God is the one that wills the chemistry behind man's freewill.
If we cannot override G-d's influence, we are a falling rock that cannot escape the gravitational pull of God's chemistry.
He even goes a step further and gives us prophets to prove He knows the outcome of our freewill.
Why work if one's income was decreed at birth? You can argue that our actions nullify decrees but God willed the system.
God foresaw every choice that every one of His creations would ever make and directly willed them by creating us likewise.
God created us good and evil alike and concealed our faith from us with a barrier called time.
Every choice that we will ever make is part of a long chemical reaction including the chemistry behind choice itself.
One's reaction to this post also have to do with simpler things such as ego and beliefs which are part of an even longer chain that ultimately start with God.
I'd conclude that freewill is irrelevant in contrast with destiny because we are His puppets every step of the way and our faith is beyond time so we cannot change it.
Why concentrate on 'chemistry'? Ultimately chemistry is just quantum physics with a few shortcuts thrown in 
(Paraphrased from the late great Dr Feynman). In our concept of time, something happens -> you know about it. That's not how it works for God.
i'm... confused.
The original post is just a little bit rambling and incoherent... but i think the gist of it is that there is no such thing as free will - it's only an illusion we have due to the fact we don't see the whole picture - and our destinies are predetermined by God. Yes?
Alright, ok, let's go with that.
Say i were to walk out of my apartment right now, kick a puppy, murder a child, and rape somebody. By your logic, none of that was my choice. It's all God's plan. Does that sit well with you?
In fact, all bad things that happen, large and small, all suffering, and all misery, is all God's plan. Because if no one has any free will and everything is the "system" God willed, there's no-one else to blame.
And what if i were to shrug and say "****** God", and go about doing my own thing? According to conventional religious beliefs, God will horribly punish me for doing this. But... it wasn't my choice. i was just playing out the script God wrote for me.
i dunno - it doesn't sound like something that works out to me.
| Indi wrote: |
i'm... confused.
The original post is just a little bit rambling and incoherent... but i think the gist of it is that there is no such thing as free will - it's only an illusion we have due to the fact we don't see the whole picture - and our destinies are predetermined by God. Yes?
Alright, ok, let's go with that.
Say i were to walk out of my apartment right now, kick a puppy, murder a child, and rape somebody. By your logic, none of that was my choice. It's all God's plan. Does that sit well with you?
In fact, all bad things that happen, large and small, all suffering, and all misery, is all God's plan. Because if no one has any free will and everything is the "system" God willed, there's no-one else to blame.
And what if i were to shrug and say "****** God", and go about doing my own thing? According to conventional religious beliefs, God will horribly punish me for doing this. But... it wasn't my choice. i was just playing out the script God wrote for me.
i dunno - it doesn't sound like something that works out to me. |
I agree. I do somewhat believe in a "God's Plan", but I also believe that the consequences of your free will decide whether or not you will choose to meet your destiny. I think of it as a path, one huge straight line going up. That is your destiny, hopefully in your lifetime you will meet and reveal it. Along this straight path though, your choices dictate whether you veer off from your path or not. You can take many backroads and even seem lost, but the right decisions when given the choices will lead you back to your destiny. This is why I think they say "The universe will unfold as it should." Karma plays a role in it as well. God I believe has the power to nudge you in the right direction back towards your path. Evil also has an influence as well.Your 'destiny' is where you will end up. It is not where you 'might' or 'should' end up. It is your 'destination'.
Destiny is generally supposed to be a force or fate which is beyond human control to influence, so the idea that you can choose to 'veer off' from your destiny seems flawed to me.
I think what you are describing could be better termed 'potential'.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Your 'destiny' is where you will end up. It is not where you 'might' or 'should' end up. It is your 'destination'.
Destiny is generally supposed to be a force or fate which is beyond human control to influence, so the idea that you can choose to 'veer off' from your destiny seems flawed to me.
I think what you are describing could be better termed 'potential'. |
Well... i'm not so sure. This is why i'm usually such a stickler for getting precise definitions down right out of the gate.
Destiny and fate are not necessarily the same thing. Your fate may indeed be beyond your control. Your destiny may not. Your destiny may be avoided. Your fate cannot be avoided.
Put that way, Bryan_Bezzle has a point, insofar as your destiny may be determined by a god though you are not obligated to meet that destiny. i don't think that solves any problems - in fact, i think it introduces a whole host of new ones - but it does at least make it semantically consistent.
i think we should probably agree on a more precise definition for destiny if we want to keep tossing it around. | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | Your 'destiny' is where you will end up. It is not where you 'might' or 'should' end up. It is your 'destination'.
Destiny is generally supposed to be a force or fate which is beyond human control to influence, so the idea that you can choose to 'veer off' from your destiny seems flawed to me.
I think what you are describing could be better termed 'potential'. |
Well... i'm not so sure. This is why i'm usually such a stickler for getting precise definitions down right out of the gate. |
Hmm.....looks like I must concede this one. Having checked I find that there are indeed two ways of defining destiny so Indi has a valid objection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DestinyI dont think god (if he exists) would make such rules: If someone would do some really bad stuff, killing and worse. Why is there a hell? He "made those people do that" so he should go to hell not those people (Unless we have a sadistic god).
But I dont believe in god and I DO believe in free will.
Of course you can not believe in god and not believe in freewill but I like to believe that what I do is chosen by me and that I can influence my own destiny.
Some philosofical references from wikipedia.
| Quote: |
Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature. Neither determinism nor its opposite, non-determinism, are positions in the debate about free will.
Compatibilism is the view that the existence of free will and the truth of determinism are compatible with each other.
Incompatibilism is the view that there is no way to reconcile a belief in a deterministic universe with a belief in free will.
Hard determinism is the version of incompatibilism that accepts the truth of determinism and rejects the idea that humans have any free will.
Metaphysical libertarianism topically agrees with hard determinism only in rejecting compatibilism. Since libertarians accept the existence of free will, they must reject determinism and argue for some version of indeterminism that is compatible with freedom.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewill#Free_will_in_philosophy
Debating on this is in fact really hard since there's no way to prove or disprove it. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Debating on this is in fact really hard since there's no way to prove or disprove it. |
Much like a lot of debates on this site
I believe in free will, but within limitations because people's behaviour is affected by things that have happened already.
