@snarfeater The free will comes from nowhere. Again. Linguistic quibble. Look, let's say someone does something illegal. Court knows what was done and who did it, but also needs to know why in order to know how to sentence. The person could have done it in their sleep, which means it wasn't a decision. If they were awake and aware, they could either have been coerced, or they did it by their own free will. We could say it was simply their "choice," but you make a choice even when coerced.
@snarfeater Interesting. You ignore my explicit position on the free-will thing--that it's a linguistic quibble. You also ignore the explicit statement that the determinism debate and the free-will debate are two different debates, this being about determinism. Furthermore, you implicitly ignore that the debate about free-will hasn't seriously been the debate about the soul for 100 years. And after all that forced ignorance--you're not stupid, after all--you accuse MY ego of being at risk.
Quantum mechanics doesn't explicitly state that both the position and momentum of extremely small particles are indeterminable, but this assumption is the opinion of most quantum physicists. The mathematics itself correctly states that the product of the uncertainty of position and momentum has a lower-bound which is related to Planck's constant. This doesn't inherently imply indeterminacy; however no model presently exists to explain the behavior of quantum particles in a determinable context.
i disagree with a lot of your points. 1. why isn't abstraction a matter of physics? abstraction is the actions of electrical processes in the brain or with other words: cause and effect, the rule that applies to everything in the universe, probably even to quantum physics. we're just still missing the knowledge to understand them. 2. if free will isn't a thing and objects only are meaningful by humans giving them names (language) that are consistent with some kind of context, [...]
Is there a name for the philosophical standpoint which doesn't reflect free will or determinism (physicalism) but does reflect upon the nature of what we know about quantum mechanics? I want to learn more about that. I sadly think the main reason a fair number of atheists are determinists is because it is the opposite of a popular christian perspective (even though there are christian determinists).
There is an alternative definition of determinism that is compatible with quantum indeterminacy. The definition is "the universe has only one possible future." If this is true (and it probably is according to the principles of relativity), then quantum events may be uncaused but nonetheless inevitable from the beginning of time onwards.
Indeterminism as it relates to science is a completely different from indeterminism as it relates to the philosophy of determinism. Your argument is based on an equivocation. Determinism IS physicalism if physicalism is what you say it is (I've never even heard of physicalism).
People who think they've figured out how determinism is false really annoy me as they are too quick to say it, without a consideration for it's application of quantum physics (in that observation isn't reality).
so your argument is that there is no time and nothing happens? well i agree and disagree with that. i agree with the point you made but obviously things are happening and we can time them. besides, time is man-made and irrelevant to this debate anyway. god (and by god i mean the universe and everything ever) created determinism at its very beginnings if there were any beginnings. and if there were no beginnings then, every possible possibility exists in one never ending moment. determined.
i dont think being able to predict the future has anything to do with determinism. while determinists say that there is only one possible future, our being able to know what it is, is beside the point. free will is an illusion of individuality. your nose piercing is not free will just because it is unusual. it is determined by your attraction to the unusual which is determined by whatever gave you your attraction to the unusual. probably some feelings of inadequacy to the "A" culture.
you are wrong about what determinists think. you think they think all situations will turn out the same without factoring in new circumstances? determinism is just saying that the future is dependent on the past so whats the problem? just look at everything you do every day. would you be doing any of those things if you were a dog? dogs dont speak english or make videos on youtube. so the fact you are making this video is partly dependent on you being human. you just dont understand it.
You stipulate that the universe had to have some sort of 'beginning'. You skirt an issue here. What was there before the Big Bang? From what you say one may think that there was nothing, and then God appeared, and things got in motion. The point being is that stuff had to have always been here. There could have never been 'nothing.' And if the stuff has always been here, and if energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it would not be too much of a stretch to assume it will continue forever.
Good arguments. I personally don't see a reason to debate free will though, because as far as I can see you can't test it. And if you can't test something, it can't be proven right or wrong. This of course applies to determinism as well. Maybe you know a way to test free will and if you do I'd like to hear it.
If "free will" has a definition, one can test it by checking to see if it is logically coherent, and then analyze the facts of psychology and neuroscience to see whether or not it is true. If free will means "a person can do what he/she wants", free will is demonstrably true. If it means "the ability to have done otherwise", it is demonstrably false, as relativity theory proves that the future is fixed and all events that happen are inevitable.
To reduce the concept of free will to psychology and neuroscience they need to share the same properties. If we list off the properties of free will, as the subject experience of possibly, then how can we reduce it to being a part of objective science? We're talking about two different things. We can't reduce 'free will' to neurology the way we can reduce water to h2o simply because they're the same.
It is not determined that there are indeterminate outcomes in the universe. Quantum mechanics only shows that there is a randomness to the smallest parts of our universe relative to our ability to perceive them. Most physicists agree that despite our inability to take note of the cause to this effect, there is indeed a cause to be had, but never found.
This is siply false. There are very few, if any, scientists who still support a hidden variable theory when it comes to quantum mechanics. If you had posted this comment 30yrs ago it would have been out of date. If you are going to make such bold statements about these things you really need better sources than a man in the pub. There has even been surveys done to check the most widely accepted theories among physicists! Turns out it's the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations.
You do realize that according to the Many Worlds interpretation there is an underlying cause to the perceived randomness in our universe? Research M-theory. Also, randomness does not create free will by any measure anyways. It simply offers determinism determined towards randomness. You're decisions still aren't made by you.
It is not an underlying cause to percieved randomness. The randomness is real. Determinism is only preserved in a probably untestable multiverse. This universe is still indetrminate at the quantum level. Also the Copenhagen interpretation is still the most popular. Not that an argument ad populum means much, but hey, it was your argument.
Since you did not decide to type the rest of your comment I am going to decide to ignore the results of a process in which mental content played no part.
Then who makes my decisions? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical question to make a point. I agree randomness doesn't give us free will. But this turns into a language game if we explore it much further. If, for all intents and purposes, we are forced to make one action over another, then that is the framework within which our language arose. Which means it's nonsensical to say my decisions aren't made by me. You need a new language to explain this that doesn't borrow from the old.
I agree, the universe is not determinable. But what I am trying to say is that humans are not somehow excluded from the laws of cause and effect. We do not somehow own the mental capacity to make a "decision," which in my opinion is another archaic term our language latches onto. We are just atoms, waves really, in a boundless sea, being tugged one way or another, whether by randomness or by the gears of a one way reality.
Cause and effect is a linguistic construct for description. Plus, it really only makes any sense on the scale of everyday events. Now, if you mean to say that we are physical, I agree. But this serves no basis for dismissing non-physical modes of description. For example, monetary value isn't physical, but we'd be mad to dismiss it as not part of who we are and how we interact. There are always multiple ways of describing things, but no automatic ontology that serves as an ultimate basis.
(Switched accounts) I can give a really simple, practical, everyday example that goes unnoticed pretty much all of the time: you ask a friend, "Why did you do that?" They say, "No reason."
Now, depending on the situation--perhaps something was done to you and you're upset about it--that may be an unacceptable answer. But often, it's just fine, which requires a framework in which freewill is acknowledged. However, it doesn't make sense if it's a question of physics.
But isn't it possible the individual did have a reason for doing what they did, despite the fact they themselves were not capable of perceiving this cause to their action?
Or are you saying that free will is just a subjective relation to one's lack of understanding of the causes to their behaviour?
I think I would acknowledge free will most often when confronted with that reply, but I'm not sure I'd be justified so much as apathetic.
Of course it's possible, but again, it isn't a matter of physics here. It's an example of non-physical mode of description, not to mention a description of a series of events, which we tend to think of as solely a matter of physics. It, like cause and effect, is a linguistic construct of description.
Well, my book, perhaps. There's a free pdf you can download from the link on the azrienoch channel. I just don't know of anyone else taking this approach, at least explicitly.
So long as this is not a plug, I'll take your word for it. I've been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, perspectvism as well. I definitely think I'll be taking something from your approach to philosophy. I'm something of a student of yours; lame as that sounds. Anyhow, thank you for the reference. I will be looking into your point of view, and I'll probably be coming up with arguments in the near future.
Determinism is one of those philosophies that I took as being entirely impractical, but kind of granted. Just like one can always say, maybe there are obese tigers controlling our thoughts, we can't know that there aren't. That's technically true but is of no substance. Also, I take is granted that if one was to know every single minute factor that would influence a cause, one could know it's full effect, but this of course is impossible, making free will a practically viable term.
