Is free-will an illusion?

@imans,

Quote:

is ur illusion in thinkin too fast that everything is done just for u

i repeat to ur deaf ears u r nothing

Youre filth n' stink... you stupit rot. I see youre dumb brains are bleeding. You take your own dark souls from when you squat and pick them up with your hands and you smell like a squat. And birds cry when they see how ugly and pig fat you are.

Quote:

but some intelligents can recognize some existence of it real
while a lot more enjoy realizin individually true constant values

O a sliming pig **** talks back to us. Everything hates it and wants it to leave but it too stupit to move or think.

1 Reply

@tomr,

everything obviously hate u not me, look at ur posts here and there and look at mine, what expression is everything as always absolute terms supporting to appear as superior expression

u r so **** that all u mean is gods powers and life creations to justify urself being as knowin exactly what u always are

gods powers are gods powers anyone has nothing to do with that when u know exactly what u are then any random intelligent other r only what they are infinitely more
piece of dirty blood urself fat pig

and forcin ur head on me by callin me others heads is only urself alone when obviously u reject that i exist while it is the only obvious thing
piece of hypocrit pervert will, put ur dirty images of ur dirtiest spiritual life in ur worse end hole

1 Reply

@imans,

Quote:

everything obviously hate u not me

Judging for the thumbs button I would recon everybody hates you not him you fat cow !

WE DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU SO WHY DO YOU KEEP ADDRESSING POSTS TO US ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

fat cow urself piece of dirty opportunist of forums use to sell ur lies to everyone for any pretense of getting smthg urself at the end

here and there are general topics that dont belong to u, and anyone in forum is alone using its right to use that space for its own freedom

if u mean to talk to others as a community then go somehwere else not in philosophy section, where exchange are only objective and free totally since by definition it cant b but subjective in meaning absolute truth

1 Reply

@imans,

while i clearly said that truth hate u and want ur end in holes depth so it started by preparin the objective reality of holes to put u inn

so how can u pretend that i sound like willin to talk to u is all what confirm that what i said about u is actually clearly more in truth terms

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Just ignore him. Most others already have. All I see is the venom you guys are spitting back at him. I promise, when dealing with a volatile attention whore such as imans, ignore is much more effective.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You are absolutely right...I got carried away in the entertainement scene fresco started... Laughing

0 Replies

Here is a recap of what ughaibu said:

First here is the definition of prefix I found in wikipedia under the topic substring:

Quote:

Prefix
A prefix of a string T = t1 ... tn is a string T' = t1 ... tm , where (m<=n). A proper prefix of a string is not equal to the string itself (0<=m<n ); some sources in addition restrict a proper prefix to be non-empty (0<m<n ). A prefix can be seen as a special case of a substring.

There was some debate on what Ughaibu meant by prefix in an argument he was trying to make. He acted as if everyone should know this definition and the particular one in the context he used it in. He was not willing to supply the definition he meant so he purposefully caused alot of confusion to avoid any real debate.

The above definition of prefix is a general term that could mean any string that is a substring of some string in question. So in a string of numbers that represent a real number that could be 67800(473847) or 6780047384(7) where the number in the parenthesis is the prefix substring. I gave Ughaibu an example of this:

Quote:

So you mean a prefix as something that comes before a base word. So I am supposed to take the prefix in this case to be the number selected from the set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}->6 and this number is placed in the sequence 78999-6 at the beginning of the sequence.

Why can't you just explain this. What are you afraid of? You are obviously breaking the train of my argument by wasting time making me try to guess at the specific meaning of you have for prefix in the context of mathematical randomness. As if everything you say has been clear. Give me a break.

He said I was wrong. So I have to assume that he meant the entire string. Which was pretty much my first assumption:

Quote:

The prefix would be the overall form this number would take( I am not sure).

But he also said that was wrong. So he probably just meant the construction of the entire string, but wanted do be misleading as usual. So he could have said more concisely "by constructing the string of a real number" instead of "by constructing the prefix...". But he probably did not really understand the definition of prefix as he was using it.

