Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Write4U]

Since it may be forced into a different observable state each time, this explains why a quantum particle behaves erratically."

I'm not sure about that assumption.
Does force cause erratical behavior? Is a force not a "known" causality, with calculable result?

 

[Vociferous]

Medication for an analogy? Are you thinking of an analgesic? .......

No, medication for believing 'a "mathematical function" is analogous to an "expression of will".'

Since it may be forced into a different observable state each time, this explains why a quantum particle behaves erratically.

I'm not sure about that assumption.
Does force cause erratical behavior? Is a force not a "known" causality, with calculable result?

"Forced", as in the verb meaning to compel, constrain, etc., not the noun "force". Please, learn some physics, or maybe even just English.

 

[Write4U]

No, medication for believing 'a "mathematical function" is analogous to an "expression of will".'

I'm sorry, it seems you are missing the point.

"Forced", as in the verb meaning to compel, constrain, etc., not the noun "force". Please, learn some physics, or maybe even just English.

Still on the wrong track I'm afraid.
Compel and restrain would be analogues to "will" in a general sense.
OTOH, all forces are mathematically quantifiable and also exert "will", but it is a measurable will.

 

[Vociferous]

I'm sorry, it seems you are missing the point.

Oh dear, it's that bad, huh?
If you can't grasp how "believing 'a "mathematical function" is analogous to an "expression of will"" is concerning, I doubt anything I could say could bridge that gap.

Still on the wrong track I'm afraid.
Compel and restrain would be analogues to "will" in a general sense.
OTOH, all forces are mathematically quantifiable and also exert "will", but it is a measurable will.

Compel, restrain, etc. are, here, the choices a physicist makes when setting up a QM experiment.
Apparently you heeded neither my advice on physics nor basic English.

 

[Write4U]

deleted for duplication

 

[Write4U]

Oh dear, it's that bad, huh?
If you can't grasp how "believing 'a "mathematical function" is analogous to an "expression of will"" is concerning, I doubt anything I could say could bridge that gap.

It seems I am the one making the argument that a mathematical function is analogous to an exercise of will. i.e a deterministic process, not a random process......
Trust me, one time the quantum nature of this will hit you....

Compel, restrain, etc. are, here, the choices a physicist makes when setting up a QM experiment.
Apparently you heeded neither my advice on physics nor basic English.

And you think humans can do better than what the universe can do? Try to gain some perspective.

You want to pit a 50 year human chemist against the 14.5 billion year old universe's natural chemical laboratory?

Earth alone has performed 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments during its lifetime.
And you speak of human "will" as if it is equal to universal mathematical "processes"?

 

[Baldeee]

Not flying here. You said:

​

You argued against what you claim is irrelevant. If you want to deny its relevance, you should be intellectually honest enough to refrain from arguing against (e.g. "offers nothing but randomness and no freedom") what you refuse to allow others to argue for.

I will try to refrain from offering any off-the-cuff remarks about it then.

1. From your own citation: "In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system
From this we can conclude that you allow for the existence of the the wave function and its evolution in time, but deny that it can have any relationship to observation. That something can exist in your hypothetical universe but have no observable impact upon it. That's a direct analog for free will, where, even if it doesn't impact a deterministic universe, that does not, itself, preclude its existence in one. And this seems like a pretty good test of your intellectual honesty, especially since it abides by your own demanded criteria.

I take it you understand the difference between the wave-function and the eventual observation following collapse thereof?
The wave-function can be deterministic, but if the eventual observation is not, it entirely negates the relevance of there being a wave-function that is deterministic, as its output is indeterministic, and we are only considering a universe that is deterministic.
The wave-function, deterministic or otherwise, is only relevant in an indeterministic universe.
And we are not discussing an indeterministic universe.

Further, how is anything a direct analog for free will if it has no observable impact upon the universe?
Are you claiming that free will has no direct impact?
For something to have no direct impact it is surely logically consistent with something that does not exist, would you not agree?
It becomes useless, meaningless, and of no relevance to anything whatsoever.
Is that what you consider free will to be?
Further - what mechanism would you assert for this non-impacting freewill?
What are you actually claiming it is other than the name of something imaginary?

2. No, it's your deterministic system that can only talk about the perception of smoking or war causing death, as the actuality is that neither cause always lead to that result. It's an objective fact that either can happen and not be the cause of death. You're still running with your own straw man about appearance.