I know nothing about quantum mechanics though, I admit. But I don't really know if things in quantum mechanics being indeterminable mean that we have no way of determining them, or that it's actually indeterminable even for some hypothetically omniscient being. The latter I suppose would invalidate determinism on every level, but it doesn't make free will more than the result of predictable cause and effect reactions any more than a nuclear reaction or dominoes falling would or wouldn't be.
and one assumes that it is not a supernatural gift, then just as with other cognitive functions, one could approximate a time when it is developed. I don't think he was asking for the absolute moment in time, but rather for a stage of brain development, which free will would have to be a result of, if physical. The idea is then that because there is no stage where the brain ceases to be a result of natural cause and effect, but rather more complex cause and effect, this stage cannot exist.
I took the timing argument to mean more of "if we can point to a stage in human life where one wouldn't have free will and a later stage where we do have free will, then what physical change occurs in between these two stages that allows for indeterminable free will?" Of course, this could be answered by saying it's not a physical change, but that doesn't seem to be a realistic answer to this question to me. If one assumes that humans do in fact have indeterminable free will, then this...
I hate to take issue with your "exact point in time for free will section" Your rebuttal missed the point.
Free will exists or it dosent. To extrapolate this out, if we are made of the same stuff as our planet (which we are) you have to say there is a point in time where free will is gained (in a specific thing, organism w/e), or concede that the earth itself has free will.
One feasible arguement I could see to contest this is that free will is not an all or nothing propisition...out of room
1) if the theories on quantum mechanics are true in the sense that at the most simple level there is chaos, we cannot determine the future exactly yet
2) this does not nullify the idea of "all present situations are caused by past situations" So the idea of free will still doesn't make sense. Our choices are genetics and experience whether it be past or present and even "abstraction" has a base in the physical.
"God" would be responsible for everything we choose...
Part 2. In the latter, we are a product of God and we are formed with all our thoughts and desires right from the start (or we get them later in life). I just don't see how any free will is possible.
PS. If you are going to dismiss this message as complete idiocy, think about how smart you would sound if you were to write about free will in Swedish!
I realise that this question probably already has been posted or answered but since my english isn't the best and I'm a lazy person by nature, I'll ask it anyway.
How is free will a possibility? There are two scenarious in life. Either we were created through millions and millions of years of evolution or we are a product of God. In the first scenario everything becomes a product of a product because we are formed by our inherited genes and the enviroment we grow up in.
An irrelevant sidenote, but quantum mechanics, under the many-worlds interpretation, *is* in fact a "deterministic" theory in that it describes the universe as a deterministically evolving wavefunction, although any "determinability" would be a whole another thing.
I was browsing around and decided I'd watch another one of your videos; I'm actually suprised.
I'm impressed. You seem to have studied Wittgenstein pretty thoroughly. I don't know if you've mentioned him in any of your other videos, but your use of the context of grammar seems like his later writers; i.e. The Blue and Brown books.
I think that that is enough to prove a kind of deterministic point of view. I would say that everything is determined, but the future is not determinable.
You seem to always make the argument that if events are not determinable by some kind of super computer, then something in the past could not have been determined. I'd like to make the point that the super computer might not be able to determine events past the point of its own calculations, (it would have to calculate an infinite number of itself) but what it CAN do is calculate the reasons for everything that happened before it began incorporating itself into the calculations.
For someone to demand a time for something immaterial to do something seems to force an immaterial thing to me material. This obviously doesn't make sense. Time measures the duration of things. Free will is not a thing so can time ever apply to it? Freewill is an abstract concept that must either change itself, or it itself must change some physical thing for time to ever apply to it.
Oh my great shadowy Crom, what a semanticist's orgy of sophomoric half baked witticisms. There is so much in your arguments(both of you)that are somewhere between school of thought versus school of thought mud slinging and denigration rather than counter point that I'm not sure what even happened here, I need to go lie down. But before I do I have to sit here rewatch this and try and wonder why this all seems wrong to me even though I don't myself have much in the way of counter points.
I am glad to be watching this video. Great points, I've often thought that abstract thought was evidence of free will as well, but you've put it better than I have.
mikemack28 wow intellectual terrorism at its finest. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed it because I don't have friends I can discuss matter of the mind without arguing.
Quantum effects are relevant on the sub atomic level. There is no evidence of anything in the human brain processes resulting from quantum effects. As far as we do understand the brain's functioning it would appear to follow the causal laws of a Newtonian physics.
I agree, Sebastian. Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but would you explain why this is true for indeterminacy, and not for determinacy? Why is determinacy the default position?
Great job. How is the argument that, "we know everything is determined, dot to dot, we just don't have the computational power to understand the dot sequence," very much superior to, "we know that there is an exact number of angels that can dance on the end of a pin, we just don't have the computational power to know what that number is" ?
I don't get the confidence in determinism. It's a logical argument based on "givens" that aren't really "given" at this point; more like "hunches".
Even if you bring up randomness (I'm yet to be convinced randomness is even possible). So what? Randomness does nothing to hurt the idea behind determinism. A random event could not happen independently, something would have to cause the random event to occur, and the result of the random event will have deterministic effects. This does nothing to support free will, unless you want to say that free will is random. Either choice exists or it does not, there is no middle ground.
i watched it several times and I thought you were extremely rude. Your cocky condescension does nothing to buttress your argument at all. In both your comments and in your video you employ weak logic and snide ad hominem. All you do is hide in semantics an dance around as though that is the purpose of philosophical debate. Most of your arguments are attempts to undermine the language necessary for discussion. Your arguments are like a philosophical homicide attack. You just blow up the meaning.
"Abstract" is another word for imprecise. Usually due to complexity too great to describe or even understand. Everything is mathematical, is math abstract? Even something like "love" is concrete if you have the tools and ability to measure and understand the neurochemistry involved. Free will is the idea that we can make choices without any cause. You can have many microscopic causes that when blended together looks gray and undistinctive. But events and choices always have cause.
Ah! It comes out. No, cause and effect is not an accurate depiction of quantum mechanics. The reason we use probabilities to describe the movements of particles is because the language we use to speak of probabilities is a better description. We've not yet developed a language perfectly suited for quantum descriptions.
AG: Allthough I disagree with a lot of your examples, descriptions, I would have to get with you on this point. How do you describe that something happened without saying that it happened because of 'x' ? I know that if I toss a pebble it falls into the lake. That if I say "I don't love you anymore" that it causes pain. I don't see a way out of that.
The question isn't of ability. The question is whether or not, even given a complete account of the original state of particles, there is only one outcome. And the answer is no.
"The question is whether or not, even given a complete account of the original state of particles, there is only one outcome. And the answer is no."
****This is merely an arbitrary assertion. You cannot say this because what quantum mechanics has proved is that we cannot have a complete account. It does not say that a complete account would not result in a single possible outcome. As I said before you are confusing the mathematical abstraction with the particle that abstraction is describing.
You're going to show me something, because everything I've read indicates as I've described it, and what you've described has always been pointed out to me as what people clinging to Newtonian physics think.
It is called the uncertainty principle. Logical positivism asserted that if it could not be measured then it did not exist, and this is why physicists say that the electron does not have both a position and a momentum even though its position can be measured accurately or its momentum, but not both. The uncertainty principle in a mathematical equation is used to get the best estimate of a particles position and momentum.
But this uncertainty isn't the cause of (at least all) multiple possibilities, which is what's being discussed in this thread. See pyrrho's above thread on the twin slit experiment and argue with him.
Agent, obviously I can't say yes, but if I say no, while I may be fucked purporting indeterminacy, you'll be fucked too, purporting determinacy. Luckily, indeterminacy is evident even when we pretend we have a complete account of the original state. So yes, I'm sure.
I like your channel, it's one of my favorites. You're both entertaining and insightful. You helped me discard pre-determinism. I think you're right about this shower thing, it probably has something to do with the heat expanding blood vessels, thus increasing blood flow to the brain.
Still determinism is an infatuating idea. At first I thought he must know that time is not linear. Time is not the road the car is riding on, it's more like the speed in which the car is moving. Causality can't depend on time being a constant, because it's not. Then I thought randomness isn't about one result being realized without any determining factors over the other possibilities. It is better to think that all possibilities are being realized simultaneously.
Take every possibility which are all finite to the exponent of every other probability you would have a shit load of possibilities. You would have a upjooquillionth number of possibilities for the entire 4d model of the Universe. The important thing to know is that your number of possibilities would be FINITE. We don't exist in a system of infinite possibilities. In other words in your very long answer would exist the exact instance of the Universe we experience. Which was determinable. BooYah!
07:15 -- Why isn't imagination determinable? I agree that our lack of omniscience means imagination is only predictable at best, but there is still a finite input leading to a finite output. If the vast series of mechanics behind the scenes could be grasped, the outcome of imagination at any moment COULD be predicted.
