What is free will?

[Baldeee]

And yet more utter drivel from you, QQ. You once again try to appeal to emotion and consequence, but do so without a shred of evidence, and without a coherent argument to actually support your case. It seems to have become your MO.

To add, it is also those like Quantum Quack that Godwin recognised in the creation of his Law.

There was a website I used to frequent that had a rule whereby any such reductio ad Hitler (and by extension, Nazis) meant that the discussion was immediately closed, and the person using that tactic given demerits / warning points, such is the contempt such a tactic is most usually held in.
It is occasionally valid, e.g. when discussing WW2, but on the whole it is as welcome (as here) as a dog defecating on the carpet.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And yet more utter drivel from you, QQ. You once again try to appeal to emotion and consequence, but do so without a shred of evidence, and without a coherent argument to actually support your case. It seems to have become your MO.

The only evidence you and Baldeee have to offer to support your fictional universe is simple logic that has no actual bearing on the real universe.
In case you don't know and obviously you probably don't logic on it's own, is not considered as evidence.
A form of logical insanity perhaps?

 

[Quantum Quack]

To add, it is also those like Quantum Quack that Godwin recognised in the creation of his Law.

There was a website I used to frequent that had a rule whereby any such reductio ad Hitler (and by extension, Nazis) meant that the discussion was immediately closed, and the person using that tactic given demerits / warning points, such is the contempt such a tactic is most usually held in.
It is occasionally valid, e.g. when discussing WW2, but on the whole it is as welcome (as here) as a dog defecating on the carpet.

when discussing your predetermination beliefs psychopathy is invariably a significant outcome, thus Hitler and his Nazi's are quite relevant.

 

[Michael 345]

From reading between the lines sooooo glad I introduced QQ to Iggy long time ago

.

 

[Baldeee]

Being insulted by an organic robot, a pre-programed, an auto-no-man, that is compelled to repeat ad nauseam the same failed position and has demonstrated no free will is no insult to me, at all, except to the one doing the programming.

Failed position?
Is that the same position, as Sarkus has reminded me, that you also hold, and have explicitly stated previously, that non-trivial free will does not exist in a deterministic universe?

Case in point (and apologies, Sarkus, for picking this up instead of allowing you your fun...):

I repeat:
It is a simple child's play logical outcome that in a fictional deterministic universe as you propose there can be no free will.

So you are an incompatibilist, by definition.
Your position is the opposite of that of iceaura, JamesR etc.
Yet you don't seem to realise this.
They are of the opinion that free will does exist in a deterministic universe.
I don't, Sarkus doesn't, Capracus doesn't.... and here's where you'll get a laugh: you don't.
Yet you argue against the incompatibilist position.
You probably don't even realise how much of a confused mess your thinking is.

I have stated this a number of times but because you appear to be determined and not free to see anything that may not fit YOUR deterministic paradigm I have to repeat my self yet again....

Yes, you have stated it a number of times, which is why Sarkus has been able to point out the contradictory nature of your position.
That doesn't stop your position being contradictory.

In MY universe, the one that we all share, free will clearly apparent and real.

Yet you can't say how.
You can't say how the introduction of randomness (e.g. the probabilistic universe) changes the principles involved with just the deterministic universe.
You simply say: well, the universe isn't deterministic, therefore free will exists.
You have offered nothing else.
Other than your ridiculous "infinite reduction to zero" where supposedly the nonexistent proves the universe is not deterministic.

 

[Baldeee]

when discussing your predetermination beliefs psychopathy is invariably a significant outcome, thus Hitler and his Nazi's are quite relevant.

Not without evidence, without having some support other than a simple appeal to emotion and consequence.

 

[Baldeee]

From reading between the lines sooooo glad I introduced QQ to Iggy long time ago

.

Puppies can defecate on the floor every now and then, but they're worth keeping around for the amusement.
But a short stint in the dog-house is often warranted.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Puppies can defecate on the floor every now and then, but they're worth keeping around for the amusement.
But a short stint in the dog-house is often warranted.

hee hee... I am really happy Mick has me on iggy... I don't have to read him singing and lah lah lahing in the middle of a serious discussion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Failed position?
Is that the same position, as Sarkus has reminded me, that you also hold, and have explicitly stated previously, that non-trivial free will does not exist in a deterministic universe?

I am not going to repeat my self again.. see my post to Sarkus.

Case in point (and apologies, Sarkus, for picking this up instead of allowing you your fun...):
So you are an incompatibilist, by definition.
Your position is the opposite of that of iceaura, JamesR etc.
Yet you don't seem to realise this.

No I am not an incompatibilist
you don't seem to realise this.

