Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

[Bodonius]

All people that arent NPCs have free will, i dont think science or religion are right. Religion have always been wrong and science always change their mind so i dont trust either of them,

[Veggie50]

Read my first posts, I try to explain it.
Yes and no. It's not actually a false equivalency because your thought process doesn't happen in a vaccum, it is influenced by everything around you, and everything inside you, all made of matter that not only follow quantum mechanics, but also exist because of other entities which were also affected by quantum mechanics, etc etc up till the first instants of the universe. That means that even if your thought process does not use quantic randomness in any way, it is still subject to it one way or another. Your decisions would still be absolutely unpredictable even by a god with a computer the size of the universe. So your will is not predetermined.

The idea that my thoughtproces is entirely controlled by outside influences is exactly what makes it determined, and not free. In order for free will, there would have to be non-predetermined internal stimuli.

What you're advocating is that the universe uses systems in which we have not yet discerned the pattern or origin. This does not mean that they are unpredictable, just that we don't yet have the means to predict them.

So my argument is that free will doesn't exist. But since nobody can know all the factors that enter into it, it may appear free.

[Deleted]

The idea that my thoughtproces is entirely controlled by outside influences is exactly what makes it determined, and not free. In order for free will, there would have to be non-predetermined internal stimuli.

What you're advocating is that the universe uses systems in which we have not yet discerned the pattern or origin. This does not mean that they are unpredictable, just that we don't yet have the means to predict them.

So my argument is that free will doesn't exist. But since nobody can know all the factors that enter into it, it may appear free.

If the outside influences, or at least some of them, are completly random, and by definition cannot be predicted, then it is not predetermined.

No, what I'm saying is that the universe uses "systems" (I'd say mechanics, aka quantum mechanics) in which there is NO discernable pattern. This does not mean that the pattern is very complicated, or that we have not found it, but pure random events. You can do your research on that, it's not a conjecture at this point but solid science : https://www.google.be/search?q=true+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

If you were right on your premise though, I'd agree that in the case there would be no free will, only the appearence of it (something I have believed in since I was a kid, but science changed my mind)

[Veggie50]

If the outside influences, or at least some of them, are completly random, and by definition cannot be predicted, then it is not predetermined.

No, what I'm saying is that the universe uses "systems" (I'd say mechanics, aka quantum mechanics) in which there is NO discernable pattern. This does not mean that the pattern is very complicated, or that we have not found it, but pure random events. You can do your research on that, it's not a conjecture at this point but solid science : https://www.google.be/search?q=true+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

If you were right on your premise though, I'd agree that in the case there would be no free will, only the appearence of it (something I have believed in since I was a kid, but science changed my mind)

No "Discernable" pattern can mean we simply haven't found it yet though. By the means currently available to us. This is called a paradigm, and will be held true until a paradigm shifting discovery.

But let's assume it is indeed a 'true random'. We then do circle back to my earlier argument that this does not equate to "free will exists". It would mean that some of the stimuli we recieve are random.

The first question then is, is the way we process these (random or not) stimuli, random?

If this holds true, then the second question is does "random" equate to "free"?

I myself am a firm believer that the universe isn't random. Everything has a cause and effect, we just sometimes can't see all causes, therefore the effects seem random. Aside from that, even if it were to be proven that our will is not only subject to a predetermined response to stimuli, but also a factor of randomness, I would argue that we are then still, slaves to that random response.

The only way "free will" could exist, is if it were determined we do infact have a soul, which interacts with our thoughts. Sadly I do not believe in such fairytales.

[Revi]

Read my first posts, I try to explain it.

If I understand it right you're arguing that because there's a random element to it, we have free will. I think nearly anyone would disagree with you there. Predeterminism with some interference of chance isn't free will, it's just no longer predeterminism because you can't predict it.

[Deleted]

If I understand it right you're arguing that because there's a random element to it, we have free will. I think nearly anyone would disagree with you there. Predeterminism with some interference of chance isn't free will, it's just no longer predeterminism because you can't predict it.

I'm afraid you will have to define free will then. The official definition is free from predeterminism. If what you have in mind is free from any form of causality, then I don't think anybody will disagree with you, indeed, but then your definition is pointless.

Just to be clear : I'm not arguing anything, I'm trying to explain what the established definition of free will is, and why it is that way. Nearly any educated person would actually agree with me here...

- - - Updated - - -

To all the posts I didn't answer : I'm not interested in getting into a religious debate as it would get ugly really fast. And when I answered a few times and it looks like the other party does not grasp my explanations I just give up because my patience is finite.

In any case, I'm out, very interesting topic though

[Revi]

I'm afraid you will have to define free will then. The official definition is free from predeterminism. If what you have in mind is free from any form of causality, then I don't think anybody will disagree with you, indeed, but then your definition is pointless.

Just to be clear : I'm not arguing anything, I'm trying to explain what the established definition of free will is, and why it is that way. Nearly any educated person would actually agree with me here...

- - - Updated - - -

To all the posts I didn't answer : I'm not interested in getting into a religious debate as it would get ugly really fast. And when I answered a few times and it looks like the other party does not grasp my explanations I just give up because my patience is finite.

In any case, I'm out, very interesting topic though

There's all sorts of definitions for it, but what we generally all agree on is that whatever the definition, it would involve us having agency over our actions. That is not the case whether it's determined or random. Arguing otherwise is just arguing that we have free will because we haven't updated the definition of it in our dictionary.

[Nurvus]

Every person who wants to refute a definition of free will should begin by writing a definition of their own, as precise as possible, this way we are not speaking out of thin air...

I'm not refuting a definition of free will, as it is not being defined to begin with, let alone "as precise as possible".

I'm actually criticizing the lack of a proper definition of free will in a theory that requires it to be properly defined.

[Forogil]

You said there was no definition of "free will". There are in fact many, and whilst I'm happy to admit that some of those will be wrong, those definitions still exist.

Multiple incompatible definitions is virtually the same as no definition.

Second, the fact that a definition is allegedly incompatible with physical laws is besides the point. First, whether or not you are an atheist has a rather enormous impact on this question.

We haven't observed anything incompatible with current physical laws - and future reasonable refinement of them (since we know that the current laws are a bit incomplete). Thus if you want to state anything to the contrary you have to provide evidence.

RNG software isn't truly random. Plug in some numbers to a fixed formula and get a number out the other end. It's nothing more than rolling a many-sided die - if you know the initial conditions accurately enough you can predict the outcome with perfect certainty every single time.

I didn't write RNG software - I wrote true random generators, and they are exactly what it says on the box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwa...mber_generator

- - - Updated - - -

You say there were many errors in my post, and then you don't try to refute anything I said. Yes, true randomness would be more random than when we "randomly" make a conscious choice, as I said.

I refuted your argument, you just failed to understand it.

The thing is the predator trying to eat you does not have access to a supercomputer the size of our galaxy to analyze every parameter and guess which way you will chooseto run.

Maybe, but quantum randomness only require one or a few elementary particles (double-slit experiment for photons; decay rates for transitions in the atoms) - not a supercomputer; and just doing it randomly is in many cases the optimal strategy (mixed strategies being Nash equilibria).

People link true quantic randomness to free will regardless of wether we have access to it in our brains or not. The idea is that if true randomness exists somewhere in our universe, then free will is a valid concept, otherwise it does not exist as it isn't "free" of anything.

That argument does not make sense.

Randomness isn't "free will", it's just randomness, as the probability of the outcomes are still deterministic - and if "free will" exists, but humans don't have it most philosophical discussions about "free will" are meaningless.

That means that even if your thought process does not use quantic randomness in any way, it is still subject to it one way or another. Your decisions would still be absolutely unpredictable even by a god with a computer the size of the universe. So your will is not predetermined.

You don't need a computer the size of the universe to partially predict behavior of humans, and being determined (by outside stimuli) is the opposite of free will.

Try http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~...cle/index.html and you will likely see that it does better than 50% in predicting your movements.

[Endus]

I've said this before in similar threads, and I'll repeat it here.

Anyone trying to connect truly random behaviour with free will does not understand what free will actually means. They're focusing exclusively on the "free" part, and ignoring the "will" part.

When we talk about "free will", we're talking about whether we're able to make decisions. Effectively flipping a coin or rolling a die and behaving randomly is not making decisions. It's as far from that as you can get.

Instead, making decisions is about a few combined factors;

1> There must be a core "you" making the decision.
2> This core self has interests and desires and preferences; it is a person that actually thinks and feels.
3> Those interests and desires and preferences will inform your decision-making process. Because it is you that is making this particular decision, not some other individual.
4> Because of this process, your choices will be fairly consistent and reliable.

#4 is often presented as an argument against free will, but in fact, it is an argument for it. It demonstrates a consistent self making informed decisions based on that self's desires. If it weren't consistent, you'd be an RNG machine, not a thinking being. That consistency is what proves you're not acting randomly, but that there is a self making an informed decision.

The issue with #4 and where it confuses people is that Person A will make that choice a certain way consistently, but Person B could have a completely different set of preferences. And would thus choose differently. They see consistency in one person's choices, and argue that it's not a choice, without comparing to other individuals.

For example, if you offer me a choice between a ham sandwich and avocado toast, I'm going to pick the ham sandwich every time. I don't like avocado. That I consistently choose the ham sandwich shows that I am making this decision. If you give a vegatarian the same choice, they'll probably pick the avocado toast every time. Different preferences. That we can choose differently means this is an actual choice where we can exert free will, that we each choose consistently with the same choice demonstrates that there is a self to have free will.

Now, before people respond, you can get terrible choices that everyone would pick a certain way ("would you prefer cake or a punch in the face?"), and you might have choices where your preferences don't provide a clear pick and so you might pick differently on different days depending on greater context. These don't contradict the point, here, they just demonstrate that free will is complex and multifaceted.


Does all this mean your choices can be predicted, and thus a powerful enough computer could, hypothetically, accurately forecast your every decision into the future with perfect accuracy? Sure. But all you're really saying, here, is that the computer understands you, not that you don't have free will in making those decisions. You could choose differently, but you wouldn't. And that's the point people miss; that there's a "you" in the mix to begin with. This isn't predetermination. If something acts to change the "you" in question, the prediction would fall apart. It's a guess based on understanding of the individual's decision-making process, not an argument for "fate".

[The Stormbringer]

@Endus I dunno, Endus. If any outcome for any situation can be predicted completely accurately from now to incredible lengths in the future, does that not seem a lot like 'fate' or 'destiny'? If you've got a guarantee that all things will happen in a specific way, doesn't it stand to reason that our actions are immutable and will never change from what they're 'supposed' to be?

I imagine that this would almost certainly rely on only the extremely advanced super-computer having access to this information, of course. If people knew what their 'destiny' was, the decisions they would make at any given time, they may very well decide to then change them.

[Endus]

@Endus I dunno, Endus. If any outcome for any situation can be predicted completely accurately from now to incredible lengths in the future, does that not seem a lot like 'fate' or 'destiny'? If you've got a guarantee that all things will happen in a specific way, doesn't it stand to reason that our actions are immutable and will never change from what they're 'supposed' to be?

I imagine that this would almost certainly rely on only the extremely advanced super-computer having access to this information, of course. If people knew what their 'destiny' was, the decisions they would make at any given time, they may very well decide to then change them.

The only real alternative is that you're not actually in control of your own actions, and there's an RNG generator in your head that makes important decisions rather than you making those decisions. That your mind is literally incomprehensible to anything, and thus nothing you do makes any sense at all, and "you" don't even really exist.

That your actions can hypothetically be predicted is proof of free will, not a contradiction of it.

As for the "if people knew it was predicted, they might change it", that is of course true, but that decision itself is predictable. You just predicted it in a general sense, right there. It's still coherent and consistent individuals making decisions based on their preferences and desires and their current base of knowledge to inform that decision-making. By telling them it's predicted, you've just added to that knowledge, which might result in a different choice. But that change in the decision is itself predictable in the same way.

In short, I'm making the point that if you recognize that there is a "you" that acts in a consistent manner and has things they like and desire, that "you" can fundamentally be predicted to a fairly significant degree based on understanding who "you" are. That's not an argument against free will, that's an acknowledgement that there's a "you" to have free will at all.

There's also the important distinction between "predictability" and "predestination". Predestination means that you can't change it, even if circumstances change (like you becoming aware of that destiny). Predictions based on a status quo obviously can change if that status quo changes.

[The Stormbringer]

@Endus Fair enough, I suppose. It is interesting to consider that which I designate as "me" is the main determiner for this. I think one of the reasons discussing 'free will' is difficult is that the notion itself is, if not heavily rooted in, strongly connected to religion in various circles. Of course, the religions that discuss free will then tend to make contradictory arguments about it, and I won't even open that can of worms...

[Katchii]

Where is the source for "Scientists have said that everything is predetermined?"

I pretty much stopped reading after that because anything that follows a sensationalist, blanket, strawman statement like that I just won't take seriously.

[Teleros]

Multiple incompatible definitions is virtually the same as no definition.

Someone's too short for this ride I see.

We haven't observed anything incompatible with current physical laws

Yet you wrote that some definitions of free will are incompatible with physical laws. Which is it?

I didn't write RNG software - I wrote true random generators, and they are exactly what it says on the box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwa...mber_generator

Ah, sorry. Still, I'm rather dubious as to how truly random they actually are, but fair enough.

Where is the source for "Scientists have said that everything is predetermined?"

Until the development of quantum physics, the laws of the material universe we knew of were entirely deterministic. True, the article is a bit clickbait-y in this regard, but that's nothing new.

[Katchii]

Until the development of quantum physics, the laws of the material universe we knew of were entirely deterministic. True, the article is a bit clickbait-y in this regard, but that's nothing new.

Knowing what will happen IF certain conditions are met is different than knowing specifically when, where and how those conditions will be met.

I've honestly never read or seen anything scientific, ie a scientifically based and supported by the scientific community, regarding what basically amounts to predestination; that everything that can or will happen is predetermined.

I've heard plenty of claims, but as I said, nothing I've seen has been a legitimate hypothesis based on the scientific method and supported by and/ or peer reviewed by the scientific community.

I take issue with strawman statements like "Scientists said...."

[Forogil]

Yet you wrote that some definitions of free will are incompatible with physical laws. Which is it?

Both, as you are missing the point: some definitions of free will are incompatible with physical laws - and we haven't seen any observations incompatible with the same laws.

That's a problem in case you missed that point.

Ah, sorry. Still, I'm rather dubious as to how truly random they actually are, but fair enough.

Quantum randomness is truly random, and that's what they use. That's also what OP discusses.

Until the development of quantum physics, the laws of the material universe we knew of were entirely deterministic.

You mean until more than a century ago (or even earlier; statistical mechanics is a lot older)? Physics come a long way since then.

BTW: People who haven't won cannot tire from it. I guess that explains your signature.

[Fascinate]

Im not sure about free will not something ive ever really pondered, but what i will say is i think genetics play a much larger role than on much bigger scales than we imagine.

[Teleros]

I've honestly never read or seen anything scientific, ie a scientifically based and supported by the scientific community, regarding what basically amounts to predestination; that everything that can or will happen is predetermined.

I'm not sure if it's ever been stated in a scientific manner, but then that has never been necessary. Until the development of quantum physics, the laws of physics were entirely deterministic - it therefore logically followed that the universe was essentially a clockwork one, where predestination ruled*. Quantum mechanics has more or less demolished this view of the universe though.

*Unless you believed in some kind of super-natural part of existence that was not subject to those deterministic laws, of course.

Both, as you are missing the point: some definitions of free will are incompatible with physical laws - and we haven't seen any observations incompatible with the same laws.

That's a problem in case you missed that point.

1. Wait, so absence of evidence is a problem now?

2. Free will being incompatible with physical laws isn't a problem unless you insist on a materialist universe.

3. Even if free will is incompatible with physical laws and we're in a materialist universe, that definition is still fine, it just means no instance of it will be found in anywhere. Like an FTL drive.

You mean until more than a century ago (or even earlier; statistical mechanics is a lot older)? Physics come a long way since then.

Off-hand I'd say early 20th century. Until quantum mechanics was on a reasonably solid footing and had some good evidence to back it up, basically.

BTW: People who haven't won cannot tire from it. I guess that explains your signature.

I guess English isn't your first language then?

[Forogil]

I'm not sure if it's ever been stated in a scientific manner, but then that has never been necessary. Until the development of quantum physics, the laws of physics were entirely deterministic - it therefore logically followed that the universe was essentially a clockwork one, where predestination ruled*. Quantum mechanics has more or less demolished this view of the universe though.

An inaccurate and misleading view:

A clockwork universe was mainly popular during the 18th century - among deists, i.e. it faded away before quantum theory; and the statistical theories of gas dynamics appeared in the 19th and indicated a non-deterministic mind-set.

The statement that the laws of physics were deterministic before quantum physics is simpleminded and misleading: physical laws in the current form where you actually can use them to make accurate predictions (necessary for determinism) didn't appear before Newton in the 17th century. Randomness wasn't really investigated in a good way before the 16th century. Basically all of the concept necessary for the discussion were invented a few centuries ago, and then a clockwork universe was briefly popular and then faded away.

However, randomness based on interactions that are ruled by quantum uncertainties can be traced back to Brownian motion observed almost 21 centuries ago.

And to answer another poster: peer-reviewing in the current form didn't appear until the 20th century, so I find it unlikely to find "the clock-work theory of the universe" in a peer-reviewed article. (Except to mock or when investigating the history of inaccurate beliefs.)

*Unless you believed in some kind of super-natural part of existence that was not subject to those deterministic laws, of course.

Also misleading, as many of the proponents of clockwork universe were deists and believed in the super-natural "prime mover".

However, your beliefs don't matter for the universe.

1. Wait, so absence of evidence is a problem now?

No, negative observations are a problem - i.e. when we observe evidence that things aren't as predicted.

I guess you have missed the entire idea of scientific theories being falsifiable.

2. Free will being incompatible with physical laws isn't a problem unless you insist on a materialist universe.

The materialist universe isn't something that I insist on. It's the observations of the universe that insists on that - regardless of your belief in fairy-tales.

3. Even if free will is incompatible with physical laws and we're in a materialist universe, that definition is still fine, it just means no instance of it will be found in anywhere.

A meaningless concept - and as stated it was one of many mutually incompatible definitions.

I guess English isn't your first language then?

Do you have a point, except to deflect from your losses?