Free will and determinism

[NxNW]

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

If you can have at least one uncaused event, isn't that enough?

 

[NxNW]

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

I think the last four words above are a huge contradiction.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the last four words above are a huge contradiction.

Let me try this. It's an example I've used before. I'll keep it short.

I was working in London aged 23. I was in a bar. Me and the two guys I was with were unhappy where we were working. 'Let's call up an agent and see what other jobs are available'. One of them gave me a number. I rang it. Whoever answered had a job available. I applied. I got it. I became friends with the guy I sat next to in the job. He got a job in Hong Kong. I applied for it as well - they needed one more person. I wasn't selected but the guy who was picked failed his medical and I was next in line. When working in HK I met another guy from London who also spent some time in Australia. A few years later we spoke when he was in Sydney and I was back in London and he said 'Hey, come out and visit.'

Everything I just mentioned, plus an infinite number of other events (when I was born, where I was born, me meeting my wife, my standard of education etc etc etc) all determined that I am sitting on my deck typing this.

Could you have predicted that I'd be doing this so many years ago while I was having a drink in some random pub in London? Obviously not. But every single event is like that. Why you are exactly where you are reading this sentence right now was completely unpredictable even yesterday. But has been determined.

There isn't an event that has happened anywhere at any time that hasn't been determined. But you are free to present one that you think has had no cause.

 

[Neogaia777]

Look forward to see what you end up writing.

Thanks man.

It might be a while though, but I'll let you know, ok.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think the last four words above are a huge contradiction.

I think it could be cleared up by maybe how you guys are defining words/terms like "predictability", and "random"?

I think @Bradskii is defining predictability as unable to be fully known by us human beings right now fully maybe? But if we were to talk about some kind of "high great God" or God-like being who started/made/initiated the universe, then He would know it all, or be able to predict it all, etc. And He would be unable to know it all or predict it all if it wasn't all deterministic, etc.

And I define random as being truly uncaused by anything previously, which could only maybe happen in a total vacuum, etc, which doesn't truly exist in the universe, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you can have at least one uncaused event, isn't that enough?

Not going back to from before the universe, etc. Because we are talking about the universe and everything in it all being deterministic only right after, or only immediately after that right now currently, etc.

So, I'm going to have to ask for an example other than that, or ones that are only after that right now currently, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

I think @Bradskii is defining predictability as unable to be fully known by us human beings right now fully maybe?

Agreed. It's something that can't be known either because the inputs are unknown or because there are so many that they can't be computed.

But if we were to talk about some kind of "high great God" or God-like being who started/made/initiated the universe, then He would know it all, or be able to predict it all, etc. And He would be unable to know it all or predict it all if it wasn't all deterministic, etc.

Agreed again.

And I define random as being truly uncaused by anything previously, which could only maybe happen in a total vacuum, etc, which doesn't truly exist in the universe, etc.

Here I disagree. I suggest that in the discussion we're having it relates to being unpredictable.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

This all works wonderfully until the necessary information simply doesn't exist. The assumption about the weather is that if we knew the initial conditions precisely enough, then we'd be able to predict the weather, not just a year from now, but a million years from now. But the question is, just how precisely would we need to know the initial conditions... and is that degree of precision actually possible?

One has to remember that at its most fundamental level reality is quantum. Which means that beyond a certain point it simply isn't possible to know what the initial conditions are. Because that information simply doesn't exist. Hence there's a hard stop beyond which you simply cannot go. The question is, how complex must a system be before the amount of information required to predict its behavior comes squarely up against the amount of information available.

Your biggest mistake seems to lie in the belief that if we knew the state of every particle in the universe, then we could accurately predict every event from the beginning of the universe until its inevitable demise, but that simply isn't possible. It's not just that you can't know the state of all of the particles... it's that you can't even know the state of one of them, because they don't have a fixed state. If you measure a particle you'll know what its state was a moment ago, but that won't tell you what its state is now, much less a week from now.

 

[NxNW]

There isn't an event that has happened anywhere at any time that hasn't been determined. But you are free to present one that you think has had no cause.

The Big Bang. If time didn't exist before that moment, it didn't have a cause. It was a day without a yesterday.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think @Bradskii is defining predictability as unable to be fully known by us human beings

I agree, that's how @Bradskii seems to be using the term, but that's not how I'm using it. When I describe something as being 'unpredictable' I'm referring to a fundamental attribute of its nature. Its something who's behavior is by its very nature unpredictable, in which case its action can't possibly be strictly deterministic. Probabilistic... maybe, stochastic... perhaps, but not deterministic in the sense that @Bradskii would like to believe that reality behaves.

 

[Bradskii]

This all works wonderfully until the necessary information simply doesn't exist. The assumption about the weather is that if we knew the initial conditions precisely enough, then we'd be able to predict the weather, not just a year from now, but a million years from now. But the question is, just how precisely would we need to know the initial conditions... and is that degree of precision actually possible?

No, it's not. I agree.

One has to remember that at its most fundamental level reality is quantum. Which means that beyond a certain point it simply isn't possible to know what the initial conditions are. Because that information simply doesn't exist. Hence there's a hard stop beyond which you simply cannot go. The question is, how complex must a system be before the amount of information required to predict its behavior comes squarely up against the amount of information available.

Again, it's not possible.

Your biggest mistake seems to lie in the belief that if we knew the state of every particle in the universe, then we could accurately predict every event from the beginning of the universe until its inevitable demise, but that simply isn't possible.

Agreed again. Even a simply prediction like 'what will you be doing exactly 24 hours from now' is effectively impossible. You could give some degree of probability to it, but you can't predict it. But it will be determined nevertheless.

It's not just that you can't know the state of all of the particles... it's that you can't even know the state of one of them, because they don't have a fixed state. If you measure a particle you'll know what its state was a moment ago, but that won't tell you what its state is now, much less a week from now.

Agreed again. Prediction is virtually impossible other than for very simple systems and for very general cause and effects - if I let the pen go I predict it will fall to the floor. So I can predict the position of the pen in a few seconds time. And I know what determined it. But I can't predict where it will be in a year's time. And I won't know all the conditions that determined where it will be. But its position will undoubtedly have been determined by simple cause and effect.

The world is therefore unpredictable. Yet determined. If it isn't then I need an example of an effect that you can prove had no cause.

 

[Bradskii]

The Big Bang. If time didn't exist before that moment, it didn't have a cause. It was a day without a yesterday.

Two points...

One, we don't know what happened earlier than Plank time. And we don't know what might have been the other side of the BB. I quite like Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology in that the universe is eternally repeating itself. So one universe causes the next. Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia

And two, as @Neogaia777 suggested earlier, we are talking about events that have happened or are happening within the universe. So even IF the universe had no cause, it doesn't affect the determinism within it.

You can't say that the universe had no cause - we simply don't know. And you can't say that if it was unccaused then there must be other unccaused events. That's not a logical conclusion.

 

[NxNW]

I quite like Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology in that the universe is eternally repeating itself. So one universe causes the next. Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia

 It's an interesting hypothesis, but I haven't seen evidence either way. FWIW, I've seen lectures by many of the great scientists of our time on this topic. Not that it makes me an expert on cosmology, but I've seen this topic discussed quite a bit.

So even IF the universe had no cause, it doesn't affect the determinism within it.

Doesn't the Uncertainty Principle limit the precision with which we can describe the state of the universe? Along with quantum tunneling? And I've read some articles discussing how thought and consciousness may be related to quantum mechanics which, if true, is a clear example of how it manifests in the macro world.

You can't say that the universe had no cause - we simply don't know. And you can't say that if it was unccaused then there must be other unccaused events. That's not a logical conclusion.

We don't know, but causation requires time. And one uncaused event is enough to question determinism for me. Thrown in the Uncertainty Principle and I think determinism is highly questionable.

Is your book on this topic?

 

[Bradskii]

I agree, that's how @Bradskii seems to be using the term, but that's not how I'm using it. When I describe something as being 'unpredictable' I'm referring to a fundamental attribute of its nature. Its something who's behavior is by its very nature unpredictable, in which case its action can't possibly be strictly deterministic.

I've given you examples of events that cannot be predicted and yet are deterministic. I can keep doing that as long as you like. And it's what I thought would be obvious that the only determinant for something to be classed as unpredictable is that all events that determine the outcome are unknown or simply too vast to calculate. And that it's equally obvious that just because something is unpredictable that it doesn't mean that there was no cause and effect involved in reaching whatever state you want to consider.

To prove me wrong, you only need to give one example when it can be proved that an effect had no cause. And you have the whole universe and all of the time that it's existed to do that. And I must emphasise that I don't want an example where we didn't know what the cause was. I want an example where it can be shown that there wasn't one.