Here is what Ughaibu originally said about his definition of randomness:

Ughaibu wrote:

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.

Ughaibu supplemented that with this:

Quote:

we can demonstrate willed actions which can be mapped to digits to form the prefix of a real number. The probability of the continued expansion of such a number being mathematically random is one. But, we can continue to expand the prefix of that number by mapping digits to our willed actions. In short, willed actions are not incompatible with mathematical randomness.

Here is my counter to that:

Quote:

My best guess at what you are describing from your definition is that someone is picking a number at will from a set of 10 numbers the digits {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} and doing this infinitely so that an infinitely long real number is created such as 31415926.... This process of growing the number with each selection from the set of digits is what you refer to as expansion. The prefix would be the overall form this number would take( I am not sure).

But if I am right at this point. Then we state that this number is mathematically random by definition. Or we say that the probability of it being mathematically random is 100%. So we have defined mathematical randomness based on the selection process of a human being. This definition assumes nothing about how a human being makes selections. And therefore it does not require or prohibit a free-willed or a deterministic process.

What I said holds up regardless of the definition of prefix that you use. I never could locate the definition of "mathematical randomness" that Ughaibu claims he did not just make up. I asked him for a source outside himself, but he would not give one.

1 Reply

@tomr,

Quote:

The above definition of prefix is a general term that could mean any string that is a substring of some string in question. So in a string of numbers that represent a real number that could be 67800(473847) or 6780047384(7) where the number in the parenthesis is the prefix substring.

I need to add: Because we normally read and write numbers from the largest place-holding digit to the smallest one (six-hundred and forty or 6-4-0). It might make more sense to say (67800)473847 or (6)7800473847 should be the prefixes in the above examples. So that t1=6, t2=7,t3=8... tm=0 instead of t1=7, t2=4,t3=8 ... tm=4. But in our case it doesn't really matter which end you start from.

1 Reply

@tomr,

Can someone express in common words few in number and short sentences suitable to the Average Clod (me) what bearing has all this math on the freewill/determinism impasse

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Ughaibu wrote:

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.

Ughaibu claimed the above. And it was not true. He said essentially that human beings can pick numbers and do so infinitely to make a string of digits-a real number. The odds of that number being random is defined to be 100%, so by definition that number is random if picked by a human being. Because the definition of mathematical randomness he gave did not make any assumptions about the decision making process of a human being the numbers could have been picked by a free-will or a deterministic-will or something else if it exists. It doesn't matter.

1 Reply

@tomr,

Thank you Tomr for that rundown. While as an Average Clod I can't follow to its conclusion either or Ugh's assertion or your response, I do agree Ugh's argument contains certain questionable assumptions, for instance

1. That absolute randomness is even possible. My Intuition says it might well be, and in fact everyday life almost has to assume that it is, but that doesn't by any means substantiate it

2. That randomness conflicts with determinism. My Intuition suggests that even if occasional instances of AR do occur, that wouldn't in any way imply the validity of freewill

3.

Quote:

The odds of that number being random is defined to be 100%,

By whom
I don't see how juggling numbers in any way could introduce a randomness
But maybe it's because I'm not a mathematician

4. Ogh's input much as I admire his determination (no pun intended), seems to afford a special place for the humanoid, a violation of the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something

I'll be first, however, as a Typical Blockhead, to concede the possibility that I'm dead wrong on all counts

So any further response, please take my condition into account if you think there's any hope for me, at all

3 Replies

@dalehileman,

It's not necessary to be a "mathematician" to know that numbers are limitless, and therefore "random."

Think of it as any set of numbers in relation to what numbers?

I understand "Ogh" most of the time, but that's me!~ a random of sorts.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's not necessary to be a "mathematician" to know that numbers are limitless, and therefore "random."

Thank you Cis but doesn't that assign a sort of reality to numbers that they don't really possess

And can you explain without requiring me to review all the postings above what limitlessness has to do with ramdomness

Quote:

Think of it as any set of numbers in relation to what numbers?

