Is it possible to apply the concept of free will to any "matter"?
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Anything
- with mass
- that can be seen with the naked eye
- does not need to be paid for.
(Is "free" matter different from regular matter?)
- with mass
- that can be seen with the naked eye
- does not need to be paid for.
(Is "free" matter different from regular matter?)
No. Rocks are not autonomous. They lack personhood and a memory-based cognitive system and decision-making capacity, etc. Only matter organized as certain organisms that can make choices and are infatuated with moral systems. Maybe robots someday.
Soft compatibilism: Human freedom is compatible with either determinism or [adequate] determinism with slight randomness. Contrast with hard incompatibilism, where human freedom is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism.
With respect to mundane incompatibilism: A severely mentally ill person who behaves randomly and adheres to no fixed preferences and goals would exemplify that category's standard for free will. But who craves to be radically insane? That's a brand of FW that the majority of individuals do not want, to begin with. No feeling of wistfulness about losing that.
A pragmatic[1] meaning for free will (that is compatible with both determinism and a trivial or light degree of randomness) is that we have the capacity to reprogram ourselves, when we need to. As in breaking out of bad habits and preferences, destructive addictions and desires, and misguided thought orientations. Such is enabled, unsurprisingly, by simply having belief in free will. In contrast, the person who feels locked inexorably into their patterns (rejects free will) is unable to seek, acquire, or maintain long-term changes. Considering self-motivation in that area to be futile.
- - footnote - - -
[1] The (metaphysical) version of free will that incompatibilism revolves around seems to entail heavy randomness and liberation from the interests and proclivities of one's own identity (any identity). That kind of internally conflicting FW is dead before it leaves the starting gate (again, the massively insane patient example above). Stability and predictable regularities are essential to order and organization.
_
Last edited:
В каких случаях материя не детерминирована?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What do you mean "not determined"?
Это опять переводчик "тупит". Переводит, как ему заблогоразумится, наверное, тоже свободу воли проявляет. Приходится брать в каввчки, чтобы сохранять первоначальное написание. Я спросила:" В каких случаях материя "недетерминирована"?"
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That word has a lot of meanings. What would help you get your meaning across - despite the translation issues - is context and elaboration.
Do you mean in a classical Newtonian deterministic universe? Is that the kind of determinism you mean?
Well, we don't. We do not live in a deterministic universe.
We cannot isolate a single atom and know where it will go at what speed. The atoms in our heads re not deteministic; they obey quantum mechanical behaviour - probabilities, for short.
Дэйв, я в курсе про неопределённости. Но то, что мы не знаем куда полетит атом, не означает, что он полетит куда угодно. Просто мы не знаем всего множества причин, действующих на него. Т.е., атом тоже детерменирован, но мы не знаем всех причин, а можем только приблизительно их посчитать.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. Indeterminism doesn't mean we just have to "look harder for more causes. It means, even in principle, the universe is not determined.
You are espousing a pop-sci version of indeterminism. Too many new age pop-sci books.
No it isn't. We just established that.
Last edited:
Вы можете это доказать?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Can I prove what? Quantum mechanics and indeterminism? It is one of the most well-tested phenomena in all of modern science.
It is not a theory; it is empirical - i.e. it is what we observe to happen.
All of our modern technology, since the invetion of the transistor over half century ago - depends on the indeterminism of particles. Transistors work due to electron tunnelling, which is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. No classical model of subatomic particles explains what we observe.
So, can I prove it? The device you are currently looking at would not work if not for quantum mechanical effects.
But you already know all this, right? You're just trying to get me to think about it, right? So, no need to go on. You know the same answers I do. Right?
Квантовая механика не доказывает индетерминизм. Она просто говорит: "заткнись и считай". Ну, и к тому же вы знаете о моём представлении обо всё этом. И да, "вишенка на торте" - индетерминизм тоже делает невозможным свободу воли. Как вы сможете управлять материей, которая ведёт себя как вздумается? Вы говорите ей - "иди налево", а она "идёт направо". Смешно...
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Part of QM is HUP. HUP is indeterminism.
You just spent dozens of posts claiming that determinism makes free will impossible.
Now you're claiming indeterminism makes free will impossible.
Face it. You have a priori decided that free will is supernatural by definition, and you don't care what you say to try to prove it.
What a crock of poo you have concocted.
I cannot take you seriously. I'm out.
Is it??
Does it not depend upon the interpretation that one takes? For example, the widely accepted the Copenhagen interpretation is that QM is inherently indeterministic. But then you have the Bohmian interpretation (the Pilot-Wave Theory) whereby every particle has definite and determined positions and trajectories. The particle trajectory depends on its initial position and the wavefunction, but the wavefunction never collapses, but rather guides the velocity, and is deterministic in its evolution.
Not true.
What we observe can be interpreted in different ways. While the inderministic Copenhagen interpretation is by far the most widely accepted, it is not the only interpretation. Heck, it's not even the only indeterministic interpretation.
Deterministic interpretations still exist that match the observations as exactly as the Copenhagen interpretation. Again, under deterministic interpretations, the same observations occur, but rather than rely on the "indeterminism of particles", they rely on such as "epistemic uncertainty". Different interpretation for the same observation.
"Quantum mechanical effects" does not necessarily mean "indeterminism". It could mean, for example, "epistemic uncertainty". Whether one uses "indeterminism" or "epistemic uncertainty" to explain our need for our probabilistic models will depend upon the interpretation. But let's not beg the question.
Both explain the randomness we observe. One suggests that the randomness is inherent, the other simply due to the practical lack of data/accuracy.
And since the Bohmian interpretation, for example, has not (yet?) been disproven (at least I don't think it has??), I think it both pre-emptive and, alas, wrong, to assert that QM is indeterministic. More accurately it would be better to say that the most widely adopted interpretation is that it is indeterministic.
Hope that helps.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Regardless of the interpretation, the upshot - for the purposes of a discussion about consciousness - is that we do not live in a classical deterministic universe. That is why we have electron orbitals predicting probability only, and not formulae telling us where an electron will next appear.
Heisenberg showed that it is not merely a lack of data or accuracy; it is inherent. That is why atoms smear out into a Bose-Einstein condensate when cooled to near 0K. That's an observed phenomena, not interpreted.
And Olga is not ready for this level of detail. She is still struggling with whether rocks are alive and whether the universe is a thinking mind (because "chemistry!") I have to provide a simpler description for now. "Lies to children" and all.
Anyway, it won't matter. The moment it gets down to brass tacks she's off chasing the next shiny bauble. Almost as if she prefers the veil of mystery to the light of knowledge.
No, he didn't. What he did show is that certain pairs of physical quantities can not be simultaneously known with arbitrary precision. This is not necessarily a result of indeterminism, but could also be due to our epistemic limits. Again, which you opt for as explanation is related to the interpretation.
Now, it is true that Heisenberg himself believed that QM was inherently indeterministic, but that would be a philosophical/metaphysical position he took. The science supports both interpretations.
Again, it's not proof of anything, but merely an observation. And that observation is explained through either interpretation: inherent determinism, epistemic limitations, etc. To assert it as proof, if that is what you are claiming it to be, would be the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (i.e. if P then Q; Q; Therefore P).
Sure, and that means one can't point out where we think you're making a mistake???
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Fair enough.
Particles aren't autonomous -- they're at the mercy of "external" regulating principles, and statistical probabilities that corral randomness (which at least limit the latter). Humans, in contrast, have an emergent level of internal compexity that generates its own biological and social rules, and individual tendencies. A wooden puppet needs an outer "master" to provide both its actions and its decisions. The sufficiently intricate living organism does not.
"Randomness" is just not adhering to any pattern or formula that allows _X_ event to be predictable (in a specific manner). That's why a block universe can even contain random events and yet still have all of time fixed (the past, present, and future). Randomness is not dependent upon the future not existing. If for whatever reason a researcher asserted today that _X_ event is random, it still retains that classification even after "today" eventually becomes yesterday (a past that has an existing future ahead of it).
Free will requires a robust definition that can survive whichever metaphysical condition is the case. Since our universe obviously isn't radically random, that one can be excluded. Leaving only the options of determinism and adequate determinism (slight randomness).
A "soft compatibilism" view of human freedom accommodates both of those. It doesn't conform to the excessive and contradictory standard of requiring the absolute freedom of being able to establish your own identity from the beginning (you can't decide what you want to be if you don't already exist as something). Nor the absolute freedom of having an identity with regulating parameters and interests -- and then not adhering to any of those so as to thereby demonstrate that extreme brand of free will. We actually want to adhere to our predictable tendencies, except when they are personally or socially damaging. When that's the case, we need to re-program outselves, and a pragmatic belief in free will allows us to do that.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sure. But Olga is balking at the term 'emergent', no matter how I elaborate. She says she understands it, but doesn't accept it. To make progress, you'd have to rewrite that para and avoid the term - while at the same time not writing out the entire textbook on neuro-chemistry solely for her benefit (or for your benefit - because "she already knows all this" and "just wants to get you to think about it").
Last edited: