Free Will (hint: you don't got it)

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I just talked to Thomas on the phone!!!

Metro's explanation made perfect sense, once he spelled it out to me. Now that I realize that all our poasts are the culmination of all the experiences that have gone before us...well, I don't know what to think from here, but I'm sure it's already been determined. Thanks Metro!

 

[onlinematt]

Originally Posted by grundletaint

i can prove determinism.

1. the beatles
2. jessica biel's ass

I was going to give you **** for not contributing something marginally clever to this discussion, but then thought better of it and decided instead to google 'Jessica Biel ass':

 

[Dakota rube]

You passed this one up to post that other one? wtf?

 

[origenesprit]

Gentlemen.

 

[tagutcow]

A few rambling, desultory thoughts here:

All choice is defined by finitude. If I have an apple and a banana on a table in front of me, and even assuming I have free will to choose to eat either or both, the parameters of my choice are "determined", so to speak, by the particulars of my situation-- i.e. I cannot choose to eat a canteloupe, or choose to eat dragon eggs, or choose to levitate the orange in mid-air, &c. Choice that is not confined by such finitude would overwhelm the mind with its infinitude, and would end up looking more like the indeterminate chaos of quantum physics. Thus there appears to be a tradeoff between "meaningful" but finite choice, and infinite but meaningless choice.

But "choice" is not that same thing as "will". The problem with trying to prove free will in the common sense understanding is that it proposes something of an implicit contradiction. Our free will is not in the choosing to eat the banana, but rather in the will to choose to eat the banana. But why do we want what we want? We have two options here: Either our will to choose to eat the banana has been predetermined and is beyond our control, or we will to will to choose, and will to will to will to choose, ad infinitum. So what we are dealing with here are two different types of emergent phenomena: firstly, the "billiard ball Universe" giving rise to biological forms that that in turn give rise to brains that in turn give rise to social structures, exerting compulsion on the will at several levels of abstraction, from the purely mechanical to the behavioral; and secondly, the free will that continually conditions itself.

Now the idea that these two options are mutually exclusive- viz. incompatibilism- is itself an unfounded premise. As well, both forms of infinite regress must both reach a terminus: for the first, the uncaused first cause of the beginning of the Universe itself; for the second, the very fact of our unchosen existance.

I think the issue of determinism is clouded by the overextension of the sciences. Determinism is not, nor can ever be, a conclusion that science arrives at; rather, science accpets determinism as an a priori, as it is the determinable, exlusively, that is its compass of study. (You see the same confusion crop up in science vs. religion debates with people who, for some reason, think that the fact that the fact that the natural sciences have failed to prove the existance of a supernatural world is in any way significant.)

The idea of free will as we intuitvely understand it is impossible to quantify scientifically. The problem with quantum-level chaos as an explanation for free will is that it undermines the idea of a singular free will issuing from a singular seat of consciousness. This intuitively understood free will is not the unbounded, infinite freedom that is indistinguishable from authorless chaos, but rather a free will that yields choices that bears the stamp of our authorship, that are- at least in part- "determined" by our personalities.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

A few rambling, desultory thoughts here:

All choice is defined by finitude. If I have an apple and a banana on a table in front of me, and even assuming I have free will to choose to eat either or both, the parameters of my choice are "determined", so to speak, by the particulars of my situation-- i.e. I cannot choose to eat a canteloupe, or choose to eat dragon eggs, or choose to levitate the orange in mid-air, &c. Choice that is not confined by such finitude would overwhelm the mind with its infinitude, and would end up looking more like the indeterminate chaos of quantum physics. Thus there appears to be a tradeoff between "meaningful" but finite choice, and infinite but meaningless choice.

But "choice" is not that same thing as "will". The problem with trying to prove free will in the common sense understanding is that it proposes something of an implicit contradiction. Our free will is not in the choosing to eat the banana, but rather in the will to choose to eat the banana. But why do we want what we want? We have two options here: Either our will to choose to eat the banana has been predetermined and is beyond our control, or we will to will to choose, and will to will to will to choose, ad infinitum. So what we are dealing with here are two different types of emergent phenomena: firstly, the "billiard ball Universe" giving rise to biological forms that that in turn give rise to brains that in turn give rise to social structures, exerting compulsion on the will at several levels of abstraction, from the purely mechanical to the behavioral; and secondly, the free will that continually conditions itself.

