DrWho wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
This point, or any other. The laws of physics are unlikely to change within human history.

That's what Newton said.

I am not sure David was implying that we won't find new laws or modify them.
I took his statement to mean things like, has the fine-structure constant actually been constant over cosmic time.

We can use naturally occurring events like Oklo to get a sense how much the fine-structure may have changed if at all.

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

romansh wrote:Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

The data support exactly no conclusions regarding cause, which is entirely the point. Even talking about cause is precisely the problem.

I think I agree with you Hack. I have no idea whether quantum phenomena have an underlying cause (and for me it is a little bit irrelevant). Quantum phenomena as far as I can tell do have an effect. And if people want to argue that our wills are (at least partially) an effect of quantum phenomena and call that free, then fair enough.

If I believed in free will, I don't think I could argue my free will was a result (partially) of some hypothetical cosmic dice shaker.

I don't think there's any connection between quantum indeterminacy and free will except insofar as QM rules out determinism, thus allowing for free will. I don't actually think we have free will, regardless of indeterminism. Whether we have will at all is an open question.

DrWho wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
This point, or any other. The laws of physics are unlikely to change within human history.

That's what Newton said.

And he was right, they haven't/

hackenslash wrote:
I don't think there's any connection between quantum indeterminacy and free will except insofar as QM rules out determinism, thus allowing for free will. I don't actually think we have free will, regardless of indeterminism. Whether we have will at all is an open question.

I agree again ... though I might argue at times I think I have perception of will. I certainly have desires and urges etc.

Not to use Hawking and Mlodinow as an authority (but I would argue they are expert in quantum phenomena and the interpretation thereof), they do describe quantum phenomena as the new determinism in their The Grand Design. In this sense, determinism is still intact.

Look. I am free to sit around and think over what I might do next. If I have the time. That's free will. The whole subject.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Look. I am free to sit around and think over what I might do next. If I have the time. That's free will. The whole subject.

That is compatibilism ... a wretched subtefuge (Kant) and a quagmire of evasion (James) both of whom believed in free will.

edit
Or it is libertarian free will which no self respecting scientist would touch with a barge pole.

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Look. I am free to sit around and think over what I might do next. If I have the time. That's free will. The whole subject.

That is compatibilism ... a wretched subtefuge (Kant) and a quagmire of evasion (James) both of whom believed in free will.

edit
Or it is libertarian free will which no self respecting scientist would touch with a barge pole.

Why? I think it's this simple. What deeper aspect would you like to look into?

Let's try and be a little 'scientific' about it and lay out some scenarios and possibilities.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Look. I am free to sit around and think over what I might do next. If I have the time. That's free will. The whole subject.

That is compatibilism ... a wretched subtefuge (Kant) and a quagmire of evasion (James) both of whom believed in free will.

edit
Or it is libertarian free will which no self respecting scientist would touch with a barge pole.

Why? I think it's this simple. What deeper aspect would you like to look into?

Are you suggesting you have not picked up on the nuances that philosophers and scientists have been discussing for the last two millenia or more?

For me the simple question is ... is there any thing I can do that is independent of cause, and if not what are the ramifications?

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Let's try and be a little 'scientific' about it and lay out some scenarios and possibilities.

OK explain the mechanism of free will ... scientifically speaking.

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Look. I am free to sit around and think over what I might do next. If I have the time. That's free will. The whole subject.

That is compatibilism ... a wretched subtefuge (Kant) and a quagmire of evasion (James) both of whom believed in free will.

edit
Or it is libertarian free will which no self respecting scientist would touch with a barge pole.

Why? I think it's this simple. What deeper aspect would you like to look into?

Are you suggesting you have not picked up on the nuances that philosophers and scientists have been discussing for the last two millenia or more?

For me the simple question is ... is there any thing I can do that is independent of cause, and if not what are the ramifications?

I'm suggesting that everyone is talking shit. Yes.

'cause' is talking shit to start with. 'Everything' and 'anything' is the warning siren of a shitstorm.

Give me a specific thing you may worry about as being 'caused' and we can take a look at this shit.

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Let's try and be a little 'scientific' about it and lay out some scenarios and possibilities.

OK explain the mechanism of free will ... scientifically speaking.

There really is no such generalization possible, scientifically speaking, so we are going to have to have some particulars to get started. else we can keep talking shit for a few more millennia.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Give me a specific thing you may worry about as being 'caused' and we can take a look at this shit.

OK we'll start with photons striking my retina and I bend down pick up the newspaper.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Let's try and be a little 'scientific' about it and lay out some scenarios and possibilities.

OK explain the mechanism of free will ... scientifically speaking.

There really is no such generalization possible, scientifically speaking, so we are going to have to have some particulars to get started. else we can keep talking shit for a few more millennia.

OK don't generalize ... go into specifics SoS

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Give me a specific thing you may worry about as being 'caused' and we can take a look at this shit.

OK we'll start with photons striking my retina and I bend down pick up the newspaper.

OK. So we have some photons striking your retina. That's simple. Where is the will part here?

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Let's try and be a little 'scientific' about it and lay out some scenarios and possibilities.

OK explain the mechanism of free will ... scientifically speaking.

There really is no such generalization possible, scientifically speaking, so we are going to have to have some particulars to get started. else we can keep talking shit for a few more millennia.

OK don't generalize ... go into specifics SoS

I notice a newspaper on the floor. I reach down to pick it up. I spend no time at all deciding about whether or not I should do this. No free will in sight here.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Give me a specific thing you may worry about as being 'caused' and we can take a look at this shit.

OK we'll start with photons striking my retina and I bend down pick up the newspaper.

OK. So we have some photons striking your retina. That's simple. Where is the will part here?

It is you claiming free will not me SoS ... please join the dots scientifically speaking from photons striking my retina to picking up the newspaper without presupposing the will.

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Give me a specific thing you may worry about as being 'caused' and we can take a look at this shit.

OK we'll start with photons striking my retina and I bend down pick up the newspaper.

OK. So we have some photons striking your retina. That's simple. Where is the will part here?

It is you claiming free will not me SoS ... please join the dots scientifically speaking from photons striking my retina to picking up the newspaper without presupposing the will.

Again. Free will is my sitting down and thinking something over before some action. I do not send photons into my retina so there is no problem of free will here.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I notice a newspaper on the floor. I reach down to pick it up. I spend no time at all deciding about whether or not I should do this. No free will in sight here.

OK I pontificate about picking up the paper ... but I want you to join the dots between between photons striking my retina and my pontification. Remember you suggested a scientific discussion.

romansh wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I notice a newspaper on the floor. I reach down to pick it up. I spend no time at all deciding about whether or not I should do this. No free will in sight here.

OK I pontificate about picking up the paper ... but I want you to join the dots between between photons striking my retina and my pontification. Remember you suggested a scientific discussion.

So I am observing you, as a perfect observer and you are in my observation box. we start out at t0 prior to your turning your head toward the newspaper. We'll bracket the 'cause' of that and start there. Now we have Frame F and we jot down a complete physical description of everything in the frame. This will be lengthy. Assume we have it done.

Now what is it that you want to know? The event happened. I observed it. You remember it. I will probably have to interview you but what is the problem? You said above that you wanted to know something about determination.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

So I am observing you, as a perfect observer and you are in my observation box. we start out at t0 prior to your turning your head toward the newspaper. We'll bracket the 'cause' of that and start there. Now we have Frame F and we jot down a complete physical description of everything in the frame. This will be lengthy. Assume we have it done.

Now what is it that you want to know? The event happened. I observed it. You remember it. I will probably have to interview you but what is the problem? You said above that you wanted to know something about determination.

This is not scientific ... anecdotal at best. ... You are missing out the very first step ... photons striking the retina.

Please start from there.