Originally posted by twhiteheadThe problem is in order to end this discussion on will, someone has to
Why does everyone equate determinism with instinctive or emotional behavior. They are not equivalent in the slightest.
[b]I object to the theory that everything is deterministic in an absolute sense, i.e. even our thinking process can be reduced to deterministic laws of electrons, atoms, photons etc.
But you have not given valid reasons for your o ...[text shortened]... Don't worry, you are not the first person to run into this dilemma. But a dilemma it is.[/b]
on take a stand and end it, otherwise it is an endless yes no debate
without any hope of ending the discussion. The ending will not be because
anyone can come up with an answer to end all questions, so people will
have to on faith just settle on a stance and move on, or stay in the never
ending stay of "I don't know and you cannot prove it" stance on the topic.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy should that be? Are you saying you know for a fact that the answers to the questions cannot be known?
The problem is in order to end this discussion on will, someone has to
on take a stand and end it, otherwise it is an endless yes no debate
without any hope of ending the discussion. The ending will not be because
anyone can come up with an answer to end all questions, so people will
have to on faith just settle on a stance and move on, or stay in the never
ending stay of "I don't know and you cannot prove it" stance on the topic.
Kelly
And so far TitusvE's stand seems illogical, and I don't see why I cant prove that if it is.
More importantly though, he hasn't yet explained fully what his stand is. He is very sure that his decisions are not a result of instinct, but he has not been at all clear about what they do result from.
What about you? Do you think decisions are a result of cause, randomness, a combination, or something else. If something else, can you suggest what that might be?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSame here. But I thought you were on to something interesting with your opening post... Unfortunately, the thread was hijacked almost from the start.
Sorry for not responding to this post.
I don't really have much comment yet as I need to think further about it. I certainly don't disagree with anything you have said.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think our decisions are made by us, by our will, but it is within a body that
Why should that be? Are you saying you know for a fact that the answers to the questions cannot be known?
And so far TitusvE's stand seems illogical, and I don't see why I cant prove that if it is.
More importantly though, he hasn't yet explained fully what his stand is. He is very sure that his decisions are not a result of instinct, but he has not bee ...[text shortened]... ess, a combination, or something else. If something else, can you suggest what that might be?
has limitations, desires, lusts, and can be swayed by arugment and so on.
Yet with all of that we make our own choices.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut our 'will' whatever that may be, must either operate via a deterministic process or a random one. I simply cannot see any other option. (a process with elements of both is ultimately one or the other overall for any given decision).
I think our decisions are made by us, by our will, but it is within a body that
has limitations, desires, lusts, and can be swayed by arugment and so on.
Yet with all of that we make our own choices.
Kelly
It seems you and TitusvE equate determinism with control by instinct, lust, desire etc which you see as not being a part of your will, but neither of you have explained why your will somehow escapes the basic rules ie that all events are either deterministic or random.
I remember that when knightmeister was pushed on the same subject he went a step further and said there was a little piece of God in all of us that did the deciding, but once again although he added a layer of complexity, it didn't avoid the basic problem.
Originally posted by PalynkaMy problem is I cant reconcile two concepts I have about time.
Same here. But I thought you were on to something interesting with your opening post... Unfortunately, the thread was hijacked almost from the start.
1. That the past and future are basically identical from a physics point of view, the only difference being that the second law results in us being able to predict the past better than we can predict the future, but we can predict both. When we cannot predict beyond a certain accuracy with the past, we tend to say all possible pasts occurred - (the waves in quantum mechanics). Oddly we don't seem to do the same for the future.
2. Information only flows from the past to the future. This seems to me to contradict the above. Surely if we can predict the future - even at a minimum, then information has flown backwards in time?
Or is it this very fact that information only goes one way that results in our poor ability to predict the future?
I cant seem to get it all straight in my head.
As I see it, prediction about the future can only be dune to a certain degree of probability, p<1. So we cannot ever be exact 100.0% sure about the future, not even the nearest future.
Say that i hold a coin in my hand, and plan to drop it. What till be the probability that the con hits the floor according to the laws of gravitation, or anything else? Exact 100.0% probability? No, not exact, but very near. But if you do the experiment, then you will find statisticaly that it will fall to the floor almost every time.
So you can always predict the future statistically, or with a certain probability, but you will never be 100.0% sure that it actually will happen as predicted. With this in mind - are the future predictable? In the most strictest meaning?
Originally posted by twhiteheadTwhitehead,
Why does everyone equate determinism with instinctive or emotional behavior. They are not equivalent in the slightest.
[b]I object to the theory that everything is deterministic in an absolute sense, i.e. even our thinking process can be reduced to deterministic laws of electrons, atoms, photons etc.
