The illusion of free will

[Sarkus]

Yes maybe, but they would still claim it to be mere chance, until they did discovered the mechanism.
and in the mean time we end up with a lot of dead rats!

If their statistics showed it to be a relevant discovery then it would be a discovery. The mechanism behind it would be considered "unknown" until such time as theories were presented, tested, peer-reviewed etc.
The discovery would be the observation. A single observation would likely not be considered statistically relevant except where current theories suggest that any such observation should be impossible.
Since in your example "mere chance" suggests that it would occur given enough time and enough dead rats, then a single observation is not going to be deemed significant.
When they think there are enough observations to say that yes, there is something going on that "mere chance" can not explain (ever heard of the 5-sigma standard) then it is deemed a discovery. But to understand the mechanism would likely require more analysis for sure.

 

[Sarkus]

Tell me Sarkus using the same rational as you have would you consider the reality of "life" to be an illusion of cause and effect?
That you and I are not really living, that the sense of being alive is an illusion generated by cause and effects.
It is the same issue is it not?

Its not the same issue, as being alive does not violate the same underlying premises.
Life is an emergent property (e.g. Depending on how you define life, it could be that certain lumps of matter display the characteristics of self sustaining, replicating etc) but none of the properties are contrary to the underlying premises. Therefore life is not illusory, it is merely a description of what is going on.
Freewill is illusory in as much as what we perceive it to be, and what you and MR (and most of the world when talking casually) define it as, requires it to act contrary to the underlying premises (as argued).
This is why it is deemed illusory... because it appears to act in a way that the premises do not allow.

 

[Quantum Quack]

(unless you see a flaw in the argument that does not stem from misunderstanding?)

to be honest , it is not a matter of misunderstanding that concerns me as you appear to understand your model very well. On the face o fit it stands to reason and is a good model!
However there are other developments in science that are not published and are not the subject of discussion as yet, that would alter yours and others understanding dramatically.

For example QM's quantum entanglement was first discussed in 1935 and has been attracting incredibly strong attention since then. Yet today very little has been published. One can not presume that there has been no [little] development of this field of discovery. For as you have said "science would be all over it like a rash."
70 odd years of R&D amounts to a lot of time, if you know what I mean.
And it is the mechanism that affords quantum Entanglement that is also important to the debate about freewill IMO. and this is not open to discussion at this time.
However I will repeat the claim that "nothing" is our greatest influence and it is nothing we rely upon to grant us freewill. [Nothing can not be considered as a cause or effect]

 

[Quantum Quack]

A Question to sort of help lead :
What commonly used number in mathematics is the most influential number?
or
What number is essential to determine the real and consistent value of all other numbers?
What number [ironically] is essential for probability sciences to make sense?

However I will repeat the claim that "nothing" is our greatest influence and it is nothing we rely upon to grant us freewill. [Nothing can not be considered as a cause or effect]

 

[Sarkus]

However there are other developments in science that are not published and are not the subject of discussion as yet, that would alter yours and others understanding dramatically.

And when they come to the fore, if it can be shown that the premises are false, then the argument will become unsound. That is the way of things.

For example QM's quantum entanglement was first discussed in 1935 and has been attracting incredibly strong attention since then. Yet today very little has been published. One can not presume that there has been no [little] development of this field of discovery. For as you have said "science would be all over it like a rash."
70 odd years of R&D amounts to a lot of time, if you know what I mean.
And it is the mechanism that affords quantum Entanglement that is also important to the debate about freewill IMO. and this is not open to discussion at this time.

I don't think it has much to say about freewill, to be honest, at least not with regard my argument: the entanglement is merely "spooky action at a distance"... The cause and effect are merely separated such that a change in one causes the simultaneous change in the other. So I don't see how this alters anything.
But I understand your point that understandings constantly change. My arguments stem from what I currently understand to be the case, and if that understanding changes then so will the argument. As said, this is the way of science.

However I will repeat the claim that "nothing" is our greatest influence and it is nothing we rely upon to grant us freewill. [Nothing can not be considered as a cause or effect]

You keep saying it but have shown nothing to support it other than bare assertion.

