Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

In your opinion would evidence of self determination indicate evidence of free will?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it is obvious that only one instance of freewill or self determination is demonstrated, Absolute determinism fails.

Goal post #1
I only have to show one instance of freewill ( a term yet to be agreed upon even after thousands of years of discusssion) and I succeed in my argument for the existence of freewill.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Free-will ; the essence of Free-will

The ability to think for ones self , even in a crowd .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You need to define what you mean by "control" and "influence". You have used the terms in examples, but that does not actually define them.
What is the difference that you see between the two terms?

You have also introduced new terms: "volition" and "choice". What do these mean?

Until you define what "choice" and "volition" mean in this context, your conclusion is unfortunately meaningless.

How does this indicate the presence of volition, once you have actually defined what you mean by volition?

These can only be analysed once you have actually defined what you mean by "control" and "influence".

As with most of the above, you need to adequately define the terms you're using. Currently they are vague at best, non-existent at worst. You haven't defined any difference between influence and control, nor self-determination. I'm also not actually convinced you grasp what determinism is.
But let's start with the other definitions, shall we?
Control...
Influence...
Volition...
Choice...

 

You might think it obvious, but you do first need to define what you mean by "freewill". It is rather important to any discussion of the matter.
If the universe is strictly deterministic, free will can still exist if it is defined in such that avoids consideration of the fundamental workings of the universe and is based upon appearance, for example.

Sure, the way that someone only needs to show one black swan to show that a black swan exists.
But if you haven't defined what "black" is, or even what a "swan" is, the claim is a simple logical truth with no value beyond that. After all you're saying nothing other than "If A then A".
What is A, QQ? And how do you think the existence of A negates the possibility of B (e.g. determinism) if that is your additional claim?

 

The Universe is deterministic in an energy and matter , form , perhaps

But Free-will is about Life

And Life thinks and questions

Life is not from energy nor matter

 

It's not? What is it from, then?

 

Or if it is based upon a more sophisticated, less naive, conception of the nature of freedom, and the nature of the will - so that the "fundamental" workings of the universe are recognized as substrates, and the deterministic nature of them within their levels is seen to be largely irrelevant.

Thinking and questioning are physical events. Their taking place is recorded in laboratories using gear that measures electrical activity in the brain, for example.

 

and so is imagining and visualizations. We do run our own simulations from which we draw insight into our next actions or imaginings etc...

 

That's what I said: defining them by appearance. If you want to think of it as having a "more spohisticated, less naive, conception of the nature of freedom, and the nature of the will" then go for it. But it's still defining by appearance. But I have no desire to rehash that with you here. Or anywhere, to be honest.

 

It's not an "appearance" (for starters, there's nothing for it to appear to). It's an observed reality, underlying many appearances.

It replaces the illusion common to those who extrapolate cause and effect across logical levels without due diligence, naive bottom up determinists among them, that the human mind is somehow divided between superfluous observation by an unspecified ghost of some kind and neuron level determined behavior.

 

"nothing for it to appear to"???? Seriously?

But you're still missing the point... you are applying your notion of free will to the term "free will" when those who deem it an "appearance" use their notion. You can not say that it is not an appearance if you use a different meaning entirely.
From their point of view it is merely an illusion, and from their perspective you are looking to define it in terms of its appearance. You aren't even in the same discussion if you start from a different notion of "free will".

That is why you have to define it up front. And until you can be bothered to do that, frankly all your posts on the matter claiming that it is more than appearance etc, can be ignored as irrelevant from their point of view.
Your choice: define it for purposes of the discussion you want to have, or remain irrelevant while you continue to use notions that differ to those under discussion.

Either way, I won't be responding until you decide upon one of those options.

 

Self determination ( defined by action)
"I am feeling down, my mood is poor and I have a meeting with marketing representatives in 30 minutes.
I decide to eat some chocolate as I know it will most probably lift my mood.
As a result of deciding to eat the chocolate my mood does indeed lift and my meeting was successful."

I have self determined my mood by eating the chocolate. As a consequence I have self determined my performance in the meeting.

The universe has not determined my actions. I have.

Yes or no?
If no, then how did the universe determine my actions?

 

I would say that the universe determined your actions. You, unsurprisingly, are simply a part of the universe. Are you putting yourself as separate or distinct from the universe?
But you still haven't defined any of the words you're using - such as "determine", "decide" etc.
Are you defining self-determination (as opposed to non-self-determination) by where the eventual outcome manifests? I.e. self-determination is when it manifests within the person rather than outside?
If so, okay, it's a start, but it doesn't even begin to dig into the question of whether that determination is "free" - not that even that word has been defined thus far.

 

Yes.

 

Yep.
If the actions on that level are appearances, so is the observer and the act of observation - and the snake eats its tail.

I'm not. I'm pointing to the nature of "their notion", some issues with it that they consistently overlook, without "applying" mine at all.

And that does not make sense. Their point of view would be an illusion to begin with, along with "them" in themselves, for one thing. That is a problem with their point of view - it leads to incoherent assessments like that.

And since I'm not doing that, there is something wrong with their perspective. A couple of things, as it happens.
For one thing, it's circular - as noted.
For another, it's built on the assumption that only the supernatural is free - which excludes freedom of will by assumption, emptying the discussion of meaning.

 

His making that move would seem to suggest that he thinks that opponents of free-will are misconceiving things. (I'm kind of inclined to agree.) You seem to be demanding that he join those he disagrees with in those misconceptions as a precondition to them talking to him.

Is there really some requirement that one must already believe that free-will is an illusion as a precondition of discussing the free-will/determinism problem?

Perhaps you should do the same. What does "free-will" mean to you (and the 'their point of view' crowd)? And while we are at it, what does "determinism" mean? What is the latter word claiming? What relationship does 'determinism' have to causality, to predictability and things like that?

 

Maybe you're referring to life as experienced versus the ideational account of life?

Well, at least in terms of the chronology of knowledge development the immediate presence or experience of "being alive and surrounded by stuff" came first. Matter and energy were disciplinary generalizations abstracted from the former (outputted by intellect and regulated practices).

"Naïve living slash concrete existence as encountered and personally gone through" was in effect before the rationalizing conversion to 3rd-person conceptual and data constructs -- before the formal descriptions of analytical and explanatory affairs. But the latter acquired the greater significance in the objective orientations of scholarship and research; and accordingly "which came first" was reversed in that context. ("Let's pretend we've always been on the rooftop, and the ground and ladder for climbing to such should not be conflated with origin or source of things/events as approved by reason and understanding.")

So hierarchically -- if not chronologically -- the ideational representation or expression of the world is treated as a kind of "prior in rank" cause of the given, phenomenal one (the latter as naively experienced, without intrusion of heavy abstraction, concepts, and investigative practices). But contrasted to "actually being alive slash encountering existence", the intellectual version usually seems distant or never as real or directly present as the ingredients of everyday routine.

~

 

Actually given the current understandings the universe is more a part of me than the other way round.

"You Sarkus are a part of my universe". hee hee​

and

"I, QQ are a part of your universe". Ouch!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

That being said, we as individual self animated humans, are "Gods in our own universes".
or to be more specific:

"You Sarkus are the God of your own universe."
" I , QQ am a God in my own universe"​

You could use phrases and terms like: War of the Gods, God complex, superiority complex, racism, supreme-ism to aid in understanding the competitive nature of this multiplistic (God) universe.

Sure we may not be the omni idealization of a God, but certainly we can be accused of constantly attempting and striving to be ( re- science) as we flex and attempt to improve our ability to self determine in our own universe.

Power is directly associated with self determination, the more you can self determine your universe the greater your power.
​

When discussing freewill and it's twin self determination, egocentric, ID centric, heliocentric perspectives MUST be involved. That is to say for those who don't understand the applied or adapted definition of heliocentric perspectives, the definition is that the universe revolves round the self and not the other way round.
I believe that the Solar Plexus, ( center chest under ribs) has been named as such, originally for just that reason (belief). (re: Pagan, Astrology etc)

To argue free will and self determination with out a heliocentric perspective is illogical and essentially wrong.

Summary:

• To argue about freewill one must consider it as a heliocentric perspective.
• We are individually the center of our own universe and not separate from it.
• We are individually "God" or "King" of our own universe.
• We strive to become the God we idealize. ( science - self development)

The more we know and accept about our selves the greater our choice within our universe.

To argue that I am, some how separate, from my body also is problematic and invokes the paranormal, spiritualism etc

That being said the notion of a self is inclusive of all that I am, physical body included and like any other object in this universe I have a physical boundary and I would contend that that self is very capable of self determination with in my surrounding universe.

 

any reputable online dictionary would suffice...