Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149787 wrote:

there are things that cannot go both ways in this world

This view puts you in opposition to most relevant authorities, because most hold that radioactive decay can go either way, and if I can choose based on the result of radioactive decay, then I too can go either way, and this means that my behaviour isn't determined.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149788 wrote:

No, I dont, though cause is a vague notion, so I might well deny the reality of some interpretations.

if you don't deny causation then why would you deny (at least in relation to non sentient beings) a deterministic inevitability?
How can X cause Y and that not be deterministic? Say for example that only rocks ever existed.......no people.....in such a world what's there to break the cycle of determinism?

How absurd is it to think the cat(in Schrodinger's cat) is both alive and dead until we observe him?

@Fil Albuquerque,

On the other hand can you honestly say that you are aware of everything that causes ? all the factors ? Even if you were capable of such thing, would your decisions be free ? Why ? only because you agree with yourself coercion is routed out ?

@Amperage,

Amperage;149789 wrote:

The point being....that true randomness does not exist.

One of Chaitin's incompleteness theorems uses an equation which has either an infinite number of solutions or a finite number of solutions, which of these is the case changes purely randomly with the change in one variable of the equation. This is a matter of mathematical proof, it is not a statement of belief, like "we haven't figured out the pattern to yet or don't have enough information about". To maintain a belief after you're aware that it has been proven false, is irrational.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149790 wrote:

This view puts you in opposition to most relevant authorities, because most hold that radioactive decay can go either way, and if I can choose based on the result of radioactive decay, then I too can go either way, and this means that my behaviour isn't determined.

OK, for the time being lets go down that road...even if so, decisions would not be yours, but emerging instead...

1- or there is a collapse of the wave function and there is efficient cause...
2- or there is not a collapse and all panoramas are coexisting in parallel worlds and there is first a priori cause...

...either way I am right...(not that I like the idea, believe me)

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149795 wrote:

One of Chaitin's incompleteness theorems uses an equation which has either an infinite number of solutions or a finite number of solutions, which of these is the case changes purely randomly with the change in one variable of the equation. This is a matter of mathematical proof, it is not a statement of belief, like "we haven't figured out the pattern to yet or don't have enough information about". To maintain a belief after you're aware that it has been proven false, is irrational.

like I said any indeterministic FSM has an equivalent deterministic one so there's no reason to think that any local "random" phenomena is not being deterministically controlled

---------- Post added 04-08-2010 at 10:06 PM ----------

In this article we present an algorithm that learns to predict non-deterministically generated strings. The problem of learning to predict non-deterministically generated strings was raised by Dietterich and Michalski (1986). While their objective was to give heuristic techniques that could be used to rapidly and effectively learn to predict a somewhat limited class of strings, our objective is to give an algorithm which, though impractical, is capable of learning to predict a very general class. Our algorithm is meant to provide a general framework within which heuristic techniques can be effectively employed.

Given a sequence of events (or ob]ects), each 'characterized by a set of attributes, the problem considered is to discover a rule characterizing the sequence and able to predict a plausible sequence continuation. The rule, called a sequence-generating rule, is nondeterministic in the sense that it does not necessarily tell exactly which etent must appear next in the sequence, but rather, defines a set of plausible next eents.

apparently Dietterich and Michalski think they can "predict" these non-determinacally generated strings

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149795 wrote:

One of Chaitin's incompleteness theorems uses an equation which has either an infinite number of solutions or a finite number of solutions, which of these is the case changes purely randomly with the change in one variable of the equation. This is a matter of mathematical proof, it is not a statement of belief, like "we haven't figured out the pattern to yet or don't have enough information about". To maintain a belief after you're aware that it has been proven false, is irrational.

I have seen Chaitin on a lecture in Lisbon on You Tube questioning the validity or the real numbers and also saying that unfortunately the reason we would be remembered for more then 5 minutes in History would be do to Omega a real number...the guy is a genius and he laughed on himself on this issue...Omega is utterly irrational and even to him it does not make any sense at all...He also talked on the craziness of infinities and in the problem of dealing with it...anyway he is an expert and he does not grant himself certainty on this issues, so why should we ???

@Amperage,

Amperage;149791 wrote:

if you don't deny causation then why would you deny (at least in relation to non sentient beings) a deterministic inevitability?

I've answered this, many times.

Amperage;149791 wrote:

How can X cause Y and that not be deterministic?

I've just given an example in my post to Zetherin.

Amperage;149791 wrote:

Say for example that only rocks ever existed.......no people.....in such a world what's there to break the cycle of determinism?

What "cycle of determinism"?

Amperage;149791 wrote:

How absurd is it to think the cat(in Schrodinger's cat) is both alive and dead until we observe him?

Who cares? It has nothing to do with what I've written.

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:09 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;149794 wrote:

On the other hand can you honestly say that you are aware of everything that causes ? all the factors ? Even if you were capable of such thing, would your decisions be free ? Why ? only because you agree with yourself coercion is routed out ?

Again, you're offering faith to counter arguments.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149802 wrote:

What "cycle of determinism"?

A causing B which causes C which causes D which causes E which causes F which causes G which.............. that cycle.

I mean can anything defy gravitational pull?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149802 wrote:

Again, you're offering faith to counter arguments.

Would you be most kind and properly address my question on Coercion ?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149797 wrote:

...either way I am right...(not that I like the idea, believe me)

You dont seem to have understood. Either the decay will occur or it won't, A or B, I can choose to smoke only if A, or I can choose to smoke only if B, so the decay doesn't cause my decision. And if the majority of relevant scientists are to be trusted, the event isn't determined. Thus there is an intentional act which is neither caused nor determined.

@Fil Albuquerque,

This is the matter...

Quote:

On the other hand can you honestly say that you are aware of everything that causes ? all the factors ? Even if you were capable of such thing, would your decisions be free ? Why ? only because you agree with yourself coercion is routed out ?

@Amperage,

Amperage;149798 wrote:

there's no reason to think that any local "random" phenomena is not being deterministically controlled

I've given you the reasons several times. So I'm not responding to you on this further, unless you produce a counter.

Amperage;149798 wrote:

apparently Dietterich and Michalski think they can "predict" these non-determinacally generated strings

Then they're wrong. As this has also been brought to your attention, your persistence with this comes under "irrational". I have no intention of wasting my time arguing against faith based irrationality.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149806 wrote:

You dont seem to have understood. Either the decay will occur or it won't, A or B, I can choose to smoke only if A, or I can choose to smoke only if B, so the decay doesn't cause my decision. And if the majority of relevant scientists are to be trusted, the event isn't determined. Thus there is an intentional act which is neither caused nor determined.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149801 wrote:

Omega is utterly irrational and even to him it does not make any sense at all

That's what randomness is.

Fil. Albuquerque;149801 wrote:

anyway he is an expert and he does not grant himself certainty on this issues, so why should we ???

Because that's the function of proof. If proofs dont matter, then all claims have equal status, and if all claims have equal status, then I have no reason to accept your claims.

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:23 PM ----------

Amperage;149804 wrote:

A causing B which causes C which causes D which causes E which causes F which causes G which.............. that cycle.

But!! I have only just explained how a causally complete world can be fully non-determined!

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149808 wrote:

I've given you the reasons several times. So I'm not responding to you on this further, unless you produce a counter.

Bohmian Mechanics is all the counter I need.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149805 wrote:

Would you be most kind and properly address my question on Coercion ?

I didn't notice it. Why dont you try writing structured posts with conventional punctuation?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149770 wrote:

1) Kennethamy has misrepresented me; getting them to raise a finger is a way of illustrating to some free will deniers that some actions will not occur until a conscious decision has been made to perform the action.

I agree with this. I think that illustration is good.

Quote:

2) you say that "everything has a cause", but you still haven't explained what "cause" means for that claim to be true.

I gave the definition I was using some posts ago. I think you missed it. I'll go back and find it for you later, or you could search it yourself.

Quote:

3) libertarianism is the claim that determinism and free will are incompatible, and free will is true. The falsity of determinism need not only depend on the truth of free will.

I see.

Quote:

4) determinism and cause are distinct notions; for example, Kennethamy accepts that sub-atomic effects aren't determined, but if the cat dies, Schrodinger will have caused it's death. In this way there can be a causally complete non-determined world.

I am not sure where you're going with this part.

Quote:

5) imagine that I use radioactive decay, after the manner of Schrodinger, to decide whether or not to smoke at the turn of each hour, what causes my decision?

You do.

If I flip a coin to decide on something, it is not the coin which decides for me. It is me who decides to do X action based on the side of the coin.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149807 wrote:

This is the matter...

But I've answered this dozens of times! Determinism is false with probability one, free will is true with probability one, therefore I rule out coercion because it is false with probability one squared. And it is because it was entirely unnecessary for me to repeat myself, yet again, that I pointed out, instead, that you are demonstrating irrational faith by espousing that which is false with probability one.

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:31 PM ----------

Zetherin;149818 wrote:

I gave the definition I was using some posts ago. I think you missed it.

If you mean the standard dictionary definitions, I didn't miss them, but they were too vague, and without a supporting theory they dont suggest anything about causal completeness.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149816 wrote:

I didn't notice it. Why dont you try writing structured posts with conventional punctuation?

I am sorry is in fact a bad habit, a tendency to escape from determinism on a subconscious level maybe... ( three dots all around )

The question was:

Coercion to be true as not the need to be known...Is this the case ?

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know