 

[Sarkus]

A Question to sort of help lead :
What commonly used number in mathematics is the most influential number?
or
What number is essential to determine the real and consistent value of all other numbers?
What number [ironically] is essential for probability sciences to make sense?

Presumably you are referring to zero. Yet there is a vast difference between the number zero and "nothing".

 

[Yazata]

If I may be so bold, your position is almost: "well, if it is an illusion, in the strict sense that what we perceive is not what is going on, but we have no means of perceiving it any other way than we do... then so what?"
Is this correct as a summary?

No. I'm arguing that free-will isn't an illusion. I think that what we call 'free will' in our real lives, is what's really happening.

Put another way, I think that our intuitions of having free-will are most likely entirely consistent with the as-yet little-understood underlying neurophysiology that's presumably generating it.

(I'm arguing for the 'compatibilist' position in the free-will/determinism debate.)

 

[Magical Realist]

But again, your questions, much like MR's, show that you continue to fail to understand the basic aspects of the argument, yet you continue to raise the same flawed objections to it despite repeatedly being told of your misunderstandings.

What a coincidence. Everyone who Sarkus argues with is just too stupid to understand his convoluted overpremised arguments. What are the odds of that? As if it couldn't have anything to do with the constant shifting of definitions and positions Sarkus goes thru just to save his conclusions. Before you know it QQ he will be ad homing YOU as a troll just for exposing him as the slippery prevaricator he is. That's how you win debates I guess. Just start calling your opponent a troll until they give up trying to debate altogether. But hey, since freewill is an illusion the poor bloke can simply do nothing else. Why should we expect more from a mere automaton?

 

[Quantum Quack]

And when they come to the fore, if it can be shown that the premises are false, then the argument will become unsound. That is the way of things.
I don't think it has much to say about freewill, to be honest, at least not with regard my argument: the entanglement is merely "spooky action at a distance"... The cause and effect are merely separated such that a change in one causes the simultaneous change in the other. So I don't see how this alters anything.
But I understand your point that understandings constantly change. My arguments stem from what I currently understand to be the case, and if that understanding changes then so will the argument. As said, this is the way of science.
You keep saying it but have shown nothing to support it other than bare assertion.

It is actually very simple and far from just a mere assertion. It is just something that people rarely consider as important. Especially if it makes their position redundant and in some way makes the major breakthrough that they themselves are greedy for.
In the case of mathematics zero is clearly the most important and most influential number for with out it mathematics would be useless. Equivalency is only proven as true by the use of zero. 1+1 =2 because 2- (1+1) = 0

If A = B, and B=C then A=C routine only stands as valid because
A-A = 0,
A-B = 0,
A-C = 0
So the value of zero could be considered as the most influential value in mathematics yet that value represents nothing, empty set, zilch, zero, void, unconsciousness, oblivion.

Examples:
You can only move your arm because there is vacant space for you to move it to.
The future is only available as a future and not a "past future", because it does not materially exist. [ nothing ]
(For determinism to hold entirely true the past and the future MUST be materially present [existent] and thank goodness they aren't)
The only reason you can read this typing is because there is space between and with in the characters. [ white space is essential and so is the space waiting to be filled]
Next time you go to the opera and realize there are no vacant seats available and have to stand for a couple of hours you might remember this discussion.. eh?

Do you still consider it to be a bare assertion? If so why when we are surrounded by evidence of nothing all the time.
"Self determination therefore freewill is only available because we have a universe with lots of nothing to play in"

...and Darth Vader says "I do not want that planet to be there, I want to see nothing where that planet is"

Therefore because "nothing" can not be a determining cause or a determining effect the premise you are employing as with most determinist's is utterly flawed .

 

[Quantum Quack]

Before you know it QQ he will be ad homing YOU as a troll just for exposing him as the slippery prevaricator he is

I am not sure whether to take this as a compliment or not... let us see...hmmm vat dis de truth ov de matter?

 

[Quantum Quack]

For example QM's quantum entanglement was first discussed in 1935 and has been attracting incredibly strong attention since then. Yet today very little has been published. One can not presume that there has been no [little] development of this field of discovery. For as you have said "science would be all over it like a rash."
70 odd years of R&D amounts to a lot of time, if you know what I mean.
And it is the mechanism that affords quantum Entanglement that is also important to the debate about freewill IMO. and this is not open to discussion at this time.

I don't think it has much to say about freewill, to be honest, at least not with regard my argument: the entanglement is merely "spooky action at a distance"... The cause and effect are merely separated such that a change in one causes the simultaneous change in the other. So I don't see how this alters anything.
But I understand your point that understandings constantly change. My arguments stem from what I currently understand to be the case, and if that understanding changes then so will the argument. As said, this is the way of science.

The issue with entanglement is that this " spooky action at a distance " has significant ramifications to the understanding of how this universe functions. It opens the door so to speak to the fact that distance is a pseudo "illusion generated by the presence of matter" and that the universe is essentially a duality between zero dimension and 3 dimensions. IMO
In 1935 this proposition was utterly staggering especially to the likes of R Feynman (1918-1988) and co. where by suddenly, Euclidean space was not longer the only space. The ramifications of such a revelation are not to be underestimated.
What it did do though was emphasize the nature of zero or zero dimensional space, and what it potentially means to our understanding of the universe.
Until the "Reality" of "nothing" is able to be appreciated it is virtually impossible to discuss properly. (which is why I brought it up)
using the logic mentioned earlier:
every"thing" - every"thing" = [____]
thus every"thing" has value relative to [____]

To exercise a choice we are acting upon nothing, filling it with something (value) or removing something from it [the choice] and because it is indeed "nothing" that we are acting upon, we are free to choose as we please [ self determination - freewill ]

edit:
Another way, is to consider the question:

Where is the center of an infinite volume? [Archimedes I believe, though I stand to be corrected, dwelt on this question 200 odd years bc] when considering the nature of "God".

The answer can only be that: "The center of an infinite volume is any where you choose it to be" and this leads on to the notion of freewill self determination and just how free it is.

In saying so freewill is NOT an illusion but a reality that can be supported by logic, ration-al and even science re: Quantum Entanglement's evidence of zero dimensional space

 

[Sarkus]

It is actually very simple and far from just a mere assertion. It is just something that people rarely consider as important. Especially if it makes their position redundant and in some way makes the major breakthrough that they themselves are greedy for.
In the case of mathematics zero is clearly the most important and most influential number for with out it mathematics would be useless. Equivalency is only proven as true by the use of zero. 1+1 =2 because 2- (1+1) =

Zero is not "nothing".
Zero is a number. "Nothing" is an empty set.

It is quite easy to show that they are conceptually different:

What is the set of all dogs that are also cats? Answer: { }
What is the set of values of X such that X + 1 = 1? Answer: {0}

Examples:
You can only move your arm because there is vacant space for you to move it to.

There is no vacant space. The reason we can move are arm is because we can exert sufficient energy to overcome the resistance of whatever is occupying the space adjacent to the arm's current position. Even a vacuum is not empty of everything.

The future is only available as a future and not a "past future", because it does not materially exist. [ nothing ]
(For determinism to hold entirely true the past and the future MUST be materially present [existent] and thank goodness they aren't)

Determinism does not require past or future to exist in order for it to be a valid concept, any more than indeterminism, probabilism etc.

The only reason you can read this typing is because there is space between and with in the characters. [ white space is essential and so is the space waiting to be filled]

There is still no "nothing".
You are confusing the concepts of numbers with sets.

Next time you go to the opera and realize there are no vacant seats available and have to stand for a couple of hours you might remember this discussion.. eh?

I'll certainly have a chuckle about how you confused the number zero with the empty set.

Do you still consider it to be a bare assertion? If so why when we are surrounded by evidence of nothing all the time.
"Self determination therefore freewill is only available because we have a universe with lots of nothing to play in"

I now consider it to be bare assertion founded on a confusion between two concepts. I am not surrounded by nothing. I am surrounded by positive numbers of things.