 

[partinobodycular]

Agreed again. Prediction is virtually impossible other than for very simple systems and for very general cause and effects - if I let the pen go I predict it will fall to the floor. So I can predict the position of the pen in a few seconds time. And I know what determined it. But I can't predict where it will be in a year's time. And I won't know all the conditions that determined where it will be. But its position will undoubtedly have been determined by simple cause and effect.

It's good to see that we're in such agreement, but it does leave me with a question. If a given set of initial conditions can lead to more than one possible outcome, then how can you be certain that the 'will' of the individual isn't the final arbiter in which of those outcomes is ultimately chosen?

 

[Bradskii]

 It's an interesting hypothesis, but I haven't seen evidence either way. FWIW, I've seen lectures by many of the great scientists of our time on this topic. Not that it makes me an expert on cosmology, but I've seen this topic discussed quite a bit.

There are not many that support his view. And I'm not saying that he's right. It's just an idea to throw into the mix.

Doesn't the Uncertainty Principle limit the precision with which we can describe the state of the universe?

Yes. But not knowing exactly how things are at any given point doesn't exclude determinism. It excludes predictability. The two are not the same.

And I've read some articles discussing how thought and consciousness may be related to quantum mechanics which, if true, is a clear example of how it manifests in the macro world.

I've read a fair bit on that. A few people propose it. But when they get down to the details...there aren't any. The best they come up with is something along the lines of 'Something happens deep at the quantum level that's random or unpredictable and works its way up to the macro world - and that gives us free will'. Now how gazillions of quantum events all coincide to wend their way up to the level of your neurons and spark a few million of them to coordinate all the chemical, electrical and physical events that need to happen to cause a decision to have chocolate instead of vanilla is never explained. And can never be explained, as it's not possible.

We don't know, but causation requires time. And one uncaused event is enough to question determinism for me. Thrown in the Uncertainty Principle and I think determinism is highly questionable.

If the uncaused event is the universe, then for reasons given I don't think that can be used in any argument for free will. We need to consider every single event from that moment onwards (if indeed there was a single moment). And uncertainty relates to predictability. Not to determinism.

Is your book on this topic?

My book? Do you mean the one that @Neogaia777 said he might be writing?

 

[Bradskii]

It's good to see that we're in such agreement, but it does leave me with a question. If a given set of initial conditions can lead to more than one possible outcome...

It can't. For any given set of conditions, there is only one outcome. You might say that there is a probability regarding two outcomes that is 50/50. But that is just a reflection of our lack of knowledge of all the conditions. You are assigning a probability to each. But only one will eventuate. And that will be determined.

And that includes you making a decision on two possibilities. The one you choose is determined by that set of conditions, which will include where and when you were born, your dna, your education, your health...there's an infinite number of antecedent conditions over which you had no control that will determine whether you take Path A or Path B.

 

[NxNW]

Doesn't the Uncertainty Principle limit the precision with which we can describe the state of the universe?

Yes. But not knowing exactly how things are at any given point doesn't exclude determinism. It excludes predictability. The two are not the same.

My point is that "how things are" is not a specific condition, but a probability. It's not that the position and speed of an electron are unknown, it's that they both can't exist. So the outcome is not only unpredictable, but it's not determined at all. You can't run the film again, because the images on the film aren't even specifically there.

My book? Do you mean the one that @Neogaia777 said he might be writing?

Sorry, that must be it.

 

[partinobodycular]

But that is just a reflection of our lack of knowledge of all the conditions.

I can't see as you've made any attempt to defend this claim. As has been pointed out to you, when it comes to quantum events it's not simply a matter of a lack of knowledge, rather it's a matter of the knowledge not existing at all. That 'infinite number of antecedent conditions' that you're relying upon simply doesn't exist. Inevitably, any infinite regress of causes is going to run smack up against quantum uncertainty. So unless you're willing to defend superdeterminism you're going to have to accept the fact that at its core reality is nondeterministic.

To illustrate this point let's consider Schrodinger's cat. Before the experiment begins absolutely no amount of information about the state of the universe could possibly tell you whether the cat will end up alive or dead. Not because you don't have enough information... but because the universe itself doesn't have enough information.

 

[Bradskii]

My point is that "how things are" is not a specific condition, but a probability. It's not that the position and speed of an electron are unknown, it's that they both can't exist. So the outcome is not only unpredictable, but it's not determined at all. You can't run the film again, because the images on the film aren't even specifically there.

Sorry, that must be it.

The speed and position both exist. Knowing what they are depends if you measure it as a wave or a particle. You just can't do both at the same time.