But you have not given valid reasons for your o ...[text shortened]... Don't worry, you are not the first person to run into this dilemma. But a dilemma it is.[/b]
This might be my last comment because I am getting a bit tired of the discussion. I think we are not getting closer. Moreover I don't like your tone "Whats worse is you don't even seem to have thought seriously about what it is you object so strongly too."
Please a bit more respect I would appreciate. Especially from you, as in your view I can not help how I think ;-) . You should keep the option open that someone has thought longer or deeper about a subject even if he or she comes to another conclusion than you.
I think the phrase why 'believing' to have a free will is just the best option as was introduced by Mtthw is just the best argument. I hoped that would have convinced you.
So yes, I consider actions that follow from conscious beings different than random or deterministic. If I could explain further the physics of free will I would probably win a Noble prize.
So don't blame me that I can't. From what I see I just have to conclude this. You seem to have a very strong believe that everything we know about molecular dynamics can be extrapolated. Why do you exclude the existence of "new physics" that occur in highly complex ordered molecular systems (like a human being). Realize that QM was also a huge surprise when people investigated the small length-scales.
Moreover, I find it a bit disappointed that you just start on accusing others that they do not give good arguments, while you just ignore my arguments on the "observation" paradox that you say just does not exist even after me given the sources by Neumann and Wigner ("consciousness makes the wavefunction collapse".
Originally posted by twhiteheadI can be tempted by my lust; I can have my desires scream for something
But our 'will' whatever that may be, must either operate via a deterministic process or a random one. I simply cannot see any other option. (a process with elements of both is ultimately one or the other overall for any given decision).
It seems you and TitusvE equate determinism with control by instinct, lust, desire etc which you see as not being a par ...[text shortened]... g, but once again although he added a layer of complexity, it didn't avoid the basic problem.
that would for a short period give me what I want, that does not mean for
a second I'm controlled by either my desires or my lusts. My will to do may
be affected by my lusts and desires, but the power of choice is to either
act upon those baser things or not, the not means they are not things that
control me where my own choices are concern. I may be predisposed to
follow along with the flow of my lusts and desires, but again choice is to
will to an act as I choose. We weight our choices too, judging and acting
upon things where we may feel that doing X is bad so we don’t, or even
harder having to pick between two good, or two bad choices, if we are the
ones acting our choices are the results of having decided.
Jesus said that because he was leaving the Holy Spirit would lead us and
teach us. Following the leader and teacher is not giving up one's choices
it is making one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd now Kelly becomes religious. Despite we are in the Science Forum.
I can be tempted by my lust; I can have my desires scream for something
that would for a short period give me what I want, that does not mean for
a second I'm controlled by either my desires or my lusts. My will to do may
be affected by my lusts and desires, but the power of choice is to either
act upon those baser things or not, the not means they are ...[text shortened]... us. Following the leader and teacher is not giving up one's choices
it is making one.
Kelly
Jesus has nothing to do with free will. He lived 2000 years ago, and died 2000 years ago.
I'm sure that Kelly didn't do this of his own free will. It was just written in the stars. He has no responsability for this.
Originally posted by TitusvEMy apologies. I'll try to be more polite.
Please a bit more respect I would appreciate.
Especially from you, as in your view I can not help how I think ;-).
I have not claimed determinism to be the case nor do I think it is equivalent to your interpretation ie that you would be a helpless entity external to the decision making functions. If an entirely deterministic computer makes a bad decision, then it is entirely to blame. You can say 'it cannot help what it thinks', but it is still the entity doing the thinking and thus responsible for its decisions.
So yes, I consider actions that follow from conscious beings different than random or deterministic. If I could explain further the physics of free will I would probably win a Noble prize.
Well that is what I wanted an answer too as nobody seemed to be forthcoming on the matter.
So you believe that a conscious being can make a decision that is neither random nor deterministic? I find that to be illogical, but maybe you know something I don't, or more likely mean something different by the words 'random' and 'deterministic' (I see them as complimentary and therefore a third option cannot exist).
You seem to have a very strong believe that everything we know about molecular dynamics can be extrapolated.
No, I am not bringing molecular dynamics into it at all. It is irrelevant.
Why do you exclude the existence of "new physics" that occur in highly complex ordered molecular systems (like a human being).
Because I don't think it is relevant. Either something can be predicted (deterministic) or it cant (random). There is no third option. This is simple logic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.
Moreover, I find it a bit disappointed that you just start on accusing others that they do not give good arguments, while you just ignore my arguments on the "observation" paradox that you say just does not exist even after me given the sources by Neumann and Wigner ("consciousness makes the wavefunction collapse".
My apologies again for not responding to that. It seems you are correct, and some scientist have some very weird ideas about observers. I consider it total bunkum and can assure you that it plays no part in every day quantum mechanics calculations.
Originally posted by twhitehead"Because I don't think it is relevant. Either something can be predicted (deterministic) or it cant (random). There is no third option. This is simple logic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.
