Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

So in concluding (note that word) that one can't do otherwise, where is the ability to do otherwise?

No, I regard the observation that a person appears to be able to do otherwise as an "illusion".

What do you wish me to consider that you think is relevant to the argument? Bottom up determinism or any other kind seems to be wholly irrelevant. Let's at least get the basics sorted before appealing to consequences, shall we?

And what exactly do you find to be a muddle about it? If something appears to do something contrary to the way it actually works, as what would you suggest it be referred?

There is no such assumption, and it is an understanding that has sufficed many philosophers for many years, on both sides of the debate. But fair enough, you don't agree. Different notions, different conclusions.

There is no inconsistency. I have explained exactly why it is valid to refer to free will (with the particular understanding of "free") as an illusion, and it is simply not applicable to the notion of observer and observations. There is nothing about those terms that implies anything contrary. Whereas "free" will and not being free do seem to be contrary. I have explained this to you already.

But you know what? You clearly can't be arsed to read what I write. Your responses are yawn-inducingly repetitive with no substance to any criticism you've so far levied against the argument. And I only have so much patience.
But I do remain amazed how you and others can continue to try to attack a position that you clearly have no interest in, and clearly do not agree with. Must be an internet thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hog wash!
It appears you have placed all your critics on ignore.

"...must be a Trump thing"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry that is just wrong, IMO.
Clearly not everything is permitted and not everything is allowed, both as personal choice of convenience or as a viable way to remain in harmony with one's environment.
The insect was nature's choice to have an organism adopt the appearance of its environment.
And the octopus is an even more spectacular example of at will "fluid shapeshifting" to blend with its environment. But

People committing suicide, do not do so by choice. If the choice to die is greater than the desire to live, the result is self-destruction. Objectively/philosophically, it is not allowed continuation.

I believe we have a certain influence over the future. Yet even then there are compelling reasons
which will guide the ultimate choice, intentential or not.

We build dikes and levees in anticipation of a probabilistic flood sometime in the future. This act will undoubtedly influence the outcome of such an "expected" future event, were it to happen but even here is the "anticipation" and "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" clearly causal to any choice, even years before the choice becomes justified by the eventuality of a flood.

And then an even better choice would have been to build a higher dike in case the one you just built proves to be not high enough at that time in the future.

As Carson said: "people build their homes at the foot of an active volcano and then discover they have lava in the living room".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The creed only applies to one self. It exemplifies the notion and idealization of free will. It basically is saying that the only thing governing your choices is youself, while keeping in mind circumstantial impossibilties. That the only rules you follow are the ones you set for yourself.

 

The exception of the rule is the real rule of the Universe

Humanity has the bad habit of learning the hard way .

Forethought , thinking , seems to have vanished

 

In dropping the assumption employed in drawing the conclusion.

You mean "Yes".
And you don't mean quite what you wrote there - you do not regard the observation of appearance as an illusion, but instead are making that "observation" yourself.
I am the one pointing out that observation is problematic, and rests on dubious assumptions.
And you refuse to confront the conflict between that muddle and the bottom up determinism you claim it is based on.

However you want. Only those assuming freedom to be supernatural are afflicted with such "appearances" in this matter, and their vocabulary is not going to matter here.

We are in complete agreement that your "particular understanding" of freedom - that it is necessarily supernatural, if it exists - leads you to make all manner of circular and conflicted references and "explanations".

Meanwhile: The observer and the observation is a mental event on the same level as the "appearance" of decision and choice, and have the same reality - or lack of reality - as the other events on that level. Bottom up determinism provides no criteria for sorting them into categories as if they were causal entities with capabilities of their own.

 

I don't see it that way. The rules are the fundamental expressions of physical attributes. potentials (values), and interactive functions (equations). The exceptions, if there is such a thing, would perhaps be the quantum uncertainty (but probability would still remain).

I agree.
Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction, exercised in the extreme, leads to Greed, Predation, and Parasitism (killing the host).

There are some cultures who deliberate future impact of current "free will" action.
The Deistic philosophies often focus their symbolic worship on Natural potentials.
And of course, there is Nature worship (paganism).....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

And has been replaced with "instant gratification", in many places.

 

You mean if I change the premises I can get to a different conclusion? Wow. How insightful.
Or are you referring specifically to this phantom assumption that you believe I'm making regarding "free" being supernatural? Again, learn the difference between conclusion and assumption.

No, I really do mean "no".

I really do mean what I wrote. It's why I wrote it. If you don't quite follow, or can't accept what I wrote, that's fine, but it really isn't polite to tell people they didn't mean what they wrote.
You made the claim that I was observing the fact of people being able to do otherwise... but i don't beg the question. You have to first show that it is a fact rather than just the appearance of being able to do otherwise. And from the incompatibilist PoV there is no fact. You have a different perspective, a different notion of words, and you come to a different conclusion. That's fine. But as stats many times, you can't argue one perspective by using the meaning of the terms as the other does.

Why do you think it is problematic? I don't see it as being so. I'm sure when you've finished telling me what I am actually meaning, and what I am actually arguing, you'll actually explain why you think it is problematic, because it really isn't. If, that is, you've been reading what I've been saying for the past numerous pages of this thread, rather than just ignoring it and knee-jerking your responses.

I have never claimed to be working with bottom up determinism. I don't see determinism as necessarily needing to be bottom up. So first, show me where I have made a claim regarding it being bottom-up, then show me how you think it is relevant to the discussion! Until you actually do that, rather than just allude to it, there is nothing to actually confront!

So why, oh why, oh why do you keep clearly wasting your time responding to the incompatibilist view when you clearly have no interest in it? I only wish I had so much time on my hands to waste time on things I had zero interest in.

My understanding in this regard is simply along the lines of "able to do otherwise". There are no conflicted references or explanations, and as for being circular, it is no more so than if you started with any other notion.

Again you are asserting my view as bottom-up determinism. Where have I done so? Determinism does not necessarily equate to bottom-up causality. So don't conflate the two. As such you are still arguing a strawman.

A further misunderstanding you have remains with what is considered an illusion. It is not free will per se, but rather it is the "free" nature of the process that is the illusion. We can observe the process at work. But in as much as we think it is free, this freedom is illusory (for the incompatibilist) given their understanding of the term. Just as we can observe any number of optical illusions that appear to move but don't: the picture exists, the picture itself is not the illusions, but the motion we observe in the picture is.
I'm really not sure how many times a person should have to re-explain such things before either concluding that they are being trolled, or concluding that to continue to do so and expecting something different is a clear sign of their own insanity.

 

The explicit premises are not at issue. The assumption of supernatural freedom is.
And yes, your current conclusion would be unavailable - you would be arriving at a different one.

Yep.

Physically able to do other than is physically determined.
The supernatural assumption. You keep making it, and denying it.

Throughout.
We've been over this. There's a more detailed layout back a few pages, where you described what you meant by "starting conditions" and so forth, and agreed with me when I pointed out you did not include dreams and similar events as "determining" - only atoms, molecules, low level substrates.

Supernatural freedom is also illusory for the compatibilist. Everyone here, on this science forum, agrees with you that there is no supernatural freedom of will, or action, or anything, in the physical universe.

 

You mean the assumption that is not there? It can certainly be concluded, if you add in at least one other premise.

My conclusion would be as it currently is, because it follows from the logic and the premises that are there, none of which are an assumption of the supernatural nature of free will. If I remove what is not there I am left with what I already have.

There is no assumption of the supernatural in there. Only if one adds in, as you are doing by stealth, a further assumption that the universe is only deterministic, that determinism therefore equates to the physical laws, can you possibly conclude that labelling something as going against determinism is supernatural. You see the assumption (of being supernatural) because you are making other assumptions that the logic (as presented initially) does not do, and that I do not do.

I recall saying that I considered everything on an holistic level. Dreams and similar events are part and parcel of everything. There is no upwards or downwards but simply one state causing the next.
Furthermore, whether dreams are causative or whether molecules are causative is ultimately irrelevant to the argument. If the cause and effect relationship, whatever it is, is deterministic then the argument stands. Issues of top-down or bottom-up, or any other direction, is irrelevant to the underlying logic of the argument.

Given that I have neither assumed nor concluded that "free" is necessarily supernatural, you're once again continuing down the strawman you've developed.

But let's follow it for a moment... Given that what you are referring to as "supernatural freedom" is what I am considering "the ability to do otherwise", do you accept that you have no ability to do otherwise? Do you then conclude that when exercising your free will you are not actually able to do otherwise than what you end up doing? And that therefore any sense you have of being able to do so is just that, the sense of being able to and not an actual ability?
Just so we're all clear, of course.

 

There is. It's the only way you can conclude that a physical determined system therefore cannot possess freedom of action.

You have assumed it. Throughout.

I accept that I have no supernatural abilities.

Nope.

I have no sense of supernatural abilities.
I have the natural ability to - for example - decide to either stop or not stop for a semaphore, depending on whether it turns red as I approach it, and carry that decision out by an act of will I have not yet performed. It's a decision I will make, based on information I have not yet acquired. Meanwhile, I clearly have the ability to do at least one thing other than I end up doing - seeing as how there are two things I can do, and only one that I will end up doing. Arithmetic.

Now whether that act of will is in any sense a "free" one is going to depend on how we treat a lot of things so far not discussed here. Clearly it is "caused" by my decision - a physical event that took place over a fraction of a second of intense mental activity itself nominally triggered by a mentally registered and incorporated visual input - the color of the light - but caused (in any useful sense) by mental events inculcated over many years by multiple factors. Clearly a repetition of the exact scene, identical in every detail, will always have the same outcome. So?

 

That outcome maybe the same each time but can be different for different individuals.
IMO, that's why it gives an apperance of FW, but the result is always different for each individual. Individually they have no FW. Between them they do.

 

No it's not. One merely has to start with something a single determined interaction doesn't have. There is no further assumption such as "all laws are deterministic", which is what you are assuming a priori, or at least assuming that it is assumed within the original premises. Which it isn't.

I haven't. Throughout. And round and round and round we go.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you have the ability to do otherwise?

So you do think you have the ability to do otherwise? Where do you think this "supernatural" (your assumption, not mine) state of affairs suddenly manifests?

I have a sense of being able to do otherwise. Don't you?

Oh, there are undoubtedly a myriad of things you at least think you can do, and you will probably think that way right up until the point that you actually make your "choice". That much isn't in dispute. But in a deterministic universe (I'm not saying ours is) your "choice" will have been made at the start of time itself. Any option you think you have up until you make the "choice" is simply... well, you know the word.

So? If each state is determined by the state before, and that state by the one before that, then your "choice" was ultimately determined with the beginning of time itself. That is the logical conclusion of a determined system that, for a given input, always has the same output.
Doesn't seem "free" to me. Does it really seem free to you? Knowing that, in a deterministic universe, what you do is actually nothing but part of an unbreakable causal chain set in stone at the start of time, and that will go on until the end of time itself? Seems the epitome of "not free" if you ask me.

 

Question; isn't it a "law" because it is deterministic?

Is that really the case?
In the beginning was chaos from which deterministic causal chains emerge. The BB itself was a chaotic event, from which order emerged, but did not exist at that initial time. Inflationary epoch?

It seems to me that local chaotic conditions exist or are a result of deterministic events throughout the universe, in the form of Nebulae where stars are born, and Super-novae where stars explode and die.


IMO, these are recurring chaotic events since the beginning and introduce temporary local uncertainty which in turn create probabilistic dynamical conditions, from which new orders emerge. The "butterfly effect"?

 

Laws can be probabilistic, can they not? Perhaps even something else, although I am not sure what that "something else" might be.

Are you suggesting that laws (deterministic or otherwise) did not exist in the early stages? Surely it is those very laws that have allowed us to model that far back?

What notion are you implying with the term "chaotic"? Lawlessness - as in physical laws breaking down? Or the notion that small differences in starting conditions can lead to significant differences in later states? Or something else?
If the first, then are you suggesting there are areas of the universe that don't behave according to laws?
If the second, what relevance do you think it has?
If something else, please clarify.

If you're referring to chaos theory, "the butterfly effect" is not about probabilistic dynamics (such as QM), but is about the sensitivity of non-linear deterministic systems, about how a small change in initial conditions can lead to significant changes to the later states.

 

I keep telling myself that I'm going to stop reading this thread. But, for some reason, I keep coming back to it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

True, but once set, do we have a choice of changing or following our own rules beyond that?

 

I just can not see how this leads to the exclusion of a situation where by that same output is the ability to self determine ( aka freewill)
Can any one explain why self determination can not be an "output"?

 

of course we do....

 

Probability does not negate determinism, IMO. It just means that the chance of occurring is uncertain, until it does, at which time deterministic laws determine the how.

I agree that natural laws are omnipresent in the universe. But that is a result of the properties of spacetime, not pre-existing properties of an external influence.
However, it is demonstrable that these laws may not have existed before the BB which was a chaotic event, where FTL metric expansion of spacetime was "allowed", until physical patterns emerged from a "cooling" chaotic plasma and the universal laws of physics began to emerge along with the relative values and functions (potentials) of physical matter.

Google

IMO, which laws where/when? Before the BB the universe as we know it did not exist, including its laws.

Physical laws are very specific in expression and exacting, but the mathematics of dynamic biological systems seems to be flexible, witness evolution.

Local overwhelming dynamic conditions which do not allow the orderly formation of mathematical patterns, except perhaps as fractal patterns.

Chaos is such a pattern. Absence of order.
Vacuum is such a pattern. Absence of measurable values.
BH seem to be such pattern. Dynamic presence of infinite destructive values.
Cosmic nebulae contain such patterns. Dynamic presence of infinite potential values.

Keyword "can lead", which suggest a probability (potential) value for a deterministic event in the future, which means that when the butterfly does flap its wings, there exists an extremely low probability of one superposed potential from an infinity of less destructive potentials.
It's a theoretical mathematical function. Superposed states.

Determinism is a quantum function. It is one or more superposed implicate (enfolded) potentials what become expressed (unfolded) and determine the quantum change. So, while the butterfly effect is theoretically possible, the actual enfolded dynamic potential is at such minute scale as to prevent its sequential occurrence into any kind of regular pattern. It is a low probability anomaly.

Throwing a pebble in the ocean is not likely to cause a tsunami, but it is theorically possible, no?

I love the concept of a purely mathematical universe, but I also believe that physical anomalies can and do occur. Rare events happen in both directions. Most of them are destructive, some are benficial.
Gene mutation is an example. Even the process of cell division which happens with astounding accuracy, still has an occasional misstep. Seems that in many very dynamic biological systems the mathematics attain a certain flexibility due to quantum uncertainty.

Else the universal potential computer would have to be infinitely bigger than the universe itself. This universe allows for an occasional break and new direction.

A mental picture; would it be deterministically possible to predict the number of living systems with any kind of accuracy?
99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct . Can we calculate the number of fish hungry sharks will eat over the next ten years? The further down you go, the greater flexibility in probabilistic mathematics of large systems becomes important.

Qualifier; I am offering these observations as "probing", rather than as "authoritative". Forgive..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!