Philosophy

**THL** · 21 Oct 05,, 02:39

Originally Posted by clegane

Ignore my first paragraph, I meant to delete it, but forgot

Damn! And that is the part that made the most sense to me. Looks like I may just have to dye my hair blonde and be done with it...

**Bulgaroctonus** · 21 Oct 05,, 02:55

Originally Posted by clegane

Monk, you're trying to refute the principles of mathematical induction by claiming that causation is broken by time travel, which is accomplished by traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. That nothing travels faster than the speed of light is a principle more fundamental to physics than even F=ma.

Bulgar's argument is simple as viewed from a mathematical standpoint. Take the base state of mind N=0, which can be defined as either the first concious thought or the moment of birth. Either way, N=0 could not have been determined by the individual as the individual did not have any previous thoughts to try and determine N=0. Now assume any state of mind, N, was not determined by the individual. The next state of mind, N+1 is created by the conflux of such elements as N itself, the person's genetic predisposition, any outside events and the randomness inherent in a quantum-mechanical model of the universe, none of which could have been determined by the individual him/herself.
Thus, more mathematically, for propostion that any state of mind N, could not have been determined by the person of state of mind N
N=0 is true
and N is true ==>N+1 is true
by induction, proposition holds for all N
Q.E.D.

Thank you for your understanding of my argument. I appreciate its adaptation into more mathematical, precise form.

Originally Posted by clegane

Of course with all the possible influences on a person's actions, there's way we can know exactly how things are going to turn out even if we don't have control over that. So we can still live life and everything can be a suprise, but we just have to understand that we, ourselves did not determine anything.

I have a view similar to yours. The only way I have been able to escape the near-suicidal depression caused by 'no free will' is by realizing that my life is still somewhat unpredicable.

Morality, meaning, and a lot of other things still vanish, but let the good times roll.

When I'm not depressed over my ideas, I have a sense of deep unity with the universe.

Originally Posted by clegane

I disagree with with Bulgar that moral responsibility is contingent upon free will, but that belief is very subjective.

I think that morality cannot rationally exist without free will. This is because we cannot hold someone accountable for events they did not have control over. I am interested in hearing your ideas of the compatibility between morality and the lack of free will.

**clegane** · 21 Oct 05,, 02:59

Now that I reread my post, it seems that I did go out of my way to express my points in an dense mathematical format.

If you, when you were born, had a state of mind, you couldn't have possibly decided what that state of mind was. your next state of mind, which determines what actions you take, and which can happen anywhere from one year to one nanosecond later, also could have been determined by you because that was determined by your previous state of mind and other factors outside of your control. continue along this line of reasoning until you arrive at your last state of mind before you die, and you'll see that none of them were determined by you.

Its a bit depressing, but since you can't know how things will end up, you can easily pretend that free will exists.

**Bulgaroctonus** · 21 Oct 05,, 04:18

Main Post III (Free Will 3)

This is the third in my posting series on the philosophical question of whether free will exists.

In Free Will 1 (Thread Post 59), I did the following:
1) Objected to Free Will from a deterministic philosophical position.
2) Provided an example to aid my argument

Free Will 2 (Thread Post 101):
1) Clears up some of the supposed inconcisistencies in my Free Will 1 posting.
2) Investigates the moral implications of 'no free will'
3) Provides an excerpt of Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas on the subject (Drawn from Beyond Good and Evil)

Free Will 3 will:
1) Discuss the scientific (especially quantum mechanical) implications concerning Free Will.

In Free Will 4 I will probably:
1) Include further free will ideas from prominent philosophers and scientists.

FREE WILL: Basic Assertion : Free will is an impossibility and does not exist, hence humans do not possess it.

[A. Traditional and Quantum Mechanical Objections to Free Will]

I have written before about the classical, deterministic objections to free will. These will not be covered again in this post. See Free Wills 1&2 for more information.

To a proponent of free will, quantum mechanics may look inviting. After all, quantum mechanics does away with many of the deterministic ideas of traditional, mechanical physics. That is, quantum mechanics may appear to allow leeway for free will since it removes the tyranny of deterministic cause and effect.

However, quantum mechanics does not assist the free will argument. Even though quantum mechanics does away with strict determinism, it replaces determinism with a probabalistic model of the universe. Thus, human actions are no longer predetermined, but they are a matter of probability. Thus, all of our lives are the outcome of the probabalistic movement of sub-atomic particles .

B. The Issue of Quantum Entanglement
Monk brought up the issue of Quantum Entanglement. This is a phenomenon which at this time I do not fully understand. I need to read more material on quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, I have provided a summary of the phenomenon from Wikipedia.

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. However, at this time classical information cannot be transmitted through entanglement faster than the speed of light.

Quantum entanglement is the basis for emerging technologies such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used for experiments in quantum teleportation. At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory, as one can show that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are inconsistent with the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement give rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

At this time, I cannot see how quantum entanglement can support free will. It seems like quantum entanglement causes other philosophical paradoxes and problems. It seems to challenge Einstein's dictum that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.

It makes the situation of the universe more tortuous than I can imagine right now.

**Lugh** · 21 Oct 05,, 13:18

You boys are missing something. Consider the extenuating implications of an over-discussed point.

Consider further the extant suppositions made when over-discussing the existence of, ironically, 'free will'. Hell, If 'Free Willy' went on this long, I think we all would have shot the "great white whale".

If you think that is just a little joke, you need to read, or re-read, Moby Dick keeping a close eye on its brilliant metaphor regarding free will.

**clegane** · 21 Oct 05,, 14:37

I don't see why I should take Herman Melville's word for it just because he wrote an extended metaphor/sermon in book form.

To me, discussing free will and other topics in philophy is nothing but a nice mental exercise, like those pointless proofs that mathmeticians seem to indulge in. It doesn't affect my life at all.

Anyways, I can't help it, none of it was my choice

**Bulgaroctonus** · 21 Oct 05,, 15:05

Originally Posted by clegane

I don't see why I should take Herman Melville's word for it just because he wrote an extended metaphor/sermon in book form.

Yes, I also don't understand Lugh's point.

Originally Posted by clegane

To me, discussing free will and other topics in philophy is nothing but a nice mental exercise, like those pointless proofs that mathmeticians seem to indulge in. It doesn't affect my life at all.

It's interesting that you can still distance yourself from the implications of 'no free will.' I do think it has an impact on our lives, because our sentiments about self, individualism, and morality need to be revised (if not abandoned). I cannot ignore the problem, and it affects my life tremendously.

Originally Posted by clegane

Anyways, I can't help it, none of it was my choice

Yes, this is true.

**Monk** · 21 Oct 05,, 15:22

Originally Posted by clegane

Monk, you're trying to refute the principles of mathematical induction by claiming that causation is broken by time travel, which is accomplished by traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. That nothing travels faster than the speed of light is a principle more fundamental to physics than even F=ma.

Welcome to the debate. I see that you have taken Bulgar's side. Fine.
When Bulgar made his first post on this subject I straight away pointed out that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light will eventually get disproven. Quantum Mechanics has already begun to make this point particularly in the case of Sub-atomic particles.
When scientists tested Causality from the space-time PoV it was observed that causality actually seemed to work accross very vast distances of space. And in certain cases event "N" having occurred even prior to event "N-1" thereby casting aspersions on the dogma "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light". Hence Quantum Entanglement.
Secondly, We don't know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, We Believe. We hardly know enough about the universe to make this claim.

Originally Posted by clegane

Bulgar's argument is simple as viewed from a mathematical standpoint. Take the base state of mind N=0, which can be defined as either the first concious thought or the moment of birth. Either way, N=0 could not have been determined by the individual as the individual did not have any previous thoughts to try and determine N=0. Now assume any state of mind, N, was not determined by the individual. The next state of mind, N+1 is created by the conflux of such elements as N itself, the person's genetic predisposition, any outside events and the randomness inherent in a quantum-mechanical model of the universe, none of which could have been determined by the individual him/herself.
Thus, more mathematically, for propostion that any state of mind N, could not have been determined by the person of state of mind N
N=0 is true
and N is true ==>N+1 is true
by induction, proposition holds for all N
Q.E.D.

Let me go to the very first N=0, Why was the first unit cell Micro-organism found? That in itself is a fundamental proof of Free will. You can explain how the first cell was formed, explain Why?
Therefore N=0 presupposes lack of free will and only hereditary characterestics but if you regress through time to the first cell then this presupposition cannot exist, how do we explain the first cell then?
Therefore if N=0 cannot hold good for the first cell it cannot hold good for all events involving N.

Originally Posted by clegane

Of course with all the possible influences on a person's actions, there's way we can know exactly how things are going to turn out even if we don't have control over that. So we can still live life and everything can be a suprise, but we just have to understand that we, ourselves did not determine anything.

This is not because of lack of Free will but the multiplicity of variables affecting Free Will.

**Monk** · 21 Oct 05,, 15:33

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Main Post III (Free Will 3)

This is the third in my posting series on the philosophical question of whether free will exists.

