A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

That is just avoidibg the question. Please specify another way to reach a decision.

I believe I have fully and completly answered your question. Unless you can tell me what is missing from my answer, we can'tng is a continue.

What is missing is an actual answer. An negative definition is not an answer.

 

[DBT]

But the 'car' as an analogy represents the random element within the system that is 'you.' The external car causes an unchosen change upon the system that is you, being just as much an unchosen event as the random event within your system effecting an unchosen change upon the system that is 'you'

You don't get to choose an outcome in either case.

Whether it's a non chosen external event/cause, or an non chosen internal event/cause that is imposed upon your system, the outcome is not a part of the rational decision making process of your system and therefore not a choice, yet alone a willed decision.

This is all just circular logic. You are just forcing your argument.

No, it's not. No, I'm not. The example is meant to illustrate the failure of your contention that it is the random elements within the system that enable a different outcome, and according to you, this is 'free will'

The example of a car represents the action of a random element within the system.

You correctly acknowledged the fact that it was the fault of the car that altered your decision to take a walk...yet fail to acknowledge that a random quantum event within the system is just as much at fault for any alteration to brain function. Just as uncontrolled in terms of outcome as the car, neither being chosen or under the power of regulative will.

Yet you call this 'free will' - which is quite strange.

The decision from the decision-making process could have been different

Not in the instance in time that the glitch occurred. That is what happened. You can't go back in time and not have the same glitch occur at the precise time it occurred.

You snuck in "changes to the decision making process". I am assuming that randomness is a part of the process.

I didn't sneak anything in. The neural decision making process is deterministic and not random, neurons and their networks being macro scale structures. If random quantum effects alter the course of rational decision making, calculating benefit to cost ratios, it would likely disrupt the decision making process and manifest as a glitch. A neuronal version of being bumped by a car. Random noise not being conducive to rational processing.

 

[ryan]

The decision from the decision-making process could have been different

Not in the instance in time that the glitch occurred. That is what happened. You can't go back in time and not have the same glitch occur at the precise time it occurred.

Of course, once the choice is made there is no going back to change it.

Also, it is what I chose; not what happened to me.

You snuck in "changes to the decision making process". I am assuming that randomness is a part of the process.

I didn't sneak anything in. The neural decision making process is deterministic and not random, neurons and their networks being macro scale structures. If random quantum effects alter the course of rational decision making, calculating benefit to cost ratios, it would likely disrupt the decision making process and manifest as a glitch. A neuronal version of being bumped by a car. Random noise not being conducive to rational processing.

Okay fine, call it a glitch of the decision-making process; I will call it a part of the decision-making process. And it is still the person that made the choice, and the choice could have been different. The choice did not have to be totally causal.

 

[Togo]

I believe I have fully and completly answered your question. Unless you can tell me what is missing from my answer, we can'tng is a continue.

What is missing is an actual answer. An negative definition is not an answer.

A positive definition is what you gave me. I gave you the contrary. If you don't consider my response an actual answer, then it can only be because your own statement didn't meet that standard. If you can just state that decisions are determined and demand a counter example, then I can just do the opposite.

I'm happy to answer your questions as fully as you like, but you need to hold both sides to the same standard of proof. I'll give the same level of detail that you give.

I suspect what you actually want is for me to argue for an exception to determinism, without you having to admit to holding it as a criterion.

Do you really think that someone wills something without having some sort of desire to reach an objective that causes them to will, because that desires outweighs the other desires they have?

It would occur whenever desire > (pros+cons). Which sounds very similar to the free will that you were implying your equation was eliminating. I think what you need for your claim to work is a relationship where desire has no causal effect on action whatsoever.

Not where I was going whatsoever. Desire causes will. You hardly will something without wanting something.

Ok, I've asked you to explain the distinct between will and desire several times now, and you not responded. Without that, I can't make sense of what you're saying. I'm just going to assume this line of reasoning is irrelevant to your case until I can get that explanation.

I suppose the fact that no non deterministic system has every been witnessed in the history of the universe doesn't have any impact?

