Why you don't really have free will

[Arksun]

Your post makes no sense.

As I thought.. before I go any further with you, I'm going to have conduct a quick IQ test. Here goes:

If a duck has four toes and a fox sleeps in six different holes, how many taco's can a Spanish priest make in seven hours?

 

[Techne]

There seems to be some issues regarding free will here. Proponents of free will in this thread are saying the agent is capable of making a decision and thus, free will. By that narrow definition, sure, take your definition of free will and let it comfort you . I don't care about that. I care about statements like, "Humans are able to make decisions free from the constraints of cause and effect (causal determinacy).

Argument 1:
1) Libertarian free will states you make decisions free from cause and effect (causal determinism).
2) You cannot make any decisions which are free from a cause or an effect.
3) Thus, you have no free will.
...
Correct

Argument 2:
1) Soul / Mind / Consciousness are not matter / physical
2) Your thoughts come from your mind / soul / consciousness thus they don't need to obey the laws of cause and effect (causal determinism)
3) Thus, your thoughts are free and you have libertarian free will
...
Wrong. Proof required for existence of the soul / mind / consciousness. Until demonstrable evidence / proof has been provided, no luck here.

Argument 3:
1) The universe is indeterministic (events are not caused, or not caused deterministically).
2) Indeterminism is the belief that no event is certain and the entire outcome of anything is probabilistic.
3) You have no free will in a probabilistic OR random universe
4) You still have no free will
...
Correct. If the universe is random, you have no free will either as everything is just random occurrence and per chance.

Conclusion: You have no libertarian free will and you are not able to make decisions free from causal determinism, neither are you able to make libertarian free will decisions in an indeterminate universe.

Very well done. Setup a strawman and knock it down hard. Your proof that my will cannot be free in a causal indeterminate universe is lacking in... logic. Try again.

 

[Prawnapple]

Very well done. Setup a strawman and knock it down hard. Your proof that my will cannot be free in a causal indeterminate universe is lacking in... logic. Try again.

Could you elaborate on where it's lacking in logic?

 

[Techne]

Could you elaborate on where it's lacking in logic?

You haven't demonstrated that "not caused deterministically" implies "acausal indeterministically".

All I need for free will is causal indeterminism and I see no logical problem with the concept. I can point to quantum experiments and explain why the causal indeterminism is valid. You need to prove it is not.

 

[Bobbin]

Can you please demonstrate your reasoning (of/in your post) by applying it to the "game of pool" example.
That's if you can.
I will understand the underlying reason if you cannot do so, or refuse to do so.
Let's see if you are waffling (talking out of your a$$).

Just substitute "you" and "your" with "the player" and change the grammar a bit?

 

[Bobbin]

You haven't demonstrated that "not caused deterministically" implies "acausal indeterministically".

All I need for free will is causal indeterminism and I see no logical problem with the concept. I can point to quantum experiments and explain why the causal indeterminism is valid. You need to prove it is not.

Is this where an effect has been demonstrated to occur that precedes cause? i.e. where the double slit experiment shows particle-like behavior even when it's measured after the detection?

Yeah that's bloody spooky that. I have no idea WTF is going on there.

 

[Techne]

Is this where an effect has been demonstrated to occur that precedes cause? i.e. where the double slit experiment shows particle-like behavior even when it's measured after the detection?

Yeah that's bloody spooky that. I have no idea WTF is going on there.

No. I can point you to the Stern-Gerlach experiment yet again to demonstrate the point...

 

[Bobbin]

No. I can point you to the Stern-Gerlach experiment yet again to demonstrate the point...

Oh I remember that. Weren't you showing that like years ago? I vaguely remember a website with a demo showing how the particles move/spin or something like that. Honestly I didn't understand it fully at the time but I might give it another go.

 

[Techne]

Oh I remember that. Weren't you showing that like years ago? I vaguely remember a website with a demo showing how the particles move or something like that. Honestly I didn't understand it fully at the time but I might give it another go.

Meh...

Stern-Gerlach Experiment

The classic Stern-Gerlach Experiment shows that atoms have a property called spin. Spin is a kind of intrinsic angular momentum, which has no classical counterpart. When the z-component of the spin is measured, one always gets one of two values: spin up or spin down.

phet.colorado.edu

Take the electron with spin Sz=+½. From experiments it is known that Sx is indeterminate and that the electron is free to be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ upon measurement of Sx. We are able to predict that it will be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ even though it is indeterminate before measurement. The freedom is determined or caused by something that is part of the electron, some property of the electron. One can say that the electron has certain dispositions, certain ends or final causes, there is order (either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½, not pure randmoness) in the freedom of an electron. The freedom is not random, it is merely indeterminate. So while randomness entails indeterminism, indeterminism does not necessarily entail randmoness. One can have indeterminism and order and one can have indeterminism and randomness but one cannot intelligibly argue to have pure randomness and order or orderly randomness.

