of my thinking. Does the Universe know which atom proton will pop next?

Of course even if the Universe does not know which proton will pop next as soon as the unexpected happens a new future is written. So very smoothly it is not noticeable and us Minions put it down to being predetermined. That is how smoothly the new future is slipped in

 

[Write4U]

And that is the crux of my thinking. Does the Universe know which atom proton will pop next?

It doesn't need to know the answer. It needs to function in a deterministic way, that's all .

IMO, this deterministic way utilizes mathematical relative values and functions, which humans have been able decypher to some good degree. Our mathematical "constants" are based on universal natural values and functions.

 

[Michael 345]

It doesn't need to know the answer.

Perhaps a poor choice of words with the anthropomorphic connotations

Now I am thinking like you noted - it does not need to know - it works with what it has

And always what it has is NOW

Us Minions hassle is how we got to NOW and DID IT SLIP A RANDOM click IN changing what WE thought was going to happen?

 

[TheFrogger]

Michael345, what of the following?

If, "now" is the only moment that exists, how in the following diagram is it possible to traverse from "one" to "two?"

2-----------
-----------/
---------/
-------/
-----/
---/
-/
----------1

"Z" or "N" is the diagram, and it clearly shows a continuous timeline.

I imagine, Michael345, that you would argue that the former is simply a series of "nows," which I can see could be true.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Write4U

I drew a comparison between sentient beings having the necessity and ability to anticipate the future, and the universe which functions only in the present with

And in doing so imply that the sentient beings are somehow separate from the universe...
They are not. They are very much a part of that universe.
The universe as you call it, is inclusive of sentient beings.

 

[Write4U]

Us Minions hassle is how we got to NOW and DID IT SLIP A RANDOM click IN changing what WE thought was going to happen?

That's why humans are able to think in terms of "probability", we're not sure when, but most likely in the near future.
Again, the universe has no such speculative demands placed on it. It functions mercilessly as mathematical determinism demands. You'll never hear the universe utter; "oooops....made a mistake...."

The universe as you call it, is inclusive of sentient beings.

Of course. Humans are the product of universal evolutionary processes.

But Humans as living organisms need to be fed and must use family planning to create a probable satisfactory future.
The Universe does not need to plan, it has no expectations of any kind.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Universe does not need to plan, it has no expectations of any kind.

I know this is going to sound silly and trite but:
I have plans and expectations and I am a part of this universe, so at least I can state that part of the universe does have plans and expectations.
Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[Write4U]

I know this is going to sound silly and trite but:
I have plans and expectations and I am a part of this universe, so at least I can state that part of the universe does have plans and expectations.
Do you see what I am getting at?

Sure. But ask yourself, what impact would the extinction of every living thing on earth have on the Milky Way, or even the solar system. I think you'd be listening in vain to the Universe crying out with grief over the demise of humans or any living thing for that matter. How many species have perished without a peep from the universe.....

I suspect this falls under David Bohm's "hidden variables" theory, which predicts that many variables are possible at local levels, but do not necessarily have influence over large spaces.

In physics, hidden-variable theories are held by some physicists who argue that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system. An example would be that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism.

In another version, the hidden-variables are inaccessible to us and thus in principle not detectable.[1] The existence of indeterminacy for some measurements is a characteristic of prevalent interpretations of quantum mechanics; moreover, bounds for indeterminacy can be expressed in a quantitative form by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory


Humans can kill every living thing on earth, but that would have no perceptible impact on the greater Milky Way.

 

[Baldeee]

Can you link and quote any credible sources that might support your limited causality position?
Or is it just you calling on your own authority in the form of dogma?

I’m at a loss as to what you mean by “limited causality position”.
Do you mean one that isn’t limited to what it is?

It is pretty much just a definition: the notion that every state or effect is fully determined by preceding causes.
To put it another way, it is the notion that specified state S0 necessitates the subsequent state S1.
You can find this definition pretty much anywhere that the issue of freewill v determinism is discussed.

As such, if one, for discussion purposes, defines a universe as deterministic, this is what is meant.
And either what you are proposing is deterministic, or it is not.
If you think that this determinism is “limited” because it doesn’t lead to the conclusion you want to reach, then perhaps the fault is simply your inability to accept that the conclusion you want isn’t reachable when one assumes determinism.

If I am unhappy that 2+2 =/= 5 when I clearly want it to, is this due to the “limited” version of addition that I am dogmatically adhering to?

You think there is more than one type of determinism.
Fair enough, provide details of a different determinism that is different yet still adheres to the definition.
Or at least provide a different definition that you think is acceptable.
Otherwise, why is it that everyone else here seems to be able to discuss the term as understood in the rough definition above, yet you can’t?
Is it wilful ignorance and dishonesty, or are you genuinely that ignorant?

 

[Michael 345]

You'll never hear the universe utter; "oooops....made a mistake...."

Posted few days ago in Jokes but fits here