Is free-will an illusion?

@tomr,

An after thought:

Ughaibu or anyone picking a series of numbers only has so much information that can exist in his/her brain. If such a person could be isolated from any external environment they would be forced to pick digits based on the finite amount of information contained in their brain from such a point in time and onward. Based on a finite set of information all selections are made. Would that person be able to produce an infinitely unrepeating sequence? At some point would the sequence have to start repeating?

1 Reply

@tomr,

It would seem it would depend on how many digits any one person can cover based on the time available.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Thank you Robert, I'm not sure for what or why, but thank you

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

For anyone still interested in Ughaibu's construction I think I figured it out:
Ughaibu also claims that a human being through willed actions can construct such a number by selecting its digits.

No, you haven't figured it out.
Take some suitable willed action, for example, this post. I am writing what I want to write, thus voluntarily fulfilling my intentions. So, if there are realisable alternatives, then I have free will and the world is not determined. From this it is already quite obvious that there is no conflict between nondeterminism and free will. Nevertheless, by constructing the prefix of a real number, from this willed action, that there is no incompatibility can be made clear. For each word in the post, choose 1 if the word has an odd number of letters and a 0 if it has an even number. Preserve the order, concatenate and append to "0."
0.0101010000011001010100101000001100010001110100000111010001010000010010000000100110011000101101010100111100100001111001 is the prefix I've extracted from the beginning of this post. Notice that this number is not entailed by the post, I could equally have reversed the parity, or selected the numbers according to a different feature, used a different base, etc. As this is the prefix of a real number, the probability of it's continued expansion being computable, is zero, but, of course, I can continue it. It's now: 0.01010100000110010101001010000011000100011101000001110100010100000100100000001001100110001011010101001111001000011110010101101100000000100101110010001110111011010001001001101111000100110011 and as there is no logical reason that I can't continue to add to this number indefinitely, there is no logical conflict between my willed action and mathematical randomness. In short, the blindingly obvious fact that willed actions are not impossible in a nondetermined world is clearly established.

1 Reply

Whether such number is truly random or just complex is not something that one can know...in fact the whole business of randomness is mostly a statement on our knowledge an epistemological statement and not an ontological conclusion on the state of affairs of the world...hardly there is any novelty in recognizing that our world even if determined is complex...

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

FYI, Robert is the one who developed this site. Mr. Green

1 Reply

Yes the responsible person for the development of this site is not randomness...did such be the case we wouldn't say that the site was developed by someone... Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Whether such number is truly random or just complex is not something that one can know.

Incorrect, and you should remember this, as it's one of Chaitin's incompleteness theorems. The probability of it being random is one. If you think that it is not random, explain how you would compute the continued expansion.

1 Reply

Probably its not a great exaggeration to assert that never in the whole history of philosophy can we find another so perfect so clear example of a paradoxical relation being fused in the same concept, that is, mixing responsibility and randomness in the idea of free willing...the damn expression is so paradoxical that if said free determining instead of free willing we wouldn't be confusing anyone with what we meant...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Probably its not a great exaggeration to assert that never in the whole history of philosophy can we find another so perfect so clear example of a paradoxical relation being fused in the same concept, that is, mixing responsibility and randomness in the idea of free willing...the damn expression is so paradoxical that if said free determining instead of free willing we wouldn't be confusing anyone with what we meant...

Is this you admitting that you understand the fact that free will is not impossible in a nondetermined world?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Whether what I think or not is correct is irrelevant it is you who ought to prove that the number is random, but of course you can't once we would have to wait for the end of the sequence itself to know if the number is or is not random...the fact that such number is eventually uncomputable does not prove its randomness but rather it proves that we have no way of being sure...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Whether what I think or not is correct is irrelevant it is you who ought to prove that the number is random. . . .

It's random with probability one. Do you understand what that means? If not, I suggest you look it up. If so, do you now understand the blindingly obvious fact that agents can have free will in a nondetermined world?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Probably its not a great exaggeration to assert that never in the whole history of philosophy can we find another so perfect so clear example of a paradoxical relation being fused in the same concept, that is, mixing responsibility and randomness in the idea of free willing...the damn expression is so paradoxical that if said free determining instead of free willing we wouldn't be confusing anyone with what we meant...
Is this you admitting that you understand the fact that free will is not impossible in a nondetermined world?

I don't recognize authorship on will or anything else for that matter in a chance world, magical causality it is not what the usage of causality intends to refer to...in fact any causal conceptualization which is not rationally or determinedly justified is more a significant statement on our state of ignorance then a statement applicable to any other thing...

