In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[ryan]

You are spinning wild phantasies. Please explain explane exactly how quantum mechanics enable libertarian free will.

The behavior of any particular particle is exactly the behavior we would expect from something that has free will. Remember, I am taking the agnostic approach against the negative claim. I don't think you want to go against me on this one.

Fundamentally, we are these particles.

Bullshit. Qusntum effects have no effect the in brain.

The parts behave almost freely; it is the deterministic whole that is the illusion.

 

[Juma]

The behavior of any particular particle is exactly the behavior we would expect from something that has free will. .

No it is not. Particles are extremeley bound by probabilities: there is no room for libertarian free will.
Please describe exactly how quantum mechanic effects enable free will.

 

[ryan]

The behavior of any particular particle is exactly the behavior we would expect from something that has free will. .

No it is not. Particles are extremeley bound by probabilities: there is no room for libertarian free will.
Please describe exactly how quantum mechanic effects enable free will.

How can you not see the similarities? Individual particles are mostly free. Even if particles could only "choose" between two different paths, it could still be said that they have at least some free will.

 

[DBT]

Particle position is not a matter of concious choice. The behavior of quantum wave/particles is neither a matter of conscious or unconcious choice. A brain cannot manipulate QM in order to suit it's own needs or wishes, or 'will'

 

[ryan]

Particle position is not a matter of concious choice. The behavior of quantum wave/particles is neither a matter of conscious or unconcious choice. A brain cannot manipulate QM in order to suit it's own needs or wishes, or 'will'

I don't know how you can make these positive assertions. Physics is far from complete, not to mention complex systems that arises from it.

My argument is that any claim against free will is still unfounded.

 

[DBT]

Particle position is not a matter of concious choice. The behavior of quantum wave/particles is neither a matter of conscious or unconcious choice. A brain cannot manipulate QM in order to suit it's own needs or wishes, or 'will'

I don't know how you can make these positive assertions. Physics is far from complete, not to mention complex systems that arises from it.

Easy to test, Ryan. Try an experiment. You say that sub atomic particles/wave function 'choose' what path they take - and this you say enables 'free will' - now try to make the choice that particle position takes by moving particle position, objects and/or their relationships in way that conform to your so called free will, which you say is tied to quantum uncertainty. Achieve that and you prove your claim. Can you do it?

My argument is that any claim against free will is still unfounded.

Nah, you can't do anything that is not determined by brain condition...which is not your choice....you being a reflection of brain condition, and not its master. It is the ideological notion of free will that's unfounded. The brain is an intelligent, interactive, adaptive information processor, but not a 'free will' generator. The term itself is absurd.

 

[ryan]

I don't know how you can make these positive assertions. Physics is far from complete, not to mention complex systems that arises from it.

Easy to test, Ryan. Try an experiment. You say that sub atomic particles/wave function 'choose' what path they take - and this you say enables 'free will' - now try to make the choice that particle position takes by moving particle position, objects and/or their relationships in way that conform to your so called free will, which you say is tied to quantum uncertainty. Achieve that and you prove your claim. Can you do it?

There are many constraints and very little free will in larger systems. Remember the two clones that will begin to deviate? Well some of that deviation would be from the free will of particles that make up their respective consciousness; that is the free will that I am talking about.

My argument is that any claim against free will is still unfounded.

Nah, you can't do anything that is not determined by brain condition...which is not your choice....you being a reflection of brain condition, and not its master. It is the ideological notion of free will that's unfounded. The brain is an intelligent, interactive, adaptive information processor, but not a 'free will' generator. The term itself is absurd.

The point is that those higher levels would be the result of constrained free will.

 

[DBT]

Easy to test, Ryan. Try an experiment. You say that sub atomic particles/wave function 'choose' what path they take - and this you say enables 'free will' - now try to make the choice that particle position takes by moving particle position, objects and/or their relationships in way that conform to your so called free will, which you say is tied to quantum uncertainty. Achieve that and you prove your claim. Can you do it?

There are many constraints and very little free will in larger systems. Remember the two clones that will begin to deviate? Well some of that deviation would be from the free will of particles that make up their respective consciousness; that is the free will that I am talking about.

You are making an arbitrary definition of free will. Particles don't have free will. Human consciousness in the aspect of 'will' cannot guide the movement or position of fundamental particles to suit itself. Particle positions evolve probabilistically, which may be represented by mathematical formula and predictions made, but not controlled through an act of will. The term 'free will' doesn't represent any of this. It's just tacking a term to something 'non determined' hoping it meets the ideological need.

The point is that those higher levels would be the result of constrained free will.

Constrained 'free' will is not free at all, you can drop the 'free' and simply call it what it is: will.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

No it is not. Particles are extremeley bound by probabilities: there is no room for libertarian free will.
Please describe exactly how quantum mechanic effects enable free will.

How can you not see the similarities? Individual particles are mostly free. Even if particles could only "choose" between two different paths, it could still be said that they have at least some free will.

No it cannot. Particle motion determined by external factors. That individual particle interaction ca, truly, be random is no sign of free will. Actually no sign of will at all.

I repeat: stop wavibg hands and show exacly how quantum mechanic properties enable free will.

 

[rrr6]

Occupied Space Embraces Some Non-occupied Space

Universe is deterministic, cause and effect only. Free will is an illusion.

We see the illusion of an autos wheel rim spining the opposite direction of forward motion of the vehicle, when we know they are not.

At best, we can say we have an illusion of limited free will. Many people like to believe there exist no limits.

Their is some inherent abhorrence for some human to feel that they the cannot do whatever they damn well please.

Get over it. There is illusion of free will only and any who follow a rational logical common sense trajectory will eventually encounter this truth.

Gravity coheres Universe as an integral finite whole. There are no barriers too gravity. There exists no distance limits to gravity.

Gravity is the essence of Universe. It is said that, gravity decides the ultimate fate of our finite, occupied space Universe, however, since Uinverse exists eternally in whatever configuration, there exists no ulttimate fate.

At best, there can only be time periods between some initial set of circumstances--- configuration of Universe ----and another configuration at another time.

The closet we come we come to anti-gravity is some alledged dark energy associated with accelerating expansion of our observed Universe. My recent explorations have led me to make the following conclusion.

In the long run or the largest grand view, I see this way, based on some recent exploratory studies involving my numerical Euclidean sine-wave.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outer, convex, positive shaped gravity surface is contractive occupied space
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Inside, outer-time-sine-wave connection to outer gravity may expand and contract
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

........non-occupied space within the given above and the given below, occupied space..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside, inner-time-sine-wave connection to inner gravity/reality may expand and contract.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Inner, concave, negative shaped gravity/reality surface is expansive occupied space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is above is the simple overview ergo some specifics not expressed.

With this above, numerically derived, and geometric development, I'm concerned as to how, or why, there can exist a non-occupied space, embraced by occupied space. What this non-occpied space infers, is that, time-sine-wave has a inner, negative shaped surface just as similar to outer gravity and inner gravity/reality.

r6





r6

 

[ryan]

There are many constraints and very little free will in larger systems. Remember the two clones that will begin to deviate? Well some of that deviation would be from the free will of particles that make up their respective consciousness; that is the free will that I am talking about.

You are making an arbitrary definition of free will. Particles don't have free will. Human consciousness in the aspect of 'will' cannot guide the movement or position of fundamental particles to suit itself.

The position, state, energies, etc. that the particles of my consciousness randomly take definitely affects what other particles will do.

Particle positions evolve probabilistically, which may be represented by mathematical formula and predictions made, but not controlled through an act of will.

When I feel like I am willing something to happen, it usually happens. You can trace this down to the level of the particles of my consciousness that make these random actions.

The point is that those higher levels would be the result of constrained free will.

Constrained 'free' will is not free at all, you can drop the 'free' and simply call it what it is: will.

I know what you mean. Imagine the double slit experiment set up in such a way that the photon has a 50% chance at going through either slit. In this case, the photon is completely free to go through either slit. That's all I mean by "constrained free will", or maybe I should call it "limited free will".

 

[ryan]

How can you not see the similarities? Individual particles are mostly free. Even if particles could only "choose" between two different paths, it could still be said that they have at least some free will.

No it cannot. Particle motion determined by external factors.

Particles are only partly determined by external factors. Quantum tunneling is a good example of a particle going against its usual behavior, or what it's "suppose" to do.

I repeat: stop wavibg hands and show exacly how quantum mechanic properties enable free will.

Every time it feels like I am making a choice, I assure you that you can trace it back to some random behavior of a one or more particles.

 

[ryan]

Universe is deterministic, cause and effect only.

I read your whole post, but I have to stop you here. It is determinism that is the illusion. We see regularities from the chaos and the limited random nature of particles.

Can you reply to the following in the other thread?

I still don't think you need gravity in your list of essentials to existence. The theory of gravity that you are using is just an intrinsic property of spacetime. In other words, gravity does not really exist as an entity on its own; it's just what spacetime does in the presence of matter. For example, your "physical/energy" covers electrons and how they behave. So too should spacetime cover how spacetime behaves.

But anyway, my issue is not really all that important. I think that most pluralists would generally agree with your assessment. I am at least a dualist, and I agree with all of the things that you say exist, except for my argument of gravity as a redundancy.

 

[Juma]

Particles are only partly determined by external factors. Quantum tunneling is a good example of a particle going against its usual behavior, or what it's "suppose" to do.

No it is not. Quantum tunneling is a perfectly normal thing for a quantum particle to do: appeatr with most probsbility at points with distributions exactly described by the schrödinger equation. No room for free will there.

Every time it feels like I am making a choice, I assure you that you can trace it back to some random behavior of a one or more particles.

You "assure" me? I give shit about any of your assurances. Show me some actual line of reason.

 

[ryan]

No it is not. Quantum tunneling is a perfectly normal thing for a quantum particle to do: appeatr with most probsbility at points with distributions exactly described by the schrödinger equation. No room for free will there.

It's abnormal. If it were normal, then the Sun would radiate much more than it is. In other words, fusion is less likely when the gravity is not sufficient. I might turn right, when it is more probable that I turn left. It could have been my will that turns me right instead of left; we don't know.

Every time it feels like I am making a choice, I assure you that you can trace it back to some random behavior of a one or more particles.

You "assure" me? I give shit about any of your assurances. Show me some actual line of reason.

I can assure you because every action has quantum mechanical origin.

 

[Juma]

It's abnormal. If it were normal, then the Sun would radiate much more than it is. In other words, fusion is less likely when the gravity is not sufficient.

What the heck are you talking about? Tunneling is everywhere. Aluminium oxid is a good isolator, yet Aluminium, which is clvered completely in AkO is a good conductor. Why? Because of tunnel effect!

Wether fusion processes takes place or not is not a measure of how un/usual tunneleffect is.

I might turn right, when it is more probable that I turn left. It could have been my will that turns me right instead of left; we don't know.

No you cannot, because then you skew the probabilities

I can assure you because every action has quantum mechanical origin.

No it hasnt. Action has neuron origin. Those are enormosly much bigger tha quantum objects.

 

[ryan]

What the heck are you talking about? Tunneling is everywhere. Aluminium oxid is a good isolator, yet Aluminium, which is clvered completely in AkO is a good conductor. Why? Because of tunnel effect!

Wether fusion processes takes place or not is not a measure of how un/usual tunneleffect is.

You are wavering from the point. The point was that particles are not completely determined by external factors.

I might turn right, when it is more probable that I turn left. It could have been my will that turns me right instead of left; we don't know.

No you cannot, because then you skew the probabilities

I have no idea what you mean.

I can assure you because every action has quantum mechanical origin.

No it hasnt. Action has neuron origin. Those are enormosly much bigger tha quantum objects.

I agree. But think about how a neuron behaves the way it does. It is an outcome of chaos and the partly random behavior of particles.

Your choice to turn left or right comes down to what single particles do. This is entirely how our neurological processes work. Yes there are many things that we can't do or won't do, but we may be able to choose within those limits.

 

[DBT]

But think about how a neuron behaves the way it does. It is an outcome of chaos and the partly random behavior of particles..

No it isn't, and no it does not. Neurons are specialist cells that have evolved to process information, not all cells are identical, different cells, different roles...you are making up stuff to suit your need to justify your belief.

 

[ryan]

But think about how a neuron behaves the way it does. It is an outcome of chaos and the partly random behavior of particles..

No it isn't, and no it does not. Neurons are specialist cells that have evolved to process information, not all cells are identical, different cells, different roles...you are making up stuff to suit your need to justify your belief.

A neuron is just the total of its particles and what each particle does. I don't see how can you argue this.

 

[DBT]

No it isn't, and no it does not. Neurons are specialist cells that have evolved to process information, not all cells are identical, different cells, different roles...you are making up stuff to suit your need to justify your belief.

A neuron is just the total of its particles and what each particle does. I don't see how can you argue this.

No, it's not a case of ''just'' - it's precisely how particles are arranged which determines the role and function of the structure...a motor car engine is composed of particles and motor car tyres are composed of particles but tyres cannot perform the functions of an engine and engines cannot be used as tyres.

It's not just particle position, ryan, but architecture and evolved (or manufactured) function. A tree is not the same thing as a person despite both being composed of particles.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this rationale, I have to say.