Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

With what I have waiting in Bali in March it should be my single priority
Should not be on line now

But to stay on topic

Part of my post about the thread revolves around the physics part. The other part about the mental aspects

The physics part (action/reaction/action ad infinitum) I don't think is correct

The so called butterfly effect is vastly overrated in my opinion
Most small butterfly wing flappings die out long before they affect anything beyond a very small region around the butterfly

Hence not every action continues forever

More to follow

Now coffee time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope you had a wonderful time and I'm looking forward to your considered opinion......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Had a great time and was putting out part of my musings as your post came through

Only thing better in March would be my Orthopaedic Emergency Department Nurse can join me in Bali for 5 days

In the thread topic part of the mental aspect of free will revolves around the chemical/electrical processing of thought

With the ability to observe the presumed start of a chemical/electrical process (perhaps even record it)

CAN YOU BE CERTAIN IF YOU OBSERVE A REPEATED chemical/electrical process IT GIVES RISE TO THE SAME THOUGHT????

Must have coffee

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not?
As I understand Hameroff, apparently the tau particles somehow direct information to the proper memory location in the Giant Pyramidal Neurons or Axonal Terminals.
According to Hameroff, epigenetic memory is stored in microtubules.

Note: Hameroff specfically makes mention of "patterns" which connects his theory with that of Tegmark, even though Tegmark raised objections to Hameroff's use of quantum mechanics in microtubules.
But Hameroff demonstrates the "sound" of microtubular processes.

Just noticed a new term (to me) ; SNARE proteins.!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNARE_(protein)

 

Well you seem confident but I don't share that view

Have you thought of a way to confirm such a view?

I cannot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Looked it up

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNARE_(protein)

Fascinating stuff giving this Minion a brief idea of the complexity of LIFE and the PROCESSES involved

Oh to be a Theist

Today class we are going to talk about life. Can anyone tell me how life started?

Yes sir me sir god did it

Excellent class dismissed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, but it is assumed that when you talk of a system you know its initial state. That state could be at t=100, t=1,000, or now.
Thus for a decision being made in 10 seconds it is assumed that the initial state (now) is known and then the system is closed if one considers the volume of 10 light-seconds radius, closed in that the volume contains everything that could possibly determine that decision.

Yes, quite possibly. But this doesn't change anything regarding the argument.

Not in a strictly deterministic universe.

The system refers to the decision-making process. The system is closed if it contains everything necessary for reaching that decision, and no necessary information can be lost or gained.

If you only consider the physical elements contained within our bodies, then yes, it would be open. But that is not the decision making system, which is necessarily closed.
The open system of "human being" is open and can thus appear indeterministic... it can appear to have the same inputs and reach different outputs.

But it is not free. It does what it must. It has no option by to click on/off when the temperature dictates.

There would be degrees of freedom, which is not in question, but they would not be free. Just like the thermostat is not free.

Indeed. And not free.

So now you're saying that in the driver, car, light scenario the driver will always do the same thing (the same colour light, same car, same driver = same output) and thus you are saying that they have no ability to do otherwise. You can't have it both ways. If the same driver, same car, same light colour can lead to two different outputs (e.g. go / not-go) then you are considering an open system with regard the decision, and the process as considered is indeterminate.
You seem to be clinging to the notion that determinism simply means that a re-run of that specific process will always yield the same result, but you aren't considering anything else about what strict determinism entails.

Noone is stopping you from discussing that, if that is what you wish to discuss. Me, I'm considering the question of whether our will is free, as in actually able to do otherwise.

I haven't said that the human will has no degrees of freedom. As stated, even a thermostat has one. The question I'm considering is whether the will is free, whether it can actually do otherwise. For example, can a perfectly working thermostat that is set to click on when the temp falls below 15-C actually do otherwise? It has a degree of freedom... but is not free.

And you'll continue to think that's what I'm doing while you continue to misunderstand why something is considered an illusion in this regard. I've explained countless times, and I'm not going to repeat myself again when it's clearly falling on deaf ears.

 

I am confident this has something to do with the mirror neuron system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Seems to me, given that mirror neurons fire in a specific way when electro/chemically stimulated in a specific way, should it not follow that this would give rise to the same experiential response in the observer and might well apply to all subsequent similar experiential observations?

Consider that when we see someone hurt themselves, we wince as if we are the one experiencing the real pain. It is a purely deterministic reactive mental electro/chemical response in the brain.

Brings to mind the experiment of the phantom hand in Anil Seth's presentation posted earlier, where the subject's mind assimilates the fake hand as being his real hand (which is hidden from view), and when the fake hand is stabbed, the subject responds as if the fake hand is the real hand. This response is completely involuntary.

Or even in the flexible auditory response, where the mind actually learns to separate a sentence from a set of apparent random noises.

I find it astounding that the mind has such flexible adaptive properties, which are based on recognition and translation of external stimulus into the same electro/chemical neural responses.

Perhaps the problem lies in our assumption that thoughts produce electro/chemical reactive responses, but that may not be the case. Perhaps it is really the electro/chemical reactions to sensory observations that produce thoughts as well as the involuntary functional auto response behavior?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What attributes of freedom would they lack?

No. I am saying that they have the ability to do otherwise until they do it (decide, will, etc), and afterwards they will have no ability to have done otherwise.
- - - -

Which means you have - in theory - observed it. Which means you have made measurements over sufficient time to record the direction and magnitude of continuing changes. Which means your measurement is not instantaneous. Which means one could - in theory - back you up to the beginning of the universe if there are any patterns changing on that scale. (Which there would be, in a holistically determined universe. You never pick up on the holistic determinism stuff).

Acceleration, phase, velocity, direction, etc, do not physically exist, cannot be observed or measured, at a single point in time. Neither do quantum phenomena such as location, charge, etc. Determinism has nothing to do with that.
- - - - -

And by "decision making process" you mean the system - everything in the light cone, was your description.
But the matter at hand is the human being making the decision. Nobody is arguing that the universe has freedom of will.

Good. It is.

By handwaving at logical levels of pattern, making arguments completely dependent on a vague and conflicted bottom up determinism and a supernatural conception of freedom. Continually blowing off the physical nature of the matters at hand.

 

If we aren't considering the freedom of will of the human being, I'm not sure what the topic is. The freedom of will of a light cone volume?

That was your definition. Seemed ok to me - at least, for the purposes here.

Not in my universe. In my universe nothing appears indeterminate. When different outputs are observed, different inputs are deduced - not merely assumed, but demonstrated.

 

Is this worthy of consideration?

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

 

I agree, many causal chronologies die out immediately or after some continued chronology.
Example is the gradual "flattening" of a wave function, until it is no longer a wave.

However, those causal actions which lead to a cascading chronology must follow the "implicate" potentials preceding every caused result, regardless of duration of the chronology, IMO.

Each specific action is the direct result of a prior specific causal condition.

I believe that this is addressed in David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate order".

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

IMO, this is why we can say that the "enfolded" potentials implied in the BB were causal to every subsequent state of "unfolded" reality.

I cannot think of a possible different logical explanation.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The actual ability to do otherwise.

Thinking that one has the ability to do otherwise is not the same as actually being able to do otherwise. In a strictly determined universe (the scenario under discussion here) the universe is not determined only at the point of decision, but at every point in the past. You accept that in such a universe a decision, once taken, would be set in stone and if time reversed and played through again the same decision would be made. What you can't seem to build into your understanding is how the decision was fixed from the outset.
So it's not a case that they have ability to do otherwise until they do, but that they never actually have the ability to do otherwise. The only thing we have is the appearance and belief that we might possibly have been able to do otherwise.

It means that if it were possible to know the initial state...

No need to bring practical considerations into a theoretical perspective. IF one could know the initial state, and IF one could accurately model the interactions, then one could arrive at knowledge of all subsequent states whether the actual system functions or not.

Are patterns not part of the overall state of a system? If you accept that they are then you are flogging a dead horse. If you don't, then please let me know how a pattern sits outside.

It's not about taking a snapshot and working out positions. It is about knowing state A. This includes the acceleration, phase, velocity, direction etc.
Is this practically possible? No. Nor does it need to be.

Nor is anyone disputing that humans make decisions. Everyone accepts that the will, the making of decisions, is a process that we go through. The question is whether those decisions are free. Or whether they were set in stone, for example, at the dawn of time.

Then I genuinely look forward to you no longer responding to the discussion on whether the will is actually able to do otherwise.

They would all be good requests to someone who is doing any of them. I am not hand waving at anything, rather it is you who is trying to invalidate the argument by alluding to logical levels of patterns while so far unable/unwilling to show how such is actually relevant. There is no dependency on vague or conflicted bottom-up determinism, but rather a consistent argument from what I perceive as a more holistic determinism. And as for the supernatural concept of freedom, yes, it is the conclusion reached from the argument in the case of strict determinism. That is the way of things when the conclusion is that something can not possibly exist.
And I do not blow off the physical nature of anything, if it is relevant to the argument. The physical nature is that things operate in a strictly deterministic manner (in the scenario being discussed). Unless you can justify its consideration, which you have so far failed to do, anything else you are waving your hands about would seem to be a red-herring.

Don't be so pathetic. We are considering the freedom of will of the human being, but that decision making system necessarily includes everything that I have previously described, lest it be viewed as open and in which case can appear indeterministic. Car/driver/light is an indeterministic system since the driver, on seeing the colour red, could go forward one time, and could stop another time. Only taking into account those three things the system might appear indeterministic, because it is open with respect to that specific decision. You need to consider the closed system.

Wow. Yet you manage to avoid consideration of everything that logically follows from that? Like predetermination? Wow. If that's the case then I'm sorry, I definitely gave you more credit that I should have done.

Oh, I agree with you if you look hard enough, and with the driver you would look at the decision making process that they were at least aware of. But there comes a point when someone just says: "I don't know why I did that..." and if given the same inputs (that they are aware of) again they would choose differently. That is indeterminism, or at least the appearance of it.
Now, I admire your belief that you are always able to show that the inputs were different in that case, not merely deduced but demonstrated. Especially in our actual universe which isn't strictly deterministic.
You're going to have to offer more than just your bravado. But then you're not actually interested in this topic, so I do finally look forward to your non-response.

 

Of course we do!
There is something missing from your argument that impacts on your conclusion dramatically.

• The human being is hardwired to strive for self determination from the get go.
  
• The human being is hardwired to fight for his freedom from the get go.
  
• The human being is hardwired to fight determinism from the get go.
• The human being spends most of his time determining what ( determinism) he agrees with and what he doesn't agree with, and whether a compromise is required or not.

Evidence:
Human history is littered with war and conflict. People have been dying for the cause of self determination for all recorded history. WW1 and WW2 are classic examples. Domestic violence or any conflict has it's roots in the desire for self determination.
In fact one could suggest and subsequently prove very strongly that the only reason there is conflict in this world is because of the hardwired desire for self determination ( freedom to choose)

There are many examples that could be shown that prove this point.

The human has evolved to fight against all forms of determinism, only agreeing to compromise when it serves a self interest or purpose. Like a locked door that stands in the way of freedom will always be attempted to be forced open until futility sets in and the human agrees to compromise and acceptance.

I can't believe this discussion has been going on for 38 pages and got no where when the solution is obvious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

War memorial Melbourne - three pillars of freedom etc - lest we forget

 

Question: Does a particle not know its own position x and momentum p in the universe? Or does the universe not know both position and momentum of the particle?

Or is it that only humans don't (cannot) know? If we are able to know each state separately, can we choose to know both states at the same time?

 

So you seem to believe, at least.

The willingness to be illogical? The willingness to take irrelevances and treat them as if relevant? The redefinition of words from that used in the argument? So which is it to be... let's see...

Ah, yes, it's the desire to treat irrelevancies as if relevant, I see.
QQ, if something is on a path that was set in stone aeons ago, would you consider it free? If every action it ever takes is according to what was determined aeons ago, would you consider it free, even if that thing genuinely and honestly thought otherwise? Even if it was determined aeons ago that it would think it was striving for its own self determination? To fight for its freedom etc? That nothing it can do will alter the path it is on, given that that path already takes into account everything about the thing at the time of decision-making? You see all that as free, and able to do otherwise?
That is the matter at hand, here, at least with the argument as was formulated by Baldeee many pages ago, and with regard the strictly deterministic universe now being considered.