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

 

[Bobbin]

Meh...

Stern-Gerlach Experiment

The classic Stern-Gerlach Experiment shows that atoms have a property called spin. Spin is a kind of intrinsic angular momentum, which has no classical counterpart. When the z-component of the spin is measured, one always gets one of two values: spin up or spin down.

phet.colorado.edu

Take the electron with spin Sz=+½. From experiments it is known that Sx is indeterminate and that the electron is free to be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ upon measurement of Sx. We are able to predict that it will be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ even though it is indeterminate before measurement. The freedom is determined or caused by something that is part of the electron, some property of the electron. One can say that the electron has certain dispositions, certain ends or final causes, there is order (either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½, not pure randmoness) in the freedom of an electron. The freedom is not random, it is merely indeterminate. So while randomness entails indeterminism, indeterminism does not necessarily entail randmoness. One can have indeterminism and order and one can have indeterminism and randomness but one cannot intelligibly argue to have pure randomness and order or orderly randomness.

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

Thanks for that. Well all this I think assumes that it is truly indeterminate and there isn't some as yet undiscovered cause for the "spin" of the electron? But that's all I can say as a layman on the topic :/

Will sleep on it though.

 

[Prawnapple]

You haven't demonstrated that "not caused deterministically" implies "acausal indeterministically".

All I need for free will is causal indeterminism and I see no logical problem with the concept. I can point to quantum experiments and explain why the causal indeterminism is valid. You need to prove it is not.

Quantum Mechanics is spooky and difficult to understand. People like to use it to cast out all the spookyness they want to talk about. Quantum Indeterminism is truly random. If it is truly random, it is not free will. Randomness doesn't give you free will. Randomness gives you randomness. A random event is an event we can't claim conscious authorship over by definition. Because the event is random (or indetermined) and therefore not caused by us.

 

[saturnz]

It will be irrelevant in a court room. In the same way cause and effect led you to commit crimes, cause and effect will lead a judge to convict you. Free will or no.

citation?

The justice system is predicated on free will.

Are you now suggesting there is no justice?

 

[Techne]

Quantum Mechanics is spooky and difficult to understand. People like to use it to cast out all the spookyness they want to talk about. Quantum Indeterminism is truly random. If it is truly random, it is not free will. Randomness doesn't give you free will. Randomness gives you randomness. A random event is an event we can't claim conscious authorship over by definition. Because the event is random (or indetermined) and therefore not caused by us.

No it isn't.

Take the electron with spin Sz=+½. From experiments it is known that Sx is indeterminate and that the electron is free to be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ upon measurement of Sx. We are able to predict that it will be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ even though it is indeterminate before measurement. The freedom is determined or caused by something that is part of the electron, some property of the electron. One can say that the electron has certain dispositions, certain ends or final causes, there is order (either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½, not pure randmoness) in the freedom of an electron. The freedom is not random, it is merely indeterminate. So while randomness entails indeterminism, indeterminism does not necessarily entail randmoness. One can have indeterminism and order and one can have indeterminism and randomness but one cannot intelligibly argue to have pure randomness and order or orderly randomness.

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

 

[Ponderer]

Quantum Mechanics is spooky and difficult to understand. People like to use it to cast out all the spookyness they want to talk about. Quantum Indeterminism is truly random. If it is truly random, it is not free will. Randomness doesn't give you free will. Randomness gives you randomness. A random event is an event we can't claim conscious authorship over by definition. Because the event is random (or indetermined) and therefore not caused by us.

What do you mean by "conscious authorship"?

 

[Prawnapple]

No it isn't.

Take the electron with spin Sz=+½. From experiments it is known that Sx is indeterminate and that the electron is free to be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ upon measurement of Sx. We are able to predict that it will be either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½ even though it is indeterminate before measurement. The freedom is determined or caused by something that is part of the electron, some property of the electron. One can say that the electron has certain dispositions, certain ends or final causes, there is order (either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½, not pure randmoness) in the freedom of an electron. The freedom is not random, it is merely indeterminate. So while randomness entails indeterminism, indeterminism does not necessarily entail randmoness. One can have indeterminism and order and one can have indeterminism and randomness but one cannot intelligibly argue to have pure randomness and order or orderly randomness.

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

You run the experiment and you see:

How do you know the electron's result isn't causally determined by factors outside your control?

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

So you're saying, we cannot know beforehand the outcome? How do you get from that to libertarian free will?

There is nothing that causes the particle to a specific area, but at the same time it follows probabilistic rules that aren’t brought about by non-caused events that just pop into existence for no rhyme or reason. Either that or people say "it is “non-caused” but at the same time probabilitic", two incompatible notions. In other words it’s “not caused” to be “weighted” for a specific output (which makes no sense).

You might want to give this a read:

"Realist" Quantum Probability Cannot Grant Free Will -

Warning, this article will assume some education on quantum mechanics. In fact it’s specifically for people who claim that quantum probability is both real and something that can help with a notion of “free will”. I expect those people to be familiar with some things, for example, the...

breakingthefreewillillusion.com

 

[rietrot]

Quantum Mechanics is spooky and difficult to understand. People like to use it to cast out all the spookyness they want to talk about. Quantum Indeterminism is truly random. If it is truly random, it is not free will. Randomness doesn't give you free will. Randomness gives you randomness. A random event is an event we can't claim conscious authorship over by definition. Because the event is random (or indetermined) and therefore not caused by us.

Nothing is truly random. Just because you don't understand something or it is complex doesn't make it random.

 

[Prawnapple]

Nothing is truly random. Just because you don't understand something or it is complex doesn't make it random.

Sure, things are causally determined. People just need to keep in mind that quantum indeterminacy also doesn't get you free will.

 

[Techne]

You run the experiment and you see: View attachment 751854

How do you know the electron's result isn't causally determined by factors outside your control?

So you're saying, we cannot know beforehand the outcome? How do you get from that to libertarian free will?

There is nothing that causes the particle to a specific area, but at the same time it follows probabilistic rules that aren’t brought about by non-caused events that just pop into existence for no rhyme or reason. Either that or people say "it is “non-caused” but at the same time probabilitic", two incompatible notions. In other words it’s “not caused” to be “weighted” for a specific output (which makes no sense).

You might want to give this a read:

"Realist" Quantum Probability Cannot Grant Free Will -

Warning, this article will assume some education on quantum mechanics. In fact it’s specifically for people who claim that quantum probability is both real and something that can help with a notion of “free will”. I expect those people to be familiar with some things, for example, the...

breakingthefreewillillusion.com

I'll just repeat, maybe it will sink in:
The freedom is determined or caused by something that is part of the electron, some property of the electron. One can say that the electron has certain dispositions, certain ends or final causes, there is order (either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½, not pure randmoness) in the freedom of an electron. The freedom is not random, it is merely indeterminate. So while randomness entails indeterminism, indeterminism does not necessarily entail randmoness. One can have indeterminism and order and one can have indeterminism and randomness but one cannot intelligibly argue to have pure randomness and order or orderly randomness.

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

Sure, things are causally determined. People just need to keep in mind that quantum indeterminacy also doesn't get you free will.

It gets you the "free" part. That is all. Just to be sure, the examples in quantum mechanics are used to explain what "free" means in the context of "free will". It is right to say that quantum indeterminacy doesn't get you free will.... just the free part.
Now we can move on to the "will" part which is linked to your intellect (which is directed towards ends i.e. deterministic. That might be a step too far for you since you cannot accept that humans have an intellect based on your materialist metaphysics

 

[Arksun]

I'll just repeat, maybe it will sink in:
The freedom is determined or caused by something that is part of the electron, some property of the electron. One can say that the electron has certain dispositions, certain ends or final causes, there is order (either Sx=+½ or Sx=-½, not pure randmoness) in the freedom of an electron. The freedom is not random, it is merely indeterminate. So while randomness entails indeterminism, indeterminism does not necessarily entail randmoness. One can have indeterminism and order and one can have indeterminism and randomness but one cannot intelligibly argue to have pure randomness and order or orderly randomness.

The "free" in free will is therefore analogous to the freedom of the spin of an electron. More than one possibility, indeterminate and not acausal.

It gets you the "free" part. That is all. Just to be sure, the examples in quantum mechanics are used to explain what "free" means in the context of "free will". It is right to say that quantum indeterminacy doesn't get you free will.... just the free part.
Now we can move on to the "will" part which is linked to your intellect (which is directed towards ends i.e. deterministic. That might be a step too far for you since you cannot accept that humans have an intellect based on your materialist metaphysics

This is the first time I've seen you speak sense.

Just keep in mind our understanding of quantum mechanics is still in it's infancy, so I rate when referring to quantum mechanics, it would be better to speak in terms of "as far as we can tell so far" and "based on what we know".

 

[Techne]

This is the first time I've seen you speak sense.

Just keep in mind our understanding of quantum mechanics is still in it's infancy, so I rate when referring to quantum mechanics, it would be better to speak in terms of "as far as we can tell so far" and "based on what we know".

Well, everything from science is "based on what we know" and "as far as we can tell so far" and it will always be like that. So, "based on what we know" and "as far as we can tell so far" determinists better start praying for discoveries that will save their world view.