Free Will

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

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#13621  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 7:45 am

GrahamH wrote:
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.
Why did you answer this post, that wasn't addressed to you, but ignore the one that was? Should I interpret this to mean that you've now understood the argument?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13622  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 7:56 am

I understand your argument is nonsense and I understand you are not sincere.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20149

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13623  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 8:07 am

GrahamH wrote:I understand your argument is nonsense and I u stand you after not sincere.
Come on, you still haven't demonstrated that you understand the argument, and you certainly haven't shown that there is anything wrong with it. Who appears to be insincere here?

Anyway, let's look at the weaker argument:
ughaibu wrote:let's assume you're correct and that there are some laws of chemistry and physics which, together with a relevant description of the brain and its environment, mathematically entail all future human behaviour. Now let's pose the question what will you be doing between 10.25 and 10:30? According to you this is fully entailed by laws and can, in principle, we computed. Take six pairs of trousers and number them, one to six, do the same for six shirts, six locations in your room, six colours and six animals, then roll five dice and wearing the clothes that match the first two dice, sit in the position indicated by the third dice drawing, in the colour indicated by the fourth dice, the animal indicated by the fifth, during the period between 10:25 and 10:30. What we're doing here is equivalent to recording our observation of the result of rolling the dice, so our ability to do science guarantees that we can do this, but if you're correct, then this means that we can compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics, by rolling dice, and that is nonsense.
This argument doesn't entail a contradiction, but it does demonstrate that holding the stance that all human behaviour is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics commits one to the corollary that we can figure out some things that are entailed by laws of chemistry/physics by rolling dice. Of course this argument can be adjusted so that we figure out what the laws entail by reading horoscopes, tarot cards, chicken intestines, etc. Is this commitment worthwhile for the free will denier? If so, how?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13624  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 8:08 am

ughaibu wrote:Why did you answer this post, that wasn't addressed to you, but ignore the one that was?


You posted a comment in a public forum. The whining you're doing up there is spectacularly amateurish.
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28774
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: Free Will

#13625  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 03, 2019 8:12 am

ughaibu wrote:This argument doesn't entail a contradiction, but it does demonstrate that holding the stance that all human behaviour is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics commits one to the corollary that we can figure out some things that are entailed by laws of chemistry/physics by rolling dice.


And we could discuss that if it is really a claim anyone is making. At worst, someone is stating that it cannot be demonstrated that human behavior is demonstrably accounted for by anything beyond discernible laws of chemistry and physics. What most discussants have acknowledged is that human behavior has not been "fully explained" by scientific arguments, whatever that could, er, entail (in your misrepresentation of it).
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28774
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: Free Will

#13626  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 11:49 am

This absurdity says it all really:

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.


If a researcher can't follow a procedure to arcuately record results how could they follow a procedure to conduct an experiment?

If people act "regardless" how would they feed themselves?


Ughaibu should conclude that under the assumption of determinism life is impossible. Which was more or less his claim in a different guise. So evolution as a process of natural law is out. He's a creationist.


I suppose the full absurdity of ughaibu's position is too obvious if stated plainly so we got the obfuscated version hiding behind "science" and diversionary appeals to intuition about 'random' coin tosses and dice rolls.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20149

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13627  Postby zoon » Aug 03, 2019 12:06 pm

ughaibu wrote:
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?

Going along with your thought experiment of a fully determinate universe, the assumption is that everything in that universe, not just humans, is mathematically entailed from time zero. OK, a human’s behaviour at time 3 is fully determined and would not change, but the behaviour of everything, human or non-human, at times 1 and 2 is also fully determined by the mathematical laws of physics and chemistry, and cannot change. Since, if determinism is the case, there's no possibility of alternative events at times 1 or 2, determinism would not decouple the recorder’s behaviour from prior events in the way you suggest.

(I think I’m repeating the point made by GrahamH in post #13606 above: “There is no reason to suppose that human behaviour is uniquely and independently entailed by initial conditions and laws”?)
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3180

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13628  Postby zoon » Aug 03, 2019 12:17 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:……
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.

