Is free-will an illusion?

@ughaibu,

NO YOU HAVEN'T !
Your claim is intends to be on the actual state of affairs of the world so you cannot use procedural reduction !

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

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.

And the fact that when you press a key a specific letter appears on your screen is a good example of a deterministic process happening before your eyes. Regardless of who puts the algorithms into a machine. The machine is from that point controlled by algorithms not by the programmers current intentions. A programmer can program a machine to change its programming based on inputs from the external environment of which the programmer has no control. And let it go into the world. If he doesn't like what it is doing his intentions are not going to change a thing.

You know I am not telling you don't have free will from that example. Only that you cannot use your construction to distinguish between what you do and what a machine can do.

Quote:

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

Well it would be producing the rest of your number wouldn't it? Why would we have to limit the algorithm to what is going on in one number only. Why only produce one number when it can produce them all.

Quote:

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!

And you are not using an algorithm to make decisions. You just gave several examples. Something about 0 if even, 1 if odd. If you are not using some algorithm or reasoning how exactly are you claiming these are willed decisions and not random events.

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

Why would we have to limit the algorithm to what is going on in one number only.

Because we're making a non-trivial claim. We want the terms "computable" and "random" to be meaningful.

1 Reply

@MoralPhilosopher23,

It seems that the very idea choice sits upon a very precarious platform when looked at closely. For between stimuli and response there lies what can only be called space; and pushed between this, instinct, desire, a physiological necessitation which drives all men. After all, what is choice but an evaluation of memory, a sifting of knowledge, were ideas vie for precedence based upon a hierarchy of values, an assessment of risk-versus-reward? And if we can, with total certainty, agree upon the axiom that "what we know determines how we decide," then where does this leave the power of choice? For when the will is dependent upon another element in order for it to have any meaning-- where the power of choice is crippled without the accompaniment of knowledge-- how can this be, in ANY manner, labeled as the essence granted to man by God (now matter how tidily it sums up the issue of theodicy)? When "choice" seeks out another object to validate it, to provide it with any meaning whatsoever, choice can only remain a consequence, never a free action. Never a thing in itself.

In truth, I would argue that knowledge itself is a consequence: one of time, locus, era, genetic susceptibility, parentage, schooling, et cetera. And if knowledge itself is no more than consequentially driven, the resulting condition(s) of choice are an even lower form of physically necessitated consequence.

To keep things lighter, if you consider yourself a component of free will, go ahead-- make the choice to become a determinist. =P

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Because we're making a non-trivial claim. We want the terms "computable" and "random" to be meaningful

Your claim is that you can produce a number that is not computable. Computability refers to the ability to produce a sequence in finite steps or processes. 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.

By producing all combinations of numbers I have shown that what you are doing is trivial and can be accomplished by a simple set of predetermined rules. Not only have I produced all computable reals I have also in principle and given infinite time produced all incomputable reals and have not contradicted the above definition in anyway.

As for randomness, just pick a combination. If randomness can't be found in all the combinations of sequences of real numbers that exist, then either your randomness does not exist or it does not apply to the real numbers.

2 Replies

@tomr,

You're on the right tract. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks. I think so too.

0 Replies

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

By producing all combinations of numbers I have shown that what you are doing is trivial and can be accomplished by a simple set of predetermined rules.

Of course you haven't. If blindly churning out all numbers were a process that "computes" a number, then all numbers would be computable. As almost all numbers are uncomputable, it is clear by elementary syllogism that churning out all numbers does not compute a number. I am not going to answer this idiotic pseudo-objection again.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

All sequences appear random unless one has developed, through a process of abstraction, a kind of filter which sees a simple structure behind the apparent randomness. It is exactly in this manner that laws of nature are discovered. Nature presents us with a host of phenomena which appear mostly as chaotic randomness until we select some significant events, and abstract from their particular, irrelevant circumstances so that they become idealized. Only then can they exhibit their true structure in full splendor.

