Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

I thought some more on the assertion that greater knowledge affords greater freedom of choice. But is that true?

As I understand it, greater knowledge affords greater "understanding", but does that result in greater freedom of will? That logic sounds suspect to me, but I admit that might be true...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Question: Does an Octopus or a cuttle fish have FW? It's got eight semi-autonomous brains.,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To your last two statements

Greater knowledge does lead to greater freedom of free-will .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then please provide the links again, as I must have been confusing it with something else.

It's not irrelevant as it helps explain the confusion you were suffering when you summarised my position incorrectly, claiming that cause and effect was the bedrock of my argument when it is the nature of that cause and effect.
But hey, if you want to quote-mine so as to be able to score points, go ahead.

Please provide the evidence to support this, iceaura. I have been quite consistent in referring neither to bottom up nor top down but to the holistic system. My conclusions are based on this and are consistent with this. I have probably said that I have not paid too much attention to the issue of top down v bottom up, but my conclusions remain consistent with the holistic approach I favour. But I await the evidence to the contrary.

No, as just explained. In a strictly deterministic universe a classical particle, for example, that is 10 light years away, can not have any bearing upon a process, for at least 10 years. The maximum distance information can travel in the time between now and the decision is thus the upper limit to the size of the system that needs to be considered.
And it is closed in the sense that only what happens within that boundary can have a bearing upon the output of the process. But of course, not everything within that boundary need have a bearing, but it sets the maximum sphere of influence, so to speak.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing the will to be free, rather than just the decision making process. My confusion. After all, I have also repeatedly said that the process exists.
So, we are in agreement, it seems: the will is a simply process that behaves determinsistically (in a deterministic universe) and that any sense of being able to do otherwise is simply a sense rather than an actual ability? Because that is what you are agreeing with. If the universe is deterministic, and the will is a deterministic system, then the outcome of the decision was set in stone at the start of time. All you are then describing as the will is the process by which the outcome is physically achieved.
So where, then, is the will being "free"?

No, the deciding system is necessarily closed in a deterministic system. If it is not then it is possible that the exact same inputs that one is aware of might arise yet the openness of the system allow a different result to transpire.
But I agree, there is no indeterminacy involved. The decision reached, in a strictly deterministic universe, is set in stone at the outset, and there is only the sense of being "free". And all you are talking about with the will is the decision making process, something which no one has disputed exists as a process. The question is whether that will is actually free or not.

 

My self-obligated limit is three repetitions of simple points. You are way over already.

There will be many more repetitions, anyway, in this matter. Most of my posting here consists of repetitions of that and a couple of other points, variously illustrated and argued, and it looks like that pattern will run to thread closure.

The only closed system in a deterministic physical universe set in stone from the beginning of time is that entire universe.

The inputs are not always part of the deciding system. The color of the traffic light, for example, is not part of the deciding system we call the "driver", and the inputs the driver takes in as information need only reach awareness at the time of decision - up until then, the driver has a decision to make, not a decision made.

The freedom is in the ability to make a decision between alternatives and carry it out as an act of will. There is no "just" about it.

That's not true. Its bearing on all processes is from ten years ago its time, is all - which is present time, in the process ten years away.

Nonsense. People navigate by the Pole Star, for example.

The entire universe is within the boundary of things that can, in theory, affect any given process anywhere within it. That is particularly obvious to those who consider the universe to be "holistically" determined, rather than by cause and effect, and are in fact considering top down as well as bottom up determination of output. You are not one of those people, see?

The supernatural assumption, again. The assumption of bottom up causality, also, although better hidden. The overlooking of quantum theory and chaos. And the conflict inherent in arbitrarily classifying mental states of equivalent physical reality.

In the process by which the outcome - decision carried out by an act of will - is physically achieved.

The decision is not set in stone in the decider. The decider uses information as it comes in, and meanwhile has the ability to choose between alternatives.

See - you don't need links: the argument is going to remain until you address it.

