78
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Is it free ? without reasons ? of course not !
But I've demonstrated that this is false, several times. Order your spoken and written sentences for the day, assign a zero to sentences containing an even number of letters and a one to those containing an odd number. This generates a binary string which is the prefix of a real number, and it is a matter of mathematical proof that the probability of the continuation of this string being computable is zero. Which is to say, there is no reason that the continuation produced is that continuation. Nevertheless, you'll produce more sentences tomorrow and continue that string. So, the results of your conscious choices have zero probability of being determined, and generate an entirely reasonless product.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If it is not in the cerebellum...no food, no sex, no anger...

...The need, the "urge", arises with the Thread and mostly in the reply section... Very Happy


because you are beyond instinct , the expression of thoughts
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:45 pm
@ughaibu,
I know, I know...There we go with Infinity...brace yourselves against the Monads !!!
( Still I am not convinced...something fishy on that...it just don´t ad ! Mr. Green )

Anyway it does n´t proof freedom...on the contrary. Maybe there´s not even a connection between your brain and your actions... Drunk Wink
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I know, I know...There we go with Infinity...brace yourselves against the Monads !!!
( Still I am not convinced...something fishy on that...it just don´t ad ! Mr. Green )

Anyway it does n´t proof freedom...on the contrary. Maybe there´s not even a connection between your brain and your actions... Drunk Wink
You may have explained this before.. but how do you see the nature of events? Like: you hold a cube with numbers on it in your hand... you toss it onto a green felt table. What is the probability that the 2 will appear face-up when it lands? Is this an intelligible question?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:06 pm
@Arjuna,
Or either there is cause and by by infinity...or perfect correlation and we live in a film...random correlation does n´t make it...what do you think ?
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:09 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Or either there is cause and by by infinity...or perfect correlation and we live in a film...random correlation does n´t make it...what do you think ?


instinct doesn't understand what your thinking or communicating
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:11 pm
@north,
God bless that mind in its magnificent freedom does ! Very Happy
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

God bless that mind in its magnificent freedom does ! Very Happy


not god , just Nature , god has nothing to with free-will
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 10:33 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Or either there is cause and by by infinity...or perfect correlation and we live in a film...random correlation does n´t make it...what do you think ?
Sorry, I didn't understand that.

The die rolls along the table because of gravity and other factors. Do you think we can give a figure to the probability of a certain number appearing face-up?
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 12:06 am
@ughaibu,
Quote:
Cause and determinism are incompatible notions.

Why?
Quote:
You disputed the fact that there is no notion of cause in fundamental physics, if you dont know what fundamental physics is, can you offer me any reason to take you seriously, about this matter?

Fundamental physics is quantum mechanics.
litewave
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 12:08 am
@north,
Quote:
you left out instinct though

any thought or thinking beyond instinct is a case of free-will

If by instinct you mean an unintentional impetus then the action falls under point 2 in my OP argument. Intentional actions fall under point 1. Neither are the result of free will.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 12:14 am
@litewave,
The problem with "cause" in physics follows Hume's deconstruction of it as an analysable concept in terms of contiguity in "time" and "space". Since these two concepts have also been re-interpreted, and even superceded, the concept of "causality" has even more problems ! Kant's suggestion of "causality" as a "perceptual a priori", together with our evolutionary cognitive urge to "predict and control" are two ways of explaining its persistence in everyday thinking.
0 Replies
 
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 12:21 am
@litewave,
litewave wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
Cause and determinism are incompatible notions.
Why?
Cause is irreducibly local, whereas determinism is irreducibly global. Cause is time asymmetric, whereas determinism is time symmetric.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 07:32 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

litewave wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
Cause and determinism are incompatible notions.
Why?
Cause is irreducibly local, whereas determinism is irreducibly global. Cause is time asymmetric, whereas determinism is time symmetric.


You are referring to the where and now...those things we still can affect within the event horizon...against elsewhere, what we cannot affect no longer...but mind that things were close once, and that at the time the state of affairs of Reality would be at some point inside the event horizon...and if hard causal determinism is true and considering momentum all the information on future events might for all that I know well be entangled with those things now beyond the event horizon...2 law of thermodynamics and time asymmetry might just as well have problems of interpretation to what cause is...but one thing at a time.
My biggest problem in causation is with mathematical infinity...where is the mechanical link limit to end on cause ? Or why, if not true that we have a problem on this, is it possible to conceive infinity´s within confined objects ? like if they were infinitely describable...a no ending row of information down the spiral of what it is there, and yet an actually well defined Holistic state of affairs in each object as a result...a given mass, momentum and potential energy...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 08:35 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Or either there is cause and by by infinity...or perfect correlation and we live in a film...random correlation does n´t make it...what do you think ?
Sorry, I didn't understand that.

The die rolls along the table because of gravity and other factors. Do you think we can give a figure to the probability of a certain number appearing face-up?


The probability might just be due to comparing apparently similar phenomena as if they were equals...for instance, how many atoms did the die lost between throws ? what else did interfere or changed in the conditions ? Allot, I am certain...this is a bit like weather prediction...it works, so it is not wrong, but just to some extent...we just don´t have enough information on what is going on...

Now sometimes I wonder about the growing of space, as means of containing more information, more energy, and eventually even more mass then before...it goes against conservation ? it seams so, at least as expressed (visible) information...get the example about vacuum energy and virtual particles, were does this stuff comes from ? what was lost somewhere else ?
Entropy is about something actually growing instead of being conserved...could it be wrong ? There´s something fishy in this...that much I know !

...this is why I like to think on the future as something that already is in existence even if in another "radio frequency"... or in Time as a tricky simulation were something hides from measurement...you see I do believe in conservation for everything...I won´t take Chaos as a fact just that easily !

Thank you Arjuna for making me think on this stuff...most of the time I just drop it and go for a coffee...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 10:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The probability might just be due to comparing apparently similar phenomena as if they were equals...for instance, how many atoms did the die lost between throws ? what else did interfere or changed in the conditions ? Allot, I am certain...this is a bit like weather prediction...it works, so it is not wrong, but just to some extent...we just don´t have enough information on what is going on...
Exactly. We look back on 100 rolls of the die and come to know a fraction. That's only half of the thing we call probability, though. It's what we do when we look forward that's whole point of it.

We look forward and imagine a set of possible events which we deem to be equal. Then through wave function collapse, or however it happens, one of the possibilities becomes distinct from the others... it has changed into actuality. Once this has happened, the actuality stands in an undeniable causal relationship to a previous actuality.

So far, all we've done is describe how we imagine the event comes to be. A determinist viewpoint might be this: the possibilities never were equal. In fact there never was more than one possibility. Whatever number appears face up had a 100% chance of doing so. Probability rests on nothing but a human failing to be entirely reasonable. Pure reason will not allow us to make predictions of any kind for the simple reason that there are too many undefined variables.

And this is proven by one thing: the undeniable causal relationship between actualities, of which there is only one set. The causal link is the crux of the matter: knowing that link gives us confidence to say that the word possibility is fundamentally meaningless. If an event is possible, it's happening. There is no collapse of the wave function.

Interestingly, we generally infer the nature of the causal link by observing the form of the actuality. We fill in the blanks in our knowledge with the assumption that the actuality contains its past somehow. In other words, the undeniable causal relationship is in the actuality. In fact, we say the causal link is undeniable because the actuality is.

Long story short: we only know the actuality and point out that meaning in regard to it is dependent on cause. We derive meaning. Case closed.

Except there's another facet of meaning. Saying there's only one set of events wouldn't mean anything if we weren't simultaneously imagining more than one. The grand Unity is not ultimately defined by the parts that make it up. It's defined in contrast to the other Unities it could have been. Take away possibility, and we just took out an essential element of meaning. We derive meaning. Ya know?

Nondeterministic outlook: the collapse of the wave function is another name for primal judgement. What do you think?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 12:50 pm
...The funny thing is that the other Units it could have been are conceived within itself...

Thank you Arjuna. Very Happy
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 01:13 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...The funny thing is that the other Units it could have been are conceived within itself...

Thank you Arjuna. Very Happy
So multiple possible futures is meaningful relative to a given point within the Unit. Cause is also relative to specific points, not the whole. The actuality contains both its cause, which made it inevitable, and it's sibling possibilities which mean that it wasn't. ?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 03:10 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...The funny thing is that the other Units it could have been are conceived within itself...

Thank you Arjuna. Very Happy
So multiple possible futures is meaningful relative to a given point within the Unit. Cause is also relative to specific points, not the whole. The actuality contains both its cause, which made it inevitable, and it's sibling possibilities which mean that it wasn't. ?


What I meant is that this speculative scenarios with 0% chance of becoming actualities are nevertheless the product of Reality itself...they are a sort of enriching scenario to give a sense of freedom from a within perspective to any entity that is aware. They are something like a cast shadow of an actual happening fact...a projection of what could have been given any alteration on the panorama...As logically conceivable they are Real and integrate the abstract corpus of Reality...

My impression is that Cause objectively operates locally but with Universal knowledge of what is going elsewhere, this given what I previously said on the event horizon problem...all points information inflect in one point designing its actual form for a given instant and its future developments also...and this repeats for every point there is...
Causal relation just happens once in the History of the Universe...when all states on everything are known by every element all the future becomes intrinsic to the knowledge of any element...this is a bit like entanglement, they are pre-programmed for changing in correlation with surrounding facts...nevertheless they were caused given at least once in History (when the entity was generated) this information as come from the Whole itself...(yet locally transmitted)

I hope to be able to say something understandable but I am afraid that such does not always seams easy...I myself have yet not figure out the details and often mess up the picture in confusion...still I think to have some strong intuitions that are the main lines I try to follow when I get lost in sound-bytes..All of this sometimes just seams a terrible jigsaw with no end at sight...anyway thank you for indulging my nonsense !
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 03:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
That's okay Fil. Think nothing of it. It's what we are all here for. Your nonsense was more amusing than the usual nonsense. That's what counts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.66 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 01:22:41