Randomness itself is an illusion, one which preys upon an inability of the mind to perceive the subtitles of depth in the universe itself-- one which sees the quanta of the cosmos and is unable to predict even that with certainty, but only through a measure of fleeting probability. It would seem, in my opinion, that unrandomness evolves, and in that sense, freedom itself (freedom meaning the parameters of possible action, not the separation of self and will).

2 Replies

@ZarathustraReborn,

ZarathustraReborn wrote:

Randomness itself is an illusion. . .

The computable numbers are a zero measure subset of the reals. The proof of this follows immediately from the uncountability of the reals. So, you can accept this result or reject classical mathematics. It follows from the above, again as an immediate consequence, that the probability of a real being random is one. "Illusion" doesn't enter into it, these are well defined mathematical notions.

0 Replies

@ZarathustraReborn,

Possible actions are crude judgements about what we believe we can do based on previous accomplished examples...whether on refinement those examples of possible actions are acomplishable in a given specific particular case I seriously doubt...the problem of what is possible isn't in the feasibility of processes themselves as general structures following in distinct ways but on the particulars of those processes that seam to condition or enforce a given necessitated particular outcome...free in the sense of doing otherwise ? think not ! But yes, free in the sense of doing what I want !
The said "otherwise", is relevant to remind it, we never do, is always the otherwise we believe being "wrong", the worst choice scenario we can't be certain of, limited by our pre established capacity of calculating and the particular conditions of data itself...such automated judgement (what is not automated after all ?) is not the product of awareness but rather is awareness that emerges out from our conditioned judging ability, our "programing"...awareness is but mere sentience, witnessing, of the unfolding of perfection itself, the Logos !

The logos is not logical beyond being regular, the logos is what is the case at all times in all spaces...the logos is what is true...its logicality resides in being factual !

0 Replies

As automated machines of a blind dead and powerless god, as clockwork processes of foreverness for no reason, humans do the judging needed in the involuntary incapacity of not being able to be certain, and from the unfathomable certainty of not choosing what they are...always evaluating hypothetical worlds that are only hypothetical in their minds, always representing finite sets of knowledge, finite strings of potential relations who never will be, who never can be, who can't find a way for being...all but dust of dreams, borrowed uprooted parts of yesterday, of torn factual s poorly processed in the cage of life, on the relentless disease of being aware and yet still...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

FYI, Robert is the one who developed this site.

Thanks Cis
I wonder if we could persuade Robert to tell us something about himself and his original motives in creating such a remarkable phenom

Doe he ever post, do you know

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Since I've been around for a long time, let me give you a thumbnail history of what has happened to those of us who were involved with a2k since its beginnings. Most of us were members of a chat "room" called Abuzz sponsored by the NYT for many years until they stopped supporting it with funding. It eventually got so bad, spammers took over the site, and it went downhill very quickly. Robert lived in Brazil back then, and he developed able2know. Robert invited some of us old timers of Abuzz to come to able2know, and so on October 2002, I became a member. Robert and other programmers improved able2know over the years, and this is what we now have. I've posted over 80,000 posts over the 10 or so years on able2know. I love this place, because it provides entertainment, education, and the ability to meet other members "all over the world." I've met people in London, Lippstadt, Chicago, Austin, Houston, and San Francisco. I also met a member in Moscow on my last visit to Russia. I usually organize the "meets" in San Francisco, and invite people to let me know when they plan a visit here if they wish to meet other members.

Thumbnail; probably left out some important info.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thank you most kindly Cis for that rundown, very enlightening and interesting and I share your love for the project

Quote:

Thumbnail; probably left out some important info.

It does leave some q's of course.

Quote:

NYT

New York Transit Authority

For another, why Admin is so little involved compared to other Internet forums of the sort (Sure, I would have been banned from the site months if not years ago) while the typical spammer/troll gets away with murder, it's astounding

No kidding Cis at some such I've been banned for not ending the para with a period; for the slightest suggestion that its Admin might leave something to be desired or that its editing software wasn't up to par. They're absolutely power crazy

But why all the strange OP's supposedly automated interlopers (gosh I wish I had a better Internet vocabulary)

While does or did a2k have a specific mission

But if at all feasible Cis why don't you tell us more about yourself as suggested above

Yes I seem to have strange and extraordinary curiosities not shared by nearly anyone else on a2k except possibly Enzo but thank you once again

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

It's not so much Admin isn't involved. At the beginning, I've been banned from able2know more times than I wish to remember. However, it's been my philosophy about chat rooms that the least censorship there are, the better for all of us; you know, "freedom of speech" stuff. One rule they do enforce is "no commercial marketing" on able2know.

That said, I spend more time on able2know than I do watching tv -which my wife does 24/7. Mr. Green

I'm an "open book" to most who know me. You can get a taste of who I am by visiting my travel blog at www.travelpod.com/members/c.i.222.

In other words, I love world travel, and spoil myself with seven-eight trips a year, but hope to slow down beginning in 2013. That's what I've been saying for the past couple of years. Rolling Eyes

NYT = New York Times.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Of course you haven't. If blindly churning out all numbers were a process that "computes" a number, then all numbers would be computable. As almost all numbers are uncomputable, it is clear by elementary syllogism that churning out all numbers does not compute a number. I am not going to answer this idiotic pseudo-objection again.

From wikipedia:

Quote:

"A computable number [is] one for which there is a Turing machine which, given n on its initial tape, terminates with the nth digit of that number [encoded on its tape]." (Minsky 1967:Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines )
The key notions in the definition are (1) that some n is specified at the start, (2) for any n the computation only takes a finite number of steps, after which the machine produces the desired output and terminates.

Perhaps I have shown that given infinite time all real numbers are computable. The same process of combinations could be applied to Cantor's diagonal argument. It would require infinities upon infinities of time to compute them though. The only difficulty I see with the above definition in the context of the combinations of all reals is that it requires some initial n value be given, and n could be an incomputable number in the case of all real numbers.

Many reasonable people called constructivists require that we must be able to construct such numbers for them to exist. They would say that the only real numbers are computable numbers. In this way we do not get carried away by compounding infinities beyond any meaning whatsoever. But then you did carefully word your argument to say classical mathematics.

Here. This is probably one of Ughaibu's guarded resources:

http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info7.pdf

From page 8:

Quote:

What does an uncomputable number look like? It is hard to describe explicitly because the description cannot be done in terms of mathematics. Yet it is not difficult to give an operational definition for the construction of an uncomputable number. You simply toss a coin or roll some dice or use any other genuinely random process to determine each digit of the number. When you have done this an infinite number of times, you will have (with a probability of one) generated an uncomputable number. This may help to clarify the idea that uncomputable numbers comprise nearly all numbers: it simply means that if you select a number at random, its digits are very likely
to be random. In point of fact, it is not necessary that every digit of an uncomputable number be determined randomly. It is only necessary to have an infinite number of such digits. An uncomputable number could consist of all zeros, for example, except for every millionth or billionth digit, which is determined randomly.

Sound familiar. The pdf is actually a very good resource though. Note that any random number generated is just a combination that could be generated by a machine. The probability that same number is generated by the machine is also one.

2 Replies

@tomr,

You wrote with which I agree with,

Quote:

The only difficulty I see with the above definition in the context of the combinations of all reals is that it requires some initial n value be given, ...(within the context of reasonableness).

They are "all" computable. Who cares what goes beyond infinity?

2 Replies

@tomr,

There is a difference between something being random and seam to be random, as it well may turn out to just be complex, aside that no other point needs to be made to refute is argument..."random" is a pragmatical classification and has no final ontological value whatsoever...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

They really are all computable. It does cover every conceivable real number.

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know