Not at all.
We can talk quite happily about how macro-scale phenomena cause other macro-scale phenomena quite comfortably, because we know in doing so we are only looking at the macro.
And we know that due to our lack of knowledge of micro-scale we can talk of things causing other things in a probabilistic manner.
None of that alters the argument, and merely speaks to how our language is most often based on how things appear as opposed to how things actually are.
Here, in this discussion, some of us are looking more closely at how things actually are in a deterministic universe.
If people want to stop simply at how things appear, they can do that, but I don't have to agree with them.

Then you should readily accept that free will can exist in a deterministic system, even if it may not observably impact such a system.

And be a meaningless, pointless phenomena logically consistent with something that doesn't exist?

Since that is based directly on your own citation, anything else is clearly begging the question.

I readily accept that anyone may define freewill in a manner that begs the question of its existence or not.
That is not what I have done, however.
And it is hardly begging the question to have a hidden premise that any freewill, if it is to be considered to exist, must do so in a meaningful manner.

 

[Baldeee]

Nonsense!
He spends his entire life learning to cut his own path...as he was predetermined and evolved to do...

"cutting his own path" is certainly what he thinks and observes himself to be doing.
But before he existed, his path was already set out, and throughout his life there is no change to it.
That is what being predetermined means.
At the moment you want a predetermined path to be one that isn't actually predetermined.

The key issue for you is the term "Learning" or "learned ability". As yet you have offered no rational counter to it...

I'm still waiting for you to offer something sensible, and for you to appreciate what it means for something to be predetermined.

So let's use an example:
Let's say that at t=1, the course of the universe is predetermined.
Let's define this course as being PATH_1.

At t=100, along comes a human (X), and he learns to "cut his own path".
X dies at t=200.

From t=1 to t=100, what course is the universe on?
During t=100 and t=200, what course is the universe (including X) on?
After t=200, what course do you think the universe is on?

Please answer, and please do so honestly, as it will highlight whether you understand what it means for something to be predetermined.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"cutting his own path" is certainly what he thinks and observes himself to be doing.
But before he existed, his path was already set out, and throughout his life there is no change to it.
That is what being predetermined means.
At the moment you want a predetermined path to be one that isn't actually predetermined.

It is not what predetermined means... total nonsense argument.
All you are arguing is that it is predetermined because it is predetermined because that is what it means...according to you but offer no logic to support your meaning.
Thus begging the question

So let's use an example:
Let's say that at t=1, the course of the universe is predetermined.
Let's define this course as being PATH_1.

At t=100, along comes a human (X), and he learns to "cut his own path".
X dies at t=200.

From t=1 to t=100, what course is the universe on?
During t=100 and t=200, what course is the universe (including X) on?
After t=200, what course do you think the universe is on?

Please answer, and please do so honestly, as it will highlight whether you understand what it means for something to be predetermined.

Each t= n is t=1(infinity)
t= 1(infinity) at all times...
so how many paths does the universe go?

there is no path_1 there is only path_1(infinity)

====
Seriously and honestly,
Perhaps you can explain why it is impossible that the universe has predetermined that humans learn to predetermine for themselves?
One could just as easily argue using your narrow use of logic that the single path you refer to leads to humans learning to create their own paths - aka self (pre)determining ...

 

[Baldeee]

It is not what predetermined means... total nonsense argument.

It really is what predetermined means, Quantum Quack.
It means to be determined in advance of it happening.
To determine something means to completely establish it.
Therefore as soon as something is predetermined, it is what will happen when it is predetermined to happen.
If there is any ability to change it from happening then it is not predetermined.
That is what it means for something to be predetermined.

All you are arguing is that it is predetermined because it is predetermined because that is what it means...according to you but offer no logic to support your meaning.
Thus begging the question

I have previously been assuming you knew what it meant for something to be predetermined.
You clearly don't.

Each t= n is t=1(infinity)
t= 1(infinity) at all times...
so how many paths does the universe go?

there is no path_1 there is only path_1(infinity)

From the moment the initial conditions were set, a deterministic system follows just one path.
Being a system, and being defined in this discussion as being deterministic, as soon as the initial conditions were set, that universe followed one path.
Just one.
No possibility of change.
Because the initial conditions of a deterministic system defines the path it takes, everything that subsequently happens is predetermined from those initial conditions - i.e. determined before the specific causes to a specific event arise.

