Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#13601  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 5:00 am

No,
If a researcher can perform procedures A, B etc those procedures can include any appropriate recording steps. No problem. If you want a generalised recording procedure it will tie result recorded to experimental instrument state. That state will be related to the details of A or B so the correct data can be recorded. There is no conflict with science.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13602  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 5:48 am

ughaibu wrote:The theory states that all human actions are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.
1. for the theory to be correct, there must be at least two empirical sciences: chemistry and physics
2. empirical sciences require it to be the case that if researchers make observations, then they almost always accurately record what they observe
3. therefore, if the theory is correct and a researcher observes the result of performing procedure A, the researcher must almost always accurately record what they observe and if a researcher observes the result of performing procedure B, the researcher must almost always accurately record what they observe
4. a researcher can record the observation of result A by performing procedure C and a researcher can record the observation of result B by performing C
5. if the theory is correct, WLOG, the researcher will perform C
6. therefore, if the theory is correct, for all procedures A and B, the result must be such that it is recorded by C
7. there are As and Bs such that science tells us that they will not both be recorded by C
8. therefore, the theory is inconsistent with science
9. the theory requires science
10. therefore the theory cannot be correct.

Got it yet? It's pretty simple.
GrahamH wrote:No,
If a researcher can perform procedures A, B etc those procedures can include any appropriate recording steps. No problem. If you want a generalised recording procedure it will tie result recorded to experimental instrument state. That state will be related to the details of A or B so the correct data can be recorded. There is no conflict with science.
"No" what? You still haven't got it? And your response makes no sense. Let's suppose that at time one A is Zoon running his computer to tell him what the laws of chemistry and physics entail he will do at time three, the computer returns "C", then at time two B is Zoon on some other computer using different software also running a prediction of what he will do at time three, do you understand that if the theory is correct and these computers are running programs that do what they're designed to do, then either the second computer also returns "C" or the theory is falsified?

And as you have the facility to state the number of the step in the argument that you take exception to, please give that number and write something that clearly interacts with the statement given under that number. Just writing "no", followed by waffle that appears to have no connection to anything I've written is more wasting of space and time.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13603  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 6:07 am

I be set out objections clearly enough. Why can't you follow it? You are just repeating yourself. Perhaps you are acting out your erroneous cartoon rare her role and doing the same thing regardless of circumstance.

6. therefore, if the theory is correct, for all procedures A and B, the result must be such that it is recorded by C

Since you seem to mean that C determines a result not correlated with the specific experiment that makes no sense.

Try describing simple specimen procedures A, B and C. What does the researcher actually do and why?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13604  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 6:22 am

GrahamH wrote:6. therefore, if the theory is correct, for all procedures A and B, the result must be such that it is recorded by C
Since you seem to mean that C determines a result not correlated with the specific experiment that makes no sense.
Of course I don't mean that!

At time zero, by assumption, all future actions of human beings are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics. This means that all facts about what any human being will be doing at time one are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at time zero, and all facts about what any human being will be doing at time two are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at both times zero and time one, and all facts about what any human being will be doing at time three are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at all times zero, one and two, etc. Do you understand this?

Therefore, if the behaviour of the researcher, at time three is a mathematically entailed fact at time three, then the researcher will enact that behaviour regardless of what happens at times one or two. Do you understand this?

But, science requires that researchers must be able to accurately record their observations on almost all occasions. So, if a behaviour at time three has been defined as the recording procedure for two different possible observations, one made at time one and the other made at time two, then the observations made at those times must be those that will be recorded in the way defined. Do you understand this?

If the two observations cannot both be recorded by the same action, then either one of them cannot be recorded or the action for recording that observation was not entailed at time zero. Do you understand this?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13605  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 6:31 am

ughaibu wrote:researchers must be able to accurately record their observations on almost all occasions.


Almost all?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13606  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 6:34 am

ughaibu wrote:

Therefore, if the behaviour of the researcher, at time three is a mathematically entailed fact at time three, then the researcher will enact that behaviour regardless of what happens at times one or two. Do you understand this?



You have confirmed my point. That is your core error.

There is no reason to suppose that human behaviour is uniquely and independently entailed by initial conditions and laws. If humans are entailed everything built on "physics and chemistry" is entailed. So the behaviour at time 3 is certainly not "regardless of what happens at time 2. On the contrary, it is entailed by what happens at all previous times. You can't vary events at time 2 if they are entailed by prior events. That would be supernatural intervention.

