According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[Elixir]

No matter where you go, you see a different future relative to any of the others.

That’s a subjective phenomenon.
Of course Einstein’s work tended to blur the lines, but there’s no question here.

Even if you were somehow to look at the universe, figure out a dimension of variance from each point, and arrange these as if cards in a deck, there is still not more than one of them at any place in that deck, no matter how you shuffle them.

Zackly. There can be an infinite number of futures, but each of us will experience precisely ONE of them (and that, only for a vanishingly small slice of time).

 

[pood]

You don’t see a different future relative to any of the others. The future is the same for all.

What you disagree on is relativity simultaneity. Relativity theory does not imply the relativity of reality.

The idea of multiple different futures is not from relativity theory but from the many worlds interpretation of QM.

 

[BSilvEsq]

seems to me that you are focused on the ability of humans to make predictions, and not upon the reality that is the object of the predictive effort.

That keeps happening. All you need to know is that Steve is an engineer.
Problems like this predictability quandary are approached as engineering problems; analyses of our ability to predict, not as examinations of the phenomenon in question.

That is a helpful explanation.

I suspect it applies also to the science and math focused contributors versus those more interested in Philosophy -- which happens to the title of the subpart of the Forum under which these posts appear -- i.e., "Home > Forums > Philosophy > Other Philosophical Discussions" As I have said multiple times, science itself is a metaphysical (or philosophical) Paradigm -- albeit not the philosophy that is the subject of the present discussion. The problem with most (but far from all) scientists, however, is that they fail or refuse to understand or recognize that and put forth science as the unitary mechanism for divining the ultimate truths of the universe.

As I understand matters, Einstein first philosophized about the concepts he later learned to discuss in mathematical terms. The math, however, did not prove his theories (to the extent they have been proved). Rather, the underlying truth of the theories (if they are true) proved themselves, and math is simply the language in which that was able to be communicated in a way that was acceptable to the scientific community. As Godel theorized (and as seems self-evident to me), however, there is no way to prove the truth of the axioms of math or science, much less that there is such as thing as truth. The best we can do is invent language(s) to communicate our observations and hope that we are able to believe our lying eyes.

As I have written previously in a different sub-forum:

Science is a tool that many people utilize in an attempt to form a cohesive view of the world in which they live and how it operates.

The philosophical and/or metaphysical foundation of Science is a belief (faith?) that (i) there is an objective reality that exists independent of the observer (although some, but not all, quantum physicists might disagree), and (ii) the objective reality is capable of being discerned / observed, measured, tested and verified in some manner or another. I call this a philosophical or metaphysical foundation because it is, at rock bottom, an assumption about the nature of reality. More precisely, it is an assumption that there is a reality. Without this philosophical or metaphysical foundation, Science does not exist, as the absence of this philosophical or metaphysical foundation precludes the possibility of anything being capable of being proved (even temporarily or situationally) or falsified — as those terms are used within Science. One of the best discussions of this subject that I have read is included in a paper titled “Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms,” which can be viewed at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f24f/1d16645e. For anyone who has the time and inclination to read the paper, I highly commend it.

The foregoing is not a criticism of Science. It may well be the case that there is a discernable objective reality that is capable of being mapped by Science. It also may be the case that Science is simply modern mythology.

In the grand scheme of things, physics (and quantum physics, in particular) is accepted by many as the latest and greatest paradigm for explaining the universe. It is a modern mythology that tells a story that aligns with what we believe to understand about the universe – as discovered through application of math and science. But, no paradigm is right or wrong. By definition, a paradigm is a metaphor, which most closely aligns with our understanding of reality (if such a thing exists). When someone says that a paradigm has been proven wrong, they simply mean that the acquisition of greater knowledge (or what appears to be knowledge) has caused the paradigm to be expanded or abandoned in favor of a new paradigm.

As I see things, there are no true “laws” of physics. There are simply principles that the authors of the story of physics find sufficiently robust to be compelling based on the current state of knowledge. New knowledge that is consistent with the paradigm, but somewhat different from some aspect of the paradigm, causes the paradigm to be revised to accommodate the new knowledge. Other new knowledge is so inconsistent with an existing paradigm so as to require its abandonment in favor of a new paradigm that accounts for all that is known.

Physics, itself, was born out of an informational revolution that caused many people to abandon prior mythology. In relatively recent past, physicists have taken a quantum leap in their beliefs, causing the physics paradigm to be reshaped. Some physicists, however, are unpersuaded by the new story and remain attached to Newtonian physics.

As we continue to evolve, we develop new and greater information (or, possibly, build on our grand illusion). If the evolution of new information is sufficiently great it leads to revolution in which the most robust current paradigm is abandoned and relegated to the history books. In that regard, it seems more likely than not that there will come a time when today's modern physics will be viewed as a step between ancient mythology and some yet-to-be written story of the universe, which will, in turn, yield to yet a new and broader story.

 

[pood]

Once again, let’s suppose the most extreme interpretation of the history of the world is true — this thing that has been called radical fatalism.

So what?

How does that impugn free will?

The idea that it or the block world undercuts free will trades on the erroneous idea that we ought to be able to CHANGE anything.

Once that assumption is dropped, it is evident that if fatalism is true, it is true in part because it is made by our compatibilist free choices.

 

[steve_bank]

The difference between measuring and and testing, and subjective philosophical speculation and conclusions.

You’re talking engineering. I’m saying that our engineering capability or lack thereof has nothing to do with the predictability of the behavior of raindrops once they form. Their formation is dependent upon the presence of particulate nucleii and a shitload of other known variables, so that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Of course we will never be able to itemize the raindrops in a storm before they form.
But that’s because it’s useless information that would require stupid amounts of resources and would likely require a lot of new technology, rather than because it’s inaccessible in theory. There’s a difference between impractical and impossible.

Chaotic systems would be for the science forum.

Small changes in initial conditions lead to big changes in the results. A raindrop forms thursn of feet in rtge air subject to may forces. It is impossible to accurately predict the trajectory.

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

In digital electronics there is matastability something to be avoided. Under certain conditions which state a circuit will end up in is not predictable.

A demonstration to illustrate I watched. A metal half cylinder is placed on a table. Drop a small ball on the top, which way it rolls is not predictable.

 

[Jarhyn]

No matter where you go, you see a different future relative to any of the others.

That’s a subjective phenomenon.
Of course Einstein’s work tended to blur the lines, but there’s no question here.

Even if you were somehow to look at the universe, figure out a dimension of variance from each point, and arrange these as if cards in a deck, there is still not more than one of them at any place in that deck, no matter how you shuffle them.

Zackly. There can be an infinite number of futures, but each of us will experience precisely ONE of them (and that, only for a vanishingly small slice of time).

"There can be an infinite number of locations but we will only experience being at one of them".

Again it comes down to observing that the phenomena of subjective difference is an objectively real phenomena.

Even the individual cards are decks of variance of the surface of their face.

 

[Elixir]

It is CURRENTLY impossible FOR US to accurately predict the trajectory.

FIFY.

A wave function is a probability distribution.

Raindrops are not wave functions. Their individual behaviors are not chaotic.

 

[pood]

You can’t predict anything in principle not just because of chaos theory but because of quantum indterminism. At bottom the raindrop is a a bunch of wave functions. So you go to the Born rule.

 

[Elixir]

Again it comes down to observing that the phenomena of subjective difference is an objectively real phenomena.

The phenomenon of subjective difference is an objectively real phenomenon…
It is a singular subjective difference that only becomes something like data if it is repeatable.

 

[pood]

The universe is inherently unpredictable in principle,

 

[Elixir]

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

Yeah, predicting quantum raindrops would be a trick. Fortunately for the prediction business, raindrops are massive objects that largely adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

 

[pood]

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

Yeah, predicting quantum raindrops would be a trick. Fortunately for the prediction business, raindrops are massive objects that largely adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

Except then we cannot predict their behavior because of chaos theory,

 

[pood]

So the universe is fundamentally unpredictable. Just as we cannot reliable predict what someone will do. He or she may well do what we predict, but there are no guarantees,

 

[pood]

But let’s suppose by hypothesis that we can reliably and unerringly predict what someone will do — say, an omniscient god does this.

Does that mean the person’s behavior is not free?

No.

 

[Elixir]

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

Yeah, predicting quantum raindrops would be a trick. Fortunately for the prediction business, raindrops are massive objects that largely adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

Except then we cannot predict their behavior because of chaos theory,

I thought chaos theory pertained to vast numbers of interacting objects, not the behavior of a single object.
Silly me!
A further delusion from which I suffered is the idea that chaos THEORY was intended define limits to the predictability of huge numbers of interacting objects, rather than to deny the predictability of one object’s behavior.
Even that is but a crutch to help us overcome our deficit in processing that renders events “chaotic”. It doesn’t, to my understanding, mean that chaotic systems consist of objects defying Newtonian physics.
But IANAP, so set me straight!

 

[pood]

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

Yeah, predicting quantum raindrops would be a trick. Fortunately for the prediction business, raindrops are massive objects that largely adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

Except then we cannot predict their behavior because of chaos theory,

We can roughly predict what a falling raindrop will do but we cannot account for all variables — wind speed, for example, which may hurl a raindrop off its course. And we cannot account for all the variables of wind speed — too complicated, In the same way, we can roughly predict according to Newton the path of a rock rolling down a hill, but we cannot account for all the variables — terrain variations. Too complicated.

 

[pood]

We can say that a rock rolling down a hill will not fight its path. A human pushed down a hill will.

Free will.

 

[Elixir]

the universe is fundamentally unpredictable.

Infinitesimal segments of the universe can be temporarily predictable within confidence intervals. I don’t reckon that situation gonna improve a lot during my lifetime.

 

[Elixir]

We can roughly predict what a falling raindrop will do but we cannot account for all variables — wind speed, for example, which may hurl a raindrop off its course. And we cannot account for all the variables of wind speed — too complicated

It’s much much worse than that IMO. At formation, we can’t even know if a given raindrop will make it to the ground before it evaporates or combines with another drop or drops.
Again, we’re down to what constitutes a prediction and how accurate it needs to be to qualify as correct. It does not speak to some inherently unpredictable behavior of water droplets, it speaks to the limits of our observational and analytic capabilities.

 

[pood]

According to Newton, a rock and a feather dropped from the same height will hit the ground at the same time, which is true, as an idealization. The experiment was conducted on the moon, but I forget what was dropped.

But on the earth, a whole bunch of variables are introduced, such as wind resistance. On earth, a rock and a feather will not hit the ground at the same time.