Is free-will an illusion?

@ughaibu,

From where I stand your contention against causal determinism didn't even started...the whole of science is based on relations of cause and effect at least for macro phenomena and even in micro scale concepts like randomness are poorly justified or in the very least poorly explained (randomness is more like a word for I don't know what the **** is happening)...but then again as shown in previous posts that does not make a case for free will either quite the opposite !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

You don't even need to go that way since he cannot prove what he is claiming...everybody would knew it by now...that would be big news indeed...in fact the opposite is admitted just by looking for big bang itself, such highly orderly state requires justification and nobody as done anything else but admitting that some reconfiguration must be able to occur contrary to the 2 law of thermodynamics...

I know the second law of thermodynamics should pretty much end the debate on the arrow of time. I never really understand this in principle business when you say the equations can be reversed. They shouldn't be worked backward as if time was running that way too. I think the "light can't be shot back into the bulb" argument is just another way to say the second law of thermodynamics (ever increasing entropy). I can't say how they are related right now but it seems like that could be the underlying apparatus to the second law. Maybe its a possibility.

1 Reply

@tomr,

The argument is simple use infinity ! Given enough time you have always a chance bigger then zero for such reconfiguration...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

From where I stand your contention against causal determinism didn't even started...the whole of science is based on relations of cause and effect at least for macro phenomena and even in micro scale concepts like randomness are poorly justified or in the very least poorly explained (randomness is more like a word for I don't know what the **** is happening)...but then again as shown in previous posts that does not make a case for free will either quite the opposite !

I think you are onto something here. Instead of saying randomness we should use expressions like "what the **** is this" and "wtf". As in "This probability distribution is... I don't know what the **** is going on... here here and here."

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

From where I stand your contention against causal determinism didn't even started

That if determinism is incompatible with free will and as free will is observable but determinism is a metaphysical stance, an essential principle of science demands that we reject determinism as a theory. The coin tossing argument which shows it to be vanishingly improbable that we live in a determined world. The utter implausibility of determinism as illustrated by over and under determination and the fact that we can go against predictions of our future actions.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

the whole of science is based on relations of cause and effect at least for macro phenomena

I have given you four clear and simple reasons why causality is a distinct notion from determinism, I have even linked you to an article by the author of the entry on determinism in the Stanford Encyclopedia, in which the question is investigated from yet another angle.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

concepts like randomness are poorly justified or in the very least poorly explained (randomness is more like a word for I don't know what the **** is happening)

Randomness has clear definitions in terms of computational complexity. From this, Solomonoff has proved that there are no ideal predictions.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

as shown in previous posts that does not make a case for free will either quite the opposite !

Actually, as also explained several times, mathematical randomness, that is the randomness which conflicts with determinism, doesn't conflict with free will. So, free will is entirely possible in a non-determined world.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Actually, as also explained several times, mathematical randomness, that is the randomness which conflicts with determinism, doesn't conflict with free will. So, free will is entirely possible in a non-determined world.

That is what you claim but that ultimately fail to convince me off...I suggest you write down an immediate report, phone to some tv stations and make big headlines tomorrow !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Actually, as also explained several times, mathematical randomness, that is the randomness which conflicts with determinism, doesn't conflict with free will. So, free will is entirely possible in a non-determined world.
That is what you claim but that ultimately fail to convince me off...

The argument is very simple, it's sound and you've seen it several times, also, you have never given any logical reason for your rejection of it. In short, you maintain your belief in the face of arguments which you can't refute. Your position is irrational and I expect that no amount of argument or evidence would sway you from it.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

You totally wrong on your little portrait of my personality, in fact I am very strict with myself and although stubborn if CLEARLY shown otherwise I am very capable of changing my mind, it just so happens that never insofar have I been presented with a fair and straight argument for randomness...randomness is irrational !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Perhaps I am not smart enough to get randomness, but hey, one fair argument I can present you with is that I didn't had any free will in establishing what I can or cannot comprehend, if I could I can assure you I would love to understand anything about everything...not that you need to know what I do or don't do, but 90% of my free time is spent consuming documentary's on almost any theme, I do love to know how things work, and that is precisely why I dislike those who love best politics rather the getting to the bottom of stuff...

0 Replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

Thematics... as my alter-ego used to say....nominalism... ethics and ontology.... not to forget epistemology.... My mentor... BillyO (William of Ockham) made a distinction between Conceptus / Res... anyway... the thematic that "may" apply goes something as follows....maybe (ey?)....

