Free will and determinism

[NxNW]

The argument is that if the world is entirely deterministic there is no free will. But if there is a randomness that rejects the concept of determinism, then that can't be used to support freewill. If your decisions are based on randomness - a photon decaying or the roll of a die, then there is no free will there either. You can't call it free will if you roll a 1 for going to the beach, 2 for going to the pub, 3 for staying home...etc. Or if the photon decays at time t1, t2, t3...etc.

I think the existence of randomness refutes the notion of determinism.

But going back to the decaying photon, something actually caused it to decay.

I don't think you have any evidence to support that claim.

Something determined that it would.

What is that something?

It would be impossible to predict when it was going happen but unpredictability doesn't negate determinism.

It can't be both random and determined. You already made the claim that running the film again gets the same results, and that this supports determinism. Now you're saying that if you run the film again and get different results, it still supports determinism. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the existence of randomness refutes the notion of determinism.

Way back in the thread the possibility of random events happening at the level of quantum mechanics was discussed. That is a possibility, but It was argued that we are discussing the macro world. Where decisions are made. Down to the molecular level where electrical impulses and chemical changes within neurons occur. Quantum processes happen at many degrees of magnitude below that.

The Buddha on my desk may have some quantum indeterminacy within its structure. But it hasn't moved or changed its composition. It seems to be quite determined to remain a wooden Buddha sitting exactly where it was yesterday.

I don't think you have any evidence to support that claim.

No, because the calculated lifetime of a single proton is quite long. From here: How Certain Are We That Protons Don't Decay?

'Recent analyses of data from the 2010s have placed lower limits on the lifetime of a proton that now exceed 10 to the power of 34 years.'

We should pick something a little more prone to decay, maybe a fundamental particle like a neutron.

What is that something?

We're heading into areas that I'd probably need a couple of decades worth of high level study to understand, let alone explain. So all I can do is cut and paste from people with that experience. From here: Particle Creation and Decay – EWT

'In the beta minus decay process, a neutron becomes a proton. There is a probability event of a free neutron doing this process, roughly every 15 minutes. Thus, the event may likely be triggered by something that is frequent on Earth, such as the bombardment of solar neutrinos.'

It can't be both random and determined.

If you are using random in the sense of being unpredictable, then yes, it can be both. Very early on in the thread I used an example of how my breaking a guitar string one evening determined what I had for breakfast the following day. It would have been completely unpredictable but it was undeniably determined.

 

[NxNW]

Way back in the thread the possibility of random events happening at the level of quantum mechanics was discussed. That is a possibility, but It was argued that we are discussing the macro world. Where decisions are made. Down to the molecular level where electrical impulses and chemical changes within neurons occur. Quantum processes happen at many degrees of magnitude below that.

My point is that the micro world influences the macro world, as in the Cat example.

No, because the calculated lifetime of a single proton is quite long. From here: How Certain Are We That Protons Don't Decay?

We should pick something a little more prone to decay, maybe a fundamental particle like a neutron.

That's fine, but my argument still applies.

If you are using random in the sense of being unpredictable, then yes, it can be both. Very early on in the thread I used an example of how my breaking a guitar string one evening determined what I had for breakfast the following day. It would have been completely unpredictable but it was undeniably determined.

I'm not sure you can claim that identical particles decaying at different times have causes, unless you can point to the cause. Given that time had a beginning, even if it was an open set, that means at least one event occurred without a cause. I'm comfortable with cause-and-effect not being in play 100% of the time.

 

[Bradskii]

My point is that the micro world influences the macro world, as in the Cat example.

I needn't have to point out that it's an analogy. It's not applicable to the macro world. The micro world is, but it doesn't get much deeper than that.

That's fine, but my argument still applies.

It would if there was something that happened without a cause. The neutron decayed to a proton because it was hit by a neutrino. Ifyou can find something that happened without a cause then let's investivate it. We're over 1500 posts i to the thread and nobody has brought one to the table.

I'm not sure you can claim that identical particles decaying at different times have causes, unless you can point to the cause. Given that time had a beginning, even if it was an open set, that means at least one event occurred without a cause. I'm comfortable with cause-and-effect not being in play 100% of the time.

I gave one for the neutron. But this isn't a discussion about elementary particle physics. It's about decisions we make. And they are all determined by reasons. From when and where you were born, to your mother's diet, to the weather, to your age...They all determine what you choose.

 

[Neogaia777]

Just because we don't yet understand the reason or the cause(s) yet at the quantum level, doesn't mean it won't still turn out to be deterministic, just like everything else above it is, etc.

And the fact that everything else above it is almost means that everything else that makes up it has to be also, etc. Otherwise it would not be deterministic, and wouldn't behave deterministically at those levels, etc.

Particles are a lot like bowling balls and pins, etc, or pool balls on a pool table, etc, only these ones are all still going, etc, and they are all caused by an original chief cause originally, and have all been deterministic, or have all been only caused by prior causes, since then originally, etc.

Just because right now "we don't know", on the quantum level, doesn't mean it will not also turn out to be 100% deterministic once we understand it fully.

Take Care.

 

[Bradskii]

Just because we don't yet understand the reason or the cause(s) yet at the quantum level, doesn't mean it won't still turn out to be deterministic, just like everything else above it is, etc.

And the fact that everything else above it is almost means that everything else that makes up it has to be also, etc. Otherwise it would not be deterministic, and wouldn't behave deterministically at those levels, etc.

Particles are a lot like bowling balls and pins, etc, or pool balls on a pool table, etc, only these ones are all still going, etc, and they are all caused by an original chief cause originally, and have all been deterministic, or have all been only caused by prior causes, since then originally, etc.

Just because right now "we don't know", on the quantum level, doesn't mean it will not also turn out to be 100% deterministic once we understand it fully.

Take Care.

And if there was randomness that worked its way all the way up to the macro world, then our decisions would be random. Hence no free will.

 

[Neogaia777]

And if there was randomness that worked its way all the way up to the macro world, then our decisions would be random. Hence no free will.

Except there's no such thing as randomness. Hence no free will.

They'd have to be 100% uncaused to be truly random. And there's just no such thing.

If there is ever a reason or a cause for a thing, then it wasn't ever truly random.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

...unpredictability doesn't negate determinism.

Yes it does.

 

[partinobodycular]

Just because right now "we don't know", on the quantum level, doesn't mean it will not also turn out to be 100% deterministic once we understand it fully.

Fair enough, but until then you can't simply assume that quantum events are deterministic. If you think they are, then you have to bloody prove it. But as of right now all the available evidence says that quantum events are unpredictable, not because we lack sufficient knowledge, but because that knowledge simply doesn't exist.

As such, any phenomena that's sufficiently dependent upon their initial conditions will also be unpredictable.

 

[Neogaia777]

Fair enough, but until then you can't simply assume that quantum events are deterministic. If you think they are, then you have to bloody prove it. But as of right now all the available evidence says that quantum events are unpredictable.

As such, any phenomena that's sufficiently dependent upon their initial conditions will also be unpredictable.

If the levels above it are deterministic/predictable always (atoms, cells, chemical reactions, etc) then how can not what makes up those not also be deterministic?

And they are only partially unpredictable by us right now, but we can see enough of the picture to see that all levels above the quantum level are more than likely completely deterministic right now totally.

And if they always are able to be predicted that way, then how can that kind of predictability come from complete and total randomness or complete unpredictability?

My biggest proof is that. That any level above the quantum level always behaves very much predictably. So how can that complete predictability, come from true randomness, or complete unpredictability, etc?

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

If the levels above it are deterministic/predictable always...

That's the question... are they always deterministic/predictable?

Reality consists of a great many emergent properties. Predictability is apparently one of them. But to assume that because many things are predictable, therefore all things are predictable is to assume the very thing that you're attempting to prove.

My biggest proof is that. That any level above the quantum level always behaves very much predictably.

Okay, now all that you have to do is prove that all systems above the quantum level behave predictably.

 

[NxNW]

And if there was randomness that worked its way all the way up to the macro world, then our decisions would be random. Hence no free will.

If determinism is being used to defeat the idea of free will, then an example of something that is not causal (for example, the Big Bang) or random defeats that argument and leaves the possibility of free will.

 

[NxNW]

If the levels above it are deterministic/predictable always (atoms, cells, chemical reactions, etc) then how can not what makes up those not also be deterministic?

Questions are not evidence.

And they are only partially unpredictable by us right now, but we can see enough of the picture to see that all levels above the quantum level are more than likely completely deterministic right now totally.

"More than likely" leaves open an awfully big gap.

And if they always are able to be predicted that way,

You haven't established that.

then how can that kind of predictability come from complete and total randomness or complete unpredictability?

My biggest proof is that. That any level above the quantum level always behaves very much predictably. So how can that complete predictability, come from true randomness, or complete unpredictability, etc?

You jumped from "more than likely" to "always" in a couple paragraphs.

The state of the universe is not 100% describable, because the description would be bigger than the universe itself. When you've got more unknowns than equations, you can't claim a single predictable solution.

 

[Neogaia777]

If determinism is being used to defeat the idea of free will, then an example of something that is not causal (for example, the Big Bang) or random defeats that argument and leaves the possibility of free will.

Can you show us anything that is without cause except the Big Bang?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes it does.

The weather, for example, is deterministic. One thing causes another. Which causes something else. The effects accumulate almost infinitely. So it most definitely cannot be predicted what the weather in your suburb will be in a year's time. But it is most cetainly deterministic.

I can't predict where I will be exactly a year from now. I might not even exist. I might be on the opposite side of the planet. I might be sitting exctly where I am now. But wherever I am it will be determined by our old chum antecedent events.

 

[Neogaia777]

Questions are not evidence.

"More than likely" leaves open an awfully big gap.

You haven't established that.

You jumped from "more than likely" to "always" in a couple paragraphs.

The state of the universe is not 100% describable, because the description would be bigger than the universe itself. When you've got more unknowns than equations, you can't claim a single predictable solution.

I'm still doing my research, and I'm starting to write a book now also, so I won't be on here as much, but the free will/determinism debate is going to play a huge role in my book, so...?

So I'm going to research the heck out of it here forwards and backwards pretty soon, but don't know how long I will be spending trying to make my points on here very much anymore, or all of the time anymore, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, now all that you have to do is prove that all systems above the quantum level behave predictably.

It's not required to deny will. Determinism precludes free will and unpredictability doesn't deny determinism.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, now all that you have to do is prove that all systems above the quantum level behave predictably.

No. The question is to have some strong evidence for determinism. Not predictability (as has been explained). It's a scientific concept, so it can't be proved, only disproved. But if we can't present any event that can be proved not to have been caused (that includes the BB) then then the statement 'The universe is deterministic' will stand. That's the evidence. A complete lack of any single event in the history of existence that was uncaused.

And for the sake of argument, let's say that there is a deity and He was unccaused, then we have to get to a point where we exist in the universe. So He causes the universe itself. And everything that happens from that point also has a cause. Everything from that point is deterministic.

 

[Bradskii]

If determinism is being used to defeat the idea of free will, then an example of something that is not causal (for example, the Big Bang) or random defeats that argument and leaves the possibility of free will.

We can only go back so far. We know that from the earliest moments of the BB that everything has a cause. The physics wouldn't work without that. Did the BB have a cause? It's not known. It's logical to assume that it did because we know that nothing happens without a cause. We just don't know what it was.

And random doesn't equate to indeterminism. Random in the usual sense means unpredictable. Which, as has been noted, does not negate determinism. What random most definitely doesn't mean is uncaused.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm still doing my research, and I'm starting to write a book now also, so I won't be on here as much, but the free will/determinism debate is going to play a huge role in my book, so...?

So I'm going to research the heck out of it here forwards and backwards pretty soon, but don't know how long I will be spending trying to make my points on here very much anymore, or all of the time anymore, etc.

God Bless.

Look forward to see what you end up writing.