With Or Without A Creator Does Man Every Have "free Will"

[LongLiveYorke 38]

the fine complexity underlying our apparent free will may be irrelevant, because free will may be a coarse, scale-dependant *emergent* property - potentially something more than the sum of its parts.

This is how I see it as well. Sometimes it makes sense to me and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on what time of day you ask me.

[FullMontyM1 0]

Im not sure this definition is defeated. While the actor has a purpose (randomization or expression of free will) the mechanics and results dont need to have a pattern if a sufficiently complex RNG is used, and I think most would agree that the brain has enough complex processes going on that if we needed a random number at some level, we could harness one. Even at a lower level of complexity, take Annie Dukes RoShamBo strategy of using the numbers on a dollar bill to generate her moves. Even though the bills were orignially printed in a non random manner, well circulated bills have been shuffled so thoroughly that her strategy is random and non-expolitable.

But, I think BuffDan's point, and where this definition does run afoul of the logic, is that Annie's decision to use a dollar bill in the manner that she does in order to generate randomness is, in and of itself, not a random decision.That at the root of the random decisions produced by the serial numbers on the dollar bill there is a long string of cause and effect that caused Annie Duke to make the particular choice of random-number generation she selected.So while her actions may produce a probabilistic distribution, that distribution is limited to the results dictated by Annie's purposeful decision to generate numbers in such a manner; and such a purposeful decision can not be said to be random.Additionally, Annie Duke is not generating randomness in this case, the Federal Reserve and everybody that spent money near Annie is producing randomness. Annie's use of a dollar bill to produce random numbers isn't any different than if she wheeled a laptop computer in there and used that to generate random numbers.

I think you dismiss this too readily, although the wording of the definition could be clearer by adding "as opposed to being described by a static distribution" (or whatever the correct mathematical term for a distribution where X always results in the same Y).

The definition may well be a useful one in other areas, but in the frame of reference BuffDan is talking about, no matter how wide a range we give the probabilistic distribution, BuffDan's argument is undefeated, encompassing an infinite range of cause and effect.Monty

[LongLiveYorke 38]

For those wondering, here's how to produce pure randomness:Get a Geiger counter (or equivalent)Get one particle that decays in some way (alpha, etc)Measure the particle at its half life. If the particle has decayed, record a 1. If it has not, record a 0.The outcome of 0 or 1 will be totally random and will have a 50/50 distribution. There is no cause and effect, it is pure randomness. Hope this helps (though I'm not sure what most of you are talking about above).

[FullMontyM1 0]

For those wondering, here's how to produce pure randomness:Get a Geiger counter (or equivalent)Get one particle that decays in some way (alpha, etc)Measure the particle at its half life. If the particle has decayed, record a 1. If it has not, record a 0.The outcome of 0 or 1 will be totally random and will have a 50/50 distribution. There is no cause and effect, it is pure randomness. Hope this helps (though I'm not sure what most of you are talking about above).

That's cool and I didn't know that at all, but it doesn't solve our problem, because in choosing the tool, you have made a decision that isn't random, tainting the randomness that the tool produces (if I understand BuffDan's argument accurately).And, the fact that all of your experience led you to choose this tool for the creation of randomness proves that you can not be random of your own accord...Which makes it less likely that you have actual free will...And lends credence to the idea that you are just a deterministic machine that produces results, much like the geiger counter, and the results are only random of their own accord or not at all.Monty

[Mattnxtc 0]

I already did, and I will use the same example again:Heads or tails?Are you really telling me that the answer to this question can be determined from past experience?

This is an example where you still will make a logical conclusion and likely you will base it on past experiences...ever heard the saying"tails never fails" There will be a logical process that we will go through in order to pick heads or tails. Which ever one comes to your mind comes there because of some experience you had in the past whether it be superstitious or whatever. You will call on something from the past in order to decide heads or tailsAnd again this is an example of nothing more than a lack of information on knowing exactly if it will be heads or tails. If you knew the force of the spins, the force of the toss, wind factors, bounce factors and so forth you could accurately tell which side the coin will land on...so again, please provide a "on a whim" decision b/c this is not one

i think your first statement confirmed mine :)ahhh on the second...forgot about the salvation angle, thats what i get for being a heathen. So I opt for the "otherwise"...either we have free will, or we have the illusion of free will and everything may be illusion, so whats the point.Actually, if its all illusion, at least matt and his inability to apply the rules of logic and his lack of understanding of natural selection may be an illusion, which raises humanity a notch in my worldview.