If we have a deterministic system that adds one to the previous number each second, the entire output of the system at any given time can be established from the initial conditions.
The entire path of the system is predetermined from those initial conditions, irrespective of how long it runs.
If the initial condition is x=0, then after 1 second it will be x=1; after 100 seconds it will be x=100; after a million seconds it will be x=1,000,000.
No possibility of it being anything different.
One path for any deterministic system, defined by the initial conditions and the governing laws.
The events on that path are thus predetermined by those initial conditions and the governing laws.

Seriously and honestly,
Perhaps you can explain why it is impossible that the universe has predetermined that humans learn to predetermine for themselves?

Seriously and honestly, once you understand what "predetermine" actually means, you will (or at least should) understand why your question is meaningless.
"Predetermine for themselves"?
As part of a deterministic system, the entire path of that system, and the state of every component within it, is predetermined from the initial conditions and the governing laws.
The path of the human was predetermined (established precisely and inviolably) from the outset, long before the human arrived on the scene.

One could just as easily argue using your narrow use of logic that the single path you refer to leads to humans learning to create their own paths - aka self (pre)determining ...

If you want to butcher logic and change the meaning of "valid" to encompass "invalid", or you want to redefine words such that "deterministic" also means "indeterministic" then perhaps you might have a chance.
Otherwise I look forward to your efforts in this regard.

 

[TheFrogger]

The Universe? But time is within each of us. For example, one may travel from one to two by the following path:

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



"Back" to the future indeed...

 

[Quantum Quack]

From the moment the initial conditions were set, a deterministic system follows just one path.
Being a system, and being defined in this discussion as being deterministic, as soon as the initial conditions were set, that universe followed one path.
Just one.
No possibility of change.
Because the initial conditions of a deterministic system defines the path it takes, everything that subsequently happens is predetermined from those initial conditions - i.e. determined before the specific causes to a specific event arise.

what you fail to understand is that those starting conditions were infinite from the get go... There were always infinite number of pathways...always...
To declare a finite pathway exists, is merely human cherry picking.

Seriously and honestly, once you understand what "predetermine" actually means, you will (or at least should) understand why your question is meaningless.
"Predetermine for themselves"?
As part of a deterministic system, the entire path of that system, and the state of every component within it, is predetermined from the initial conditions and the governing laws.
The path of the human was predetermined (established precisely and inviolably) from the outset, long before the human arrived on the scene.

so therefore self-(pre)determining humans were totally predetermined to evolve by those infinite starting conditions.
Why would you think other wise?
The evidence of learned self determination is all around you...

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you want to butcher logic and change the meaning of "valid" to encompass "invalid", or you want to redefine words such that "deterministic" also means "indeterministic" then perhaps you might have a chance.
Otherwise I look forward to your efforts in this regard.

There is no need to include indeterminism in this discussion. Predictability does not forbid self determination.
The Andy the Android example clearly demonstrates the ability of a predetermined machine to learn how to self determine regardless of those infinite starting conditions.
Those theoretical starting conditions are relevant only for Andy to have the ability to learn to self determine.

Gravity says "Stay in bed",
Will.i.am says "Nope" and defies gravity and gets out of bed.

See also Tower of Babel story for other acts of defiance and bad structural engineering...lol

 

[Baldeee]

what you fail to understand is that those starting conditions were infinite from the get go... There were always infinite number of pathways...always...
To declare a finite pathway exists, is merely human cherry picking.

While the number of possible starting conditions might have been infinite, each deterministic universe only has one set of starting conditions.
I.e. universe A might have condition 1, universe B might have condition 2 etc.
I’m sure even you understand that?

Each set of starting conditions for a determinist system equates to one path, and as such each deterministic universe, once begun, is locked into a singular path, defined by those starting conditions and the prevailing laws.
Thus the universe, in my example, starts on path PATH_1, and continues on it precisely before, during, and after the arrival of Andy / humans.

so therefore self-(pre)determining humans were totally predetermined to evolve by those infinite starting conditions.
Why would you think other wise?

Because there was only one set of starting conditions, one initial state, not an infinite number.

The evidence of learned self determination is all around you...

Sure, if by “self determination” you are simply referring to a process whose path was predetermined long before the person arrived on the scene.
I.e. a cog in a watch, no more able to break out of what was predetermined than anything else in the deterministic universe.
But you’re not.
Or at least your arguments you use to support “self determination” are very much at odds with this notion.

