Is free-will an illusion?

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

you have given us a resource about Set Theory. It never references randomness, probability, or computability.

First off, don't insult the general membership by using "us", when the confusion is yours.
Second, I am not going to spell this out again. Apparently you can't understand this stuff. So what? Your inability to get your head round it, no matter how many times and how simply it's spelled out for you, is not an objection to the argument.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you don't understand what it says, I can't explain it to you any further. capiche?

I understand what it says.
Try this: everything written here is false.
Do you understand that?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Prove it?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

For ugh,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071109191903.htm

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

First off, don't insult the general membership by using "us", when the confusion is yours.

I am just saying no one understands this except for you. If anyone beside Ughaibu understands his construction please say so. Already several have admitted they do not understand it. If you could just get one person to say they understand it then I would ask them for resources but until then I have to ask you. Unfortunately it seems you do not really know what you are talking about.

It is a shame because you claim you have free will and you continually choose to be a misleading jackoff.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

almost all numbers are uncomputable.[/url] If we chose a number, by any means other than by computing it, then the probability of it being computable is zero.

what is hard to understand of such clarity and how is it possible to disagree with such absolute fact known

try to say what is one before meaning any other positive absolute number

the zero is all literature that cant say it absolutely while it is the easiest number to say since it allows the present will alone existence and not the thing to say

no number can b said bc a positive thing is present while any is else then but also the present number is all so itself constant fact
but also in truth, there is nothing but freedom when even nothing is free reality still
so for the sake of freedom values nothing or zero cant b said

now objectively or relatively, any number cant b said bc it is always relative as of relatives so gathered absolute by itself so will or means so its quality is subjectively real

the one is relative to zero and to two and to nothing and before all to truth so to freedom and to itself superiority then and to the zero of itself

that is why when u mean computers intelligence it shows the evil wills u r

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Economics of Thermodynamics --1st law-You can't get something for nothing.

Rap

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

dalehileman wrote:
the idea of Freewill is such a vague concept

Quote:

Bullshit!

Okay, at first glance almost anyone grasps what's meant by freewill but after some rumination you could argue the details indefinitely

Quote:

The exact meaning….. explicated, on this site…... on this thread.

Ugh you'll have to forgiver my skepticism if not my unwillingness to review the past 42 pages but I suspect each such definition is subject to pertinent if not lengthy argument. Yet I suspect you're onto something and I'd in no way discourage further debate

Quote:

1) science is metaphysically neutral

I suppose you mean that it hasn't decided one way or t'other on "determinism v freewill". Still it seems to confirm that the more carefully controlled the experiment the more consistent the results

Quote:

2) determinism is a metaphysical thesis

You're quite right about that, Ugh, depending of course on the exact meaning of each term. But to me, the entire Megillah suggests a controversy over language not physics

Quote:

3) science is the business of generating, a class of, predictions

Yes, largely. Thus if a, b, c,….f, g,…..p…. then x +or- y almost every time

Quote:

4) predictions are generated by deterministic models

I suppose so but you mustn't underestimate the contribution of our Intuition

Quote:

5) restriction to a species of model has no ontological implications.

I wonder Ugh if you might elaborate on that; using however common, concrete terms in short sentences suitable to the Everyday Bonehead (me)

dalehileman wrote:
I still maintain the entire discussion is a purely semantic issue

Quote:

Go on then, what's your argument for this ridiculous contention?

It just seems intuitively reasonable--only as a suggestion of course, something I'd hope our participants might explore

Not the ones of course who reject across the board speculation conflicting in any way with tightly embraced preconception

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Sounds like super-computer stuff; way beyond my level of comprehension.

Me too Cis.

Don't you sometimes wish some of the others might employ language more suitable to the Mainstream Goofball (I not thou)

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

http://onelook.com/?w=uncomputable&ls=a

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Yup!

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

4) predictions are generated by deterministic models

says Ugh

I suppose so but you mustn't underestimate the contribution of our Intuition, replied I

But speaking of rand/prob, doesn't Intuition for some reason object to the idea that if we could reset time by one day that the present instant would be absolutely the same as the first time

Yet, so far, that's what Science seems to be saying

Except possibly to Ugh but I'm no math whiz so have to give him b of the d

Incidentally however, instances of determinism are so rife it makes one question the obvious. For instance born 1930 of Deutsch ancestry in a remote Illinois village suppose instead circumstances were ever-so-slightly different, a missed train for instance, and instead I had been born in Berlin……..

Would I have been a Hitler youth, Heiling Him and hating Jews

Well no, given freewill, I assure myself, I wouldn't have. Sure I wouldn't

Yet the prospect occasionally leaves me in the philosophical and metaphysical lurch. Maybe the typical consummate adherent is right after all: The existence of God has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, exceeding even the undisdputed phenomenal claims of Scientific Research

Then I come to a2k and find that amongst 100,000 or so members I'm the only one bothered by the lack of a scroll bar, perhaps I am off my rocker after all

OOPS, there it is! Thank you, God

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Don't thank god, thank Robert. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

i disagree with u fundamentally, ugh is right not u

predictions have nothing to do with intuitions while all to do with what exist already so an intelligent objective sense

that is how men usually know what to expect from what is present, the outcome of relative wills

while women with their intuitions never mean but anything havin a personnal impact on their states, nothing objective so they cant predict any objective happening nor outcomes

0 Replies

Belief is the problem with free-will

If you are religious then you won't have free-will because you are in the box of your belief's

1 Reply

to have free will u must accept being very small so u can b out of all and one from down objective all and one, bc they dont accept superiority when superiority is truth so they mean being superiors
all is truth freedom so there is no superiority for it and for one freedom it means its superior life so pas dobjective superiority

this is why existence that unite both in one way form is smthg else provin that superiority is infinite truth not any nor all

0 Replies

@north,

Not really; whatever box they are supposed to be in are always exited by their own choices. That's one of the reasons, Catholics have confessions, and others pray to their gods for forgiveness.

1 Reply

For anyone still interested in Ughaibu's construction I think I figured it out:

Ughaibu wrote:

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.

Here is the definition of a computable number (from wikipedia):

Quote:

In mathematics, particularly theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, the computable numbers, also known as the recursive numbers or the computable reals, are the real numbers that can be computed to within any desired precision by a finite, terminating algorithm.

So by saying the reals are uncomputable, Ughaibu is saying they do not follow this definition (which is true for most of the real numbers). But Ughaibu also claims that a human being through willed actions can construct such a number by selecting its digits. However such a process is not finite since an infinite number of decisions have to be made to construct the infinitely long random number. So what Ughaibu is doing goes against the above definition for a computable number. And so if he can use infinitely many decisions to select his numbers then in fairness a machine should be allowed to also. For instance a machine could produce every conceivable real number by simply producing all the combinations of possible digits for all endless sequences of digits. In this manner every possible combination of real number that Ughaibu could make would already be created by a machine.

Therefore Ughaibu can do nothing different than a machine could do. And so he has no point when he says his definition of mathematical randomness conflicts with determinism. Both scenarios (human selection or machine selection) are equally capable of producing his random numbers when given an infinite number of steps to produce them in.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not really; whatever box they are supposed to be in are always exited by their own choices. That's one of the reasons, Catholics have confessions, and others pray to their gods for forgiveness.

Yet is it there own choice, really?

Since they are IN the religion that they choose, and since to stay included in this religion they must confess

If they didn't confess where would they be in relation to their religion?

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know