“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[Michael S. Pearl]

My question is: Where does compatibilist free will enter into it? There is no compatibility here that gives this type of free will a pass. As you correctly said, neurons don't think or have a sense of self where they have the free will to do other than what they are programmed to do.

I do not think the neuron-wetness matter was intended as giving "free will a pass." I think it was more like a way of pointing out the incompleteness - the inadequacy - of using a neuron as a basis for denying or establishing free will. Anyhow, that was my impression.

 

[steve_bank]

As a moral story which is one reason for creating god myths, the bible god gave humans the ability to choose between good and evil, in other words we are responsible for our actions.

One can overthink and over philosophize the obvious.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

in which a given initial state or condition

There, in your very own words. The initial condition is *given*. Which means that... Deterministic action happens after it is *given* and is entirely agnostic to *how* it is given.

And no, Steve, determinism is no more than "the universe functions deterministically".

It is always *given* a start condition.

The BB theory starts with an imagined set of initial conditions, but does not say how the initial co0jnditions came to be, it does no start at time zero.

You can not necessarily apply thermodynamics and deterministic systems as we see and create here on Earth to a cosmic scale. It can not be demonstrated on a cosmic scale.

The universe can be said to be causal, nothing happens without a cause. Chaotic and probabilistic systems are causal. A complex industrial chemical process involving stages can have a probability of working, but is causal.

The bit I have bolded is incorrect, because the universe itself has no cause, it simply is. That the universe is causal in that all things that happen in the universe can be said to be caused by the universe is right, though that is not the everyday way of looking at it, as generally we look for causes at a much smaller scale.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

One can overthink and over philosophize the obvious.

And, in (or as part of) overthinking and over-philosophizing, you can ignore (what seems to be) the obvious because - horror of horrors - what seems to be obvious is a subjective matter. Oh no!

 

[bilby]

The universe can be said to be causal, nothing happens without a cause. Chaotic and probabilistic systems are causal. A complex industrial chemical process involving stages can have a probability of working, but is causal.

The bit I have bolded is incorrect, because the universe itself has no cause, it simply is. That the universe is causal in that all things that happen in the universe can be said to be caused by the universe is right, though that is not the everyday way of looking at it, as generally we look for causes at a much smaller scale.

It's worse than that. The question of whether the universe has a cause is disputed. But radioactive decay has no cause. Take a single atom of any unstable isotope, and there is no predictor whatsoever of when it will decay. The decay is uncaused.

We can predict the statistical consequences for large aggregations of similar atoms - half of a macroscopic sample will decay, reliably, in a given time. But we cannot predict the decay of a given atom; Nor can we change the half-life of a macroscopic sample.

Radioactive decay is uncaused. And unlike the universe, this fact is accessible for anyone to observe.

 

[Jarhyn]

Radioactive decay is uncaused

Not exactly. We don't know what causes it. If something does cause it, it is "random" but is not necessarily uncaused.

Our universe does contain, even if deterministic, sufficient information to account for this apparent randomness.

Imagine the universe as a sphere at time 0 This sphere is exactly singular at this moment in time. It is a singularity.

At time 1, there is no longer a singularity, and the sphere has real shape. It's radius is determined by the speed of interaction, and in that moment it has seen all the matter within this sphere, but only that matter. There is more matter past that, but it too only sees some small sphere of the whole, and this continues infinitely. Whatever was revealed is truly as random as the starting condition was.

In the next moment, a new jumping of this gravitational front happens, and this will happen again and again and again.

In each moment we do see sufficient new information, not created but more just revealed, at the edge of this still-expanding bubble, revealed as initial interactions with the gravitational force as to accommodate this need for randomness.

Now, I'm not sure if this is specifically what is determining it. All I know is that in each moment, new and *completely random" information is revealed, as new-to-us universe is exposed, and that this DOES accommodate the need for "enough" information.

Whether it's specifically that information is anyone's guess, and I'm not sure how you would even test it. I just know that the cosmic microwave background grows in distance year on year, and whatever background of gravitational interaction beyond that, and that this IS a source of "randomness" despite being completely deterministic.

I think some time ago I discussed the "infinite preloaded dice roller" model of determinism, but expressed not having a clue where the dice were. Well, there are dice (particles) right there loaded in the roller (the stuff beyond the front of interaction).

 

[pood]

Radioactive decay is uncaused

Not exactly. We don't know what causes it. If something does cause it, it is "random" but is not necessarily uncaused.

Well, the idea here is that radioactive decay is an event described and predicted by quantum mechanics, and local hidden variables models of QM have largely been experimentally ruled out. This would then classify such decay as an uncaused event with a probabilistic outcome.

 

[steve_bank]

in which a given initial state or condition

There, in your very own words. The initial condition is *given*. Which means that... Deterministic action happens after it is *given* and is entirely agnostic to *how* it is given.

