A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

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.

No, your error lies in the absence of regulative control in relation to the very thing you claim allows free will: random fluctuations. These logically cannot aid decision making, which is related to and based upon deterministic information and deterministic brain architecture.....there being no examples of decision making outside of the biological activity of filtering information that is deemed important to the organism.

But the wood is rotting.

No, that's the argument inside that's decaying.

You are trying to keep it alive by ignoring the fact that will does not regulate either biological activity or any random quantum components of the process.

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

But that is exactly what you are claiming when you claim that quantum randomness means that the outcome could have been different.

But then you say the outcome could not have been different.

Your argument is all over the place.

'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''

Which is me.

The components that an organism is composed of exist regardless of whether the organism is alive or dead

Carbon is just an element we call 'carbon.' Carbon is not necessarily 'you.'

Water is not 'you' Calcium is not 'you' etc, etc. These are the constituent parts of an organism, which do not function like a living organism in isolation.

And "I" is the mechanisms.

The mechanism may operate without the presence of 'you' - in fact it does most of the time. When you are asleep, absorbed in something, the big gaps between moments of self awareness...

 

[ryan]

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.

No, your error lies in the absence of regulative control in relation to the very thing you claim allows free will: random fluctuations. These logically cannot aid decision making, which is related to and based upon deterministic information and deterministic brain architecture.....there being no examples of decision making outside of the biological activity of filtering information that is deemed important to the organism.

I don't know what this has to do with what I said.

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

But that is exactly what you are claiming when you claim that quantum randomness means that the outcome could have been different.

Our decisions are influenced outside of the decision-making process. A part of the decision-making process cannot influence the decision-making process by definition.

But then you say the outcome could not have been different.

Where did I say that?

'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''

Suppose I make some decision and 10 minutes passes. If we reversed the universe 11 minutes to before I make the decision and if QM really is objectively random and if there are random outputs from microtubules, then my decision could have been different.

Which is me.

The components that an organism is composed of exist regardless of whether the organism is alive or dead

Carbon is just an element we call 'carbon.' Carbon is not necessarily 'you.'

Water is not 'you' Calcium is not 'you' etc, etc. These are the constituent parts of an organism, which do not function like a living organism in isolation.

I agree, so why do you keep defining the decision-making process by only one of its random components namely the random component?

And "I" is the mechanisms.

The mechanism may operate without the presence of 'you' - in fact it does most of the time. When you are asleep, absorbed in something, the big gaps between moments of self awareness...

You wanted a definition of "I", so I gave you one that includes the unconsciousness.

 

[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.

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, 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.

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.

OK so we have non-deterministic which is anything that does't provide an explicit constant identical fixed results with repeated measurements, in-deterministic which is something we can't (is beyond what we can) see or measure so we presume a structure through which we can then manipulate and evaluate results, and deterministic which is a categorization of order describing the way things at time t=0 are thereafter.

They're not the same things guys. Non-deterministic measurements and mathematics are related to anything that is subject to variability by factors which aren't determined, in-deterministic measurements are related to a specific system of measurements governed by a well defined model predicting behavior, and determinism is the basis for current scientific theory which includes the time t=0 stuff and confidence there is order that results in ultimate explanation of physical things.

All scientific experiment measurement are non-deterministic estimates of things presumed to work in a determined way. They are non-deterministic because we can't control everything even in one variable physical study. Some error is going to be present. That thing behind free will is related to in-determinism which is based on outcomes of research of that which is beyond our ability to directly or even indirectly see or manipulate without a frame in which it seems to be explainable. We can blow up stuff and measure the energies and existences of other stuff we can't control is one way to look at it.

The later is man's only barrier to our confidence about the behavior of the very small. We are arrogant enough to think that because we can see electromagnetic stuff we can draw upon and model it confidently, beyond not being everywhere all the time, (probably wrongly, but, that is another discussion). What we have left to answer Togo is whether we can design an experiments that distinguishes in-determinism, not non-determinism, from our deterministic model of the world. The EEG example does that quite adequately Togo.

Finally the model deterministic model you prescribe, Togo, is actually our current unified or whatever field theory of physics. It fails spectacularly to incorporate what we seem to understand,  [B]Higgs boson[/B] not withstanding, about QM world.