The only curve ball is quantum theory, which so far in your vid is the only idea that has undermined the idea of pure determinism.
What About Intention(ResultDirectedness) As what Is Explaining Physical Events, Inluding billiard Ball Collisions or Your Body Movements, Wthn What Will Work To Build Everything That Exists?
Human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntary and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own - Albert Einstein
Quantumn mechanics, in all likelihood, cancel out at the level of consciousness and reason. I also believe that determinism is dead, but don't see what's wrong with saying that a probability or a statistical prediction can be as good as determined, at least as far as humans orient themselves to the physical world.
The post-QM version of determinism could broadly be "all event is either random or determined by the previous", and in this form it is still arguable. I agree with you that free-will is worth the word for the contexts you told, but I doubt that anyone thinks of that when they say "Free will does not exist".
mak: I liked that. We're free to give a story about what happened to us, that's for sure. And since there's no Gold standard, maybe we can fuck with it enough to make something fluid.
Az, when you say (at about 11:30) that you do not look at God as a thing - what, if anything, do you look at as a thing? And do you suppose that theists look at God as a thing?
I agree with the concept of will, in that an individual acts according to their own internal motivations (which can to a certain extent be determinable according to the field of psychology), but that hardly merits the qualifier 'free'. That, I think comes from the old religious morality of god giving 'free will' to mankind so that he could choose to sin.
If I say "I bought this twix of my own free will" I understand what I mean by this. When people argue for free will are they making the argument that we can make choices? I don't think they are.
Free will as a concept originates in morality doesn't it? Anyone can agree with the idea of will or volition. How then is it free? Free from being determined by previous conditioning and circumstance? The qualifier 'free' only makes sense to me if you are talking about a person acting free from coercion; buying the twix of your own volition as opposed to only buying the twix because somebody has threatened to beat you if you don't.
The analogy to Zeno's paradox was weak. Of course we can give a rough estimate of when we think humans came onto the scene, or when the towers fell. You saying that you do not need to answer when free will manifests because someone may ask you for a more precise estimate is silly. Of course, if you are defending the assertion that free will exists, you are required to give a description of the circumstances under which it is present. At what age? This is a perfectly reasonable question...
If you will not answer the question of what stage of development you think is required for free will, then what other species would you say have free will, and what is it about them that provides the necessary complexity for the existence of a free will? Another issue I have with your argument is your rather arbitrary assertion that determinism is synonymous with determinable. Determinism does not rely on predictability, ....
but rather it is the assertion that the only factors involved in a closed system are causal. Determinism derives its name from the fundamental precept of causality, that the initial state in a closed causal system determine the following states, and that there are no random or contra-causal effects.
I didn't confuse these two. The problem with Youtube comment section is that you have to strip what you want to say. I was stating that determinism doesn't rely on predictability to avoid the discussion becoming about predictability. It was preemptive and it wasn't directed towards you.
As for imagination this is merely the rearrangement or recombination of known qualities- like knowing big and little and the human form and imagining giants and pixies- now I too am under the illusion of "free will" but I'm also under the illusion that matter is solid but we know that is just not the case- I hold out hope that there is some part of me that transcends the physical and allows me "free will" In fact I believe it but Belief and $1.50 gets you a cup of joe
To have "free will" some part of us would have to exist outside the known laws of the physical universe- but of course we need the illusion of free will otherwise Judges would have to something like " we punish you not because you are responsible for you actions but because this interaction will influence your future actions and influence others as it becomes part of their experience"
As a phrase in common usage- "free will" exist right there with "Good war" "military intelligence" and "preemptive defense" are you really defending it on this basis- REALLY!!!! Free will is a social construct so we can assign blame or praise and then punishment or reward- now given quantum uncertainty you could have exactly the same hardware and software and yet make a different choice but does this count as "free will" or merely the vagaries of the subatomic
I think I've already said that QM has nothing to do with free-will. It is brought up in these discussions because it has something to say about determinism.
Regardless, yes, I'm defending it on those grounds. If I thought that free will is a thing, it'd be silly. But I don't think free will is a thing, so take a closer look before thinking it silly.
Then describe free will. I know you're too smart to defend something you can't describe. I mean what is your position exactly? You seem to disagree with 1 and 0. Is choice independent or not? That's where the argument should be.
What do you mean by saying that free will is not a "thing"? I agree it's nothing. Some math is not defined and has a range (I get that). Existence however is defined. It's either there or not. 1 or 0.
im not ignoring your ideas, i think we are talkign about different definitions of free will at times.
this typing is rediculous, im getting a proper mic/camera next week.
back to abstraction - it can only use bits of information which we obtain and have stored somewhere... our brain has evolved to have that ability so we can come up with creative solutions to problems, among other things
I do not see how matter could evolve to be able to truly (technically) control itself.
"The simple fact that we can entertain two opposing ideas at the same time argues against determinism, at least to my estimation."
I think 5+7=12, a baby I quized thinks 5+7=fart. By your logic 5+7 is not determinable. Not only is there a right answer, and it's determinable but we can also determine why I have the right answer and the 1 year old does not. This is not a complete case for determinism, I'm just refuting what you said.
AG: I'm not sure I agree with this answer. You can't quiz a baby on 5+7 because it does not yet grasp the concepts. In this case a fart may be a valid answer because it is coherent with the baby's experiences.
"You can't quiz a baby on 5+7 because it does not yet grasp the concepts."
This was my blunt point. Fallibility has concrete causes and is thus determinable. Ask yourself why does the baby not understand these concepts yet? If you can give me a question where there is no possible answer to why, I will be wrong. Until then determinism is pretty easy to defend.
QM does not inherently tell us the universe is indeterminate. it depends which interpretation you wish to use.
I agree with you that the phrase free will has a use in society, im not debating that(casual free will).
I'm debating if it truly exists or if it is an illusion(technicalFreeWill)
Abstraction is explained by the genetic composition of our brain which we evolved and the information which it perceives. it is, complex and nonlinear as you say, which gives the illsion of free will.
I begged you to watch my Free Will and Grammatical Settings video. If you want to debate this wishy-washy, mystical free-will, you're in the wrong place.
when I said ability to know otherwise that the earth was the center of the universe, i meant scientific or technological ability, of course we could imagine otherwise, but not empirically.
which was meant to be analogous to your argument that since we cannot empirically predict the exact behavior of human, it is not determinable therefore free will is possible, which is your argument for what i'll call your "technical free will, different from your contexual or what i'll call "casual" free will
Empirically has nothing to do with it. We had no empirical evidence that we were the center of the universe. Anyone's imagination is as good as knowledge there. Physics gives you a set of possibilities, not a future actuality.
Saying things aren't determinable doesn't quite counter the determinism argument. Whether it is beyond our capacity to determine events is irrelevant to whether they are deterministic. And saying that freewill is just a word seems to support the idea that freewill only describes an illusion of power, not the actual ability to control our actions.
"...The waterfall being predictable isn't the same as the waterfall being determined. And the math being too complex isn't the reason why it's indeterminable; the math gives us a series of possibilities and probabilities because there isn't a single, determinate answer."
Even if we can only give a range as opposed to one finite number that's only because we have an incomplete cause. A complete cause will give complete results.
Okay, here you're outdated. I'm not saying we have an incomplete cause, and that's the reason QM renders physics nondeterministic. Even when we know all the factors, QM gives us possibilities, and there is never only one.
Quantum mechanics gives us probabilities due to the limits our ability to measure accurately the particles. I am not saying we ever will be able to measure them accurately, in fact I think it is impossible, but this does not mean that the particles themselves are truly in a superposition of states. The math gives us multiple possibilities, but that is an abstraction and not necessarily a true representation of the particles behavior. This is somewhat like Zeno's paradox...
... Achilles never does take over the turtle if you only look at the mathematical abstraction, but in the physical universe there are no infinite regressions, and so we know Achilles wins.
actually he does overtake the turtle if you analyze mathemtatically.. but you need a tool zeno didn't have, the ability to take infinite sums. He lacked calculus.
no, if you fully know the wave packet of an electron, it has multiple possible effects, that is, positions, it can be at when you make the packet interact with another and force it to commit to just one of those possibilities becoming actual. QM may be wrong, but that's the theory, it's not about not being able to see the cause, it's that way even when you do see the cause. That's the point of the two slit experiment... you see the causes, the photons or other particle, one at a time.
not misunderstood so much as misinterpreted. I hold my interpretations in reservation, more information is still needed. But there is no doubt about the implication of probability, and the credence it gives the physical existence of the particle wave function, which in turn gives physical reality to potential states of being.