And no, Steve, determinism is no more than "the universe functions deterministically".

It is always *given* a start condition.

The BB theory starts with an imagined set of initial conditions, but does not say how the initial co0jnditions came to be, it does no start at time zero.

You can not necessarily apply thermodynamics and deterministic systems as we see and create here on Earth to a cosmic scale. It can not be demonstrated on a cosmic scale.

The universe can be said to be causal, nothing happens without a cause. Chaotic and probabilistic systems are causal. A complex industrial chemical process involving stages can have a probability of working, but is causal.

The bit I have bolded is incorrect, because the universe itself has no cause, it simply is. That the universe is causal in that all things that happen in the universe can be said to be caused by the universe is right, though that is not the everyday way of looking at it, as generally we look for causes at a much smaller scale.

Objection your honor, the witness is offering facts not in evidence.

We have no way of knowing what the universe 'is'. Concluding the universe is deterministic s is no different than a Christian concluding god created the universe. Opinions not based in factual evidence.

The most likely scenario to me is an infinite universe with no beginning and no end. No first cause but a series of infinite causal chains. That does not necessarily infer determinism.

Trying to fit the universe into a narrow definition of a deterministic systems here on Earth makes no sense.

O)r modern observations and science on Earth have been around for maybe 200 years in an observable ungoverned much older than that. We do not know what is beyond our observational limit.

Like looking at the ocean and believing the horizon is the end of the Earth.

 

[DBT]

in which a given initial state or condition

There, in your very own words. The initial condition is *given*. Which means that... Deterministic action happens after it is *given* and is entirely agnostic to *how* it is given.

And no, Steve, determinism is no more than "the universe functions in

It is always *given* a start condition.

'Given state" just refers to the initial condition of the system, which determines how events evolve over time. Where different things happen as determined, but no event could have happened differently: the no choice principle.

 

[DBT]

in which a given initial state or condition

There, in your very own words. The initial condition is *given*. Which means that... Deterministic action happens after it is *given* and is entirely agnostic to *how* it is given.

And no, Steve, determinism is no more than "the universe functions deterministically".

It is always *given* a start condition.

The BB theory starts with an imagined set of initial conditions, but does not say how the initial co0jnditions came to be, it does no start at time zero.

You can not necessarily apply thermodynamics and deterministic systems as we see and create here on Earth to a cosmic scale. It can not be demonstrated on a cosmic scale.

The universe can be said to be causal, nothing happens without a cause. Chaotic and probabilistic systems are causal. A complex industrial chemical process involving stages can have a probability of working, but is causal.

Causal determinism, or constant conjunction. The initial conditions and one state of the system evolving into the next without the possibility of alternate actions. Where what happens must happen as determined, however chaotic the events may appear.

 

[WAB]

does not permit alternate actions

Look to your left. There is an action there.

Look to your right. There was a different action there.

Clearly reality is full of alternate actions.

Oh, boy.....you must realize that alternate action in relation to determinism does not mean that different can't happen, but that there is no possible alternate action for anything that does happen.

Naturally, once something does happen it could not have happened differently. If that's your view of determinism then I happily agree. ???

 

[pood]

does not permit alternate actions

Look to your left. There is an action there.

Look to your right. There was a different action there.

Clearly reality is full of alternate actions.

Oh, boy.....you must realize that alternate action in relation to determinism does not mean that different can't happen, but that there is no possible alternate action for anything that does happen.

Naturally, once something does happen it could not have happened differently. If that's your view of determinism then I happily agree. ???

A contingent event could have happened differently. It remains the case that Oswald did not HAVE TO shoot JFK, more than 60 years on. History could always have been different, it just wasn’t.

 

[DBT]

does not permit alternate actions

Look to your left. There is an action there.

Look to your right. There was a different action there.

Clearly reality is full of alternate actions.

Oh, boy.....you must realize that alternate action in relation to determinism does not mean that different can't happen, but that there is no possible alternate action for anything that does happen.

Naturally, once something does happen it could not have happened differently.

Determinism means that it can't happen differently before it happens, that it must happen precisely as it happens. No alternate possibilities before or during the event, be it in thought or related action, past leading to present and future in constant conjunction.

 

[Jarhyn]

Radioactive decay is uncaused

Not exactly. We don't know what causes it. If something does cause it, it is "random" but is not necessarily uncaused.

Well, the idea here is that radioactive decay is an event described and predicted by quantum mechanics, and local hidden variables models of QM have largely been experimentally ruled out. This would then classify such decay as an uncaused event with a probabilistic outcome.

Well, as I have said, the particle is hit by an unavoidable torrent of new gravitons of things literally appearing out of nowhere, from the perspective of the particle.

