My guess is that: Once the laws of physics are fully understood the ability to reverse the process of forward progression would become at least a mathematical possibility [ not necessary probable but certainly possible given resources] Just like reversing an equation 1+1=2 or 2=1+1 or 2-1=1 etc etc... Back to the situation of effective infinite computational resources needed to predict the future and so to the past....
Meanwhile back on topic... this image hopes to clarify what I mean by the statement : "If every choice is determined by every possible influence in the universe then that choice must inevitably be free" but only if the ability to say "no" to choosing exists. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The background speckle is to be thought of as all possible influences and choices available universally [ closed system model - Laws of Themo Dynamics etc] The choice between an apple and orange is being inifluenced by the entire universe so therefore the choice is free but only if taken from the perspective of zero choice. [ not making a choice - self restraint] hope that makes sense...a bit of a mouth full so to speak in such short internet speak. edit: the choice of the apple for example is influenced by the existence of the orange and visaversa. eg. " I have chosen to choose", "I have chosen not to take the orange and have chosen the apple instead."
You are ignoring the fact that every particle in the 14 billion years of universe history requires information storage by your theory. That information is something like 14 billion to the 14 billion power bits and you have only one particle to store that information in as each particle is generating that many information bits in its history. Furthermore if you imagine that each object I am calling a particle has that huge number of internal states each of which can store one bit of the particle's history you only make the storage problem much worse and now you need to store the information describing the internal state of each particle too, not just its time history of all its change of speed and locations due to interactions with other particles. Not to even mention again the entropy and irreversibility problem I discussed briefly in post 360. Your (and Boston PETE's) "all is recored or prescribed" ideas are so silly and self contradictory that I will not be replying more.
The universe as it is today [ now] is that storage facility and it looks really good don't you think? [ never said it would be easy hey?]
But current state is not reversible any more than a scrambled egg is. The past is not recoverable. Entrophy has increased and that implies irreversibility. Granted the present "knows" the present or has "stored it", but neither the past nor the future can be told from that (nor is determined from that present) as quantum physics rules the later out and entrophy increasing rules the former out.
Yes but I understand the entrophy increase implies irreversibility* and you do not. * in principle not just "in practice."
But even in this example that you have given, the outcome (apple, orange or no-choice) is not "chosen"... it is merely an outcome that is driven by those influences (the entire universe). The "choice" part, taken from the perspective of zero choice, is just illusory due to the perspective you are taking. According to this example of yours: dice, when rolled, "choose" which face to land on... with the choice being free taken from the perspective of zero choice. And I'm sure you're not suggesting that dice have free-will??
In this example we are talking about SELF Determination where by all influences are involved in determining a single choice. If all of the SUM is involved the result can only be free. [assuming a closed system] It is only when part of the SUM is involved only that we have oppression of self determined freewill. eg. "I reject every choice available except this one choice [A] or "I reject every choice available except this choice ." Because we ae able to make counter intuitive choices and choose not to choose the universe is impotent in forcing us to make any particular choice. In all cases our conditioning afforded by society means we only percieve part of the influences involved [thus oppressed] however being part of this universe means that in actuality all influences are involved. Thus a GOD, as an extreme being, would have all influences included in all decisions thus has freewill with out oppression wher as we have freewill with oppression due to our ignorance.
Eh? Whether there are only one or two, or an infinite number of influences... the outcome is still seemingly driven exclusively from those influences. i.e. no choice. First, you can't "choose not to choose", because you are actually making a choice in doing so. But the "choice" you make, whether counter intuitive or not, is still seemingly exclusively driven by the influences. Those influences, in the case of a "counter intuitive" choice, merely led to that choice and not an other, or to the choice not to choose. Right - you are now describing a possible reason WHY we have the perception of free-will... which is due to not having all the information / influences. But our lack of knowledge of all the influences does not mean that those influences do not act upon us. E.g. Our consciousness merely looks at what "choice" was made, looks at the influences it does know about, and makes it seem that we made a "choice"... thereby filling in the gaps of what our consciousness does not know. I therefore think it is illusory - i.e. not what it appears to be.
Absolutely correct. Especially the part of your post I made bold is literally true and demonstrated scientifically more than 30 years ago, by Libet about your "choices." Recent experiments reported in The Economist concerning problem solving show that the unconscious brain finds the solution up to 8 seconds before it bothers to let your consciousness know the solution, but of course you think that you consciously solved the problem, just as you think you consciously make decisions. Following blue text is from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2232161&postcount=65 This thread is correctly called: “Free Will, Ha! You will be the last to know “your” decisions” Libet's experiments would not change even if the subject delayed for a smoke before reporting when he was aware of making the decision (and when he thinks he consciously made it). The Economist article is not about moments of decision, but about when solution to a problem was found. It provides evidence that the brain may find the solution, or at least the key idea of it, up to 8 seconds BEFORE the person CONSCIOUSLY has his "eureka moment." Libet's EEG recordings from the pre-motor cortex show the activity there which will very soon cause that tiny part of the motor cortex which controls the button pushing index finger to become active. This later activity of the motor cortex is what cases the finger to move and push the button. The subject is continuously watching the extra fast sweep second hand of the clock and still later tells where it was when he thought he decided to push the button. It does not matter if he takes one or two second to tell where the sweep second hand was when "he consciously decided" but actually that is only when he learned of the decision which was already reflected in tiny part of the pre-motor cortex which commands the tiny part of the motor cortex whose output signals propagate down his arm with some unimportant delay to move the finger. That propagation delay is totally unimportant as what is observed is NOT when the button switch closed, but two times: (1) When the pre-motor cortex became active, so that later the motor cortex could be. AND (2) When he consciously decided (or so he thought) to push the button as reflected in where the fast sweep second hand of the clock was when he "consciously decided" Time (2) is a significant fraction of a second after time (1) - that is objective data with no "extrapolation." How much delay there is in his telling where the fast sweep second hand was when he decided does not matter - He could have a smoke first if wanted to before telling where the sweep second hand was when "he decided." But read other posts in that thread too. (Link to the The Economist article is there.)
Ironically, Sciforums computer/ internet system behaved in posting post 373 much like the brain does in making choices and decision before telling you consciously. That is why there are three deletes just prior to post 373, which appears at 54 minutes past an hour. I.e. I hit the "submit reply" button, waited four minutes to be informed of the post display, but was not, so I hit that button again. Three minutes more waiting and still no display so I hit it again. I was thinking my display command was being lost some where. Finally after another three minute wait, I hit the submit display button for the fourth time, and then four displays* of the post appeared on my screen in a few seconds. - I was the last to know the displays were already done just as your conscious self is the last to know your choices and problem solutions were made before you were conscious of them. (Proof of this in post 373.) *Probably, my local internet service provider had "stacked up" the posts as it did not have enough capacity to send them to me immediately. Sometimes it simply refuses to respond for 20 minutes. Not sure, but I think when the demand exceeds their capacity, they have rolling service "black outs" for different sections of Sao Paulo.
First you should understand that the concept of “free will” from a human perspective is simply an illusion for the unaware. Most happenings are already predetermined with a very high certainty. With the parameters being: the context, the level of consciousness the individual (or collective group) and the personal (or group) experience in the current lifetime.
My apologies Sarkus, But I feel we shall have to continue this discourse at a later time as I feel the subtlety of my point is being lost and I feel no avenue to discuss it in a way that will clarify it. I'll leave it with the following ratio-nal. The main point I am attempting to state can be summarised as the following: "If all choices are determined by all possible influences then the choices made are free of limitation thus entirely free." It is irrelevant whether they be subconscious choices, unconscious choices or what ever as the point still stands. [ Unless you believe those subconscious choices belong to someone else ] The fact that the choices are influenced by ALL possible influences does not disqualify the existence of freewill IMO. As one must first reject all influences to choose only one. One can not eat both the apple and the orange simultaneously in the context of the gedanken mentioned. I might add that there is an important distinction between these two notions: "my decisions were influenced" "my decisions were forced" To have freewill the word influence is adequate IMO To NOT have freewill the word "Forced" is more appropriate. Suggestion: Try discussing this issue using this distinction and see how it feels to you and you will start to sense what I am going on about. any ways...I rest my case for now.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I believe it's the sciforums server most of the time as I have suffered similar problems in the past and I think a lot of posters have had similar issues as well. The number of lengthy and carefully composed posts lost because of it has been so frustrating....
I could argue in contra that the concept of freewill being an illusion is only a self esteem defense mechanism due to the nature of realising that the freewill you actually have is unavailable to you due to your own self oppression. or I could argue as per the following letter [snip - example] And use it as an arguement for the existence of a paradox "by the grace of God go I " that demonstrates our self esteem struggle with our own inadequacies in dealing with our own self oppression. "Religion being an intuitively driven man made creation in part to deal with his sense of inferiority when confronted with his own freewill paradox truth."
No - it is not lost on me... I just disagree with your position. I also think you are using (one or more) terms inaccurately or without proper understanding. You see "choice" as just following a single influence over all the others, and that this gives you "free-will". My position is that the influences are the input and the action is the output. There is no "choice". There is no selection (which implies conscious act). There is just reaction. The human body is merely a black box that has input and output, and that "free-will", the idea of "choice" is illusory. One does not select from among the influences. One's brain merely processes all the influences and reaches a singular output (which might be affected by quantum indeterminacy but not "choice") that is unchosen. The output might be the apple, it might be the orange, it might even be neither. Further your own language demonstrates confusion on your part: "If all choices are determined by all possible influences then the choices made are free of limitation thus entirely free." You suggest that choices can be determined, yet determination (same input = same output) is the opposite of choice. From this I honestly think you misunderstand the term "determinism" in this context. It is NOT the same as "based on" or "result from" but has specific philosophical meaning... summarised as "same inputs lead to same output". The face that a rolling die lands on is "influenced" by gravity, the size of the die, the force with which it is thrown etc... so are you suggesting a die "chooses" which face to land on? Your comment also has an a priori assumption of "decision"... which is surely what is being questioned. Suggestion: YOU look at the question from the position that the human is just a black box, converting inputs to output. Yes, it is a complex black box, and undoubtedly quantum in nature that prevents it from being strictly determined. If you disagree that the human is doing more than just converting inputs into outputs then please detail how it can happen. "Choice", as you see it, is in my opinion just the veneer that the black box uses to dress up what is actually entirely unchosen, but that is a requirement for (or more likely a necessary aspect of) consciousness. For a genuine choice to occur there must be a non-random and uncaused influence.
ahh but this is incorrect. I see all influences, reject them all and then make my choice from all the influences I have rejected. Any way what the hell does the word "influence" mean to you? [just curious] What creates the need to use this word instead of "force"? I can certainly by force of will make choices that are contrary to an intuitive/instinctive state. "By force of will I can force myself into a position of freewill and reject the influences acting upon me..." Thus freewill can be and in fact must be fully self determined. such as "not choosing" as a "force of will", "non-random", "uncaused" influence. Not choosing is the act of rejecting all influences and we do it by force of will as part of every woken moment... The disorder called ADHD [ attention deficit hyperactive disorder ] could be seen as an example of what happens when the ability to reject influences by force of will on an ongoing basis fails. IMO
