uncaused events

It seems that 'uncaused' is an esoteric concept with no basis in science. It's a term for the start of the universe, and for some religions, and for something about free will.

Originally posted by apathist
It seems that 'uncaused' is an esoteric concept with no basis in science. It's a term for the start of the universe, and for some religions, and for something about free will.

It seems you are desperately intent on not understanding the meaning of the word or what anyone has said on the matter.
Is it a religious tenet for you that certain things be caused? If not, then why the odd behaviour?

Originally posted by humy
1, What is 'free will'? (serious question)

2, If what you call 'free will' is determined then that means you have no control over your decisions because your decisions were predetermined and thus inevitable to be whatever they are and at best you would have the illusion of control. But then why the word "free" in the term 'free will'? It wouldn't be "free" b ...[text shortened]... l' impossible to define logically (it is a nonsense concept) hence the reason for my question 1.

Free will is defined by the ability to choose. And yes, you are right, I should have put determinism and free will as oppositional ideas. If you subscribe to determinism, that every event is fundamentally predictable based on prior events, free will cannot exist. Free will is considered a place-holder in light of an incomplete understanding of the system. There are no uncaused events.

The ultimate problem with determinism from a scientific standpoint is that it is untestable. At least in biological terms, it isn't possible to generate two identical systems and set them in motion and see if they behave exactly the same. Even two clonal bacteria grown in identical conditions behave differently. Either we don't know the causes or the causes are fundamentally stochastic.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Free will is defined by the ability to choose. And yes, you are right, I should have put determinism and free will as oppositional ideas. If you subscribe to determinism, that every event is fundamentally predictable based on prior events, free will cannot exist. Free will is considered a place-holder in light of an incomplete understanding of the system. ...[text shortened]... behave differently. Either we don't know the causes or the causes are fundamentally stochastic.

How do you know there are no uncaused events?
Currently ( I say "Currently" because one day this might change) , nobody can rationally know this nor even merely know that its probable.

And yes, you are right, I should have put determinism and free will as oppositional ideas.

No, that isn't what I just said/implied at all.
I explained why so called "free will" is nonsense REGARDLESS of whether determinism is true or false.
Part of what I said there was;
"...an UNdetermined 'free will' thus one that allows no 'free will' control over your decisions (if you got self-determination then its determined) wouldn't be what you mean by 'free will' either hence making your concept of 'free will' impossible to define logically (it is a nonsense concept) ..."
So what I am explaining there is why, even if determinism is FALSE, 'free will' is nonsense.

Originally posted by humy
How do you know there are no uncaused events?

And yes, you are right, I should have put determinism and free will as oppositional ideas.

No, that isn't what I just said/implied at all.
I explained why so called "free will" is nonsense REGARDLESS of whether determinism is true or false.
part of what I said there was;
"...an UNdetermined ...[text shortened]... aking your concept of 'free will' impossible to define logically (it is a nonsense concept) ..."

I don't know if there are uncaused events. I was only reiterating the basic concepts of deterministic philosophy. As my second paragraph noted, I don't think this is a useful scientific concept, as it remains untestable. Sorry if this was confusing.

I guess I misunderstood your second sentence (I've read it three times and still don't understand it). What you wrote certainly seems like nonsense, but there are too many negative clauses in that sentence for me to unravel without losing my shirt. Free will is your ability to freely make a decision. It seems logical to me, and I was only asking if you think free will is uncaused? Are you saying if there's no predetermination then it must be random/uncontrollable and therefore not free?

Originally posted by wildgrass
Free will is your ability to freely make a decision. It seems logical to me, and I was only asking if you think free will is uncaused? Are you saying if there's no predetermination then it must be random/uncontrollable and therefore not free?

Many people consider free will to be incompatible with complete determinism. They also see it as being incompatible with purely random inputs. But those form a dichotomy leaving them with an impossible definition.
I am comfortable calling my own will 'free will' and not caring that it consists of a mix of determinism and random inputs. For me, 'free will' is the fact that I am not immediately being forced into things by entities I do not consider part of myself. I am OK with the fact that my character may have been formed over time by my external environment, and am somewhat less comfortable with the fact that simple chemicals that I ingest may alter my thought process dramatically. I recognise that this is so, dispute my discomfort, but in the extreme I would say my free will may be impaired.

What most religious people do is an old psychological trick which is to imagine that your 'soul' or 'decision making centre' is somehow separate from the physical universe and not subject to its laws. They presume that this solves the problem. But as with most religious tricks for explaining away stuff, it doesn't solve anything, it just makes people think they don't need to think about it.

Thread title: "uncaused events"

Anyone married knows that there are uncaused events...

Originally posted by wildgrass
I don't know if there are uncaused events. ...

I understand you don't think it's a useful concept. But apparently you're open to the possibility. I try to be open-minded but I fail here. If an even were in fact uncaused, then we're not able to ask why or how did that event happen, and boom! my mind explodes.

Originally posted by humy
Careful! whitehead didn't actually say this was true but rather said it merely as one of a number of opposing possibilities so it is important not to take that statement out of its context else you make it sound he said this is true, which he didn't!

As far as I am aware, extremely few people including scientists insist that the universe as a whole MUST be without cause. Certainly I don't.[/b]

He said it was a possibility, and that possibility is what I'm exploring.

Originally posted by wildgrass
I was only asking if you think free will is uncaused?

there isn't such thing as 'free will', at least not by what most people seem to mean by the term, because that is a nonsense concept and I explained WHY it is nonsense; it is a self-contradiction.
But the meaning of 'free will' is extremely vague and means different things to different people so that rather depends on exactly what you personally mean by it.

Are you saying if there's no predetermination then it must be random/uncontrollable and therefore not free?

That is one implication of what I said, yes. But even if there IS predetermination then, because that means any choices we make are predetermined, there STILL is no 'free will'! What is 'free' about 'free will' if it is predetermined? So, whatever you mean by 'free will', it is at best misnomer and at worst an actual logical self-contradiction thus total nonsense.

Originally posted by Ponderable... So some philosophers argue that the radioactive decay (of a given Atom) is an "uncaused" effect. But others argue that we know that a given Atom will decay due to its instability, so we know the cause, just not the time.

Your first point is really what I saw when I started this thread. They say it is uncaused because of the deterministic worldview - since the decay doesn't have a deterministic cause, therefore the event is uncaused.

Instead, I think such events indicate that we need a better way to look at causation than that provided by determinism.

Your second point, plus your following point about statistics, plus your next point here:
So science is motsly about how to identify the various and multiple causes of one observed effect.
I think you may already know what I'm talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_causation
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

I'm suggesting that deterministic causes are just special cases where we can see the future clear enough to accurately predict it, at least potentially. But most causes are probabilistic and so the future is not 'carved in stone'. Not because we lack the information needed to make a deterministic prediction, but because causation is fundamentally probabilistic.

Originally posted by humy
2, If what you call 'free will' is determined then ...
I also don't think an UNdetermined 'free will' thus ...

So if events are determined, or if they are UNdetermined, then there can be no free will.

Just to be clear, what do you mean by those two terms? I read the first to mean deterministic, only one possible outcome and the future is writ in stone so to speak; the second I read to mean 'uncaused' or 'random'. Is that right?

Under the probabilistic causation world view, the future is not deterministic and it is not uncaused or 'random'. So your two objections against free will (volition) do not apply. Instead, our mental states - our hopes fears desires intentions etc - are causative factors that affects what happens next. When we use this power on purpose then we are using our free will.

Originally posted by apathist
So if events are determined, or if they are UNdetermined, then there can be no free will.

Just to be clear, what do you mean by those two terms? I read the first to mean deterministic, only one possible outcome and the future is writ in stone so to speak; the second I read to mean 'uncaused' or 'random'. Is that right?

Under the [i]probabilistic causa ...[text shortened]... is not uncaused or 'random'. So your two objections against free will (volition) do not apply.

I do not equate 'uncaused' with 'random'; don't know where you got that idea from. So by argument still applies.

our mental states - our hopes fears desires intentions etc - are causative factors that affects what happens next. When we use this power on purpose then we are using our free will.

That depends on what you EXACTLY mean by the vague term 'free will'. Depending on the EXACT meaning you attach to it, you could argue there is no such 'free will' because, regardless of how we define causation or exactly what the causation is, if your next decision is inevitably going to be whatever it is going to be, then that means the 'free will' is a contradiction because it isn't 'free' but rather determined. But if your next decision is NOT inevitable because there is some random factors determining your future decision, those random factors being RANDOM means you have no control over them i.e. you have no control over that part of your future decision dependent on those random factors. Again, that means the 'free will' is a contradiction but this time because it isn't 'free' as in 'free' to determine what you choose but rather determined by random factors that you have no control over. Defining 'free will' as meaning making choices that are partly inevitable and partly determined by random factors doesn't help either here as that would just means it is partly self-contradictory in not just one but in two separate ways.

Originally posted by humy
there isn't such thing as 'free will', at least not by what most people seem to mean by the term, because that is a nonsense concept and I explained WHY it is nonsense; it is a self-contradiction.
But the meaning of 'free will' is extremely vague and means different things to different people so that rather depends on exactly what you personally mean by it.
...[text shortened]... ', it is at best misnomer and at worst an actual logical self-contradiction thus total nonsense.

I clearly defined free will at the beginning of an earlier post as our ability to choose. If you are saying that free will is a nonsense concept, then do we lack an ability to choose?

Originally posted by wildgrass
I clearly defined free will at the beginning of an earlier post as our ability to choose. If you are saying that free will is a nonsense concept, then do we lack an ability to choose?

I think the heart of the matter is that more terms need stricter definitions. When you say 'our ability to choose' would that include say a computer program making a choice based on its programming? Would that be free will?
Who is ' I ' and what is 'choice' needs further clarity as both can have a range of meaning within the context being discussed. Some of us would say that even if I would choose the same way every time and that my choice is based on my upbringing, others would say, no that is not free choice and not a choice being made by my but by my upbringing (and external environment), and yet others would say it is deterministic and not choice at all.