I love how u attack my thought process when you cant find a flaw in it. You have yet to show even one example about how having enough knowledge can cause nothing to be random? the fact is you cant do it so you attack me. the problem isnt that I lack the logic but the fact is that you cant go to the abstract. you are probably some math/science guy who needs the concrete picture. When you have to go abstract you are like a lost puppyI have applied the rules of logic quite clearly. with completely knowledge nothing is random. its a simple fact. humans arent random no matter how much you want them to be. Nothing you will ever do will ever be random. sorry to disappoint youThat does not mean we dont have free will in my opinion. and no im not a calvinist so dont think that either.

[timwakefield 68]

This is an example where you still will make a logical conclusion and likely you will base it on past experiences...ever heard the saying"tails never fails" There will be a logical process that we will go through in order to pick heads or tails. Which ever one comes to your mind comes there because of some experience you had in the past whether it be superstitious or whatever. You will call on something from the past in order to decide heads or tails

I would have to say that, throughout my life, I have chosen heads and tails probably pretty equally. I can't imagine what logical process I have gone through before making the choice either way, and I generally don't have have any clue whether I will say heads or tails until the coin is up in the air and I quickly have to make a decision.

And again this is an example of nothing more than a lack of information on knowing exactly if it will be heads or tails. If you knew the force of the spins, the force of the toss, wind factors, bounce factors and so forth you could accurately tell which side the coin will land on...

This is entirely irrelevant. The question is not whether we can predict how the coinflip will end, but whether we can predict what the person calling heads or tails will call. The actual result of the flipped coin is completely beside the point.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I would have to say that, throughout my life, I have chosen heads and tails probably pretty equally. I can't imagine what logical process I have gone through before making the choice either way, and I generally don't have have any clue whether I will say heads or tails until the coin is up in the air and I quickly have to make a decision.This is entirely irrelevant. The question is not whether we can predict how the coinflip will end, but whether we can predict what the person calling heads or tails will call. The actual result of the flipped coin is completely beside the point.

and why is it that you pick heads and tails pretty evenly? you inherently know this. you might not eralize it but your mind recognizes the pattern of your thought. I would be willin to be there is either heads or taisl that you are more likely to say if you had to do it instantly and it will likely be b/c of some factor from a past toss or from some "nonthought" logic that you will apply. when i say "nonthought" i mean its something you inherently do without thinkin.

[copernicus 0]

"I love how u attack my thought process when you cant find a flaw in it. You have yet to show even one example about how having enough knowledge can cause nothing to be random? the fact is you cant do it so you attack me. the problem isnt that I lack the logic but the fact is that you cant go to the abstract. you are probably some math/science guy who needs the concrete picture. When you have to go abstract you are like a lost puppyI have applied the rules of logic quite clearly. "No, I have shown the problems with you hypotheses several times, and you have had no defense other than merely repeating them.You have also shown your ignorance of Natural Selection repeatedly.

[FullMontyM1 0]

I'm going to go out on a limb through my own free will here...I think that we humans can't produce a truly random decision, and that is proof that we have free will.Producing a truly random decision would mean dissassociating oneself completely from all past experience.I don't think people can do that 100%.Therefore, they are making a choice, which is the opposite of a random decision.Since we are only able to make choices, rather than random decisions, we must have free will.Monty

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm going to go out on a limb through my own free will here...I think that we humans can't produce a truly random decision, and that is proof that we have free will.Producing a truly random decision would mean dissassociating oneself completely from all past experience.I don't think people can do that 100%.Therefore, they are making a choice, which is the opposite of a random decision.Since we are only able to make choices, rather than random decisions, we must have free will.Monty

Not making random decisions doesn't mean that we must necesarily make choices. What we call a "choice" could be an action that we are forced into through some form of determinism.

[FullMontyM1 0]

Not making random decisions doesn't mean that we must necesarily make choices. What we call a "choice" could be an action that we are forced into through some form of determinism.

You seem like maybe a physics kind-of-guy, so...If the quantum world from which everything is constructed is probabilistic in nature, how could it produce human beings who are incapable of random action, only capable of deterministic action?How can something solely deterministic be built up out of something wholly probabilistic?Monty

[crowTrobot 2]

If the quantum world from which everything is constructed is probabilistic in nature, how could it produce human beings who are incapable of random action, only capable of deterministic action?

assuming it does it would be through environmental decoherence removing the randomness on coarse (large) scales. however it may not - nobody knows. this is something hundreds of scientists are currently working on. if you could empirically correlate principals of QM to our thought processes you'd unquestionably win the nobel prize.

