The illusion of free will

[Uncle Pythagoras]

I believe that we do have Free Will, and I will attempt to go through the physics, and I will also use the link in the OP as an example.

First you have to examine what time is.

Presume that Time is the present in a loop.

The image is an analogy of Cause, and effect in a circle. A cause creates an effect. The energy of that cause, and effect cannot escape the loop. Any escaping energy would be moved into the black hole. The black hole would spin it around, and it would shoot back out again, and so the loop continues.

Now we need to add to this some alteration of events. So we use the same analogy with a tape loop recording. The tape loops around, and we create some music.

Piano First
Guitar
Drums

As we start with the Piano we have a blank tape. No cause of the Piano effect.

As we start the guitar we have the Piano playing, and this drives our future, because we want the guitar to match the piano tune.

And then the guitar, and piano drives the drums.

Now, when you are told 2 minutes ago I could tell what you were going to do with the guitar, it is because you created the piano track 20 minutes ago. You were ruled by your own blank page. The piano was a blank tape track that ruled the guitar. Thoughts can start of blank, but then dictate your next choice. The observer never observed where in your present you were in the loop.

All you are being told is that you made a choice in a loop that went in a circle that took 20 minutes to get back round again, but you still started from a blank tape, so it was your choice.

Now the tape loop writes over, and over again until you get a complete tune. Time loops around in the present. Change happens when you share the present with another present. The tape isn't advancing it is looping, change is advancing, but is always in the present.

Now, what is this tape loop in our head? Well you could say that it is an electron in orbit around the nucleus of an atom. You could combine all of your electrons, because they are all looping around. This is your time loop. This is your present. It seems odd that you can have a delayed present, but no matter how small you make the present you can still half it. So why not have a delayed present in a loop?

The man testing you is only seeing your present in a loop. It started off blank.

 

[Sarkus]

I believe that we do have Free Will, and I will attempt to go through the physics, and I will also use the link in the OP as an example.
...
Piano First
Guitar
Drums

As we start with the Piano we have a blank tape. No cause of the Piano effect.

So your argument rests on their being no initial cause to actions?

Sure, if we assume that actions can be causeless then we can just stop with ourselves as causal agents, as the initiator of actions. But that doesn't match the nature of the underlying interactions (at the micro-level) that are all (at least afaik) either caused or random.

And where is the physics?

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

So your argument rests on their being no initial cause to actions?

Sure, if we assume that actions can be causeless then we can just stop with ourselves as causal agents, as the initiator of actions. But that doesn't match the nature of the underlying interactions (at the micro-level) that are all (at least afaik) either caused or random.

And where is the physics?

The physics are all in the words, and pictures. If you give a Newtons Ball Bearing a number like 1 in my image, and then swing 1, it causes itself to swing later. Now if we take out the word 'later', because the Newton's cradle had no beginning to it in the first place then ball 1 causes itself to swing. You are born with spinning electrons, and the Universe never gains, or loses energy so the word later doesn't really come into it. The Universe is cyclic.

 

[barcelonic]

Uncle P - I think what Sarkus may mean by 'where is the physics' (and if i'm wrong forgive me but this is still the point i'd like to make) is that here you have a belief which is assembled from your understanding of free will as assessed by your own sensory experience, and then from that starting point you have put together an explanation of that involving stuff from physics, but what we would expect to see here is an explanation derived from physics.

I could write here how my views on the subject might make sense within the framework of physics, but then there is nothing about that physical explanation which actually suggests or points at the conlusion I have come to completely independently of this explanation.

One could say that here the cause was you believing what you believe and the effect is you trying to find an explanation for that involving physics.

Here, the physics does not suggest we have no free will; instead it comes after the fact. I hope this makes sense.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Uncle P - I think what Sarkus may mean by 'where is the physics' (and if i'm wrong forgive me but this is still the point i'd like to make) is that here you have a belief which is assembled from your understanding of free will as assessed by your own sensory experience, and then from that starting point you have put together an explanation of that involving stuff from physics, but what we would expect to see here is an explanation derived from physics.

I could write here how my views on the subject might make sense within the framework of physics, but then there is nothing about that physical explanation which actually suggests or points at the conlusion I have come to completely independently of this explanation.

One could say that here the cause was you believing what you believe and the effect is you trying to find an explanation for that involving physics.

Here, the physics does not suggest we have no free will; instead it comes 'after' the fact. I hope this makes sense.

My physics are to take away the word 'after', and put the present in a loop. Let's give a human a Dark Brain which exists inside a black hole. Now from inside that black hole we can release the spin force on the Newton's cradle. The Newton's Cradle however is already spinning, because it spins itself. The present is in a loop, and the present last longer than 1 thought.

Put this in a loop like a computer loop

Start present:
I would like a cup of tea.
End Present

The thought was so fast that it all existed in the present.

You can break it down...

Start Present:
I
End Present

Start Present:
Would
End Present

Start Present:
Like
End Present

Start Present:
A
End Present

Start Present:
Cup
End Present

Start Present:
Of
End Present

Start Present:
Tea
End Present

Two version. The second version appears to take longer. All I am saying is that the present can be any length. It can be any length because no matter how short we want it to be we can still half it infinitely.

100th second
200th second
400th second
800th second
1600th second
3200th second

So we can still fit "I want a Cup Of tea." into those quantized locations as well.

In my version of time, it always loops 24 hours a day, every day. We are always in the present. There is no before thought that didn't 'activate itself' in a Newton's Cradle type physical event. That's why my Newtons Cradle is in a circle. A circle has no beginning, or end.

 

[Sarkus]

My physics are to take away the word 'after', and put the present in a loop.

In line with what m'colleague was saying, there is no "physics" in what you have said. By saying that you would "go through the physics" I expected some explanations of the physics behind what you were saying, how what you were saying is supported by what we know of physics.
If I said that an aircraft flies because it moves sufficiently fast with a wing that is designed to enable it to fly, this is not really providing the physics. Yet it is how your explanation comes across.

Regardless of that, your explanation is still flawed in explaining how freewill is possible: as what you explain is merely a cycle of cause and effect, not how someone within that cycle can themselves be the initial cause of the cycle.

You say the universe is cyclic (and it may be) but that merely means that the cause and effect chain (for want of a better phrase) has been going on longer than this mere cycle of the universe (I.e. Before t=0), and even infinitely so.

Throughout your explanation you seem to claim that one thing or another "is already" acting (e.g. spinning) and you further make a throwaway claim that it caused itself to do so.
But you don't say how.

As I said previously, if you make the assumption that things can cause themselves, then anything is possible.
But you would need to explain how it is possible that things can cause themselves and be anything other than random in nature.

 

[Magical Realist]

The logic you'r talkin about is cause an effect... an cause an effect is why i went to the store.!!!
I see no evidence that the chain of cause an effect can be broken in such a way that woud allow choice to be free.!!!

It is possible to be part of a chain of causation and still be an undetermined event. I call this causation without predetermination. Take randomness for example. We definitely know the roll of the dice is caused by various events preceding it. And yet the precise outcome of those events is not really predetermined. With our own will, we are also open to multiple probabilistic outcomes imo due to the emergent nature of the will. Every thing that happens in the brain can be linked serially in a chain of preceding causes. But because all those chains converge and loop back on themselves in the final decision process, a degree of freedom is opened up regarding the final outcome. At least that's how I see it.

I dont have a belief in an "I" which is somehow separate from the causal chain... or a belief that the mind is anythang more than biological an/or somehow separate from the rest of our biological body... ie... "willpower"... like everthang else is just more links in the causal chain... an due to cause an effect.. ther was nuthin free about the choice to go to the store.!!!

