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

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#211

Post by naasking » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #203

naasking wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are very different senses of “causally responsible”. The posters I'm engaging here don't believe in uncaused causation (nor do I), so there's little difference in the causal character of the thief's actions here in either case.

> The posters I'm engaging here don't believe in uncaused causation Free will is, by definition, both uncaused and a cause of other actions. If you don't believe in uncaused causation, you don't believe in free will, but you can't discuss the meaning and implication of free will in any meaningful way while ignoring the entirety of it's definition whether or not you believe in free will (or the broader conceptual clas…

> Free will is, by definition, both uncaused and a cause of other actions.

No it's not. The free will debate is about defining what free will actually means so that we can assign moral responsibility.

The scientific meaning of "free will" as experimenters being able to setup their instruments free from influence of that which they're measuring is not what's being discussed here.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#212

Post by Koshkin » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:51 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.

I do not remember ever choosing a branch (as an act of free will), so I am left to assume that my consciousness itself has been branched.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#213

Post by naasking » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #204

naasking wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still haven't answered the question. You can't claim that we don't need free will to address these questions while simultaneously refusing to provide even a single alternative concept or process that could do so equally well. Clearly some quality leads people to make a distinction between the scenarios I presented. Compatibilism calls this quality the free will of the agent in question. This is not an earth-shatt…

>You can't claim that we don't need free will to address these questions while simultaneously refusing to provide even a single alternative concept or process that could do so equally well. You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. I've specifically explained how it is a matter of making value judgments based on our past. That's all it is. This same system of judgments also equally explains people's beliefs whe…

> I've specifically explained how it is a matter of making value judgments based on our past.

This is not an explanation. In your approach, is the thief morally responsible for their actions in neither case, in one but not the other case, or in both cases? And why?

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#214

Post by naasking » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #208

naasking wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. Take a look at the actual definition of null hypothesis and tell me how it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis You're suggesting there's no relationship between what two phenomena when it comes to free will? > The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. No it's not. Science is agnostic on such questions until th…

From the very Wikipedia article you are attempting to use to say I'm using it incorrectly: >Scientific null assumptions are used to directly advance a theory. For example, the angular momentum of the universe is zero. If not true, the theory of the early universe may need revision. We have not proven that the angular momentum of the universe is zero. We assume it is, and have created our equations of how the universe…

> From the very Wikipedia article you are attempting to use to say I'm using it incorrectly:

I asked you specifically about how the null hypothesis applies to free will. Angular momentum has no bearing on this question.

> Whether or not we have free will is 100% about how the universe works.

And this is why you're confused. Because it's not. Some definitions of free will depend on physical or metaphysical assumptions, and some do not and absolutely and unequivocally apply to our universe. One such definition is Comaptibilism, and if you don't think so, then you don't understand Compatibilism.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#215

Post by naasking » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

intralizee wrote: post #206

naasking wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The two types of people I’ve encountered who desire the notion of free will: 1) Person with ego who needs to have a belief in free will. 2) Persons who has ego, gets annoyed by free will being a facade and refuses to think about it because “it doesn’t matter” to this person. This is a complete straw man. Let me describe the contrary claim: in my experience, the type of person who desire giving up free will either a…

You don’t have a good grasp on philosophy to suggest the meaning of free will and complatiblism. Yes the justic system is a disgrace to humanity and I understand determinism. Prove otherwise please from what I wrote and I’ll be thankful. Instead it looks like someone with a hurt ego writing nonsense to me.

There's nothing to prove. Your comment had no substance, and advanced no arguments. It was a set of bald assertions without justification, and so can be dismissed without argument.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#216

Post by Koshkin » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

My free will told me not to read this thread, and yet here I am...

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#217

Post by cthalupa » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #214

cthalupa wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the very Wikipedia article you are attempting to use to say I'm using it incorrectly: >Scientific null assumptions are used to directly advance a theory. For example, the angular momentum of the universe is zero. If not true, the theory of the early universe may need revision. We have not proven that the angular momentum of the universe is zero. We assume it is, and have created our equations of how the universe…

> From the very Wikipedia article you are attempting to use to say I'm using it incorrectly: I asked you specifically about how the null hypothesis applies to free will. Angular momentum has no bearing on this question. > Whether or not we have free will is 100% about how the universe works. And this is why you're confused. Because it's not. Some definitions of free will depend on physical or metaphysical assumptions…

Because the free will either exists or does not, and that existence requires it be compatible with the rules that govern how our universe exists. If it's not compatible with how the universe works, it doesn't exist.

There is no such proof, and as such, the null hypothesis or null assumption is that free will doesn't exist, in the same way we assume the angular momentum of the universe is zero.

I'm not arguing about whether or not that's what Compatibilism believes, I'm arguing that Compatibilism is wrong because you cannot separate the way humans act and think from the physical laws of the universe. Regardless of whether or not most humans act in a way that is compatible with Compatibilism doesn't prove Compatibilism, especially if Compatibilism basically agrees with all of the physics that say free will likely doesn't exist, and then does a philosophical shoulder shrug and says that free will exists anyway, because we have freedom to act, despite that not being nearly enough to encompass actual free will.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#218

Post by kenmicklas » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #205

kenmicklas wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only inconsistent if you assume information can't travel faster than the speed of light, for which there is no basis besides gospel.

Science is no "gospel."

How is it science? We literally have direct empirical evidence that suggests the contrary, but physicists do complicated mental gymnastics to come up with other explanations that fit their preconceived notions better.

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#219

Post by cthalupa » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:16 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #213

cthalupa wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't claim that we don't need free will to address these questions while simultaneously refusing to provide even a single alternative concept or process that could do so equally well. You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. I've specifically explained how it is a matter of making value judgments based on our past. That's all it is. This same system of judgments also equally explains people's beliefs whe…

> I've specifically explained how it is a matter of making value judgments based on our past. This is not an explanation. In your approach, is the thief morally responsible for their actions in neither case, in one but not the other case, or in both cases? And why?

If they just steal a car: Responsible

If they steal a car because someone has a gun to they or their spouse's head: Not responsible

Why: Because the causal chain of events that have gotten us to modern humanity have resulted in our cognitive functions valuing human life over physical objects. These are the inputs to the system. These are all causal, products of evolution, etc, and deterministic. The output, the lack of moral responsibility when it's a matter of a human life, is just as causal and deterministic. Free will is not a requirement to come to these conclusions.

If we had evolved in such a way that we kill and eat our spouses after mating like some other species on Earth, but vehicles were a scarce and irreplaceable resource, our morality would be quite different and the thief would likely be morally responsible in both cases. (For what it's worth, I much prefer that we do not live in such a reality ;))

Re: Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will

#220

Post by simonh » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

nardi wrote: post #195

simonh wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I' not really saying anything about non-empirical facts. I'm open to the principle they might be knowable. I tend to thin they must be encoded physically in order to affect us in any way. How does a non-physical thing with no representation in the physical world have a physical effect?

That aside, I'm saying that I don't see how non-physicality solves the problem of free will. In a physicalist interpretation decisions can be influenced by internal state, influenced randomly, or influenced by external forces. Non-empirical facts are still state. What additional factor does non-physicality contribute that I didn't list?

Is a 'soul' part of the person or external? Does it have state? Does it contribute randomness? What is it that it actually does except add something else we have to ask these questions about?