|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 10 2012 14:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. how are you defining free will?
I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense:
"a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will"
How are you defining it?
|
god is fake. free will is fake. we are all programmed variants of nature.
|
On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all.
Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
|
On March 10 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. how are you defining free will? I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense: "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" How are you defining it?
An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
edit: though "should" is a dangerous word...
Elaborate on Hume's "will," please. Or I can try looking it up, idk. oh found it
But to proceed in this reconciling project with regard to the question of liberty and necessity; the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science; it will not require many words to prove, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of liberty as well as in that of necessity, and that the whole dispute, in this respect also, has been hitherto merely verbal. For what is meant by liberty, when applied to voluntary actions? We cannot surely mean that actions have so little connexion with motives, inclinations, and circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we can conclude the existence of the other. For these are plain and acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then, is no subject of dispute.
So to have free will in my definition here would be to say that there's some metaphysical agency acting on physical conscious beings (who are otherwise governed by deterministic+probablistic laws) in order to make the decision of moving or not moving.
|
On March 10 2012 14:16 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism.
You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it.
Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/DeterminismXFreeWill.jpg/800px-DeterminismXFreeWill.jpg)
|
On March 10 2012 14:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:16 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism. You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it. Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Because if knowing every past event in the universe will allow you to predict the immediate future there can be no such thing as free will.
|
On March 10 2012 14:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. how are you defining free will? I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense: "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" How are you defining it? An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you.
Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality.
I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist".
|
the only difference i can think of between the top left and right are the definitions of "free will"
|
On March 10 2012 14:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:16 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism. You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it. Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists:
Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate.
The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
|
On March 10 2012 14:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. how are you defining free will? I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense: "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" How are you defining it? An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you. Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality. I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist".
Where does your definition of free will get you? They're all tautologies because the logic behind most formulations are pretty simple...
I've mentioned this before, but the question of free will is a pretty waste of time question because I don't think there's much to think on the matter. Nor is it anything related to how we should act.
|
On March 10 2012 14:24 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:16 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism. You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it. Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists: Because if knowing every past event in the universe will allow you to predict the immediate future there can be no such thing as free will.
We can (without certainty) say that any given event will result from a necessary cause, even if we don't know what that cause is. I fail to see how that is incompatible with the fact that I am choosing to post this rather than choosing to not post it.
|
On March 10 2012 14:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:24 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 14:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:16 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism. You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it. Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists: Because if knowing every past event in the universe will allow you to predict the immediate future there can be no such thing as free will. We can (without certainty) say that any given event will result from a necessary cause, even if we don't know what that cause is. I fail to see how that is incompatible with the fact that I am choosing to post this rather than choosing to not post it.
Yes but when you're using "choosing" you're referring to a perception, whereas most people who are saying free will doesn't exist are using my definition of "choice" and "free will"
|
On March 10 2012 14:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
the only difference i can think of between the top left and right are the definitions of "free will"
That's going to happen between the top right and bottom right, and top left and bottom right as well. Not to mention disagreements on the understanding of what a truly determined universe actually means.
|
On March 10 2012 14:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. how are you defining free will? I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense: "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" How are you defining it? An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you. Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality. I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist". Where does your definition of free will get you? They're all tautologies because the logic behind most formulations are pretty simple... I've mentioned this before, but the question of free will is a pretty waste of time question because I don't think there's much to think on the matter. Nor is it anything related to how we should act.
For one, it gets you moral responsibility. If you take a hard deterministic position and reject the fact that one can choose to act or not act, good luck trying to hold individuals accountable for their actions, good or bad.
I agree with you that it's a waste of time though because the entire determinism vs free will argument is caused by individuals who refuse to acknowledge that the two are compatible. They both argue in favor of what they hope to maintain and conclude that as a result of their position being formulated, the other position necessarily must be false when that's not the case.
|
On March 10 2012 14:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:11 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. how are you defining free will? I like Hume's, which makes perfect sense: "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" How are you defining it? An agency that acts in a way that's an exception to how the laws of physics deem conscious beings should* act. In other words, an actual choice in the decisions you make outside of the laws and situations (including genetics and all biological processes) that made you. Well you've gone and loaded the definition itself as something that is going to be false. Defining free will as something that violates the laws of the universe, thereby making it impossible, is obviously going to not exist just from how you've defined it in opposition to reality. I might as well say "free will is defined as doing the impossible" and then deducing from that "since you can't do the impossible, it can't exist". Where does your definition of free will get you? They're all tautologies because the logic behind most formulations are pretty simple... I've mentioned this before, but the question of free will is a pretty waste of time question because I don't think there's much to think on the matter. Nor is it anything related to how we should act. For one, it gets you moral responsibility. If you take a hard deterministic position and reject the fact that one can choose to act or not act, good luck trying to hold individuals accountable for their actions, good or bad.
Yes but that's not what we're saying, and that's not a natural consequence of our definition of free will not existing. My belief that my definition of free will doesn't exist doesn't logically inform how I live my life.
people generally operate on identity and emotion anyway
edit: see marth753's similar misconception in the previous pages
|
On March 10 2012 14:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 14:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:16 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 14:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On March 10 2012 14:01 xrapture wrote:On March 10 2012 13:40 paralleluniverse wrote:QM is perfectly random, in the sense that it is impossible to predict. There is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random. There was a debate during the time QM was discovered. On one side, you had people like Einstein saying that there was some hidden mechanics under QM that we aren't aware of yet, and that the universe is not random, hence "God does not play dice with the Universe", on the other side, I believe were most other physicist who discovered QM, who said the universe is fundamentally random. Then Bell's Inequality was devised to test which was right, and it turned out that unless QM violate certain pinciples of physics, that the universe is fundamentally random, and that there wasn't some hidden mechanism behind it that once we discovered, we could explain away the randomness, i.e. the randomness in QM does not arise out of a lack of understanding of an underlying mechanic, but rather because the universe is in fact random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequalityWhile it doesn't completely rules out hidden variables, it restricts it severely, and the conventional today is that it is more likely that QM is fundamentally random. And even if QM isn't random, but there are hidden variables behind it that we haven't discovered yet, this leads us right back to determinism, and hence no free will still. Yes, I believe that both conclusions equate to no free will. "there is no grey area, according to our current understanding of QM, it's truly random." There can not be free will if events are random, correct? And like you said, if there are hidden variables we are right back to determinism. How exactly does the fact that there is no randomness in the universe result in no free will? Free will is not dependent on that at all. Because if QM randomness if a result of hidden variables, then it is a causal effect. Determinism states that the future is simply a result of a series of past events-- components in a long equation. If the reason for QM randomness is just another component in the equation it is an aid for an argument for determinism. You didn't answer my question because you just explained how the fact that there are no random events in the universe supports the notion that everything is caused out of necessity. That doesn't answer my question of how there can be no free will because of it. Here, this might clarify because apparently no one thinks anything besides the top left or bottom right box exists: Compatiblist believe in a different type of "free will", i.e. the ability to act according to ones intention, even if that intention isn't free. So that diagram isn't really accurate. The usual definition of free will is more like the ability to act according to your will regardless of the state of nature. Compatiblists don't believe in this type of free will. Theologians do.
The intention is free actually, it just so happens that what is chosen is a result of necessity according to our understanding of causation.
The "usual" (?) definition of free will being acting independent of necessity is meaningless to even argue against if you hold the view that the world is deterministic and it just results in both sides of the argument (free will vs determinism) going around in circles because they have different understandings of how the universe operates.
|
yay semantic arguments!! wittgenstein forever!!!
* i have not read anything by wittgenstein ever, not even a fragment
|
On March 10 2012 14:43 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
yay semantic arguments!! wittgenstein forever!!!
* i have not read anything by wittgenstein ever, not even a fragment
I haven't either but I was lead to believe that he is similar to Kuhn who would probably be inclined to say to say that the free will vs determinism debate leading to a choice of one over the other is simply irrational and that the two are incommensurable because they both operate under entirely different paradigms of understanding
The compatibilist throws the two concepts into the same paradigm so that they can actually be compared with one another, and once they're in this paradigm it can be concluded that both exist without any contradiction.
|
prty much
close thread plz
yo why do you need paradigms though? whats the point of combining the two paradigms? what does that even mean? they operate on entirely different scales. or are you just referring to the comprehend the totality of this pseudoargument? that determinism doesn't inform day to day life? etc?
|
On March 10 2012 14:48 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
prty much
close thread plz
yo why do you need paradigms though? whats the point of combining the two paradigms? what does that even mean? they operate on entirely different scales
Well you're not combining the paradigms, you're just defining the terms in such a way that they exist within the same paradigm because if the two terms are being argued from two different paradigms, each concept will be the rational one to hold within the paradigm it operates under while the other will be irrational. This inevitably leads to a circular argument in which neither side is really arguing against the other yet both maintain that they've rationally shown how the other cannot be the case.
You need them because they're essentially how you come to understand anything. Without a paradigm there can be no theoretical framework and without theory, observation is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