For example, I believe I am free to go out and murder someone, but actually I'm not sure I could. For one thing I don't actually want to, having been brought up to believe that such a thing would be immoral, illegal and pointless. You could say that means I don't have free will.
A better example is this. I can choose what to have dinner tomorrow, but it will be influenced by what is in the fridge and what I feel like having. What I feel like having will depend on what I had for lunch and other things. So it's not a totally free choice. But maybe that's just another way of saying that even with free will people always have to have reasons for making a choice. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Debating on this is in fact really hard since there's no way to prove or disprove it. |
Oh ye of little faith. ^_^;
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. | Indi wrote: |
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. |
Go on then. I'd be very interested to hear it. | mraek wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. |
Go on then. I'd be very interested to hear it. |
Alrighty.
First, let's think about an action that is completely determined, meaning that it is absolutely predictable if only you know the starting conditions and the rules. In other words, if you gave me all of the positions and attitudes of all of the people and things in the local universe, i could predict whether Joe would steal a watch. i could write it out as a mathematical formula, or a computer program. "IF Joe is poor AND Joe really needs watch AND no one is looking THEN Joe will steal watch".
What that means is that a god or prophet can see the future action, and then speak it in the present, and it will always come to pass as predicted - because the future is fixed, is set by the rules and the initial conditions. That is a determined action.
A determined action cannot be as a result of free will, because it is determined by the state and laws of the universe. Joe did not "choose" to steal the watch - the laws were set up so that he would, whether he would have wanted to or not. Joe could not possibly have chosen not to steal the watch... that action was determined before he even saw the watch.
Therefore, there can be no free will if actions are determined.
So, you say, actions are not determined then. Ah, but here's the rub. If an action is not determined, it must be random. If it is not random, then it can be determined. Therefore, if the action is not a determined action, it must be a random action.
If it is a random action, then it cannot have been caused by anything (that would make it determined). Therefore, it cannot have been caused by Joe willing it. It happened randomly. There was a 50% chance that Joe would steal the watch, and a 50% chance that he would not, and he didn't determine the odds, or determine the result. Therefore, the act cannot have been due to free will.
Therefore, there can be no free will if actions are random.
In summary:
1.) An action is either determined, or random.
2.) If the action is determined, it cannot be due to free will.
3.) If the action is random, it cannot be due to free will.
Therefore, no action can be due to free will.
Or, put another way: free will is an illusion. It does not exist.Now, should I respond to this or should we see if mraek can come back ?
I think the latter, but perhaps with a hint. Are the only two choices determinism or randomness? | Indi wrote: |
| mraek wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. |
Go on then. I'd be very interested to hear it. |
Alrighty.
First, let's think about an action that is completely determined, meaning that it is absolutely predictable if only you know the starting conditions and the rules. In other words, if you gave me all of the positions and attitudes of all of the people and things in the local universe, i could predict whether Joe would steal a watch. i could write it out as a mathematical formula, or a computer program. "IF Joe is poor AND Joe really needs watch AND no one is looking THEN Joe will steal watch".
What that means is that a god or prophet can see the future action, and then speak it in the present, and it will always come to pass as predicted - because the future is fixed, is set by the rules and the initial conditions. That is a determined action.
A determined action cannot be as a result of free will, because it is determined by the state and laws of the universe. Joe did not "choose" to steal the watch - the laws were set up so that he would, whether he would have wanted to or not. Joe could not possibly have chosen not to steal the watch... that action was determined before he even saw the watch.
Therefore, there can be no free will if actions are determined.
|
Fair enough so far.
| Indi wrote: |
So, you say, actions are not determined then. Ah, but here's the rub. If an action is not determined, it must be random. |
Why? If an action is not determined, all that says is that the rules of the universe do not decide what happens. What about if Joe has his own rules - he's not poor and doesn't need a watch, maybe he just likes stealing. Then it's not random and it's not determined.
| Indi wrote: |
If it is not random, then it can be determined. Therefore, if the action is not a determined action, it must be a random action.
|
Yes if it is not random then it can be determined - but by who? By the universal determined laws of the universe, or by free will?
Now show how much free will you have and reply to this post I dont agree with Indi its not a 50/50 percent chance that Joe will steel the watch. Even if he's really really poor he can decide NOT to steal the watch. He decides according to al sort of factors:
Mood, education, how he was brought up etc. etc. and if he is not poo he also can decide to steal it becaues it makes him feel good, because he is greedy or has some small mental illnes which "makes" him steel.
That "equation" of yours is not true people can still disagree with that theory.
Further there are more forms of determinism.
Not only 2 opposites.
"There's always a middle road"
Oh err. Not quite where I was thinking you might go with the hint. I suspect Indi will have little trouble defeating this objection
<sits back to enjoy> | mraek wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
So, you say, actions are not determined then. Ah, but here's the rub. If an action is not determined, it must be random. |
Why? If an action is not determined, all that says is that the rules of the universe do not decide what happens. What about if Joe has his own rules - he's not poor and doesn't need a watch, maybe he just likes stealing. Then it's not random and it's not determined. |
Oh, piffle. ^_^; By introducing fairy universes or spiritual dimensions you don't change anything, except now i have to type more. All you have to do is replace every instance of "the universe" with "all universes" and note that includes any and all universes that your decision making process might take place in. Observe:
An action is determined if it can be perfectly predicted given the current state and the laws in all universes (including whatever universe your "soul" or "mind" resides in). Or, stated the other way around, if all of the causes of an action are previous actions or states in any universe then that action is determined.
Following that, any action that is not determined must be random, and so on. And you end up with the same thing again.
Taking your example: "What about if Joe has his own rules - he's not poor and doesn't need a watch, maybe he just likes stealing." What caused Joe to want to steal the watch? Was it random, or was it determined by the fact that he likes stealing? If it was random, game over - it can't be free will. If it was determined by the fact that he likes stealing, what caused Joe to like stealing - was it random, or was it something to do with how he was raised or his biology or the vibrations in the spirit universe where his soul resides? If it was caused by any of those things, they are all out of Joe's control, are they not? In that case, Joe couldn't have freely chosen anything, he was a victim of his determined circumstance. In other words, no free will - even if you include other universes.
| mraek wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
If it is not random, then it can be determined. Therefore, if the action is not a determined action, it must be a random action.
|
Yes if it is not random then it can be determined - but by who? By the universal determined laws of the universe, or by free will?
Now show how much free will you have and reply to this post |
i'm not clear about any of your questions. If something is determined, it is not determined by anyone. It is determined by the state of the universe(s) before that something, and the rules of the universe(s). If something is determined, there is no room for free will - there is no room for free anything. It is set to happen, and cannot be avoided. It will happen, with absolute and total certainty, no matter how anyone feels about it. That is what determined means.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
I dont agree with Indi its not a 50/50 percent chance that Joe will steel the watch. Even if he's really really poor he can decide NOT to steal the watch. He decides according to al sort of factors:
Mood, education, how he was brought up etc. etc. and if he is not poo he also can decide to steal it becaues it makes him feel good, because he is greedy or has some small mental illnes which "makes" him steel. |
*shrug* Then it's an 80/20 chance. Or 60/40. Or maybe 20% that he'll steal the watch, 70% that he won't and 10% that both him and the watch will vanish in a puff of logic before anything else can happen.
Doesn't matter. Random is random, no matter how you set the odds. The point is that he did not cause himself to choose to steal the watch, some random blip did. And if he didn't cause himself to choose to steal the watch, he can't have freely chosen to do it, now can he?
Take a look at the language you are using. First you say that even if Joe is poor he can "freely" choose not to steal, then as evidence for his "freedom", you just list a different set of causes (besides being poor). i see no "freedom" there. All i see is you substituting one cause for another.
One way or the other, you are either going to have to list a chain of causes that led Joe to steal (determinism), or you will have to stop at some point and say "this has no cause" (which would make it random). Either way, there is no room for free will.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
That "equation" of yours is not true people can still disagree with that theory.
Further there are more forms of determinism.
Not only 2 opposites.
"There's always a middle road" |
i'm not sure what "equation" you mean, and i am not sure what "forms" of determinism you are talking about. Why don't you clarify?I meant this, I couldn't think of an other word at the time.
| Quote: |
In summary:
1.) An action is either determined, or random.
2.) If the action is determined, it cannot be due to free will.
3.) If the action is random, it cannot be due to free will.
Therefore, no action can be due to free will. |
And the part before
As for the middle road(S): (I thought it was obvious)
If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random.
if something is not A it musn't be B it also can be C,D,E,....
You think there's no middle road and other people disagree with you. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
I meant this, I couldn't think of an other word at the time.
| Quote: | In summary:
1.) An action is either determined, or random.
2.) If the action is determined, it cannot be due to free will.
3.) If the action is random, it cannot be due to free will.
Therefore, no action can be due to free will. |
And the part before
As for the middle road(S): (I thought it was obvious)
If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random.
if something is not A it musn't be B it also can be C,D,E,....
You think there's no middle road and other people disagree with you. |
You can disagree with anything. That doesn't make your disagreement meaningful.
There is not always a "middle road". For any clearly defined X, something is either X or not-X. There are no other options.
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined". It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing - they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. | Indi wrote: |
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined". It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing - they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. |
Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same!
I think that our universe is of type 3.
To be on topic I guess that there is free will. There's always a choice but the number of options is small and the choosing process heavily influenced by external factors. Yes, man is a choosing machine but a very predictable one. | Indi wrote: |
You can disagree with anything. That doesn't make your disagreement meaningful.
There is not always a "middle road". For any clearly defined X, something is either X or not-X. There are no other options. |
What I said if something is not A then it doesn't mean it is B it also can be C,D,E ...etc
| Indi wrote: |
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined".
It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing |
Wel this is all about belief. You think there's nothing between I think there is.
When you look at soccer matches, its not random who wins, but I don't think its determined a gazillion years ago.
| Indi wrote: |
- they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. |
Looking grammatically and mathematically at Philosophical stuff won't always turn out with right answers. Its not black and white its just not known to us. As I said this is a never ending discussion. Its like a Fundumental Muslim and a Fundumental Christian trying to persuade each other why their god is the real one. Otherwise it wouldn't be philosofical.
| smarter wrote: |
Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same!
I think that our universe is of type 3.
To be on topic I guess that there is free will. There's always a choice but the number of options is small and the choosing process heavily influenced by external factors. Yes, man is a choosing machine but a very predictable one. |
Thats right, just like poker, the cards you get are random but when a player gets bad cards they usually fold.
And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: |
In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
| Indi wrote: |
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined". It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing - they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. |
That's true if you use that definition of 'random'. The word random implies something more chaotic and unpredictable, which is why I disagreed earlier.
I take your point about Joe stealing the watch, your argument is sound that it could be pre-determined. Many things are obviously pre-determined - if I let go of an object, it will fall.
But other things are much much more complex. Realistically Joe is not going to steal just because he's poor. There will be thousands, even millions of events which will have shaped his character, led him to be in that particular position at that time, with the intent to steal that watch. To be able to predict that he would steal it would be beyond anyone (except no doubt the theoretical 'god').
So although the universe may be determined, we will never be able to predict it. So effectively it makes no difference whether we have free will or not - because who can tell the difference between free will and the illusion of free will. | mraek wrote: |
| That's true if you use that definition of 'random'. The word random implies something more chaotic and unpredictable, which is why I disagreed earlier. |
A couple of points. Firstly chaotic and random are not the same thing. Chaotic behaviour is not random - the behaviour can often be modelled with very simple equations. Neither, however, is it predictable since tiny changes in the initial state result in different behaviours.
Secondly, where does probabilistic behaviour fit in? Take, for example, quantum events. Aim a stream of photons (light beam) at a sheet of glass. Some photons will pass through and some will reflect. There is no way, for individual photons, to predict which will happen. You can, however, say with some certainty that a certain percentage will reflect back (0-16%). | Bikerman wrote: |
| Take, for example, quantum events. Aim a stream of photons (light beam) at a sheet of glass. Some photons will pass through and some will reflect. There is no way, for individual photons, to predict which will happen. |
I think you've just given an example of why the universe is not determined. Because by Indi's argument earlier, if just one thing is random, then the entire universe cannot be determined. | mraek wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Take, for example, quantum events. Aim a stream of photons (light beam) at a sheet of glass. Some photons will pass through and some will reflect. There is no way, for individual photons, to predict which will happen. |
I think you've just given an example of why the universe is not determined. Because by Indi's argument earlier, if just one thing is random, then the entire universe cannot be determined. |
But you are conflating random and probabilistic - two different things. If the behaviour of the photons were random then the probability would be 50%
PS - this is wrong. See later posting.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in totalEr, there are a lot of terms being thrown around by different people - and some are being used quite badly.
Deterministic: Outcome not random, probability of one.
Probabilistic (or stochastic): Outcome random, probability between zero and one.
Chaotic: Outcome not random, probability of one. But it is so sensitive to fluctuation that it looks random.
Chaos has nothing to do with this discussion.
Random has nothing to do with 50%. (The number that comes up on fair die is random, and the chance of any number is not 50%.)
| smarter wrote: |
Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same! |
No, i don't claim that 2 and 3 are "the same". i claim that they are both non-deterministic, or in other words, random.
i'll show you. Let's start at A and go to B in the three different types of universes you describe. Every green arrow is a deterministic step, every red is a stochastic step.
1) A → → → → → B : Result - determined (probability of specific B is 1)
2) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities, and is between zero and one)
3) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities - in this case, there's only the one - and is between zero and one).
In universe 1, A is the direct and only cause of B. In universes 2 and 3, A may influence B, but whether or not B happens is random.
In this case, A is the "will" to do a thing, and B is the thing. i hope it's clear now that in a non-deterministic universe - whether it's totally random or only partially does not matter - whether or not B will happen is not a function of A, it is a random outcome.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| What I said if something is not A then it doesn't mean it is B it also can be C,D,E ...etc |
Which is not always true. Sometimes it can only be A or B, and nothing else. You have to look at the specific case and find out if that's true, you can't just say it is and not be challenged.
In this case, you are wrong. It can only be determined or random. That is a mathematical fact that you cannot escape.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Wel this is all about belief. You think there's nothing between I think there is.
When you look at soccer matches, its not random who wins, but I don't think its determined a gazillion years ago. |
No, it is not about belief unless you want to ignore reason and evidence.
Whether you think the winner of your soccer match was determined a gazillion years ago or not is irrelevant. The plain fact is that if the universe is determined (and was around that long ago), then it was decided then. That's just something you will have to deal with, whatever you want to believe. However, if the universe is not determined, then the outcome of the match is not known until the last stochastic event passed (that is, until the only remaining factors are all non-stochastic). Until that point, the outcome is random.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Looking grammatically and mathematically at Philosophical stuff won't always turn out with right answers. Its not black and white its just not known to us. As I said this is a never ending discussion. Its like a Fundumental Muslim and a Fundumental Christian trying to persuade each other why their god is the real one. Otherwise it wouldn't be philosofical. |
"Looking grammatically and mathematically" may not always turn up the right answers... but giving up and saying "anyone can believe whatever they want" is not going to turn up any answers.
Also, i don't know where you get your definition of philosophical, because nothing you have described has anything to do with philosophy. That is religion, not philosophy. If either the fundamentalist Christian or the fundamentalist Muslim could provide a reason why their god is the "real one" - and i don't mean a "claim" that they make, i mean a well-argued, well-evidenced, logical reason - then it would be philosophy, and they could get an answer. But in real life, all you will have is two people who have no reason to believe their beliefs are right - both relying on faith - so any discussion they have will not be philosophical.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
You are misunderstanding that quote. i don't even know where it is from or what the context is, but i can see plainly that whatever came before it is basically stating "Assume free will exists...". The "it" in those sentences probably refers to free will. If free will exists, then it may mean that individuals can be held morally responsible. And if free will exists, then there must be some part of the mind that is not wholly physical. None of that implies free will does exist.
As i just showed, free will cannot exist. It simply does not work. That means that there cannot be moral responsibility. And there is no need to assume a non-physical part of the mind.
The "whole free will debate" can be understood any way you want to understand it, if you are willing to ignore the evidence. If you are not willing to ignore the evidence then you are left with two options. Either accept free will does not exist. Or, redefine it (see compatibilism).
| mraek wrote: |
| I think you've just given an example of why the universe is not determined. Because by Indi's argument earlier, if just one thing is random, then the entire universe cannot be determined. |
Correct. One of the biggest upsets of modern physics was the destruction of the previously held beliefs that the universe is deterministic. Einstein himself could not handle this conclusion for many years. If quantum physics is right, our universe is not deterministic.
However. In practise, the probabilities are so astronomically small that when they are combined we can treat them as determined events. That's why our universe appears determined at the macroscopic scale. But it's not, and quantum randomness can and does have macroscopic effects sometimes. | Indi wrote: |
Er, there are a lot of terms being thrown around by different people - and some are being used quite badly.
Deterministic: Outcome not random, probability of one.
Probabilistic (or stochastic): Outcome random, probability between zero and one.
Chaotic: Outcome not random, probability of one. But it is so sensitive to fluctuation that it looks random.
Chaos has nothing to do with this discussion.
Random has nothing to do with 50%. (The number that comes up on fair die is random, and the chance of any number is not 50%.) |
No, but in the example I gave there are two possible outcomes. The equivalent would be a coin-toss which should, all things being equal, be 50%. It's my fault for using the word 'random' in a sloppy manner. I used it to mean equal chance of all possible outcomes. That is incorrect (funny how misconceptions can lurk for years in the brain - until they are revealed in this type of discussion 
).
You are correct, of course, to point out that anything which is non deterministic is random.
PS On reflection this is an interesting semantic matter. Random is generally used to mean having no specific pattern, or | Quote: |
| relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely |
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not using a dictionary definition to prove a point, that way lies madness. It is, however, interesting that there is no word I can think of that applies to a weighted outcome. Take the example of the coin toss. In an ideal situation the outcome would be 50-50. We could, however, weight the coin in such a way that the outcome was, say, 70-30 or 90-10. In both cases the outcome of a toss would be random but clearly in the second case you would know more about the scenario by knowing that the coin was weighted and would be able to predict the outcome of a toss with a greater than 50% accuracy.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in totalJust to clarify
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
You are misunderstanding that quote. |
eeeh what???? I just gave the quote I said nothing about it. How on earth would you know I understand it or nor, I just gave it. I just chucked it in on the end of my post.