This is what I used to do back in the ought-80s. "Modern Code Validation:How Do We Do It?" https://nekvacworkshop.inl.gov/Shared Documents/Oberkampf-Validation.pdf

I think it does a pretty good job of talking like Togo without the in-deterministic hoo haw.

 

[fromderinside]

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

Air, schmaire. More lessons needed. You are reassigned to test the transporter room on planets without atmospheres.

 

[Kharakov]

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

Air, schmaire. More lessons needed. You are reassigned to test the transporter room on planets without atmospheres.

Ryan would somehow manage to beam aboard an intelligent vacuum entity that sucked all the air from the room every time it voiced its opinion.

 

[Kharakov]

OK so we have non-deterministic which is anything that does't provide an explicit constant identical fixed results with repeated measurements, in-deterministic which is something we can't (is beyond what we can) see or measure so we presume a structure through which we can then manipulate and evaluate results, and deterministic which is a categorization of order describing the way things at time t=0 are thereafter.

For the purposes of "non determinate" or "determinate" will:

Determinate in the sense that the initial inputs to the system decide the output of the system.
Non-determinate would mean that the initial inputs do not determine the output of the system.

Not that one would ever say they will something to occur without feeling a certain sense of determination. The whole concept of non-determined will is wrong on multiple levels of punishing definition. We know that terminate will ends. Determinate will would not. And non-de-terminate will would also end. Nonindeterminate will would not... and on and on and on and on.

It seems that the non determinate will proselytizers are determined to keep the conversation going because they know it is fun. Of course, they are quite determined in their efforts to prove that they are undetermined, which seems to fail because of multiple equivocations centered around will, determination, etc.

The question about will is do they deter mine?

 

[ryan]

OK so we have non-deterministic which is anything that does't provide an explicit constant identical fixed results with repeated measurements, in-deterministic which is something we can't (is beyond what we can) see or measure so we presume a structure through which we can then manipulate and evaluate results, and deterministic which is a categorization of order describing the way things at time t=0 are thereafter.

For the purposes of "non determinate" or "determinate" will:

Determinate in the sense that the initial inputs to the system decide the output of the system.
Non-determinate would mean that the initial inputs do not determine the output of the system.

Not that one would ever say they will something to occur without feeling a certain sense of determination. The whole concept of non-determined will is wrong on multiple levels of punishing definition. We know that terminate will ends. Determinate will would not. And non-de-terminate will would also end. Nonindeterminate will would not... and on and on and on and on.

It seems that the non determinate will proselytizers are determined to keep the conversation going because they know it is fun. Of course, they are quite determined in their efforts to prove that they are undetermined, which seems to fail because of multiple equivocations centered around will, determination, etc.

The question about will is do they deter mine?

Something smells really bad, and it is coming from this post. You still have time to delete it.

 

[DBT]

Our decisions are influenced outside of the decision-making process. A part of the decision-making process cannot influence the decision-making process by definition.

If decisions are influenced from outside the decision making process, the 'influence' is a form of external agency which you have no control over. Therefore no choice in how this external agency changes the decision making process and its natural outcome.

This is not 'free will'

It is not even will.

This is what you keep dancing around. Avoiding the point like a champion boxer...but no moves with which to counter. Strong, fast legs but no hand technique.

Where did I say that?

Here:

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.

Now, once a decision is made - by information exchange within the system - in that instance, and there is no going back to change it, there can be no other circumstances, conditions, random fluctuations in that instance other than what in fact occurred in that instance (unless superposition expresses all possibilities)....therefore there is no possibility of having chosen otherwise in that instance.

It's only during the progression of time and fresh input that allows another decision to be made...perhaps rectifying the original decision that proved to be the wrong decision to make.

It is specifically the fresh information, and not 'free will' that allows a better decision to be made.

None of it being a matter of 'will,' but information exchange within the brain/processor.

 

[Kharakov]

Something smells really bad, and it is coming from this post. You still have time to delete it.

Ryan, can't delete your post for you bud.

 

[ryan]

If decisions are influenced from outside the decision making process, the 'influence' is a form of external agency which you have no control over. Therefore no choice in how this external agency changes the decision making process and its natural outcome.

This is not 'free will'

It is not even will.

We don't always get what we want. Our freedom is limited within constraints. And sometimes it is harder to make a decision against our urges, impulses, desires, etc.

This is what you keep dancing around. Avoiding the point like a champion boxer...but no moves with which to counter. Strong, fast legs but no hand technique.

What am I dancing around? Am I avoiding a question? If so, what is it?

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.

Now, once a decision is made - by information exchange within the system - in that instance, and there is no going back to change it, there can be no other circumstances, conditions, random fluctuations in that instance other than what in fact occurred in that instance (unless superposition expresses all possibilities)....therefore there is no possibility of having chosen otherwise in that instance.

There could have been something else, not can be something else.

There is an argument using general relativity to make that argument for free will using time travel, but my argument is about QM.

 

[bilby]

If decisions are influenced from outside the decision making process, the 'influence' is a form of external agency which you have no control over. Therefore no choice in how this external agency changes the decision making process and its natural outcome.

This is not 'free will'

It is not even will.

This is what you keep dancing around. Avoiding the point like a champion boxer...but no moves with which to counter. Strong, fast legs but no hand technique.

Where did I say that?

Here:

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.

Now, once a decision is made - by information exchange within the system - in that instance, and there is no going back to change it, there can be no other circumstances, conditions, random fluctuations in that instance other than what in fact occurred in that instance (unless superposition expresses all possibilities)....therefore there is no possibility of having chosen otherwise in that instance.

It's only during the progression of time and fresh input that allows another decision to be made...perhaps rectifying the original decision that proved to be the wrong decision to make.

It is specifically the fresh information, and not 'free will' that allows a better decision to be made.

None of it being a matter of 'will,' but information exchange within the brain/processor.

Ryan floats like a butterfly, and stings like a butterfly.

 

[ryan]

Ryan floats like a butterfly, and stings like a butterfly.

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[fromderinside]

Determinate in the sense that the initial inputs to the system decide the output of the system.
Non-determinate would mean that the initial inputs do not determine the output of the system.

As a software validator I know what persons intend when they write SW, they actually tell me. I don't know whether their SW will operate on all physical equipment the same way or even whether their code results in the same response every time. This is a non-deterministic situation. It also applies to conditions where variables controlled aren't always controlled or some variables aren't understood to be involved that are involved in determinining outputs.

So experiments must have means to find whether one can be confident whether the result is the same as predicted and programmed. This sort of stuff may go to indeterminate only if variables unknown, or, unknowable to the situation are operative. Ramping up to mind doesn't really compute here. As I've often said in the past there are too many intervening variables for one to make deterministic predictions. Its a bit like one seeing carrots put in a pot then seeing one eat soup with carrots in it and calling that mind.

 

[Kharakov]

Determinate in the sense that the initial inputs to the system decide the output of the system.
Non-determinate would mean that the initial inputs do not determine the output of the system.

As a software validator I know what persons intend when they write SW, they actually tell me. I don't know whether their SW will operate on all physical equipment the same way or even whether their code results in the same response every time. This is a non-deterministic situation.

You're apparently equivocating the terms. ND and D in the discussion about FW refer specifically to the 2 things I mentioned. For will to be "free" it must not be determined by any inputs, known or unknown.

You don't (and maybe can't) know all the inputs to the software at the machine shop. You don't know what  race conditions exist, which are influenced by fluctuations in the power grid at your machining shop due to the machines being used there, and in other locations. You don't (and maybe can't) know that the analog detectors that input to your software don't have various irregularities, or whether atmospheric humidity, temperature, or other things affects them.

None of these things that influence the system, that you don't or can't know, make the system itself ND in the sense that the systems states do not determine its successive states. You're using ND to describe systems with inputs you cannot detect or predict, not ND systems. There is a major difference between the two... I think.

Ramping up to mind doesn't really compute here. As I've often said in the past there are too many intervening variables for one to make deterministic predictions.

Well, yeah. We can't even predict the exact results of simple chaotic algorithms (although sometimes we can create probabilistic models of them, like some do with QM).


Is a discrete system that uses the checksum of the total data in the system as an input deterministic? How about an indiscreet system?

Seriously, how about a smooth system that uses the checksum of the total data in the system as an input, it it deterministic (assume a smooth running checksum is possible for nature, because it isn't limited to discrete computation)?

 

[Togo]

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.

I'm not inclined to guess my way to what you mean. Since you say you can't explain it, I'll ignore it.

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

A stochastic model is one that allows for random variation of the inputs over time. That doesn't mean you just feed it random inputs, that means you feed it discreet events, and it models the random variation over time of future events. I appreciate that it's an easy misunderstanding to come to, because of the way they are described.

Either way, I note that the link you posted has a section on non-determined models, so why claim they don't exist?.

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'm sure it isn't, but we both know that constancy in the behaviour of water isn't a necessary observable difference between a determined system and an undetermined system. Again, it's not enough for you to feel that you are right. You need to prove your point, or you don't have one.

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,

Describe the measurement. No, a 'feeling' doesn't count.

I suppose I don't get why you like to pretend it's non-deterministic?

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that you're just assuming it's determined. I'm not saying it because I feel it will insult you, or somehow make you look bad. I'm saying it's an assumption because that's the technical term for something you are holding to be true without proof.

Do you have proof? If so let's see it. If not, it's an assumption.

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.

We've been over this. You correctly argued that just because you can model something indeterministically doesn't make it indeterministic. The corollary of that is that just because you can model something deterministically, doesn't make it deterministic. You want to 'measure something as acting deterministically' then you need a measurement which is incompatible with an incompatibalistic model. Mathematically, no result is incompatible with an incompatibalistic model. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'something acting deterministically'.

...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.

So give me the observation that shows this.

This isn't complicated. You can't rely on your feelings for this, or on a new-age style 'understanding of the universe'. I understand that actually challenging how you believe the world to be is very uncomfortable. But you need to face the fact that determinism is an assumption. It can not be observed, it can not be demonstrated. That's why you can not come up with any observation whatsoever that could tell a determined event apart from one that isn't.

Because of that, like a great many philosophical positions, it is an assumption. Not an observation, certainly not emperical data. A vastly reasonable assumption perhaps, obvious even. But an assumption nonetheless.

OK so we have non-deterministic which is anything that does't provide an explicit constant identical fixed results with repeated measurements, in-deterministic which is something we can't (is beyond what we can) see or measure so we presume a structure through which we can then manipulate and evaluate results, and deterministic which is a categorization of order describing the way things at time t=0 are thereafter.

Technically, deterministic is the idea that what occurs at t=0 is constant identical fixed results with repeated measurements, assuming the same conditions. Non-deterministic is simply the absence of that. That becomes important, because some people then try to expand the idea of a deterministic universe to assert instead that everything is not just fixed, but either fixed or random, and different arguements apply to different definitions.

As to you drawing a distinction between non-determinstic and indeterministic, fair enough. If everyone is happy with that as a definition I'll limit my posts to using non-deterministic.

They're not the same things guys. Non-deterministic measurements and mathematics are related to anything that is subject to variability by factors which aren't determined, in-deterministic measurements are related to a specific system of measurements governed by a well defined model predicting behavior, and determinism is the basis for current scientific theory which includes the time t=0 stuff and confidence there is order that results in ultimate explanation of physical things.

I don't agree on the last. Determinists may well feel that their position is linked to current scientific theory and the confidence that there is order, but I don't believe that either of them is part of the definition of determinism, and I don't agree that either confidence in order or scientific theory is linked to determinism, as it's supporters claim.

All scientific experiment measurement are non-deterministic estimates of things presumed to work in a determined way. They are non-deterministic because we can't control everything even in one variable physical study. Some error is going to be present. That thing behind free will is related to in-determinism which is based on outcomes of research of that which is beyond our ability to directly or even indirectly see or manipulate without a frame in which it seems to be explainable.

The later is man's only barrier to our confidence about the behavior of the very small. We are arrogant enough to think that because we can see electromagnetic stuff we can draw upon and model it confidently, beyond not being everywhere all the time, (probably wrongly, but, that is another discussion). What we have left to answer Togo is whether we can design an experiments that distinguishes in-determinism, not non-determinism, from our deterministic model of the world. The EEG example does that quite adequately Togo.

No, I don't agree that in-determinism is relevent at all. Yes, we may encounter measurement problems with human behaviour, but free will is not about human behaviour, it is about human mental states. The problem with free will is not that we don't have the practical ability to measure it, because it isn't measureable, even in theory. The problem is that it contradicts determinism. That's why the problem is one of determinism versus non-determinism, with in-determinism being interesting in it's own right, but ultimately irrelvent.

Finally the model deterministic model you prescribe, Togo, is actually our current unified or whatever field theory of physics.

??Um.. I'm not prescribing a deterministic model. Do you mean describe, or proscribe?

This is what I used to do back in the ought-80s. "Modern Code Validation:How Do We Do It?" https://nekvacworkshop.inl.gov/Shared Documents/Oberkampf-Validation.pdf

Sure it's pretty similar to what we do with insurance and risk pricing models now.

Non-determinate would mean that the initial inputs do not determine the output of the system.

Sure, so in, for example, an insurance loss model, all you have is historical losses, but clearly the actual losses are not going to be the same as those. So you instead assume a level of random variation from that, and the outputs are varied accordingly, each time you run the model.

 

[Kharakov]

You seriously don't understand the difference between hunger and eating? That's pretty fundamental, and you need to at least understand that before you can move on to understanding will.

 

[Kharakov]

A stochastic model is one that allows for random variation of the inputs over time. That doesn't mean you just feed it random inputs, that means you feed it discreet events, and it models the random variation over time of future events.

  Stochastic. I'd use a stochastic model to sample phrases from your statements and put them together in new ways to create pseudorandom correct statements.

Either way, I note that the link you posted has a section on non-determined models, so why claim they don't exist?.

Their non-existence is on the level of the NCC 1701 D's non-existence.

So, you've seen and measured the fact that the universe is ordered,

Describe the measurement. No, a 'feeling' doesn't count.

Observe stuff over time. You don't even have to use a standard candle to observe order around you.

I suppose I don't get why you like to pretend it's non-deterministic?

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that you're just assuming it's determined.

I assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow too. I assume lots of things. Doesn't mean they aren't reasonable assumptions.

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

We've been over this. You correctly argued that just because you can model something indeterministically doesn't make it indeterministic.

Yeah, but this doesn't mean anybody can model something non-deterministically.

The corollary of that is that just because you can model something deterministically, doesn't make it deterministic.

No. The fact that the nothing can proceed from non-existent forces pretty much does. If something exists, and has an impact, it's part of the evolution of the system.

Because of that, like a great many philosophical positions, it is an assumption. Not an observation, certainly not emperical data. A vastly reasonable assumption perhaps, obvious even. But an assumption nonetheless.

Yeah. So what? It's the truth, inductive reasoning shows this, even if one cannot prove anything other than one's own existence to one's self. Non-determinism is as solid an assumption as solipsism.

 

[Togo]

  Stochastic.

And again a section on non-deterministic models, which you claim don't exist.

It's weird how many of your links contain sections on this non-existent phenomenon.

Either way, I note that the link you posted has a section on non-determined models, so why claim they don't exist?.

Their non-existence is on the level of the NCC 1701 D's non-existence.

Companies pay good money for non-determined models, and use them to run businesses. Do they do that with starships from star trek?

So, you've seen and measured the fact that the universe is ordered,

Describe the measurement. No, a 'feeling' doesn't count.

Observe stuff over time. You don't even have to use a standard candle to observe order around you.

Still looking for that measurement that distinguishes determined from non-determined. Your science seems a little vague here.

I suppose I don't get why you like to pretend it's non-deterministic?

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that you're just assuming it's determined.

I assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow too. I assume lots of things. Doesn't mean they aren't reasonable assumptions.

No, which is why I've several times pointed out that they may indeed be reasonable assumptions. But not observations.

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

We've been over this. You correctly argued that just because you can model something indeterministically doesn't make it indeterministic.

Yeah, but this doesn't mean anybody can model something non-deterministically.

Modelling something non-deterministically is easy. You just add in additional factors that don't significantly effect the phenomenon you have chosen to measure.

The corollary of that is that just because you can model something deterministically, doesn't make it deterministic.

No. The fact that the nothing can proceed from non-existent forces pretty much does.

What? Adding a different argument for the same conclusion doesn't magically make the first argument valid. Whatever additional arguments you may have, the fact remains that the ability to model something deterministically is not itself evidence for it being deterministic. Not even a little bit.

Now you may well believe that the universe is deterministic anyway, but that doesn't effect the validity of either argument. The idea that you can measure or observe the universe being deterministic is untrue, whether the universe is deterministic or not.

Because of that, like a great many philosophical positions, it is an assumption. Not an observation, certainly not emperical data. A vastly reasonable assumption perhaps, obvious even. But an assumption nonetheless.

Yeah. So what?

Ok, so after several pages of frantic argument, you now agree with me. Glad we cleared that up.

So, going onward, seeing as how determinism is an assumption, the fact that libertarian free will violates determinism is a problem for that assumption, but not a logical problem as you were previously claiming. Previously you claimed that determinism was somehow logically incoherent, but it turns out that the real problem is exactly what I said it was - that you are assuming determinism, and don't want to allow for anything that might violate that assumption.

Or to put it another way, the only problem with Libertarian Free Will is that it violates your own beliefs about how the universe works.

 

[PyramidHead]

Whatever additional arguments you may have, the fact remains that the ability to model something deterministically is not itself evidence for it being deterministic. Not even a little bit.

Doesn't it?

I'm thinking of Bayesian probability here. Suppose a phenomenon under observation behaves in an inherently non-deterministic way. If we tried to model it using deterministic assumptions and failed, that would be more in line with the hypothesis "this phenomenon is non-deterministic" than the hypothesis "this phenomenon is deterministic."

Given this, it is inescapably true that the success of deterministic models is more in line with the hypothesis that the underlying phenomena are determined. Look at it this way: it could very well have been the case that deterministic models of observable phenomena are never accurate. If this were the case, you would have no hesitation in pointing that out, since it would be damning evidence against a determined universe. In order to be consistent, you must also accept that since this is not the case, and the most successful models that describe events bigger than the quantum scale are in fact deterministic, their success is certainly evidence that what is being measured behaves deterministically. That's just how models work.

If we didn't assign a higher probability to our hypotheses based on the models that attempt to describe them, science would never make any progress. That the diversity of life on earth can be effortlessly and completely modeled using Darwinian assumptions is excellent evidence for the theory of Darwinian evolution. That attempting to model it under creationist assumptions is a spectacular failure is compelling evidence that creationism is false. Ergo, the fact that almost every successful explanation of macroscopic phenomena includes the assumption that effects follow inexorably from causes (when, as I said, it could easily have been otherwise) is pretty good evidence that determinism holds for such phenomena.

 

[fromderinside]

You're apparently equivocating the terms. ND and D in the discussion about FW refer specifically to the 2 things I mentioned. For will to be "free" it must not be determined by any inputs, known or unknown.

You don't (and maybe can't) know all the inputs to the software at the machine shop. You don't know what  race conditions exist, which are influenced by fluctuations in the power grid at your machining shop due to the machines being used there, and in other locations. You don't (and maybe can't) know that the analog detectors that input to your software don't have various irregularities, or whether atmospheric humidity, temperature, or other things affects them.

None of these things that influence the system, that you don't or can't know, make the system itself ND in the sense that the systems states do not determine its successive states. You're using ND to describe systems with inputs you cannot detect or predict, not ND systems. There is a major difference between the two... I think.

Let's clear up what I did. While I did some of that machine shop stuff, I concentrated on validating Electron Warfare EW software algorithms used for real time critical situation threat suppression. Clearly more is required here than just machine capability, code unit validity (checksum,) and machine function. Designers developed models to address extant models for detection and control. Any failure to perform resulted in death and defeat.

So software validity meant that the thing did what it was intended to do. That's way beyond just expected noise from expected sources. we are talking whether this model is valid for addressing that model completely and determining whether an operating rendition of the model works completely against the threat rendition. This goes way beyond variability of output due to intervening conditions. It means proving models then verifying and validating them which are at the core of what is meant by non-deterministic.

As for your list of we can't I disagree. We can, but, we aren't perfect so the experiment has variability the device has error and the observer cannot be relied upon. We can and do model them all every day. Your gripe seems to be with describing variability producing uncertainty meaning a model can't exactly predict actual behavior. So what? Its not determined as specified in t=0 model of causal determinism.

There is variability and there is a model that predict is such can be nulled out with repeated measures.  Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem Going the added step and finding out whether one model is exactly the antidote for another model gets to t=0 specification attributes versus outside that boundary while remaining consistent with the advocate position, determinism. In-determinant is other, has been shown above to be not relevant to thought (EEG example).

Things that exist in a determinant system may, due to a variety of causes not be determined. This is true primarily, I suggest, because two or more causes are included in the model for which a determined result fails. The other major possibility is that we just don't have the legs necessary for specifying a robust deterministic system. Dark energy and matter seem evidence of this.