Therefore, if the researcher performs A she can record accurate results for A
Last edited by GrahamH on Aug 03, 2019 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13607  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 6:34 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
ughaibu wrote:researchers must be able to accurately record their observations on almost all occasions.
Almost all?
Apparently this caveat is required to discourage uncharitable posts about researchers having strokes, etc. Irritating, isn't it? You'd think the reader would have the nous to fill in such details for themselves.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13608  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 6:40 am

ughaibu wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
ughaibu wrote:researchers must be able to accurately record their observations on almost all occasions.
Almost all?
Apparently this caveat is required to discourage uncharitable posts about researchers having strokes, etc. Irritating, isn't it? You'd think the reader would have the nous to fill in such details for themselves.


The principle of charity does not extend to entertaining your brand of trolling, which is based on the uncharitable notion of 'entailment' when neither determination nor freedom can be demonstrated. You just don't get that, do you? Nothing is logically entailed by a consideration of thermal noise.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 03, 2019 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13609  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 6:42 am

GrahamH wrote:There is no reason to suppose that human behaviour is uniquely and independently entailed by initial conditions and laws.
What the fuck does this mean?

Again: At time zero, by assumption, all future actions of human beings are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics. This means that all facts about what any human being will be doing at time one are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at time zero, and all facts about what any human being will be doing at time two are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at both times zero and time one, and all facts about what any human being will be doing at time three are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at all times zero, one and two, etc. Do you understand this?

GrahamH wrote:it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.
Obviously, this is explicitly stated in the argument.
GrahamH wrote:You can't vary events at time 2 if they are entailed by prior events.
Obviously, this is explicitly stated in the argument.
GrahamH wrote:That would be supernatural intervention.
And it doesn't happen, anywhere in the argument.

How in the absolute living ultra fuck can you still not understand this? And your inability to understand this isn't a feature of the argument, it is a feature of you. So it doesn't constitute an objection.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13610  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 6:46 am

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:There is no reason to suppose that human behaviour is uniquely and independently entailed by initial conditions and laws.
What the fuck does this mean?


It means that, if you can't demonstrate it, the speculation that your desired conclusion is entailed by some half-assed misrepresentation of the laws of chemistry and physics is both arrogant and silly. Since that deterministic behavior cannot be demonstrated by observation, there is no reason to suppose it. Only a pure dichotomist will insist that the alternative is demonstrated by the fact that we cannot demonstrate the former.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 03, 2019 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13611  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 6:51 am

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:There is no reason to suppose that human behaviour is uniquely and independently entailed by initial conditions and laws.
What the fuck does this mean?

Again: At time zero, by assumption, all future actions of human beings are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics. This means that all facts about what any human being will be doing at time one are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at time zero, and all facts about what any human being will be doing at time two are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at both times zero and time one, and all facts about what any human being will be doing at time three are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics at all times zero, one and two, etc. Do you understand this?

GrahamH wrote:it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.
Obviously, this is explicitly stated in the argument.
GrahamH wrote:You can't vary events at time 2 if they are entailed by prior events.
Obviously, this is explicitly stated in the argument.
GrahamH wrote:That would be supernatural intervention.
And it doesn't happen, anywhere in the argument.

How in the absolute living ultra fuck can you still not understand this? And your inability to understand this isn't a feature of the argument, it is a feature of you. So it doesn't constitute an objection.
Take some time to calm down and try to think through this:

"regardless of what happens at time 2." On the contrary, it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.

There is a clear contradiction in your statement. If what happens at t3 s entailed by events at t2 it can't possibly be "regardless" can it? You have no justification for recording the wrong result. The correct result is entailed by what happens in the experiment actually performed.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13612  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 6:54 am

Cito di Pense wrote:It means that, if you can't demonstrate it, the speculation that your desired conclusion is entailed by some half-assed misrepresentation of the laws of chemistry and physics is both arrogant and silly.
Presumably you're aware that according to "actual scientists" it is impossible, even in principle, to compute all a human beings future actions? And as Zoon's theory appeals to the properties of transistors, it requires an entirely non-existent theory of semi-conductance. In short, it's science fiction. As I am pointing out that the scientists are correct but GrahamH is trying to defend Zoon, don't you think you look at little foolish attacking me rather than GrahamH?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13613  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 6:59 am

ughaibu wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:It means that, if you can't demonstrate it, the speculation that your desired conclusion is entailed by some half-assed misrepresentation of the laws of chemistry and physics is both arrogant and silly.
Presumably you're aware that according to "actual scientists" it is impossible, even in principle, to compute all a human beings future actions? And as Zoon's theory appeals to the properties of transistors, it requires an entirely non-existent theory of semi-conductance. In short, it's science fiction. As I am pointing out that the scientists are correct but GrahamH is trying to defend Zoon, don't you think you look at little foolish attacking me rather than GrahamH?


