The illusion of free will

[Quantum Quack]

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.

Sarkus you only need to click the "Reply" to post button and open a blank form and you can observe the reality and the importance of "nothing".

is the lack of content [the blankness of the form] existent or non-existent?
Does the blankness of the form "determine" anything?
Or does the blankness of the form "inspire" something with in you?
(...and I do understand that from your "something-ness" position, the above is very difficult to take on board. Humans, especially of the modern era, are constantly fixated on "things" and to actually observe and acknowledge "nothing" is anathema to that position.)

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus you only need to click the "Reply" to post button and open a blank form and you can observe the reality and the importance of "nothing".

is the lack of content [the blankness of the form] existent or non-existent?
Does the blankness of the form "determine" anything?
Or does the blankness of the form "inspire" something with in you?

There is not "nothing" when I open up a blank form. There is a form. The blankness is a relative state that we conceptualise, by comparing what we expect with what we observe. But there is not "nothing". There is the light from the screen, the graphics of the form etc.
So no, "nothing" does not exist. You are always talking about something, even if our language stresses what is not there (e.g. we talk about a blank form, an empty room etc), and it is the something that is left that is able to cause, and how observation of what is left compares to what we might expect etc.

But there is no "nothing".

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is not "nothing" when I open up a blank form. There is a form. The blankness is a relative state that we conceptualise, by comparing what we expect with what we observe. But there is not "nothing". There is the light from the screen, the graphics of the form etc.
So no, "nothing" does not exist. You are always talking about something, even if our language stresses what is not there (e.g. we talk about a blank form, an empty room etc), and it is the something that is left that is able to cause, and how observation of what is left compares to what we might expect etc.

But there is no "nothing".

well you definitely put something on that blank form, thus filling in what you conceptualize as nothing...
so did nothing inspire or determine?
Is there anything external to you that is stopping your fingers from typing?
Answer: there is nothing preventing your fingers from moving.
You have the freedom to type what you choose to type because there is nothing preventing you from doing so.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If I give you a blank page of A4 for you to write upon:
Is there some thing on the page that prevents you from using it in the normal way?
or is there nothing [ blank ] on the page that prevents you from using it normally?
"There IS nothing on the page to prevent you using it as you would normally use it."

Compare:
Is nothing an illusion, a reality or merely a conceptualization?
Is free will an illusion, a reality or merely a conceptualization?

...and given that the universe is non-existent at any t= 0 (duration = 0)

Is the universe's something-ness an illusion, a reality or merely a universal conceptualization?

 

[Sarkus]

well you definitely put something on that blank form, thus filling in what you conceptualize as nothing...
so did nothing inspire or determine?

Something inspired me. Whether it was determined I don't know... I don't adhere to strict determinism.

Is there anything external to you that is stopping your fingers from typing?
Answer: there is nothing preventing your fingers from moving.
You have the freedom to type what you choose to type because there is nothing preventing you from doing so.

There is plenty preventing me from typing what I don't type. You'll note that I type specific words... not a jumble of letters and characters. So there is something preventing me from typing anything other than what I end up typing.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Something inspired me. Whether it was determined I don't know... I don't adhere to strict determinism.
There is plenty preventing me from typing what I don't type. You'll note that I type specific words... not a jumble of letters and characters. So there is something preventing me from typing anything other than what I end up typing.

but you chose to type what you typed yes?

That is to say the blank form did not determine what you typed...

 

[Sarkus]

If I give you a blank page of A4 for you to write upon:
Is there some thing on the page that prevents you from using it in the normal way?
or is there nothing [ blank ] on the page that prevents you from using it normally?
"There IS nothing on the page to prevent you using it as you would normally use it."

Yet it is not that "nothing" that determines my actions, but what is actually there. There is no "nothing"... there is only what is there.

Compare:
Is nothing an illusion, a reality or merely a conceptualization?
Is free will an illusion, a reality or merely a conceptualization?

Everything is at least a conceptualisation if we are able to talk about it.
But freewill exists as a reailty, but only as an illusion of what it appears to be.

I have always stressed that I consider illusions to be real... in as much as there is something real going on. But it is illusory in as much as what is going on is different to how we perceive it.
A mirage exists (it is a pattern of light waves). The water that it is perceived as is an illusion (the reality is not water, but a distortion of light waves). So the illusion is still real.

