Free Will - Yes/No?

[Excited Penguin]

I don't have to conceive it, it would just mean that what appears to be causality isn't causality. My point is simply that causality itself isn't absolutely proven. David Hume demonstrated that: just because the sun has come up every single time doesn't mean there's any absolute proof that tomorrow it will. It is just simply ridiculous to believe that it won't and I of course believe causality exists.

There is an equivocation between "indeterminism" to mean the opposite of philosophical determinism and "indeterminism" to mean unpredictability. This whole "but quantum mechanics is indeterministic" thing is a red herring and a an equivocation, it's much more helpful to speak of "quantum unpredictability" rather than "quantum indeterminism" for that very reason: to avoid equivocation.

-Hammy

The world as we know it doesn't allow for the absence of causality, so you do have to conceive of non-causality if you're going to claim otherwise(which you can't, of course). Causality isn't meant to be proven, it's the one thing everything else is based on, we just take it as a given and build up from there. It's simply self-evident.

If that's how he demonstrated it then he was obviously wrong and that's a very bad example of causality to showcase its possible non-existence since we already know that the sun won't come up one day. But nevermind that, he set out to show that causality isn't necessarily there by pointing out that everything changes? If anything, that validates it, not throw a doubt on it.

Quantum whatever doesn't affect causality, only our understanding of it.

-Stop,you'rebeinggoofy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm on both sides of this issue: I freely feel that I am deterministically up to HERE with free will threads.

Boru

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Why not?  I'm not being asshole, I just really don't get it.  How am I not fully in control of making that decision?

For us to be fully in control would require other factors beyond our control to not control our decisions, but they do. Any reasons we give for our behavior we can then ask "but what was the reason for that?" ultimately the reasons stretch back into the past beyond our own consciousness. These "reasons" being causes, being causality... it ultimately stretches back not just past our own conscious awareness, and not just before our adulthood, and not just before our birth, but back to the very beginning of the universe or in other words back to causality and time itself within existence itself, which I believe is eternal (the concept of existence itself ever being anything other than existent by definition seems entirely incoherent to me: existence itself has always existed, but time, causality and "the universe" began).

Oh and you're not an asshole at all. You're absolutely lovely and I'm happy to try and explain my own views on the matter to you

-Hammy

You're arguing the analogical equivalent that a ball that move freely inside a fence lack freedom of movement.
It doesn't lack freedom of movement but I'd agree that it does indeed lack freedom of absolute movement.
Try to link this idea with free will.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

How does randomness exclude determinism, exactly? What does it matter that you can't predict the effect, there's still going to be an effect and you're going to be bound by it.

We cannot predict exactly which neuron and at what time a specific neuron will fire.  There will, obviously, be a statistical probability that allows us to function, but at the neuron level, for a specific neuron, there will be a certain amount of indeterminate information, only probabilities.

Here is a little information on the actual workings of a neuron.

   

Radiation is a perfect example. The half life of uranium is predictable, but exactly which atom will decay is unpredictable. Effectively, we can have a predictable outcome from an unpredictable source.

This is amazing! I love this idea of achieving a predictable outcome from an unpredictable source.
I'll have to really give this some thought.

[Excited Penguin]

And here I thought sound is what I feel when I play music.

Lol yes, that too.

-Hammy

Lol, it was a joke.

Why not?  I'm not being asshole, I just really don't get it.  How am I not fully in control of making that decision?

For us to be fully in control would require other factors beyond our control to not control our decisions, but they do. Any reasons we give for our behavior we can then ask "but what was the reason for that?" ultimately the reasons stretch back into the past beyond our own consciousness. These "reasons" being causes, being causality... it ultimately stretches back not just past our own conscious awareness, and not just before our adulthood, and not just before our birth, but back to the very beginning of the universe or in other words back to causality and time itself within existence itself, which I believe is eternal (the concept of existence itself ever being anything other than existent by definition seems entirely incoherent to me: existence itself has always existed, but time, causality and "the universe" began).

Oh and you're not an asshole at all. You're absolutely lovely and I'm happy to try and explain my own views on the matter to you

-Hammy

Existence isn't eternal, it's only as durable as the intelligence that describes what the universe does, on its own terms.

@EP and @Evie,  

See, that's the beauty of my argument. It's structured to give the feel that it is right when in fact it really isn't. I could show this argument to anyone that believes in a non deterministic universe and have them believe that our universe is indeed deterministic.  
When I first thought of it, I tricked myself into believing it, I honestly believed I was right but after some time I really gave it some thought and I realized I was wrong.
So my question is, have you figured out why my seemingly duh argument is wrong?

No, illuminate us, Miyagi.

How does randomness exclude determinism, exactly? What does it matter that you can't predict the effect, there's still going to be an effect and you're going to be bound by it.

We cannot predict exactly which neuron and at what time a specific neuron will fire.  There will, obviously, be a statistical probability that allows us to function, but at the neuron level, for a specific neuron, there will be a certain amount of indeterminate information, only probabilities.

Here is a little information on the actual workings of a neuron.

   

Radiation is a perfect example.  The half life of uranium is predictable, but exactly which atom will decay is unpredictable.  Effectively, we can have a predictable outcome from an unpredictable source.

That's great. You didn't answer my question.

For us to be fully in control would require other factors beyond our control to not control our decisions, but they do. Any reasons we give for our behavior we can then ask "but what was the reason for that?" ultimately the reasons stretch back into the past beyond our own consciousness. These "reasons" being causes, being causality... it ultimately stretches back not just past our own conscious awareness, and not just before our adulthood, and not just before our birth, but back to the very beginning of the universe or in other words back to causality and time itself within existence itself, which I believe is eternal (the concept of existence itself ever being anything other than existent by definition seems entirely incoherent to me: existence itself has always existed, but time, causality and "the universe" began).

Oh and you're not an asshole at all. You're absolutely lovely and I'm happy to try and explain my own views on the matter to you

-Hammy

You're arguing the analogical equivalent that a ball that move freely inside a fence lack freedom of movement.
It doesn't lack freedom of movement but I'd agree that it does indeed lack freedom of absolute movement.
Try to link this idea with free will.

But it does lack freedom of movement.

[Excited Penguin]

We cannot predict exactly which neuron and at what time a specific neuron will fire.  There will, obviously, be a statistical probability that allows us to function, but at the neuron level, for a specific neuron, there will be a certain amount of indeterminate information, only probabilities.

Here is a little information on the actual workings of a neuron.

   

Radiation is a perfect example.  The half life of uranium is predictable, but exactly which atom will decay is unpredictable.  Effectively, we can have a predictable outcome from an unpredictable source.

This is amazing!  I love this idea of achieving a predictable outcome from an unpredictable source.
I'll have to really give this some thought.

It's not that amazing and it doesn't deserve much thought, since the the language involved is misleading. If you have a predictable outcome, you have a predictable source. I imagine he conflates individual atoms with their totality.

[Edwardo Piet]

The world as we know it doesn't allow for the absence of causality, so you do have to conceive of non-causality if you're going to claim otherwise(which you can't, of course).

I agree that "the world as we know it " doesn't allow for the absence of causality but I do not agree that the world doesn't allow for it. We cannot prove that causality doesn't exist.

[...] so you do have to conceive of non-causality if you're going to claim otherwise(which you can't, of course).

I don't need to conceive of it at all, that's my point. Because my own failure of the imagination/inability to conceive is irrelevant to the actual existence of causality. My point is you can't prove causality doesn't exist. No one can but it doesn't matter because it's just obvious it exists.

Humans are incapable of visualizing or conceiving of the world existing without causality, and I can't conceive of any other possible lifeform in the unvierse ever conceiving of its nonexistence either. But again just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean it's impossible. My own failure of the imagination does not imply that it's not possible.

Causality isn't meant to be proven, it's the one thing everything else is based on, we just take it as a given and build up from there. It's simply self-evident.

I agree.

If that's how he demonstrated it then he was obviously wrong and that's a very bad example of causality to showcase its possible non-existence since we already know that the sun won't come up one day.

No we don't, prove it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming knowledge of something unproven. He absolutely believed in causality and believed the sun will always come up, he was not trying to prove the logical possibility of the sun maybe not coming up, because he didn't have to. It is a logical possibility and that's his point: it will come up but you cannot prove it will, so you can't prove causality.

Go on then. Prove causality. Prove that two events don't just coincide out of some ridiculously improbable massive coincidence rather than actually one causing the other. You can't. You can't prove causality.

But I agree it is self-evident, and I agree we don't need to. There is more evidence for causality than anything else in the world, but it is technically evidential and it isn't proven through logical argument.

Quantum whatever doesn't affect causality, only our understanding of it.

I agree completely.

-Hammy

[IATIA]

Radiation is a perfect example.  The half life of uranium is predictable, but exactly which atom will decay is unpredictable.  Effectively, we can have a predictable outcome from an unpredictable source.

That's great. You didn't answer my question.

Of course I did. The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.468 billion years. Which half? Indeterminate.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol, it was a joke.

Haha, I thought so. But just checking, I can never tell with you. Your sense of humor is drier than my own land-turtle turtle shell sandpapered to fuck for all eternity.

Existence isn't eternal, it's only as durable as the intelligence that describes what the universe does, on its own terms.

This all comes down to how you are defining "existence" then.

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

You're arguing the analogical equivalent that a ball that move freely inside a fence lack freedom of movement.

What do you mean by "freedom" of movement? The ball is caused to move just like we are.

It doesn't lack freedom of movement but I'd agree that it does indeed lack freedom of absolute movement.
Try to link this idea with free will.

Define how it even has any relative "freedom" of movement. It simply has movement.

I don't link it to "free will" because "free will" is about will as well as freedom, balls are not.

-Hammy