I see the indeterminacy of freewill as an emergent property that arises out of the confluence of multiple chains of cause and effect. As the chains converge in one final brain state of intraneural firings, the effect of any single chain is lessened due to competing parallel chains. In this nexus of self-interacting energy, a space of multiple possible outcomes opens up and itself exerts its own influence from top to bottom. In chaotic systems this is known as a strange attractor:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...01008/how-you-are-who-you-are-in-chaos-theory

http://alifegames.sourceforge.net/project/ComplicityBrain.html

 

[barcelonic]

Uncle P -- any length of time can be infinitely halved. It is not possible for any length of anything to be not be infintely halveable. (lol i dont think thats a word but you know what i mean)

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

I remove past, and future by making the present cyclic. I use quantum black holes, and spin around those holes to create atoms. The spin around the holes is propagated by bump forces. Bump forces are energy, and any other term for energy does not exist. Energy is like a Newton's Cradle, and loops back in an infinite Universe. When we walk forwards we do not travel through time we move from one present loop into another present loop. The physics of each loop overwrite previous physics like a tape loop recording.

This is where cause creates cause, and free will...

We can cause our own free will by just thinking about our future (cycle in), because events are cyclic to the present. So we can plan ahead. I want to buy a new car, I must save up for it. The car is in the future (cycle in), and it is effecting your past(cycle out). There are no events of the car existing previous to your cycle apart from you saving up for it. But the event in the future (cycle in) you want to add to your present loop. You know that you can cause this to happen in your present by saving up. The Newtons cradle is now bouncing balls towards that event. You have altered events by free will.

And how do I know that these cycles exist. because of Quantum physics. The entanglement of particles joins the cycle of those particles together at a distance. Now one particle effect the other. Also the two slit experiment has these cycles hidden in it. There is no past or future that isn't part of a cycle of present events. Free will is the merging of past, present, and future. The cause of destructive interference zero. 1 + -1 = 0.. no cause.

 

[Sarkus]

I remove past, and future by making the present cyclic.

Whether you make the present moment cyclic or not, you're still not explaining how freewill manifests in such a model. You're not explaining how one's choice is made. You say freewill is caused just by thinking about our future, but this explains nothing about "how" and merely explains "what".
It ultimately seems to boil down to you saying "freewill exists because we can cause things to happen".

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Whether you make the present moment cyclic or not, you're still not explaining how freewill manifests in such a model. You're not explaining how one's choice is made. You say freewill is caused just by thinking about our future, but this explains nothing about "how" and merely explains "what".
It ultimately seems to boil down to you saying "freewill exists because we can cause things to happen".

Free will is causing thing to happen without an effect before it. A rock rolls down a hill, we can zig zag down the hill. Where did we break free of the physics? You say we had no choice but to zig zag down the hill. If you break free of rolling down the hill then surely you break free of the physical loop completely.

Lets break down what we have overcome...

Gravity
We can bend our morphable shapes, limbs etc. Not solid bonded.
We can create something from something else.
We can feel.
we can see.
We can hear.
We can battle the weather.
These things we know.

We can choose... we do not know. But taken from the previous physics that were a challenge to overcome, we beat physics in all of those things. A time loop would allow us to overwrite physics for ourselves, and it matches quantum physics.

Maybe you are confusing Free Will with "How do we think in the first place?"... sentience. This thread isn't about sentience.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem with this discussion, is the definition of free will is not being defined one way. The operative modifier is the word "free", which means without any cost. If there is a cost or profit connected to a choice made by willpower, it is not free will. Free will is the ability to freely choice between alternatives, without any subjective cost either way. Will power is different from free will, in that will power can have a cost or profit, since it does not have to be free by definition. There is confusion between free will and will power.

The term free will, appears first in the bible. It signified choices that humans now had, which animals lacked. Animals have no free will, because they are impelled by the potential within their instincts. Animals, like dogs can be trained to have will and choice, but there is a cost so it is not free. They will do it for reward or to avoid pain; price. It may take will power to overcome their own instincts.

