Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

I then follow this pattern to the conclusion that if I had complete knowledge of the system at a particular point in time I could completely predict the outcome of the system. What is wrong with this logic?

1) the premise is unsupported, as there are no ideal predictions possible within the world, one must beg the question to assume that they're possible outside the world.
2) your position appears to be motivated by scientific results, but these results rely on real numbers. This means that realism about these results commits you to a continuous ontology, and in a continuous ontology almost nothing is predictable.

@jeeprs,

Explain to me why you know that

Quote:

The fundamental nature of matter cannot be said to consist of particles. It consists of statistical tendencies to exist.

I understand that quantum mechanics claims that fundamental nature consists of only statistical tendencies. But there is not one experiment and no reasoning outside what I explained for this assumption. It is a viewpoint. Einstein disagreed. I'm not saying do everything Einstein said. Just to give an example that it is not a matter of fact deal.

@ughaibu,

1) Do you mean that because no ideal predictions are made we can make no conclusions at all, I never thought I needed to have ideal predictions. I can make predictions, though not ideal, they do become more ideal with more information about the system and so the prediction becomes better.

2) Yes I would use real numbers. What is continuous ontology?

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

1) Do you mean that because no ideal predictions are made we can make no conclusions at all, I never thought I needed to have ideal predictions. I can make predictions, though not ideal, they do become more ideal with more information about the system and so the prediction becomes better.

In order to use predictions to support determinism, you need to have ideal predictions, at least in principle.

tomr wrote:

2) Yes I would use real numbers. What is continuous ontology?

One in which space and time are continuous, and real numbers are not just a mathematical convenience.

@ughaibu,

Quote:

In order to use predictions to support determinism, you need to have ideal predictions, at least in principle.

What is an ideal prediction and why do I need to have it?

Quote:

One in which space and time are continuous, and real numbers are not just a mathematical convenience.

What is meant by real numbers are not just a mathematical convenience?

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

What is an ideal prediction and why do I need to have it?

It's obvious why you need to have it. I can predict the face shown by a tossed coin with around 50% accuracy, that is insufficient to suggest that the behaviour of tossed coins is determined. Determinism is, at least, the thesis that all states of the world at all times are exactly specified by the state at any given time in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature.

tomr wrote:

What is meant by real numbers are not just a mathematical convenience?

I dont see how to make this any simpler, what is it that you dont understand about it?

@ughaibu,

Quote:

It's obvious why you need to have it. I can predict the face shown by a tossed coin with around 50% accuracy, that is insufficient to suggest that the behaviour of tossed coins is determined. Determinism is, at least, the thesis that all states of the world at all times are exactly specified by the state at any given time in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature.

So if I predicted the coin better than 50% the prediction is ideal or is it 100% that makes the prediction ideal or somewhere in between?

Quote:

What is meant by real numbers are not just a mathematical convenience?

Is it that real numbers are being used to represent aspects of physical events through some physics equation and are not just a mathematical ideal only being used when talking about quantity or mathematical operations on quantity?

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

So if I predicted the coin better than 50% the prediction is ideal or is it 100% that makes the prediction ideal or somewhere in between?

You need 100%, and the exact position of the coin at all times, etc.

tomr wrote:

Is it that real numbers are being used to represent aspects of physical events through some physics equation and are not just a mathematical ideal only being used when talking about quantity or mathematical operations on quantity?

Neither, it means that the real numbers are ontologically real, not just mathematically real. For example, two particles moving away from each other have respective positions corresponding to every real number, that is an uncountable infinity of positions.

@jeeprs,

Only partially relevant...it does n´t matter if it is matter there...let it be waves, strings, or information or whatever...something must be there...our problem is time/space nature...were and when...

...the debate on matter/"spirit" is obsolete...for the purpose of what we are debating right now, it does n´t really matter what it is...that is a 2 nature question in this problem...The True question is, Is it or is it not ??? How and Why !!!

@ughaibu,

even so...that it is not predictable or computable does n´t mean that it is not actual...

@ughaibu,

How would things operate in a continuum panorama with infinity´s flying around huh ??? You would n´t kill only Determinism and Causation, you would kill Logic itself...

...but lets imagine that you are right...give me "your" model...how is it that our world seams so consistent, so regular ??? and it does n´t really matter that it is more so on a macro scale, it still needs explanation...statistical probability ??? Probable on what account if nothing is ever to be reached ? if there is nothing fundamental to reach for ?

Is n ´t it far fetched to go on regularity´s alone ??? Regularity´s of what if nothing is there ? where is the event on a continuous panorama?
Would n´t be probable that this regularity´s failed drastically at some point ?
Its taking a long time so far...anyway enlighten me in lamer´s terms if you please sir !

@ughaibu,

How would this particles move with infinity ? Moving just looses its sense completely !!!

IT ALL GOES CRAZY WITH INFINITY !!!
One needs, infinite energy, speed etc...we can´t even locate stuff...and stuff needs eventually to be somewhere...stuff that itself is also an infinity ! and then there are bigger and smaller infinity´s !
JEEEESUS CHRIST, GOOD LORD !!! Drunk

@ughaibu,

Quote:

It's obvious why you need to have it. I can predict the face shown by a tossed coin with around 50% accuracy, that is insufficient to suggest that the behaviour of tossed coins is determined. Determinism is, at least, the thesis that all states of the world at all times are exactly specified by the state at any given time in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature.

Quote:

You need 100%, and the exact position of the coin at all times, etc.

It is not possible to do this. I do not need to have 100% accuracy of the position and face of the coin to notice that my percentage of accuracy increases with more accurate information about the forces and other variables involved in the tests. This is how we make theories about the world even statistical ones. If 100% accuracy was a requirement to ever experiment we could say we know nothing about the world.

Quote:

Neither, it means that the real numbers are ontologically real, not just mathematically real. For example, two particles moving away from each other have respective positions corresponding to every real number, that is an uncountable infinity of positions.

This is a big assumption to make. Space is like a real number line that is infinitly long. Does this number line break down into intervals that are infinite too? (Hey thats Xeno's paradox, I think) Not to mention the other two dimensions and the vastness of space that's a great volume of infinities. If this is true maybe we will never know any precise position of anything but we wouldn't know that anyway because of the uncertainty principle. I never said I needed to prove in the most absolute form of the word that particles are determined. Just that I can follow the pattern there is a correspondence between knowledge of a system's variables and the accuracy of the application of physical laws in making predictions of observable phenomena.

@tomr,

...well but you would n´t be able to follow whatever...neither know nothing on whatever...whatever needs to be explained how it comes to actual...how it collapses to be !!! ...and to be, where ? ACTUAL IN WHAT WAY ????????

I tell you what they get on events :
Neither WHEN, neither WHERE, neither WHAT... well done I say !!!

...I throw INFINITY out of the window...run forest !!!

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

It is not possible to do this.

What you need to do is show that it's possible in principle.

tomr wrote:

Does this number line break down into intervals that are infinite too?

It doesn't matter. If you appeal to science then you are committed to continuity, if you reject continuity then you lose your appeal to science.

AMAZING SENTENCE !!!

@ughaibu,

Quote:

What you need to do is show that it's possible in principle.

What do you mean? Like setting up a thought experiment where all matter is evacuated from a box and electromagnetic interference too. Inside the box is a machine that flips coins. I have complete knowledge of whats in the box, every particle's velocity and position with infinite accuracy and the means to process numbers containing infinite places. I instantaneously start the machine and using a computer that calculates faster than the rate of the actual coin flip event, I find the position and the face of the coin to an infinite degree of accuracy before it actually touches the ground.

Is it really necessary to show this, and if so why?

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

What do you mean? . . .

No. It is obviously impossible within the world, as the prediction is in the world. You would have a Borges' map problem. You need to show that, independent of the world, it is in principle possible to make an exact prediction of the entire world. Naturally, there are no restrictions on the amount of information, if you can demonstrate that such information exists and there is no limit on its availability.

The problem of predicting is secondary to the Thread...
would you please explain movement in a continuous space set...
the fact is that matter would have to cross infinite bits of space...it would n´t even move an inch.

@ughaibu,

Quote:

You need to show that, independent of the world, it is in principle possible to make an exact prediction of the entire world.

I need to show that it is possible to make an exact predition of the entire world? This is ridiculous. I've never been off this planet. I do not have the kind of information to make such a statement even if it is only in principle. This is an impossible task. Why do I need to prove this when I said before I can see a correspondence between accuracy of predicting phenomena with more knowledge of the environment. I've only made a comparison and claimed to see a pattern.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know