Is free-will an illusion?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

There is a difference between something being random and seam to be random, as it well may turn out to just be complex, aside that no other point needs to be made to refute is argument..."random" is a pragmatical classification and has no final ontological value whatsoever...

I completely agree. No where is a proof that a value can be truly random. And the above quote just assumes that "genuinely random" processes of selection actually exist. And from that concludes the possible existence of uncomputable numbers.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's not so much Admin isn't involved. At the beginning, I've been banned from able2know more times than I wish to remember.

Obviously you're an operator after my own heart but unfortunately of the same gender

Considering the language some of our ESL contributors use on a regular basis how on earth could any other post be so atrocious as to get one banned

Quote:

However, it's been my philosophy about chat rooms that the least censorship there are, the better for all of us; you know, "freedom of speech" stuff.

Oh absolutely, surely, unquestionably

Quote:

One rule they do enforce is "no commercial marketing" on able2know.

Pretty reasonable I'd agree

Quote:

That said, I spend more time on able2know than I do watching tv -……….

Some days I do too, have to drag myself away

Quote:

I'm an "open book" to most who know me.

I'm tattered in shambles, full of compulsions and wild notions

Quote:

You can get a taste of who I am by visiting my travel blog at www.travelpod.com/members/c.i.222……...In other words, I love world travel, and spoil myself with seven-eight trips a year,

I'm duly impressed

No, yes, I really am

Quote:

but hope to slow down beginning in 2013. That's what I've been saying for the past couple of years.

It's easy to do and fulfilling if it doesn't make you feel guilty. I for one avoid anything that could be considered a form of work

Except of course yard work, inevitable, but I don't have to like it

Quote:

NYT = New York Times.

Of course
Just wait til you're 82

1 Reply

@tomr,

I hope you don't meant my quote assumes anything, for all that I know "random" is just a magical wording...the problem of not being able to know only means a concept which exists as a concept cannot be verified to be true, and that is all I ever needed to make a valid point !

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

You wrote,

Quote:

Of course Just wait til you're 82

Funny y0u should mention that (age). I'm 77, and travel frequently with a Canadian who now resides in Mexico, and owns a realty company. My friend tells me I still have 20 more years of travel left in me. LOL We just returned from a 10-day cruise on the Oceania's Marina to the Med and Aegean Sea. It was a blast with a "regular" travel group, good food and drinks, and interesting destinations.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That was a miscommunication on my part it does read like I was refering to your post. I was talking about the reference to wikipedia in my previous post when I was refering to "genuinely random". No I really agree with your analysis of randomness. It is not well defined.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Funny y0u should mention that (age).

I exercise no conventional judgment whatever

Quote:

I'm 77,……. My friend tells me I still have 20 more years of travel left in me. LOL

Wish I could say the same. My nephrologist advises me, let's see, your oxygen uptake pretty normal, uh, you might live another five years before your kidney fails; heart sounds all right, and oh yes iron is ok…….

0 Replies

@tomr,

Quote:

…..of randomness. It is not well defined.

Tomr when I maintain the same about freewill they tear me apart mercilessly

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Hopefully they will go easy on me today. As long as I don't say it too loudly. For instance I won't say it like, "RANDOMNESS AND FREEWILL ARE NOT WELL DEFINED!!!". But rather like, "RANDOMNESS AND FREEWILL ARE NOT WELL DEFINED".

2 Replies

@tomr,

0 Replies

@tomr,

But rather like, "RANDOMNESS AND FREEWILL ARE NOT WELL DEFINED".

If he's at all interested then, he has to sit up

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Or he can use the magnify button. I just found that functionality recently. It comes in handy too. Also did you know internet explorer has a "find on this page..." function that searches for specific words on a web page. It is very useful!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They are "all" computable. Who cares what goes beyond infinity?

They are not all computable, unless you hold by definition that the only numbers which exist are those which are computable. This is known as begging the question, and entails the rejection of classical mathematics. As science uses classical mathematics and denial of the present result still doesn't imply that free will is impossible in a nondetermined world, the free will denier is again cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Tomr's objection, that he can list all numbers, fails, for at least two reasons. First, if I tell you that I will choose a number between one and one hundred, and Tomr claims that he can compute what that number will be, nobody would agree that he had performed the claimed computation if he just listed all the possible numbers. That is just a statement of the set from which the number will be constructed, it is not a computation of the number. Yet, his claim to have shown how to compute the number amounts to exactly this. Also, it is a matter of mathematical proof, that he cannot write out all the reals. He can at most write out a countable infinity of numbers, but the whole point of my argument is that the probability of a real being in the set of countable numbers is zero.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
…..of randomness. It is not well defined.
Tomr when I maintain the same about freewill they tear me apart mercilessly

Of course free will is well defined, and those posting on a thread about free will but not knowing this can't really be taken seriously on the subject. The same goes for randomness.