When humans appear, according to the traditions, they were able to choose apart from natural instinct and therefore could begin to reinvent instincts. As free will evolved, and many new choices appear, each of these choices had an impact within reality, due to the physical limitations of the body and of matter. It is one thing to imagine and another to do. Some of these free choices soon developed physical costs (pain, death) with some costs much higher than others.

In the beginning, I may freely choose to hit you with a club, since this seems as fun as anything else. But after this is done, the cost is losing a friend. There becomes a point, in human development, where it was no longer free will because costs becomes conscious; knowledge of good and evil defines the costs and profits. However, many humans continue to make the same choices, but now it was done with will power, since will power is not a function of cost. One can still club the other guy if cost is not important.

Free will is a developed skill. We all have willpower that allows us to make choices. From these choices we infer the costs. The development of free will require we attempt to lower costs until choices become free. If we have an apple and orange to eat, we can willfully choose either. But if we prefer the orange, there is a cost to choosing the apple, so it is not free choice. Free will requires learning to minimize this cost through eating the apple more and more until I develop a taste, and like it as well as the orange. Now there is no cost to choosing either. This is not natural but divine.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

The problem with this discussion, is the definition of free will is not being defined one way. The operative modifier is the word "free", which means without any cost. If there is a cost or profit connected to a choice made by willpower, it is not free will. Free will is the ability to freely choice between alternatives, without any subjective cost either way. Will power is different from free will, in that will power can have a cost or profit, since it does not have to be free by definition. There is confusion between free will and will power.

The term free will, appears first in the bible. It signified choices that humans now had, which animals lacked. Animals have no free will, because they are impelled by the potential within their instincts. Animals, like dogs can be trained to have will and choice, but there is a cost so it is not free. They will do it for reward or to avoid pain; price. It may take will power to overcome their own instincts.

When humans appear, according to the traditions, they were able to choose apart from natural instinct and therefore could begin to reinvent instincts. As free will evolved, and many new choices appear, each of these choices had an impact within reality, due to the physical limitations of the body and of matter. It is one thing to imagine and another to do. Some of these free choices soon developed physical costs (pain, death) with some costs much higher than others.

In the beginning, I may freely choose to hit you with a club, since this seems as fun as anything else. But after this is done, the cost is losing a friend. There becomes a point, in human development, where it was no longer free will because costs becomes conscious; knowledge of good and evil defines the costs and profits. However, many humans continue to make the same choices, but now it was done with will power, since will power is not a function of cost. One can still club the other guy if cost is not important.

Free will is a developed skill. We all have willpower that allows us to make choices. From these choices we infer the costs. The development of free will require we attempt to lower costs until choices become free. If we have an apple and orange to eat, we can willfully choose either. But if we prefer the orange, there is a cost to choosing the apple, so it is not free choice. Free will requires learning to minimize this cost through eating the apple more and more until I develop a taste, and like it as well as the orange. Now there is no cost to choosing either. This is not natural but divine.

I define free as free of none connected physical causation to a thought. I don't think that your definition is the correct one.

 

[spidergoat]

I define free as free of none connected physical causation to a thought. I don't think that your definition is the correct one.

Almost nothing Wellwisher says is ever correct.

 

[Sarkus]

Free will is causing thing to happen without an effect before it. A rock rolls down a hill, we can zig zag down the hill. Where did we break free of the physics? You say we had no choice but to zig zag down the hill. If you break free of rolling down the hill then surely you break free of the physical loop completely.

Were not breaking free of physics, but more are we necessarily demonstrating in these examples (including the ones I didn't copy) anything other than the appearance of freewill.

We can choose... we do not know. But taken from the previous physics that were a challenge to overcome, we beat physics in all of those things. A time loop would allow us to overwrite physics for ourselves, and it matches quantum physics.

All you are doing is replacing temporal causality with the notion of a cyclical loop... but in essence they are the same... Whereas with temporal causality it is the position and motion of everything at one moment that causes their position and movements the next, you are replacing that with one loop determining the next.
You have neither shown nor explained (as far as I can tell) anything about how this is freewill in anything other than appearance.
Because when we say that freewill is an illusion we are saying that it merely appears to be that we are agents that can initiate causes.
You have merely included in your explanation that we do initiate causes, but you haven't explained how it is possible, and thus can not move your idea of freewill beyond mere appearance.

Maybe you are confusing Free Will with "How do we think in the first place?"... sentience. This thread isn't about sentience.

Unsurprisingly they are inexorably linked: if our thoughts are caused, even if we are not consciously aware of the causes (and thus consciously hold the thought to be free from cause) then any supposed freewill stemming from the appearance/feeling that our thoughts are uncaused is doomed to be unable to show how it is anything other than the appearance/feeling.

So let's start with a question: what do you consider to be "freewill", and how can you show that it is more than just an appearance of what you consider it to be?

 

[NMSquirrel]

So let's start with a question: what do you consider to be "freewill", ?

to be presented with a choice, and to be able to choose ANY options related to it.

ex: you come to a four way intersection, the choice is which way do you go.
lack of free will only has one option, the direction you end up going.
free will says you can go in any direction.

free will says if you are presented with the same set of circumstances you are able to change your mind and choose a different result.

lack of free will says you can only choose one option every time.

and how can you show that it is more than just an appearance of what you consider it to be?

this question is vague

how can you show a black hole is more than an appearance of what you consider it to be?

how can you show Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive?

how can you show that God does or doesn't exist?

how can you show that free will exists or doesn't?

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

So let's start with a question: what do you consider to be "freewill", and how can you show that it is more than just an appearance of what you consider it to be?

I have explained that it is to be free of external physics. Our thought belongs to our own causal physics, a loop of our own physics. Nothing outside of the loop alters our thoughts. A circle with no beginning, or end. The loop of course is broken if we put our hand in fire, our time loop is then entangled with the fire. Then it loops back again when our hand is free of pain.

The original problem with free will was that time had an arrow, I have removed the arrow. I have removed the problem with free will.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I have explained that it is to be fee of external physics. Our thought belongs to our own causal physics, a loop of our own physics. Nothing outside of the loop alters our thoughts. A circle with no beginning, or end. The loop of course is broken if we put our hand in fire, our time loop is then entangled with the fire. Then it loops back again when our hand is free of pain.

you answered me too quick, i accidently hit post reply before I actually replied..

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

you answered me too quick, i accidently hit post reply before I actually replied..

My answer still works with your new post anyway.

how can you show a black hole is more than an appearance of what you consider it to be?

how can you show Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive?

how can you show that God does or doesn't exist?

These are not to do with free will. They are to do with lack of knowledge.

 

[Sarkus]

to be presented with a choice, and to be able to choose ANY options related to it.

And this "freewill" is inherently defined as being an appearance, with no consideration to how that appearance is built up.
So the question remains: how can you be sure, other than through the conscious appearance of it, that you do actually have the choice you think?
If you read the thread through, I have no issue with saying that freewill exists as defined, if this is the definition.
But it should be understood that this definition/understanding can at most talk about the appearance of what is going on.

this question is vague

I don't agree, especially as you seem to imply your answer is "I can't" from your examples below.

how can you show a black hole is more than an appearance of what you consider it to be?

We can't, but our understanding of the black hole is formed from our understanding of the basic principles, whereas in the case of free will (as anything other than an appearance) the conclusion (that we have free "choice") is counter to the basic principles.

how can you show Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive?

You can't until you open the box, but i do not think it is relevant.

how can you show that God does or doesn't exist?

Again, relevance (and a whole other bucket of fishes and loaves)?

how can you show that free will exists or doesn't?

By looking at the core assumptions one uses, and seeing whether what is happening when we make a "choice" is really what we think it is, or whether it merely arises as an interpretation of what is going, with that understanding going counter to the underlying activity.