So, please be clear: when you refer to "nothing" are you referring to the number zero, or to the empty set?

...and Darth Vader says "I do not want that planet to be there, I want to see nothing where that planet is"

Therefore because "nothing" can not be a determining cause or a determining effect the premise you are employing as with most determinist's is utterly flawed .

Pease show how "nothing" can be a cause or an effect.
Additionally you need to distinguish between actual "nothing" being a cause and/or effect and the "concept of nothing" being such a cause or effect.
Because, as well as confusing zero and "nothing" you are also confusing their existence as concepts (which can be part of the causal chains) with their reality (in as much as they don't exist).

So yes, bare assertions, stemming from misunderstandings on your part.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Zero is not "nothing".
Zero is a number. "Nothing" is an empty set.

It is quite easy to show that they are conceptually different:

What is the set of all dogs that are also cats? Answer: { }
What is the set of values of X such that X + 1 = 1? Answer: {0}

There is no vacant space. The reason we can move are arm is because we can exert sufficient energy to overcome the resistance of whatever is occupying the space adjacent to the arm's current position. Even a vacuum is not empty of everything.
Determinism does not require past or future to exist in order for it to be a valid concept, any more than indeterminism, probabilism etc.
There is still no "nothing".
You are confusing the concepts of numbers with sets.
I'll certainly have a chuckle about how you confused the number zero with the empty set.
I now consider it to be bare assertion founded on a confusion between two concepts. I am not surrounded by nothing. I am surrounded by positive numbers of things.

So, please be clear: when you refer to "nothing" are you referring to the number zero, or to the empty set?
Please show how "nothing" can be a cause or an effect.
Additionally you need to distinguish between actual "nothing" being a cause and/or effect and the "concept of nothing" being such a cause or effect.
Because, as well as confusing zero and "nothing" you are also confusing their existence as concepts (which can be part of the causal chains) with their reality (in as much as they don't exist).

So yes, bare assertions, stemming from misunderstandings on your part.

eh.. what ever...
Compare:
my statement:

Therefore because "nothing" can not be a determining cause or a determining effect the premise you are employing as with most determinist's is utterly flawed .

with yours:

Pease show how "nothing" can be a cause or an effect.

Pease explain your obvious mistake...and how that mistake effects your retort... Would you care to have another stab at it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So do you feel that the proof of equivalency using zero means that zero, nothing , zilch, void, unconsciousness is of no relevance to the topic at hand?
Do you feel that the fact that "everything" only achieves a determinable value because of everything being relative to zero, zilch, nothingness, void, unconsciousness is inconsequential to this discussion on cause and effect determining choice?

Do you understand that A = B only because A - B = 0 ?

So, please be clear: when you refer to "nothing" are you referring to the number zero, or to the empty set?

it doesn't matter... you choose what ever you wish...the point remains the same... [think : value not semantics]
I might add that I really do not care whether you agree or not as there are other persons reading this thread, whom may benefit from the alternative view offered.
and on that note I shall leave you to it...

 

[Sarkus]

Compare:
my statement:

with yours:

Pease explain your obvious mistake...and how that mistake effects your retort... Would you care to have another stab at it?

Because (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that because you think "nothing" can be a cause, that because determinism doesn't allow it to be then determinism must be incorrect.
So I am asking you to show how "nothing" can indeed be a cause.
So, if this is what you are arguing (and merely repeating verbatim won't change my interpretation of it... for that you'll have to provide clarification) there was no mistake in my retort, and there is thus no need to have another stab at it.
If that was not what you were arguing, please proved clarification as to what your argument actually is.

 

[Sarkus]

So do you feel that the proof of equivalency using zero means that zero, nothing , zilch, void, unconsciousness is of no relevance to the topic at hand?

I think it means that you have to be more clear in what you are saying, as your examples don't provide support for what you think they do when you confuse the two concepts.
[qupte]Do you feel that the fact that "everything" only achieves a determinable value because of everything being relative to zero, zilch, nothingness, void, unconsciousness is inconsequential to this discussion on cause and effect determining choice?[/quote]I think that it is irrelevant because the only "nothingness" we have is a concept, and that it is not part of reality. The concept is not itself nothingness. It is a concept of nothingness.

For "zero", this is a relative value and again is just a concept. It has no existence as anything other than a concept.
It may be mathematically significant, but it only exists as a concept, and is thus as much a cause and/or effect as any other number.
So are you going to show me how zero and nothingness can in and of themselves be causes?

Do you understand that A = B only because A - B = 0 ?

Yes, thanks.

it doesn't matter... you choose what ever you wish...the point remains the same... [think : value not semantics]

And an invalid point remains an invalid point.
An irrelevant point remains irrelevant.

I might add that I really do not care whether you agree or not as there are other persons reading this thread, whom may benefit from the alternative view offered.
and on that note I shall leave you to it...

Ironic that what you leave me with is the worthwhile content of your post: zero.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Because (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that because you think "nothing" can be a cause, that because determinism doesn't allow it to be then determinism must be incorrect.
So I am asking you to show how "nothing" can indeed be a cause.
So, if this is what you are arguing (and merely repeating verbatim won't change my interpretation of it... for that you'll have to provide clarification) there was no mistake in my retort, and there is thus no need to have another stab at it.
If that was not what you were arguing, please proved clarification as to what your argument actually is.

Where do I state that nothing can be a cause?
My whole point is that nothing CAN NOT be a cause or effect... but you are reading it very differently.
You seem to do this sort of thing with many other posters and topics, and I am really puzzled as to why you do it.

I am almost sure it is not intentional although it is very easy to come to that conclusion due to the frustration it generates.

Are you able to acknowledge and admit a mistake?

try:
"You can move your arm because there is nothing there to stop you"

 

[Quantum Quack]

To be honest , it is not a matter of misunderstanding that concerns me as you appear to understand your model very well. On the face o fit it stands to reason and is a good model!
However there are other developments in science that are not published and are not the subject of discussion as yet, that would alter yours and others understanding dramatically.

For example QM's quantum entanglement was first discussed in 1935 and has been attracting incredibly strong attention since then. Yet today very little has been published. One can not presume that there has been no [little] development of this field of discovery. For as you have said "science would be all over it like a rash."
70 odd years of R&D amounts to a lot of time, if you know what I mean.
And it is the mechanism that affords quantum Entanglement that is also important to the debate about freewill IMO. and this is not open to discussion at this time.
However I will repeat the claim that "nothing" is our greatest influence and it is nothing we rely upon to grant us freewill. [Nothing can not be considered as a cause or effect]

and

It is actually very simple and far from just a mere assertion. It is just something that people rarely consider as important. Especially if it makes their position redundant and in some way makes the major breakthrough that they themselves are greedy for.
In the case of mathematics zero is clearly the most important and most influential number for with out it mathematics would be useless. Equivalency is only proven as true by the use of zero. 1+1 =2 because 2- (1+1) = 0

If A = B, and B=C then A=C routine only stands as valid because
A-A = 0,
A-B = 0,
A-C = 0
So the value of zero could be considered as the most influential value in mathematics yet that value represents nothing, empty set, zilch, zero, void, unconsciousness, oblivion.

Examples:
You can only move your arm because there is vacant space for you to move it to.
The future is only available as a future and not a "past future", because it does not materially exist. [ nothing ]
(For determinism to hold entirely true the past and the future MUST be materially present [existent] and thank goodness they aren't)
The only reason you can read this typing is because there is space between and with in the characters. [ white space is essential and so is the space waiting to be filled]
Next time you go to the opera and realize there are no vacant seats available and have to stand for a couple of hours you might remember this discussion.. eh?

