Oh no not another free will thread.

[henryp]

Larry somehow gains knowledge of the future and knows that the event ends up having result 2.  But Larry still doesn't know why the event will end up having a result of 2.

Well, I don't know what it would mean to know something but not to know why. When you know something will happen with an absolute certainty it tends to only be because you have figured out that the opposite is logically impossible. So I can't make sense of the idea of absolutely knowing something without knowing why (or how).

Isn't that exactly what happens after a quantum event occurs?  We know the result with absolute certainty, without knowing why or how the result happened?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, I don't know what it would mean to know something but not to know why. When you know something will happen with an absolute certainty it tends to only be because you have figured out that the opposite is logically impossible. So I can't make sense of the idea of absolutely knowing something without knowing why (or how).

Isn't that exactly what happens after a quantum event occurs?  We know the result with absolute certainty, without knowing why or how the result happened?

Isn't it known mathematically though? That works in the same way as logic.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "why"... only how. And the how is shown with the math.

I think the problem is that it seems acausal because the math appears to turn out differently each time, or something like that?

Then I go back to my point that ultimately in objective reality I think there are causes. They're just beyond our reach. The math is based on our experience. We're not testing reality we're testing our experience of reality. Our experience of reality is, of course, all we can ever experience, hehe.

[henryp]

Isn't that exactly what happens after a quantum event occurs?  We know the result with absolute certainty, without knowing why or how the result happened?

Isn't it known mathematically though? That works in the same way as logic.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "why"... only how. And the how is shown with the math.

They don't know why or how it happens.  The random aspect is a mystery. 

So much a mystery, that the prevailing theories are 1) It's truly random.  2) That new instances of reality are created for each event, so both result 1 and result 2 happen.

[Edwardo Piet]

They don't know why or how it happens.  The random aspect is a mystery. 

Yes, the seemingly random aspect is a mystery.

But when I say that I think that the only things that can actually be known absolutely is by logic... I'm including mathematics.

The reason why 2+2=4 is because any other result is mathematically impossible. In the same way that the reason why all bachelors are unmarried is because anything else is logically impossible. Math is logic with numbers and logic is math with words. Basically. It's all the same sort of proccess.

So much a mystery, that the prevailing theories are 1) It's truly random.  2) That new instances of reality are created for each event, so both result 1 and result 2 happen.

Sure, it all seems truly random but this is still the experience of reality we're talking about, rather than objective reality. In absolutely objective reality outside of our experience there may be causes for all these seemingly random events but we'll never be able to know absolutely objective reality outside of our experience.

[henryp]

Relating this idea to the whole box universe thing. If we are a series of states all occurring at the same time, if someone were able to access states at later times, they would be able to see results. You add another point outside of the box, and get a perspective from there, you could see all of the states simultaneously. None of this knowledge would provide a cause for an acausal event.

[Edwardo Piet]

Relating this idea to the whole box universe thing.  If we are a series of states all occurring at the same time, if someone were able to access states at later times, they would be able to see results.  You add another point outside of the box, and get a perspective from there, you could see all of the states simultaneously.  None of this knowledge would provide a cause for an acausal event.

I'm talking about causes beyond our experience, you're still talking about our experience. As all knowledge is inside our experience.

This is what this quote is getting at:

We know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience.

^I need to put this in my signature. It's an awesome quote.

[henryp]

Relating this idea to the whole box universe thing.  If we are a series of states all occurring at the same time, if someone were able to access states at later times, they would be able to see results.  You add another point outside of the box, and get a perspective from there, you could see all of the states simultaneously.  None of this knowledge would provide a cause for an acausal event.

I'm talking about causes beyond our experience, you're still talking about our experience. As all knowledge is inside our experience.

This is what this quote is getting at:

We know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience.

^I need to put this in my signature. It's an awesome quote.

Seems like you are poo poo'ing some science because you don't like the result.

[Edwardo Piet]

Let me produce the full quote, it's interesting... from Mind and Matter by Bertrand Russell:

a piece of matter is a group of events connected by causal laws, namely, the causal laws of physics. A mind is a group of events connected by causal laws, namely, the causal laws of psychology. An event is not rendered either mental or material by any intrinsic quality, but only by its causal relations. It is perfectly possible for an event to have both the causal relations characteristic of physics and those characteristic of psychology. In that case, the event is both mental and material at once. There is no more difficulty about this than there is about a man being at once a baker and a father. Since we know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience, we cannot say either that the physical world outside our heads is different from the mental world or that it is not. The supposed problem of the relations of mind and matter arises only through mistakenly treating both as "things" and not as groups of events. With the theory that I have been suggesting, the whole problem vanishes.

---

I'm talking about causes beyond our experience, you're still talking about our experience. As all knowledge is inside our experience.

This is what this quote is getting at:



^I need to put this in my signature. It's an awesome quote.

Seems like you are poo poo'ing some science because you don't like the result.

No... the science is right. I'm talking about metaphysics. I'm suggesting that less non-sequiturs follow from the absolutely correct results of science than many people, including scientists, think. A scientists job is to do science, not metaphysics.

---

I seem to be getting stiff.  

👀

I blame you avatar

---

Grandizer understands how I work:

By the way, Hammy is a presentist noumenologically, but scientifically, he seems to agree with the current science of time (as defined in science).

Science is phenomenological, objective reality outside of science is noumenological.

I'm the same with quantum mechanics as a whole I am with the current science of time. Physics says an awful lot about reality as we experience it... but it doesn't contradict the metaphysics of reality actually being causal outside of our experience.

[Edwardo Piet]

There's two conceptions of free will:

1: Compatabilist free will.
2. Incompatabilist free will.

Compatabilist free will stems from the philosophical view compatabilism, which is the view that free will can be compatible with determinism. In philosophy, determinism is the view that there is at any given moment exactly one physically possible future and all events can be traced back to prior causes, stretching back to the big bang and further if needed, to the first cause.

This means that in determinism, any action you take is determined by prior causes... so you couldn't have possibility done otherwise.

Now, whether you believe determinism is true or not, compatabilist free will is so loosely defined that it's possible even in such a universe. Meaning, even if you can't do anything other than you do... free will is still possible. How so? Because on the compatabilist view, all 'free will' means is to not be psychotic, not be drugged, to be a legal adult, to not be hypnotized, to not be coerced. It's just the free will in the sense that is meant in the legal system, the legal sense of free will. Or what is meant when asked the question "Are you signing this contract of your own free will?". It means, are you a responsible adult capable of making such decisions, are you mentally mature, are you being coerced?

If that's all free will is, then of course it exists. There's a big difference between your brain leading you to behaviors when you're fully sober and sane, and your brain leading you to behaviors when you're say, drunk, or psychotic, or you have a gun to your head. Obviously, your 'free will' is violated when you aren't in a sober state or you're being threatened by violence, or you're psychotic, etc.

The problem is most people believe in more than that. Most people do believe that they can do otherwise in exactly the same situation. Most people believe determinism is false, or they simply don't think about it. Most people may think that quantum mechanics supports indeterminism, because quantum events can't be unpredictable.

[GrandizerII]

Isn't it known mathematically though? That works in the same way as logic.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "why"... only how. And the how is shown with the math.

They don't know why or how it happens.  The random aspect is a mystery. 

So much a mystery, that the prevailing theories are 1) It's truly random.  2) That new instances of reality are created for each event, so both result 1 and result 2 happen.

Regarding 2, not quite (if we're talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation, that is). It's not like new instances are being created for each event, more like there are preexisting worlds for each instance of the "collective event". The branches aren't being formed as we speak, they exist already and instances of us are following these various branches along the way based on some predetermined pattern.