No, not really. Partly for the reasons we discussed earlier. As you said, the fact that we can model something non-deterministically doesn't make it non-deterministic,

We can't model something non-deterministically. We can make deterministic models that describe probabilities, but we cannot make a non-deterministic model.

Ok, you seem to be using a different meaning of the term 'deterministic' from that used by mathematicians and physicists, who actually build the models we're talking about.

Which explains where you're getting your 'illogical' from - presumably you're just using a definition of determinism which would make it false by definition. What would be interesting is if you could link that definition back to the thesis you were saying was illogical - if you could demonstrate that free will logically necessitates the kind of determinism you're talking about. Otherwise your objection is just a misconception on your part as to what free will means. I was kinda hoping for more.

To quote the old adage "Angry ducks may begin the nuclear bombardment of Earth from their hidden lair on the dark side of the Moon tomorrow, but I see no reason to think that this will happen".

Indeed so, but that cuts both ways. You might believe that intentions that people report having are illusory constructs secretly controlled by a host of undetectable prior determinants, but my point is simply that there isn't any reason to think so.

Well, if you don't want to believe the truth-

And that's the problem. You're claiming that your reason for dismissing free will is related to the argument about ducks. When I point out that the argument runs equally against either assuming free will or assuming determinism, suddenly you switch to some form of revealed truth. This is a philosophy forum. You can't just claim that you must be right because... you're right.

Keep in mind that hidden determinism (such as QM bs) != indeterminate,

But again, you've no reason to assume that Quantum Indeterminism is secretly determinism, except for your personal fondness for the concept.

Ok. Those leaves on the tree outside are going to start behaving indeterminately in the wind. Not chaotically. Indeterminately.

Can you demonstrate they aren't doing so already? Give me the measurement you can make to check.

 

[Juma]

What is missing is an actual answer. An negative definition is not an answer.

A positive definition is what you gave me.

No i did not. I stated: a decision is either random or calculated. That is not a definition, it is sn pretty obvious observation: a decision has two components 1) randomness 2) calculation of known data

So my question is: what other components do you believe there are?

 

[DBT]

Not in the instance in time that the glitch occurred. That is what happened. You can't go back in time and not have the same glitch occur at the precise time it occurred.

Of course, once the choice is made there is no going back to change it.

Also, it is what I chose; not what happened to me.

How exactly do you orchestrate neural information processing, and whatever random quantum events may alter the course of processing, in order to avoid what is happening on a cellular, molecular and quantum levels?

Okay fine, call it a glitch of the decision-making process; I will call it a part of the decision-making process. And it is still the person that made the choice, and the choice could have been different. The choice did not have to be totally causal.

It may be a part of the decision making process, but it is not something that you, the conscious entity going by the user name 'ryan,' are consciously able to perceive or control.

You do not regulate quantum uncertainty or randomness in order to choose otherwise. You do not have Libertarian free will. Nor, logically, does quantum randomness allow LFW.

If you disagree, and you can indeed manipulate quantum randomness to your own advantage, that is what you need to explain, and prove.

 

[ryan]

Of course, once the choice is made there is no going back to change it.

Also, it is what I chose; not what happened to me.

How exactly do you orchestrate neural information processing, and whatever random quantum events may alter the course of processing, in order to avoid what is happening on a cellular, molecular and quantum levels?

Maybe it's pattern recognition of very complex processes.

Okay fine, call it a glitch of the decision-making process; I will call it a part of the decision-making process. And it is still the person that made the choice, and the choice could have been different. The choice did not have to be totally causal.

It may be a part of the decision making process, but it is not something that you, the conscious entity going by the user name 'ryan,' are consciously able to perceive or control.

You do not regulate quantum uncertainty or randomness in order to choose otherwise. You do not have Libertarian free will. Nor, logically, does quantum randomness allow LFW.

If you disagree, and you can indeed manipulate quantum randomness to your own advantage, that is what you need to explain, and prove.

Again, the quantum randomness is a component of "I"/consciousness since we are assuming that the microtubules and their QM effects are integral to what "I" is. We are the microtubules + A + B + C + ... We are CM and QM.