I think your understanding of quantum mechanics is outdated. Quantum mechanics does follow rules even if they don't agree with conventional physics and even if humans don't fully grasp them. Determinism doesn't depend on our ability to connect the dots. It depends on the existence of the dots. We don't have the brain capacity crunch the numbers required for perfect prediction. There's limits to determinism. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
Perhaps it is outdated, but I really doubt it. I'm not saying atoms don't follow rules, or that we can't know what many of those rules are. I'm saying that the outcome of an atom following many of those rules is open-ended and often indeterminable.
A waterfall. If you look far enough you can easily predict where the water is going to fall. Even what the steam will look if the wind changes direction. However we do not have the cognitive capacity to predict the exact path of every water molecule. This does not mean that each water molecule does not make up the predictable waterfall. The smaller you dice things up the more complex the math becomes. It is beyond our practical ability, but this doesn't disprove determinism.
If it's a matter of practical ability, then the discussion revolves around the utility of prediction. But no one is arguing that predictions and equations for them aren't useful. The waterfall being predictable isn't the same as the waterfall being determined. And the math being too complex isn't the reason why it's indeterminable; the math gives us a series of possibilities and probabilities because there isn't a single, determinate answer.
Even in Roulette physics dictate where the ball would fall. It doesn't matter if humans can't predict the results. You could take a random number generator. Which is a closed system. The true random number generator only exists because someone made it, the effects of these random numbers produced have predictable consequences. Randomness can only exist in a closed system, sooner or later it has to make an exist. Random numbers follow a pattern. Nothing that determinism describes is isolated.
I freakin wish that were the case. I highly disagree that it's (always or even generally) an issue of semantics, everyone so far (except you) on either side seems to generally be talking about the exact same thing in regards to free will, so it sounds as though you're the one missing the semantics. Have you not noticed arguments Christians give regarding it? The argument that we've got a magic, god given function called free will that allows us to magically decide our decisions?
Or the even stupider insinuation so many non determinists or better I should say free will proponents make about how our fate is somehow our choice? Probably a bit unrelated, I know but I just added that one in to cover it.
I won't deny that many people believe like that. But in contemporary philosophy, it's not the case. And certainly, as you've pointed out, not in my case, which is what mikemack was responding to. Regardless, I argue that it's always a semantic issue, regardless of whether one sees it as such.
Now I have a feeling that I have a poor understanding of analytical philsophy. But saying that free will isn't a thing but just a word arbitrary to discuss, reminds me of ignostics. Can we dismiss a discussion of the existence of a concept on the base that it is a mere play with words? I might be missing something, but isn't daily usage based on a certain belief in a concept/thing? Free will either exists or not.. what am I no understanding?
Yes, we can dismiss a discussion of the existence of a concept because it is word play. I'll give you another example entirely. Right now, fakesagan is arguing with people for saying secular humanism is a cult. It's a metaphor, there is no such cult, yet he's defending the statement and people are arguing the statement as if it were a literal description. The whole debate goes away when it's acknowledged that "Secular humanism is a cult" is a metaphor--word play.
I see. But aren't you exactly, by saying it's not a thing, denying it's existence 'there is no such cult'? Isn't that the main idea in analytical philsophy, that metaphysics are just problems in our language? I guess something must either exist or not, a concretely (or abstractly) defined 'thing' must either be or not, analytical philosophy dismisses it's existence by saying it's a word play. Haven't you killed the discussion beforehand? What am i still not getting?
Az, by this logic the only tool we have to discuss reality is just "word play". If you dismiss any discussion on the basis that we can't describe reality then you have removed yourself from the discussion. Why do you argue against determinism then?
I haven't watched any of your videos on determinism and free will, but how would you respond to the charge that any form of Determinism (or probabalism if you buy Quantum mechanics) is ultimately self-refuting?
please just locate where free will comes from because all i see is a brain
snarfeater 10 months ago
@snarfeater The free will comes from nowhere. Again. Linguistic quibble. Look, let's say someone does something illegal. Court knows what was done and who did it, but also needs to know why in order to know how to sentence. The person could have done it in their sleep, which means it wasn't a decision. If they were awake and aware, they could either have been coerced, or they did it by their own free will. We could say it was simply their "choice," but you make a choice even when coerced.
azrienoch 10 months ago
the fact that you are a slave to your chemical reactions hurts your ego
snarfeater 10 months ago
@snarfeater Interesting. You ignore my explicit position on the free-will thing--that it's a linguistic quibble. You also ignore the explicit statement that the determinism debate and the free-will debate are two different debates, this being about determinism. Furthermore, you implicitly ignore that the debate about free-will hasn't seriously been the debate about the soul for 100 years. And after all that forced ignorance--you're not stupid, after all--you accuse MY ego of being at risk.
azrienoch 10 months ago
pulling the quantum mechanics card and saying you cant know is besides the point there is no magical part of my brain that has free will
snarfeater 10 months ago
Quantum mechanics doesn't explicitly state that both the position and momentum of extremely small particles are indeterminable, but this assumption is the opinion of most quantum physicists. The mathematics itself correctly states that the product of the uncertainty of position and momentum has a lower-bound which is related to Planck's constant. This doesn't inherently imply indeterminacy; however no model presently exists to explain the behavior of quantum particles in a determinable context.
Cuoin 11 months ago
You should switch to Pall Mall 100s. they last longer. lol
YouSmellLikeACat 11 months ago
This is exasperating! i only signed up in order to watch this 2 video's in the description, and they are PRIVET !! what a gip!
you should use this method on more vid's to get subscribers.
P.S
i don't real know why i used that nick as my name here... hope you don't mind ;)
AzrienochAntithesis 1 year ago
i disagree with a lot of your points. 1. why isn't abstraction a matter of physics? abstraction is the actions of electrical processes in the brain or with other words: cause and effect, the rule that applies to everything in the universe, probably even to quantum physics. we're just still missing the knowledge to understand them. 2. if free will isn't a thing and objects only are meaningful by humans giving them names (language) that are consistent with some kind of context, [...]
ShowtekGER 1 year ago
I usually like your vids, but this was bullshit. Deterministic doesn't mean determinable. Determinable by who or what?
Determinism means the future is necessitated by past events. That's it. Not predictable, not determinable by us or anyone else that we know of.
People are desperate to cling onto the idea of free will.
RecordCards 2 years ago
Isn't a planck length of time indivisible?
BombdePlume 2 years ago
Your nose ring is really ugly
beighleyr 2 years ago
Is there a name for the philosophical standpoint which doesn't reflect free will or determinism (physicalism) but does reflect upon the nature of what we know about quantum mechanics? I want to learn more about that. I sadly think the main reason a fair number of atheists are determinists is because it is the opposite of a popular christian perspective (even though there are christian determinists).
geolab101 2 years ago
There is an alternative definition of determinism that is compatible with quantum indeterminacy. The definition is "the universe has only one possible future." If this is true (and it probably is according to the principles of relativity), then quantum events may be uncaused but nonetheless inevitable from the beginning of time onwards.
seflersinsburg10 2 years ago
Why are the videos linked to on the side private?
They were some of my favorite older videos of yours.
StationaryTransient 2 years ago
Indeterminism as it relates to science is a completely different from indeterminism as it relates to the philosophy of determinism. Your argument is based on an equivocation. Determinism IS physicalism if physicalism is what you say it is (I've never even heard of physicalism).
People who think they've figured out how determinism is false really annoy me as they are too quick to say it, without a consideration for it's application of quantum physics (in that observation isn't reality).
megamanium 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrMontagne 2 years ago
It would appear that your original video is private...
MrMontagne 2 years ago
so your argument is that there is no time and nothing happens? well i agree and disagree with that. i agree with the point you made but obviously things are happening and we can time them. besides, time is man-made and irrelevant to this debate anyway. god (and by god i mean the universe and everything ever) created determinism at its very beginnings if there were any beginnings. and if there were no beginnings then, every possible possibility exists in one never ending moment. determined.
LostLikeYou 2 years ago
i dont think being able to predict the future has anything to do with determinism. while determinists say that there is only one possible future, our being able to know what it is, is beside the point. free will is an illusion of individuality. your nose piercing is not free will just because it is unusual. it is determined by your attraction to the unusual which is determined by whatever gave you your attraction to the unusual. probably some feelings of inadequacy to the "A" culture.
LostLikeYou 2 years ago
you are wrong about what determinists think. you think they think all situations will turn out the same without factoring in new circumstances? determinism is just saying that the future is dependent on the past so whats the problem? just look at everything you do every day. would you be doing any of those things if you were a dog? dogs dont speak english or make videos on youtube. so the fact you are making this video is partly dependent on you being human. you just dont understand it.
LostLikeYou 2 years ago
I was writing a really big reply to this vid, then i read this and realized you pretty much said the same thing as me, only better.
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
You stipulate that the universe had to have some sort of 'beginning'. You skirt an issue here. What was there before the Big Bang? From what you say one may think that there was nothing, and then God appeared, and things got in motion. The point being is that stuff had to have always been here. There could have never been 'nothing.' And if the stuff has always been here, and if energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it would not be too much of a stretch to assume it will continue forever.
brodiman19 2 years ago
Good arguments. I personally don't see a reason to debate free will though, because as far as I can see you can't test it. And if you can't test something, it can't be proven right or wrong. This of course applies to determinism as well. Maybe you know a way to test free will and if you do I'd like to hear it.
Nice beard by the way.
ZebraFeet 2 years ago
If "free will" has a definition, one can test it by checking to see if it is logically coherent, and then analyze the facts of psychology and neuroscience to see whether or not it is true. If free will means "a person can do what he/she wants", free will is demonstrably true. If it means "the ability to have done otherwise", it is demonstrably false, as relativity theory proves that the future is fixed and all events that happen are inevitable.
seflersinsburg10 2 years ago
To reduce the concept of free will to psychology and neuroscience they need to share the same properties. If we list off the properties of free will, as the subject experience of possibly, then how can we reduce it to being a part of objective science? We're talking about two different things. We can't reduce 'free will' to neurology the way we can reduce water to h2o simply because they're the same.
manwaring 2 years ago
'not' the same (typo)
manwaring 2 years ago
In other words free will doesn't need to prove it's coherence by using reductive scientific methods.
In regards to "relativity theory" I've yet to see some form of magical physics which shows a clear antecedent (unbroken) cause for every event.
manwaring 2 years ago
It is not determined that there are indeterminate outcomes in the universe. Quantum mechanics only shows that there is a randomness to the smallest parts of our universe relative to our ability to perceive them. Most physicists agree that despite our inability to take note of the cause to this effect, there is indeed a cause to be had, but never found.
BoStevoD 2 years ago
This is siply false. There are very few, if any, scientists who still support a hidden variable theory when it comes to quantum mechanics. If you had posted this comment 30yrs ago it would have been out of date. If you are going to make such bold statements about these things you really need better sources than a man in the pub. There has even been surveys done to check the most widely accepted theories among physicists! Turns out it's the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations.
23discordians 2 years ago
You do realize that according to the Many Worlds interpretation there is an underlying cause to the perceived randomness in our universe? Research M-theory. Also, randomness does not create free will by any measure anyways. It simply offers determinism determined towards randomness. You're decisions still aren't made by you.
BoStevoD 2 years ago
It is not an underlying cause to percieved randomness. The randomness is real. Determinism is only preserved in a probably untestable multiverse. This universe is still indetrminate at the quantum level. Also the Copenhagen interpretation is still the most popular. Not that an argument ad populum means much, but hey, it was your argument.
Since you did not decide to type the rest of your comment I am going to decide to ignore the results of a process in which mental content played no part.
23discordians 2 years ago
Then who makes my decisions? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical question to make a point. I agree randomness doesn't give us free will. But this turns into a language game if we explore it much further. If, for all intents and purposes, we are forced to make one action over another, then that is the framework within which our language arose. Which means it's nonsensical to say my decisions aren't made by me. You need a new language to explain this that doesn't borrow from the old.
jeffsmithluedke 2 years ago
I agree, the universe is not determinable. But what I am trying to say is that humans are not somehow excluded from the laws of cause and effect. We do not somehow own the mental capacity to make a "decision," which in my opinion is another archaic term our language latches onto. We are just atoms, waves really, in a boundless sea, being tugged one way or another, whether by randomness or by the gears of a one way reality.
BoStevoD 2 years ago
Cause and effect is a linguistic construct for description. Plus, it really only makes any sense on the scale of everyday events. Now, if you mean to say that we are physical, I agree. But this serves no basis for dismissing non-physical modes of description. For example, monetary value isn't physical, but we'd be mad to dismiss it as not part of who we are and how we interact. There are always multiple ways of describing things, but no automatic ontology that serves as an ultimate basis.
jeffsmithluedke 2 years ago
Sorry if I don't keep up with you in this discussion. I'm a bit sophomoric in what little sophist understanding I've managed to trap in my head jelly.
How do you mean as far as non-physical modes of description in terms of free will?
BoStevoD 2 years ago
(Switched accounts) I can give a really simple, practical, everyday example that goes unnoticed pretty much all of the time: you ask a friend, "Why did you do that?" They say, "No reason."
Now, depending on the situation--perhaps something was done to you and you're upset about it--that may be an unacceptable answer. But often, it's just fine, which requires a framework in which freewill is acknowledged. However, it doesn't make sense if it's a question of physics.
azrienoch 2 years ago
But isn't it possible the individual did have a reason for doing what they did, despite the fact they themselves were not capable of perceiving this cause to their action?
Or are you saying that free will is just a subjective relation to one's lack of understanding of the causes to their behaviour?
I think I would acknowledge free will most often when confronted with that reply, but I'm not sure I'd be justified so much as apathetic.
BoStevoD 2 years ago
Of course it's possible, but again, it isn't a matter of physics here. It's an example of non-physical mode of description, not to mention a description of a series of events, which we tend to think of as solely a matter of physics. It, like cause and effect, is a linguistic construct of description.
azrienoch 2 years ago
I think a bit of reading material would serve me well to better understand your point of view. Any suggestions perhaps?
BoStevoD 2 years ago
Well, my book, perhaps. There's a free pdf you can download from the link on the azrienoch channel. I just don't know of anyone else taking this approach, at least explicitly.
azrienoch 2 years ago
So long as this is not a plug, I'll take your word for it. I've been reading a lot of Nietzsche lately, perspectvism as well. I definitely think I'll be taking something from your approach to philosophy. I'm something of a student of yours; lame as that sounds. Anyhow, thank you for the reference. I will be looking into your point of view, and I'll probably be coming up with arguments in the near future.
BoStevoD 2 years ago
Longest cigarette, i'd kill for one like that (kill you, perhaps.)
debakle001 2 years ago
Comment removed
fauyd 2 years ago
Determinism is one of those philosophies that I took as being entirely impractical, but kind of granted. Just like one can always say, maybe there are obese tigers controlling our thoughts, we can't know that there aren't. That's technically true but is of no substance. Also, I take is granted that if one was to know every single minute factor that would influence a cause, one could know it's full effect, but this of course is impossible, making free will a practically viable term.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
I know nothing about quantum mechanics though, I admit. But I don't really know if things in quantum mechanics being indeterminable mean that we have no way of determining them, or that it's actually indeterminable even for some hypothetically omniscient being. The latter I suppose would invalidate determinism on every level, but it doesn't make free will more than the result of predictable cause and effect reactions any more than a nuclear reaction or dominoes falling would or wouldn't be.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
and one assumes that it is not a supernatural gift, then just as with other cognitive functions, one could approximate a time when it is developed. I don't think he was asking for the absolute moment in time, but rather for a stage of brain development, which free will would have to be a result of, if physical. The idea is then that because there is no stage where the brain ceases to be a result of natural cause and effect, but rather more complex cause and effect, this stage cannot exist.
LanceDirk 2 years ago
I took the timing argument to mean more of "if we can point to a stage in human life where one wouldn't have free will and a later stage where we do have free will, then what physical change occurs in between these two stages that allows for indeterminable free will?" Of course, this could be answered by saying it's not a physical change, but that doesn't seem to be a realistic answer to this question to me. If one assumes that humans do in fact have indeterminable free will, then this...
LanceDirk 2 years ago
edit, the second word was supposed to be have, not hate.
lightingandtempest 2 years ago
I hate to take issue with your "exact point in time for free will section" Your rebuttal missed the point.
Free will exists or it dosent. To extrapolate this out, if we are made of the same stuff as our planet (which we are) you have to say there is a point in time where free will is gained (in a specific thing, organism w/e), or concede that the earth itself has free will.
One feasible arguement I could see to contest this is that free will is not an all or nothing propisition...out of room
lightingandtempest 2 years ago
You set my mind on fire, thank you.
This one gave me a huge mind fuck.
lightingandtempest 2 years ago
not the same cigaret ;p
Homeworkboy2 2 years ago
I think the point is:
1) if the theories on quantum mechanics are true in the sense that at the most simple level there is chaos, we cannot determine the future exactly yet
2) this does not nullify the idea of "all present situations are caused by past situations" So the idea of free will still doesn't make sense. Our choices are genetics and experience whether it be past or present and even "abstraction" has a base in the physical.
"God" would be responsible for everything we choose...
EternallySisyphus 2 years ago
Part 2. In the latter, we are a product of God and we are formed with all our thoughts and desires right from the start (or we get them later in life). I just don't see how any free will is possible.
PS. If you are going to dismiss this message as complete idiocy, think about how smart you would sound if you were to write about free will in Swedish!
gurra9 3 years ago
I realise that this question probably already has been posted or answered but since my english isn't the best and I'm a lazy person by nature, I'll ask it anyway.
How is free will a possibility? There are two scenarious in life. Either we were created through millions and millions of years of evolution or we are a product of God. In the first scenario everything becomes a product of a product because we are formed by our inherited genes and the enviroment we grow up in.
gurra9 3 years ago
I love how I can tell how much you enjoyed making this.
GizzardTheWizard 3 years ago
Tell me when the WTCs fell using the Mayan calender!
DotPaulish 3 years ago
I am determined to believe in free will.
DotPaulish 3 years ago
Memory, genetics.... Yet no account of intersubjectivity?
brokennarcissist 3 years ago
An irrelevant sidenote, but quantum mechanics, under the many-worlds interpretation, *is* in fact a "deterministic" theory in that it describes the universe as a deterministically evolving wavefunction, although any "determinability" would be a whole another thing.
naphra2 3 years ago
I was browsing around and decided I'd watch another one of your videos; I'm actually suprised.
I'm impressed. You seem to have studied Wittgenstein pretty thoroughly. I don't know if you've mentioned him in any of your other videos, but your use of the context of grammar seems like his later writers; i.e. The Blue and Brown books.
Doodsrsly 3 years ago
Sorry if this idea has already been posted. I'm to lazy to read through the entire list of comments that has already been posted.
JLamsam 3 years ago
I think that that is enough to prove a kind of deterministic point of view. I would say that everything is determined, but the future is not determinable.
JLamsam 3 years ago
You seem to always make the argument that if events are not determinable by some kind of super computer, then something in the past could not have been determined. I'd like to make the point that the super computer might not be able to determine events past the point of its own calculations, (it would have to calculate an infinite number of itself) but what it CAN do is calculate the reasons for everything that happened before it began incorporating itself into the calculations.
JLamsam 3 years ago
For someone to demand a time for something immaterial to do something seems to force an immaterial thing to me material. This obviously doesn't make sense. Time measures the duration of things. Free will is not a thing so can time ever apply to it? Freewill is an abstract concept that must either change itself, or it itself must change some physical thing for time to ever apply to it.
fauyd 3 years ago
how does abstraction turn into language?
Is there abstraction that cannot be put into words?
If so; then is thinking simply structured like a language, or is there something else in thinking?
mahyarmohaghegh 3 years ago
I'd love to comment on this, however since I have no time to, I will shuffle off now :D
Vlogging's good for the soul. Peace Jeff.
logicaust 3 years ago
I retreat to ism-ism.
oldhacks 3 years ago
Oh my great shadowy Crom, what a semanticist's orgy of sophomoric half baked witticisms. There is so much in your arguments(both of you)that are somewhere between school of thought versus school of thought mud slinging and denigration rather than counter point that I'm not sure what even happened here, I need to go lie down. But before I do I have to sit here rewatch this and try and wonder why this all seems wrong to me even though I don't myself have much in the way of counter points.
baphometlovesyou 3 years ago
That came off way more critical then I wanted, sorry, I'm really no good at this sort of thing.
baphometlovesyou 3 years ago
Shit. Please don't destroy me.
baphometlovesyou 3 years ago
"Let's not hide behind semantics."
I LOLed.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
I am glad to be watching this video. Great points, I've often thought that abstract thought was evidence of free will as well, but you've put it better than I have.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
mikemack28 wow intellectual terrorism at its finest. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed it because I don't have friends I can discuss matter of the mind without arguing.
divinejudge1 3 years ago
Wow, you blew your mind and as well as yours.
I am glad that I subscribed to your channel.
stefmax 3 years ago
Quantum effects are relevant on the sub atomic level. There is no evidence of anything in the human brain processes resulting from quantum effects. As far as we do understand the brain's functioning it would appear to follow the causal laws of a Newtonian physics.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
I agree, Sebastian. Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but would you explain why this is true for indeterminacy, and not for determinacy? Why is determinacy the default position?
azrienoch 3 years ago 2
everything is physically based.
LimpLoser 3 years ago
Great job. How is the argument that, "we know everything is determined, dot to dot, we just don't have the computational power to understand the dot sequence," very much superior to, "we know that there is an exact number of angels that can dance on the end of a pin, we just don't have the computational power to know what that number is" ?
I don't get the confidence in determinism. It's a logical argument based on "givens" that aren't really "given" at this point; more like "hunches".
Geodge 3 years ago
Even if you bring up randomness (I'm yet to be convinced randomness is even possible). So what? Randomness does nothing to hurt the idea behind determinism. A random event could not happen independently, something would have to cause the random event to occur, and the result of the random event will have deterministic effects. This does nothing to support free will, unless you want to say that free will is random. Either choice exists or it does not, there is no middle ground.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
At one point in this video, when I bring up QM, I say that it has nothing to do with free-will. Have you watched this video?
azrienoch 3 years ago
i watched it several times and I thought you were extremely rude. Your cocky condescension does nothing to buttress your argument at all. In both your comments and in your video you employ weak logic and snide ad hominem. All you do is hide in semantics an dance around as though that is the purpose of philosophical debate. Most of your arguments are attempts to undermine the language necessary for discussion. Your arguments are like a philosophical homicide attack. You just blow up the meaning.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
I mean "suicide" oops
shameoncanada 3 years ago
I don't care.
azrienoch 3 years ago
"Abstract" is another word for imprecise. Usually due to complexity too great to describe or even understand. Everything is mathematical, is math abstract? Even something like "love" is concrete if you have the tools and ability to measure and understand the neurochemistry involved. Free will is the idea that we can make choices without any cause. You can have many microscopic causes that when blended together looks gray and undistinctive. But events and choices always have cause.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
Ah! It comes out. No, cause and effect is not an accurate depiction of quantum mechanics. The reason we use probabilities to describe the movements of particles is because the language we use to speak of probabilities is a better description. We've not yet developed a language perfectly suited for quantum descriptions.
azrienoch 3 years ago
AG: Allthough I disagree with a lot of your examples, descriptions, I would have to get with you on this point. How do you describe that something happened without saying that it happened because of 'x' ? I know that if I toss a pebble it falls into the lake. That if I say "I don't love you anymore" that it causes pain. I don't see a way out of that.
Kierketaard 3 years ago
Oh, so your philosophy stuff goes on this channel, and Azrienoch is for your slick and funny entertainment stuff. That's a good idea.
I'm glad you didn't totally give up on the philosophy, but, quite frankly, I kind of like your Tea Time stuff more.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
the only place you are truly free is in the mind, then coming to the conclusion that you are not free at all
human consciousness makes it's entrance approximately around age three. think about it...
full abstraction is solidified, approximately roughly, around age 25.
twinkle twinkle little star...
marniespeaks 3 years ago
The fact that we aren't all mindless drones that are identical in the way we think is enough for me to believe in freewill.
dackjaniels555 3 years ago
This is brilliant stuff, I enjoy this style of video teh most, I am a fan of teatime now it has been developed rather nicely. 5* great vid.
dackjaniels555 3 years ago
I don't understand the association between determinism and the ability determine an event.
The inability to obtain complete information of the current state is not an argument that the next state is not determined by the current state.
dootdbc 3 years ago
The question isn't of ability. The question is whether or not, even given a complete account of the original state of particles, there is only one outcome. And the answer is no.
azrienoch 3 years ago
"The question is whether or not, even given a complete account of the original state of particles, there is only one outcome. And the answer is no."
****This is merely an arbitrary assertion. You cannot say this because what quantum mechanics has proved is that we cannot have a complete account. It does not say that a complete account would not result in a single possible outcome. As I said before you are confusing the mathematical abstraction with the particle that abstraction is describing.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
You're going to show me something, because everything I've read indicates as I've described it, and what you've described has always been pointed out to me as what people clinging to Newtonian physics think.
azrienoch 3 years ago
It is called the uncertainty principle. Logical positivism asserted that if it could not be measured then it did not exist, and this is why physicists say that the electron does not have both a position and a momentum even though its position can be measured accurately or its momentum, but not both. The uncertainty principle in a mathematical equation is used to get the best estimate of a particles position and momentum.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
But this uncertainty isn't the cause of (at least all) multiple possibilities, which is what's being discussed in this thread. See pyrrho's above thread on the twin slit experiment and argue with him.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Are you sure about this. Everything depends on this. Have we ever been able to replicate these conditions in an experiment?
