Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will • Hacker News Board

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#191

Post by ajuc » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:55 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #161

cthalupa wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free will is needed to identify who the criminal is in any given situation, No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Physical stimuli are basically all we need as intelligent beings to come to a conclusion about things we don't like happening to us, and thus ultimately make into moral laws or codified ones. These are the inputs, these are the causes. Then, once enough human beings have had thos…

> No. Causality is all you need to identify who the criminal is. Causality just determines who did something criminal. The word criminal though also invokes a moral judgement (of character) and intent, which presupposes an agent, which presupposes free will.

> which presupposes an agent, which presupposes free will.

In an universe without free will there can still be agents.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#192

Post by monktastic1 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #87

A different view: if we live in a universe that branches into multiple universe at every $PLANCK_TIME, then free will could be our consciousness choosing the branch it follows without actually interacting with the universe.

Of course, there is branching in the quantum sense, but alas, no evidence that we can choose which "world" we end up in. Run the Schrodinger's Cat experiment a million times, and if you get something far from a 50-50 distribution, then maybe this definition is useful.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#193

Post by hulton » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#194

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #128

lordlimecat wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time understanding how people disbelieving in free will do not just devolve to fatalism. Why bother discussing it as if it matters, when it's all predetermined? Why do people having the argument seem to assume in their lives that free will exists, exhibited by their pursuit of their wants?

>Why bother discussing it as if it matters, when it's all predetermined? Because personally, I do find it quite enjoyable. All my decisions and everything I do being predetermined doesn't change the fact that I will still experience it and can enjoy and want things. Determinism doesn't make the things that you experience and the things you choose any less real, they happen. Similarly, Nihilism doesn't mean you give i…

[deleted]

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#195

Post by nardi » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #173

coldtea wrote: post #60

> Of course, randomness isn’t the only thing necessary for free will Not only that, but randomness and determinism are equally against the (casual) idea of free will. Free will, as commonly understood, means there's an "extra layer of abstraction" between the universe (material objects and their relationships) and me. What people called "soul". It's not just that our decisions (will) are random instead of predetermin…

The idea of punting the problem off to some metaphysical cloud in the sky is just plain old fuzzy thinking. We're starting from the position that we are not entirely sure how the physical world works. From that starting point, pushing the problem of free will off into some other metaphysical realm which we also don't fully understand solves no problems. Unless we can posit rules or mechanisms that apply to souls but…

You seem to be saying that only explanations that rely solely on the physical world are valid or worthwhile. But when doing philosophy, it would be hasty to say that only empirical facts are knowable.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#196

Post by ravenstine » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #60

> Of course, randomness isn’t the only thing necessary for free will Not only that, but randomness and determinism are equally against the (casual) idea of free will. Free will, as commonly understood, means there's an "extra layer of abstraction" between the universe (material objects and their relationships) and me. What people called "soul". It's not just that our decisions (will) are random instead of predetermin…

The problem with looking at randomness as evidence of free will is that randomness has a nature in and of itself. True randomness is predictably unpredictable, therefore meaning that it's highly constrained and not really lending itself to free will anymore than nonrandom mechanisms.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#197

Post by naasking » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #189

naasking wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone kidnapped my wife so I stole a car is not a valid legal defense That's not the scenario I posed, although perhaps the presentation wasn't clear. So to be perfectly clear so there are no misunderstandings, the thief was told to steal your car or his wife would be executed. Clearly he's morally culpable for stealing the car in one scenario and not in the other. This distinction can be clearly made using free…

He is responsible for stealing the car in both situations. He has an excuse in one, but excuse doesn't stop responsibility, and both doesn't require a free will to exist. To provide better example - one guy blackmails you to kill me, or he will kill your whole family. You still have a choice. You make your choice or it's predetermined cause no free will - it doesn't matter. You are responsible for your choice, and th…

> He is responsible for stealing the car in both situations.

He's causally responsible yes, free will is about assigning moral responsibility. The validity of various reasons for acting immorally is precisely the question that free will addresses.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#198

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

atq2119 wrote: post #25

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

I've always thought of free will as an absurdity. Here's my thought process: If I make a decision, there's 2 possibilities: 1. The decision is based upon prior information and states, therefore there is a deterministic causality 2. The decision is not based upon prior causality: E.g. I have a "soul" and that's what decides. However, if we look into 2, we arrive at the same problem: 1. Either the souls decision is det…

As usual, these kinds of discussions are really about what we mean by words. What does "free will" mean? I think technically inclined people like us are easily led down the path you describe, but over the years I've become convinced that the kind of definition that leads you to "free will = random choice" is pretty pointless because it's so vacuous. I like to take a step back and ask: why are we interested in free wi…

[deleted]

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#199

Post by joycian » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #180

joycian wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it simpler? There are just a few rules and everything works? For the normal QM you have to get some randomness from somewhere else. edit: I mean I agree it's problematic for experimental science, but I think Occam's razor cuts the other way in this instance. edit2: Isn't the entire history encoded anyway in the current state of the universe in the deterministic case. I don't understand what the problem is there…

To get rid of the randomness you have to have prepared the result of every decision that is currently attributed to randomness in a big lookup table.

Why would that be necessary if there are local deterministic propagation rules, that have been there since the beginning?

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#200

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:25 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #197

ajuc wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is responsible for stealing the car in both situations. He has an excuse in one, but excuse doesn't stop responsibility, and both doesn't require a free will to exist. To provide better example - one guy blackmails you to kill me, or he will kill your whole family. You still have a choice. You make your choice or it's predetermined cause no free will - it doesn't matter. You are responsible for your choice, and th…

> He is responsible for stealing the car in both situations. He's causally responsible yes, free will is about assigning moral responsibility. The validity of various reasons for acting immorally is precisely the question that free will addresses.

> He's causally responsible yes

On one case, only as inevitable intermediary in the chain of causation, in the other as a necessary part of the ultimate, uncaused causation.

These are very different senses of “causally responsible”.

> free will is about assigning moral responsibility.

Only indirectly, in the context of it being assumed axiomatically that having ones will be a necessary uncaused cause of the outcome is required for moral responsibility; it's directly about assigning root cause.