There is no need to include indeterminism in this discussion. Predictability does not forbid self determination.

You are the one including indeterminism, and hopefully by pointing that out to you you will recognise the flaw in your argument as it pertains to a deterministic universe.
You want self determination to be something that goes against the set path that the deterministic universe is on, and has been on since the start of time.
Something whose introduction into the deterministic universe alters, and allows to be altered, the course of events.
That is indeterminism, in that you have the initial conditions yet can end up with many alternative paths.
That is what you are introducing, or at least looking to introduce, and which I am trying to haul you back from doing.

The Andy the Android example clearly demonstrates the ability of a predetermined machine to learn how to self determine regardless of those infinite starting conditions.

And Andy is just a cog in the watch, rotating according to the whims of the entire watch.
Andy is not able to divert the universe from the path it has been on from the moment it began.
Everything he does was predetermined from the outset, defined by those starting conditions.

Those theoretical starting conditions are relevant only for Andy to have the ability to learn to self determine.

While Andy might have such a subjective view, reality of the deterministic universe is that everything he does was predetermined from the outset.
He has the subjective view that he is “self-determining”, but he is just a cog in a watch.

Gravity says "Stay in bed",
Will.i.am says "Nope" and defies gravity and gets out of bed.

If you intend this to be an example of a reality in the abstracted deterministic universe, then other than the ridiculous notion of being able to “defy gravity”, how is it an example of anything other than a cog in a watch acting how it was predetermined to act from the start of time?

 

[Michael 345]

If you intend this to be an example of a reality in the abstracted deterministic universe, then other than the ridiculous notion of being able to “defy gravity”, how is it an example of anything other than a cog in a watch acting how it was predetermined to act from the start of time?

Unfortunately some predetermined cogs are predetermined to be on a path less than optimistic for understanding and even less of a predetermined chance of ever doing so

Having seen such behaviour very early in my predetermined interactions I am so pleased my predetermined actions used Iggy

 

[Quantum Quack]

While the number of possible starting conditions might have been infinite, each deterministic universe only has one set of starting conditions.
I.e. universe A might have condition 1, universe B might have condition 2 etc.
I’m sure even you understand that?

no, I am sorry I do not... are we now talking about multiple universes?
Please explain as it appears you have not thought your answer out properly.
The human body is a universe unto itself too I guess...

Each set of starting conditions for a determinist system equates to one path, and as such each deterministic universe, once begun, is locked into a singular path, defined by those starting conditions and the prevailing laws.
Thus the universe, in my example, starts on path PATH_1, and continues on it precisely before, during, and after the arrival of Andy / humans.

and that path is for Andy and humans to learn how to self determine... why is that not possible?
Be specific and explain why it is impossible...
Why are you arbitrarily limiting deterministic evolution?

Because there was only one set of starting conditions, one initial state, not an infinite number.

one initial state that happens to be infinite...in it's causation and infinite in the effects it may generate...

Sure, if by “self determination” you are simply referring to a process whose path was predetermined long before the person arrived on the scene.
I.e. a cog in a watch, no more able to break out of what was predetermined than anything else in the deterministic universe.
But you’re not.
Or at least your arguments you use to support “self determination” are very much at odds with this notion.

see above...

You are the one including indeterminism, and hopefully by pointing that out to you you will recognise the flaw in your argument as it pertains to a deterministic universe.
You want self determination to be something that goes against the set path that the deterministic universe is on, and has been on since the start of time.

Not at all... the so called path you speak of merely leads to the evolution of humans that can self determine... really very simple...

And Andy is just a cog in the watch, rotating according to the whims of the entire watch.
Andy is not able to divert the universe from the path it has been on from the moment it began.
Everything he does was predetermined from the outset, defined by those starting conditions.

nope, Andy was predetermined from those so called starting conditions to learn how to self determine... really, it is quite simple.

While Andy might have such a subjective view, reality of the deterministic universe is that everything he does was predetermined from the outset.
He has the subjective view that he is “self-determining”, but he is just a cog in a watch.

No , he has learned to serve himself and not just the universe...so he has gained a degree of freedom from those determining factors. no indeterminism necessary.