 

[DBT]

How exactly do you orchestrate neural information processing, and whatever random quantum events may alter the course of processing, in order to avoid what is happening on a cellular, molecular and quantum levels?

Maybe it's pattern recognition of very complex processes.

Information processing involves pattern recognition....but considering that random events are not actually patterns (which would not be random)...where does that leave you?

Again, the quantum randomness is a component of "I"/consciousness since we are assuming that the microtubules and their QM effects are integral to what "I" is. We are the microtubules + A + B + C + ... We are CM and QM.

But your 'I' - conscious 'ryan' - doesn't manage or manipulate random fluctuations, or even neural processing, but is the end result of information processing, the final report based on readiness potential, the virtual/subjective construct composed of prior information exchange between inputs, memory and neural architecture.

 

[ryan]

Maybe it's pattern recognition of very complex processes.

Information processing involves pattern recognition....but considering that random events are not actually patterns (which would not be random)...where does that leave you?

It would be a recognized input producing a recognized pattern.

Again, the quantum randomness is a component of "I"/consciousness since we are assuming that the microtubules and their QM effects are integral to what "I" is. We are the microtubules + A + B + C + ... We are CM and QM.

But your 'I' - conscious 'ryan' - doesn't manage or manipulate random fluctuations ...

What my components do is the same thing as what I do.

 

[DBT]

Information processing involves pattern recognition....but considering that random events are not actually patterns (which would not be random)...where does that leave you?

It would be a recognized input producing a recognized pattern.

It's not 'recognized' until readiness potential is achieved. Up until that point it is raw information input that stimulates response in the form of propagation/processing/memory integration, etc, etc.

At no time can the system choose to do other than what is happening according to information conditions and architecture....which is expressed as 'you' and 'your' subjective experience of the world in the form of sight, sound, touch, feel, feeling, thought.

What my components do is the same thing as what I do.

Not quite right.

Backwards in fact.

What you do is precisely what the components forming and generating 'you' and 'your' experience of self, existence and the world, are doing.

You are not the creator of yourself or the orchestrator of brain activity, you are not the master of your fate, or the captain of your soul...or the homunculus of your brain.

The state of the system/brain is the state of you.

Your will is the state of system/brain.

Your decisions are manifestations of he state of system/brain.

You, conscious self/experience as a virtual construct of the brain, not even being constantly activated, have no choice in the matter.

 

[fromderinside]

Keep in mind that hidden determinism (such as QM bs) != indeterminate,

But again, you've no reason to assume that Quantum Indeterminism is secretly determinism, except for your personal fondness for the concept.

Ok. Those leaves on the tree outside are going to start behaving indeterminately in the wind. Not chaotically. Indeterminately.

Can you demonstrate they aren't doing so already? Give me the measurement you can make to check.

Sure. EEG can be described as chaotic behavior. By repetitive sampling we can recover underlying patterns, describable as non-linear equations, which cognitive scientists relate to underlying structural activity that are consistent. We can't recover Quantum underlying structure in the same way.

 

[ryan]

What my components do is the same thing as what I do.

Not quite right.

Backwards in fact.

I think you misread what I said because it makes no difference if B = C is backwards. "I" = components, or components = "I".

What you do is precisely what the components forming and generating 'you' and 'your' experience of self, existence and the world, are doing.

Components and "I" are the same thing, so they do things simultaneously.

You are not the creator of yourself or the orchestrator of brain activity, you are not the master of your fate, or the captain of your soul...or the homunculus of your brain.

The state of the system/brain is the state of you.

I agree.

Your will is the state of system/brain.

Your decisions are manifestations of he state of system/brain.

This is all "I".

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, I've asked you to explain the distinct between will and desire several times now, and you not responded. Without that, I can't make sense of what you're saying. I'm just going to assume this line of reasoning is irrelevant to your case until I can get that explanation.

Will, in the context of free will, is always "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action".

Substitute "want" for "desire" as desire implies a strength of "want" that may be excessive.

