No problem. I will continue to use the label "unscientific" for people who insist on claiming that falsified statements are true. It is probably what I should do anyway.Originally Posted by mal4mac
No problem. I will continue to use the label "unscientific" for people who insist on claiming that falsified statements are true. It is probably what I should do anyway.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
But you say yourself that, "I think the only way to get to determinism is through some form of many worlds". So you admit that determinism is a possibility! It is unscientific to believe that any of these interpretations are "true". You might prefer one model, in certain circumstances, because it helps you do your calculations better. Or you might prefer another model because it seems "neater" or "hangs better". That is, your acceptance of a particular model is down to utility or taste, not because it is the best scientific model.
What I understand now, after many discussions on Lit Net and going over the links and referenced books, is that many worlds is not even an interpretation of quantum physics. It cannot derive the Born probabilities. This is not a question of aesthetic preference or convenience. Many worlds isn't even one of the options to choose from.
Why do people say that many worlds interprets anything of value about quantum physics? That's the question that is on my mind. To maintain that something is an interpretation all the while admitting it is not an interpretation is to think irrationally.
I remember reading that John Bell claimed that a superdeterminism is the only way out of the nonlocality of quantum reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism To prove our reality is superdeterministic would require proving that we are as deluded about who we are as people in a "Matrix" sort of universe.
The only reason I can see for someone to want something like that is because they want to salvage an outdated metaphysical box that they are in. It is easier to just get out of the box. Science has falsified the deterministic metaphysics anyway.
One doesn't have to accept that falsification, but doing that would make one "unscientific". In itself that is fine. One doesn't have to be scientific. However, if one claims one is nonetheless "scientific" even though one accepts a falsified theory, that challenges logical consistency and would mean one's thought processes are irrational. All that goes to show is how powerful metaphysics can be.
Last edited by YesNo; 10-26-2013 at 10:41 AM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Sorry, you don't get to declare that, the physics community still feels it is a valid option. You can say *you* don't think it's a valid option, but that leaves you with having to work very hard to convince the physics community of your view.
Well, that is all I'm claiming.
All that exists are individuals who each make their own choices as to what interpretations each accept as valid.
I've made my arguments why many worlds is not an interpretation of quantum physics. You can accept them or not, but invoking a bogus authority is not an argument for many worlds.
Last edited by YesNo; 10-26-2013 at 05:22 PM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
If consciousness arises out of the quantum world, and the inderterminancy of that world is somehow imparted without its randomness, there can be free will. Can there be indeterminancy without randomness? Is randoness actual, or a mere construct? We cannot mechanically reproduce it. That is why all programs and mechanical attempts to produce it are known as peuedo-random.
In everyday life, when we use the term "free will" we usually refer to a lack of constraint or coercion. For example, if someone says, "I came here of my own free will," it means that no one compelled the person to make the trip. There was no physical force used, nor was there any sort of threat made to the person's career, family or future-well being. Because of the lack of coercion, the person felt unconstrained, able to make a personal choice without fear of retribution.
i have heard a judge ask, "Did you enter into this agreement of your own free will?" The implication is the same as in the first example: no coercion of any kind was applied.
But if I ask myself, "Do I have free will?" I am not worrying about coercion or threat. Rather I am wondering whether I can really, inside myself, decide anything at all on my own -- in some deep sense. At the same time, I know in the ordinary way that I decide many things every day. On days when I cannot decide anything, I cannot do anything. But such days are rare. Usually I am making little decisions all the time.
So in discussing free will, it seems that we are not speaking about coercion, nor about our inherent ability to make decisions. So what then do we mean by "free will"? I don't think we really have any idea. But if we don't know what we are talking about, and cannot agree on what it is, can we really learn much by going on talking about it anyway?
I do not think we can learn anything from such a discussion.
My favorite philosopher is Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I agree with this. Free will is an intention to make a choice even if we agree to do what we seem coerced to do. A robot does not intend to do something. What gets done is determined by a program that the robot has to follow.
Well that's how I'm trying to define free will at the moment until it gets shot down. Then I'll make an intention and choose to fix it. Or not.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
one way of explicating the meaning of 'free will' would be to talk of 'unimpeded will' or will free from impediment. We think of coercion in 'external' terms so to speak but could we think of 'internal' impediments that would prevent the will from being free? One thing that has come into my mind is the absence of knowledge. I cannot will an action like riding a bike unless I have acquired the procedural knowledge to allow me to do so. I think that this raises a further issue and that is, is free will a matter of degree or is it an absolute?