If you intend this to be an example of a reality in the abstracted deterministic universe, then other than the ridiculous notion of being able to “defy gravity”, how is it an example of anything other than a cog in a watch acting how it was predetermined to act from the start of time?

well I would like to see a cog defy gravity for one and make the decision to do so, for two...lol

 

[Quantum Quack]

Baldeee
Cogs do not have the capacity to learn...
If it did then it may learn how to defy gravity and get out of bed.(watch)..like a human can... lol

Unfortunately some predetermined cogs are predetermined to be on a path less than optimistic for understanding and even less of a predetermined chance of ever doing so

Having seen such behaviour very early in my predetermined interactions I am so pleased my predetermined actions used Iggy

Trolls that put other's on iggy are foolish, if you ask me..lol....
A sniping troll perhaps?
I am also so glad that you have me on iggy that way I can post all I like about your comments and know you wont read them but every one else can. lol

 

[Baldeee]

no, I am sorry I do not... are we now talking about multiple universes?
Please explain as it appears you have not thought your answer out properly.

The answer is thought out just fine, thanks.
Sometimes your inability to understand something really is just your inability to understand.

You claimed that the “starting conditions were infinite from the get go”, which is incorrect.
Each deterministic universe has a singular set of conditions at any given time, including when/if the universe starts.
The only way one could meaningfully refer to there being an infinite number of pathways for the universe if one is talking about there being an infinite number of such universes, each with their own unique starting conditions.
Otherwise the path of the universe, the path of any deterministic system, is set in stone from the moment of those initial conditions.
Those initial conditions define and determine every subsequent state of the system.
If the system is deterministic then those subsequent states can not be changed.
One path.

and that path is for Andy and humans to learn how to self determine... why is that not possible?
Be specific and explain why it is impossible...

As stated previously, if your view of what it means to “self-determine” is to simply be a cog in a watch, then it is possible if that is what the deterministic system has predetermined.
But that is not what you claim “self-determination” to be.
You have envisioned it being some means to alter the path that the system is on, somehow the ability to overcome the path that the initial conditions demand of the system.

one initial state that happens to be infinite...in it's causation and infinite in the effects it may generate...

The components involved may be infinite, but there is just one initial state.
And each state (of the whole) that follows is set in stone, no matter how many components or cogs are within the system.

Not at all... the so called path you speak of merely leads to the evolution of humans that can self determine... really very simple...

It leads to “self-determination” simply being a process, a cog in a watch, with no means of altering anything about the singular path that the system is on.
If that is what you mean by “self-determination” then we are in agreement, and your “co-determination” is hereby declared moot and irrelevant.
But somehow I don’t think this is what you mean by “self-determination”.

No , he has learned to serve himself and not just the universe...so he has gained a degree of freedom from those determining factors. no indeterminism necessary.

So despite there being a singular path before Andy came onto the scene, despite Andy following that same singular path while he exists, and despite after he has gone the universe will continue that same singular path, a path that was set out from those initial conditions, and has not, can not, be altered in any way, you still see Andy as gaining “a degree of freedom from those determining factors” when he has never once strayed from the path that was set out by those determining factors?

So let’s take a deterministic system as an example.
Starting with initial condition x=0, and with each subsequent state being the addition of 1 to x, using this as an analogy, how exactly do you see Andy being able to self-determine?
How would his self-determination be manifest in this deterministic system?
Please be specific and explain, clearly and unambiguously if you can.

well I would like to see a cog defy gravity for one and make the decision to do so, for two...lol

Again, how was yours an example of a cog in a watch acting other than how it was predetermined to do so from the start of time?

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee
Cogs do not have the capacity to learn...
If it did then it may learn how to defy gravity and get out of bed.(watch)..like a human can... lol

Please try to remain relevant, Quantum Quack.
The issue if not about learning (which even computers can do, and rather effectively) but what you claim is being learnt: the ability to overcome the path the deterministic system has predetermined for you from the outset.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Each deterministic universe has a singular set of conditions at any given time, including when/if the universe starts.

ahh so you are talking about multiple universes now... ok...silly much...

The issue if not about learning (which even computers can do, and rather effectively) but what you claim is being learnt: the ability to overcome the path the deterministic system has predetermined for you from the outset.

very good .. you finally have an understanding of it all.
yes .... learning to self determine is the key.
Andy learns to self determine and so do humans...
Why is that not possible?
Be specific and explain why it is impossible...
Why are you arbitrarily limiting deterministic evolution?
It is obviously not as limited as you wish it to be... yes?