In Free Will 1 (Thread Post 59), I did the following:
1) Objected to Free Will from a deterministic philosophical position.
2) Provided an example to aid my argument

Free Will 2 (Thread Post 101):
1) Clears up some of the supposed inconcisistencies in my Free Will 1 posting.
2) Investigates the moral implications of 'no free will'
3) Provides an excerpt of Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas on the subject (Drawn from Beyond Good and Evil)

Free Will 3 will:
1) Discuss the scientific (especially quantum mechanical) implications concerning Free Will.

In Free Will 4 I will probably:
1) Include further free will ideas from prominent philosophers and scientists.

FREE WILL: Basic Assertion : Free will is an impossibility and does not exist, hence humans do not possess it.

[A. Traditional and Quantum Mechanical Objections to Free Will]

I have written before about the classical, deterministic objections to free will. These will not be covered again in this post. See Free Wills 1&2 for more information.

To a proponent of free will, quantum mechanics may look inviting. After all, quantum mechanics does away with many of the deterministic ideas of traditional, mechanical physics. That is, quantum mechanics may appear to allow leeway for free will since it removes the tyranny of deterministic cause and effect.

However, quantum mechanics does not assist the free will argument. Even though quantum mechanics does away with strict determinism, it replaces determinism with a probabalistic model of the universe. Thus, human actions are no longer predetermined, but they are a matter of probability. Thus, all of our lives are the outcome of the probabalistic movement of sub-atomic particles .

Bulgar we have accomplished two things so far,
First, we have established Self-Interest (Post 67), It is a fundamental proof of free will.
Secondly, we have done away with the Deterministic model thus casting serious aspersions on Causality.
If we live in a Probabilistic universe (Which you seemed to have agreed with) then what we have in front of us is multiplicity of "choices" or multiple outcomes or multiple universes. And believe it or not in those issues relevant to the "self", one has been bestowed with the dubious distinction of making a "choice" in a probabilistic Universe. I can't think of greater proof for free will.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

B. The Issue of Quantum Entanglement
Monk brought up the issue of Quantum Entanglement. This is a phenomenon which at this time I do not fully understand. I need to read more material on quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, I have provided a summary of the phenomenon from Wikipedia.

At this time, I cannot see how quantum entanglement can support free will. It seems like quantum entanglement causes other philosophical paradoxes and problems. It seems to challenge Einstein's dictum that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.

It makes the situation of the universe more tortuous than I can imagine right now.

Q.E. goes a long way in furthering my theory, since it breaks us free from the bonds of causality with relevance to the universe. I will concede we don't know enough about the universe to make any serious assertions of truth but one thing I am sure of is free will which I have been able to demonstrate in a multiplicity of situations. From Moral to philosophical to now it would appear scientific.

**Monk** · 21 Oct 05,, 15:37

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

What else is there? Is their a non-physical aspect of the universe that I'm missing? I don't think so. My views are somewhat unrelenting and bleak, but not illogical.

Thats because you are addressing the "How" dear chap and not the "Why".

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Please do more than just tell me to review the post. I review everything as I write it. If I don't receive a specific complaint, I can't properly respond to you. Write a long post in response, point out how quantum mechanics support free will. My Free Will 3: Quantum Mechanics will be posted at about 11 PM Eastern US Time. I'll answer your doubts then.

All my posts are specific complaints, I have been careful to maintain a systematic flow to avoid contradictions. You know what I have been stating. With regards to your Free-Will series, I have been giving my systematic contradictions to them.

**clegane** · 21 Oct 05,, 19:05

Originally Posted by Monk

Welcome to the debate. I see that you have taken Bulgar's side. Fine.
When Bulgar made his first post on this subject I straight away pointed out that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light will eventually get disproven. Quantum Mechanics has already begun to make this point particularly in the case of Sub-atomic particles.
When scientists tested Causality from the space-time PoV it was observed that causality actually seemed to work accross very vast distances of space. And in certain cases event "N" having occurred even prior to event "N-1" thereby casting aspersions on the dogma "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light". Hence Quantum Entanglement.
Secondly, We don't know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, We Believe. We hardly know enough about the universe to make this claim.

That from a certain point of reference, somebody can view n=5 before n=3 is irrelevant as the N's are all order from the frame of reference of the person in question. So even if that that person travels in loops around time, his life, from the frame of reference of himself, is still the a progression of increasing N's. The Grandfather Paradox would complicate matters and I'll elaborate on that and discuss quantum entanglement when I have time, but they don't affect the fundamental pricniples.

Let me go to the very first N=0, Why was the first unit cell Micro-organism found? That in itself is a fundamental proof of Free will. You can explain how the first cell was formed, explain Why?
Therefore N=0 presupposes lack of free will and only hereditary characterestics but if you regress through time to the first cell then this presupposition cannot exist, how do we explain the first cell then?
Therefore if N=0 cannot hold good for the first cell it cannot hold good for all events involving N.

the first microrganism was not capable of conscious thought. it reacted to external stimuli in a way determined completely by its genetic code, hardly free will. The first microrganisms formed due to reasons elaborated in the theory of Abiogenesis(which has less evidence behind it than evolution) basically, organic material combined in such a way that they could reproduce themselves. I don't know all the details about the theory, but I do know that the first cells didn't form because "they willed themselves to."
A conscious mind is neccesary for free will to occur unless you suppose the existence of a life force or soul, in which case you apply my arguement to an intangible soul with N=0 the soul's will when it first came into being.

This is not because of lack of Free will but the multiplicity of variables affecting Free Will.

I admit that there are a multiplicity of variable that affect a person's life, many of them random. None of them, however, are under the person's control.

**Praxus** · 21 Oct 05,, 21:22

You can not carry out an excercise of reason, when you reject your own capacity to chose between what is right and what is wrong. There is no point in trying.

**clegane** · 22 Oct 05,, 03:01

Originally Posted by Praxus

You can not carry out an excercise of reason, when you reject your own capacity to chose between what is right and what is wrong. There is no point in trying.

Reason can exist independent of morality.
I've already said before that even though I don't believe in free will, I can still life as if it existed. I make choices, but those choices are mostly determined by my heredity and experiences with some degree of randomness thrown in. There's also the chance that I may be wrong. As I said before, I don't take this too seriously.

**Praxus** · 22 Oct 05,, 05:52

Originally Posted by clegane

Reason can exist independent of morality.
I've already said before that even though I don't believe in free will, I can still life as if it existed. I make choices, but those choices are mostly determined by my heredity and experiences with some degree of randomness thrown in. There's also the chance that I may be wrong. As I said before, I don't take this too seriously.

This isn't an ethical issue, it is a metaphysical issue. If we lack free will, we are incapable of knowing anything, as there would be nothing preventing us from accepting a false-hood over a truth.

I didn't mean right and wrong in the sense of morality, but in the sense of true and false.

**Monk** · 22 Oct 05,, 16:11

Originally Posted by clegane

That from a certain point of reference, somebody can view n=5 before n=3 is irrelevant as the N's are all order from the frame of reference of the person in question. So even if that that person travels in loops around time, his life, from the frame of reference of himself, is still the a progression of increasing N's. The Grandfather Paradox would complicate matters and I'll elaborate on that and discuss quantum entanglement when I have time, but they don't affect the fundamental pricniples.

You didn't get the point which I made at all. I said when viewed from N=0 the event N-1 hadn't occurred. I can't view this from N-1 since it hasn't yet occurred, got it? The paradox is very clear and it breaches causality, which is what I am repeatedly pointing out to you. Thats why I brought up the issue of Quantum Entanglement. The point here is that we live in a Probabilistic Universe which clearly indicates choice and from that position "Free will" is very clear.

Originally Posted by clegane

the first microrganism was not capable of conscious thought. it reacted to external stimuli in a way determined completely by its genetic code, hardly free will. The first microrganisms formed due to reasons elaborated in the theory of Abiogenesis(which has less evidence behind it than evolution) basically, organic material combined in such a way that they could reproduce themselves. I don't know all the details about the theory, but I do know that the first cells didn't form because "they willed themselves to."
A conscious mind is neccesary for free will to occur unless you suppose the existence of a life force or soul, in which case you apply my arguement to an intangible soul with N=0 the soul's will when it first came into being.

N=0 preceedes the first micro-organism. Your intial supposition was that all of a person's "make-up and actions" are governed by the hereditary material passed on. In the case of the first cell, none of this exists and therefore the time prior to its formation is N=0. What follows is "if the first cell's make up and actions weren't determined by its hereditary N=0 and its lead up to event N=1 is false therefore N is false for all values.

Let me be clearer still, We live in a probabilistic Universe which throws up infinite possibilities. The ability to perceive the possibilities increases with the level of I.Q. Probabilities always exist on the presupposition of choice. In a probabilitstic universe of which I am an insignificant part, as many probabilities exist as I can perceive. Any choice leads to a different Universe and therefore infinite probabilities lead to infinite number of Universes. The choice which I or any other individual makes leads to a particular timeline, which clearly is possible only when there is freewill. This convention is breached only if the Universe makes the choice for us which we know it doesn't.

With regard to the first cell you and Bulgar have only pointed out "How" they were formed never "Why" and the next questions are why did the cell split? why did it procreate? why did it evolve? and so on.

Originally Posted by clegane

I admit that there are a multiplicity of variable that affect a person's life, many of them random. None of them, however, are under the person's control.

I never said that they are controlled by the person. I indicated that the variables indicate choice ergo freewill.