Ok, you seem to be using a different meaning of the term 'deterministic' from that used by mathematicians and physicists, who actually build the models we're talking about.
Which explains where you're getting your 'illogical' from - presumably you're just using a definition of determinism which would make it false by definition. What would be interesting is if you could link that definition back to the thesis you were saying was illogical - if you could demonstrate that free will logically necessitates the kind of determinism you're talking about. Otherwise your objection is just a misconception on your part as to what free will means. I was kinda hoping for more.

Wait- are you saying that mathematicians would say a deterministic model is something other than a model, which given a set of inputs creates a specific output?

The Schrodinger equation, given a set of inputs, always produces the same probability function to describe the probability of certain events occurring. The limits of the deterministic Schrodinger equation (the fact that it doesn't include all variables in reality, which determine the outcome of the events it partially maps) are not the limits of reality.

And that's the problem. You're claiming that your reason for dismissing free will is related to the argument about ducks.

I hope nobody believes that...

When I point out that the argument runs equally against either assuming free will or assuming determinism, suddenly you switch to some form of revealed truth. This is a philosophy forum. You can't just claim that you must be right because... you're right.

I don't think I claimed I must be right because I'm right, although what I said is true (there is no evidence of any non-deterministic process in nature). Look around you, observe reality. Everything is ordered. There is a bit of chaos at certain levels, but ultimately it is ordered, although not entirely predictable chaos.

Did your house just change in a disordered fashion? No. Are you going to behave predictably and refuse to acknowledge the truth? Yes.

Ok. Those leaves on the tree outside are going to start behaving indeterminately in the wind. Not chaotically. Indeterminately.

Can you demonstrate they aren't doing so already? Give me the measurement you can make to check.

That's silly. Look at a glass of water. Is it behaving differently than a glass of water did yesterday? How about an ice cube. Put one in your underwear. Is it behaving differently than ice cubes did yesterday?

There is order, not because you believe there is order, there is underlying order that causes you to believe in order.

Show

Now, holding onto the wrong idea, like a dog holding a bone, can cause you to create incorrect maps of reality. So... I'd suggest letting go of indeterminism, because it is nonsense, however I understand that the deterministic nature of some minds is such that they are too stupid to let go of an idea that they feel other minds are trying to "wreck". Indeterminism is a silly idea, based on incomplete reasoning, and people who claim QM indicates something non-deterministic about reality just don't get reality. Of course words can't prove anything to someone who refuses to look at reality and acknowledge it, especially if they will hide from every little bit of reasoning presented, because chaos looks indeterministic from certain perspectives. It is not.

 

[DBT]

Not quite right.

Backwards in fact.

I think you misread what I said because it makes no difference if B = C is backwards. "I" = components, or components = "I".

No, I've pointed out that ultimately it makes no difference backwards, forwards or sideways.

The organism does not choose it's own architecture.
The brain/processor has, without choice, evolved to enable interaction with environment.
Nothing that happens in relation to the interaction of quantum and macro scale information processing is subject to conscious choice.
There is no option to have 'chosen otherwise' under the same circumstances.
Information conditions (including random interference) at the moment of a selection being made by the processor/brain determines the decision that is made in that instance, which is then represented in conscious form.

Which effectively eliminates 'freedom of will' because none of this is subject to will.

Will is expressed after the fact.

This is all "I".

No, it's not. Self identity is a construct of processing. Built entirely from memory. You conflating the constituent parts, even the sum of the constituent parts, with the emergent property of self identity and awareness.

The former can exist without the presence of the latter, but the latter does not exist without the specific electrochemical activity that generates consciousness.

 

[ryan]

I think you misread what I said because it makes no difference if B = C is backwards. "I" = components, or components = "I".

No, I've pointed out that ultimately it makes no difference backwards, forwards or sideways.

You specifically said "backwards". Then I pointed out that backwards is irrelevant to the equivalence of components to "I".

The organism does not choose it's own architecture.

I agree.

The brain/processor has, without choice, evolved to enable interaction with environment.

For dilemmas, small decisions or other close decisions, evolution goes right out the window if these microtubules actually produce random outputs.

There is no option to have 'chosen otherwise' under the same circumstances.

I agree.

