Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

hee hee
and the climate scientist yells out to the packed auditorium:
"I am not hallucinating, climate change is a real and imminent threat to the human races existence"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you stop yourself from orbiting the sun? We can set a goal, but until we invent warp drive, not much we can do about it..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For about 4.7 billion years it has been logically determined to keep orbiting the sun.
And a good thing it is.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

eh? explain the relevance to the quote please?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I merely gave you an example of a deterministic function which is completely outside your control. You'll just have to accept the fact.
We can go down to quantum and cite similar examples. In fact there is no physical freedom from any of the universal functions, no matter how hard we wish for it.

IOW, there are no uncaused effects, even in human decision making. Got to have a reason to choose and it is never uncaused or completely "free". But because we don't always recognize all the causalities in play, we think we are free to choose, but we never are.

 

so ... why didn't you say so to begin with?

 

I either did and you missed it, or I had no cause to say it to begin with. I'm not free to choose either......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is possible I said it but presented it poorly..

 

so how does determined physics such as orbiting a star relate to my post that you quoted.
repeating:

Have you ever considered that "it may actually be determined that the human being has evolved the capacity to reject, agree or accept that which is determined?"

 

The driver approaches the light. That driver has the ability to stop, or go. It's kind of simple, dude.

You simply refuse to acknowledge physical reality. Either that , or you have some private definition of "ability" that makes about as much sense as your notion of an "appearance". (Of course, you could be declaring time to be an illusion - so the stuff that in our deluded state appears to be going to happen in the future has already happened in some sense. You denied that, but you deny most of your assumptions by turns, as their consequences become apparent).

That would fail to account for the scientific observations (including mechanical recording), independent of anyone's thoughts or beliefs, by researchers in controlled settings - as well as everybody paying attention , of course.

It's called science, and it's you who can't escape it in this thread - which is why I bring it up.

Handwaving, and a complete muddle. Half the sentence is talking about some "process" that includes the light cone, the other half is talking about the human being making the decision, and together they make no sense at all. Drop the word "actually" - it's confusing you. (It's bringing in that supernatural assumption you keep denying you are making - it's synonymous. By "actual" you mean "supernatural").
The human approaching the traffic light has - at that moment, prior to making the decision, prior to the light changing color - the ability to stop or go. That's a physical fact. To verify, run the situation several times with different light colors, and record the outcomes. Nobody's "beliefs" are involved.

But that's not the situation. We have the same inputs leading to the same outputs, always and by assumption. So we don't have indeterminism - indeterminism would be an illusion, here.

But I do. It's just that a mistake like that has nothing to do with this thread. The example of the driver approaching a traffic light does not appear indeterminate, for example.

We are not interested in the freedom or lack of freedom that your mythically closed system may or may not possess. It's irrelevant.
Is the human making the decision, or not? Because the human being is an open system, and if the human being is making the decision an open system is making the decision.
And it "actually" is, observably, making a decision. You can record the brain waves. Physics.
- - - - -
Meanwhile, in the growing category of gratuitous insult from people who are wrong again:

Was my post that confusing? Here - reread:

Can I dumb it down some more? Let's try: Different outputs demonstrate different inputs, by deduction from the deterministic assumption - your deterministic assumption. I got it from you. It's already done - no "good luck" involved, no further effort necessary.

 

IMO, that is a contradiction in terms.

Being a spiritual person, I believe you call it "fate". Do you accept your fate? Can you reject your fate?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fate

 

see my post: #709 for part of your answer.

 

What causes the actual decision to stop or go is the determining factor, and no matter how many times you would have to do it over again, you would always make the same choice. It was your initial free will choice, no?
Or was it?
What do you think of when you see a red light? STOP! Not Go! You are already moving.
What do you think of when you see a green light? GO! Not Stop! You are already stopped.

However, if your wife is having a baby and you are on the way to the hospital, you may decide to run the red light, but that is because you have a greater imperative than obeying a traffic law. This still does not count as FW.
Freedom to Act, yes. Free Will to act, no.

 

Say you decided ten days earlier that you would disobey the lights color? What then?
Say, when you got your license you decided to avoid traffic fines and attempt to obey the rules to the best of your ability? What then?

 

What causal reason would you have to decide that?

An excellent causal reason to obey the traffic lights, which are placed there for your protection to begin with and provide another excellent causal reason to obey the lights. Self preservation.

 

My wife is expecting a child determined about 9 months earlier due to a failure of a prophylactic and I made a decision that if we needed to get to the hospital urgently I would run the light.
Of course you know this fantasy determinism that you keep referring to is just as much an imaginary thing as my answer....a fiction.
Sarkus may recall the earlier thread ( some years ago) where by it was explained that decisions are based on an imaginary reality over laying the real one and are entirely fictional until implemented.

 

As would I. An compelling causal reason.

It makes no difference if it is imaginary or reality. It is the physical response which determines your eventual action.

As does superposition of potentials. Of all superposed possibilities, only one ever becomes reality. But not by FW choice.

 

Hameroff proposes that thinking itself is also performed by microtubules, logical nano scale computers. He (and Roger Penrose) propose that microtubules are in fact quantum computers and as such would have superposed probabilities of which only one ever can become reality.
This would demonstrate the deterministic process of thinking, no?

 

Now link it to the theoretical big bang imaginary and illogical starting point of this reality?
and refute the plausibility of:

 

You imagine one single determining factor? Ok - it's certainly not the traffic light, as that is just a decision criterion among many others. What do you think it is?

Willing is an action. It's a physical event in the brain, an enacted (moving) pattern in the mind.

If identically replayed, yes - by assumption of the thread. And I happen to agree.

To some as yet undiscussed degree, you had some freedom of choice, yes. From an engineering pov.

 

If that were the case, then you should be able to make a different choice than what you made the first time, no?

Hence the term "an act of will". But is it free?

Is it a conscious act of will for ant to fight to the death or is that a completely unconscious electro/chemical response mechanism?

We have no control over the movement of electro/chemicals in the brain. That is the subconscious processing part.
IMO, will emerges from the causal neural patterns which form during the processing of information.

Perhaps this is why meditation requires a "restful environment and physical stasis" to allow for transcendent freeform thought patterns which are not directly involved with the task of survival.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But notice meditation does not function well when constantly interrupted. Your brain won't let you ignore reality.

Hameroff (anesthesiologist) identifies three distinct levels of brain functions. Anesthesia is designed to render only the third conscious level unconscious. The other two subconscious levels remain unaffected by the anesthetics and continue to actively control all you bodily maintenance functions, else you would die.
But your body no longer responds to pain.

 

In what respect, specifically, does it differ from a decision between alternatives - subsequently carried out as directed, by the will?

Or, with equal validity, the previously emerged patterns we call "decision making" control the neural firing. Top down, patterns control substrates.

Thereby demonstrating its physical nature subject to natural law, and excluding the supernatural hypothesis.