John Platko wrote:
I suspect I lean more towards believing hard determinism because I have great faith in science and tend to believe a guy like Sean Carroll - I certainly take his analysis more seriously than Luboš Motl.

Then you by definition must lean towards things not being able to being otherwise with exception quantum phenomena which are not clear but likely deterministic in a probabilistic sense.

And if we can't be sure of completely how reality ticks (and here I agree with you) then we "should' be go with where our interpretation of the data takes us.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

So the initial conditions don't determine the outcome - that's so what!

Yes they do. They obviously do. If you record those values that are external to the code and plug them back in again you get the exact same results over and over. If you put the seed values in the code you get entirely repeatable results, as your own snippet of code demonstrates.

It would defeat the point of the program to record the values external to the code and plug them back in. But that's irrelevant, that's not what the code does. To rerun the actual program and get the same results one would have to roll back time.

That is so obviously false it destroys any credibility you may have had regarding computing. Plainly, demonstrably, you do get the exact same results without manipulating time, merely by capturing all the input data.

It makes no sense to "capture all the input data" (whatever that mean to you) in a program that is using real time system state as input. It's like if I had a program that does different things depending on the temperature of the cpu to capture the state of the cpu temperature the first time the program is run and then always use that so I get the same results. That's a different program than the one that works off actual system state.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: Atheists need to write the dogma of all religion.

I don't have this need at all John.

I have a desire not be annoyed. And that annoyance is caused having to translate much in to Platkoland terminology.

Why do you need to translate anything. I'm always happy to explain exactly what I mean by a word so there is no conflation. But in any case, it's not my fault if you attach some meaning to certain words like: soul and angel that you can't or won't explain. Maybe I'm right, maybe the words mean what say they mean. Maybe you prefer the words to seem nonsensical, and it bugs you when I make them sensible

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I suspect I lean more towards believing hard determinism because I have great faith in science and tend to believe a guy like Sean Carroll - I certainly take his analysis more seriously than Luboš Motl.

Then you by definition must lean towards things not being able to being otherwise with exception quantum phenomena which are not clear but likely deterministic in a probabilistic sense.

And if we can't be sure of completely how reality ticks (and here I agree with you) then we "should' be go with where our interpretation of the data takes us.

I'm basically fine with all that. I have no need to quibble over words. If you're explanation gets you to: we need to be loving and compassionate to others because they're not in control of all they do - and it may all have been dialed in by the laws and physics then I'm good with that. Now how do we go about doing that given the laws of physics are in control?

John Platko wrote:
It makes no sense to "capture all the input data" (whatever that mean to you) in a program that is using real time system state as input. It's like if I had a program that does different things depending on the temperature of the cpu to capture the state of the cpu temperature the first time the program is run and then always use that so I get the same results. That's a different program than the one that works off actual system state.

What I don't get is why are you taking data from potentially a true random number and using that to seed a PRNG?

There is a periodicity in a PRNG ... it might be very large but it is there.

I think random.org gives a good summary of the issues around random number generators here.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
It makes no sense to "capture all the input data" (whatever that mean to you) in a program that is using real time system state as input. It's like if I had a program that does different things depending on the temperature of the cpu to capture the state of the cpu temperature the first time the program is run and then always use that so I get the same results. That's a different program than the one that works off actual system state.

What I don't get is why are you taking data from potentially a true random number and using that to seed a PRNG?

There is a periodicity in a PRNG ... it might be very large but it is there.

I think random.org gives a good summary of the issues around random number generators here.

I'm aware of the issues, romansh. This is just meant to be a simple, and therefore easy to understand, example of how computer programs can be written in a way that does not produce repeatable output from run to run.

John Platko wrote:
I'm aware of the issues, romansh. This is just meant to be a simple, and therefore easy to understand, example of how computer programs can be written in a way that does not produce repeatable output from run to run.

But if you are seeding a PRNG they are repeatable but just highly unlikely but more likely than if you used TRNGs.

Why not use a TRNG and have done with it ... more clunky and expensive (likely)?

So what does all this have to do with a hard determinist's free will?

Just to be clear Carroll (and Dennett) is a soft determinist not a hard determinist.

John Platko wrote:
I'm basically fine with all that. I have no need to quibble over words. If you're explanation gets you to: we need to be loving and compassionate to others because they're not in control of all they do - and it may all have been dialed in by the laws and physics then I'm good with that. Now how do we go about doing that given the laws of physics are in control?

I did not quite say that ...
1) I am definitely not in control in who or what I feel loving about or compassionate for.
2) But it does give me a sense that it could not have been otherwise and depending on the conditions at that moment I might be more likely to give some slack.

My advice on what to do next? In one sense go with the flow ... be aware as much as we can.

I really like Sagan's quote here:


We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

Here's a little sound bite my constructors made for me ...

When I look deep into myself
I see the universe quietly staring back

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Yes they do. They obviously do. If you record those values that are external to the code and plug them back in again you get the exact same results over and over. If you put the seed values in the code you get entirely repeatable results, as your own snippet of code demonstrates.

It would defeat the point of the program to record the values external to the code and plug them back in. But that's irrelevant, that's not what the code does. To rerun the actual program and get the same results one would have to roll back time.

That is so obviously false it destroys any credibility you may have had regarding computing. Plainly, demonstrably, you do get the exact same results without manipulating time, merely by capturing all the input data.

It makes no sense to "capture all the input data" (whatever that mean to you) in a program that is using real time system state as input. It's like if I had a program that does different things depending on the temperature of the cpu to capture the state of the cpu temperature the first time the program is run and then always use that so I get the same results. That's a different program than the one that works off actual system state.

There it is in your own word: "using real time system state as input". That's it, the input, that can be captured and replayed, that determines the program output. The program has no freedom. It draws it's apparent freedom/creativity from the outside world. Perhaps that is also true of humans. Perhaps there is genuine indeterminacy in the outside world, maybe not, but all your concepts of free will seem to rest on something from outside of you to mix things up and make you, or your programs, unpredictable. If we know the input states we have perfect prediction of your programme. The question that remains is whether that is also true of us. The answer for computers is definitive and for humans it is perhaps unanswerable.

John Platko wrote:

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Why is it ok for a term like Atom to be endlessly redefined to fit the best understanding of physical reality we have but terms like: soul, and angel must remain as they were conceived thousands of years ago without the benefit of what we now know and without the advantage of the modes of explanation we now have available?

Er...because the term still today has widespread meaning as something else?

John, if I were unable, like you, to shake off the sticky bits of religion, then I too might enjoy trying to rehabilitate its woo language. As it is, I don't.

And yet I seem to recall that you admitted that the word soul has a lot of baggage for you. It doesn't have any baggage for me.

I don't remember saying the word had baggage specifically for me. It has widespread baggage though, that's for sure.

As for it supposedly not having baggage for you, I don't believe you.

Most of all, your notions about it are incoherent. So not only are you using a word loaded with baggage, but it isn't even appropriate. Souls, as you call them, do not survive death. They don't even survive life for anyone who gets dementia.

Basically, you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole in your mission to rescue woo.

I'm not inclined to get into your use of the word 'Angel' because my guess is that something similar is going on.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I'm aware of the issues, romansh. This is just meant to be a simple, and therefore easy to understand, example of how computer programs can be written in a way that does not produce repeatable output from run to run.

But if you are seeding a PRNG they are repeatable but just highly unlikely but more likely than if you used TRNGs.

Why not use a TRNG and have done with it ... more clunky and expensive (likely)?

It was just on example of how programs can be written in ways that make their output unpredictable - even if you know all the code and initial conditions. And there are many other ways this can, and does, happen in complicated programs. - Which gets us back to the point of free will that Seth Lloyd was making.

So what does all this have to do with a hard determinist's free will?

Nothing.

Just to be clear Carroll (and Dennett) is a soft determinist not a hard determinist.

from

Hard Determinism
Hard Determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability. There are several different supporting views for this belief, which incorporates philosophical determinism, psychological determinism, theological determinism and scientific determinism.

Soft Determinism
Soft Determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by causal events, but human free will does exist when defined as the capacity to act according to one's nature (which is shaped by external factors such as heredity, society and upbringing).

I suspect it's initial conditions and laws of motion - but that could be wrong. And while much of what people do is the result of their genetics, and experiences, I don't find it helpful to let people think they have no responsibility for their actions - although I think it best to treat them as if they are not. Forgive them for they know not, and control not, what they do makes sense to me. Whatever pigeon hole that puts me in is where I'll play chess from.

Sam Harris won me over with his "compassion and love" speech. As long as that's the conclusion I'm willing to concede the rest of the argument.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I'm basically fine with all that. I have no need to quibble over words. If you're explanation gets you to: we need to be loving and compassionate to others because they're not in control of all they do - and it may all have been dialed in by the laws and physics then I'm good with that. Now how do we go about doing that given the laws of physics are in control?

I did not quite say that ...
1) I am definitely not in control in who or what I feel loving about or compassionate for.
2) But it does give me a sense that it could not have been otherwise and depending on the conditions at that moment I might be more likely to give some slack.

My advice on what to do next? In one sense go with the flow ... be aware as much as we can.

I really like Sagan's quote here:


We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

Here's a little sound bite my constructors made for me ...

When I look deep into myself
I see the universe quietly staring back

That's beautiful. We're on the same page - I never doubted it.

John Platko wrote: I'm aware of the issues, romansh. This is just meant to be a simple, and therefore easy to understand, example of how computer programs can be written in a way that does not produce repeatable output from run to run.

Yes it is easy when the inputs are varied ... but then what would we expect?

John Platko wrote: That's beautiful. We're on the same page - I never doubted it.

Glad I could be of service.

John ... Regarding soft versus hard determinism ... I could not find a good comparison in that they were not written by a coherent source. Plus there are many definitions of soft determinism ... just about everyone seems to have a different concept. But essentially they boil down to we make choices in some shape or form and that we'll call free will. We won't examine the nature of the choice ... ie could we "actually" have chosen otherwise given that the state of the universe was in at that moment. If we believe in determinism it is hard to envisage that we could.

If we are saying that quantum phenomena are causing unpredictability ... I can't see the result of a cosmic dice shaker being my free will either.

This universe is fundamentally unpredictable ... at least in the absolute sense of the word. This does not give anyone free will as far as I can see.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: I'm aware of the issues, romansh. This is just meant to be a simple, and therefore easy to understand, example of how computer programs can be written in a way that does not produce repeatable output from run to run.

Yes it is easy when the inputs are varied ... but then what would we expect?

But in some cases there are no inputs being varied. Just different processes being scheduled on a system trying to make estimates of resources needed by various tasks, including the part, which is itself, doing the scheduling. In that way the specifics of the behavior are not deterministic in that if you reboot the computer it may work out a bit differently because of various hardware and software synchronization issues. It's only in a simplistic model of what a computer program is that it does exactly the same thing, the exact same way, every time. And I've explained in detail earlier in the thread the types of cache effects and other synchronization issues that come into play that make this happen. And judging from the response I got we don't have other thread participants who are knowledgeable about those things. Which is fine, it's highly specialized knowledge. But the bottom line is this, in a complex computer scenario the only way to know the exact behavior is to run it. And you don't have to take my word for it - though you should, I've demonstrated enough expertise in my heuristic thread for that to be the reasonable thing to do, -you can re-watch the Seth Lloyd video.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: That's beautiful. We're on the same page - I never doubted it.

Glad I could be of service.

I'm expecting a lot of love and compassion from now on.

romansh wrote:John ... Regarding soft versus hard determinism ... I could not find a good comparison in that they were not written by a coherent source. Plus there are many definitions of soft determinism ... just about everyone seems to have a different concept.

I ran into the same problem when I tried to recheck the definitions. That's why I just spelled out what I mean.

But essentially they boil down to we make choices in some shape or form and that we'll call free will. We won't examine the nature of the choice ... ie could we "actually" have chosen otherwise given that the state of the universe was in at that moment. If we believe in determinism it is hard to envisage that we could.

If we are saying that quantum phenomena are causing unpredictability ... I can't see the result of a cosmic dice shaker being my free will either.

This universe is fundamentally unpredictable ... at least in the absolute sense of the word. This does not give anyone free will as far as I can see.

I'm pretty much on board with the universe is deterministic even with quantum uncertainty - and that's what I understand Sean Carroll's position to be. (my only doubt stems from the fact that physicists don't fully understand what quantum mechanics means)

The notion of choice happens on another level where we use a different mode of explanation for what is happening. Again, that's what I understand Sean Carroll's positon to be. My method of calculating free will just adds detail to how many choices we can make relative to all possible choice we could make if we had all possible knowledge. But that's all at the high level of explanation.

John Platko wrote:The notion of choice happens on another level where we use a different mode of explanation for what is happening.

Does this choice on "another level" happen deterministically? This "different mode" is it still deterministic?

Ultimately Carroll (and many others) is playing with a different definition and does not address a hard determinist's concerns.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:The notion of choice happens on another level where we use a different mode of explanation for what is happening.

Does this choice on "another level" happen deterministically? This "different mode" is it still deterministic?

Ultimately Carroll (and many others) is playing with a different definition and does not address a hard determinist's concerns.

I think Carroll's position is clear, he believes the world, everybody in it, all their actions, thoughts, etc. were/are determined by the initial conditions and laws of motion. However, it's still useful to talk about making a choice about what flavor ice cream cone you want. And all I add to that is, the more flavors you allow yourself to choose from, the more free will you have.

And for everybody because we're all in the soup together.