Information conditions (including random interference) at the moment of a selection being made by the processor/brain determines the decision that is made in that instance, which is then represented in conscious form.

I don't know how this conflicts with my argument.

This is all "I".

No, it's not. Self identity is a construct of processing. Built entirely from memory. You conflating the constituent parts, even the sum of the constituent parts, with the emergent property of self identity and awareness.

The former can exist without the presence of the latter, but the latter does not exist without the specific electrochemical activity that generates consciousness.

Unless you are talking about dualism, the emergent properties self identity and awareness are the processes.

 

[DBT]

No, I've pointed out that ultimately it makes no difference backwards, forwards or sideways.

You specifically said "backwards". Then I pointed out that backwards is irrelevant to the equivalence of components to "I".

I specifically said that you had agency backwards. But I also pointed out that this doesn't help to establish a case for your contentions.

I agree.

There is a nail in the coffin of your quantum free will.

For dilemmas, small decisions or other close decisions, evolution goes right out the window if these microtubules actually produce random outputs.

Random outputs are, by self definition, not decisions. Nor do random outputs relate to 'small decision' or any kind of decisions. Decisions are a matter of weighing cost to benefit ratio - which is not random - or driven by addictions, habits, fears, desires...these being the set of one's proclivities.

Which are not random, but object related...and another nail in the coffin of your quantum free will.

I agree.

Another nail in the coffin of your quantum free will, including the LFW definition you gave earlier:' 'A common and central part of the definition of free will is that we could have chosen differently. The decision-making process in "I" could have chosen differently'' (ryan)

''If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else - ryan''

I don't know how this conflicts with my argument.

It means that you, ryan, do not get to make the decisions. They are made by the underlying information processing activity.

Unless you are talking about dualism, the emergent properties self identity and awareness are the processes.

An emergent property is not present in any of the constituent parts, but is a property of the function and activity of the structure. The qualities and attributes of an emergent property are determined by the architecture of the mechanism.... and consequently, do not have free will.

 

[Togo]

A positive definition is what you gave me.

No i did not. I stated: a decision is either random or calculated. That is not a definition,

Technically it is, as it takes the form X is Y. It may not be a very useful or complete one.

But the fact remains that you stated that decisions must be a certain way, and when I suggest a simple contradiction, suddenly I need to provide more information? Why?

it is sn pretty obvious observation: a decision has two components 1) randomness 2) calculation of known data

So it's an observation? How are you observing whether all (non-random) decisions are comprised of known data?

So my question is: what other components do you believe there are?

??? I'm not proposing components at all. That was your proposition. I'm simply pointing out that your belief is an assumption, one you can't justify. Trying to reverse the burden of proof doesn't change that.

Keep in mind that hidden determinism (such as QM bs) != indeterminate,

But again, you've no reason to assume that Quantum Indeterminism is secretly determinism, except for your personal fondness for the concept.

Ok. Those leaves on the tree outside are going to start behaving indeterminately in the wind. Not chaotically. Indeterminately.

Can you demonstrate they aren't doing so already? Give me the measurement you can make to check.

Sure. EEG can be described as chaotic behavior. By repetitive sampling we can recover underlying patterns, describable as non-linear equations, which cognitive scientists relate to underlying structural activity that are consistent. We can't recover Quantum underlying structure in the same way.

So, how is the determinant or indeterminant nature of something to be measured then?

If it can't be measured, then it's not an observation. It's an assumption.

Ok, I've asked you to explain the distinct between will and desire several times now, and you not responded. Without that, I can't make sense of what you're saying. I'm just going to assume this line of reasoning is irrelevant to your case until I can get that explanation.

Will, in the context of free will, is always "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action".

Substitute "want" for "desire" as desire implies a strength of "want" that may be excessive.

That's great - when do I get an actual distinction between desire want and will? Until I do, I can't make sense of what you're saying.

Ok, you seem to be using a different meaning of the term 'deterministic' from that used by mathematicians and physicists, who actually build the models we're talking about.
Which explains where you're getting your 'illogical' from - presumably you're just using a definition of determinism which would make it false by definition. What would be interesting is if you could link that definition back to the thesis you were saying was illogical - if you could demonstrate that free will logically necessitates the kind of determinism you're talking about. Otherwise your objection is just a misconception on your part as to what free will means. I was kinda hoping for more.

Wait- are you saying that mathematicians would say a deterministic model is something other than a model, which given a set of inputs creates a specific output?

No, I'm saying creating non-deterministic models is common in mathematics. That many of the mathematicians I know work on non-deterministic models. You're saying such models are a contradiction. I'm inclined to believe you're using the same words differently to them.

And that's the problem. You're claiming that your reason for dismissing free will is related to the argument about ducks.

I hope nobody believes that...

Well either that or the ducks were a derail, so you didn't have to answer the question I asked, about how you're distinguishing between determined and not determined in nature. I'm going to keep asking that question, because, well, I know that you don't have any way of identifying an observable difference between a determined system and one that is not, and thus that your insistence that the universe runs on such systems is an assumption.

When I point out that the argument runs equally against either assuming free will or assuming determinism, suddenly you switch to some form of revealed truth. This is a philosophy forum. You can't just claim that you must be right because... you're right.

I don't think I claimed I must be right because I'm right, although what I said is true (there is no evidence of any non-deterministic process in nature). Look around you, observe reality. Everything is ordered. There is a bit of chaos at certain levels, but ultimately it is ordered, although not entirely predictable chaos.

What is this fortune cookie nonsense? It's 'ultimately' ordered, even if it's chaotic? You said it was an observation. That means we can see it, measure it. Don't give me any of this 'ordained secrets of the universe' nonsense, just give me the observation you've made that shows that the universe works according to the principles you've outlined. Or admit there isn't one.

Did your house just change in a disordered fashion? No.

Why do you believe that is implied?

Ok. Those leaves on the tree outside are going to start behaving indeterminately in the wind. Not chaotically. Indeterminately.

Can you demonstrate they aren't doing so already? Give me the measurement you can make to check.

That's silly. Look at a glass of water. Is it behaving differently than a glass of water did yesterday? How about an ice cube. Put one in your underwear. Is it behaving differently than ice cubes did yesterday? There is order, ...

And this implies a deterministic universe how, exactly?

Again, most professional mathematicians and physicists I know are perfectly happy with the idea of non-deterministic models, including models of physical reality. Yes you can get a deterministic interpretation of QM, but it's not very popular, because it appears to give strange results, like particles travelling backwards in time, or breaking the speed of light. That's why the leading theories in this field are not deterministic.

You appear to have internalised a quite different understanding, involving some idea that any kind of pattern or order is impossible unless the universe is strictly determined. I don't know where you've gotten this idea from, but you appear reluctant to actually discuss it, which doesn't fill me with confidence that you really understand it.

Show

...Indeterminism is a silly idea, based on incomplete reasoning, and people who claim QM indicates something non-deterministic about reality just don't get reality...

You would come up with this after my CERN access ran out. Do you have any particle physicists you can talk to about this? Failing that, maybe we can raise this on the science board? They were pretty helpful with the last QM denier I ran across.

Honestly though, I think you've just got a wonky idea of what non-deterministic actually means. Or implies.

 

[ryan]

You specifically said "backwards". Then I pointed out that backwards is irrelevant to the equivalence of components to "I".

I specifically said that you had agency backwards. But I also pointed out that this doesn't help to establish a case for your contentions.

This is a major issue in the discussion. I essentially said that A = B. You said that I have it backwards. The parts of the decision-making process = the decision making process.

I agree.

There is a nail in the coffin of your quantum free will.

But the wood is rotting.

For dilemmas, small decisions or other close decisions, evolution goes right out the window if these microtubules actually produce random outputs.

Random outputs are, by self definition, not decisions.

Nobody is saying that are decisions. That's like telling me that there can't be a decision-making process because each part does not make a decision. Then there is no such thing as a decision-making process either.

Nor do random outputs relate to 'small decision' or any kind of decisions. Decisions are a matter of weighing cost to benefit ratio - which is not random ...

Many different kinds of benefits are subjective.

... - or driven by addictions, habits, fears, desires...these being the set of one's proclivities.

Which are not random, but object related...and another nail in the coffin of your quantum free will.

We are talking about choices/decisions, not the forces that influence them.

I agree.

Another nail in the coffin of your quantum free will, including the LFW definition you gave earlier:' 'A common and central part of the definition of free will is that we could have chosen differently. The decision-making process in "I" could have chosen differently'' (ryan)

''If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else - ryan''

I agreed to this, "The state of the system/brain is the state of you.".

I don't know how this conflicts with my argument.

It means that you, ryan, do not get to make the decisions. They are made by the underlying information processing activity.

Which is me.

Unless you are talking about dualism, the emergent properties self identity and awareness are the processes.

An emergent property is not present in any of the constituent parts, but is a property of the function and activity of the structure. The qualities and attributes of an emergent property are determined by the architecture of the mechanism.... and consequently, do not have free will.

And "I" is the mechanisms.

 

[Kharakov]

Will, in the context of free will, is always "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action".

That's great - when do I get an actual distinction between desire want and will? Until I do, I can't make sense of what you're saying.

What's the difference between want (hunger) and will (eating)? If you don't know, I can't explain it to you.

Wait- are you saying that mathematicians would say a deterministic model is something other than a model, which given a set of inputs creates a specific output?

No, I'm saying creating non-deterministic models is common in mathematics. That many of the mathematicians I know work on non-deterministic models. You're saying such models are a contradiction.

No. Stochastic models use "random" variables as inputs. This doesn't mean that they are non-deterministic in the sense that given a specific set of inputs they will produce different outputs.

http://mathforum.org/mathimages/index.php/Deterministic_system

I know that you don't have any way of identifying an observable difference between a determined system and one that is not, and thus that your insistence that the universe runs on such systems is an assumption.

Like I said, you can appeal to ignorance, or you can just look around you. Water isn't behaving differently today.

I don't think I claimed I must be right because I'm right, although what I said is true (there is no evidence of any non-deterministic process in nature). Look around you, observe reality. Everything is ordered. There is a bit of chaos at certain levels, but ultimately it is ordered, although not entirely predictable chaos.

It's 'ultimately' ordered, even if it's chaotic? You said it was an observation. That means we can see it, measure it.

So, you've seen and measured the fact that the universe is ordered, although certain types of order can produce chaos. I suppose I don't get why you like to pretend it's non-deterministic?

That's silly. Look at a glass of water. Is it behaving differently than a glass of water did yesterday? How about an ice cube. Put one in your underwear. Is it behaving differently than ice cubes did yesterday? There is order, ...

And this implies a deterministic universe how, exactly?

Most people would take the fact that everything that they can measure acts deterministically as a clue. Just sayin.

Again, most professional mathematicians and physicists I know are perfectly happy with the idea of non-deterministic models, including models of physical reality.

Stochastic models aren't non-deterministic models. A non-deterministic model is a model that given a specific set of inputs, produces a different set of outputs.

Stochastic models sample background noise, or use random number generators, as inputs to the models. This means that the models produce different outputs because their inputs change. They are still deterministic models in the sense that given a specific set of inputs, they produce the same outputs.

The Schrodinger equation is deterministic, yet it does not describe individual quantum level events- only the pattern of large numbers of events. The system that it describes cannot be described precisely with the information that we have access to, so we can only describe the system probabilistically.

...Indeterminism is a silly idea, based on incomplete reasoning, and people who claim QM indicates something non-deterministic about reality just don't get reality...

You would come up with this after my CERN access ran out.

Do you have any particle physicists you can talk to about this? Failing that, maybe we can raise this on the science board?

Bring it up if you want. The fact is that we can't measure everything about the system, which is where quantum "indeterminism" arises.

We can just look around us at the rest of reality to pick up on the fact that the system, as a whole, is deterministic.

 

[ryan]

We can just look around us at the rest of reality to pick up on the fact that the system, as a whole, is deterministic.

da sun floats in da airrrr. don't believe me, just looki