Now the idea that these two options are mutually exclusive- viz. incompatibilism- is itself an unfounded premise. As well, both forms of infinite regress must both reach a terminus: for the first, the uncaused first cause of the beginning of the Universe itself; for the second, the very fact of our unchosen existance.

I think the issue of determinism is clouded by the overextension of the sciences. Determinism is not, nor can ever be, a conclusion that science arrives at; rather, science accpets determinism as an a priori, as it is the determinable, exlusively, that is its compass of study. (You see the same confusion crop up in science vs. religion debates with people who, for some reason, think that the fact that the fact that the natural sciences have failed to prove the existance of a supernatural world is in any way significant.)

The idea of free will as we intuitvely understand it is impossible to quantify scientifically. The problem with quantum-level chaos as an explanation for free will is that it undermines the idea of a singular free will issuing from a singular seat of consciousness. This intuitively understood free will is not the unbounded, infinite freedom that is indistinguishable from authorless chaos, but rather a free will that yields choices that bears the stamp of our authorship, that are- at least in part- "determined" by our personalities.

So...how will this get you laid?

 

[tagutcow]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

So...how will this get you laid?

Tomgirl will be impressed by my huge manly brain and will fly down from Canadiaia and sechzZ0rz me.

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

So...how will this get you laid?

If tagut's post us the culmination of all that's gone before in his life...it really shouldn't help at all.

 

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Tomgirl will be impressed by my huge manly brain and will fly down from Canadiaia and sechzZ0rz me.

Sigged

 

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

b) Randomness does in some ways affect our world, but in a random way. In other words, my or your "willpower" and "thought" has no effect on particles that may behave unpredictably. In fact, it is the other way around. So while before, everything was deterministic, it is now deterministic with a pinch of randomness. Not much better.

this, i think is the interesting part.

i have very, very limited knowledge on the subject but i have heard that there is some school of thought that these larger thoughts etc can have some effects on the randomness of the particles.


my physics-studying friend dismissed the movie "what the bleep do we know" entirely, but there was a few interesting points they made in a similar vein to this.

 

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

gulp...Conne
you're the second person to do that this week.

 

[yachtie]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I am eager for somebody to disprove me without using God in the argument. Here is why I personally don't believe we have free will. I came up with this when I was 17. Yes, I was an early David Hume, or whichever 18th century philosopher it is that stole these ideas from me. In the absence of quantum mechanics: Physical objects abide by physical laws. We are physical objects. Our minds are physical objects, though complex ones. Even on an atomic level, every movement or transformation of matter or energy is a result of a scientifically-explainable reaction. Rephrased: Assuming the world is 5 billion or infinity years old (have your pick), if time froze at this exact second, given the sequence of events that have occurred in those 5 billion years up to this instant, if I unfroze time for one frame, the next frame could be perfectly predicted given the laws that govern matter and energy. The same could be said of any one instance, and put together, this equals determinism.
Right

With quantum mechanics:

Someone will have to pipe in here as I never took a science class past high school. But either: a) Randomness occurs on such a submicroscopic level that it does not affect the visible/tangible physical world to which the determinism described above applies to. b) Randomness does in some ways affect our world, but in a random way. In other words, my or your "willpower" and "thought" has no effect on particles that may behave unpredictably. In fact, it is the other way around. So while before, everything was deterministic, it is now deterministic with a pinch of randomness. Not much better.

Wrong. See: http://www.amazon.com/Many-worlds-In...9657099&sr=8-1

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by yachtie

Right Wrong.
Not gonna buy a book over it. Please give us a summary, if you will.

 

[Sanguis Mortuum]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Not gonna buy a book over it.

Especially when the copies for sales on Amazon are listed for $928

(Or only $89 for the paperback)

One of the Amazon reviews seems to contain a very brief summary of the book though.

 

[yachtie]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Not gonna buy a book over it. Please give us a summary, if you will.
Well, here's the original dissertation http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manywor...ssertation.pdf and in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation in a nutshell both parts of the wave function are real in alternate realities (this solves a lot of problems with the "Copenhagen" interpretation) Additionally , things like single electron diffraction appear to support MWI as correct. so every decision- "measurement" in QM parlance- puts the observer in a new reality having the effects of that decision. Voila- free will.