 

I'll take that as a no, you can't be bothered. And if you include just simply stating that things have been observed in a lab....
But yeah, you're right, you have simply been repeating the same yawn-worthy misunderstanding and fallacious rebuttal, as explained, clarified, illustrated and argued each time until I simply fall asleep doing so.

Of course, if you intend to take the system back to the beginning. Otherwise it is as I explained. If you take the state at time t=X then you theoretically have everything you need to establish the state at any subsequent time. X doesn't need to be at the beginning, more so when discussing simplified systems.

They certainly think they have a decision to make, and you are correct that the processing continues up until the point the action is taken. But unless you have anything more than simply a description of the system, you're not really talking about whether it is actually free or not.

And in a strictly deterministic universe there is only the belief that there are alternatives, beliefs we hold up until the decision is made. But if the universe already set up the course of action from the outset, how is it free?

??? Information can not travel FTL. Even a photon travelling at light speed would take 10 years to travel the distance from its current location to the decision making point. Until it reaches that point, or creates a ripple of effects that reach that point (with those ripples likewise unable to travel FTL) it has no bearing on the decision.
This is the very reason why objects that are now outside our Hubble universe can no longer have any impact upon us.

No, they navigate by the photons emitted from pole star that have taken 433 years to reach us. What we see when we look up is the North Star from 433 years ago. So yes, we navigate by the pole star, but anything the pole star does now can not affect us for another 433 years.

Not if you adhere to the notion that information can not travel FTL. What you consider "blatantly obvious" stems from your misunderstanding. Objects are expanding away from us faster than light. Light emitted from those objects now will mostly never reach us. Ever. Nothing those objects ever do now will affect us. Ever. Treating a system holistically doesn't alter this.

When considering the case of the universe being strictly deterministic one can consider it an assumption, yes, precisely because one is assuming that all the natural laws are thus deterministic. Note that this is very different from the original argument put forth by Baldeee that made no such assumption of the laws all being strictly deterministic. Which is why there was/is no such assumption within that formulation. But my guess is that you're unable to comprehend that difference, given you haven't understood it thus far.

No such assumption, I'm afraid.

Overlooking quantum theory, yes, because I am restricting this at the moment to the strictly deterministic. For simplicity. Once we have resolved any disagreement in this scenario then we can look to see I feel quantm theory introduces hope for things being "free".
And as for chaos, there is no ignoring of it at all. Chaos exists in even relatively simple strictly deterministic systems, since chaos is merely the sensitivity of end state to small changes in initial state of the system.
Chaos itself is an irrelevant notion here.

Not sure what you're on about here. Please can you explain your criticism more fully?

The process which is merely concluding upon an action that was set in stone aeons ago?

So the decider sits outside reality? If the decision is set in stone then it is set in stone. You don't get one part of reality where it is and another where it is not.
What you are merely referring to, and what you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge, is that you are referring to the sensation by the decider that it is not set in stone. We don't believe it is, but (in a strictly determined universe) it is. The decider might not be aware that it is set in stone... but it is.

Even though the outcome was set in stone aeons ago? You'll need to do better than that, I'm afraid.

I need links if I am to take what you say seriously, given that you have stated that you have provided verified counterexamples etc.
Otherwise what you have said here simply reaffirms that all you are talking about is the sensation, the feeling, the belief, that we have the ability to do otherwise. Until you can show it is more than that, there is really nothing left to address.

 

I doubt it. Ask; are we making better decisions now than in the past?

We have better toys, all to amuse ourselves. As usual our greater knowledge has been used in the direction of greatest satisfaction, which. if taken to extremes leads to greed and excess.

And global warming! If all that is the result of greater knowledge, I really wonder if free will and choice is a desirable ability.

I find remarkable that the insect, which has no choice of any kind, was here long before us and will be here long after we're gone.

 

Question: Is a photon free to make a choice on being a particle or a wave?

Why should humans be exempt from the laws of physics. If a thing cannot decide to be in either of two possible states, why should we be able to freely choose from a host of choices?

Is a paramecium free to choose its direction? They do learn how to avoid obstacles, which is knowledge. Does that give them a type of free will? What's the difference ?

Question: are humans the only organism to have FW? Would that make us God like?

 

Is interesting IMO that the philosophy of determinism has striking similarities to the Stoic Philosophy of ancient Greece, 300BC.
Where they discuss everything being predetermined (fate) and in the hands of the Gods.

The Stoic ethic espouses a deterministic perspective; in regard to those who lack Stoic virtue, Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes".[8] A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,"[9] thus positing a "completely autonomous" individual will, and at the same time a universe that is "a rigidly deterministic single whole". This viewpoint was later described as "Classical Pantheism" (and was adopted by Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza).[11]​

src: wiki

It is worth noting perhaps, that it is suggested that a degree of freedom or free will is available but only if one aspires to a more ethical life. That with out ethics "the wicked man is like a dog tied to a cart and compelled to go where ever he goes". Thus the gaining of an ethical life mitigates the paradox of self determination vs determinism. In those times the term "Logos" referred to what amounts to an all determining divine ether. It was only much later that it took on the more contemporary meaning.

Lead me, Zeus, and you too, Destiny,

To wherever your decrees have assigned me.
I follow readily, but if I choose not,
Wretched though I am, I must follow still.
Fate guides the willing, but drags the unwilling

~Cleanthes (300-230BC)​

Have we just come full circle in 2500 years, but ditched the divine aspect?

Just thoughts...

 

You doubt that brain activity involved in reacting to traffic signals has been observed in a lab? That the ability of drivers to decide whether or not to stop has been researched via brain scans, laboratory setups, field observation, etc?
And that's just one example. Few aspects of human mental activity have been as long investigated from as many different approaches in as many different aspects as the making of decisions under fluctuating circumstances.

Which are posted in front of you: stop or go at a traffic light is one immediately to hand. Whether or not you ever take them seriously is beyond my influence.

So? It arrives anyway. And it arrives between now and the time of decision.

That's even worse for your argument. You have to take into account the behavior of things hundreds and thousands of years ago, as well as things hundreds and thousands of light years away.

The only closed system in a physically deterministic universe is the universe entire.
- - - -

It's not the universe we are talking about. It's human beings, and others who have some freedom of will.
And you continue to overlook quantum theory, chaos, etc. The manner in which the universe is "set up", the nature of what is "determined", is critical.

The decider is only a small part of reality. They sit outside the rest of it. Some reality is separate from, outside of, other reality.
Unless of course you are talking about the whole universe, all of physical reality, as the decider - which you are, half the time.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to the observation, by everyone, that the decider has the ability to make two or more different decisions and then act on the one made. It doesn't matter what the decider's "sense" is - unless that affects the range of alternatives available to it.

Yes. That misleading and unexamined assumption doesn't change the physical reality in front of you.

Why do you suppose that is? It's right there: driver approaches traffic signal, able to stop or go, claiming that they will decide by the color of the light as they come up to the intersection. They do, in fact, stop or go accordingly. If you are monitoring their brain activity you can see the claim, the decision, and the willed action of the brake foot etc. All the evidence shows that they had a decision to make, the ability to make it, and the ability to act according to their will as established by the decision.

 

That is the definition of Determinism, no? As long as the information exists before you make your decision based on that information, where is the FW?

I submit that 14.5 billion years of purely deterministic universal evolution proves the success of purely Deterministic processes, unless you invent a god who made the FW decisions before He created the universe.

 

No, I do not doubt at all that brain activity has been observed in the lab that attests to such, nor that there is a process called "will" that we can observe. The existence of the process has never been in dispute, something I have said time and again. What is in dispute is whether the process is actually free or not.

Sure, and none of them have addressed, or been able to address, the question of whether the process is actually free or not. If you think otherwise, post these links you say have been provided in the past. Provide them and let's examine them to see what they actually show.

That's not a link, iceaura. That's just an example. And it is an example that I have already examined and explained my position on. Whether or not you take this discussion seriously is beyond my control.

But an object or event occurring 20 light years away can not have an effect on a decision being made in 10 years. A decision being made in 10 seconds can not be influenced by an event occurring 20 light-seconds away. So it is wrong to conclude that for a given decision the universe is the smallest closed system. The universe is only the smallest closed system for the system that is the universe.

Eh? You merely need to consider the current state of things a distance away that light can travel before the end state you want to examine.
If the decision is 10 seconds away then it is the current state of things within 10 light seconds.
As for this corrected misunderstanding of yours being "worse" for my argument it is far from it at all. No one actually does any considering of such things. We're not talking here about what someone would need to do, but simply the nature of the beast, that if someone did consider those things then they would be able to accurately predict the outcome of the decision. If you honestly still think it is somehow "worse", once you have corrected for your misunderstanding, then you aren't really grasping the argument at all.

That is only true if you are considering a system that began at the start of the universe and continues to the end of it... I.e. The universe itself. If you are considering a system for a finite life time then the closed system is enclosed within a volume with radius equivalent to the distance travelled by light from the start to the end of the time being considered.

So you DO think human beings operate differently to the universe? If the universe is set on a course of action determined from the start, where do humans suddenly gain this mysterious ability to not fall into the same line? That is what you're saying here by special pleading the case of humans. If the universe's course is set in stone then so is every aspect of it (in the scenario of the strictly deterministic universe being considered).

While you're still crawling through the scenario of the strictly deterministic, it is really not worth considering quantum theory and probabilistic models. It will only add to your confusion.
And I have explained how chaos is irrelevant. If you want to rebut what I have said in that regard, do so, but don't be so dishonest as to say that I'm overlooking it. I have looked at it, considered it, and considered it irrelevant for the reasons given. If you think it important, state your case for it.

They sit outside the rest of reality?? The only reality they sit outside of is that which can have zero influence upon them, and which they have had zero impact upon. And so we're back to the notion of the sphere of influence as previously explained.
But it's not the physical location of reality that you were suggesting they sit outside of but the actual workings of reality. Do you consider the decider to sit outside the nature of reality? That is what you suggested when you said that the outcome is not set in stone within the decider. If the universe's path is set in stone, we, as part of that universe, must also be on a path set in stone, our decisions set in stone. So do you see humans, the decider, sitting outside that reality?

I'm merely talking about the universe being strictly deterministic. The rest is context driven but consistent with that.

So when you see magic tricks you believe what you see, that it is actually as you saw it, that things really did float, that things really did disappears etc? Or do you accept that there can be a difference between what you observe and what is actually going on? Write4U has posted some optical illusion we can not interpret other than incorrectly.
Of course, by saying that you judge freewill by observation in this way you are simply reaffirming that you are talking only about how things appear. Which is what I have been saying about your position all along.

It's not misleading in the slightest, as it is a logical conclusion of strict determinism, and most philosophical discussions start from the acceptance of strict determinism equating to predeterminism
As for being unexamined, what do you think the initial logical formulation by Baldeee does if not examine the logical conclusions of it? What do you think we're doing here if not examining it?

But you're right in that the physical reality in front of me wouldn't change. But just as the universe is predetermined, so is the eventual "choice", regardless of what we might think up to the point of decision.

Because you're not offering anything of relveance thus far, while trying to assert that it is, perhaps.

And none of that scratches on the question of whether they actually had an ability to do otherwise, or simply believed they did. The universe, if set in stone (as assumed by strict determinism) applies to the decision-maker as much as it does to everything else. If the decision is set in stone, where is the "ability to do otherwise"? Unless we take "free" to be wholly based on how it feels, I.e. the illusion.
But you won't have that.

 

I would tend to look at information restricting choice. They put limits on the possibilities. Although information could also free oneself from an otherwise unwarranted assumption that had been inadvertently restricting choice, and thus increase freedom in that regard.

 

So uhm ... how does Astrology fit in to the picture?
It seems the determinist is vouching for Astrology being in the very least part of the determining of peoples choices (aka freewill.)

 

IMO, choice is a different beast from free will.

Suppose you have a choice between the "devil and the deep blue sea". What do you choose?
Neither choice is from Free Will, no?

We have an expression "choosing the least of two evils". If I had free will, I would not choose any "evil" at all.

But we don't, so we are compelled to choose one or the other. So we choose the lesser evil.
(movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction or least pain)

 

Why should it fit any differently from anything else? Are you suggesting that for the Compatabilists Astrology is not part of what people consider? That there is a difference in the two views as to how they treat Astrology?

 

Not necessarily. The person making the decision first has to believe in astrology for a edeterminist to conclude that astrology was influential in the decision making.

If the person doesn't, he will not make any decisions based on astrology, and a determinist will not assert that the subject did base his decision on astrology.

 

It has degrees of freedom, as observed.
Not in the supernatural sense, of course - in the engineering sense.

They have. They point out that once the supernatural presumption is set aside, the fact of the entity at issue - the person - actually choosing between actually available alternatives is an observation. So a degree of freedom exists.

If the universe is a closed system, that's obvious - human beings are an open system.

It's not a logical conclusion, unless one is arguing from an assumption of freedom being supernatural.

There is no such part of reality. So you have simply defined the human being as coextensive with all of reality - nonexistent, as a separate entity.

Nonsense. Nothing I posted even fails to contradict that.

So?
The universe after the decision is predetermined in part by the decision.

You were talking about closed systems. Human beings are not closed systems.

How they appear to laboratory equipment, replicable research reports, and everyone basing their assessments on observed physical fact rather than handwaving.

What it does is clarify what you are talking about when you wave your hands and say "set in stone" and "predetermined". You appear to be trapped in a bottom up delusion, in which substrates determine patterns.
- - -

Right there in the mind, as "set in stone" from all that came before. You can watch it happen on brain scanning equipment.

Their ability to do otherwise has been verified in the laboratory, as recorded physical fact, without the slightest reference to anyone's "beliefs". People actually do decide whether to stop or go based on the color of the light, and they actually do have the ability to either stop or go depending on that information, and it makes no difference what they "believe".
Researchers haven't just scratched that surface - they've compiled a very large volume of research and findings and analysis in the matter.

 

People don't make choices based on astrology as such. Astrology is premised on determinism and choices are already predetermined.
If a choice is made based on what the Astrologist foretells then that is also predetermined.

Example of Astrological sooth:

The Mayan Prophecy for 21st, December 2012 is premised on Astrological determinism.
Brief: "The universe will be destroyed or God will emerge to save it"

Well ....as per climate change etc from a human perspective at least half of the prophecy seems to be valid...

"We are just puppets to the stars" ~ anon

Ultimately the "proper" Astrologist must presume a predetermined reality exists. That the future he sooth's is unavoidable.

The Stoics I mentioned earlier attempted to reconcile the paradox of both freewill and rigid determinism.

Opinion:
Ultimately when you get down to the very core of the issue a paradox will always be demonstrated. It is accepting the reality of a paradox that finally ends this debate. That allows the Stoic interpretation to hold true.
Explaining this paradox is beyond the scope and capacity of this forum. The logic involved is extremely difficult to grasp. Heisenberg got close but failed to go deeper. IMO

As you know science is unwilling or very reluctant to accept a real paradox and so too philosophy...so I guess the endless debate will continue. ( as the paradox requires)

 

"Fate guides the willing, but drags the unwilling" ~ Cleanthes 300-220BC

The sheer brilliance of the ancients is staggering when you think on it.
In only 8 words too...
The emphasis being the use of the word "Guides" as distinct from "controlled" or "determines".