Folk psychology already predicts human behaviour. The predictions are far from perfect, but they are also well above chance, and they are accurate enough to be useful. For example, people generally turn up for work more or less on time as expected, and this wouldn’t happen if human actions were no more predictable than thermal noise.

If folk psychology can manage this degree of accuracy in spite of all the thermal noise in human brains, I see no obvious reason why neuroscience should not, in the future, predict humans at least as well, and potentially better.

I think free will is a useful concept while we still use folk psychology to manage social life. If neuroscience overtakes folk psychology for managing social life, then I think free will may become a redundant concept. This would not require anything like perfect prediction, only predictions that are more accurate than the ones already achieved by evolved, pre-scientific folk psychology.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3180

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13629  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 12:25 pm

GrahamH wrote:This absurdity says it all really:
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.
If a researcher can't follow a procedure to arcuately record results how could they follow a procedure to conduct an experiment?
But I have just explained to you that the argument works by deriving this absurdity.
I've had enough of talking to you about the two observation argument, if you don't understand it, so what?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13630  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 12:37 pm

zoon wrote:Since, if determinism is the case, there's no possibility of alternative events at times 1 or 2, determinism would not decouple the recorder’s behaviour from prior events in the way you suggest.
What is going on? This argument is very simple.
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or there is no science, is there?
So, if we construct a situation in which science commits us to the conclusion that the researcher cannot behave both as is entailed by the requirements of science and as entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, then we will have demonstrated an inconsistency between science and the stance that laws of chemistry/physics entail all human behaviour, won't we?
Well that is what the argument demonstrates, and I just can't see how you two could still not have got your heads round it. Instead of replying, think about it.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13631  Postby zoon » Aug 03, 2019 1:56 pm

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Since, if determinism is the case, there's no possibility of alternative events at times 1 or 2, determinism would not decouple the recorder’s behaviour from prior events in the way you suggest.
What is going on? This argument is very simple.
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or there is no science, is there?
So, if we construct a situation in which science commits us to the conclusion that the researcher cannot behave both as is entailed by the requirements of science and as entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, then we will have demonstrated an inconsistency between science and the stance that laws of chemistry/physics entail all human behaviour, won't we?
Well that is what the argument demonstrates, and I just can't see how you two could still not have got your heads round it. Instead of replying, think about it.

You write:
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?


OK, I will go along with this for the thought experiment of a fully deterministic universe.

In a fully deterministic universe, the laws of chemistry/physics also mathematically entail the behaviour of a flipped coin at time two. It follows that at time two, the coin will land in one way, and no other. There is only one possibility for the coin’s landing, there is only one possibility for the researcher’s behaviour, and you have not shown that science is impossible.

Suppose there are 2 deterministic universes, A and B. In universe A, the coin lands heads at time two. In universe B, the coin lands tails at time two. There is no way the coin can land tails at time two in universe A, or heads in universe B. The researcher’s behaviour at time three is fully determined in universe A, and the researcher’s behaviour at time three is also fully determined in universe B, but there’s no requirement for the researcher to behave in the same way in the two different universes. Your argument does not disprove the possibility of science in either of the deterministic universes.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3180

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13632  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 2:01 pm

ughaibu wrote:
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or [and] there is no science, is[n't] there?


There you go. Simple.

Your 'argument' demonstrates nothing except that you can construct arguments that are self contradictory and mistake them for valid logic.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20149

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13633  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 2:12 pm

