Comments on: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

By: Snarky

Snarky — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:39:07 +0000

No, he has to be right. Wanna know how I know? No one with free thought would have become as douchey (sp?) as this Daniel cat appears to have.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:11:37 +0000

"Explain why this is not logical."

"I'm laying out what seems to be a perfectly logical argument."

Your argument as stated is both invalid and meaningless.

Your first claim is “you must be able to consciously change at least one of these [following levers] in order to have any active influence on the world”.

Your second claim is a definition of the first lever, namely: “how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision.”

So, when we combine these claims to form a consequent (as this seems to be the logical relationship you intend for these two claims), we get:

If you are able to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision, then you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists).

Unfortunately, the antecedent of the conditional

“If you are able to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision”

is self contradictory/impossible, and thus is necessarily false. Therefore the truth value of the consequent as a whole is necessarily true, regardless of whether the antecedent “you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists)” is true or false.

So, what does this mean?

If I restated your argument with the premises it seems you intend, it would read as follows:

(1) If you are able to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision, then you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists).

(2) It is impossible to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision.

Therefore: C1: It is not the case that you are able to have active influence on the world (free will does not exist)
OR
Therefore: C2: It is the case that you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists).

Validity: An argument is valid iff there is no situation in which its premises are true and its conclusion is false.

Since the premises are both necessarily true, and the premises have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the conclusion, this argument logically supports either of these contradictory conclusions, one of which must be false.

Since both of these conclusions follow logically from the premises, and one is necessarily false, there is a possible situation in which the conclusion is false and the premises true, so from the definition of validity the argument is invalid. And, since either of two contradictory conclusions could be true, the argument is also meaningless.

It seems there is either something deeply wrong with your definitions, or I have dreadfully misinterpreted your argument.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:01:34 +0000

You've basically argued that real (free) choice is possible because
you feel you've made choices in the past, and that it feels like
people make choices in general.

I suggest you read my latest essay on the topic, which captures both
your point and mine:

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/absolute-vs-prac...

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:31:13 +0000

It is pointless to think about changing the past but you can choose to starve or eat, Speed on the motorway or drive like your grandma, Buy a Mac or a PC. Each choice can be influenced but not not pre-determined 100% of the time. So, you can still make the choice and your future is not set. Free Will wins again!

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:24:54 +0000

Determinism is out of the picture. It's not relevant. We are not discussing predictability or anything of the sort. The issue is with whether or not we have control of the essential pieces that allow us to manipulate outcomes.

Ok yes, we are dealing with a constant stream of knock on effects, but self awareness allows us to choose what influences we take notice of. It's much harder to do than say but it is do-able.

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:18:17 +0000

Before you say it I know others have made much the same argument but you seem to skirt around the question by telling us the Random factor is irrelevant or an illusion. I think determinism boils down to what I call “Playing with words”.

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:53:47 +0000

I have a question. If the universe is in State “A” your idea suggesting it can ONLY flow into State “B” next (even though we can't predict what State “B” will be like). How can that be correct in a universe where there is uncertainty in it's rules? Here's another way to look at it. If you could rewind the universe back to state “A” then press play, would it definitely flow into State “B” again? The uncertain nature of the universe introduces a random factor which would means it could just as easily flow into state “F” instead. If you maintain it will always flow to State “B” next then the universe must be purely mechanical, and predicting the future is a possible, in theory at least. If you accept the random factor exists then so must free will. I would be very interested in your arguments against this.

By: Chazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Lee

Chazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Lee — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:36:05 +0000

This entire argument necessitates that the causality we interpret in the world is necessarily correct.

Also quantum randomness cannot be simply waved away. The previous states of the universe according to a very strict interpretation of wave particle duality would be a product of the present state, that I exist and examine in this particular fashion. This idea is similar to biocentrism, that the particular state of my existence creates and necessitates the past that of which produces my current state.

And also, free will is a very silly term to use. It can never be true or complete free will, but there can be a level of indeterminably even in a determinable state.

By: urizen9

urizen9 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:08:41 +0000

Free will is a limited affair. It seems rather like a choice in a tangle of superimposition. These incidentally are what we call future. “Predeterminism” is an unfortunate use of a concept more fitting for the past. Free will or determinism is a scholastic trap. The existent future is a superimposed collection of possibilities which in a sense are all there and when the choices are made the path from the present will seem to continue and limit or expand some of them

By: Don

Don — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:15:43 +0000

You're assuming that choice is based on cause and effect. You need to study quantum mechanics a bit more, then you'll realize that the universe isn't set in stone.

By: cooperati

cooperati — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:31:45 +0000

It's actually an addicting point of view. I once wrote a 32 page essay on determinism in high school. (I got an A on it.)

I don't know if Daniel had Mr. Halford in Senior year.

-=T=-

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:21:44 +0000

I know that I should give you a chance to respond before I elaborate, but I just found this quote in an article linked to on your blog:

“Every system has two sets of rules: The rules as they are intended or commonly perceived, and the actual rules (“reality”). In most complex systems, the gap between these two sets of rules is huge.

Sometimes we catch a glimpse of the truth, and discover the actual rules of a system. Once the actual rules are known, it may be possible to perform “miracles” — things which violate the perceived rules.”

The original is here: http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2009/10/applie...

—-

The point is that it is difficult to know which “miracles” are allowed by a sufficiently complex set of laws. This is a more elegant way of making the point I made about your being too quick to dismiss things as impossible.

Carl

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:03:14 +0000

He does it because he must. :-)

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:19:17 +0000

I realized that the following sentence might be misinterpreted: "If there is no way to distinguish between them, I believe they are equally real." Note that I'm not claiming that they are real. I'm claiming that it only makes sense (from my philosophical perspective) for either BOTH to be real or BOTH to be false (as long as they are indistinguishable from one another). Asserting that one is real while the other isn't makes no (philosophical) sense to me.

By: enquirer

enquirer — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:18:00 +0000

What I don't understand is why would you need to argue or debate a deterministic view at all? It seems extremely redundant.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:09:43 +0000

I think I understand what you're saying, but unless there is a way that "absolute" and "practical" free will can be distinguished from one another by observation (including whatever scientific experiments might be dreamt of by those with greater imaginations than mine) I don't see how we can talk about one being "real" and the other one not.

PS I think that a philosophical discussion on the topic of "what is real and why does it matter" would be quite interesting.

By: cooperati

cooperati — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:10:28 +0000

"but you've ALSO talked about "practical free will" as existing, but being "only" what we perceive (as opposed to being "real")."

What I would like to say about this, perhaps expanding in a specific way, is that anything not within the realm of the physical universe, doesn't exist, and isn't real.

So, using "real" to relate to something meta-physical, whether it be on a higher order of conceptual magnitude (or lower), just doesn't seem right, and probably against the purpose of what is real.

In addition, this probably improper usage of "real" might better relate, include, imply, or replace "supernatural" as well as meta-physical.

Just an observation about what is "real" vs. what is real, from this conversation. Maybe this might need a more in depth definition, too, or refinement to mutually accepted terms. The impact on "practical" compared to "absolute" could, and likely should, be pivotal.

-=T=-

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:52:32 +0000

Daniel, let me borrow a few of Kyle's words that clearly and calmly capture my position on the science of free will (whatever that is). (I've edited this slightly.)

"... I'm happy to leave it as unknown pending further advances. I suspect that, should we ever figure it out, it [may] turn out to be possible within the laws of the universe for consciousness to be first cause, though I honestly can't see how at this point ..."

Daniel, I think that once you've cleaned up your circluar arguments, what remains will boil down to something like this: "Since nobody seems able to explain HOW current physical law would allow consciousness to inject freely-chosen willful action into the universe, it must be impossible." This seems to be the core of your argument (you keep asking HOW free choice is possible given our understanding of physics). My position is that you are far too quick to dismiss things as impossible. You told cooperati to go do some reading before taking part in the conversation. I might tell you to do the same (though I don't have a specific set of readings to suggest). The history of science (and of the world) is full of those who claimed that particular things could have no natural explanation (thus concluding that they were either supernatural or illusion) ... only to be proven wrong. Sometimes what proved them wrong was the development of new physical theories, but other times it took only a more imaginative application of existing theory. New consequences of existing physical theory are still coming out of the minds of physicists (and chemists and biologists and ...). The point is that unless physical theory EXCLUDES the possibility of free will (and except in the case of a purely deterministic world, free will has not been shown to be excluded from the theory), it is inappropriate to assert that it is scientifically impossible. You are (of course) free to take a philosophical stand on the issue, but you are confusing this philosophical stand with a scientific stand.

That's all separate from my other point. You've talked about "absolute free will" (which you define as being incompatible with physical theory) being incompatible with physical theory, but you've ALSO talked about "practical free will" as existing, but being "only" what we perceive (as opposed to being "real"). My position on this is that if you can't tell them apart through observation, then there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two (this is a philosophical position). If there is no way to distinguish between them, I believe they are equally real. Any difference you perceive is a philosophical one (and you're welcome to any philosophical position you choose).

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:50:13 +0000

Kyle, though Daniel is a tad stubborn at times (a quality that I share and consider a good one), he is pretty good at admitting when he realizes that his arguments are flawed. I too respect this in him.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:14:02 +0000

Apparently I no longer need to write the post I was getting ready to write. :-)

By: cooperati

cooperati — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:00:13 +0000

sorry 'bout that! ;)

By: Kyle Bennett

Kyle Bennett — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:57:26 +0000

For the record, I take causality as axiomatic and reject utterly the supernatural. On the other hand, existence exists, which would seem to contradict causality, allow for first cause, in at least one singular case. It would indicate that either our understanding of what causality is is flawed, or our understanding of “first”, or notions of time such as “before”, are flawed. I don't know if that translates into an allowance for consciousness being first cause, but I cannot rule it out, particularly in light of our perception of free will. But as I said earlier, it is a question with absolutely zero consequence for our own actions and choices, whether those choices be real or illusory.

By: Kyle Bennett

Kyle Bennett — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:44:25 +0000

"I'll have to re-evaluate"

Much respect for that.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:37:17 +0000

Hmm. I think you're right. I'll have to re-evaluate and see if I can
make a more formal, and careful, attempt.

Many thanks for the comments.

By: Kyle Bennett

Kyle Bennett — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:33:50 +0000

"I am making an argument that these are the only two possibilities for free will without invoking the supernatural."

No you're not. You're making an assertion. They are the premises of your "argument", not a conclusion. It's no different than creationists saying the bible is infallible and quoting a bible verse to prove it.

Here's the alternative: the laws of the universe allow the possibility of first cause. True or not, it remains entirely unaddressed by your "argument". Your argument is, literally: that's false because you'd have to violate or change the laws of the universe to do that.