What is left for free will?

Originally posted by googlefudge
In my system, simple mathematical operations are selected by a random selector with
a probability distribution based on the systems current state.

And note this is not seemingly random, it's random at base.

Is this considered a mathematical function, or not? It certainly does not sound reversible to me. If it is not a mathematical function, then the mathematical functions are in fact irrelevant to the discussion and we should be discussing your randomness generator - which by the way you need to prove is not only physically possible, but has some relevance to the universe eg that the universe is in fact non-deterministic.

The current state of the system is the product of a chain of operations performed on
the initial conditions.
The future of the system is as yet undefined as the next operation is not yet selected.
You are cheating. You are using the conclusion in your definition.

Suppose I make an identical system whereby all future operations are already defined, but the past operations are yet to be selected. Wouldn't my system prove the opposite claim to yours?

Originally posted by JS357
If interested, there is some elucidation of what I mean to say, at:

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp

I read the pieces of information available at the site you presented. Thank you.

Methinks anyway that time is non-existent, because the flow of time is impossible; if we accept that time is split into past, present and future, the conception of time loses its coherence because if the past is considered to produce the present and the future, the latter two parts would be already included in the past and it could not be properly said to have inherent existence and a separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, we are forced to assume that their self-contained existence leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past -and this is absurd. Also, since the notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, we have another self-contradiction. This means that neither the present nor the future exist inherently, since neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future.

However, although I deny the independent inherent existence of time, I admit that the unmediated experience of change is factual; unfortunately I cannot find a coherent way of expressing this experience in terms of the seeming flow of an inherently independent substratum to reality. Since I reject the absolute existence of time and not the existence of the various temporal phenomena, I evaluate as false the hypothesis that time, phenomena and their mutual dependence are inherently independent entities. All in all, since time is flux-in-phenomena and phenomena are merely phenomena-in-flux, time and the things that change are essentially one. Therefore, since the constant change of things is the sole change over time, I perceive the flow of time as a pure delusion
😵

Am I the only one who pretty much never understands what Black Beetle is trying to say? It's like Grampy Bobby wrote something after smoking a heavy joint.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Am I the only one who pretty much never understands what Black Beetle is trying to say? It's like Grampy Bobby wrote something after smoking a heavy joint.

Well, since BB is responding to my citation of a concept that includes reference to a time dimension, I suppose BB denies that idea when he says "... I deny the independent inherent existence of time...". I suppose this amounts to a rejection of the idea of block universe determinism that I suggested.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp

But I am not sure that block universe determinism requires that time "flow," any more than that the spatial dimensions flow. It just suggests that a better map of reality is extended temporally as well as spatially and all facts just are. They are not linked by the causal operation of laws over time, since they all coexist.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Am I the only one who pretty much never understands what Black Beetle is trying to say? It's like Grampy Bobby wrote something after smoking a heavy joint.

You are not alone. I usually don't understand him. He does at least appear to read my posts unlike Grampy.

Originally posted by JerryH
We are each different physically and fortunately. Are we born with and into enough difference to dictate our difference in choice? If so then where is free will?

If alternately there is some quality of us, not physical or fortune, that accounts for the choices we make and we choose differently, where is free will?

Does free will not demand we all make ...[text shortened]... ice. Does deviation from perfect choice not suggest flawed will?

What is left for free will?

No country for old men touches on the dilemma of determinism.

The final confrontation between Chigurh and Carla Jean seems like a fairly straight analogy for the dilemma of determinism: either CJ must accept her fate and be killed, which is no kind of choice at all, or she must resign to the randomness of the coin toss, in which case she still has no control over her outcome.

However, unlike the Texaco man, Carla Jean refuses to comply. I think this is an important aspect of the story. Many philosophers believe that the key to our freedom is our ability to do things for a reason, rather than some confusing ability to do otherwise. So, this could be seen as an intellectual defeat for Chigurh. Carla Jean chooses to die rather than play by Chigurh’s rules, demonstrating that she is free in ways that he is not.

http://arbitrarynonsense.com/2012/08/08/no-country-for-old-men-ending-explanation/

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are not alone. I usually don't understand him. He does at least appear to read my posts unlike Grampy.

Aw... poor GB. Still asking the same questions over and over again thinking that one day one of the atheists is going "Ah, I finally see what he means!"

What a unique and interesting set of characters wander around this forum.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No country for old men touches on the dilemma of determinism.

The final confrontation between Chigurh and Carla Jean seems like a fairly straight analogy for the dilemma of determinism: either CJ must accept her fate and be killed, which is no kind of choice at all, or she must resign to the randomness of the coin toss, in which case she still has ...[text shortened]... he is not.

http://arbitrarynonsense.com/2012/08/08/no-country-for-old-men-ending-explanation/

I suppose I need to watch that movie again one day, but the first time I saw it I felt the same way I feel every time I see a Coen brothers film: what a pretentious piece of cr*p this is!

Don't get me wrong, they know how to make a film. But sooo damn pretentious.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I suppose I need to watch that movie again one day, but the first time I saw it I felt the same way I feel every time I see a Coen brothers film: what a pretentious piece of cr*p this is!

Don't get me wrong, they know how to make a film. But sooo damn pretentious.

Actually GKR, I am unaware of who the Cohen bothers are to be honest, I've heard the name but know nothing of them which is perhaps why i remain unprejudiced, the film itself is based of course upon a book, as to the point at hand they may just have caught this aspect in the film

a jumbled mess of happenings which cause you to look for a kind of depth which, on greater inspection, simply isn’t there. 😀

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is this considered a mathematical function, or not? It certainly does not sound reversible to me. If it is not a mathematical function, then the mathematical functions are in fact irrelevant to the discussion and we should be discussing your randomness generator - which by the way you need to prove is not only physically possible, but has some relevance t ...[text shortened]... he past operations are yet to be selected. Wouldn't my system prove the opposite claim to yours?

...we should be discussing your randomness generator - which by the way you need to prove is not only physically possible, but has some relevance to the universe eg that the universe is in fact non-deterministic....

Actually I don't... We don't KNOW if the universe is deterministic or random [or some combination
of the two]. Quantum theory certainly looks like it contains true randomness.

Given that we thus don't know if the universe is completely deterministic we need to talk in possible
universes and the one I was describing is one that contains elements of both.

And then looking at the consequences of such a universe.

Suppose I make an identical system whereby all future operations are already defined, but the past operations are yet to be selected. Wouldn't my system prove the opposite claim to yours?

That doesn't [to me] actually make any sense.
In this system time passing is simply the system moving from one state to the next, performing one
operation after another in sequence. 'past' operations are the ones that have already been selected
and performed and 'future' operations are the ones that haven't happened yet.

This is why it seems to me to be utterly nonsensical to talk about future operations effecting the present
state or of 'past' operations being 'yet to be selected'.
If the 'future' operations are predefined then the system is completely deterministic, and has no randomness.
But those future operations/states still have no baring whatsoever on the present state.
The present state is only and exclusively dependent on the operations that HAVE been performed and
is not dependent on any operations or states that might or will occur in the future.

Originally posted by black beetle
I read the pieces of information available at the site you presented. Thank you.

Methinks anyway that time is non-existent, because the flow of time is impossible; if we accept that time is split into past, present and future, the conception of time loses its coherence because if the past is considered to produce the present and the future, the latte ...[text shortened]... hange of things is the sole change over time, I perceive the flow of time as a pure delusion
😵

I would tend to agree with you that time probably doesn't exist, however it's perfectly
possible to come up with non-contradictory possible universes where time does in fact
exist.

For example, lets consider a 2 spacial dimension universe with a time dimension.
The universe is quantum so we can view the time dimension as being like 2d membranes
1 plank unit apart. Each membrane effects the membrane/s adjacent to it, so that
changes propagate from membrane to membrane, with the option for preferential influence
in a particular direction. [Our arrow of time, let's say left to right]

From inside this universe time appears to pass as influence is moved from membrane to membrane
with the laws of physics in this universe dictating how each membrane changes from the
influence of the membrane to it's left.
You could potentially have everything that happens in this universe static, so that each
individual membrane is fixed a bit like the still frames of a movie reel.
Which is how I suspect most people imagine such a universe, so that the past and future
of any given moment [membrane] exist and are unchanging.

However, I would suggest that quantum uncertainty would dictate that the membranes can't be static.
And that thus each membrane will slowly alter over time, with the consequence being that
although for any given moment the past and future do exist, they are not the past that
created this present, or the future that this present will create.

And the farther back in time, or the farther forward in time, the greater the difference
from the past that created the present and the from the future the present will create.

This gives you a changing universe with a flow of time that is potentially non-deterministic
with all positions in time co-existent.


Although I am far from certain I've explained this clearly, and could do with feedback on that.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Am I the only one who pretty much never understands what Black Beetle is trying to say? It's like Grampy Bobby wrote something after smoking a heavy joint.

Methinks you are indeed not alone here.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Methinks you are indeed not alone here.

Definitely not alone... Not sure if it's the jargon, complexity of ideas, or both,
but I definitely need a run up to tackle many of BB's posts.

Originally posted by JS357
Well, since BB is responding to my citation of a concept that includes reference to a time dimension, I suppose BB denies that idea when he says "... I deny the independent inherent existence of time...". I suppose this amounts to a rejection of the idea of block universe determinism that I suggested.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_uni ...[text shortened]... ]are[/i]. They are not linked by the causal operation of laws over time, since they all coexist.

In fact I said that a block universe -if such a thing is existent, that is- is nothing but just a phenomenon-in-flux and therefore time and the things that change (the block universe itself) are essentially one. Once more, since the constant change of things in the block universe would be merely the sole change "over time", the flow of time within a block universe would be nothing but a pure delusion
😵

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would tend to agree with you that time probably doesn't exist, however it's perfectly
possible to come up with non-contradictory possible universes where time does in fact
exist.

For example, lets consider a 2 spacial dimension universe with a time dimension.
The universe is quantum so we can view the time dimension as being like 2d membranes ...[text shortened]...
Although I am far from certain I've explained this clearly, and could do with feedback on that.

Very well, I agree with this case study
😵