zoon wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Since, if determinism is the case, there's no possibility of alternative events at times 1 or 2, determinism would not decouple the recorder’s behaviour from prior events in the way you suggest.
What is going on? This argument is very simple.
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or there is no science, is there?
So, if we construct a situation in which science commits us to the conclusion that the researcher cannot behave both as is entailed by the requirements of science and as entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, then we will have demonstrated an inconsistency between science and the stance that laws of chemistry/physics entail all human behaviour, won't we?
Well that is what the argument demonstrates, and I just can't see how you two could still not have got your heads round it. Instead of replying, think about it.
You write:
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
OK, I will go along with this for the thought experiment of a fully deterministic universe.
In a fully deterministic universe, the laws of chemistry/physics also mathematically entail the behaviour of a flipped coin at time two. It follows that at time two, the coin will land in one way, and no other. There is only one possibility for the coin’s landing, there is only one possibility for the researcher’s behaviour, and you have not shown that science is impossible.
To repeat, determinism is metaphysical theses, it requires laws of nature, not laws of science. Laws of chemistry and laws of physics are laws of science.
Now, to remind you yet afuckinggain, in the two observation argument, the one that demonstrates a contradiction, there is another observation which is independent of the coin toss.
ughaibu wrote:If we assume that the first claim is true, then there is a time one at which the description and the laws mathematically entail all the future behaviour of two humans A and B. At time two A says "heads you buy, tails I do" and B agrees, at time three A tosses a coin that lands tails up and at time four A buys the drinks for both of them. This is an everyday situation that I'm sure any reader has been in at some time, so you know this behaviour is unproblematically possible, but more to the point, it is another example of a procedure for recording an observation, so it is required by our ability to do science that we can behave like this. In short, if we have the experimental apparatus, in this case a standard coin, and we have the recording equipment, in this case someone selling drinks and enough money to buy a round, then either science is impossible or we can toss the coin and record the result by one of us buying the drinks. [ ] Now consider a different proposal by A, "if your birthday is closer to today, I buy, if mine's closer, you buy". Again, this is equivalent to recording an observation, so they must be able to buy according to the proximity of their birthdays, or there is no science. But this entails that if they combine the methods, then the two methods must agree, otherwise one of the observations can't be recorded. Now we can cut out the drinking and simplify the experiment; if claim 1 is correct, then either there is science or we can find out which of two people's birthdays is closer to today by tossing a coin. Of course we can't do this and there is science, so claim 1 is incorrect.
Hence we get the structure spelled out here:
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.
Seriously, can you at least follow the thread, even if you can't understand the arguments.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13634  Postby felltoearth » Aug 03, 2019 2:13 pm

zoon wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Since, if determinism is the case, there's no possibility of alternative events at times 1 or 2, determinism would not decouple the recorder’s behaviour from prior events in the way you suggest.
What is going on? This argument is very simple.
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or there is no science, is there?
So, if we construct a situation in which science commits us to the conclusion that the researcher cannot behave both as is entailed by the requirements of science and as entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, then we will have demonstrated an inconsistency between science and the stance that laws of chemistry/physics entail all human behaviour, won't we?
Well that is what the argument demonstrates, and I just can't see how you two could still not have got your heads round it. Instead of replying, think about it.

You write:
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?


OK, I will go along with this for the thought experiment of a fully deterministic universe.

In a fully deterministic universe, the laws of chemistry/physics also mathematically entail the behaviour of a flipped coin at time two. It follows that at time two, the coin will land in one way, and no other. There is only one possibility for the coin’s landing, there is only one possibility for the researcher’s behaviour, and you have not shown that science is impossible.

Suppose there are 2 deterministic universes, A and B. In universe A, the coin lands heads at time two. In universe B, the coin lands tails at time two. There is no way the coin can land tails at time two in universe A, or heads in universe B. The researcher’s behaviour at time three is fully determined in universe A, and the researcher’s behaviour at time three is also fully determined in universe B, but there’s no requirement for the researcher to behave in the same way in the two different universes. Your argument does not disprove the possibility of science in either of the deterministic universes.


^This. Hopefully it sinks in.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 12200
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13635  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 2:16 pm

GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or [and] there is no science, is[n't] there?


There you go. Simple.

Your 'argument' demonstrates nothing except that you can construct arguments that are self contradictory and mistake them for valid logic.
Your chance has gone. I am not going to spend any more time attempting to explain an argument that you clearly either have no interest in understanding or are pretending not to understand. If you have a serious response, unlucky, you cried "wolf" too many times.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13636  Postby GrahamH » Aug 03, 2019 2:27 pm

ughaibu wrote:Now we can cut out the drinking and simplify the experiment



You should cut out the drinking, or whatever you are on that allows you to think you have a valid argument there.


if they combine the methods, then the two methods must agree


FFS :nono:


If they could combine the methods you would have A and B both buying the first round. It's a basic logical contradiction to claim that A does and does not buy the first round.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20149

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13637  Postby newolder » Aug 03, 2019 2:33 pm

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

Yes, there are charge/parity experiments, linked to earlier by GrahamH, iirc, that show this violation in nature (where procedure C is: look at the interaction in a mirror).
8. therefore, the theory is inconsistent with science

Not at all. All we need is a theory of science (see CKM matrices) to account for the violation.