...and given that the universe is non-existent at any t= 0 (duration = 0)

Unwarranted assertion. Please provide some support that this is the case.

Is the universe's something-ness an illusion, a reality or merely a universal conceptualization?

If it is a conceptualisation then there needs to be something to conceptualise it. Therefore if it is a conceptualisation then something must necessarily exist (the concept can not exist in isolation). If something necessarily exists, then is what is perceived to exist actually how it happens, or is it illusory? I don't know. But in as far as our understanding goes of what does happen, we can say that we exist, even at t=0. And as far as we understand (and define) the term, we are also real.

 

[Sarkus]

but you chose to type what you typed yes?

It certainly has that appearance, yes.

That is to say the blank form did not determine what you typed...

It possibly did. Not consciously, though.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yet it is not that "nothing" that determines my actions, but what is actually there. There is no "nothing"... there is only what is there.

this is my point... nothing can not determine anything.
The future is nothing yet to be filled with something... the "nothing future" does not determine what fills it....yet that "nothing-future" certainly appears to have reality even if an illusion.
The blankness of the form you use to post a comment IS that non-existent future to be realized once you type what you type and then subsequently post what you post.
Eventually you may come to the conclusion that "nothing" poses a significant paradox and I will contend that it is that very paradox that guarantees freewill as a reality and not an illusion [ No-more an illusion than the universe already is ....that is..]

 

[Sarkus]

this is my point... nothing can not determine anything.

Nor can anything else that does not exist.

The future is nothing yet to be filled with something... the "nothing future" does not determine what fills it....yet that "nothing-future" certainly appears to have reality even if an illusion.
The blankness of the form you use to post a comment IS that non-existent future to be realized once you type what you type and then subsequently post what you post.

The issue is not that there is a "nothing" to be filled in, but with what it is filled in with.

Eventually you may come to the conclusion that "nothing" poses a significant paradox and I will contend that it is that very paradox that guarantees freewill as a reality and not an illusion [ No-more an illusion than the universe already is ....that is..]

Given that I do not consider "nothing" to exist (other than as a concept), and given that non-existent things can have not be a cause nor an effect, "nothing" is, as I mentioned quite some while ago, merely a red-herring, unless you can show how "nothing" somehow exists? So as things stand I won't be concluding that "nothing" is a paradox, significant or otherwise.

Furthermore, and not something I want to even start addressing until you can show the validity of the claim that "nothing" is a significant paradox, you still have to show how this claimed paradox "guarantees freewill as a reality and not an illusion". Because at the moment all you have said is "paradox... therefore freewill is not an illusion!". Sound like a familiar argument in this thread?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nor can anything else that does not exist.
The issue is not that there is a "nothing" to be filled in, but with what it is filled in with.
Given that I do not consider "nothing" to exist (other than as a concept), and given that non-existent things can have not be a cause nor an effect, "nothing" is, as I mentioned quite some while ago, merely a red-herring, unless you can show how "nothing" somehow exists? So as things stand I won't be concluding that "nothing" is a paradox, significant or otherwise.

Furthermore, and not something I want to even start addressing until you can show the validity of the claim that "nothing" is a significant paradox, you still have to show how this claimed paradox "guarantees freewill as a reality and not an illusion". Because at the moment all you have said is "paradox... therefore freewill is not an illusion!". Sound like a familiar argument in this thread?

perhaps someone else would like to comment on the issue of how "nothing" can destroy the determinist position that, (like cause and effect) freewill is an illusion.. [ chuckle ]
Clearly the reality of nothingness is essential to the ability to move anything, think anything etc after all if the space whether mental or physical is already taken up thought or action would be impossible.

As far as showing how freewill is actually guaranteed and how nothing is a significant paradox, there appears no point laboring with someone who can not even grasp the simplistic notion that if space is taken up with something that prevents it from being moved into, movement into that space is impossible...

 

[Baldeee]

^ I'll have a go.
Been following the discussion, but first post in it.
Question: how does the issue of nothing destroy the deterministic position?
Answer: it doesn't.
Like Sarkus, I don't think "nothing" exists.
So it's as much a cause or effect as Russell‘s celestial teapot.

How did I do?

 

[Quantum Quack]

^ I'll have a go.
Been following the discussion, but first post in it.
Question: how does the issue of nothing destroy the deterministic position?
Answer: it doesn't.
Like Sarkus, I don't think "nothing" exists.
So it's as much a cause or effect as Russell‘s celestial teapot.

How did I do?

pretty good I reckon!.. you wrote not a lot about nothing for sure....
think what you like... that's the point...doesn't matter how good the reasoning is, think what you like..
of course nothing doesn't exist and in a universe that is comprised of something that makes it pretty damn pre- exnihilo doesn't it..
Nothing CAN NOT be a cause or effect... where did you read me saying that it was ?

 

[Quantum Quack]

example:
A man is standing in an empty room. the room is comprised of a space that offers no restriction to the mans movements.

1. How important is that space to the mans future movements? [ all movement is of course "arrowed" to the future]
2. Is the empty space around him a cause or an effect or neither?
3. How much influence does that empty space have on the mans decisions to move?

What do you conclude from the above inquiry?
===
A builder is looking at a vacant block of land to build a dwelling upon.

1. How important is that vacant space to the mans future building? [ all building is of course "arrowed" to the future]
2. Is the vacant space a cause or an effect or neither?
3. How much influence does that vacant land have on the mans decisions to build a dwelling?

What do you conclude from the above inquiry?

and so on...

 

[Baldeee]

Clearly the reality of nothingness is essential to the ability to move anything, think anything etc after all if the space whether mental or physical is already taken up thought or action would be impossible.

Ah, thats where our thinking certainly differs.
Thinks can move where other things already exist.
This is fairly well evidenced by fluid dynamics.
Aircraft can only fly because they are flying through air.
Fish can only swim because there is water around them.
Your notion of what constitutes "nothing" I find rather naive.

As far as showing how freewill is actually guaranteed and how nothing is a significant paradox, there appears no point laboring with someone who can not even grasp the simplistic notion that if space is taken up with something that prevents it from being moved into, movement is impossible...

That is a triviality.
If something is there to prevent you then it must prevent you.
Otherwise it does not prevent you.

What you are not doing is actually showing that you could move where you perceive there to be nothing that would otherwise stop you.
You are assuming that you could.
You are assuming that unless you are consciously aware of something that would stop you then you are free to move into that space.
Why are you assuming this?
Is not the argument here that freewill is an illusion?
So could not your perception be fooling you?
Otherwise seems you are merely begging the question.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ah, thats where our thinking certainly differs.
Thinks can move where other things already exist.
This is fairly well evidenced by fluid dynamics.
Aircraft can only fly because they are flying through air.
Fish can only swim because there is water around them.
Your notion of what constitutes "nothing" I find rather naive.
That is a triviality.
If something is there to prevent you then it must prevent you.
Otherwise it does not prevent you.

What you are not doing is actually showing that you could move where you perceive there to be nothing that would otherwise stop you.
You are assuming that you could.
You are assuming that unless you are consciously aware of something that would stop you then you are free to move into that space.
Why are you assuming this?
Is not the argument here that freewill is an illusion?
So could not your perception be fooling you?
Otherwise seems you are merely begging the question.

Welcome to the discussion!
I shall refrain from responding until you offer a comment or two on post #414

 

[Baldeee]

example:
A man is standing in an empty room. the room is comprised of a space that offers no restriction to the mans movements.

1. How important is that space to the mans future movements? [ all movement is of course "arrowed" to the future]
2. Is the empty space around him a cause or an effect or neither?
3. How much influence does that empty space have on the mans decisions to move?

What do you conclude from the above inquiry?

The space around him would be no cause or effect if it does not hinder him.
But it is not "nothing".
It is a medium that offers neglible resistance.
This knowledge of what does exist, regardless of how it is worded, may influence his movements.

A builder is looking at a vacant block of land to build a dwelling upon.

1. How important is that vacant space to the mans future building? [ all building is of course "arrowed" to the future]
2. Is the vacant space a cause or an effect or neither?
3. How much influence does that vacant land have on the mans decisions to build a dwelling?

What do you conclude from the above inquiry?

I conclude that you have a rather odd interpretation of what " nothing" is, that seems to view what is there in terms of what isn't.
You therefore see this as an example of "nothing" despite it always being something.
Basically I conclude you are just playing with language.
We are influenced by what is there.
That may include an assessment of what might be there.
But it is still something.
So other than your triviality that we can not move where we are prevented from moving, I do not follow your argument and how it either destroys the deterministic view or shows how freewill is real.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The space around him would be no cause or effect if it does not hinder him.
But it is not "nothing".
It is a medium that offers neglible resistance.
This knowledge of what does exist, regardless of how it is worded, may influence his movements.
I conclude that you have a rather odd interpretation of what " nothing" is, that seems to view what is there in terms of what isn't.
You therefore see this as an example of "nothing" despite it always being something.
Basically I conclude you are just playing with language.
We are influenced by what is there.
That may include an assessment of what might be there.
But it is still something.
So other than your triviality that we can not move where we are prevented from moving, I do not follow your argument and how it either destroys the deterministic view or shows how freewill is real.

ok.. I see your contra pretty clear.

If I am holding an apple in my hand what aren't I holding?

If everything is accounted for what is left to account for?

If you take all the mass out of the universe what have you got left?
Do you see where I am coming from and no it is not merely a semantic word game.

The distance between two half particles that are 1 ly apart but can communicate instantaneously is what? [quantum entanglement]

As far as showing how freewill is actually guaranteed and how nothing is a significant paradox, there appears no point laboring with someone who can not even grasp the simplistic notion that if space is taken up with something that prevents it from being moved into, movement is impossible...

That is a triviality.

Far from trivial...
Surely you can not deny that the reality and perception of nothing is essential to any movement at any time?
[leaving the notion of thought out of this for a moment]

 

[Quantum Quack]

The case can be simply won by stating the following:
1+1 = 2 only because 2-(1+1) = 0
Any number (thing) only has the value it has because it is relative to zero.

Now for something that is non-existent and can not be a cause or effect it is pretty essential to reality.
For apple to have the value it has:
apple - apple = 0
our sun - our sun = 0(our sun)
and so on....

or

• All decisions are about the future.
• The future is non-existent until it manifests as the present moment.
• All choices are about something that doesn't exist yet.

Conclusion:
Freewill can not be determined by anything other than the person [ with his inner influences] doing the determining. [self determination/freewill]
because he is self determining a future value of something yet to exist. [aka: creating a future present - ex-nihilo - out of nothing]

 

[Baldeee]

ok.. I see your contra pretty clear.

If I am holding an apple in my hand what aren't I holding?
If everything is accounted for what is left to account for?

If you take all the mass out of the universe what have you got left?
Do you see where I am coming from and no it is not merely a semantic word game.

Whether intentional or not, you are not talking about "nothing".
You seem to be talking about "absence".
As in "the absence of something".
The absence of something can influence us, because we can imagine its existence compared to what is actually there.
It is semantically different to "nothing", which I would argue is the "absence of everything".

The distance between two half particles that are 1 ly apart but can communicate instantaneously is what? [quantum entanglement]

1 LY.

Far from trivial...
Surely you can not deny that the reality and perception of nothing is essential to any movement at any time?
[leaving the notion of thought out of this for a moment]

I can deny it.
Absence does not leave nothing.

The case can be simply won by stating the following:
1+1 = 2 only because 2-(1+1) = 0
Any number (thing) only has the value it has because it is relative to zero.

Yes.
Relative.
Rather an important distinction.
This proves nothing, though.
"Nothing" is not "zero", especially in the realm of mathematics.
Sarkus has already pointed this out to you, I thought?

Now for something that is non-existent and can not be a cause or effect it is pretty essential to reality.
For apple to have the value it has:
apple - apple = 0
our sun - our sun = 0(our sun)
and so on....

Zero is a concept.
It exists as a concept.
The concept can cause.
"Zero" itself does not exist, nor is it a cause or effect.

or

All decisions are about the future.
The future is non-existent until it manifests as the present moment.
All choices are about something that doesn't exist yet.


Conclusion:
Freewill can not be determined by anything other than the person [ with his inner influences] doing the determining. [self determination/freewill]
because he is self determining a future value of something yet to exist. [aka: creating a future present - ex-nihilo - out of nothing]

:bugeye:
There is no need to invoke a person in this conclusion:
The future is manifest by the present moment.
It is determined by all the interactions in the present moment.
There need be no choice.
There need be no self-determination.
A person is irrelevant to your analysis, and seems to be invoked through begging the question, an a priori assumption, or some other such fallacy.
And a future is not created out of nothing.
It is the logical conclusion of the current state.
The current state exists - the next state exists as a result - even perhaps to the detriment (annihilation) of what is now the present.