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Whether what I think or not is correct is irrelevant it is you who ought to prove that the number is random. . . .
It's random with probability one. Do you understand what that means? If not, I suggest you look it up. If so, do you now understand the blindingly obvious fact that agents can have free will in a nondetermined world?

Lets see if you can understand this...you are recurring to infinity all you have there is a segment sequence and you have no proof of an infinite Universe...but further an infinite repeating universe would still not require such number was truly random...the assertion you do is hypothetical, it requires conditions which you cannot be certain off...you wont get away with a proof by procedural reduction precisely when such proof requires it not be reducible...

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

No, you haven't figured it out.

Yes I have.

The only difference between what you are doing and what I was is that you are using decimals and I was using whole numbers. Both sets of numbers fall under the category of real numbers. You are using a decision making process to select the digits of a real number. That is what your construction boils down to.

Quote:

0.0101010000011001010100101000001100010001110100000111010001010000010010000000100110011000101101010100111100100001111001

A machine could produce this number and every combination of numbers that you could make. Just from your example it could produce all 120^2 combinations of numbers that you could make. Probably much faster than you could produce this one number. And with a very simple algorithm. You have only shown you are much more limited than a machine with this example.

Of course, in principle given infinite time, you could produce an endless series of numbers. But a machine could just as easily do this deterministically, by applying rules to the text of this post and/or to the bark on a tree and/or to an algorithm based on the frequencies of light that hit it every microsecond. Yes the numbers it generated would be deterministically made, but the sequence would be unpredictable to you and me. Just as your sequence appears to someone not knowing how you decided to make it.

Quote:

there is no logical reason that I can't continue to add to this number indefinitely, there is no logical conflict between my willed action and mathematical randomness. In short, the blindingly obvious fact that willed actions are not impossible in a nondetermined world is clearly established.

No there is no logical reason that I can see as of now that this definition of randomness contradicts free will. But that was never my problem. You also claimed that this is the type of randomness that conflicts with determinism. It is not. There is no way to conclude that the sequences you are generating are any different than those that a machine can create.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Whether what I think or not is correct is irrelevant it is you who ought to prove that the number is random. . . .
It's random with probability one. Do you understand what that means? If not, I suggest you look it up. If so, do you now understand the blindingly obvious fact that agents can have free will in a nondetermined world?
Lets see if you can understand this...you are recurring to infinity all you have there is a segment sequence and you have no proof of an infinite Universe...but further an infinite repeating universe would still not require such number was truly random...the assertion you do is hypothetical, it requires conditions which you cannot be certain off...

Okay, either you don't understand the argument or you're carrying on with your denial anyway. Neither is interesting. Your claim that free will would be impossible in a nondetermined world has failed. End of story.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

End of story ??? you amuse me ! Address the argument mate...your number is a finite sequence its randomness or not is asserted from a given perceptive...such number or goes on ad infinity or might just well be a complex number !!! Or did you forgot how to distinguish an epistemic problem from an ontological one ?

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

A machine could produce this number and every combination of numbers that you could make.

To be accurate, I could use a machine to produce a string of digits. You know something, that's exactly what I did, isn't it? I used this computer that I'm presently typing on, as part of the construction process. That I can use machines doesn't in any way suggest that I have no free will. The idea that it might is idiotic. You might just as well say I have no free will because I can ride a bicycle.

tomr wrote:

Just from your example it could in principle produce all 120^2 combinations of numbers that you could make.

Which, of course, wouldn't be computing the continuation, would it?

tomr wrote:

No there is no logical reason that this definition of randomness contradicts free will.

Then why the **** are you clogging up this demonstration with divvy pseudo-objections?

tomr wrote:

You also claimed that this is the type of randomness that conflicts with determinism. It is not.

Yes it is. Deriving this fact from the definitions is a simple matter.

tomr wrote:

There is no way to conclude that the sequences you are generating are any different than those that a machine can create.

If a machine is set to produce a sequence, it will need an algorithm, won't it? In short, the very nature of machines limits them to producing computable numbers. And, for the umpteenth time, that I can use a machine does not suggest that I lack free will!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Address the argument mate...

I have. Your "objection" wouldn't be floated by anyone who understands the argument, so, either you don't understand the argument or you're pretending. In either case, you've had your final chance on this matter.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

...you wont get away with a proof by procedural reduction precisely when such proof requires it not be reducible...

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know