1 Reply

Yes it is well defined that randomness has no ontological claims as it is well defined free will is the ability to do otherwise while the otherwise refers to mental projections beliefs and not to actual knowledge onto what can or cannot really be done...indeed it couldn't be more clear !
People don't usually go around thinking to themselves I could go get a coffee if I was sure I really want a coffee...normally people first get to know they are sure they want a coffee, not that they choose to be sleepy lets not forget that either, and then act when that urge comes...they never choose to take a coffee but rather they learn upon themselves they need a coffee when they really do need it ! Having reasons is the opposite to chose freely and not having them is letting chance chose for us...

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

What you're describing is called randomness and statistical probability. It's based on n = x/100.

It's not a "computation" of a number if there's a condition on what you're looking for. If it's one number out of 100, no computation is needed. It's guessing what number is the correct one based on statistical probability.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What you're describing is called randomness and statistical probability. It's based on n = x/100.

No. As has been stated, the relevant notion of randomness is that of computability. This is because a determined world is, in principle, fully computable. So, if there is anything uncomputable, then the world is not determined. Accordingly, by showing that willed actions are compatible with uncomputable strings, it is demonstrated that willed actions are possible in a nondetermined world. In short, the claim that there could be no free will in a nondetermined world is refuted.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not a "computation" of a number if there's a condition on what you're looking for. If it's one number out of 100, no computation is needed. It's guessing what number is the correct one based on statistical probability.

Guessing is not computing and even it it were, Tomr hasn't shown how he can guess the number, he has simply stated that he can list all strings of finite length. It is obvious that this is not computing a number, if the reasons and examples given so far have not made this clear, it's difficult to see what could. But, here's another example; given a flagpole and its shadow, can we compute the height of the flagpole? Nobody thinks that the answer is demonstrated to be "yes" by listing all possible lengths of flagpoles!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Perhaps he just means that Tom strategy is not the most efficient way of computing a number, but if he can find it he is computing it...the truth being in all fairness if there is no other way of coming up with such number then again Toms suggestion is just the most efficient way of doing it after all...

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Have you ever read Gödel, Escher, Bach? If not, I think you would find it rather pithy.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

They are not all computable, unless you hold by definition that the only numbers which exist are those which are computable. This is known as begging the question, and entails the rejection of classical mathematics. As science uses classical mathematics and denial of the present result still doesn't imply that free will is impossible in a nondetermined world, the free will denier is again cutting off his nose to spite his face.

If anyone doing actual science every tried to use uncomputable numbers they would be laughed out of their field. I don't understand how you can make the conclusion that because someone rejects that which is irrelevant to any physical science that this means they must reject science too.

Quote:

First, if I tell you that I will choose a number between one and one hundred, and Tomr claims that he can compute what that number will be, nobody would agree that he had performed the claimed computation if he just listed all the possible numbers.

Several people already have agreed that the real numbers could be generated in the manner I described given infinite time. Even you at one point admitted this could in principle be done.

Quote:

That is just a statement of the set from which the number will be constructed, it is not a computation of the number.

If generating the real numbers by producing the combinations was just a statement of the set then why did I have to generate the numbers? I didn't start with the set of real numbers and simply copy it for you. It was produced by a simple algorithm. Whether that algorithm fits the definition of a computable number I am not certain.

Quote:

That is just a statement of the set from which the number will be constructed, it is not a computation of the number. Yet, his claim to have shown how to compute the number amounts to exactly this. Also, it is a matter of mathematical proof, that he cannot write out all the reals.He can at most write out a countable infinity of numbers.

I have shown I can produce the combinations to infinite precision given infinite time. But I am not limited to countably infinite of numbers. In the same way Cantor used his diagonal argument to produce a number not in the set of countable numbers I can use that algorithm to produce these uncountable numbers. Given more time of course. Infinities and infinities... etc. Cantor assumed a list of countably infinite real numbers to make his diagonal argument. In priniciple I can take his process, make it into an algorithm, put it into a computer and run the combinations endlessly. What is stopping me from doing this?

Quote:

... the probability of a real being in the set of countable numbers is zero

Okay I understand your point here. But as I said before nothing you are doing is different than what a machine could do. By producing a series of decimal digits based on some external stimulus the machine could pick numbers. For instance it could pick values based on the frequencies of incoming light and/ or the bark on a tree and/or atmospheric pressure and even modify its decision making algorithms based on such input. The resulting sequence of digits it generates would appear to be just as random as your sequence. If you can call the number you generate uncountable the machine can too. You have shown that the definition of an uncomputable number is not in conflict with either case. So you must conclude that uncountability and mathematical randomness are concepts that are compatible with both a deterministic and free willed decision making processes.

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

I can use that algorithm to produce these uncountable numbers.

There can be, at most, a countable infinity of statements generated by any algorithm. So, you cannot produce an uncountable infinity. If you think that you can, them you haven't understood the matter.

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know