Understanding the universe.

I didn't say anything about there being an outside controller 'hypothesis', have you even read my posts?

Do you have a very short memory or something?

---------- Post added 28-09-2016 at 20:52 ----------

 

I was talking about if we accept free will, then we have two options philosophically as to where that free will has come from. It's either been controlled by an outside force or entity or it's controlled by us.

It's not free will if it's controlled by something else is it...

So I'll try and dumb it down.

Wow, okay, yeah, try to bring it down to my level

 

Choice fits both ideas, but by a (what I considered simply, obviously not) thought experiment we can infer that choice is related in some way to free will (not, as you erroneously believe I said that free will is controlled by choice).

 

I have agreed over that there is no way of 'proving' it either way. The experiment is simply to show that when faced with pure causality we will avert the outcome if it is unfavourable (If there is a choice)

 

It is crude, but quite effective in demonstrating the force of our will over a purely causal chain of events.

Nope. Not in the slightest. This in no way goes to demonstrate that the universe is not deterministic or that we have something called choice or free will.

 

If you really don't think that at least infers free will then there is really nothing else to say.

Yep, I agree. The fact that you DO think that it infers free will says more than enough. I'm not sure you understand what a deterministic universe hypothesis is, so your argument against it makes no sense.

Do you have a very short memory or something?

 

---------- Post added 28-09-2016 at 20:52 ----------

 

It's not free will if it's controlled by something else is it...

Wow, okay, yeah, try to bring it down to my level

Nope. Not in the slightest. This in no way goes to demonstrate that the universe is not deterministic or that we have something called choice or free will.

 

Yep, I agree. The fact that you DO think that it infers free will says more than enough. I'm not sure you understand what a deterministic universe hypothesis is, so your argument against it makes no sense.

So because you blatantly don't get my posts I automatically don't understand yours.

Grown up.

On that note I'll go make a cuppa. As I said there really is no point. I gave up arguing for the sake of it years ago.

Cyclone,

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But where you are coming from is known

as "Hard Determinism".

"Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist ".

It's a view amongst others . So why do you choose Determinism over other competing

philosophical perspectives ?

The universe runs on laws. We don't completely know all of them but we know that this is how it works. How can choice exist in a universe that runs on laws and maths? The laws and maths determine everything, not the people.

Choice is compatible to an extent with a theistic view of the universe. If one is a rationalist rather than a theist I struggle to understand how one can support ideas like choice and free will.

Useful philosophy is constrained by known physics. This is how one chooses.

The universe runs on laws. We don't completely know all of them but we know that this is how it works. How can choice exist in a universe that runs on laws and maths? The laws and maths determine everything, not the people.

 

Choice is compatible to an extent with a theistic view of the universe. If one is a rationalist rather than a theist I struggle to understand how one can support ideas like choice and free will.

 

Useful philosophy is constrained by known physics. This is how one chooses.

Cyclone,

The following is just an observation and not based on Cosmological Determinism.

From birth we absorb and use our accumulated knowledge and experiences.And they provide a matrix so complex as to make our exercise of free will sufficiently real to us. Consequently ,any qualification is meaningless.

I'm surprised that none of the determinists have invoked Richard Dawkins - yet.

I'd be interested to know your views on chance, ie, randomness.

Chance plays a vital part in allowing simple laws to produce non-uniform outcomes. It is part of the rules on which the universe runs. It seems to me to be completely unrelated to the idea of choice and does not help the case that choice is real.

The universe runs on laws. We don't completely know all of them but we know that this is how it works. How can choice exist in a universe that runs on laws and maths? The laws and maths determine everything, not the people.

 

Choice is compatible to an extent with a theistic view of the universe. If one is a rationalist rather than a theist I struggle to understand how one can support ideas like choice and free will.

 

Useful philosophy is constrained by known physics. This is how one chooses.

How can choice exist in a universe that runs on laws and maths?

Easily if that choice is dependent on the conditions laid down by those laws. To keep it simple, I refer you to my first response to you. We can't simply choose to fly to the moon because we will it, it is dependent on external factors.

Free will is not exclusively a Theistic philosophy. Only if the God is the one constraining that free will is this the case (which no one here as far as I can see is suggesting) If a deity says 'thou shall not kill....or else' it's operating in (very simplistically speaking) in a similar fashion to the natural laws which prevent man from flying to the moon by an act of will. However, as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a creator God we can dismiss that from the equation.

So what we're left with is largely (unless further evidence comes to light) a matter of philosophy. At no point in my suggestion of conditioned free will have I contravened known physics (certainly no one has pulled me up for doing so).

It seems, ironically enough, that I'm getting alot of flack for making a reasonable judgement based on the simplest solution.

Ockham's razor eh, it is a bugger.

Incidentally it's also ironic that given that we're talking about free will so many people are making the 'choice' of believing it doesn't exist.

Chance plays a vital part in allowing simple laws to produce non-uniform outcomes. It is part of the rules on which the universe runs. It seems to me to be completely unrelated to the idea of choice and does not help the case that choice is real.

If someone chooses to make a decision based on the flip of a coin or a roll of the dice..

...Yeah I realised while I was writing it, the outcome is still deterministic (and, obviously, not free will).

Will mankind ever fathom the mysteries of the universe or is it beyond our comprehension? We are only microorganisms in essence.

I think it's one of the most interesting questions ever asked, and one I ask myself often. My take on it is unless we know what we can know, we cannot answer it.

In other words we don't know how intelligent we are, or how intelligent we have the potential to be in the future.

How can choice exist in a universe that runs on laws and maths?

 

Easily if that choice is dependent on the conditions laid down by those laws. To keep it simple, I refer you to my first response to you. We can't simply choose to fly to the moon because we will it, it is dependent on external factors.

 

Free will is not exclusively a Theistic philosophy. Only if the God is the one constraining that free will is this the case (which no one here as far as I can see is suggesting) If a deity says 'thou shall not kill....or else' it's operating in (very simplistically speaking) in a similar fashion to the natural laws which prevent man from flying to the moon by an act of will. However, as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a creator God we can dismiss that from the equation.

 

So what we're left with is largely (unless further evidence comes to light) a matter of philosophy. At no point in my suggestion of conditioned free will have I contravened known physics (certainly no one has pulled me up for doing so).

 

It seems, ironically enough, that I'm getting alot of flack for making a reasonable judgement based on the simplest solution.

 

Ockham's razor eh, it is a bugger.

 

Incidentally it's also ironic that given that we're talking about free will so many people are making the 'choice' of believing it doesn't exist.

Choice is an illusion. Free will can only exist if it is possible for thoughts to arise inside the human brain from processes outside the laws of physics. Clearly they don't.

Thoughts in the human brain are determined by the physical arrangement and chemistry in the brain, combined with the stimulus to that brain from the rest of the universe. The stimulus is surely bound by the laws of physics. The physical arrangement and chemistry is surely determined by the laws of physics.

What you imagine to be choice is your brain, based on previous experience, genetics etc etc, reacting to external stimulus and determining the next course of action. Your conscious mind is then informed of the best course of action, along with a summary of reasoning and other options which have been explored and are rejected, and it is this that you label a "choice".

Cyclone,

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But where you are coming from is known

as "Hard Determinism".

 

 

 

"Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist ".

 

 

 

It's a view amongst others . So why do you choose Determinism over other competing

philosophical perspectives ?

I'm NOT suggesting that this is how things work, I'm saying that Ghostriders thought experiment doesn't rule out or provide evidence to support this or any other option.

---------- Post added 29-09-2016 at 07:21 ----------

So because you blatantly don't get my posts I automatically don't understand yours.

 

Grown up.

 

On that note I'll go make a cuppa. As I said there really is no point. I gave up arguing for the sake of it years ago.

It's actually the lack of you following the logical that makes me think you don't understand.

You postulate a thought experiment and claim that it shows something, when it's quite clear logically that it doesn't. All the rest of what you said doesn't really matter, you can't see the basic logical flaw in what you've said.

---------- Post added 29-09-2016 at 07:26 ----------

How can choice exist in a universe that runs on laws and maths?

 

Easily if that choice is dependent on the conditions laid down by those laws. To keep it simple, I refer you to my first response to you. We can't simply choose to fly to the moon because we will it, it is dependent on external factors.

 

Free will is not exclusively a Theistic philosophy. Only if the God is the one constraining that free will is this the case (which no one here as far as I can see is suggesting) If a deity says 'thou shall not kill....or else' it's operating in (very simplistically speaking) in a similar fashion to the natural laws which prevent man from flying to the moon by an act of will. However, as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a creator God we can dismiss that from the equation.

 

So what we're left with is largely (unless further evidence comes to light) a matter of philosophy. At no point in my suggestion of conditioned free will have I contravened known physics (certainly no one has pulled me up for doing so).

 

It seems, ironically enough, that I'm getting alot of flack for making a reasonable judgement based on the simplest solution.

 

Ockham's razor eh, it is a bugger.

 

Incidentally it's also ironic that given that we're talking about free will so many people are making the 'choice' of believing it doesn't exist.

Perhaps it's simply a lack of understanding of what thought and choice are that leads you to think they aren't governed by physical laws?

Your brain is not magic, it's chemicals and electrical currents.

These chemicals and electrical currents obey the laws of the universe obviously. As does everything outside your head.

So given sufficient information, about the structure and state of your brain, and the world you can perceive, EVERY thought you have, EVERY 'choice' you make could be predicted, because it's just the outcome of stimulus in (ie your senses) and processing in your head.

We can model an ant brain and actually do this, predict accurately what 'choices' it will make. A human brain is the same kind of thing, but much more complex.

This is not my personal philosophy, I haven't said that I believe this to be correct, I've said that no thought experiment can rule it out.

---------- Post added 29-09-2016 at 07:28 ----------

Choice is an illusion. Free will can only exist if it is possible for thoughts to arise inside the human brain from processes outside the laws of physics. Clearly they don't.

 

Thoughts in the human brain are determined by the physical arrangement and chemistry in the brain, combined with the stimulus to that brain from the rest of the universe. The stimulus is surely bound by the laws of physics. The physical arrangement and chemistry is surely determined by the laws of physics.

What you imagine to be choice is your brain, based on previous experience, genetics etc etc, reacting to external stimulus and determining the next course of action. Your conscious mind is then informed of the best course of action, along with a summary of reasoning and other options which have been explored and are rejected, and it is this that you label a "choice".

And interestingly we know that consciousness is a phenomena which isn't actually required for decision making. It's mainly a result of us being social animals and needing the ability to model other members of the group, but then applying that modelling to ourselves in a circular fashion.