They are of the opinion that free will does exist in a deterministic universe.

certainly not in the imaginary one you are proselytizing....

I don't, Sarkus doesn't, Capracus doesn't.... and here's where you'll get a laugh: you don't.

the laugh is on you... sad!

Other than your ridiculous "infinite reduction to zero" where supposedly the nonexistent proves the universe is not deterministic.

I don't think you can even demonstrate a working knowledge of infinity let alone reduction to zero.
You haven't heard of Heisenberg either....FYI it is called the Uncertainty Principle.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not without evidence, without having some support other than a simple appeal to emotion and consequence.

like I said logic is not evidence.... for real evidence you gotta look around you.....
perhaps you would like to have a go at the "deterministic logic"of this phenomena:


do I have to spell it out for you or can you see the 6 sided polygon on the North pole of Saturn?

 

[Quantum Quack]

There no evidence to support the strictly deterministic universe. None. Zilch. How many pages more will be needed is yet to be determined oops! Pre-determined.

 

[Capracus]

They are not accurate.
They are wrongheaded presumptions, which you continue to make because you refuse to pay attention to physical reality.
When a driver is approaching a traffic light, the alternatives of "stop" and "go" actually, genuinely, in physical reality, as actual genuine real world capabilities, exist. They have been predetermined to exist, in the stipulations of this thread.

It’s not the alternatives of stop and go that exist for a given case, it’s that there will be an outcome of stop or go from a perspective of incomplete knowledge of the event. From the perspective of complete knowledge, or predetermination, the outcome is already established, and no alternatives are possible. The predetermined alternatives exist only as predictive models by the driver and other observers.

The only sense in which these actual, genuine, real world, observable, replicable, measurable, machine recordable, alternatives would fail to exist is if some naive determinist, possibly dropped on their head as a baby, decided to assume the driver would have to be able to overrule the very future information they are currently going to use as criteria - to violate physical law, abrogate cause and effect, and do other than their own decision criteria says they must, in order to exhibit "free will".

If an event were replicated and resulted in an alternate outcome, then from a deterministic perspective it was not an accurate replication, and thus not an actual alternative. The only way to replicate an event is to essentially reset reality to the original state of the event, which isn’t a capability thought to be common among human beings.

That would be a supernatural ability, and assuming it is necessary for freedom is the supernatural assumption: that future physical cause and effect must be overruled in the future for alternatives to exist now.

I agree, resetting reality would border on the supernatural.

In the entity making the decision, before the decision has been made.

If a decision is predetermined, how is it done freely?

Neither are you. Neither are any of the naive determinists here.
If "freedom" is not supernatural, it's "trivial" to you guys - which means that it doesn't exist, apparently, if we take your posts seriously. The supernatural assumption you deny making.

Freedom exists only as perceived options in the minds of the actors, but in a deterministic reality, actual options do not and can not exist.

What does it feel like to be a fully predetermined robot Sarkus?

Ask yourself, because like it or not you’re in the same boat.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It’s not the alternatives of stop and go that exist for a given case, it’s that there will be an outcome of stop or go from a perspective of incomplete knowledge of the event. From the perspective of complete knowledge, or predetermination, the outcome is already established, and no alternatives are possible. The predetermined alternatives exist only as predictive models by the driver and other observers.
If an event were replicated and resulted in an alternate outcome, then from a deterministic perspective it was not an accurate replication, and thus not an actual alternative. The only way to replicate an event is to essentially reset reality to the original state of the event, which isn’t a capability thought to be common among human beings.
I agree, resetting reality would border on the supernatural.

If a decision is predetermined, how is it done freely?

Freedom exists only as perceived options in the minds of the actors, but in a deterministic reality, actual options do not and can not exist.
Ask yourself, because like it or not you’re in the same boat.

If you want to make a religious arguement i suggest you do it in the religion forum.
Like religion you have no evidence to support your unfounded and ultimately illogical "idea".

 

[Quantum Quack]

It’s not the alternatives of stop and go that exist for a given case, it’s that there will be an outcome of stop or go from a perspective of incomplete knowledge of the event. From the perspective of complete knowledge, or predetermination, the outcome is already established, and no alternatives are possible. The predetermined alternatives exist only as predictive models by the driver and other observers.
If an event were replicated and resulted in an alternate outcome, then from a deterministic perspective it was not an accurate replication, and thus not an actual alternative. The only way to replicate an event is to essentially reset reality to the original state of the event, which isn’t a capability thought to be common among human beings.
I agree, resetting reality would border on the supernatural.

If a decision is predetermined, how is it done freely?

