Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Baldeee]

What???
It is the only field of "knowledge" which can begin to form an equation which "in reality" separates determinism from free will.

The rest is mental masturbation. Wooooo....!

Yet if none of what you post is relevant to the actual discussion that is going on...?

 

[Michael 345]

But it is irrelevant as we are discussing a universe that is governed by determinism.

Agree

All the falling dominoes fall down to determine you will view a optical illusion

 

[Baldeee]

You're coming in very late on an analogy that has nothing to do with how we process color.

Actually it has everything to do with it with regards the question that has been asked in this thread.
It speaks to the difference between subjective appearance and objective reality.
Things might appear indeterministic to us (subjective) but due to the definition of the universe being discussed, reality (objective) is that it is deterministic.

Your analogy for indeterministic superposition is what is irrelevant, because not only have you come in late, you are not really even engaging with the question that has actually been asked.
I get that you see the answer to the question asked as being a simple, and possibly rather trivial “no”, so try explaining that to the compatibilists who actually disagree with you.

 

[Write4U]

Yet if none of what you post is relevant to the actual discussion that is going on...?

Is Free Will possible in a Deterministic universe?
AFAIK, no. And I believe that is consensus theory. Mine is "hard determinism"....

If you believe differently it's up to you to explain your "alternate" perspective, no?

 

[Write4U]

Agree

All the falling dominoes fall down to determine you will view a optical illusion

Yep, Determinism as defined. Moreover, you are unable to change the optical illusion by FW.

Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism) or randomness. Determinism is often contrasted with free will.

There are your dominoes.

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below.

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

OTOH

Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived.[3]Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate.

The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also its negation to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.

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

This I would expect from a purely mathematical Universe where mathematical functions determine each chronological instant within a given paradigm......

 

[Baldeee]

Is Free Will possible in a Deterministic universe?
AFAIK, no. And I believe that is consensus theory. Mine is "hard determinism"....

If you believe differently it's up to you to explain your "alternate" perspective, no?

I share the same view with regard freewill and determinism.
As explained and argued for across many pages of many threads.

 

[Write4U]

I share the same view with regard freewill and determinism.
As explained and argued for across many pages of many threads.

Why and what are we arguing about then? Isn't it about Compatibilism and Incompatibilism?
......

 

[Baldeee]

Why and what are we arguing about then?......

without wishing to rehash, it was claimed (by someone else) that maths proved that (in a deterministic universe) it was not possible to predict perfectly even if one had perfect knowledge.
I disagreed.
Your comments on the matter were only seeming to consider the human capability for prediction.
But it is neither here nor there now, as I don’t wish to go over it again.

 

[Write4U]

Your comments on the matter were only seeming to consider the human capability for prediction and without wishing to rehash, it was claimed (by someone else) that maths proved that (in a deterministic universe) it was not possible to predict perfectly even if one had perfect knowledge.

Right, I stated that a long time ago. I believe I provided a link to a scientific site.

That pertained to the universe and not to any human predictive abilities, which I also addressed as being moot and not possible from my perspective.

It seems to me that anyone who asks about free will, even if it is theoretical, is talking about humans. I did not start this. I merely offered my observation from a mathematical universe perspective.

Does anyone here think the Universe has Free Will or are we haggling about if Free Will is theoretically possible ? If so, for who would this be practical?

 

[iceaura]

Solutions can be found.

Only in very limited and seldom encountered circumtances. Not in general. In general, they can only be approximated in various ways.
That is mathematically proven. It's not going to go away.

Consider the obvious, there is no freedom in a deterministic system

That is not obvious. That is the supernatural assumption, and it is not granted here.

The point is that contrary to your assertion, math doesn’t prohibit the postulation of anything.

? None of my assertions resemble that goofyness in the least. I am quite aware that there are no limits on what you guys can and will postulate.

The predictability in a determined system is contingent on the degree of knowledge of that system.

Yep (once your language has been corrected - predictability is not "in" a system, the "degree" of knowledge is not involved, etc - but never fear, we can usually figure it out).
And the ability to calculate its future states, from that knowledge.
Both of those are, in theory, approximate only.
That was proved long ago, mathematically, and the various other arguments and approaches have long pedigrees as well. The obvious point that knowledge exists in a subsystem as an abstraction - that the knower and the known are two different entities, neither of which can completely incorporate the other - and can therefore never be complete for the inclusive system, would be another demonstration. But let's stick to the math for the time being - it's harder to obscure with vague terminology.

With complete knowledge of that system, the time and position of any part of the set will allow for the determination of the position of any other part of the set.

No, it won't. Not in general. That's been disproven, mathematically.

So, again, "if one has perfect knowledge...."

One could build a perpetual motion machine, or perform other supernatural deeds. etc. So?
We have excluded the supernatural, by assumption and premise and agreement.

As Capracus put it: "the issue isn’t what we can predict, it’s what could be ideally predicted given complete knowledge and the ability to wield it."

Yes. And the math is in - you can't have complete knowledge, and if you could you would be unable to predict perfectly. It's mathematically impossible, just as squaring the circle via compass and straightedge is impossible.

Which is irrelevant here, of course - prediction of the future makes no difference to nonsupernatural freedom of will. You can, you can't, doesn't matter at all. Anyone who keeps bringing up this irrelevancy of prediction is arguing from the supernatural assumption - which they should stop making, asap.

 

[iceaura]

It speaks to the difference between subjective appearance and objective reality.
Things might appear indeterministic to us (subjective) but due to the definition of the universe being discussed, reality (objective) is that it is deterministic.

Indeterminacy is not at issue - a deterministic universe has been assumed, and nothing appears to be indeterminate to anyone involved.
Your digression into subjective vs objective is another issue resting on your inability to discard the supernatural assumption - all the reality being addressed here under the nonsupernatural assumption is objective.

without wishing to rehash, it was claimed (by someone else) that maths proved that (in a deterministic universe) it was not possible to predict perfectly even if one had perfect knowledge.
I disagreed.

You are "disagreeing" with a mathematical proof.
Good luck with that.

 

[Baldeee]

Only in very limited and seldom encountered circumtances.

If a solution can not be found then it is a mathematical model of something not possible in reality.
If it can occur in reality then it can be mathematically calculated, to any degree of accuracy.
That degree is only limited by time and computing power, neither of which are limited in the hypothetical being considered.

Not in general. In general, they can only be approximated in various ways.
That is mathematically proven. It's not going to go away.

No, they can be calculated to any degree of accuracy required.

Yes. And the math is in - you can't have complete knowledge, and if you could you would be unable to predict perfectly. It's mathematically impossible, just as squaring the circle via compass and straightedge is impossible.

Which is irrelevant here, of course - prediction of the future makes no difference to nonsupernatural freedom of will. You can, you can't, doesn't matter at all. Anyone who keeps bringing up this irrelevancy of prediction is arguing from the supernatural assumption - which they should stop making, asap.

Sure, we'll gloss over your unsupported claim if you stop making it?
And you are the one who raised it.
Now that you've been called on it and can't support it, suddenly it's not relevant and it's everyone else who is raising it

Indeterminacy is not at issue - a deterministic universe has been assumed, and nothing appears to be indeterminate to anyone involved.

I know full well that indeterminacy is not an issue, and that we have assumed a deterministic universe, but it seems that others were not aware, and have been trying to turn the question to simply one of "does freewill exist", and in doing so raise the issue of indeterminacy.
As part of his comments he raised an analogy on indeterminacy (a red/green superposition that is composed only of red etc), so it is quite correct to address this.
Maybe if you followed the chain of discussion that you are responding to, rather than knee-jerk reacting, you would have realised that.
And maybe address your criticism to the one who is actually trying to claim that it is relevant.

Your digression into subjective vs objective is another issue resting on your inability to discard the supernatural assumption - all the reality being addressed here under the nonsupernatural assumption is objective.

Once again, no one has ever disputed the process that one calls "freewill", and that is indeed objective, and everything that follows is indeed objective.
But we disagree on whether it is free or not.
You want to claim it is free, and your notion of freedom is certainly part and parcel of that process, just like if I defined a chair as freedom then my diningroom furniture contains freedom.
I'm more interested in whether it really can be considered free in any non-trivial way.
Nothing you have offered has thus far convinced you are onto anything other than a trivial notion of freedom found in bricks, in orbiting Teslas and the ilk.

You are "disagreeing" with a mathematical proof.
Good luck with that.

A proof that you have been unable to provide, and what you have provided you have misunderstood the implications of.
So no, I am not disagreeing with a mathematical proof, but with you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If a solution can not be found then it is a mathematical model of something not possible in reality.
If it can occur in reality then it can be mathematically calculated, to any degree of accuracy.
That degree is only limited by time and computing power, neither of which are limited in the hypothetical being considered.

you really believe this?
Haven you never read Heisenberg?

 

[Baldeee]

you really believe this?
Haven you never read Heisenberg?

Once again you show your ignorance of what is actually being discussed.
Congratulations on simply reconfirming this, if anyone was ever in doubt.
Heisenberg is about the impossibility of perfect knowledge due to the indeterminism in our universe.
The claim being made is about having perfect knowledge in a deterministic universe, and the maths somehow proving that, despite this, perfect predictability is impossible.
Can you spot the difference between what you have raised and what was actually being discussed, and thus the irrelevance of your comment?

Do try to keep up.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Heisenberg is about the impossibility of perfect knowledge due to the indeterminism in our universe.

You'll need to do better than that.
Perfect knowledge is simply impossible . Period.

 

[Write4U]

I hope this may explain the quantum processes in the intelligent brain and why this may be a duplication of certain universal processes, which result in an indeterminate future, until the event occurs and deterministically fixes the state of the system.

This gets esoteric, but the fact that heavyweigths like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have actually developed a very interesting analogy between a "quasi-intelligent" Universal "thought" process and an "intelligent" Biological "thought" process.

In view of respective "information processing abilities" at quantum scale in the universe and the brain, I am fascinated by the potential implications of the evolutionary processes for such a beautiful mathematical function.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Once again you show your ignorance of what is actually being discussed.
Congratulations on simply reconfirming this, if anyone was ever in doubt.
Heisenberg is about the impossibility of perfect knowledge due to the indeterminism in our universe.
The claim being made is about having perfect knowledge in a deterministic universe, and the maths somehow proving that, despite this, perfect predictability is impossible.
Can you spot the difference between what you have raised and what was actually being discussed, and thus the irrelevance of your comment?

Do try to keep up.

there is also, beyond the HUP, the light info delay issue. The nearest star for example, to Sols is an average of 4.3 LYs, Alpha Centuari A. That is 4.3 years old info. So please tell us all how is it possible for perfect knoweldge to be possible if every star in the sky is info so many years old...
Any idea what the universe is actually doing right now is purely qualified speculation.

 

[Baldeee]

You'll need to do better than that.
Perfect knowledge is simply impossible . Period.

there is also, beyond the HUP, the light info delay issue. The nearest star for example, to Sols is an average of 4.3 LYs, Alpha Centuari A. That is 4.3 years old info. So please tell us all how is it possible for perfect knoweldge to be possible if every star in the sky is info so many years old...
Any idea what the universe is actually doing right now is purely qualified speculation.

You compound your ignorance of what is being discussed by doubling-down on that ignorance.
The issue is IF one has perfect knowledge...
You do understand the difference between such a hypothetical as that and what is possible in practice?
Are you even competent enough to able to examine hypotheticals?
'Cos you're not displaying it at the moment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You compound your ignorance of what is being discussed by doubling-down on that ignorance.
The issue is IF one has perfect knowledge...
You do understand the difference between such a hypothetical as that and what is possible in practice?
Are you even competent enough to able to examine hypotheticals?
'Cos you're not displaying it at the moment.

So if the impossible was possible.... we could all fly and eat unicorns for breakfast...
Do you understand that philosophy is about reality not about fantasy ?

 

[Capracus]

Not sure how you obtained that from my post but no way do I think Universe is sentient

This bit.

If the Universe was sentient it should be able to make the end prediction, but I would even doubtful about that

Copenhagen-like interpretations accept the empirical indeterminism of QM as a full description of the underlying reality. Look it up for yourself. Quantum indeterminacy is an empirical fact, while assumptions of determinism are not. If you can't accept that, that's your problem. But take solace in the fact that you're in good company.

No reasonable professional physicists would claim that any interpretation of QM represents a full complete understanding of our fundamental reality. There is no empirical demonstration of the functional dynamics assumed in the behavior of the wave function for any interpretation. The only thing empirically demonstrable from QM is that probabilistic assessments yield practical descriptions of quantum states.

Assuming determinism where only empirical indeterminism presents itself is anthropocentric. I know it's hard to fathom, but it's not telepathy. All the information we can receive "through our senses", via empirical experiment, from QM only points to indeterminism. Deterministic interpretations must do so by making empirically unjustified assumptions. Otherwise, you could show me evidence of QM determinism. "If randomness ... is assumed to be a product of insufficient perception" you've said it yourself. It's only an assumption.

How can indeterminism be empirically demonstrated by QM when it doesn’t, or can’t address the underlying dynamics that appear to express it. If you can’t explain it’s expression, then how can you assume it to be an intrinsic quality? It would be just like assuming indeterminacy in a classical system that you have incomplete access to it’s functional dynamics. Determinism is an observable and established fact in the macro existence, and it has at least an equal chance of existing in the micro realms, so I think it’s reasonable to favor it over the alternative at this point.

No one's argued an exception to anything but you begging the question by presuming determinism as a premise.

When you occupy a reality that’s known to be deterministic, and you claim that your actions are not, you are claiming an exemption from that condition.

That is not obvious. That is the supernatural assumption, and it is not granted here.

It’s a defined quality of a determined system. Deal with it.

? None of my assertions resemble that goofyness in the least. I am quite aware that there are no limits on what you guys can and will postulate.

That you can exercise freedom where it definitionally doesn’t exist. That’s not goofy?

Yep (once your language has been corrected - predictability is not "in" a system, the "degree" of knowledge is not involved, etc - but never fear, we can usually figure it out).
And the ability to calculate its future states, from that knowledge.
Both of those are, in theory, approximate only.
That was proved long ago, mathematically, and the various other arguments and approaches have long pedigrees as well. The obvious point that knowledge exists in a subsystem as an abstraction - that the knower and the known are two different entities, neither of which can completely incorporate the other - and can therefore never be complete for the inclusive system, would be another demonstration. But let's stick to the math for the time being - it's harder to obscure with vague terminology.

You just can’t seem to grasp what a determined system permits. If you know all of the elements, and how they functionally relate in such a system, then you can accurately plot the past and future of any momentary state of that system. Is this something that can be realistically done in a a practical sense? No. Is it something that can reasonably be mathematically or philosophically postulated? Of course it is.

With complete knowledge of that system, the time and position of any part of the set will allow for the determination of the position of any other part of the set.

No, it won't. Not in general. That's been disproven, mathematically.

Whats’s your mathematical proof showing the flaw in this statement?