Further I want to say that I looked at it in a philosophical way and you then everything more from a mathematical way. And yes I didn't gave an argument,
Now the discussion;
Firstly I don't believe that everything is random because if I let go (and also everyone else on this planet) of something it won't "fall up". It always randomly falls down. ( 
Always and random (in this way) don't fit together).
Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). |
This is dealt with in the previous posting. It is true that quantum events are random but the randomness tends to cancel out as we move to the 'macro' world. If you take a kilo of uranium, rather than a single atom, you can be pretty precise about how much of it will decay over time using the half-life.
(Not all atoms are the same, btw)."we cannot override G-d's influence, we are a falling rock that cannot escape the gravitational pull of God's chemistry.
He even goes a step further and gives us prophets to prove He knows the outcome of our freewill.
Why work if one's income was decreed at birth? You can argue that our actions nullify decrees but God willed the system.
God foresaw every choice that every one of His creations would ever make and directly willed them by creating us likewise.
God created us good and evil alike and concealed our faith from us with a barrier called time.
Every choice that we will ever make is part of a long chemical reaction including the chemistry behind choice itself.
One's reaction to this post also have to do with simpler things such as ego and beliefs which are part of an even longer chain that ultimately start with God.
I'd conclude that freewill is irrelevant in contrast with destiny because we are His puppets every step of the way and our faith is beyond time so we cannot change it."
dont you realize that it is entirely pointless to determine if fate exists? even if fate does exist that really doesnt change anything. We can never "change" fate.
It depends on your outlook. For me it is never 'pointless' to know something. The point is knowing. There may be no practical use for the knowledge but, for me, there does not have to be.
Bikerman, if you value knowledge, perhaps you should visit here (click on Absolute Truth Exists). | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Bikerman, if you value knowledge, perhaps you should visit here (click on Absolute Truth Exists). |
That's not knowledge, it's a semantic game, nothing more. | Bikerman wrote: |
PS On reflection this is an interesting semantic matter. Random is generally used to mean having no specific pattern, or | Quote: | | relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely |
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not using a dictionary definition to prove a point, that way lies madness. It is, however, interesting that there is no word I can think of that applies to a weighted outcome. Take the example of the coin toss. In an ideal situation the outcome would be 50-50. We could, however, weight the coin in such a way that the outcome was, say, 70-30 or 90-10. In both cases the outcome of a toss would be random but clearly in the second case you would know more about the scenario by knowing that the coin was weighted and would be able to predict the outcome of a toss with a greater than 50% accuracy. |
It's true that laypeople generally use random with the understanding that it means "all possible outcomes are equally probable", but that is not correct. Even if I were to take a fair six-sided die, the probability of an outcome >1 is not equal to the probability of an outcome <=1. Or, maybe you don't like that wording? Maybe you would prefer if i had said the probability of an even number vs. the the probability of an odd number are equal, so you have a "random" chance of getting an even number? All true... if it's a six-sided die and not a five- or seven- sided one. But does changing the number of sides and nothing else suddenly make it non-random?
i contend that you are misstating what you say about the weighted coin. i say that you have exactly the same amount of information whether the coin is weighted or fair. The only difference if if the coin is weighted 90-10, you can use that information better... but only for your particular goal (betting on a single toss). In another situation, that information may provide no help at all (for example, if you are asked to guess at the number of heads in a million tosses).
i've never been a big fan of mathematical terminology - believe it or not, there is actually a point where i think you can get too precise - so i can't say off the bat what the correct term for a situation where every result is equally likely. i imagine there must be a name for it, because it certainly simplifies the math.
But the outcome of a 90-10 split is just as random as the outcome of a 50-50. Sure, the odds are better if you're betting on a single toss in the first case, but other than that... there's no difference. In both cases you cannot determine the outcome beforehand, you can only lay odds. 90% is better odds than 50%, but it's still odds.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Just to clarify
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
You are misunderstanding that quote. |
eeeh what???? I just gave the quote I said nothing about it. How on earth would you know I understand it or nor, I just gave it. I just chucked it in on the end of my post. |
i am not going to comment on the irresponsibility of "just chucking" stuff into a post without understanding it. What i am going to say is: on the contrary, you did say something about it. You said: "And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly." and then you offered that quote.
Well, despite what you said, that quote does not make clear that different people "understand" the debate different. That quote says exactly the same thing i say, only from a different direction, and not as completely. That quote says "if free will exists, determinism does not", etc. i say "if determinism exists, free will does not". There is no difference of opinion. i just go a step further and say that even if determinism does not exist, free will still can't.
That quote is not evidence of people "understanding" the debate differently, as you implied it was. Hence, i say you misunderstood it.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Further I want to say that I looked at it in a philosophical way and you then everything more from a mathematical way. |
Philosophy is logic. So is math. Most of the greatest philosophers were mathematicians. Get used to it.
You seem to believe as many people do that philosophy is just a bunch of big heads sitting around saying whatever they feel like saying. It's not. Every philosophical argument is rigorously backed up... with mathematical rigour. That's how philosophy works.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Firstly I don't believe that everything is random because if I let go (and also everyone else on this planet) of something it won't "fall up". It always randomly falls down. ( Always and random (in this way) don't fit together). |
Always is not the opposite of random. Besides, how can you be sure it always falls down? Have you dropped things a million times? A trillion? A googolplex? It only takes one failure to be random. The entire lifetime of humanity of Earth has only a been a blip in the life of the universe. If it happens rarely enough, you can hardly say that it is impossible simple because you haven't seen it yet. (And, incidentally, according to modern physics... it is possible - not probable, but possible - for something to go up when you drop it. It's even possible that when you drop a rock, it turns into a piece of cheese on your breakfast table the next morning - not probable, but possible. Quantum mechanics is a weird place.)
Anyway, you're still using "random" badly. Random does not mean that anything can happen, or that anything that can happen is equally likely. As you say, it always (as far as you have seen) randomly falls down. There's nothing strange there.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). |
Your logic is flawed - just because we don't know how to calculate when an atom will decay today, that does not mean that it is not determined. We may figure out the law that determines the decay of an atom tomorrow.
However, according to our current science, the universe is not determined... so i don't really see what your point is?
| videoguy wrote: |
| dont you realize that it is entirely pointless to determine if fate exists? even if fate does exist that really doesnt change anything. We can never "change" fate. |
Pointless? Are you ok with punishing people that were forced to commit a crime? Don't you want to know whether it is just to blame someone for their sins? Don't you care about any of those things, or about the possibility of true freedom and self-determination? And if fate does exist, whether we're truly powerless to change it or not? And if not, at least know what it is so we can enjoy what life we have without living in fear of possibilities that can never happen (for example, if you're fated to die of old age, why not go base jumping)?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Bikerman, if you value knowledge, perhaps you should visit here (click on Absolute Truth Exists). |
That's not knowledge, it's a semantic game, nothing more. |
That's not even a semantic game. ^_^; That's just stupidity hiding behind verbosity.
Did you see the conclusion? "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."
The irony of this conclusion is completely lost on the website's creator. ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
| i contend that you are misstating what you say about the weighted coin. i say that you have exactly the same amount of information whether the coin is weighted or fair. The only difference if if the coin is weighted 90-10, you can use that information better... but only for your particular goal (betting on a single toss). In another situation, that information may provide no help at all (for example, if you are asked to guess at the number of heads in a million tosses). |
Yes, once again, on reflection, I did indeed mis-state. There is no extra information contained in the weighted situation since it is just one of an infinite number of possible cases (.90-.10, .95-.05 etc) and each one contains the same amount of information.
Well - that's one deep seated misconception cleared out of the old bonce...it's always good to learn
dude why are you hammering on the quote:
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
Someone can say I think that peps are morally accountable for what they do, like every law system in the world does.
And in the other that everything is determined.
So what didn't I understand. But that's beside the whole argument. Lets just pretend I never said that. Okay?
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Firstly I don't believe that everything is random because if I let go (and also everyone else on this planet) of something it won't "fall up". It always randomly falls down. ( Always and random (in this way) don't fit together). |
Always is not the opposite of random. Besides, how can you be sure it always falls down? Have you dropped things a million times? A trillion? A googolplex? It only takes one failure to be random. The entire lifetime of humanity of Earth has only a been a blip in the life of the universe. If it happens rarely enough, you can hardly say that it is impossible simple because you haven't seen it yet. (And, incidentally, according to modern physics... it is possible - not probable, but possible - for something to go up when you drop it. It's even possible that when you drop a rock, it turns into a piece of cheese on your breakfast table the next morning - not probable, but possible. Quantum mechanics is a weird place.) |
Wel I haven't tried that but I do believe that if I would do that little experiment a googolplex number of times it would always fall down. If you believe something could fall up try it yourself (I got enough things to do).
For example, I believe that that if you have 2 masses there will be a gravitational force witch (tries) to pull them together. Since no one has proven otherwise.
And I never said they were opposites I just made a little joke.
| Indi wrote: |
| Anyway, you're still using "random" badly. Random does not mean that anything can happen, or that anything that can happen is equally likely. As you say, it always (as far as you have seen) randomly falls down. There's nothing strange there. |
I never even said that, at least not intentionally and like that. Maybe whatever i said can be interpretered in more than one way.
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). |
Your logic is flawed - just because we don't know how to calculate when an atom will decay today, that does not mean that it is not determined. We may figure out the law that determines the decay of an atom tomorrow.
However, according to our current science, the universe is not determined... so i don't really see what your point is? |
Well if you invent something wich can show when idividual particals will fall apart. But some people say it is impossible and some don't.
Well my point is to point out that I don't believe the universe is entirely random nor is it completely determined. And I said that because if I said that according to our current science, the universe is not determined. Some one would ask me to prove it, show an link or whatever. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i contend that you are misstating what you say about the weighted coin. i say that you have exactly the same amount of information whether the coin is weighted or fair. The only difference if if the coin is weighted 90-10, you can use that information better... but only for your particular goal (betting on a single toss). In another situation, that information may provide no help at all (for example, if you are asked to guess at the number of heads in a million tosses). |
Yes, once again, on reflection, I did indeed mis-state. There is no extra information contained in the weighted situation since it is just one of an infinite number of possible cases (.90-.10, .95-.05 etc) and each one contains the same amount of information.
Well - that's one deep seated misconception cleared out of the old bonce...it's always good to learn
|
Just a quickie note:
i'm guilty, too - i don't really bother to remember the precise terminology, and do occasionally use "random" to mean specifically events with equal probabilities. i even did it in this thread (and when cornered, i used the phrase "totally random").
i swallowed my pride and my good sense, grit my teeth... and actually went and talked to a mathematician about this....
... luckily i came out alive. -_-
The name of a random variable where every possibility is equally probably is a uniformly distributed random variable. The possible results on a fair die are random, but uniformly distributed. The possible results on a loaded die are random, but non-uniformly distributed. | Indi wrote: |
| The name of a random variable where every possibility is equally probably is a uniformly distributed random variable. The possible results on a fair die are random, but uniformly distributed. The possible results on a loaded die are random, but non-uniformly distributed. |
Ahh...another thing learned. Shame it's not a bit more 'snappy' but that will do nicely sir.
Careful with those Mathematicians though...that's a very slippery negative gradient | Indi wrote: |
| smarter wrote: | Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same! |
No, i don't claim that 2 and 3 are "the same". i claim that they are both non-deterministic, or in other words, random.
i'll show you. Let's start at A and go to B in the three different types of universes you describe. Every green arrow is a deterministic step, every red is a stochastic step.
1) A → → → → → B : Result - determined (probability of specific B is 1)
2) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities, and is between zero and one)
3) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities - in this case, there's only the one - and is between zero and one).
In universe 1, A is the direct and only cause of B. In universes 2 and 3, A may influence B, but whether or not B happens is random.
In this case, A is the "will" to do a thing, and B is the thing. i hope it's clear now that in a non-deterministic universe - whether it's totally random or only partially does not matter - whether or not B will happen is not a function of A, it is a random outcome.
|
You don't understand universe 3! You confuse one thing in the universe (in our case the free will) with the whole universe!