Destiny / Predetermination.... Chance / Self-Determination
BAD / BAD...............................GOOD / GOOD

Destiny / Self-Determination.....Chance / Predetermination
BAD / GOOD...............................GOOD / BAD

As you can see MP23....I am you polar opposite when it comes to moral or ethical predicated values....This is old ground to me....but if you have any questions as to my "methods"....feel free to inquireyourself.... it is novel to me....although founded in others contributions (like Aristotles "logical square" put to another use....)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You totally wrong on your little portrait of my personality, in fact I am very strict with myself and although stubborn if CLEARLY shown otherwise I am very capable of changing my mind, it just so happens that never insofar have I been presented with a fair and straight argument for randomness...randomness is irrational !

In classical mathematics, the uncountability of the reals ensures that the probability of the expansion of a real number being computable, is zero. We can easily construct the prefix of a real number as an incidental consequence of a willed action. As the probability of the continued expansion of that number being computable is zero, the probability of it being mathematically random is one. This clearly illustrates that mathematical randomness does not conflict with willed actions.
You can reject classical mathematics, but that rather knocks out any appeal to science or infinities. Otherwise, you can just carry on believing and ignore yet another argument.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

We can easily construct the prefix of a real number as an incidental consequence of a willed action.

Coincidence is not an argument for authorship of will...that would have to be the most outrageous argument I've heard so far...I was expecting that since when you came up with causes are "means of explanation"...here we are !

PS - ...although I admit the thought of seeing you say that on national TV was most entertaining and plainly justified the evening ! Very Happy

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Coincidence is not an argument for authorship of will

As so often, I have no idea what you're talking about or why you addressed this post to me. Quote my post, so that I have at least a fighting chance of figuring out what you reckon you're replying to.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

...see above updated now ! Fight all you want I am here !
you are stretching the word "consequence" up there...consequences from real numbers, or better said from irrationals...you are one of a kind !

You would have infinity between any 2 given real numbers to prevent you cause anything for that mater !!! so you are using the terming cause inadequately ! but you already know that thus the "means of explanation" when mentioning the justification of what causation is...

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

a) causes are explanatory and thus ontologically neutral, but determinism is a metaphysical thesis which entails ontological commitments

Here ! Quoted.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

you are stretching the word "consequence" up there...consequences from real numbers, or better said from irrationals

But I didn't say consequence from real numbers. We can construct the prefix of a real number as a consequence of a willed action. I've shown you how to do this, three years ago.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You would have infinity between any 2 given real numbers to prevent you cause anything for that mater !!! so you are using the terming cause inadequately !

I haven't used the term "cause" in the post to which you're replying. The term is of no relevance to the argument.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

but you already know that thus the "means of explanation" when mentioning the justification of what causation is...

What the **** does this mean and how could it possibly be relevant to my post?
Really, you do write the most ridiculous and impenetrable crap. Why not try reading what I've actually written, thinking about it and making a serious and relevant response.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

In classical mathematics, the uncountability of the reals ensures that the probability of the expansion of a real number being computable, is zero. We can easily construct the prefix of a real number as an incidental consequence of a willed action.

...are you so willing to take it through no matter the cost that you are distinguishing the meaning of consequence as distinct of cause ? How else can an action which is willed by attributed to an agent ?

Say in any given chain of real numbers you have an agent with a number and an willed action with another, given an infinity of real numbers can be present between any numbers you peak to describe the agent and the willing where is the link to establish the willing belongs to the agent ? You would need an infinite amount of time to justify that and we have a finite amount of life....

Stop complaining and throwing dust and give a straight answer for Christ sake !!!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...are you so willing to take it through no matter the cost that you are distinguishing the meaning of consequence as distinct of cause ? How else can an action which is willed by attributed to an agent ?
Stop complaining and throwing dust and give a straight answer for Christ sake !!!

So you have now redefined "cause" to be a synonym for "consequence", is that right? I have no way to guess this kind of thing, you have to include it in your posts.
Okay, we have the prefix of a real number which is "caused" by a willed action, happy? Now what is the question that you want me to answer?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

See above re edited !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

See above re edited !

It is seriously bad form to edit posts after they have been replied to.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Say in any given chain of real numbers you have an agent with a number and an willed action with another, given an infinity of real numbers can be present between any numbers you peak to describe the agent and the willing where is the link to establish the willing belongs to the agent ? You would need an infinite amount of time to justify that and we have a finite amount of life....
Stop complaining and throwing dust and give a straight answer for Christ sake !!!

"In any given chain of real numbers you have an agent with a number", what is this supposed to mean? Agents aren't number so aren't in chains of numbers. "And an willed action with another", with another what? Your posts are completely incomprehensible. You seem to be saying that you can assign a real number to the agent and a different real number to the action, and pointing out that there's an infinite number of numbers between the two picked. But I have no idea of why you're saying this, how it could be relevant to my argument or what the **** it is you want me to answer.
Enzo: if this is an example of someone trying and me just carrying on, explain it. What the **** is this guy talking about, why should I be interested in whatever it is and what the hell would constitute anything other than carrying on?

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know