Do you still consider it to be a bare assertion? If so why when we are surrounded by evidence of nothing all the time.
"Self determination therefore freewill is only available because we have a universe with lots of nothing to play in"

...and Darth Vader says "I do not want that planet to be there, I want to see nothing where that planet is"

Therefore because "nothing" can not be a determining cause or a determining effect the premise you are employing as with most determinist's is utterly flawed .

and

The issue with entanglement is that this " spooky action at a distance " has significant ramifications to the understanding of how this universe functions. It opens the door so to speak to the fact that distance is a pseudo "illusion generated by the presence of matter" and that the universe is essentially a duality between zero dimension and 3 dimensions. IMO
In 1935 this proposition was utterly staggering especially to the likes of R Feynman (1918-1988) and co. where by suddenly, Euclidean space was not longer the only space. The ramifications of such a revelation are not to be underestimated.
What it did do though was emphasize the nature of zero or zero dimensional space, and what it potentially means to our understanding of the universe.
Until the "Reality" of "nothing" is able to be appreciated it is virtually impossible to discuss properly. (which is why I brought it up)
using the logic mentioned earlier:
every"thing" - every"thing" = [____]
thus every"thing" has value relative to [____]

To exercise a choice we are acting upon nothing, filling it with something (value) or removing something from it [the choice] and because it is indeed "nothing" that we are acting upon, we are free to choose as we please [ self determination - freewill ]

edit:
Another way, is to consider the question:

Where is the center of an infinite volume? [Archimedes I believe, though I stand to be corrected, dwelt on this question 200 odd years bc] when considering the nature of "God".

The answer can only be that: "The center of an infinite volume is any where you choose it to be" and this leads on to the notion of freewill self determination and just how free it is.

In saying so freewill is NOT an illusion but a reality that can be supported by logic, ration-al and even science re: Quantum Entanglement's evidence of zero dimensional space

and

So do you feel that the proof of equivalency using zero means that zero, nothing , zilch, void, unconsciousness is of no relevance to the topic at hand?
Do you feel that the fact that "everything" only achieves a determinable value because of everything being relative to zero, zilch, nothingness, void, unconsciousness is inconsequential to this discussion on cause and effect determining choice?

Do you understand that A = B only because A - B = 0 ?

So, please be clear: when you refer to "nothing" are you referring to the number zero, or to the empty set?

it doesn't matter... you choose what ever you wish...the point remains the same... [think : value not semantics]
I might add that I really do not care whether you agree or not as there are other persons reading this thread, whom may benefit from the alternative view offered.
and on that note I shall leave you to it...

and

Where do I state that nothing can be a cause?
My whole point is that nothing CAN NOT be a cause or effect... but you are reading it very differently.
You seem to do this sort of thing with many other posters and topics, and I am really puzzled as to why you do it.

I am almost sure it is not intentional although it is very easy to come to that conclusion due to the frustration it generates.

try:
"You can move your arm because there is nothing there to stop you"

 

[Quantum Quack]

deleted/edited : possibly impossible to convey at this juncture.

 

[Sarkus]

Where do I state that nothing can be a cause?
My whole point is that nothing CAN NOT be a cause or effect... but you are reading it very differently.

Then I'm confused as to why you are arguing the point: you claim it is not a cause, and I don't think it exists to be able to be a cause. So both of us agree that it is not in and of itself a cause.
So what's the issue?
Is it that you think "nothing" exists or that "zero" exists to be able to be causes?

As to any misunderstanding, you do realise that statements such as "Nothing can not be considered as a cause or effect" can be read to have the same as "everything can be considered as a cause or effect".
Further, "Therefore because "nothing" can not be a determining cause or a determining effect the premise you are employing as with most determinist's is utterly flawed ." is also ambiguous as to meaning, because if you are arguing from an indeterminist standpoint then it may be that you were looking to discredit determinism by claiming that, while being a cause, it is not possible to be a "determining cause".

Furthermore, you are constantly trying to extol how "nothing" and "zero" have such an effect on us, that it would take a cryptographer to understand that this apparently means that they do not have an effect. Yet you continually talk about them having an effect, and being so important.

So yes, I misunderstood you.
And for that I apologise.

But it makes no difference to my position, as for that you would need to show that "nothing" exists to be able to even be a cause under my argument.
If you can show that "it exists and is not a cause", or "it does not exist but is a cause", then you might be on to something.
Because if, as is my position, that "nothingness" does not actually exist, then it can not be a cause, nor an effect, other than as a concept.