Super determinism allows for this by saying that there is a way to represent even this in terms of a unique piece of information that only that point in spacetime sees in the way that point in spacetime sees it.

Then, I never found the idea of non-local relationship between particles as problematic to determinism, as long as the relationship itself can't propagate faster than the speed of light. It still doesn't violate the arrow of time, so much as establishing that there is no preferred reference frame and even distant places can be "now" even if we see only their "yesterday", and that the light from our stars is "stale".

It can still be deterministic when the shared identity is determined by the universal moment or center of gravity is measured by the creation of the entangled pair or group.

At any rate I'm really just holding all the way to determinism here because I wanted to make a point that it absolutely CAN be deterministic despite QM events being unpredictable.

What is important here is where local realism DOES hold, because even with events such as the three door bell inequality, the particles still had to at least start in the same place at the same time as they were entangled. Whether there is a shared "session" according to this cavorting, it can only propagate at the speed of light from there, and cannot report the real future, only the real present and only between particles that have already interacted gravitationally.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism means that it can't happen differently before it happens, that it must happen precisely as it happens. No alternate possibilities before or during the event, be it in thought or related action, past leading to present and future in constant conjunction.

No, it doesn't.

It means that things happen precisely within the physical of the system, and there is a physics that completely determines a future moment from a present one.

It says nothing about alternate possibilities existing or making sense within the system. It is purely about continuation, not condition.

It is literally a theorem of math that if the universe is infinite, then there are infinite parallel regions of the universe which will diverge from this one in events perhaps only some time in their future, and an infinitude of indistinguishably "universe-like" universe areas with identical physics but different events an infinity away.

It says nothing about what "exactly" happens anywhere other than "perform exactly this operation and take exactly the result" as describing its action, completely agnostic to where that information came from.

 

[WAB]

does not permit alternate actions

Look to your left. There is an action there.

Look to your right. There was a different action there.

Clearly reality is full of alternate actions.

Oh, boy.....you must realize that alternate action in relation to determinism does not mean that different can't happen, but that there is no possible alternate action for anything that does happen.

Naturally, once something does happen it could not have happened differently. If that's your view of determinism then I happily agree. ???

A contingent event could have happened differently. It remains the case that Oswald did not HAVE TO shoot JFK, more than 60 years on. History could always have been different, it just wasn’t.

Yes! But once he did shoot Kennedy, it is impossible for that not to have happened. That's what I thought DBT was saying, that once something DOES happen, it is impossible for it not to have happened, which sounds absurdly obvious.

Not that it had to have happened. It didn't have to happen. It just did.

 

[pood]

Yes! But once he did shoot Kennedy, it is impossible for that not to have happened. That's what I thought DBT was saying, that once something DOES happen, it is impossible for it not to have happened, which sounds absurdly obvious.

I beg to differ — it IS possible for it not to have happened. It is just not possible NOW, that it did not happen THEN.

ETA: which is just a convoluted way of saying it is not possible to change the past. But it remains true that events in the past could have been different.

 

[WAB]

Yes! But once he did shoot Kennedy, it is impossible for that not to have happened. That's what I thought DBT was saying, that once something DOES happen, it is impossible for it not to have happened, which sounds absurdly obvious.

I beg to differ — it IS possible for it not to have happened. It is just not possible NOW, that it did not happen THEN.

Yes! But once he did shoot Kennedy, it is impossible for that not to have happened. That's what I thought DBT was saying, that once something DOES happen, it is impossible for it not to have happened, which sounds absurdly obvious.

I beg to differ — it IS possible for it not to have happened. It is just not possible NOW, that it did not happen THEN.

Of course it's possible for it not to have happened!

I got into this conversation because of a post from DBT, and I shouldn't have, because I expected people to actually follow the thread.

 

[DBT]

Radioactive decay is uncaused

Not exactly. We don't know what causes it. If something does cause it, it is "random" but is not necessarily uncaused.

Well, the idea here is that radioactive decay is an event described and predicted by quantum mechanics, and local hidden variables models of QM have largely been experimentally ruled out. This would then classify such decay as an uncaused event with a probabilistic outcome.

Yet that is not how compatibilism defines determinism....a definition upon which the compatibilist version of free will is based.

 

[DBT]

Yes! But once he did shoot Kennedy, it is impossible for that not to have happened. That's what I thought DBT was saying, that once something DOES happen, it is impossible for it not to have happened, which sounds absurdly obvious.

I beg to differ — it IS possible for it not to have happened. It is just not possible NOW, that it did not happen THEN.

ETA: which is just a convoluted way of saying it is not possible to change the past. But it remains true that events in the past could have been different.

It may appear possible to an observer who does not have access to the workings of the system, or all of the events that lead to this event, and only this event to happen