My apologies. I'll try to be more polite.
[b]Especially from you, as in your view I can not help how I think ;-).
I have not claimed determinism to be the case nor do I think it is equivalent to your interpretation ie that you would be a helpless entity external to the decision making functions. If an entirely deterministic computer makes a bad d ...[text shortened]... can assure you that it plays no part in every day quantum mechanics calculations.[/b]
Really, I think the full notion of will is a part from either of these, we are
not talking about computer programs here. We can look at some things like
an honest man and a dishonest one both coming upon a wallet with ID and
money in them, the honest one would return the money and wallet, while
the dishonest one would not. Predictable, yet life is more than those types
of straightforward choices and as such "will" goes beyond 1 and 0, yes and
no. We fall in love with people, unable to predict that, we like apples, unable
to predict that, we choose careers not always based upon our skill level
aptitudes or childhood dreams, and a million other things taken completely
out of predictability parameters we choose to apply to things.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadApologies accepted.
My apologies. I'll try to be more polite.
[b]Especially from you, as in your view I can not help how I think ;-).
I have not claimed determinism to be the case nor do I think it is equivalent to your interpretation ie that you would be a helpless entity external to the decision making functions. If an entirely deterministic computer makes a bad d ...[text shortened]... can assure you that it plays no part in every day quantum mechanics calculations.[/b]
i) I would say, however, it is the programmer to blame not the computer.
ii) Your viewpoint seem a bit different to many deterministic scientist as you do believe in randomness. This is a bit remarkable most scientist that not believe in free will also do not believe in randomness "god doesn't throw dices".I could try to give a definition of such a third option
a) an object acts deterministic if its acting can exactly be predicted by an external observer
b) an object acts random is its acting can't by no means be predicted
c) an object acts as having a free will when its acting can only be predicted by this object itself
(hence, not by an external observer)
iii) Neuman and Wigner are brilliant scientist, but we all should believe you ??! ;-). As I am a physicist myself I know very well that the observer-paradox doesn't play a role in daily quantum calculations. For practical calculations one just calculates without considering philosophical questions. But it is a fact that the observer itself is not described by QM in the Copenhague interpretation and that this is an important issue subject to many debates. If you say that "dead matter", cq a machine, can just as well make an observation that makes the quantum-state collapse, this gives other tricky issues. What is the minimal amount of dead matter for making "an observation"? If a proton feels the interaction with an electron, can this make the electronic wavefunction collapse??
Originally posted by KellyJaySo far all you have said is a persons decisions cannot be predicted (by other people at least). But this doesn't tell us anything new, nor does it contradict anything I have said.
Really, I think the full notion of will is a part from either of these, we are
not talking about computer programs here. We can look at some things like
an honest man and a dishonest one both coming upon a wallet with ID and
money in them, the honest one would return the money and wallet, while
the dishonest one would not. Predictable, yet life is more ...[text shortened]... things taken completely
out of predictability parameters we choose to apply to things.
Kelly
Either peoples decisions can ultimately be predicted, or they cant. If they cant, they are random. Get used to it. There is no third option.
Originally posted by TitusvEWell now we are getting into the blame game which perhaps would be a topic for another thread. The same issue comes up with juvenile criminals. Do you blame the parent (programmer), or the child.
i) I would say, however, it is the programmer to blame not the computer.
ii) Your viewpoint seem a bit different to many deterministic scientist as you do believe in randomness. This is a bit remarkable most scientist that not believe in free will also do not believe in randomness "god doesn't throw dices".
I know of no modern scientist that does not accept quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is all about randomness. Besides, I haven't claimed to be a 'deterministic scientist' anyway.
I could try to give a definition of such a third option
a) an object acts deterministic if its acting can exactly be predicted by an external observer
b) an object acts random is its acting can't by no means be predicted
c) an object acts as having a free will when its acting can only be predicted by this object itself
(hence, not by an external observer)
But then to all intents and purposes, all external objects observe the actions as random.
iii) Neuman and Wigner are brilliant scientist, but we all should believe you ??! ;-). As I am a physicist myself I know very well that the observer-paradox doesn't play a role in daily quantum calculations. For practical calculations one just calculates without considering philosophical questions. But it is a fact that the observer itself is not described by QM in the Copenhague interpretation and that this is an important issue subject to many debates. If you say that "dead matter", cq a machine, can just as well make an observation that makes the quantum-state collapse, this gives other tricky issues. What is the minimal amount of dead matter for making "an observation"? If a proton feels the interaction with an electron, can this make the electronic wavefunction collapse??
Maybe this would be a topic worthy of its own thread.
In the two slit experiment it is the screen that receives the photons that is the observer and not the scientist who records the results. If one slit is blocked with a photo receptor then that and the screen become observers. The wave function collapse is based solely on these and their locations and happens regardless of where any scientists or other intellects may be standing.