[BuffDan 0]

I'm going to go out on a limb through my own free will here...I think that we humans can't produce a truly random decision, and that is proof that we have free will.Producing a truly random decision would mean dissassociating oneself completely from all past experience.I don't think people can do that 100%.Therefore, they are making a choice, which is the opposite of a random decision.Since we are only able to make choices, rather than random decisions, we must have free will.Monty

See, I would say that this argument points to the exact opposite conclusion: namely, that because every decision we make is influenced by past experience, if one understood all past experiences, one could predict exactly how those past experiences "force" us to make the decision we made, ie no free will. At any rate, this is completely unprovable of course, just a philisophical debate, as anytime someone says "I chose this on a whim," we say "no you didn't, you really chose it because of this, that and the other thing." This is one of those arguments where neither side can really win (like most arguments in the religion forum ), since I don't think it is possible to conclusively prove a decision was made on a whim or prove it wasn't.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Not making random decisions doesn't mean that we must necesarily make choices. What we call a "choice" could be an action that we are forced into through some form of determinism.

I would say there are very little things we aer "forced" into. I think we do things b/c they are a necessity. What is ironic is that you inherently narrow down the infinite into a small clump of "choices" as you call them. And from these choices you will always pick the option that fits whatever utility you have designated for that moment.

[FullMontyM1 0]

assuming it does it would be through environmental decoherence removing the randomness on coarse (large) scales. however it may not - nobody knows. this is something hundreds of scientists are currently working on. if you could empirically correlate principals of QM to our thought processes you'd unquestionably win the nobel prize.

If only I had been a better student ;PNah, I am an amatuer reader of popular-press physics books, so I only have enough knowledge to get myself in trouble.If someone publishes a Physics and Poker book, I shall buy it.BuffDan- I love that we can both see an argument and view it as supporting different POVs. That's why talking about this stuff is so interesting. It's like those really marginal situations I find myself sometimes getting into when I get crazy and go LAG.Monty

[BuffDan 0]

I would say there are very little things we aer "forced" into. I think we do things b/c they are a necessity. What is ironic is that you inherently narrow down the infinite into a small clump of "choices" as you call them. And from these choices you will always pick the option that fits whatever utility you have designated for that moment.

Now I am confused. Haven't you been arguing the "no free will" angle? Doesn't no free will mean precisely that we are forced into our decisions?

[Mattnxtc 0]

Now I am confused. Haven't you been arguing the "no free will" angle? Doesn't no free will mean precisely that we are forced into our decisions?

You bring up the exact question I am tryin to get others to think about. Do we have free will if somebody knows what we are going to do based on our utility. If someone has enough knowledge to understand what we are going to do does that mean we arent free? My point is this. We still freely make our choices. But as we all know, We will make one choice. Its that we either do choice A or we do choice B. We decide it...and my point then is that if somebody knows everything about us then that know that at this point we will always choose A or B. So does that mean we have free will or not? I personally believe we have free will. I this that just b/c somebody have enough knowledge to know what we are going to do, that doesnt mean he is pulling our strings to force us to do something.

[copernicus 0]

See, I would say that this argument points to the exact opposite conclusion: namely, that because every decision we make is influenced by past experience, if one understood all past experiences, one could predict exactly how those past experiences "force" us to make the decision we made, ie no free will. At any rate, this is completely unprovable of course, just a philisophical debate, as anytime someone says "I chose this on a whim," we say "no you didn't, you really chose it because of this, that and the other thing." This is one of those arguments where neither side can really win (like most arguments in the religion forum ), since I don't think it is possible to conclusively prove a decision was made on a whim or prove it wasn't.

There may be semantic differences in what everyone views as "free will" also. To me determinism means that some outside agency, be it god, Newtons laws etc. take away any choice whatsoever (and in fact leave us with the illusion of choice). A past history that leads us inexorably to make a certain choice is not lack of free will imo, since the inputs to the decision are not constrained by an outside agency.

[copernicus 0]

assuming it does it would be through environmental decoherence removing the randomness on coarse (large) scales. however it may not - nobody knows. this is something hundreds of scientists are currently working on. if you could empirically correlate principals of QM to our thought processes you'd unquestionably win the nobel prize.

crow, are you familiar with the work at Cal Tech on quantum information theory/quantum measurement, and demonstrations that the appearance of randomness on a quantum scale is an illusion forced by the mixing of classical measurement wave functions with quantum wave functions? (I assume this is not the same as environmental decoherence?)A consistent system using quantum measurement can be shown to elminate the apparent randomness, so even at the quantum level determinism rules.

[crowTrobot 2]

crow, are you familiar with the work at Cal Tech on quantum information theory/quantum measurement, and demonstrations that the appearance of randomness on a quantum scale is an illusion forced by the mixing of classical measurement wave functions with quantum wave functions? (I assume this is not the same as environmental decoherence?)A consistent system using quantum measurement can be shown to elminate the apparent randomness, so even at the quantum level determinism rules.

nope, not familiar but it sounds like something that would be more widely disputed than not. i'm not sure what your description is even saying, since the very term "wave function" implies superposition. got a link? thanks.

[copernicus 0]

nope, not familiar but it sounds like something that would be more widely disputed than not. i'm not sure what your description is even saying, since the very term "wave function" implies superposition. got a link? thanks.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9605/9605002.pdfThe math is beyond my ken, but its appealing because Ive never bought quantum randomness. Ive always attributed it to incomplete knowledge. Apparently QIT's growth indicates this paper may have been ahead of its time.s '

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The math is beyond my ken, but its appealing because Ive never bought quantum randomness. Ive always attributed it to incomplete knowledge. Apparently QIT's growth indicates this paper may have been ahead of its time.

Well, this paper doesn't really eliminate the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.It contains a lot of trivial mathematics and well known examples and puts the author's interpretation of what takes place at the end of each. Indeed, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. The most widely accepted of these is known as the Copenhagen interpretation.Your instinct that quantum randomness is simply a lack of knowledge of some other "hidden variable" is a good idea. Unfortunately, it has been thought of before and has been proven to be untrue. The argument is actually rather beautiful and is called Bell's theorem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem(For some reason the site is kind of screwy, but if you want to see the math you can just Google Bell's theorem). The main focus of the paper is what is known as decoherence. There are many ways to describe this phenomenon. The paper addresses this issue using density operators (both pure states and mixed states) as well as what is known as Von Neumann Entropy. The idea is that a state with Von Neumann entropy of 0 is a "pure state." This means that it can be, with a proper basis, represented by a matrix with one entry of value 1. Anyway, enough rambling, the point is that the paper a) isn't even a new experiment and B) doesn't disprove anything but rather is more of a philosophical exercise.Sorry, you're still stuck with randomness and probabilities.

[FullMontyM1 0]

God and dice anyone?Can someone explain this whole coarse bit to me btw?Monty

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You seem like maybe a physics kind-of-guy, so...If the quantum world from which everything is constructed is probabilistic in nature, how could it produce human beings who are incapable of random action, only capable of deterministic action?How can something solely deterministic be built up out of something wholly probabilistic?Monty

Good question. Well, who says that we're only capable of deterministic action? Maybe we are just the sum of randomness. Of course, we wouldn't notice the billions, trillions, or whatever number of quantum effects that are constantly taking place to form what we view as the classical world. I guess.

[BuffDan 0]

There may be semantic differences in what everyone views as "free will" also. To me determinism means that some outside agency, be it god, Newtons laws etc. take away any choice whatsoever (and in fact leave us with the illusion of choice). A past history that leads us inexorably to make a certain choice is not lack of free will imo, since the inputs to the decision are not constrained by an outside agency.

Ok so we just have different definitions. I would say that even if there is no outside agency forcing the action, if past history leads us to make the choice in a predictable way, then we are "forced," even if no sentient being is doing the forcing. But I can understand the difference in definition.

Your instinct that quantum randomness is simply a lack of knowledge of some other "hidden variable" is a good idea. Unfortunately, it has been thought of before and has been proven to be untrue. The argument is actually rather beautiful and is called Bell's theorem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem(For some reason the site is kind of screwy, but if you want to see the math you can just Google Bell's theorem).

Not actually knowing Bell's theorem very well, I would say that it proves that "hidden variables" don't work in the way that physicists had thought it would have to work, but maybe someone clever somewhere down the road will find another way in which the randomness is just an illusion. Most likely this is just my unease with randomness being fundamental to the universe; but I do think it is possible that some assumptions made about those "hidden variables" could be shown to be unnecesary in some way in which we don't currently understand, and thus perhaps QM is governed by some "hiddener variables" or something.