Forgive me again Cis but given my inferior IQ I can't make any sense out of that

Quote:

I understand "Ogh" most of the time, but that's me!~ a random of sorts.

Well put, Cis. He leaves me in the dark too but maybe he's onto something we're not, maybe something mathematical if not philosophical

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

You wrote,

Quote:

Thank you Cis but doesn't that assign a sort of reality to numbers that they don't really possess

Since the topic is randomness, it applies. In other concepts of math (especially with formulas), randomness may not apply.

You wrote,

Quote:

Forgive me again Cis but given my inferior IQ I can't make any sense out of that

I doubt very much it's about inferior IQ. It's probably more the way I composed the sentence. IOW, think of any set of numbers, then think of how that may apply to any other set of numbers. It becomes mind-boggling, but the idea is how numbers can be limitless to the extreme. It's infinite.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It becomes mind-boggling, but the idea is how numbers can be limitless to the extreme. It's infinite.

Thank you Cis, mind-boggling in the extreme but I still don't understand how a presumably-determined mental process concerning choice of a number having no other reality can be shown as free

…but if it is and if it does, then wouldn't that of a weak-minded humanoid be just as free, and according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything…., how about a very smart ape, and if yes with ape, how about a dog, and so on down the line until you've "proven" that the electron and the proton each also has freewill

Or again am I entirely missing the boat

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

The odds of that number being random is defined to be 100%,

dalehileman wrote:

By whom
I don't see how juggling numbers in any way could introduce a randomness
But maybe it's because I'm not a mathematician

You really have a point. That's why we need the source where the definition comes from. So we can really analyze the meaning of it.

I guess they might assume that no single function could produce an infinitely long string of numbers like when produced by a human being and therefore it is a random number (in other words an unpredictable sequence of digits). But that would be under the assumption that a human being doesn't use deterministic functions, in the first place, to make decisions about the digits that compose that infinitely long number. Which is the question we were originally interested in.

1 Reply

@tomr,

Quote:

But that would be under the assumption that a human being doesn't use deterministic functions to make decisions about the digits

My reaction exactly Tomr, seems so very obvious

Your support is appreciated in this otherwise dysphoric devolution of dubiously dispiriting diorama

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

All living things are limited by their biological makeup and environment; that's no less true for humans. That's the reason why there are many different levels of knowledge, skills, abilities, education, and perceptions about their/our realities.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Thank you Tomr for that rundown.

Tomr has misinformed you, because he doesn't understand the construction.

dalehileman wrote:

1. That absolute randomness is even possible. My Intuition says it might well be, and in fact everyday life almost has to assume that it is, but that doesn't by any means substantiate it

Mathematical randomness, as used in my demonstration, is defined in terms of computability. I explicated this earlier.

dalehileman wrote:

2. That randomness conflicts with determinism. My Intuition suggests that even if occasional instances of AR do occur, that wouldn't in any way imply the validity of freewill

There can be no mathematical randomness in a determined world. This follows immediately from the definitions. But, naturally, the falsity of determinism doesn't imply the reality of free will.

dalehileman wrote:

3.
Quote:
The odds of that number being random is defined to be 100%,
By whom

It's not defined to be 100%, it is a proof of classical mathematics that the probability of the expansion of a real number being computable, is zero. So the probability of it being random, is one. This too has been stated several times.

dalehileman wrote:

4. Ogh's input much as I admire his determination (no pun intended), seems to afford a special place for the humanoid, a violation of the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something

Nonsense. Any agent that makes and enacts conscious choices from amongst realisable alternatives, has free will, by definition. That includes insects, plants, slime-moulds, computers, whatever, if it meets the definition, then it meets the definition, obviously!

dalehileman wrote:

So any further response, please take my condition into account if you think there's any hope for me, at all

If you don't understand the terms, how the arguments work, etc, look things up. You have an extraordinary resource right in front of you, the internet. I suggest you take advantage.

2 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know