AgentGhost 3 years ago
Agent, obviously I can't say yes, but if I say no, while I may be fucked purporting indeterminacy, you'll be fucked too, purporting determinacy. Luckily, indeterminacy is evident even when we pretend we have a complete account of the original state. So yes, I'm sure.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I like your channel, it's one of my favorites. You're both entertaining and insightful. You helped me discard pre-determinism. I think you're right about this shower thing, it probably has something to do with the heat expanding blood vessels, thus increasing blood flow to the brain.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
Still determinism is an infatuating idea. At first I thought he must know that time is not linear. Time is not the road the car is riding on, it's more like the speed in which the car is moving. Causality can't depend on time being a constant, because it's not. Then I thought randomness isn't about one result being realized without any determining factors over the other possibilities. It is better to think that all possibilities are being realized simultaneously.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
Take every possibility which are all finite to the exponent of every other probability you would have a shit load of possibilities. You would have a upjooquillionth number of possibilities for the entire 4d model of the Universe. The important thing to know is that your number of possibilities would be FINITE. We don't exist in a system of infinite possibilities. In other words in your very long answer would exist the exact instance of the Universe we experience. Which was determinable. BooYah!
AgentGhost 3 years ago
07:15 -- Why isn't imagination determinable? I agree that our lack of omniscience means imagination is only predictable at best, but there is still a finite input leading to a finite output. If the vast series of mechanics behind the scenes could be grasped, the outcome of imagination at any moment COULD be predicted.
The only curve ball is quantum theory, which so far in your vid is the only idea that has undermined the idea of pure determinism.
(I'll continue watching..)
sy1234 3 years ago
Oh, I see you mentioned another video of yours. I'll check that out next.
sy1234 3 years ago
What About Intention(ResultDirectedness) As what Is Explaining Physical Events, Inluding billiard Ball Collisions or Your Body Movements, Wthn What Will Work To Build Everything That Exists?
GodMechanism 3 years ago
Human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntary and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own - Albert Einstein
MildManNerd 3 years ago
deklunged.
jogayot 3 years ago
Quantumn mechanics, in all likelihood, cancel out at the level of consciousness and reason. I also believe that determinism is dead, but don't see what's wrong with saying that a probability or a statistical prediction can be as good as determined, at least as far as humans orient themselves to the physical world.
tlkSmack1 3 years ago
The post-QM version of determinism could broadly be "all event is either random or determined by the previous", and in this form it is still arguable. I agree with you that free-will is worth the word for the contexts you told, but I doubt that anyone thinks of that when they say "Free will does not exist".
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"aleatoro-determinism" sounds good...
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
mak: I liked that. We're free to give a story about what happened to us, that's for sure. And since there's no Gold standard, maybe we can fuck with it enough to make something fluid.
Kierketaard 3 years ago
Az, when you say (at about 11:30) that you do not look at God as a thing - what, if anything, do you look at as a thing? And do you suppose that theists look at God as a thing?
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
I am still not always sure what people mean when they say free will.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
I agree with the concept of will, in that an individual acts according to their own internal motivations (which can to a certain extent be determinable according to the field of psychology), but that hardly merits the qualifier 'free'. That, I think comes from the old religious morality of god giving 'free will' to mankind so that he could choose to sin.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
If I say "I bought this twix of my own free will" I understand what I mean by this. When people argue for free will are they making the argument that we can make choices? I don't think they are.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Free will as a concept originates in morality doesn't it? Anyone can agree with the idea of will or volition. How then is it free? Free from being determined by previous conditioning and circumstance? The qualifier 'free' only makes sense to me if you are talking about a person acting free from coercion; buying the twix of your own volition as opposed to only buying the twix because somebody has threatened to beat you if you don't.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
HILIARIOUS! You had me rolling out of my chair! You're quite the comedian man! LOL! You crack me up!
ChristopherMast 3 years ago
lol
Oh, Christopher. It's a nice break from that ANNOYING theme song, isn't it? ;)
azrienoch 3 years ago
perhaps a better question would be...
"what would the knowledge of this truth bring you?"
for what its worth,
you are a product of your past, and THE past in general.
phuq1deology 3 years ago
I have free will orbs, sellin' 'em at the Swap Meet for two dolla's and fitty cents.
Rahab111222 3 years ago
The analogy to Zeno's paradox was weak. Of course we can give a rough estimate of when we think humans came onto the scene, or when the towers fell. You saying that you do not need to answer when free will manifests because someone may ask you for a more precise estimate is silly. Of course, if you are defending the assertion that free will exists, you are required to give a description of the circumstances under which it is present. At what age? This is a perfectly reasonable question...
shameoncanada 3 years ago
If you will not answer the question of what stage of development you think is required for free will, then what other species would you say have free will, and what is it about them that provides the necessary complexity for the existence of a free will? Another issue I have with your argument is your rather arbitrary assertion that determinism is synonymous with determinable. Determinism does not rely on predictability, ....
shameoncanada 3 years ago
but rather it is the assertion that the only factors involved in a closed system are causal. Determinism derives its name from the fundamental precept of causality, that the initial state in a closed causal system determine the following states, and that there are no random or contra-causal effects.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
I didn't say determinism relies on predictability. I did say determinism relies on determinability. Don't confuse the two.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I didn't confuse these two. The problem with Youtube comment section is that you have to strip what you want to say. I was stating that determinism doesn't rely on predictability to avoid the discussion becoming about predictability. It was preemptive and it wasn't directed towards you.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
indeterminate outcomes in quantum mechanics? or outcomes that are actually just probabilistic....
frigginyates 3 years ago
We can't predict every thing right now. Maybe some day though.
NapalmXD 3 years ago
As for imagination this is merely the rearrangement or recombination of known qualities- like knowing big and little and the human form and imagining giants and pixies- now I too am under the illusion of "free will" but I'm also under the illusion that matter is solid but we know that is just not the case- I hold out hope that there is some part of me that transcends the physical and allows me "free will" In fact I believe it but Belief and $1.50 gets you a cup of joe
billybobhobnob101 3 years ago
To have "free will" some part of us would have to exist outside the known laws of the physical universe- but of course we need the illusion of free will otherwise Judges would have to something like " we punish you not because you are responsible for you actions but because this interaction will influence your future actions and influence others as it becomes part of their experience"
billybobhobnob101 3 years ago 2
As a phrase in common usage- "free will" exist right there with "Good war" "military intelligence" and "preemptive defense" are you really defending it on this basis- REALLY!!!! Free will is a social construct so we can assign blame or praise and then punishment or reward- now given quantum uncertainty you could have exactly the same hardware and software and yet make a different choice but does this count as "free will" or merely the vagaries of the subatomic
billybobhobnob101 3 years ago
I think I've already said that QM has nothing to do with free-will. It is brought up in these discussions because it has something to say about determinism.
Regardless, yes, I'm defending it on those grounds. If I thought that free will is a thing, it'd be silly. But I don't think free will is a thing, so take a closer look before thinking it silly.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Then describe free will. I know you're too smart to defend something you can't describe. I mean what is your position exactly? You seem to disagree with 1 and 0. Is choice independent or not? That's where the argument should be.
What do you mean by saying that free will is not a "thing"? I agree it's nothing. Some math is not defined and has a range (I get that). Existence however is defined. It's either there or not. 1 or 0.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
For the upjooquillionth time, go watch "Free Will and Grammatical Settings." The link is in the description.
azrienoch 3 years ago
im not ignoring your ideas, i think we are talkign about different definitions of free will at times.
this typing is rediculous, im getting a proper mic/camera next week.
back to abstraction - it can only use bits of information which we obtain and have stored somewhere... our brain has evolved to have that ability so we can come up with creative solutions to problems, among other things
I do not see how matter could evolve to be able to truly (technically) control itself.
mikemack28 3 years ago
"The simple fact that we can entertain two opposing ideas at the same time argues against determinism, at least to my estimation."
I think 5+7=12, a baby I quized thinks 5+7=fart. By your logic 5+7 is not determinable. Not only is there a right answer, and it's determinable but we can also determine why I have the right answer and the 1 year old does not. This is not a complete case for determinism, I'm just refuting what you said.
AgentGhost 3 years ago 3
AG: I'm not sure I agree with this answer. You can't quiz a baby on 5+7 because it does not yet grasp the concepts. In this case a fart may be a valid answer because it is coherent with the baby's experiences.
Kierketaard 3 years ago
"You can't quiz a baby on 5+7 because it does not yet grasp the concepts."
