What is the actual free will humans have?

[untermensche]

Now we understand that he was the first to understand what gravity is.

No. Newton just described what gravity does more accurately than previous minds and less accurately than a later one.

No. He transformed understanding.

Now gravity was looked at for what it is.

A fundamental force.

 

[untermensche]

This is an evasion. Hand waving.

Show me that Galileo had a clue he was dealing with some force of attraction between two bodies.

You can study effects.

But you can't study anything objectively until you know what it is.

I'll just leave this here and let everyone make up their own minds...

I begin by saying that a heavy body has an inherent tendency to move with a constantly and uniformly accelerated motion toward the common center of gravity, that is, toward the center of our earth, so that during equal intervals of time it receives equal increments of momentum and velocity.

He is saying he sees the effect of things moving towards the earth's center.

He is not describing a force of attraction between the earth and the object.

When Newton introduced the idea of an invisible force of attraction he was accused of promoting magic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Show me that Galileo had a clue he was dealing with some force of attraction between two bodies.

I'll just leave this here and let everyone make up their own minds...

I begin by saying that a heavy body has an inherent tendency to move with a constantly and uniformly accelerated motion toward the common center of gravity, that is, toward the center of our earth, so that during equal intervals of time it receives equal increments of momentum and velocity.

Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In his famous (though possibly apocryphal[4]) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravitational acceleration is the same for all objects. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects have a higher gravitational acceleration.[5] Galileo postulated air resistance as the reason that objects with less mass may fall slower in an atmosphere. Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity

In this manner, he was able to provide empirical evidence that matter accelerates vertically downward at a constant rate, regardless of mass, due to the effects of gravity.

The unreported experiment found in folio 116V tested the constant rate of acceleration in falling bodies due to gravity.

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/tns_draft/tns_160to243.html

...

Then as the diminution of the outside impetus continues, and gravitation gains the upper hand, the fall begins, but slowly at first on account of the opposing impetus, a large portion of which still remains in the body; but as this continues to diminish it also continues to be more and more overcome by gravity, hence the continuous acceleration of motion.

...

So therefore this impressed force may exceed the resistance of gravity so slightly as to raise it only a finger-breadth; and finally the force of the projector may be just large enough to exactly balance the resistance of gravity so that the body is not lifted at all but merely sustained. When one holds a stone in his hand does he do anything but give it a force impelling it upwards equal to the power of gravity drawing it downwards?

...

EB

 

[beero1000]

I'll just leave this here and let everyone make up their own minds...

He is saying he sees the effect of things moving towards the earth's center.

He is not describing a force of attraction between the earth and the object.

When Newton introduced the idea of an invisible force of attraction he was accused of promoting magic.

Lame semantic attempt to shift the goalposts acknowledged, but you're just flat wrong. There's little nuance here.

Galileo explicitly talked about gravity, about attraction, about trajectories, his representative in the dialogue (Salviati) actually specifically mentions that gravity could be explained as attraction to the center of the Earth.

Some more Galileo (emphasis mine):

The present does not seem to be the proper time to investigate the cause of the acceleration of natural motion concerning which various opinions have been expressed by various philosophers, some explaining it by attraction to the center...

So therefore this impressed force [virtù impressa] may exceed the resistance of gravity so slightly as to raise it only a finger-breadth; and finally the force [virtù] of the projector may be just large enough to exactly balance the resistance of gravity so that the body is not lifted at all but merely sustained. When one holds a stone in his hand does he do anything but give it a force impelling [virtù impellente] it upwards equal to the power [facoltà] of gravity drawing it downwards? And do you not continuously impress this force [virtù] upon the stone as long as you hold it in the hand?

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's a slight of hand occurring by the compatibilist that arrives at the scene as a third party long after the party had started. The free will debate has long been between the determinist and the indeterminist. The free will to which they speak of is highly similar to your definition, but the free will introduced by the soft determinist compatibilist is more aligned with mine.

There are two free wills at play, the long standing traditional one fought over and the newer slightly altered one. I like the altered one, but I'm afraid it's not spot on in addressing the original feud.

Free will was originally introduced as if born to oppose strict causality. The hard determinist leaves no room for free will as introduced as it's set up to be contrary to determinism. Any mention of choices we make is a linguistic circle between choices that MUST be made and therefore no real but rather illusory choices being made; hence the idea that free will is an illusion.

The compatibilist shifts the stilts upon which the foundation was built. The soft compatibilist alters the very meaning to align with lexical usage such that free will has to do with wants and compulsion--not as a contrary to causation.

When the labels are buried, the burning issue remains, could we have done otherwise, even in times of making choices while not under any kind of duress? The compatibilist says TEST ME and I'll show you that I can defy whatever choice you think I MUST make, and the hard determinist says, awe but whatever choice you make is not a contingent event but a necessary one, so your show of defiance proves nothing.

So, even if we do in fact have free will (even as portrayed by compatibilists), there's a special lurking darkness that must leave the hard determinist in the grip of fear, as free will would not merely be illusory but manicially so.

There seems to be little room for comfort when the raging river comes because contingent truths share no assistance in the interruption of the waters flow. It seems quite so that things will transpire just as the laws of nature allow. I take comfort in thinking that at the micro level, we as conscious beings have the ability to interact with nature such that the interplay disallows for the notion that our future thoughts and actions were as if written in stone or the script of a movie.

I'm fine with hard determinism, although no one knows whether it's actually true.

I believe that very nearly all human beings, including all posters here, think they have an ability to determine what they can at least try to do. They understand that they may fail depending on outside circumstances but they think they retain this ability to chose and try (outside any debilitating condition).

Now, I'm as certain as could be that this ability is precisely what came to be known as free will. How would you call this ability if not "free will"? Personally, I don't know of any better term. It has to be free will.

And, sadly, the term has been highjacked by ideologues on all sides and most people, and posters here, unconsciously parrot the language these people use.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now we understand that he was the first to understand what gravity is. A force. A fundamental force.

I don't think we know that gravity is a force at all.

I don't even think that most physicists believe gravity is fundamentally a force.

I think all we have is the movement of material bodies around each other.

As I understand it, Einstein's theory says that mass affects the geometry of space-time and that the geometry of space-time in turn determines the path followed by massive bodies, without having to assume the existence of gravitation as a fundamental entity.

Anybody has expertise on this?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Lame semantic attempt to shift the goalposts acknowledged, but you're just flat wrong. There's little nuance here.

Galileo explicitly talked about gravity, about attraction, about trajectories, his representative in the dialogue (Salviati) actually specifically mentions that gravity could be explained as attraction to the center of the Earth.

Some more Galileo (emphasis mine):

The present does not seem to be the proper time to investigate the cause of the acceleration of natural motion concerning which various opinions have been expressed by various philosophers, some explaining it by attraction to the center...

So therefore this impressed force [virtù impressa] may exceed the resistance of gravity so slightly as to raise it only a finger-breadth; and finally the force [virtù] of the projector may be just large enough to exactly balance the resistance of gravity so that the body is not lifted at all but merely sustained. When one holds a stone in his hand does he do anything but give it a force impelling [virtù impellente] it upwards equal to the power [facoltà] of gravity drawing it downwards? And do you not continuously impress this force [virtù] upon the stone as long as you hold it in the hand?

It seems to not matter to you that you provide no evidence for your claims.

Galileo looked at effects. Yes the word gravity was mentioned but not as a description of a force. The idea it was a force of attraction between two bodies comes from Newton.

 

[beero1000]

Now we understand that he was the first to understand what gravity is. A force. A fundamental force.

I don't think we know that gravity is a force at all.

I don't even think that most physicists believe gravity is fundamentally a force.

I think all we have is the movement of material bodies around each other.

As I understand it, Einstein's theory says that mass affects the geometry of space-time and that the geometry of space-time in turn determines the path followed by massive bodies, without having to assume the existence of gravitation as a fundamental entity.

Anybody has expertise on this?
EB

It's a fictitious force, as it depends on your choice of coordinate system. Mass distorts spacetime, and objects in free fall move along shortest paths in spacetime, so they appear to be acted upon by gravity. It's similar to the centrifugal force you feel in a turning car.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to not matter to you that you provide no evidence for your claims.

Galileo looked at effects. Yes the word gravity was mentioned but not as a description of a force. The idea it was a force of attraction between two bodies comes from Newton.

I guess literal explicit quotes of Galileo don't count as evidence of what Galileo said in untermensche-land.

 

[untermensche]

Quotes from Galileo that support my position are all you provided.

Maybe you don't know that.

 

[untermensche]

Do we really need links to articles describing the four fundamental forces?

 

[Juma]

It's a fictitious force, as it depends on your choice of coordinate system. Mass distorts spacetime, and objects in free fall move along shortest paths in spacetime, so they appear to be acted upon by gravity. It's similar to the centrifugal force you feel in a turning car.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to not matter to you that you provide no evidence for your claims.

Galileo looked at effects. Yes the word gravity was mentioned but not as a description of a force. The idea it was a force of attraction between two bodies comes from Newton.

I guess literal explicit quotes of Galileo don't count as evidence of what Galileo said in untermensche-land.

Have missed the news that gravitational waves has been detected?

 

[beero1000]

It's a fictitious force, as it depends on your choice of coordinate system. Mass distorts spacetime, and objects in free fall move along shortest paths in spacetime, so they appear to be acted upon by gravity. It's similar to the centrifugal force you feel in a turning car.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to not matter to you that you provide no evidence for your claims.

Galileo looked at effects. Yes the word gravity was mentioned but not as a description of a force. The idea it was a force of attraction between two bodies comes from Newton.

I guess literal explicit quotes of Galileo don't count as evidence of what Galileo said in untermensche-land.

Have missed the news that gravitational waves has been detected?

Um, gravitational waves are in complete agreement with what I said. It is a completely uncontroversial part of general relativity.

Look up  fictitious force, or just believe Einstein:

Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real" field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia from the point of view of a system not taking part in the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that shares the rotation.

 

[untermensche]

I'm familiar with the idea. But the fundamental forces are not fictional.

If space is somehow bent, which has never been seen, only the effects have been seen, then something is causing space to bend.

It isn't fictional.

 

[Juma]

are there waves then it isnt a fictous force. it works via inertia, but isnt fictious.

 

[beero1000]

I'm familiar with the idea. But the fundamental forces are not fictional.

If space is somehow bent, which has never been seen, only the effects have been seen, then something is causing space to bend.

It isn't fictional.

are there waves then it isnt a fictous force. it works via inertia, but isnt fictious.

I honestly have no idea what you two are talking about. I didn't make up the term, it's standard and in the theory of general relativity, gravity is a  fictitious force. I'm not calling it fictional, and gravitational waves have nothing to do with it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think we know that gravity is a force at all.

I don't even think that most physicists believe gravity is fundamentally a force.

I think all we have is the movement of material bodies around each other.

As I understand it, Einstein's theory says that mass affects the geometry of space-time and that the geometry of space-time in turn determines the path followed by massive bodies, without having to assume the existence of gravitation as a fundamental entity.

Anybody has expertise on this?

It's a fictitious force, as it depends on your choice of coordinate system. Mass distorts spacetime, and objects in free fall move along shortest paths in spacetime, so they appear to be acted upon by gravity. It's similar to the centrifugal force you feel in a turning car.

Excellent!

Thanks.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

are there waves then it isnt a fictous force. it works via inertia, but isnt fictious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in Einstein's general theory of relativity.[17][18] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[19] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See Eötvös experiment.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I got the poll started.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

What did he say about gravity?

I know he looked at effects.

But did he know why the effects were occurring?

Newton also looked at, and exclusively described the effects of gravity. We still cannot explain what gravity is any better than Galileo or Newton did. We can just describe what it does with greater precision. Galileo corrected Aristotle's misapprehension that weight determines the speed of an object's fall. Newton corrected Galileo's misapprehension that the fall of objects occurs at a uniform speed. Einstein described gravitation in terms of warping the geometry of the surrounding spacetime.

Nobody - not Aristotle, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein - advanced our knowledge of what gravity is. Each succeeded to describe in increasing detail what gravity does.

I thought Higgs had a bit to say about what it was?

 

[ruby sparks]

Does it matter 'what it is'? Consider 'UFO's if you need to.

The idea that we need to know what something is before we can study it just needs to be binned, imo. It is two separate considerations being conflated (what something is and whether it can be studied). We will likely never know 'what anything is', ffs.

We have here the reddest of crimson herrings ever put on display by Herring King Redicus the Great of Redhrerringland in the National Red Herring Day parade.