tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7932319301030308364..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Time Travel, Dinosaur Clones, and How To Debate Free WillUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21445770452038219112012-07-06T23:24:14.496-04:002012-07-06T23:24:14.496-04:00I had a quick read of the link Gadfly, and it seem...I had a quick read of the link Gadfly, and it seems fairly obvious that Free Will, whatever it is, is in a Deterministic context for which we can try to allow by exercising Free Will to do so. We shape nature to our purposes. I don't think you are saying anything revolutionary, and you may be trying to create a strict division between Free Will and Determinism in other work that does not really exist.<br /><br />Whether Free Will is an illusion in your terms or a reality in mine is an open issue. I rely on individual and species accumulation of knowledge to allow for physical (and, increasingly, biological) Determinism, and my own personl experience of reasonably free intention. We won't know the answer until awareness is understood in better terms; perhaps terms other than those you apply, but we shall see. You are welcome to read my own complete theory (a detailed one) at http://home.iprimus.com.au/marcus60/1.pdfAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85805724343596382402012-07-06T23:11:37.071-04:002012-07-06T23:11:37.071-04:00Use your freedom well, Sherlock Holmes.Use your freedom well, Sherlock Holmes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38707795308237594302012-07-05T21:55:39.297-04:002012-07-05T21:55:39.297-04:00I sometimes despair of Massimo's entire blog, ...I sometimes despair of Massimo's entire blog, including Massimo himself, on this issue. The answer to discussing free will, as I've said before and say again, is "mu." http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2012/01/mu-to-free-will.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39567486386437552072012-07-05T12:04:05.879-04:002012-07-05T12:04:05.879-04:00Alastair, consider humans to be like particles, wi...Alastair, consider humans to be like particles, with statistical behavior, although clearly more broad. The idea would be that we can logically analyze what particles might do over time, usually with reasonable certainly as they are bound by their properties. Humans likewise, in their own strategies put to public justification, are subject to logical analysis. <br /><br />Our properties are our status quo of attitudes and knowledge which may logically extend unless impacted by others, for social adjustment. Our state of "is" is a process leading somewhere logically (with reasonable forseeability) but they may not be "oughts' if we are happily proceeding. They become oughts when countered by another "is" in an alternative direction, no less than particle collisions, except these are collisions of reasoning between perspectives, to progress further in life. They adjust as necessary to include new properties, and happily proceed as an adjusted "is".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42182568389293887142012-07-04T21:47:23.608-04:002012-07-04T21:47:23.608-04:00If something I learned from Kant and his "cri...If something I learned from Kant and his "critique to the pure reason" was not to put much attention in this metaphysical topics. I also learned to be practical: I feel like if I had free will, I act like if I had free will, then i will say I have free will; everything else is irrelevant. <br /><br />By the way, you should watch Futurama's first movie. You'll love it!... Or so do I believe.Sexto Empiricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11176766042647292546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70487561725745600662012-07-03T01:30:48.071-04:002012-07-03T01:30:48.071-04:00The evidence of our indivdual and species progress...The evidence of our indivdual and species progress would stand against free will as an illusion. It may be the basis for an extraordinary range of human discovery and art, on the basis we are simply refining knowledge in the free exercise of our will.<br /><br />As an absolute, it would not exist, and yet in the pursuit of knowledge we can realize that fact and allow as much as possible for determinism and bias. We can work to ideals nevertheless, as fictions, and fall into ideologies too.<br /><br />Exhibiting those freedoms (in fact) with those contraints (determinism and bias), for which we can try to allow by exercise of free will, suggests its possibility as a species driver found in most if not all individuals (at a guess).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90248386712207124122012-07-01T20:32:55.982-04:002012-07-01T20:32:55.982-04:00Classical mechanics posits neutron decay in free s...Classical mechanics posits neutron decay in free space to be unpredictable and purely statistical, and that is perhaps the most fundamental particle, comprising a proton, electron, neutrino, and photons available for exchange on decay. Q. M. has done nothing to shake that assumption, thus there is not strict determinism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52346896218346298672012-07-01T20:21:24.478-04:002012-07-01T20:21:24.478-04:00Logic and experience tell me what "is" i...Logic and experience tell me what "is" is a process rather than a single event, and processes can be derailed but "oughts" that are counter to their logical momentum.<br /><br />Those oughts may be extensions from the processes of other is's, and so it will all get sorted out in the wash. I would tend to look at inevitabilities from existing logical process running counter to each other and having to sort themsleves out.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48041272644972440642012-06-30T21:02:22.407-04:002012-06-30T21:02:22.407-04:00@ Eamon
Previously, I wrote: "If we could re...@ Eamon<br /><br />Previously, I wrote: "<i>If we could rewind the tape, things would have most likely played out differently.</i><br /><br />To which you responded by asking the following questions: "<i>Why should we think such a thing? Upon what basis do you make this probability judgement?</i>"<br /><br />To which I responded by stating: "<i><br />Because indeterminism is part and parcel of the standard interpretation of QM.</i>"<br /><br />You have not made any kind of argument that refutes my point. (The Copenhagen interpretation is the STANDARD interpretation of QM.)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12712618975359487272012-06-30T21:02:03.658-04:002012-06-30T21:02:03.658-04:00Perspicio,
Thank you for your response. I will le...Perspicio,<br /><br />Thank you for your response. I will leave the last substantive say with you.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85925724399257444412012-06-30T15:01:18.762-04:002012-06-30T15:01:18.762-04:00[comment deleted due to misplacement - posted inst...[comment deleted due to misplacement - posted instead upthread]perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43216788203284830772012-06-30T15:00:04.055-04:002012-06-30T15:00:04.055-04:00Upon further reflection, it seems to me it may be ...Upon further reflection, it seems to me it may be worth clarifying just what is meant by the term "ought" in the first place, and what are its implications.<br /><br />In the most generic possible terms, an "ought" seems to be a statement about optimizing the selection of possible futures by and for sentient, decision-capable entities. Its utility is therefore constrained by our awareness and comprehension of causality, the sentience of other beings, and the decision-capability of other beings, as well as of the current state of the universe. (Note that decision-capability is a stand-in for whatever the thing we call "free will" actually is, regardless of what we as individuals choose to believe about it.)<br /><br />So long as our most comprehensible understanding of causality (and, perhaps more saliently, the limitations of we can know about it) invokes inherently probabilistic models, "oughts" may best be understood not as absolutes, but as inherently uncertain statements - that is, no matter how much we learn about the present state of the universe and the nature of sentience and decision-capability, "oughts" remain situation-dependent, recommended risks or gambles based on desired outcomes and statistical likelihoods.<br /><br />Caving in to the compulsion to fixate obsessively on the is/ought distinction for a moment (as one does 'round these parts) while holding this in mind, it becomes evident that an "ought" could, in principle, be derived from an "is" if that "is" included an accurate characterization of specific internal states of at least one sentient individual faced with a decision, such as their understanding of the immediate situation, their assessment of the possible results of each available option, their risk tolerance, and so forth. Even without knowing the relevant facts, we can say with great confidence that those facts nevertheless exist. Therefore, we need not cling dogmatically to the notion that "is" and "ought" are nonoverlapping magisteria. Perhaps we merely need to fully relinquish the ingrained notion of an "ought" as a fact (or possibly fiction) about the universe itself, as opposed to a fact about the sentient, decision-capable, outcome-oriented beings within it.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86161201379430815422012-06-30T14:58:13.645-04:002012-06-30T14:58:13.645-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39508799724924308852012-06-30T12:04:36.891-04:002012-06-30T12:04:36.891-04:00You say you have not missed my point, but thus far...You say you have not missed my point, but thus far you have not demonstrated that you have understood it. It's really quite simple.<br /><br />It's entirely valid to assert that a "bad" proposed course of action and a proposed course of action that should not be undertaken are the same thing. You are also free to reject that assertion, in which case we disagree. But that alone doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong; we simply don't accept the same premise. I have even gone so far as to acknowledge that from your viewpoint, mine <i>does</i> appear invalid.<br /><br />I was and remain willing to concede the argument as irresolvable on the basis that our underlying principles are simply inconsistent with each other, without needing to establish one view or the other as superior. However, it appears that you are committed to a "We disagree, therefore somebody <i>must</i> be wrong, and it ain't me," point of view. I note that such an attitude is wholly consistent with rationalism, as analogous to scientism or religionism or any other form of fundamentalism. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of such worldviews, perhaps the quintessential one, is an intolerance of other worldviews.<br /><br />Let me put it another way. Your insistence that my view in this instance is problematic predicates on the assertion that that one cannot rationally derive a prescriptive statement from a descriptive one. I understand that, and I am willing to go along with it for the sake of this conversation. Nevertheless, I observe that I do not live in a world without "oughts", and that, in fact, "oughts", like so many other expressions of human sensibilities, behavior, and culture, provide valuable context and meaning to human experiences that pure logic is powerless to formulate or replace. As it would require a rather narrow mind to believe that <i>only</i> those attributes which can be subsumed or replaced by rationality have any intrinsic value, it must therefore possible to formulate an ought on some basis other than pure logical derivation from descriptive statements. (This is trivially true, since there is, in fact, <i>nothing</i> about the universe that a human mind can derive using pure logic, unless one wishes to expand the definition of "logic" to include such things as the physical processes of sensory organs.)<br /><br />Now, note that positing the identity, "A bad idea is one that should not be undertaken" accomplishes the formulation of an "ought" from an "is" both without violating rationality and without unduly constraining the possible breadth and range of the set of possible "oughts". Indeed, arguably the only thing this formulation rules out is a logical basis for the "ought" - which is certainly consistent with your worldview as expressed thus far, and which, as I said earlier, I will go along with.<br /><br />This is essentially the extent of my contribution to the argument. Aside from this, for the purpose of this conversation, we have accepted David's paraphrasing of Harris' proposition that "bad idea" = "not conducive to human well-being" (which I modified slightly to eliminate the neutral cases by recasting as "<i>contrary</i> to human well-being").<br /><br />Thus, if we disagree, it is perhaps upon the grounds that you hold it is inappropriate to posit anything that is not logically derived (you hate axioms), and I hold that that view is not only impotent to comment in any meaningful way upon the world of real events, it is even insufficient for dealing with ideas on a purely abstract basis.<br /><br />At some point, one must accept premises without logically deriving them, or there is no coherent argument to be made at all. Conversely, if one is making a coherent argument, then one has accepted premises on a non-logical basis.<br /><br />Moreover, you have flagrantly violated your own argument by positing that I "should" be embarrassed.<br /><br />Cheers.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88332212504547201942012-06-30T11:57:26.308-04:002012-06-30T11:57:26.308-04:00Eamon: Your neutrality on a definition for 'wi...Eamon: Your neutrality on a definition for 'will' is refreshing to know. If we allow ourselves to buck traditional (Copenhagen) QM by going with the hermeneutic flow, if we allow ourselves to detach a bit from 'human-centric' thinking which would applies the question of free will to a single person, if we allow ourselves to attach competing temporal vectors to all processes, the free will question is severely degraded and diluted.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38035511267553729202012-06-30T10:22:51.718-04:002012-06-30T10:22:51.718-04:00Perspicio,
I did not miss your point. The fact th...Perspicio,<br /><br />I did not miss your point. The fact that your axiomatization transforms your view into an exercise in question begging should bother you; but apparently it does not. ANYONE can run the 'since-it's-all'very-definitional-my-view-avoids-the-is/ought-problem' game, and many have tried it before, but it fails, because, again, it is circular, which is to say: no one will accept the argument except she who runs it. <br /><br />But my contention goes further in that you should be embarrassed for running such an argument: it's impotent & thus pointless.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20281977942241165892012-06-30T04:14:45.564-04:002012-06-30T04:14:45.564-04:00You both make my point and miss it entirely. Impre...You both make my point and miss it entirely. Impressive.<br /><br />Any identity can be framed as a vacuous & circular argument. This merely points to the fact that if the identity is accepted, it does not require an argument. Hence, there is no problem requiring a resolution, except perhaps the problem of creating a problem where none exists.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12772792161318689492012-06-29T23:03:22.413-04:002012-06-29T23:03:22.413-04:00Three things to say here. Sorry.Three things to say here. Sorry.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87375938918712362882012-06-29T23:02:31.485-04:002012-06-29T23:02:31.485-04:00Alastair,
Two things to say here.
First, piggy ...Alastair,<br /><br />Two things to say here. <br /><br />First, piggy backing on Ian's comment above, certain interpretations of QM are indeterministic-- the species of Copenhagen views, notably. <br /><br />Second, whilst I myself am an agnostic about fundamental indeterminacy (though, due to my anti-realist sympathies, I find various Copenhagen views more congenial), even if at base nature is indeterminate, this would not offer relief for the libertarian: If one could at any moment will to jump naked into a retention pond due to some quantum event in the prefrontal cortex, it is beyond me how this constitutes any freedom of the will. No, the libertarian <i>needs</i> determinacy; she needs the individual's will to be the determining factor in decision making processes. Now what, exactly, is this will such that it could or could not be the contra-causally free determiner of decisions & actions is beyond me. <br /><br />Third, and last, it is not at ALL clear to me quantum mechanics has anything useful to say about brain functions.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20279325896036701872012-06-29T21:45:24.632-04:002012-06-29T21:45:24.632-04:00@ Tom English
> Under the many-worlds interpre...@ Tom English<br /><br />> <i>Under the many-worlds interpretation, each timeline is deterministic. I doubt that many people who feel comfortable with determinism know the ramifications of it. Times are exchangeable in many statements about timelines.</i> <<br /><br />Agreed. However...<br /><br /><i>The concept of multiple histories is closely related to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the same way that the many-worlds interpretation regards possible <b>futures</b> as having a real existence of their own, the theory of multiple histories reverses this in time to regard the many possible <b>past</b> histories of a given event as having real existence.</i><br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories" rel="nofollow">Multiple histories</a>)<br /><br />> <i>This is not to say that <b>retrodiction</b> is possible, but that Laplace was wrong about prediction of a clockwork Universe.</i> <<br /><br />Retrocausality is a real possibility. <br /><br /><i><b>Retrocausality</b> has also been proposed as an explanation[27] for the delayed choice quantum eraser[28] and for quantum interference in general.[29]</i> <<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality" rel="nofollow">Retrocausality</a>)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47644803836170204492012-06-29T21:17:16.041-04:002012-06-29T21:17:16.041-04:00@ Eamon
> Why should we think such a thing? Up...@ Eamon<br /><br />> <i>Why should we think such a thing? Upon what basis do you make this probability judgement?</i> <<br /><br />Because <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism" rel="nofollow">indeterminism</a> is part and parcel of the standard interpretation of QM.<br /><br /><i>According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a <b>temporary</b> feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a <b>final</b> renunciation of the classical idea of "causality."</i><br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications" rel="nofollow">Quantum mechanics</a>)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27791274937244499662012-06-29T20:55:44.975-04:002012-06-29T20:55:44.975-04:00I was thinking in similar terms, but didn't wa...I was thinking in similar terms, but didn't want to comment, considering that I'm at a loss when told to "shut up, and compute." Now I'll hazard to say that "rewind the tape" is not well defined. I don't see how you can invoke quantum theory without interpreting it. If the psychological arrow of time does not appear in the physics, then there's no clear distinction between "unwinding" and "rewinding."<br /><br />Under the many-worlds interpretation, each timeline is deterministic. I doubt that many people who feel comfortable with determinism know the ramifications of it. Times are exchangeable in many statements about timelines. Memory of the future, along with prediction and control of the past, are formally indistinguishable from the analogs we find intuitive. This is not to say that retrodiction is possible, but that Laplace was wrong about prediction of a clockwork Universe. Furthermore, the notion that some "part" of a deterministic timeline (e.g., a physicist) can bootstrap itself into knowledge of constraints on the timeline (e.g., physics) is intrinsically paradoxical. See D.H. Wolpert (2002), "Computational Capabilities of Physical Systems," Phys Rev E (available online), noting that the author has laid quite a bit of epistemology between the lines.Tom Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03887540845396409340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48043458645136945942012-06-29T20:49:57.053-04:002012-06-29T20:49:57.053-04:00>Quantum mechanics holds that nature is fundame...>Quantum mechanics holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.<br /><br />Small correction: some major interpretations of QM hold that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62754932308442411552012-06-29T20:46:01.576-04:002012-06-29T20:46:01.576-04:00>Quantum mechanics holds that nature is fundame...>Quantum mechanics holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.<br /><br />Small correction: some major interpretations of QM hold that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88036902462385283782012-06-29T19:42:14.038-04:002012-06-29T19:42:14.038-04:00Alastair,
Re: If we could rewind the tape, things...Alastair,<br /><br />Re: If we could rewind the tape, things would have most likely played out differently. <br /><br />Why should we think such a thing? Upon what basis do you make this probability judgement?Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.com