All, sadly, irrelevant.

The solution is obvious: we are not able to do otherwise, only think we do and appear to act as if we are able to. There. Simples. Your examples are thus also all examples of the way in which we think we do, and how we appear to act as if we are able to.
If you want to assert those examples are of a genuine / actual ability, you'll need to provide something more... like an actual argument that supports them being more than just examples of the person thinking they are able to act otherwise, and more than just them appearing to be able to act otherwise.

 

The problem with that "solution" is that it is obviously false. The ability to do otherwise is a necessary and causal feature of the observed decision process.
- - - -

It means the "initial state" is not a point in time any more than it is in space.

They have that. It's an observable feature of the status - the initial state - of the deciding system before it decides.

You, above, dismissed it as the "appearance" of decision. You slip like that automatically, and frequently. It's part of the bottom up causality illusion.
Like this:

So you are, and are not, considering the human being as the entity making the decision and exhibiting the will, depending on what you need to handwave at in this part of the merry-g0-round.
If you want to get off that silly horse of open systems appearing indeterminate to you, or somebody somewhere, or whatever you are talking about, try taking your claimed holistic determinism seriously.

It isn't indeterminism, and you are the only poster here who is vulnerable to any such "appearances".
- - - -

It's called "science" (or here: "physics"). I'm a fan.

 

Ah, not quite the non-response I had hoped for, given you have no interest in the incompatabilist position.

Yet you have been unable to show it false, or provide any other alternative that simply doesn't talk about the appearance and accompanying belief of being able to do otherwise.

No, the thought/belief that we are able to do otherwise is sufficient for that.

If that's your take-away, okay.

"Observable". See how you can't escape that aspect. Everything you offer is simply based on observation and belief of what you are observing. That is your starting point, and you dismiss anything else that doesn't match your belief in the matter.

It's a matter of having to jump between referencing the decision as a process and the decision as being the actual ability to do otherwise. The former undisputedly exists. The latter not so. You use "decision" to refer to the latter, whereas I would reference the former. It is not surprising there is perceived slippage.

I have no doubt you believe that.

The human decision is made within the human being. That is where the decision point is that is being referred to. But the closed system involved in reaching that point extends far greater than that. If I am to make a decision (i.e. the brain process called "decision") in 10 seconds then the closed system affecting that decision extends 10 light-seconds out.

If you don't see how open systems can appear indeterminate then you're the one not taking things seriously, iceaura. I can't be held responsible for that.

If the same inputs can lead to more than one output then that is indeterminism. In a strictly deterministic system, if A leads to B then whenever you have A you will always get B. Not C, but B. If you can have either B or C then you have indeterminism.

Being a fan doesn't mean you know what you're actually on about, though.
But anyway, good luck with showing different inputs with regard radioactive decay, for example Or anything relating to quantum indeterminacy, where even if hidden variables apply we are unable to demonstrate the same states, as you claimed we could. So good luck, fan of "physics".

 

In a fantasy universe as you have repeatedly described of course freewill is not possible. I have no argument with that. In fact, I don't think any one is arguing with that. In a fantasy universe that is strictly determined as per your limited use of logic, of course freedom of any sort is non-existent.

You have set up a gedanken (thought experiment) that is impossible to refute and how you fail to see that is really disturbing.

Unfortunately for you and fortunately for us the real world beckons.

Have you ever considered that "it may actually be determined that the human being has evolved the genuine capacity to reject, agree or accept that which is determined?" That the human being spends the greater part of his life doing just that. That self determination ( freewill) is an essential aspect of a human's mortality.

You will claim irrelevance to your argument and of course according to your fantasy gedanken it probably is.

However this thread is not about your fantasy. It is about how physics(*) (not fantasy) may disprove the existence of freewill.

You will need to demonstrate how your gedanken relates to the real universe before it can be given any credibility.

People are dying every day in their fight for self determination - that is no illusion.
(*) the term Physics to me, includes all sciences including behavioral.

 

exactly!
Maybe the decision itself is part of the "illusion" Sarkus is thinking of. No doubt he will claim this to be the case. But that is only if he continues to promote an irrefutable gedanken that is void of any reality to begin with.