Freedom exists only as perceived options in the minds of the actors, but in a deterministic reality, actual options do not and can not exist.
Ask yourself, because like it or not you’re in the same boat.

It's really funny, in a sad sort of way. Perhaps the word I am looking for is "sardonic "?
But no, climate change isn't Anthropogenic in causation it is now a universal conspiracy. Perhaps the universe didn't consider humans deserving of a better outcome...?
According to you, Sarkus and Baldeee, this must be a consequence of the pre-determinism you all espouce as some sort of truth.
OMG... you mean we never had a chance!!!

 

[Quantum Quack]

The guy that mowed down and killed so many in Melbourne not that long ago thought his actions were predetermined. Do you think he was right?
Link provided if necessay. I am on a mobile device.

 

[Michael 345]

Puppies can defecate on the floor every now and then, but they're worth keeping around for the amusement.
But a short stint in the dog-house is often warranted.

As per MR not Iggied

 

[Capracus]

If you want to make a religious arguement i suggest you do it in the religion forum.

Like religion you have no evidence to support your unfounded and ultimately illogical "idea".

Religious argument? Unlike religion, the logic and observation supporting a deterministic reality is very sound. Like religion, it takes a denial of such soundness to reach your conclusions on the matter of determinism.

It's really funny, in a sad sort of way. Perhaps the word I am looking for is "sardonic "?
But no, climate change isn't Anthropogenic in causation it is now a universal conspiracy. Perhaps the universe didn't consider humans deserving of a better outcome...?
According to you, Sarkus and Baldeee, this must be a consequence of the pre-determinism you all espouce as some sort of truth.
OMG... you mean we never had a chance!!!

Climate change is anthropogenic in the sense that humans are an element in its cause, just as they may be an element in it’s reversal.

The guy that mowed down and killed so many in Melbourne not that long ago thought his actions were predetermined. Do you think he was right?
Link provided if necessay. I am on a mobile device.

Of course I believe that his actions were predetermined, just I believe that his murder conviction and prison term were predetermined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_attack

 

[Quantum Quack]

Religious argument? Unlike religion, the logic and observation supporting a deterministic reality is very sound. Like religion, it takes a denial of such soundness to reach your conclusions on the matter of determinism.
Climate change is anthropogenic in the sense that humans are an element in its cause, just as they may be an element in it’s reversal.
Of course I believe that his actions were predetermined, just I believe that his murder conviction and prison term were predetermined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2017_Melbourne_car_attack

Well... evidence is needed.. yet to see any. Sad


We have plenty of written evidence that you believe in predermination...just no actuall evidence to support your belif that freewill is an illusion and that we are just automated drones.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Big claims need big evidence.
And logic no matter how big it is, is not evidence.

 

[Baldeee]

I am not going to repeat my self again.. see my post to Sarkus.

No need to repeat yourself.
You have explicitly stated that free will is not possible in a deterministic universe.
That makes you an incompatibilist... by definition.

No I am not an incompatibilist
you don't seem to realise this.

I realise that you are an incompatibilist, and it is you who doesn't realise that you are.
Incompatibilism is the notion that freewill is not possible in a deterministic universe.
Quantum Quack is someone who does not think free will is possible in a deterministic universe.
Ergo, Quantum Quack is an incompatibilist.
QED.

certainly not in the imaginary one you are proselytizing....

And here you are again confirming that you are incompatibilist, so thank you.
Whether you think our universe is deterministic or not is irrelevant to whether you are an incompatibilist or not.
Some incompatibilists think our universe is deterministic and therefore think free will doesn't exist in our universe.
Other incompatibilists think the existence of free will is evidence that our universe is not deterministic.
But they all hold the view that freewill is incompatible with a deterministic universe.
Others consider themselves compatibilists because they think freewill can/does exist in a deterministic universe.

the laugh is on you... sad!

Only for persisting in replying to your inanity.

I don't think you can even demonstrate a working knowledge of infinity let alone reduction to zero.

Regardless of what you think I can demonstrate or not, the onus is on you to put forth a coherent and sensible argument for what you claim.
So far you have claimed that infinite reduction to zero results in something that doesn't exist, and thus free will exists.
Neither coherent nor sensible.

You haven't heard of Heisenberg either....FYI it is called the Uncertainty Principle.....

So now you're telling me what I haven't heard of?
Heck, why not put me on ignore and just make up whatever you want about what I do or do not know.
You're doing it at the moment.
But if you want to be taken seriously, show how the uncertainty principle has a bearing on the issue of whether freewill can exist in a deterministic universe?
Or, if you want to move on to how free will can exist in a non-deterministic universe, again feel free to show how the uncertainty principle is relevant.
Up to you.