Then you confuse free will (the way) with the initial state (the starting point).
A is not the will it's the initial state!
B is the result/final outcome!
Part of the path (both green and red arrows) represents the FREE WILL!
That means the FREE WILL is not absolute (it is "free" between some LIMITS).
Whether it is the a) OR b) scenario depends on A AND B:
3a) the "random" part affects the outcome
A → → C→D → → B : Result - random!
3b) the random part DOESN'T affect the final outcome (all outcomes of the random part lead to B)
A → → C→D → → B : Result - determined!
A → → C→E → → B : Result - determined!
Therefore in the 3a) case the free will is manifested! | smarter wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| smarter wrote: | Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same! |
No, i don't claim that 2 and 3 are "the same". i claim that they are both non-deterministic, or in other words, random.
i'll show you. Let's start at A and go to B in the three different types of universes you describe. Every green arrow is a deterministic step, every red is a stochastic step.
1) A → → → → → B : Result - determined (probability of specific B is 1)
2) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities, and is between zero and one)
3) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities - in this case, there's only the one - and is between zero and one).
In universe 1, A is the direct and only cause of B. In universes 2 and 3, A may influence B, but whether or not B happens is random.
In this case, A is the "will" to do a thing, and B is the thing. i hope it's clear now that in a non-deterministic universe - whether it's totally random or only partially does not matter - whether or not B will happen is not a function of A, it is a random outcome.
|
You don't understand universe 3! You confuse one thing in the universe (in our case the free will) with the whole universe!
Then you confuse free will (the way) with the initial state (the starting point).
A is not the will it's the initial state!
B is the result/final outcome!
Part of the path (both green and red arrows) represents the FREE WILL!
That means the FREE WILL is not absolute (it is "free" between some LIMITS).
Whether it is the a) OR b) scenario depends on A AND B:
3a) the "random" part affects the outcome
A → → C→D → → B : Result - random!
3b) the random part DOESN'T affect the final outcome (all outcomes of the random part lead to B)
A → → C→D → → B : Result - determined!
A → → C→E → → B : Result - determined!
Therefore in the 3a) case the free will is manifested! |
i have no idea what you are talking about. ^_^; Where did C, D and E come from? And if the random part doesn't determine the outcome, then why did you include it?A, B, C, D, E, ... are states of the universe.
The arrows are changes from one state to another.
In a universe of type 3 (defined in a previous post) some changes are deterministic, some are not.
Free will can only occur when we have at least one non-deterministic change between the first state (A) and the last state (B). In the example the change after state C is non-deterministic. The next state can be D, E, etc. The point is sometimes it doesn't matter because the last state (B) is still the same (that means there's no free will), but other times the last state in the chain can't be determined. Both situations occur in this type of universe.
My point is there is free will but it is (severely) limited by the deterministic laws of the universe. Sometimes you have a choice.
| smarter wrote: |
A, B, C, D, E, ... are states of the universe.
The arrows are changes from one state to another.
In a universe of type 3 (defined in a previous post) some changes are deterministic, some are not.
Free will can only occur when we have at least one non-deterministic change between the first state (A) and the last state (B). In the example the change after state C is non-deterministic. The next state can be D, E, etc. The point is sometimes it doesn't matter because the last state (B) is still the same (that means there's no free will), but other times the last state in the chain can't be determined. Both situations occur in this type of universe.
My point is there is free will but it is (severely) limited by the deterministic laws of the universe. Sometimes you have a choice. |
You've lost me here. Why would both D and E (different) states then reconverge to the same final state? Unless, of course, you assume that all previous states are irrelevant and that B will be the outcome whatever happens...
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total | smarter wrote: |
A, B, C, D, E, ... are states of the universe.
The arrows are changes from one state to another.
In a universe of type 3 (defined in a previous post) some changes are deterministic, some are not.
Free will can only occur when we have at least one non-deterministic change between the first state (A) and the last state (B). In the example the change after state C is non-deterministic. The next state can be D, E, etc. The point is sometimes it doesn't matter because the last state (B) is still the same (that means there's no free will), but other times the last state in the chain can't be determined. Both situations occur in this type of universe.
My point is there is free will but it is (severely) limited by the deterministic laws of the universe. Sometimes you have a choice. |
Well, alright, it sounds like you're throwing too many ideas in at once.
First, let's get rid of this:
| smarter wrote: |
3b) the random part DOESN'T affect the final outcome (all outcomes of the random part lead to B)
A → → C→D → → B : Result - determined!
A → → C→E → → B : Result - determined! |
No.
The result is not determined, it is still non-determined. It just so happens that all of the random possibilities give the same result. That doesn't suddenly make it determined. If it was determined, there would not be two paths to the result, there would only be one.
Don't believe me? Well, think of it like this. Pretend that our universe is not determined. Pretend that random things happen all the time. i can turn left, or i can turn right, and there is no way to predict which - it's totally random.
Now, no matter which way i choose to go... the universe will end in a few trillion years.
So! Our map looks like this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
where:
A: The big bang
B: The end of the universe
C: Indi coming to an intersection
D: Indi turning left
E: Indi turning right
No matter what i do, B will happen. Does that mean B is determined? No. It means B is inevitable, but not determined. If something is determined it is inevitable. If something is inevitable is might be determined, but it does not have to be.
If something is determined:
- It will happen.
- It will happen exactly one way. (For example, you will die, but because there are a number of possible ways you could die, it is not determined. A die will roll a number between 1 and 6, but it is certainly not determined, it is purely and totally random (assuming its fair) how it will roll that 6.)
That example above fails because B can happen more than one way - it can happen via D, or it can happen via E. So it is not determined.
Using the illustration, this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
is really just this:
A → → → → → B-via-D
A → → → → → B-via-E
To say it again, clearly: if any step of a process is random - even if it is just one step, and even if all outcomes of that random effect give the same end result - then that process is not a deterministic process.
----------------------------------
Anyway, all of that is just mathematical nitpicking that does not effect the free will question. You, i believe, claim that free will exists in this case:
A → B → C → D
For example:
(see money) → (want money) → (choose to steal money) → (steal money)
Now, because the second step is stochastic - wanting the money does not cause you to steal it - you claim free will has intervened.
Sorry, no.
Let me show you why not. Suppose i asked: why did you choose to steal the money? The answer is... it was a fluke. You had no control over it. You could have just as easily flipped the other way and chosen not to steal the money. Nothing about your character, your desires, or anything about you at all made you choose to steal the money. It was totally random (hence, the red arrow).
Where is free will in that? You didn't freely will anything. You were just on one side of a coin flip. To put it another way, suppose you were a mindless robot with no free will at all, and you saw the money, desired the money (because you have been programmed to believe that money is good), and then flipped a coin - heads you steal it, tails you leave it. Where is the free will in that? But it is exactly the same as the case with you, who supposedly has free will, in that case described.
At this point, you're in trouble (and you're not alone - Einstein got stuck here and agonized over it for most of his later life). You say, ok, well this makes no sense for my choice to be totally random, and not be caused by my desires or character. Therefore, it can't be stochastic, it has to be deterministic, determined by my personality. But... you already know a deterministic situation doesn't allow free will either.
So, determined doesn't work, random doesn't work... thus, no free will. It doesn't exist.What do I read here ??? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Why concentrate on 'chemistry'? Ultimately chemistry is just quantum physics with a few shortcuts thrown in |
Actually, without chemistry many of the predictions from the quantum theory cannot be proven experimentally. It's just a worthless theory then. I can think of any wavefunction I want and run operators on them - have a math party. But in quantum chemistry, it's the hydrogen atom that gets focus. Why - because the model describes a real system. Without practical chemistry, the hydrogen atom psi would be as meaningless as any random function.
| Quote: |
| (Paraphrased from the late great Dr Feynman). |
Not paraphrased from Erwin Schrödinger, about quantum mechanics:
I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
Which brings me to question... whoever seriously solved a Schrödinger equation before, raise your hand?
Last edited by Arnie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total | Arnie wrote: |
What do I read here ??? | Bikerman wrote: | | Why concentrate on 'chemistry'? Ultimately chemistry is just quantum physics with a few shortcuts thrown in |
Actually, without chemistry many of the predictions from the quantum theory cannot be proven experimentally. It's just a worthless theory then. I can think of any wavefunction I want and run operators on them - have a math party. But in quantum chemistry, it's the hydrogen atom that gets focus. Why - because the model describes a real system. Without practical chemistry, the hydrogen atom psi would be as meaningless as any random function. |
Fair point, but the fact remains that quantum theory is the 'fundamental' theory and chemistry 'merely' provides one method to validate the theory. By that I mean that observations in chemistry are all explained by quantum theory. (I didn't mean to belittle chemistry or the study of it).
| Quote: |
| Now for a little test: whoever solved a Schrödinger equation before, raise your hand. |
Nope....my math is not up to the task.There's nothing absolutely fundamental about quantum mechanics. As long as it covers the experimental data it will last, but as soon as a better theory is found QM will either be rejected or incorporated. Chemistry is a lot more lasting; obviously you're better off being a chemist when job security is concerned!
On a more serious note, for systems with more than 1 electron QM cannot provide exact solutions to the Schr. equation and thus only give expected values for the energy. They usually match experimental data, but a lot of approximation is involved.
And you should give me a little more time to edit my posts as I'm accustomed to 
Last edited by Arnie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total My choice of words was ambiguous. I meant that quantum theory is the fundamental theory of chemistry at the moment. It may, of course, change, but whatever replacement came along would then be the fundamental theory. Experimental chemistry will then provide the evidence for the new theory as it currently does for quantum theory and the new theory will stand or fall by experimental evidence.
The question arises, however, is there any prediction or observation from chemistry that is not explained by QM?
I'm not sure about that. It's interesting though, if I remember I'll ask our eccentric quantum chem. prof (see photo) tomorrow at the quantum chem. lecture... that will keep us busy for another 30 minutes.
But my gut feeling tells me there will surely be cases where the supercomputer spits out weird stuff. Well, I'll be most interested to hear what the prof has to say.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Which brings me to question... whoever seriously solved a Schrödinger equation before, raise your hand? |
i'd raise my hand, because i have solved the Schrödinger equation for several different potentials. However, i was giggling like a school girl as i did it, so i don't know if it can be called "serious".
-----------------
Anyway, i think you have a peculiar definition of "fundamental". Quantum mechanics is certainly more fundamental than chemistry, because all of chemistry can be explained in terms of quantum mechanics - even if we can't solve for exact solutions due to the complexity of the math, we can solve numerically in many cases - but none of quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of chemistry.
What you are describing - using chemistry knowledge to support quantum mechanics - has nothing to do with which is more fundamental. In fact, QM is. Experimenters use QM to predict the chemistry behaviours, then observe them. If they match expectations, that provides support for QM. It doesn't make chemistry the basis for QM. | Indi wrote: |
| The result is not determined, it is still non-determined. It just so happens that all of the random possibilities give the same result. |
LOL... complete nonsense!
| Quote: |
That doesn't suddenly make it determined. If it was determined, there would not be two paths to the result, there would only be one. |
Forced to repeat myself: you confuse different notions. This time you confuse the result with the chain of events that lead to it (path).
| Quote: |
Don't believe me? Well, think of it like this. Pretend that our universe is not determined. Pretend that random things happen all the time. i can turn left, or i can turn right, and there is no way to predict which - it's totally random.
Now, no matter which way i choose to go... the universe will end in a few trillion years.
So! Our map looks like this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
where:
A: The big bang
B: The end of the universe
C: Indi coming to an intersection
D: Indi turning left
E: Indi turning right
No matter what i do, B will happen. Does that mean B is determined? No. It means B is inevitable, but not determined. If something is determined it is inevitable. If something is inevitable is might be determined, but it does not have to be.
If something is determined:
- It will happen.
- It will happen exactly one way. (For example, you will die, but because there are a number of possible ways you could die, it is not determined. A die will roll a number between 1 and 6, but it is certainly not determined, it is purely and totally random (assuming its fair) how it will roll that 6.)
That example above fails because B can happen more than one way - it can happen via D, or it can happen via E. So it is not determined.
Using the illustration, this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → |