A sound refutation of the omniscience paradox?

[GiantOreo]

This came to mind while reading the Atheist toolbox thread... It involves the theory of a mechanical universe, very popular around the late 19th century.

Imagine there is a box, with precisely 100 atoms in it. If at any given time you gave a physicist or mathematician the exact direction and energy/velocity of those 100 atoms, he/she would be able to predict with absolute certainty the paths of the atoms in the box. Exactly where they would all go, which ones would collide, where they would bounce off, how fast and so on. You could program a computer which would simulate the future movements and interactions of those atoms.

Now consider the universe to be a closed system. If there is no God, and the universe is merely a closed system, consisting of trillions and trillions of atoms interacting with each other, then in theory, the future is predetermined. If life and existence is simply the interactions of atoms, then in theory the future could be mathematically predicted. If all thought and movement is simply atoms interacting with each other, then there is no free will, only the appearance of free will.

In a purely secular universe, how can free will exist if the future, in theory, is mathematically predetermined?

Note, the actual act of calculating the future is not the issue. Rather the idea that it is possible.

Now some of my thoughts that go along with this theory:

The universe is a closed system based purely on cause-and-effect. Everything you do is based on the past.

For example, you eat a peanut butter sandwich: this was actually caused by you being hungry, which was caused by you missing lunch, which was caused by you forgetting your lunch money... (ad infinitum all the way to the beginning of the universe)

Nothing happens spontaneously or randomly... even the flip of a coin is dictated by infinite factors, like air density, the tilt of your hand, etc. (with EACH cause having a vast multitiude of its own causes all the way back to the beginning of the universe)

Emotion? Human qualities? All based on chemical interactions in your brain, societal conditioning, etc. (which all have their own causes)

But you could say that "Well I have free will, I will not eat this peanut butter sandwich even though I'm very hungry", but you not eating it ultimately has physical causes that traces its roots to the beginning of the universe (ex: chemicals in your brain that make you defiant, you actually opening the thread, social indoctrination, etc. ad infinitum)

The way I see it, the universe began with one or more actions and those actions have branched out/DETERMINED everything that has happened or will happen

The only way to dismiss this purely "mechanical universe" is to argue that there is a soul, which would imply a God, no?

If you disagree, please post your opinions. Thanks.

[Mizled]

The only way to dismiss this purely "mechanical universe" is to argue that there is a soul, which would imply a God, no?
Or to understand this was written in the 19th century and doesn't factor in quantum mechanics or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[Dante Alighieri]

I'm not entirely sure HUP could refute it. It could be argued that in each possible world there is a counterfactual corresponding to every possible event. It is propositional so it refers to specific events. While the sentence "Paul converted to Christianity" and "Paul went to the Bahamas" refer to the same name, they actually refer to different people: the apostle Paul and a friend of mine.

Thus, we can have propositions "Quantum particle 1 will undergo quantum event 2." You could argue that given the same antecendents we would get a different result. But you couldn't have the same antecendents. Because that would be a different experiment. For example, consider an experiment on mice. Now, someone could replicate it and even then it would be different in lieu of that he is conducting at a point otologically succeeding the first experiment. Thus, perhaps even HEP doesn't help.

But, HUP doesn't help free will since if my causes are uncaused in the sense of HUP, they happen for no reason. An analogy might be those with Tourette's Syndrome. They do not have free will.

What's wrong with my musings?

[thedistillers]

The assumption seems to be that the laws of the universe are such a way that once you know the initial conditions, then everything else is predetermined. But this doesn't have to be that way.

You don't need to have a soul to have free will. You only need to live in a non-deterministic universe.

[Dante Alighieri]

But, what about a type of logical determinism? I mean, the idea of a proposition corresponding to every possible event. Some are true in some possible worlds and others false in other possible worlds.

[Mizled]

But, HEP doesn't help free will since if my causes are uncaused in the sense of HEP, they happen for no reason.
I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Could you please elaborate?
An analogy might be those with Tourette's Syndrome. They do not have free will.
Because their tics are not voluntary and they have no conscious control over when they occur? We have free will in the sense that we can choose to do what we want in the scope of our abilities. I can not fly - therefore I don't have free will?

And some tics are suppressible.

[Dante Alighieri]

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

If an action of mine is uncaused, then I cannot say that I freely led to it since that would imply that I myself determined or caused my action. If a quantum event happens in my brain, I would not be responsible and had freely done it. I mentioned Tourette's Syndrome because those are analogous to the kind of "uncaused" actions I meant: they are not freely under control.

Because their tics are not voluntary and they have no conscious control over when they occur?

Exactly.

We have free will in the sense that we can choose to do what we want in the scope of our abilities.

I know.

I can not fly - therefore I don't have free will?

No, only lack of ability to do otherwise in all things implies a lack of freedom. But, what I'm saying is what of this idea of, well, call it "propositional determinism" - that a counterfactual corresponds to every possible event. I detailed some of my musings above.

And some tics are suppressible.

Which is why it was an analogy, not the actual thing.

[Mizled]

If an action of mine is uncaused, then I cannot say that I freely led to it since that would imply that I myself determined or caused my action. If a quantum event happens in my brain, I would not be responsible and had freely done it.
Makes sense and I'm not arguing with you there. If an action is due to random quantum properties this seems to cast doubt on free will as well.

Studies in neuroscience have even shown that decisions are made unconsciously before we're consciously aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

EDIT: Spelling.

[Dante Alighieri]

Makes sense and I'm not arguing with you there. If an action is due to random quantum properties this seems to cast down on free will as well.

Yeah, I think it does. There's also this idea that in order to have any free will at all, we must be causa sui: self cause our own action. By self-caused, I mean an event causes itself, as opposed to the other understanding, which is a necessary being. But, it is incoherent to be causa sui. Thus, we have no free will?

I have to read up about agent causation again I think...

Studies in neuroscience have even shown that decisions are made unconsciously before we're consciously aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Interesting. Thanks a bunch for pointing that out.

[Mizled]

Thus, we have no free will?
I myself highly doubt we have true free will but rather we merely experience an illusion of it. And a completely deterministic universe doesn't seem to have practical applications with regards to crimes and punishment anyway.
Interesting. Thanks a bunch for pointing that out.
No problem.


Sidenote: Anyone know what GiantOreo was banned for?

[Dante Alighieri]

I myself highly doubt we have true free will but rather we merely experience an illusion of it.

So, I take it that's a "yes?"

And a completely deterministic universe doesn't seem to have practical applications with regards to crimes and punishment anyway.

Still, what does it then mean to even bother "trying" to do anything? What does "trying" even mean anymore?

Sidenote: Anyone know what GiantOreo was banned for?

Not yet.

[Mizled]

So, I take it that's a "yes?"
I'm far from being intelligent enough to make a solid claim like that. But as I said before I doubt we do.
Still, what does it then mean to even bother "trying" to do anything? What does "trying" even mean anymore?.
I never even used the word "trying." :confused:

[Dante Alighieri]

I'm far from being intelligent enough to make a solid claim like that. But as I said before I doubt we do.

Ah, I see.

I never even used the word "trying." :confused:

"Trying" was not used in quotes because you used it. I used quotes since I have no clue what "trying" would mean if we had no free will. Could we even "try" to do anything? Basically, I put it in quotes because I thought it was almost oxymoronic. Sort of like saying "abstract" things are actually physical.

[Mizled]

Basically, I put it in quotes because I thought it was almost oxymoronic.
It pretty much is. "Trying" supposes a conscious will or volition towards whatever endeavor you are "trying" towards.

[RAFH]

Now some of my thoughts that go along with this theory:

The universe is a closed system based purely on cause-and-effect. Everything you do is based on the past.

For example, you eat a peanut butter sandwich: this was actually caused by you being hungry, which was caused by you missing lunch, which was caused by you forgetting your lunch money... (ad infinitum all the way to the beginning of the universe)

Nothing happens spontaneously or randomly... even the flip of a coin is dictated by infinite factors, like air density, the tilt of your hand, etc. (with EACH cause having a vast multitiude of its own causes all the way back to the beginning of the universe)

Emotion? Human qualities? All based on chemical interactions in your brain, societal conditioning, etc. (which all have their own causes)

But you could say that "Well I have free will, I will not eat this peanut butter sandwich even though I'm very hungry", but you not eating it ultimately has physical causes that traces its roots to the beginning of the universe (ex: chemicals in your brain that make you defiant, you actually opening the thread, social indoctrination, etc. ad infinitum)

The way I see it, the universe began with one or more actions and those actions have branched out/DETERMINED everything that has happened or will happen

The only way to dismiss this purely "mechanical universe" is to argue that there is a soul, which would imply a God, no?

If you disagree, please post your opinions. Thanks.


Reality is not deterministic, it is probabilistic. Depending on the scale one looks at, the probability is dependent on its local region at that scale, the radius1 of which is that at which other probabilistic events can influence the one under consideration within the time frame under consideration. At very small scales this would be a very small interval of time and a very small distance and the events in that region will be primarily determined by its own probability. Those vary from 0 to 1. At small enough scales, below the resolution of reality or at least the ability of reality to resolve into usable information, that can translate as either a 0 or a 1, though it may actually be a 0.499999999999 or a 0.500000000001. As the region under consideration is enlarged, the influence of other particles begins to be exerted, more and more, and the perceived event becomes an average of all the probabilities of all the particles within the region being considered. As the scale increases, the effects take on a greater and greater appearance of determinism, because all the little probabilities are averaged, again the effect of resolution but inverse of pixelization. Now one sees whole swaths of reality with very subtle variations and patterns.

As to if there is free will, not, not in the usual definition of such. Your neurons and neural transmitters will operate on the basis of those probabilities and provide you with an average of the entire set if probabilities within their regions of influence, by the time the effects of the micro event on one side of the room reach the other, they are lost in the noise of all the other effects from throughout space and the local event occurs as it would. Yet that microregion is constantly bombarded by the effects of and bombarding other microregions with its effects the results of which span forward in time. Meanwhile your brain's neurons and neural transmitters are also getting influenced by its memories and the other emotional and physical states you are currently and recently in affecting how you perceive reality which then influences how you as an assemblage of microregions influences the rest of reality. Its your memories both short and long term that have that influence on reality and which could be considered your 'free will'. But not entirely free, because those long and short term memories and states are constantly being influenced by all of reality.




Sidenote: Anyone know what GiantOreo was banned for?

Too much creamy white in the middle. Or not enough.

[RAFH]

Sidenote: Anyone know what GiantOreo was banned for?

I'd suggest it was something to do with this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206648

[Mizled]

I'd suggest it was something to do with this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206648

Ah, thanks. And very nice post up there.

[Gundulf]

Or to understand this was written in the 19th century and doesn't factor in quantum mechanics or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Well, he did say that the position and velocity of the atoms were known; he probably meant the electrons and all other quantum particles. I tend to agree with him here; if one COULD know the position/velocity/direction of every subatomic particle 1 second past the big bang, and also know every principle for the way these particles interact... Then you could predict the future out a trillion years unerringly.

Which is not a big deal, the universe is determined. (Or "probablistic - I like RAFH's take on that)... I just wonder how it is that Cheerful Charlie and others object to God on the basis of "if God then no free will"... Looks like just as true that "if no God then no free will."

[Alf]

Now some of my thoughts that go along with this theory:

The universe is a closed system based purely on cause-and-effect. Everything you do is based on the past.

For example, you eat a peanut butter sandwich: this was actually caused by you being hungry, which was caused by you missing lunch, which was caused by you forgetting your lunch money... (ad infinitum all the way to the beginning of the universe)

Nothing happens spontaneously or randomly... even the flip of a coin is dictated by infinite factors, like air density, the tilt of your hand, etc. (with EACH cause having a vast multitiude of its own causes all the way back to the beginning of the universe)

Emotion? Human qualities? All based on chemical interactions in your brain, societal conditioning, etc. (which all have their own causes)

But you could say that "Well I have free will, I will not eat this peanut butter sandwich even though I'm very hungry", but you not eating it ultimately has physical causes that traces its roots to the beginning of the universe (ex: chemicals in your brain that make you defiant, you actually opening the thread, social indoctrination, etc. ad infinitum)

The way I see it, the universe began with one or more actions and those actions have branched out/DETERMINED everything that has happened or will happen

The only way to dismiss this purely "mechanical universe" is to argue that there is a soul, which would imply a God, no?

If you disagree, please post your opinions. Thanks.

I suggest you read up on quantum mechanics. This mechanical universe was an idea that has been dead ever since QM was recognized by scientists.

The truth is that if you make a box which has intiially exactly 100 particles in it and you know the initial state of each and every one of those 100 particles to exact detail - this is in fact an absurd premise according to QM but for the sake of argument we can agree to it for now. The point is that you will STILL not be able to predict what is going to happen next. Unforseen things will happen - particles will appear uncaused out of the blue and disrupt the path of those 100 particles, some of them may vanish while other particles appear. Yes, the box if closed will contain approximately the same mass and energy constantly but only within certain limits of measure and the more accurately you state that level the more inaccurate will other measures be so that however you make it you can never predict with absolute certainty what will happen inside that box and the more distant into the future you look the more uncertain will it be in the details.

So no, no need for any soul or deity or anything mystical or supernatural in order to explain the obvious fact that it is hard to predict the future.

Alf

[Alf]

I'm not entirely sure HUP could refute it. It could be argued that in each possible world there is a counterfactual corresponding to every possible event. It is propositional so it refers to specific events. While the sentence "Paul converted to Christianity" and "Paul went to the Bahamas" refer to the same name, they actually refer to different people: the apostle Paul and a friend of mine.

Thus, we can have propositions "Quantum particle 1 will undergo quantum event 2." You could argue that given the same antecendents we would get a different result. But you couldn't have the same antecendents. Because that would be a different experiment. For example, consider an experiment on mice. Now, someone could replicate it and even then it would be different in lieu of that he is conducting at a point otologically succeeding the first experiment. Thus, perhaps even HEP doesn't help.

But, HUP doesn't help free will since if my causes are uncaused in the sense of HUP, they happen for no reason. An analogy might be those with Tourette's Syndrome. They do not have free will.

What's wrong with my musings?

What is wrong is that you equate "free will" with "uncaused effects". I would say free will requires uncaused effects at its basis but although they are necessary they do not alone give you free will.

Free will is a complexity of many things put together. Part of it is the idea that you can determine what you want to do in the next moment by yourself. If someone restricts you and you are aware of this restriction you will conclude you are not exercising free will or do you? What if you see a handcuffed guy and the guy said, I am now going exactly where I want! Then the policeman says, "No, you are not, we are taking you to jail" and the guy responds "But that is exactly where I want to go!". Now, granted, most people do not want to go to jail but my point here is that what free will is, is a complex thing and complex idea - some will say it is an illusion and while I disagree in that conclusion I do believe that it is not an easy thing to pin down.

In particular, equating it with uncaused or random effects would be a gross error. Yes, uncaused effects and randomness is necessary in order to at all speak of free will but by themselves they do not grant anyone free will. It is rather that in a completely deterministic world where everything was a result of cause-effect relationships free will would be impossible.

Alf

[Alf]

If an action of mine is uncaused, then I cannot say that I freely led to it since that would imply that I myself determined or caused my action. If a quantum event happens in my brain, I would not be responsible and had freely done it. I mentioned Tourette's Syndrome because those are analogous to the kind of "uncaused" actions I meant: they are not freely under control.

This is a gross misunderstnanding of what free will is.

The "free will" is first of all a subjective thing. If you believe you have free will - you normally have it. Yes, we can find situations where you believe you have free will and yet are controlled by some other person - typically in a lab situation a scientist can control your "free will" and you still believe it is free. However, just as we normally reject the idea that we are just a brain in a jar under the control of a mad scientist we also normally reject the idea that mad scientists are secretly controlling our free will when we are not in a lab situation. Therefore a rule of thumb is that if you think you have free will - you have it. In this manner, free will is highly subjective. The fact is that it is much the same process that goes on wether you are making a decision under free will or it is forced. In either case you compare the various alternatives and then attempt to choose the one that is best for you. In a free will choice you perceive that you could have chosen differently and the outcome would be different, in a forced choice you do the same except that you in this case consider the alternative outcome to be so detrimental for you that you feel forced to pick the first choice. Also, the person doing the forcing is typically easily identified. If someone point a gun at you and asks you for your money you feel the choice is forced because the alternative is that he shoots you. Also, it is easy to see that it is the guy holding the gun who is calling the shots and determining the outcomes so you will recognize that it is not your free will who pick this choice but it is a forced choice.

If someone cleverly manipulated you so that you ended up going to McDonalds to buy your meal instead of Burger King you wouldn't be so ready to give up the idea that it was your own free will that made the choice. Indeed marketing is very much about manipulating people so that they gets their free will under the marketers control.

However, we normally exersize free will. Yes, marketing and other forces is trying to manipulate us but they often cancels each other out, so in the end it is your background and your prior history and preferences that determines what you want to do.

Yes, if randomness was impossible, this would be a complete determinitation and you again would have no free will but this is not the case. There is always the chance that if two choices are almost the same in value to you, a random quantum effect will tip you one way one day and the other way another day. Regardless of your choice you will add that experience and it will in turn provide you with the ability to evaluate your choices next time - thus it is YOUR free will that is exercized.

Let me illustrate with an example. You go and buy ice cream. It is not important to you if it is chocolate or strawberry. The salesman has only those two varieties available at the moment. You don't have preference for either so you randomly pick one - let us say you picked strawberry. Now, this experience of having that strawberry icecream might have been very nice - we are very good at associating things. If you met a nice girl/guy while having that icecream and while offering an icecream to that person get to have a nice conversation with him/her, your experience from this was so nice that next time you wanted an icecream you would probably pick strawberry again. You end up having a preference for strawberry. If on the other hand the experience was not that great. You felt it tasted sour and someone bumped into you smearing it over your shirt etc you get negative associations with strawberry icecream. The next time you want icecream you will likely try to avoid strawberry and pick chocolate instead. Again, you got a preference against strawberry.

This is essentially how we build up our preferences and while you can argue that in my simple situations it is easy for a smart mad scientist to "fix" the situation so that he can control your preferences, in reality it is rather complex and a big mix of various indicators that makes up your preferences and so while the choice may be detemrined by your preferences they are still a result of free will as long as you can make the choice according to your preferences and you avoid the people who are trying to force you to make choices against your will such as by pointing a gun at your head.

So yes, free will is real but it is also subjective and vague and free will is not that different from unfree will or forced choices so the difference is more in how you experience the choice than in actual objective quantifiable differences.

However, while randomness is at the bottom necessary to at all speak of free will - the initial choice when you choose among two relatively identically valued choices, it is not by itself solely responsible for free will. Free will is far more determined by your past history and preferences than random choices. However, those preferences are typically built up by a long life where initially most choices were randomly chosen and not free willed. To make it simple - a newborn baby does not have much free will to speak of, the free will is something that grows along with the personality as the baby gains preferences and a history of past experiences. In the beginning the newborn baby's choices is very much random choices but as they gain experiences and preferences their free will emerges. However, in a completely deterministic universe the free will would be impossible even with experiences and preferences since those would be deterministic result of the past history. In an undeterministic universe - like the one we live in - where there are random uncaused effects these preferences and past experience is not a deterministic result of our past life but is partly the result of uncaused effects along with the deterministic results of caused effects and that combination makes your preferences impossible to predict for someone even if they knew your past history in every detail and thus your preferences are also to them undeteriministic.

As you can see the relationship between determinism and free will is not as simple as you appear to make it appear.

Alf

[Alf]

Makes sense and I'm not arguing with you there. If an action is due to random quantum properties this seems to cast doubt on free will as well.

Studies in neuroscience have even shown that decisions are made unconsciously before we're consciously aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

EDIT: Spelling.
This artice is interesting but it discusses a free will that is somewhat different than what I normally think of free will. A free willed choice is typically as I gave above with the strawberry vs. chocolate icecream choice. Motor reflexes etc play little part in those things. Once you have made the decision to get A rather than not A, you generally have to perform a set of actions so the brain has to send out signals to make those actions happen. However, it is very possible that for very simple actions it is even possible that you already have prepared your brain to send out those signals and then the volitional part only veto or not the initiation of that signal passing. However, there are also other interpretations possible here. It is one thing that our brain - the part that makes volitional decisions - excersizes free will, it might not be the same exact moment that our consciously aware part recognize that we have made said decision.

In short, it is quite possible that the person has made the free willed decision to perform the action, then the brain prepares to do it and THEN the person becomes consciously aware that he has made said decision and will report as such.

Another possibility is the fact that while you may be consciously aware that you have made a decision you may not be consciously aware that you are consciously aware yet. In short, the person has made a free willed decision and is shortly after consciously aware that he has made this decision and then he builds up the brain signals to initiate the action. He THEN aftewards becomes consciously aware that he is consciously aware that he has made the decision and so decides for himself that "yes, this is the moment I was aware of making the decision" and that moment happen some time after.

These comes in addition to the alternatives listed in the article in the link.

In short, his experiement does not necessarily show that unvolitional part of your brain makes the decisions for you and your volitional part can only watch and rationalize it by "it was my will to do this". Of course, in some situations this might also be the case but he hasn't shown that it is always the case and as there are several other interpretations of those experiments I wouldn't jump to any conclusion that fast.

Alf

[Alf]

Well, he did say that the position and velocity of the atoms were known; he probably meant the electrons and all other quantum particles. I tend to agree with him here; if one COULD know the position/velocity/direction of every subatomic particle 1 second past the big bang, and also know every principle for the way these particles interact... Then you could predict the future out a trillion years unerringly.

And you would be wrong.

Read up on QM.

Alf

[Gundulf]

And you would be wrong.

Read up on QM.

Alf

Yes, I've read - there is debate, so if I am wrong, so are a decent number of physicists. There is debate whether, at the subatomic level, that the particles COULD be predicted. One school suggests that they do actually have values that, could they be known, the universe could be predicted; We are absolutely unable to determine them, hence the uncertainty; but they do have actual values that, if known, could be predicted.

There is another school that suggests that at the most basic subatomic level, these interactions truly ARE random. Hence, there is no determinism. I (obviously) lean toward the first.

Either way, you have a universe that is entirely deterministic, or one where our free will is solely dependent on the fact that subatomic particles move randomly. Either way, not a great day for 'free will.'

[Alf]

Yes, I've read - there is debate, so if I am wrong, so are a decent number of physicists. There is debate whether, at the subatomic level, that the particles COULD be predicted. One school suggests that they do actually have values that, could they be known, the universe could be predicted; We are absolutely unable to determine them, hence the uncertainty; but they do have actual values that, if known, could be predicted.

There is another school that suggests that at the most basic subatomic level, these interactions truly ARE random. Hence, there is no determinism. I (obviously) lean toward the first.

Either way, you have a universe that is entirely deterministic, or one where our free will is solely dependent on the fact that subatomic particles move randomly. Either way, not a great day for 'free will.'

I think it was a couple of years ago that they did an experiment to settle that question and it proved the first theory wrong. It's like an onion, there is nothing inside, you can peel off layer after layer but there is nothing inside, it is the layers that is the onion. There is no such hidden information in the elemental particles

Note that when doing the math there is no problem here at all. The problem only arise when we are trying to interpret the results. Then we try to but fail to make them fit into a cause-effect paradigm etc and that is where it fails. If you reject the idea that every effect must have a cause (which is a logical contradiction anyway) there is no problem with the idea that things are random.

Alf

[Gundulf]

I think it was a couple of years ago that they did an experiment to settle that question and it proved the first theory wrong. It's like an onion, there is nothing inside, you can peel off layer after layer but there is nothing inside, it is the layers that is the onion. There is no such hidden information in the elemental particles

Note that when doing the math there is no problem here at all. The problem only arise when we are trying to interpret the results. Then we try to but fail to make them fit into a cause-effect paradigm etc and that is where it fails. If you reject the idea that every effect must have a cause (which is a logical contradiction anyway) there is no problem with the idea that things are random.

Alf

Sure, but if our free will is entirely dependent on the fact that the subatomic particles in my brain genuinely are random...

That's not much better, philosophically, that being strictly determined - my will is not determined by a pre-set, pre-determined course of events, it is determined by a random course of events. Not really that much better.


(Even so, I'd still want to argue that there is nothing in the onion that we have been able to see - I am not a physicist, so I may be way out of my league in making this claim, but I do find it bordering on arrogance to suggest that, 'because I can't find a cause, there must not be one.' in quantum physics.... maybe there is a cause that we just haven't discovered yet, or that is yet way too small for us ever to discover?)

[RAFH]

Sure, but if our free will is entirely dependent on the fact that the subatomic particles in my brain genuinely are random...

That's not much better, philosophically, that being strictly determined - my will is not determined by a pre-set, pre-determined course of events, it is determined by a random course of events. Not really that much better.


(Even so, I'd still want to argue that there is nothing in the onion that we have been able to see - I am not a physicist, so I may be way out of my league in making this claim, but I do find it bordering on arrogance to suggest that, 'because I can't find a cause, there must not be one.' in quantum physics.... maybe there is a cause that we just haven't discovered yet, or that is yet way too small for us ever to discover?)

Frankly, reality isn't here and does not operate on your needs or desires or whatever you would prefer. It does not adhere to philosophies. It is what it is. Not what anyone wants it be. Evaluating data on the basis of what's preferred or thought elegant or whatever is ridiculous.

Just look and see what's there. Why is that so bloody difficult to do? Why is is necessary to bring in a bunch of stuff nobody can see, hear, touch, feel or smell and for which there is no reliable positive indication of its existence? I just don't get it. Isn't reality sufficient in itself?

[Alf]

Sure, but if our free will is entirely dependent on the fact that the subatomic particles in my brain genuinely are random...

That's not much better, philosophically, that being strictly determined - my will is not determined by a pre-set, pre-determined course of events, it is determined by a random course of events. Not really that much better.

And false. Your free will is determined by your past history and experiences and your preferences and how you give each past experience weight relative to the others.

The point is that the randomness ensures that this is not predictable. I.e. you cannot breed a child under very controlled environment to make it become a specific personality. Sure, if you have a very strict environment there is a good chance that 95 percent of them will turn out much the way you want them to be - this is because large quantities tend to cancel out random effects - the law of great numbers. Each individual may be random but the average is not.

However, you will always have that small percentage who does not act according to your plans. That is where the randomness pops up.


(Even so, I'd still want to argue that there is nothing in the onion that we have been able to see - I am not a physicist, so I may be way out of my league in making this claim, but I do find it bordering on arrogance to suggest that, 'because I can't find a cause, there must not be one.' in quantum physics.... maybe there is a cause that we just haven't discovered yet, or that is yet way too small for us ever to discover?)

Nothing to do with arrogance. Rather you start with the presumption that there must be a cause there and you end up with contradiction - ergo the result is that there is no cause there.

Alf

[Gundulf]

And false. Your free will is determined by your past history and experiences and your preferences and how you give each past experience weight relative to the others.

The point is that the randomness ensures that this is not predictable. I.e. you cannot breed a child under very controlled environment to make it become a specific personality. Sure, if you have a very strict environment there is a good chance that 95 percent of them will turn out much the way you want them to be - this is because large quantities tend to cancel out random effects - the law of great numbers. Each individual may be random but the average is not.

However, you will always have that small percentage who does not act according to your plans. That is where the randomness pops up.



Nothing to do with arrogance. Rather you start with the presumption that there must be a cause there and you end up with contradiction - ergo the result is that there is no cause there.

Alf


I know this is getting off topic, but I would be interested your take on this.

I have never understood how this can be claimed - I can understand the claim that 'there is no perceptible cause for X.' But to claim that there IS no cause... How does one do that?

It comes across to me as the sort of claim such that 'heavier than air flying machines are a scientific impossibility' or the like. Sounds impressive until, one day, someone stumbles on a discovery that makes the naysayers look foolish. Took the Wright bros. like 5 years to convince the scientific community that it really wasn't a hoax. How does one actually claim to know that it would be impossible to ever discover anything further in a field? Isn't this what limits scientific knowledge? "Well, it is just random, accept it, and stop looking for any further discoveries...."?

[Alf]

I know this is getting off topic, but I would be interested your take on this.

I have never understood how this can be claimed - I can understand the claim that 'there is no perceptible cause for X.' But to claim that there IS no cause... How does one do that?

It comes across to me as the sort of claim such that 'heavier than air flying machines are a scientific impossibility' or the like. Sounds impressive until, one day, someone stumbles on a discovery that makes the naysayers look foolish. Took the Wright bros. like 5 years to convince the scientific community that it really wasn't a hoax. How does one actually claim to know that it would be impossible to ever discover anything further in a field? Isn't this what limits scientific knowledge? "Well, it is just random, accept it, and stop looking for any further discoveries...."?

In principle it is relatively easy. You make a mathematical model where you represent "unknown information" by variables. You don't know what values these variables have but you assume that they exist and that the exact values of these variables determines if an electron will turn left or right, so you have a property P such that if the value V of that property is lower than T it will turn left and if it is greater or equal to T it will turn right. Now, there you have a deterministic model. We do not know the value of V of the property P so we cannot predict which way it will take.

The problem is that this scheme lead to contradiction. If you send all electrons off, then roughly half of them will turn left and half will turn right. Consequently you can assume that 50 percent of them had the value below T and 50 percent had the value T or higher. Now, if each of these meet a new similar split then again half of those will turn left and half will turn right. Now, either the act of spliting scrambled the value of the property T so that of those who turned left the distribution of the property P will be similar to the original or the new split has a new threxhold exactly such that half of the remaining will turn left and half will turn right. If the property had remained unchanged and the threshold T had remained the same then all of them should have turned left at this new split since they were all "left turning" electrons from the previous split.

If the value got scrambled, what scrambled it and if the split itself changed the property, why didn't it change the property to the same value for all of them? The idea that the threshold T has changed is not reasonable - the setup can be set to be almost identical to the previous and the idea that the new split has a Threshold exactly so that half again turned left and half turned right doesn't appear reasonable.

So, we end up with a contradiction. It is also a logical contradiction. It is simply logically impossible that all events have a cause. There MUST be some events that has no cause. To therefore insist that there must be a cause to every event is irrational.

To see this it is important to note that we always consider two separate events when identifying cause and effect. If you therefore have a bag with all events in and you find a cause-effect relationship between any two events in the bag and you throw away the effect only keeping the cause you will eventually have thrown out lots of events but you can never end up with an empty bag since you always keep at least one "cause" event behind in the bag when you throw away an "effect" event. Since the bag can never get empty this translates to that there must be some events which has no cause. It is then irrational and illogical to insist that every event must have a cause.

Alf