This was my blunt point. Fallibility has concrete causes and is thus determinable. Ask yourself why does the baby not understand these concepts yet? If you can give me a question where there is no possible answer to why, I will be wrong. Until then determinism is pretty easy to defend.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
Are you seriously comparing arithmetic to the math that goes into QM? No wonder you think there's only one answer to a math problem!
azrienoch 3 years ago
QM does not inherently tell us the universe is indeterminate. it depends which interpretation you wish to use.
I agree with you that the phrase free will has a use in society, im not debating that(casual free will).
I'm debating if it truly exists or if it is an illusion(technicalFreeWill)
Abstraction is explained by the genetic composition of our brain which we evolved and the information which it perceives. it is, complex and nonlinear as you say, which gives the illsion of free will.
mikemack28 3 years ago 2
I begged you to watch my Free Will and Grammatical Settings video. If you want to debate this wishy-washy, mystical free-will, you're in the wrong place.
azrienoch 3 years ago
when I said ability to know otherwise that the earth was the center of the universe, i meant scientific or technological ability, of course we could imagine otherwise, but not empirically.
which was meant to be analogous to your argument that since we cannot empirically predict the exact behavior of human, it is not determinable therefore free will is possible, which is your argument for what i'll call your "technical free will, different from your contexual or what i'll call "casual" free will
mikemack28 3 years ago 2
Empirically has nothing to do with it. We had no empirical evidence that we were the center of the universe. Anyone's imagination is as good as knowledge there. Physics gives you a set of possibilities, not a future actuality.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Hey Jeff,
Saying things aren't determinable doesn't quite counter the determinism argument. Whether it is beyond our capacity to determine events is irrelevant to whether they are deterministic. And saying that freewill is just a word seems to support the idea that freewill only describes an illusion of power, not the actual ability to control our actions.
minddumping 3 years ago 2
If you think our bodies are confined to the laws of physics, that's physicalism, and I'd agree. It's not the same thing as determinism.
azrienoch 3 years ago
"...The waterfall being predictable isn't the same as the waterfall being determined. And the math being too complex isn't the reason why it's indeterminable; the math gives us a series of possibilities and probabilities because there isn't a single, determinate answer."
Even if we can only give a range as opposed to one finite number that's only because we have an incomplete cause. A complete cause will give complete results.
AgentGhost 3 years ago 2
"A complete cause will give complete results."
Okay, here you're outdated. I'm not saying we have an incomplete cause, and that's the reason QM renders physics nondeterministic. Even when we know all the factors, QM gives us possibilities, and there is never only one.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Quantum mechanics gives us probabilities due to the limits our ability to measure accurately the particles. I am not saying we ever will be able to measure them accurately, in fact I think it is impossible, but this does not mean that the particles themselves are truly in a superposition of states. The math gives us multiple possibilities, but that is an abstraction and not necessarily a true representation of the particles behavior. This is somewhat like Zeno's paradox...
shameoncanada 3 years ago
... Achilles never does take over the turtle if you only look at the mathematical abstraction, but in the physical universe there are no infinite regressions, and so we know Achilles wins.
shameoncanada 3 years ago
actually he does overtake the turtle if you analyze mathemtatically.. but you need a tool zeno didn't have, the ability to take infinite sums. He lacked calculus.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
no, if you fully know the wave packet of an electron, it has multiple possible effects, that is, positions, it can be at when you make the packet interact with another and force it to commit to just one of those possibilities becoming actual. QM may be wrong, but that's the theory, it's not about not being able to see the cause, it's that way even when you do see the cause. That's the point of the two slit experiment... you see the causes, the photons or other particle, one at a time.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
The slit experiment is wildly misunderstood. It's very difficult to measure. Like you said QM does not have a complete theory.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
not misunderstood so much as misinterpreted. I hold my interpretations in reservation, more information is still needed. But there is no doubt about the implication of probability, and the credence it gives the physical existence of the particle wave function, which in turn gives physical reality to potential states of being.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
complete cause and complete results, not at the base level of QM. The electron is one cause, but it's is a range of possible effects.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
"you demand ignorance"
pwned
MeursaultBatemen 3 years ago
I think your understanding of quantum mechanics is outdated. Quantum mechanics does follow rules even if they don't agree with conventional physics and even if humans don't fully grasp them. Determinism doesn't depend on our ability to connect the dots. It depends on the existence of the dots. We don't have the brain capacity crunch the numbers required for perfect prediction. There's limits to determinism. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
AgentGhost 3 years ago 2
Perhaps it is outdated, but I really doubt it. I'm not saying atoms don't follow rules, or that we can't know what many of those rules are. I'm saying that the outcome of an atom following many of those rules is open-ended and often indeterminable.
azrienoch 3 years ago
A waterfall. If you look far enough you can easily predict where the water is going to fall. Even what the steam will look if the wind changes direction. However we do not have the cognitive capacity to predict the exact path of every water molecule. This does not mean that each water molecule does not make up the predictable waterfall. The smaller you dice things up the more complex the math becomes. It is beyond our practical ability, but this doesn't disprove determinism.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
If it's a matter of practical ability, then the discussion revolves around the utility of prediction. But no one is arguing that predictions and equations for them aren't useful. The waterfall being predictable isn't the same as the waterfall being determined. And the math being too complex isn't the reason why it's indeterminable; the math gives us a series of possibilities and probabilities because there isn't a single, determinate answer.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Even in Roulette physics dictate where the ball would fall. It doesn't matter if humans can't predict the results. You could take a random number generator. Which is a closed system. The true random number generator only exists because someone made it, the effects of these random numbers produced have predictable consequences. Randomness can only exist in a closed system, sooner or later it has to make an exist. Random numbers follow a pattern. Nothing that determinism describes is isolated.
AgentGhost 3 years ago
I freakin wish that were the case. I highly disagree that it's (always or even generally) an issue of semantics, everyone so far (except you) on either side seems to generally be talking about the exact same thing in regards to free will, so it sounds as though you're the one missing the semantics. Have you not noticed arguments Christians give regarding it? The argument that we've got a magic, god given function called free will that allows us to magically decide our decisions?
MassZombicide 3 years ago
Or the even stupider insinuation so many non determinists or better I should say free will proponents make about how our fate is somehow our choice? Probably a bit unrelated, I know but I just added that one in to cover it.
MassZombicide 3 years ago
I won't deny that many people believe like that. But in contemporary philosophy, it's not the case. And certainly, as you've pointed out, not in my case, which is what mikemack was responding to. Regardless, I argue that it's always a semantic issue, regardless of whether one sees it as such.
azrienoch 3 years ago
"The simplest event in the universe was its beginning". Wow, I feel like I used to when my grandfather used to buy me an ice cream cone.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Now I have a feeling that I have a poor understanding of analytical philsophy. But saying that free will isn't a thing but just a word arbitrary to discuss, reminds me of ignostics. Can we dismiss a discussion of the existence of a concept on the base that it is a mere play with words? I might be missing something, but isn't daily usage based on a certain belief in a concept/thing? Free will either exists or not.. what am I no understanding?
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
Yes, we can dismiss a discussion of the existence of a concept because it is word play. I'll give you another example entirely. Right now, fakesagan is arguing with people for saying secular humanism is a cult. It's a metaphor, there is no such cult, yet he's defending the statement and people are arguing the statement as if it were a literal description. The whole debate goes away when it's acknowledged that "Secular humanism is a cult" is a metaphor--word play.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I see. But aren't you exactly, by saying it's not a thing, denying it's existence 'there is no such cult'? Isn't that the main idea in analytical philsophy, that metaphysics are just problems in our language? I guess something must either exist or not, a concretely (or abstractly) defined 'thing' must either be or not, analytical philosophy dismisses it's existence by saying it's a word play. Haven't you killed the discussion beforehand? What am i still not getting?
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
Az, by this logic the only tool we have to discuss reality is just "word play". If you dismiss any discussion on the basis that we can't describe reality then you have removed yourself from the discussion. Why do you argue against determinism then?
minddumping 3 years ago
I use words against words. The determinism debate is no different. It is not reality.
azrienoch 3 years ago
jeffsmithluedke-
if you have Aol IM and want to discuss this sometime on there I would be glad to, i think our disscussion would be more fruitful that way.
if you are, send me a message through youtube with your screen name.
if you dont want to thats fine also.
mikemack28 3 years ago
I don't have AIM, but I'm often on Stickam. If you can get on there, add me as a friend and let me know when you'll be around.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I haven't watched any of your videos on determinism and free will, but how would you respond to the charge that any form of Determinism (or probabalism if you buy Quantum mechanics) is ultimately self-refuting?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I'm not quite sure. Depends on how they're arguing that it's self-refuting. Then again, I'd probably agree with it--I am a postmodernist, after all.
azrienoch 3 years ago