9. the theory requires science
10. therefore the theory cannot be correct.


Do you understand CP violation and its resolution by theoretical physics? Here's a useful paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0605217.pdf
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6641
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13638  Postby ughaibu » Aug 03, 2019 2:39 pm

Okay, I got it. You're free will deniers for no reason that you can state, when you can't answer an argument you engage in mob tactics and misrepresentation, either that or you just don't understand the arguments. In any case, I think I have a satisfactory explanation for the free will denial on this site and there appears to be no possibility of getting any constructive feedback on anything I post, so, have a nice life.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13639  Postby zoon » Aug 03, 2019 3:07 pm

ughaibu wrote:………
in the two observation argument, the one that demonstrates a contradiction, there is another observation which is independent of the coin toss.
ughaibu wrote:If we assume that the first claim is true, then there is a time one at which the description and the laws mathematically entail all the future behaviour of two humans A and B. At time two A says "heads you buy, tails I do" and B agrees, at time three A tosses a coin that lands tails up and at time four A buys the drinks for both of them. This is an everyday situation that I'm sure any reader has been in at some time, so you know this behaviour is unproblematically possible, but more to the point, it is another example of a procedure for recording an observation, so it is required by our ability to do science that we can behave like this. In short, if we have the experimental apparatus, in this case a standard coin, and we have the recording equipment, in this case someone selling drinks and enough money to buy a round, then either science is impossible or we can toss the coin and record the result by one of us buying the drinks. [ ] Now consider a different proposal by A, "if your birthday is closer to today, I buy, if mine's closer, you buy". Again, this is equivalent to recording an observation, so they must be able to buy according to the proximity of their birthdays, or there is no science. But this entails that if they combine the methods, then the two methods must agree, otherwise one of the observations can't be recorded. Now we can cut out the drinking and simplify the experiment; if claim 1 is correct, then either there is science or we can find out which of two people's birthdays is closer to today by tossing a coin. Of course we can't do this and there is science, so claim 1 is incorrect.

You are not describing a fully deterministic universe. OK, at time four a certain person buys a round and this is mathematically entailed by the laws of science in that universe. Fine, time four is determined. But time two, in your scenario, is seriously undetermined. At time two, you are saying there are (at least) two different possibilities:
1) At time two A says "heads you buy, tails I do", or
2) At time two A says "if your birthday is closer to today, I buy, if mine's closer, you buy".
If the universe is fully determinate, then there’s no way both of those possibilities are open at time two. Accordingly, you are not talking about a determinate universe, but an indeterminate one, and your argument has no bearing on whether science is possible in a determinate universe.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3180

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13640  Postby felltoearth » Aug 03, 2019 3:48 pm

ughaibu wrote:Okay, I got it. You're free will deniers for no reason that you can state, when you can't answer an argument you engage in mob tactics and misrepresentation, either that or you just don't understand the arguments. In any case, I think I have a satisfactory explanation for the free will denial on this site and there appears to be no possibility of getting any constructive feedback on anything I post, so, have a nice life.

There have been constructive responses here but you can’t even entertain the possibility that there is a problem with your argument so you ignore them and simply double down on the same mistakes you’ve been making since you revived this thread.
Let’s be clear here. I am not a denier or an asserter for either free will or determinism. I am on the fence but the emotional labour vs actual scientific evidence presented by the free will crowd makes me wonder what’s in it for likes of you to be so incredulous that you can’t even acknowledge responses to your hypothesis and respond in kind. Put aside your emotional investment in the subject (i.e Libertarian free will *MUST* be true) and engage with what is actually be written here.
I recommend as a starting point you read the paper New Older posted above then take it from there.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 12200
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests