Free Will

[Neogaia777]

Then use any other method that you accept as being truly random.

I don't accept anything as being truly random, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

The process producing the choice is not arbitrary .. its: the 'no reason' process and no-one but the chooser knows any more about the choice than the chooser themselves and they told you there was no reason. That's all we have to go on. Those who themselves believe: 'it must be random .. therefore not free will' just substituted their own belief in place of: 'no reason'.

I can't put this any plainer: Either there is a reason for any given choise being made OR it is random. That is, there was no reason for making it. And I don't mean no conscious reason but an unconscious one. I mean truly random.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't accept anything as being truly random, etc.

God Bless!

Then there are reasons for all decisions. Re-run the tape and the reasons are the same. So tbe same choice will be made.

 

[Neogaia777]

Then there are reasons for all decisions. Re-run the tape and the reasons are the same. So tbe same choice will be made.

And there is only one way things can, or could, or ever will go.

You are absolutely correct, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And I am going to be playing an online video game with a friend soon, so if I don't get a response here in the next 30 minutes or an hour or so, then I am then going to busy doing that for awhile, so you guys will know what happened to me, etc.

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

Then there are reasons for all decisions. Re-run the tape and the reasons are the same. So tbe same choice will be made.

Do you believe in the Butterfly Effect?

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you believe in the Butterfly Effect?

The way a butterfly flapping it's wings effects/affects something halfway across the world (if it does) can be predicted using maths, so it's not really evidence for choas theory, or free will, but it just might seem that way to us, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Friend just called, he's ready/free to play, I'll check in on this later.

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

The way a butterfly flapping it's wings effects/affects something halfway across the world (if it does) can be predicted using maths,

I don't believe that at all.

I'd say that kind of technology doesn't exist.

 

[SelfSim]

I can't put this any plainer: Either there is a reason for any given choise being made OR it is random.

Just restating your evidently believed-in true posit there .. not much 'juice' in just a belief for me, I'm afraid.

That is, there was no reason for making it. And I don't mean no conscious reason but an unconscious one. I mean truly random.

How would anyone possibly know whether there was an unconscious one?

Y'know, (moving forward), human thinking can't be reasonably modelled as kind some linear time invariant system deterministic system. There are other system models which could be brought to bear on this matter ..

 

[SelfSim]

The way a butterfly flapping it's wings effects/affects something halfway across the world (if it does) can be predicted using maths, so it's not really evidence for choas theory, or free will, but it just might seem that way to us, etc.

.. A total mish-mash of misunderstanding about the real import of the so-called 'Butterfly Effect'.

The point is that errors in starting conditions can accumulate in non linear systems, thereby thwarting predictability expected from non linear models at certain scales, prior to Lorenz's research on the topic. (Now well understood mainstream knowledge).

 

[SelfSim]

If we're going to dabble in modelling free will and determinism mathematically, one needs to contemplate the proved differences between linear time invariant deterministic and non-linear systems.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you believe in the Butterfly Effect?

In the sense that everything is interconnected, yes. But that doesn't mean that any given event will directly effect another or even have any affect at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Just restating your evidently believed-in true posit there .. not much 'juice' in just a belief for me, I'm afraid.
How would anyone possibly know whether there was an unconscious one?

There aren't many options between having a reason for doing something and not having a reason for doing something.

And there is either a conscious/subconscious reason for doing something or there isn't. Whether you know if it unconscious or not is irrelevant. That reason is there...or it isn't.

 

[Neogaia777]

.. A total mish-mash of misunderstanding about the real import of the so-called 'Butterfly Effect'.

The point is that errors in starting conditions can accumulate in non linear systems, thereby thwarting predictability expected from non linear models at certain scales, prior to Lorenz's research on the topic. (Now well understood mainstream knowledge).

I believe that once you fully know, and have the right maths, all is linear, or only has one way it can, or could, or will go...

And @Bradskii's reasonings about the past on this should be enough to "prove" it, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

If we're going to dabble in modelling free will and determinism mathematically, one needs to contemplate the proved differences between linear time invariant deterministic and non-linear systems.

Linear time invariant deterministic, etc.

When you have and know all the right maths, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Y'know, (moving forward), human thinking can't be reasonably modelled as kind some linear time invariant system deterministic system.

And just why the heck not???

Human behavior, human thinking and thoughts, the world, it all "can", etc, just not completely by us right now, etc.

Still waiting on that example BTW...?

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

Linear time invariant deterministic, etc.

When you have and know all the right maths, etc.

God Bless!

When God gave us our freewill, I'm sure His intent was not to let mathematics interfere.

Mathematics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus -- if their intentions are to lead us about -- can all take a hike.

 

[Neogaia777]

The point is that errors in starting conditions can accumulate in non linear systems, thereby thwarting predictability expected from non linear models at certain scales, prior to Lorenz's research on the topic. (Now well understood mainstream knowledge).

Maybe that's because you're trying to impose non-linear reasoning on what is in truth and reality, and by nature, a deterministic linear system, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

When God gave us our freewill, I'm sure His intent was not to let mathematics interfere.

Mathematics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus -- if their intentions are to lead us about -- can all take a hike.

Well, go take a hike then, I guess...

Who knows, it might do you some good, lol...

God Bless!