Is Graham insisting that some conclusion is entailed by some failure of computability? No, you are. I'm widely on record as not being kind to zoon's volition of human behavior, because she implies that it might be predictable. She's got her head squarely up her arse on the question of FW.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 03, 2019 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13614  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 7:04 am

GrahamH wrote:"regardless of what happens at time 2." On the contrary, it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.
There is a clear contradiction in your statement.
No, this is either an uncharitable reading or you still haven't understood the argument.
As the behaviour of the researcher at time three is entailed at all other times, it is entailed if the researcher observes x at time two or it is entailed if they observe y at time two.
GrahamH wrote:The correct result is entailed by what happens in the experiment actually performed.
Sure, but what will be recorded is also entailed by "laws of chemistry/physics", that is the assumption. It is precisely because we can construct cases in which "what happens in the experiment actually performed" cannot be that which is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, that the argument works.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13615  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 7:06 am

ughaibu wrote:Presumably you're aware that according to "actual scientists" it is impossible, even in principle, to compute all a human beings future actions?


Completely irrelevant. You are trying to argue from a premise that conditions and laws entail what happens in a world. Given the premises it does not follow that the recording actions of researchers are "regardless" of the experiments they perform.
Last edited by GrahamH on Aug 03, 2019 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13616  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 7:07 am

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"regardless of what happens at time 2." On the contrary, it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.
There is a clear contradiction in your statement.
No, this is either an uncharitable reading or you still haven't understood the argument.


It's an uncharitable reading because you have not earned anyone's indulgence. You haven't shown yourself to be anything other than a discussant of average intelligence with anything but a mediocre education, and almost no relevant education in science.

ughaibu wrote:It's been three months and there has been no new objection posted. To remind you, here is the argument:
ughaibu wrote:1. life requires irreversibility
2. a determined world is fully reversible
3. therefore, there can be no life in a determined world
4. free will requires life
5. therefore, incompatibilism is the case
6. therefore, if there is free will, the libertarian position is correct.


Fifteen or more pages ago, you revived this crap. Because of thermal noise, even if the world is deterministic (and you don't know that it is), processes in the real world are not reversible. The only processes that are reversible are those that never complete (quasi-static process that proceed infinitely slowly). The real world is not reversible. Of course, you could always jump off the deep end and deny reality.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 03, 2019 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13617  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 7:15 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"regardless of what happens at time 2." On the contrary, it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.
There is a clear contradiction in your statement.
No, this is either an uncharitable reading or you still haven't understood the argument.
It's an uncharitable reading because you have not earned anyone's indulgence. You haven't shown yourself to be anything other than a discussant of average intelligence with anything but a mediocre education, and almost no relevant education in science.
Moderators: do you really think this kind of post is tolerable? I'm trying to explain to GrahamH how the argument works, posts like this serve no constructive purpose.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13618  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 7:19 am

ughaibu wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:"regardless of what happens at time 2." On the contrary, it is entailed by what happens at all previous times.
There is a clear contradiction in your statement.
No, this is either an uncharitable reading or you still haven't understood the argument.
It's an uncharitable reading because you have not earned anyone's indulgence. You haven't shown yourself to be anything other than a discussant of average intelligence with anything but a mediocre education, and almost no relevant education in science.
Moderators: do you really think this kind of post is tolerable? I'm trying to explain to GrahamH how the argument works, posts like this serve no constructive purpose.


You've been posting nothing but dichotomistic bollocks, ughaibu. Your basic contention is that since determinism is not demonstrable, free will is entailed. That's bullshit, and hasn't earned a charitable reading. Write something smarter. You don't demonstrate any advanced knowledge of science, yet you're dropping references. You haven't shown you understand the principles of argumentation when you insist something is entailed. What am I to make of your ability and education? A discussion like this one is where you have the opportunity to demonstrate these, and you've now been blagging us for weeks with pure crap.

You asserted that "free will requires life" but you didn't show it in the other direction, that free will is entailed by life.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 03, 2019 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13619  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 7:25 am

Cito di Pense wrote:Your basic contention is that since determinism is not demonstrable, free will is entailed.
No. The present argument demonstrates that science is inconsistent with the stance that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, that's all. This has been explicitly stated plenty of times.
I don't need an argument that entails free will because we have free will by observation. All I need to do is to answer arguments from denialists.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13620  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 7:28 am

ughaibu wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Your basic contention is that since determinism is not demonstrable, free will is entailed.
No. The present argument demonstrates ... blah blah blah


So you say, ughaibu. Have fun with that. To help demonstrate something about chemistry and physics, do more than treat it as nothing more than a series of repeatable observations which is your own straw man oversimplification and misrepresentation.

ughaibu wrote:The present argument demonstrates that science is inconsistent with the stance that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, that's all.


This is just your assertion that science is consistent with sum capacity of humans that is not entailed by the laws of chemistry and physics. Have fun with your circular arguments.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 03, 2019 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests