Free Will

Author: Sum1hugme ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 116
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    The primary rebuttal to determinism that I found to be somewhat convincing is the idea that certain things on the quantum level are probabilistic rather than causal. But is probability just an expression of man's ignorance? 
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    To say there is no free will is the same as blaming God for everything.

    In other words, it is an easy way to avoid having personal responsibility for one's actions, after all, God made me evil!



  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Mopac
    But is probability an expression of ignorance?
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Probably
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    The primary rebuttal to determinism that I found to be somewhat convincing is the idea that certain things on the quantum level are probabilistic rather than causal. But is probability just an expression of man's ignorance? 
    The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)

    (1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
    (2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
    (3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.

    Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @3RU7AL
    But is probability an expression of ignorance?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    But is probability an expression of ignorance?
    That's currently beyond our epistemological limits.

    What we know for certain is,

    (IFF) probability (randomness) is fundamental (THEN) it (randomness) is not a "CHOICE"

    AND,

    (IFF) probability is NOT fundamental (THEN) all interactions are inevitable (also not a "CHOICE")

    So, the outcome is the same, EITHER WAY you slice it (TAUTOLOGY).
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @3RU7AL
    I don't think probability and randomness are always the same. It seems dangerous to use them interchangeably 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    I don't think probability and randomness are always the same. It seems dangerous to use them interchangeably 
    Is a roll-of-the-dice probabilistic?

    Do we commonly consider a roll-of-the-dice "random"?

    Where's the danger exactly?
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @3RU7AL
      Well we consider a dice roll random because we don't have the means immediately available to measure the physical factors that determine what side it will come up on when tossed. 

      When we shoot photons at glass, for every 100, between 0 and 16 of them reflect. That's a probability. But it's nonrandom as the percent of reflection is directly proportional to the thickness of the glass.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    When we shoot photons at glass, for every 100, between 0 and 16 of them reflect. That's a probability. But it's nonrandom as the percent of reflection is directly proportional to the thickness of the glass.
    Are you suggesting that if you know the quality and thickness of the glass, you can predict exactly which individual photons will be reflected?
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @3RU7AL
    No, but the same percentage will always be reflected depending on the thickness
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    I don't think probability and randomness are always the same. It seems dangerous to use them interchangeably 
    Would you object to, "functionally-indistinguishable-from-random"?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Sum1hugme
    No, but the same percentage will always be reflected depending on the thickness
    So, would you say that whether or not each individual photon is reflected or not is functionally indistinguishable from a dice-roll?
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @3RU7AL
    Well, being "functionally-indistinguishable-from-random" is very different from being random. A dice roll is functionally random, but isn't actually random as it's up side is determined by physical factors.

    So in the case of photons, you can't determine if an individual photon is going to reflect, but you can determine the probability that it will reflect. My question is: is that probability we are calculating just an expression of our ignorance of the mechanism that determines which photons reflect?

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,251
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    being "functionally-indistinguishable-from-random" is very different from being random. A
    Fine. How do we tell the difference? If we have no way of differentiating the two then there is no functional difference, no actionable data.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @secularmerlin
    How we tell the difference in each case I guess depends on our ability to measure the factors associated with determining the outcome. 
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,251
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    What is the definition of indistinguishable?
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @secularmerlin
    In this discussion, I suppose it's - lacking identifying or individualizing qualities. 
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,251
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Without identifying or individualizing qualities we cannot determine the difference between seemingly random (which is indistinguishable from random) and actually random (which is also indistinguishable from random). Without the ability to tell the difference I'm not sure how you propose to make the case that anything which is functionally indistinguishable from random is not in fact simply random. 
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @secularmerlin
    He said functionally indistiguishable random. Not simply indistinguishable.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,251
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Unless you can tell the difference how are you justifying hairsplitting between functionally indistinguishable from random and actually random? If we cannot tell the difference between the two then there is no actionable data. It may as well be random. 
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @secularmerlin
    Well a dice is functionally random since it isn't practical to calculate which side it will land on. That doesn't negate the fact that the result is determined by physical factors.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,251
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Sum1hugme
    So your argument is that apparently random may in fact be deterministic which is also incompatible with freewill. So far you have done nothing to counter 3RU7AL's standard argument against freewill.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 543
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @secularmerlin
    I'm sorry I don't follow. I'm just asking if probability is an expression of ignorance.