To keep this going, I'll say that I think free will is a matter of degree. We have enough free will to make choices in many circumstances such as which words to type in a post.
There are two sources of people who think we do not have free will:
(1) Those who think unconscious mechanisms determine everything such as quantum particles, selfish genes or neurons, and
(2) those who think conscious beings determine our behavior such as angels, gods, demons, other people, plants or animals.
In either case our free will has too many constraints on it for us to make any choice. Without denying the possible existence of either of these sets of constraints, I think we have enough free will to make choices.
Last edited by YesNo; 02-13-2015 at 09:56 PM.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Free Will or determinism will never be proved or disproved. Is the dealing machine at your local casino random? No, it is psuedo-random. No human can tell the difference on an empirical level. We have psuedo-free will. The complexity of reality makes it seem as if we have free will. Actually, that is good enough. Psuedo-free will allows what seem like (and may be) choices to intervene, allowing us a belief in our moral responsibility. Not a bad thing.
Isn't there a psychological aspect to the question in terms of a need to believe in free will? Is it what Nietzsche called a 'useful fiction' and is something that might have psychosocial justification if perhaps not a metaphysical basis so to speak? Or can we live 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity' to borrow the title of B F Skinner's book?
There is also an issue that has puzzled me although I have not delved into it very deeply and my thinking may be quite muddled. If we were to assume that the origins of language involve the construction of 'rough and ready tools' - excuse my imprecise metaphor - then how can a term such as 'freewill' precisely correspond to any definite type of 'object' (although obviously we would probably say a free agent is a 'subject'). If our understanding of the term 'free will' is necessarily imprecise - born of 'rough and ready' origins then can we ever actually get round to answering the existential question - is there such a thing as 'free will?' What lawyers do is stipulate definitions but surely that's not the path of philosophy...
There is a book on causality by Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum, "Causality: A Very Short Introduction", which discusses the issue of determinism through the idea of causality. I think the current philosophical preference is for something called "dispositionalism". It allows free will within limits.
How one approaches causality will affect how one understands free will.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Would some people have more free will than others? If it exists, is it necessarily a universal constant?
I call our free will ersatz free will. It looks and feels like the real thing. It is the real thing in our experience. Its limits are expressed in the form of counter forces. In the old days they called the counter force evil or the devil or temptation.
We always do what we want. Every single time our actions are under our own control. This does not apply to a man being led in handcuffs to prison. Even when we do something voluntarily that we hate, we must want to do it more than not doing it, or we would not decide to do it. One might hate mowing the lawn, but submits to the counter force of one's harping mate as the easier route--in other words a choice, though it is a hard choice, and what one, in the end, wants to do. If the counteforces were not strong there would be no concept of free will. Some choices only win by a small amount, others are runaway winners. Whatever their margins of victory, it is them that now enter the world of causation. One can also believe those choices that enter the world of causation were already in it via the chemical constituents that "help" us make decisions. Maybe, but at that point we are down to merely suspecting things. The limits of what are tradtionally called good and evil exist only in the opposite counter force. This model is only a huge abstraction that reduces everything to counter forces. Every decision is not clearcut. Because our wills have effects not only upon our own bodies but the sensibilities and actions of others, we consider with each decision much more than our hedonistic drives. Our will involves others. It always does. More factors come into play than we could possibly differentiate.
There is some idea in philosophy that if a will does not succumb each time to the hedonistic impulse over every other impulse, it must not be free. We do what we want each time. Hedonism turns out be only one stream of influence.
It seems to me that whatever arguements you make for any form of free-will, they are destined to die wriggling on the barbed hook of determinism - and rightly so.
Nietzsche's phrase 'useful fiction' as mentioned by russellb above, or even 'necessary fiction' are as good as it gets for free-will.
It's surprising how many people find it difficult to let go of the concept of free-will. The arguements for it seem to be based more on a desperation for determinism not to be true, rather than the logical acceptance that whichever direction you take, you always end up back wriggling on that hook.
Accepting determinism doesn't really change anything, we just go on living our day-to-day lives as if free-will did exist and pay the consequences thus, but perhaps with a little more empathy.
Last edited by Michael T; 03-19-2016 at 06:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote