If You Say There's No Free Will and No God

[Boojatta]

Your choices display your intelligence.
If you make no choices, do you actually have no intelligence?

The universe tends to obey the laws of physics.
Is that tendency the only actual maker of choices and the only actual intelligence?

Suppose we agree to use the name "The Lawd" for the active element in the universe, its tendency to obey the LAWS of physics.

If no creator caused the universe to obey the laws of physics, then no creator created The Lawd. In that case, The Lawd rules the universe, but there is no point in asking who or what created The Lawd.

If The Lawd causes and controls all change and if there has not always been life on Earth, then The Lawd created life on Earth.

If you say there's no free will and no God, then do you perhaps believe in intelligent design?

[whistle]

1. That seems to be how George Dubya Bush operates.....

...he makes choices but does not demonstrate any intelligence at all.

[Ignoramus]

2. Any arrangement of things forms a pattern

It doesn't mean someone had to arrange the things. Things will be in a pattern if they exist.

[catbert836]

3. I'm not sure

what free thought and choices have to do with physics. You're mixing up two different areas of science.

[Boojatta]

5. Can you show where I have confused two different things and imagined

that they are the same thing?

When Descartes considered geometry from an algebraic point of view, was he confused or mixed up?

[SPKrazy]

4. Perhaps

I do believe that the Universe is God, as I believe God is in, and is everything.

[neebob]

6. What?

Do you know anyone who believes in no free will and no god? What do you mean by "no free will?" I need an example before I can even begin to deal with your lawd.

[LiberalVoice]

35. Its called Determinism.

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or wholly random events occur.

(snip) The idea that the entire universe is a deterministic system has been articulated in both Western and non-Western religion, philosophy, and literature. The Ancient Greek atomists Leucippus and Democritus were the first to anticipate determinism when they theorized that all processes in the world were due to the mechanical interplay of atoms, but this theory did not gain much support at the time. Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed, knowable laws. The "billiard ball" hypothesis, a product of Newtonian physics, argues that once the initial conditions of the universe have been established the rest of the history of the universe follows inevitably. If it were actually possible to have complete knowledge of physical matter and all of the laws governing that matter at any one time, then it would be theoretically possible to compute the time and place of every event that will ever occur (Laplace's demon). In this sense, the basic particles of the universe operate in the same fashion as the rolling balls on a billiard table, moving and striking each other in predictable ways to produce predictable results. (snip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

[neebob]

36. Oh, thank you.

Very interesting. I think you may have supplied the answers to the OP's questions as well, thereby (hopefully) relieving me of my obligation to tackle "the Lawd." I gotta think on how I feel about determinism, before my predictable choice kicks in.

:)

[LiberalVoice]

37. I didn't know anything about determinism until my first philosophy class..

After weighting out both sides of it I myself have come to the conclusion that determinism is much more likely then indeterminism.

[saltpoint]

7. For largemouth bass, I usually recommend a Fred Arbogast

Hula-Popper (any color), and 6-lb. test line.

I no longer fish.

[Orrex]

8. Oh, why not? I'll bite

Since you're seeking to address what is, at its root, an absolute concept, we need to clarify a few points first:

Your choices display your intelligence. If you make no choices, do you actually have no intelligence?

Your framing of this question is circular. On what basis do you assert that "choices" "display" one's "intelligence?" Who is fit to judge the truth or falsehood of your assertion?

Is it your view that intelligence as a force or phenomenon can be separated from the mechanical or biomechanical machine that is presumed to demonstrate it? That is, is "intelligence" a thing unto itself, or is it a function of the brain?

The universe tends to obey the laws of physics. Is that tendency the only actual maker of choices and the only actual intelligence?

That statement is an attempt to stack the deck, in that you are making the universe subordinate to the "laws of physics" as postulated by humans, and you would grant to these man-made laws the title of "actual maker of choices." IMO the proper formulation is:
"The laws of physics tend to describe the functioning of the observed universe in a consistent fashion."
Thereby I eliminate the implication of choices "made" being made by the "laws of physics." Your subsequent questions more or less fall apart.

Suppose we agree to use the name "The Lawd" for the active element in the universe, its tendency to obey the LAWS of physics.

I dispute that an "active element" inclines the universe to "obey the LAWS of physics." If you wish merely to assume that this is the case, then any conclusions you draw from it are at best suppositional. By what evidence, aside from your assertion, can you conclude that this "active element" exists? At most, you can say that the universe is, and our "LAWS of physics" are an attempt to describe its functioning.

If no creator caused the universe to obey the laws of physics, then no creator created The Lawd. In that case, The Lawd rules the universe, but there is no point in asking who or what created The Lawd.

Again, this follows only if we assume that "The Lawd" is a real and "active element," and you have failed herein to consider other possibilities. If the functions described by our "laws of physics" are inherent properties of the universe, then the universe "rules" itself, and there is no "Lawd" about which we need to ask questions.

If The Lawd causes and controls all change and if there has not always been life on Earth, then The Lawd created life on Earth.

That's what we in the biz call a tautology, and in terms of truth-value it's not much more useful than the statement that "it is either Wednesday or it is not Wednesday."

Also, you're attempting (perhaps unintentionally) to use "created" as a synonym for "gave rise to," and I think that's a leap of questionable intellectual honesty. Since this is the R/T forum, I think we can agree that "creation" has a certain connotation of intelligent and deliberate action. If we assume no "active element" called "the Lawd," and if we suppose instead that the functioning of the universe gives rise to various effects, then it is not unreasonable to list among those effects the conditions that "give rise to" life.

If you say there's no free will and no God, then do you perhaps believe in intelligent design?

That question borders on non sequitur. Are you positing that your "Lawd" entails intelligence? On what basis? Even if we assume that "the Lawd" exists as "an active element," what reason have we to conclude that it is intelligent?

While we're at it, tell me specifically what you mean by "no free will." Then I will attempt to answer.

[Random_Australian]

10. Just so there is no argument over whether the universe follows

the laws or whether science is making accurate models, I tell you it is the latter. These models are freaking accurate, which is why science is soooo good, but they claim to be no more than models.

[Boojatta]

13. Apologies for my delay and Congratulations on having teeth enough to bite.

Your choices display your intelligence. If you make no choices, do you actually have no intelligence?

Your framing of this question is circular.

Could you explain what you mean by that? What makes you think that there is some kind of problem of circularity there?

On what basis do you assert that "choices" "display" one's "intelligence?"

It seems to be common sense. For example, assume we offer rewards that motivate people. Rewards for lifting a series of weight will indicate a person's strength, not intelligence. If we offer (to someone who knows how to read) a reward for reading words of various sizes at a distance, then we get an indication of visual acuity, not intelligence.

Who is fit to judge the truth or falsehood of your assertion?

It seemed that you were challenging the assertion. Do you not claim that "choices display intelligence" is a false assertion?

That statement is an attempt to stack the deck, in that you are making the universe subordinate to the "laws of physics" as postulated by humans (...)

The "as postulated by humans" part is your contribution. Perhaps I should have used the word "nature" where I used the word "physics."

Suppose we agree to use the name "The Lawd" for the active element in the universe, its tendency to obey the LAWS of physics.

I dispute that an "active element" inclines the universe to "obey the LAWS of physics."

You're disputing your own version of what I wrote.

If you carefully and repeatedly study the record of observations from a physics experiment, then you are doing something quite different from repeatedly watching a video recording of a particular baseball game. If you already have a basic understanding of baseball, then one baseball game is not likely to teach you anything important about all baseball games.

You might observe a person carefully on some occasion not because you are particularly interested in the specific situation, but because you are interested in the person. You assume that there is some regularity in how a person behaves. In the absence of that assumption, you are only observing something very specific.

The phenomena studied in physics are much more regular than human behavior. If you can be interested in a particular situation because of what it reveals about the personality of a particular person, then shouldn't you admit that someone might be interested in the personality of the universe? What is the dispute here? Do you claim that if something is not solid and concrete then it cannot be a "thing"?

Also, you're attempting (perhaps unintentionally) to use "created" as a synonym for "gave rise to," and I think that's a leap of questionable intellectual honesty. Since this is the R/T forum, I think we can agree that "creation" has a certain connotation of intelligent and deliberate action.

You seem to have something there. I wouldn't be surprised if I over-reached a bit in my Original Post.

That question borders on non sequitur. Are you positing that your "Lawd" entails intelligence? On what basis?

On the basis that all choices are its choices.

While we're at it, tell me specifically what you mean by "no free will." Then I will attempt to answer.

I can't answer that right now nor can I predict how long it will take to produce a satisfactory answer.

[Random_Australian]

9. Well, except you can show that free will exists.

Inherit in Quantum Physics actually.

Although you can take the *yawn* perspective that if your choices are made by a purely phyical brain then you have no soul or spirit and have no emotions or anything. Just in case the *yawn* did not make it clear, I happen to think that idea is BS. :)

[varkam]

11. Why do you think the idea is BS?

And why, if there are no spirits or souls and the whole kitten-kaboodle does come down to the brain, can we not have emotions? Just curious.

[Random_Australian]

14. What? I said that we CAN have emotions if we are just physical objects.

1) The purely physical description of reality is something that if true is something identical to reality.

2) In the reality we have, people feel emotion.

3) Since description of reality is (in this special case where the description does not require human understanding) the same as reality it has emotion too.

There you go, emotion in a purely physical universe.

[Orrex]

12. I second Varkam's question

On what basis can we conclude that "consciousness" or "mind" or "emotions" have any real (that is, not purely inferential) existence separate from the physical structures (and the chemistry thereof) with which they are associated? Is there any solid evidence to support this?

I would also ask how, exactly, consciousness is "inherent in quantum physics."

Far from being a yawn, the idea of purely physical existence is utterly fascinating to me because of what it does to the questions of consciousness and identity, not to mention the effects upon philosophy, religion, ethics, and morality.

[Random_Australian]

15. What the hell?

Sorry to sound sharp, friend but it seems that you have misinterpreted my post, or I yours, to a rather large degree.

1) I have not concluded that the mind is at all seperate from its physical structures.

2) I have not concluded that consciousness is inherit in quantum physics, merely that we have free will and that stems in the physical sense from the properties of reality described by quantum physics.

So, what say you now?

[Orrex]

17. Maybe I misread some sarcasm

I took your "BS" comment to mean that you thought that the notion of the brain-as-purely-physical-structure was bullshit. Did I misread? Or were you employing sarcasm that failed to resonate in my blunt, peg-like skull? (a distinct possibility, I grant).

But I think that you likewise confused Varkam, and I make no claims about the bluntness or peg-likeness of his skull.

And it's clear to me now that I swapped "consciousness" for "free will." Oops! But are you referring to the probabilistic, rather than deterministic, nature of reality in QM? That would make more sense to me, though my knowledge of advanced quantum mechanics could be neatly contained within one Planck-length.

Sorry if I misread you otherwise.

[Random_Australian]

19. I see! No sarcasm - I meant the idea that

IF
The brain is purely physical

THEN
we have no emotions

is BS, NOT 'the brain is a purely physical structure' is bs, because it isn't.
Make sense?

[Orrex]

20. Yes, that makes sense!

Wow--that was a weird little digression. Glad it's past!

[varkam]

21. I see now.

Thanks for the clarification - I'm easily confused :hi:

[Random_Australian]

22. Cool! So what did you think of the actual response that free will is in

QM?

The guy in question has not answered yet, so I should like an opinion.

(here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=83110&mesg_id=83278 )

[varkam]

24. I assume you're referring to quantum mechanics...

And I know next to nothing about that, so I'm afraid I can't be of much help :)

[Random_Australian]

25. Hmm, sort of. The lyapunov exponent was just normal though.

It is the thing that says "If you start two things (with a lyapunov exponent > 0 ) with some small difference in the initial conditions, the difference between those two states will increase exponentially in time".

Or to reword the entire argument so you can understand it good,

1) In QM there are small unpredictable things
2) The thing above makes it so that small things have an effect on the big things.
3) Therefore the big things (the mind) are unpredictable

And that is free will. :)

There you go! Make sense now?

[varkam]

26. Surprisingly.

Even though I just got home from work, I think I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just cause I'm tired, but I wouldn't think that unpredictability necessarily equals freedom of will. It could be that we just don't have a good theoretical grasp on it yet.

[Laotra]

30. Dangerous notions ;)

What do we mean by "physical"? 99,999% of times something measurable, implying subject-object dualistic metaphysics. The kind of metaphysics that most religions deep down and post-modern philosophy etc. renounce.

What does measurable mean, in terms of physics? Quite simply, 4D stuff. Funny thing about QM is non-4D (superluminally co-dependent) events, called non-local.

Non-locality is in one sense clearly physical, as it is the barrier that the paradigm of physics has fatally run into, on the other hand it does not fit at all to our usual materialistic notions of what is physical (ie. measurable stuff).

Where does consciouss (and sub-) experience take place? Evidence and hard philosophizing seem to be pointing that it cannot be totally reduced to 4D processes of classical physics, but involves also non-local aspects, not bound by time and space. We might call that noetic sphere, in search of a better word ("God" is too loaded one).

[Odin2005]

16. "Inherit in Quantum Physics actually"

I've always considered that notion to be a copout. QM just changed things to a determinism of probabillities, and on the scale of human cognition quantum wierdness is irrelavent anyway.

[Random_Australian]

18. Cop out? I'll back myself up then! :) No worries mate!

Though I have to admit, it is used as a cop out fairly often.
And I admit also that what is inherit is that we don't have 'not free will'

And I would also like to point out that I say only that free will is inherit in QM, NOT consciousness or in fact any other thing.

All it uses is that while you can determine what something will do in probability or wavefunction, you cannot predict actual outcomes.

One last thing:
The reason that it affects things at the level of human cognition is that the mind has the necessary three degrees of freedom and non-linear term to be chaotic (as in the >0 Lyapunov exponent, not 'disordered'), and as such sensitivity to initial conditions means that while the effect is not istantaneous, but with time has large effects, large enough to affect human cognition.

Anyway, (and remember this is just 'show' not 'prove'), consider first a purely Newtonian universe. (Yes, I consider this a thought experiment, and not an original one either) Even though chaos still operates in that system, given arbitrary computing power and knowledge of the initial conditions, one could predict in advance what all states would be at all times in the future.

In effect, one could tell someone when they were young that they would do something when 80 and there is nothing they could do about it, for want of a better term. More specifically, choice would be pre-ordained, if you will. By no effect could any other thing happen. :)

Now we move to a world with QT, and attempt to compute; however while you may still compute the probabilities of anything happening. However, you cannot know beforehand where a given wavefunction will collapse. Unless there is some way in which the two systems can become exponentially more different without modifying brain function, this means that it does effect cognition.

However, I did hear about probabilities converging in such a way that QM effectively stifles chaos, however given that I have not learnt about it yet, any enlightenment on the matter would be appreciated. :)

Thanks!

[Laotra]

31. QM and philosophy

is where all the most fun stuff is happening, so keep on studying and thinking!

Thinking is mostly a process of getting rid of notions and false questions that block further thinking. And the search for the right question is of course an endless process, as any reader of Douglas Adams knows.

Best and cleares approach to the question of chaos and predictability / indeterminism and determinism I've come by is Bohm's notion about scale of orders. They form a dialectic pair, that can be thought as a gliding scale from absolute predictability to absolute non-predictability, all natural phenomena falling somewhere in the middle; and of course they are also subjective notions, depending on the frame of observation, the point of view (microcosmic, macrocosmic etc. frames). On this basis lot of unnecessary confusion can be avoided, IMHO.

[Random_Australian]

23. Also: just so there is no confusion: (the edit has expired)

I happen to believe in a purely physical explanation of the universe, I happen to base my belief on evidence alone, and I am a dedicated skeptic - so no mystical energies for me.

:)

From above, a number of people thought I was saying something else, I suggest reading the short conversation above about it. :)

[Laotra]

32. Okay

I ask again, what does physical explanation mean? "Where" and "When" in physical universe does non-local "spooky action at distance" (which is indeed literally a mystical energy ;)) take place?

In your opinion, does "physical explanation" mean only reductionistic materialism and the axiom of linear, time bound causativity? If also something else, then what?

[Random_Australian]

33. Sheesh. Any collapse in wavefunction whose change is carried out by

the lyapunov exponent within, say, the closed system of earth will eventually do it. (And in astronomical time wavefunction elsewhere will evetually affect us) all it has to do is make it so that -taking a rather determinist approach for a second- the eventual outcome if the wavefunction collapses in one place is different from the eventual outcome if it collapses in another.

As for "physical explanation" I'm sure you could call it 'reductionist' (a now misleading name) materialism, but time bound it may not be. You know that QM thing the physicists love about the atemporal interactions by advanced and retarded waves? If it turns out that that is right then it won't be all that time bound. Still will be, in a sense, but not the normal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. You can?

I'm by no means an expert on either quantum physics or the theory of the mind, but I've never heard anything remotely like this, and I'm somewhat sceptical of it.

Just what do you mean by "free will", and how can you show that it exists?

[Laotra]

29. Well no

You confuse free will with the question about determinism/in-, which does not presuppose a willing subject.

[Laotra]

28. In natural sciences

and according to the "laws" (more correctly habits) of physics there's no experience, no ego, no chooser, no subject-object dualism, hence there is no personal Free Will.

[Random_Australian]

34. Sheesh! Why not consider the ego as a physical thing then?

A large set of info in the brain? What is it with people and thinking that these cannot be extrapolated with sufficient complexity to physical objects?