Determinism - is there such thing as choice?

[wwwww]

The way I see it is, any system has a set of rules (physics), if the system has no external input, it must act deterministically.

So for free will to exist, we must have a mind/spirit beyond the physical system. All of our senses are achieved by organs in the physical system*, therefore we have no way of detecting whether there is a mind/spirit beyond the physical system and therefore no way of knowing whether freewill exists, but conversely, no way of proving it doesn't exist.

*an assumption, some believe in a '6th sense'

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by wwwww

The way I see it is, any system has a set of rules (physics), if the system has no external input, it must act deterministically.'

and if there was an external source of input such a soul it would be possible to detect this interaction.

[wwwww]

Originally Posted by Foliage

and if there was an external source of input such a soul it would be possible to detect this interaction.

We would only see the effects - e.g. people thinking they have a 6th sense or people thinking they have free will.

E.g. take a box with no net forces, a ball bouncing around in it. Say you're stuck on a wall inside. It's perfectly possible for you to predict the path of the ball.

Now I shake the box you call home, the ball moves in what seems to be a random fashion (from the perspective inside the box). You can detect that this randomness occurs, but you can't detect my divine interaction.

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by wwwww

You can detect that this randomness occurs, but you can't detect my divine interaction.

Wouldn't I just need to detect the randomness to know there was a divine interaction though?

[wwwww]

Originally Posted by Foliage

Wouldn't I just need to detect the randomness to know there was a divine interaction though?

That relies on the assumption that the ball is being acted upon randomly (and not in some very complex way within the system but beyond our understanding). Likewise, it's like assuming that we have free will, and therefore have a spirit beyond our system. Without being able to detect the cause, the conclusion would rely on an assumption.

[aXis]

Originally Posted by wwwww

The way I see it is, any system has a set of rules (physics), if the system has no external input, it must act deterministically. ...

Only at the macroscopic level. As you look deeper, a large number of things are affected by random thermal/quantum noise, and even deeper you get quantum uncertainty. You can make statistically accurate trends, but cant predict individual events.

[wwwww]

Originally Posted by aXis

Only at the macroscopic level. As you look deeper, a large number of things are affected by random thermal/quantum noise, and even deeper you get quantum uncertainty. You can make statistically accurate trends, but cant predict individual events.

The chances of macroscopic consequences from subatomic non-determinism is insignificant. Particle physics is for the most part irrelevant in the discussion of free will.

[Whisper]

Originally Posted by rush

I think the problem with invoking QM is that it doesn't prove much in regards to this argument.

Even if it can be established that some events on the quantum scale are truly random, this does not answer the question.

1) Stuff happens strictly and unavoidably because of previous events.
2) Stuff happens for no reason.

Neither of these equate to "Stuff happens because of a freely made choice."

Yep, you nailed it pretty much

Originally Posted by rush

For me, it seems that the proving of really random events adds kind of a third option. People look at Determinism and Free Will as the only options, the only two sides of the argument.

However it looks like truly random events breaks Determinism but does not prove free will either.

Actually I do not believe this is the case, or at least the case because of QM.

My opinion is that QM events are not truly random, it is simply a case that we are unable to discern the cause, and from my understanding of QM, that is what actually happens. It is not that QM events are strictly random, but the cause of QM events are currently (possibly forever) hidden from our view.

Some people would argue that not being able to determine a causal relationship = randomness, but that is not an argument I subscribe to personally or philosophically.

Does that make sense?

[ShadowGeoff]

It is conceivable that there is some theory which could resolve the randomness of quantum mechanics by defining the constituent parts of the universe on a finer scale or in a more accurate way, making all things deterministic, but we just don't know it yet.

QM is not relevant to this discussion because QM is nothing more than our current best guess about how the universe behaves on the finest scale. It is plausible that we see randomness on that scale not because the universe is random, but simply because QM is not able to predict outcomes, i.e. there are "unknown unknowns" which effect the outcomes of interactions but which we do not know about.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a universe which follows basic causality (allowing sentient life like us) but which also allows true randomness within it. A causal universe precludes randomness. It is not possible to have an event the outcome of which is not predictable by an entity which knows the rules and starting positions and has infinite time and resources to calculate outcomes so long as you make sure to include all of the information and rules.

Therefore free will is an illusion. However, I do not think that we are ever likely to become technologically advanced enough to break that illusion.

EDIT:

If someone then wants to suggest that free will is real because there is a soul which is outside of the universe and which itself is non-deterministic even within it's own realm. Then I say that that hypothesis relies on more assumptions than mine and if they want to convince me they will need to produce some evidence.

[cvidler]

Originally Posted by ShadowGeoff

In my opinion there is no such thing as a universe which follows basic causality (allowing sentient life like us) but which also allows true randomness within it. A causal universe precludes randomness. It is not possible to have an event the outcome of which is not predictable by an entity which knows the rules and starting positions and has infinite time and resources to calculate outcomes so long as you make sure to include all of the information and rules.

What if the Universe really is random - as our current understanding of QM shows. But also that randomness has an exceedingly small influence on the 'larger' Universe, that larger forces render it essentially causal. I don't have a problem with the split randomness/causal Universe.

Why should the quantum randomness of things much tinier than the electrons and quarks/muons etc. in my body have ANY influence over the large scale electrical impulses in any one neuron, let alone the billions of them in the brain - which has proven remarkably resilient to errors. After all if every quantum change is random, surely the average at a macroscopic level (in this case still at tiny scales such as atom parts) will be a steady state (i.e. no impact).

[ShadowGeoff]

Originally Posted by cvidler

What if the Universe really is random - as our current understanding of QM shows. But also that randomness has an exceedingly small influence on the 'larger' Universe, that larger forces render it essentially causal. I don't have a problem with the split randomness/causal Universe.

Why should the quantum randomness of things much tinier than the electrons and quarks/muons etc. in my body have ANY influence over the large scale electrical impulses in any one neuron, let alone the billions of them in the brain - which has proven remarkably resilient to errors. After all if every quantum change is random, surely the average at a macroscopic level (in this case still at tiny scales such as atom parts) will be a steady state (i.e. no impact).

Imagine that you are making a decision with two possible outcomes in a deterministic universe, depending on the starting conditions in your brain the outcome will be one of the two possibilities. So, there is a spectrum of possible starting conditions some of which produce one outcome and the others which produce the other outcome. What is the difference between the two most similar sets of starting conditions? If you break down the differences between sets ad-infinitum you eventually get down to the level where QM randomness would swing the decision one way or the other. I.E you have one set of conditions where a QM event would make the overall outcome different.

Thus, QM randomness can influence macro scale events, of any scale.

However I still hold that QM randomness is not the most plausible explanation for what is observed, and that we simply do not know why quantum scale event go one way or another, rather than them being truly random.

[Whisper]

Originally Posted by cvidler

What if the Universe really is random - as our current understanding of QM shows.

Well that is what I would argue against.

I believe the QM randomness paradigm is not actually what QM shows.

What QM shows is that we cannot predict for reasons x, y, & z why something occurs at the sub-atomic level, but that is not the same as an event being truly random.

For the discussion at hand, this is a subtle, but important difference.

For practicality sakes, QM events may appear to be random, but that does not necessarily rule out the possibility that there is a deterministic cause for QM events, simply that the cause of QM events are hidden or unknown to us.

In any case, randomness does not solve the problem of determinism versus free will, since randomness does not equal choice, so supposed QM randomness, which I have argued is not the randomness people seem to think it is, is not the saviour of free will some people hope for.

The scary thing is, if determinism is true, then what do we do with people whop have broken the social contract? That is to say, if I, nor anybody else is responsible for their actions, what happens to our concepts of good & evil, right & wrong, moral and immoral?

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by Whisper

Actually I do not believe this is the case, or at least the case because of QM.

My opinion is that QM events are not truly random, it is simply a case that we are unable to discern the cause, and from my understanding of QM, that is what actually happens. It is not that QM events are strictly random, but the cause of QM events are currently (possibly forever) hidden from our view.

Some people would argue that not being able to determine a causal relationship = randomness, but that is not an argument I subscribe to personally or philosophically.

Does that make sense?

This is pretty much identical to my viewpoint on bringing QM into the discussion.

Originally Posted by Whisper

The scary thing is, if determinism is true, then what do we do with people whop have broken the social contract? That is to say, if I, nor anybody else is responsible for their actions, what happens to our concepts of good & evil, right & wrong, moral and immoral?

The handy part if this is true is that it doesn't matter, as all we have is cause and effect, so we should just hope that we lucked out with the more 'moral' brain.

[Whisper]

Originally Posted by Foliage

The handy part if this is true is that it doesn't matter, as all we have is cause and effect, so we should just hope that we lucked out with the more 'moral' brain.

But what is the point of having laws or a justice system for that matter, if person X is going to action y no matter what?

I'm playing the devils advocate here btw.

[Subcommandante]

Originally Posted by ShadowGeoff

It is conceivable that there is some theory which could resolve the randomness of quantum mechanics by defining the constituent parts of the universe on a finer scale or in a more accurate way, making all things deterministic, but we just don't know it yet.

If someone then wants to suggest that free will is real because there is a soul which is outside of the universe and which itself is non-deterministic even within it's own realm. Then I say that that hypothesis relies on more assumptions than mine and if they want to convince me they will need to produce some evidence.

I agree with the first part completely, but i believe the second para relates more to the nature of the mind.

For example whilst we can observe synapses firing... you, others and i can all define the mind's functions only in an esoteric manner. That is via words and communication.

We cannot find one synapse and say that is "ahh i could go a beer right now" and the other one is "contemplating the perestroika movement in russia". We are yet to be anywhere near that... and one day we might be able through a machine to observe and realise the thoughts of others... how they are similar to others but different and palce them in categories like apples and oranges today we cannot and thousands of years of science does not lend itself to thinking we ever could... therefore at this stage science leads us to beleive that the consciousness itself is external to the observable, measurable real world... and with or without proof and i want to emphasise the without...that may just be the case.

So really assumptions are part of this debate at it's core.

As Carl Sagan said... I am an agnostic, because to be an athiest i would need to know more.