Free will and determinism

I guess I'm the oddball but I don't find this nonsensical at all.

If God = creator of 'everything' (I understand the infinite regress challenge here but bear with me) then I have no cognitive issue with allowing for things to be that seem nonsensical to me.

its not satisfying per se, nor does it do anything for the rational part of me but just like I can't get amped up about Paul's question I don't get amped up about the notion that God somehow has foreknowledge of a free will choice that I might make.

I thought the whole foreknowledge thing was solved by the idea that god knows what you are going to do, but you are free to change your mind, and then god's foreknowledge changes along with you.

~~ Paul

We agree that software pseudo-random number generators are not truly random. But any computer that needs true random numbers, such as the lottery machines, have true random number I/O devices that generate streams of random bits.

There is a relation to the world for particle decay, in the half-lives of various elements. It involves various per-substance constants (see below). But the decay of a specific particle is unpredictable according to QM. If you buy that QM is indeterministic, then indeterministic particle decay should be no problem. If you think that nothing is indeterministic, then I really want to know where you can put free will.

I'm not sure why we'd put much stock in the "average person's" view of deep reality. Any gut feelings are almost surely wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay#Mean_lifetime

Heh, pretty sure I posted that same wiki article in the 65 page thread, or some other chart of different half-lives.

I'm saying that just because something is indeterministic does not automatically make it random. And I am talking about definitions, not the average person's understanding of QM. If you called someone up in a survey, and told them there are flashing lights where you cannot predict a particular light flashing but can say something about the average number of expected flashes in an hour....and then asked them if the lights were totally random...seems more likely they'd say "No".

My point is that this assertion that something is random - as in a matter of pure chance with no relation to prior states of the world  - does not follow from looking at particle decay or any other stochastic phenomena. The fact we can ascertain with confidence that different substances have different half-lives reinforces this.

If there was no relation to the world there would be no half-life, as clearly when a particle gets emitted has some relation to when the last particle was emitted and when the next particle will be emitted.

Now you or anyone else can insist that anything that isn't deterministic is immediately random and thus a matter of pure chance, but I would need to see some kind of proof.

Heh, pretty sure I posted that same wiki article in the 65 page thread, or some other chart of different half-lives.

I'm saying that just because something is indeterministic does not automatically make it random. And I am talking about definitions, not the average person's understanding of QM. If you called someone up in a survey, and told them there are flashing lights where you cannot predict a particular light flashing but can say something about the average number of expected flashes in an hour....and then asked them if the lights were totally random...seems more likely they'd say "No".

My point is that this assertion that something is random - as in a matter of pure chance with no relation to prior states of the world  - does not follow from looking at particle decay or any other stochastic phenomena. The fact we can ascertain with confidence that different substances have different half-lives reinforces this.

If there was no relation to the world there would be no half-life, as clearly when a particle gets emitted has some relation to when the last particle was emitted and when the next particle will be emitted.

Now you or anyone else can insist that anything that isn't deterministic is immediately random and thus a matter of pure chance, but I would need to see some kind of proof.

I think we are talking past each other when it comes to stochastic processes. Some, such as half-lives, follow probability patterns. I agree those aren't purely random. But the decay of individual particles appears to be purely random. Are you suggesting that since groups of particles follow probability patterns, then that implies that the individual particle decays are not purely random? If so, then I think that needs evidence.

Ah, perhaps this is the problem? Indeed, the length of time that a particular particle lives is not random, or else there could be no predictable half-life of the whole group. What is random is which particle will be the next to decay and whether any particle will decay in a short interval of time. I believe some hardware RNGs also sample airwave static.

~~ Paul

Are you suggesting that since groups of particles follow probability patterns, then that implies that the individual particle decays are not purely random? If so, then I think that needs evidence.

The evidence is the patterns?

Random would mean there is no pattern at all, certainly not divisible by substance. Yet both of those are true - here's a chart of half-lives. That clearly shows there's a relation between individual particle emissions that are dependent [on] substance. You *could* insist that there is no actual relation, just pure Chance, but this claim would go against the very idea of scientific investigation.

This claim of pure randomness is a metaphysical projection. What's actually happening, just by a read of the data, is a process that is neither deterministic nor random.

Is there some proof that everything which is indeterministic *has* to be random?

The evidence is the patterns?

Random would mean there is no pattern at all, certainly not divisible by substance. Yet both of those are true - here's a chart of half-lives. That clearly shows there's a relation between individual particle emissions that are dependent [on] substance. You *could* insist that there is no actual relation, just pure Chance, but this claim would go against the very idea of scientific investigation.

This claim of pure randomness is a metaphysical projection. What's actually happening, just by a read of the data, is a process that is neither deterministic nor random.

Is there some proof that everything which is indeterministic *has* to be random?

Why can't we have a probability distribution for a group of particles and yet have it be the case that it is random which particle decays next? Again, I'm not saying the complete decay process is random. I'm only saying, along with all of QM, that it is impossible to predict which particle decays next. There is, as far as we know, no hidden variable(s) that determine precisely when a particle decays.

There is no such proof, because no one is claiming that all indeterministic processes are purely random. Now, if you're asking whether there is any proof that all indeterministic processes are stochastic to one degree or another, I think that's true by definition. If a process is not stochastic, then it is deterministic. And that brings us back around to the core idea that there are indeterministic "processes" that are either (a) not at all stochastic, or (b) stochastic but in a manner than can be controlled by an agent. And my age-old question is: How can (a) or (b) possibly work?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...e-a-photon

~~ Paul

Why can't we have a probability distribution for a group of particles and yet have it be the case that it is random which particle decays next...

....

You can claim this but then this also applies when the probability is 100% for a particular outcome. So everything is (or at least could be) random, as in completely up to Chance, including [seemingly] deterministic processes. What the materialist Quentin Meillassoux calls Hyper Chaos.

This seems to be quite a leap, however, and runs against the idea that things happen for some reason, and how we determine relations like how different substances have different half-lives. It also means a mathematical train of thought like the Pythagorean Theorem is just a matter of Luck - a particular instance of the pure Chance that governs reality - with no more actual truth content than Chomsky's deliberately meaningless phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

And of course all that theorem's applications, along with every other mathematical proof, in our engineering just happens to work by a further stroke of Luck. We can't even calculate the odds of such a bizarre chain of events happening, since there are no probability distributions when literally anything - or at least that which is logically possible - could happen next.

But given such implications it isn't clear to me why someone would insist that stochastic processes are pure Chance that resolve into probability patterns via pure Luck/Chance, rather than simply recognize that a stochastic process is neither deterministic nor random...unless someone is trying to make the claim that every indeterministic process *has* to be pure Chance.

And if there's no argument/proof for the claim that every indeterministic process has to be an occurrence of pure Chance, it's not clear what the problem is for free will to exist in some possible world? Free will seems to be not that much different from the non-random, non-deterministic QM processes. I guess could claim the key difference is that QM processes have no mental content, but that's begging the question against the Panpsychic if not the Idealist...

You can claim this but then this also applies when the probability is 100% for a particular outcome. So everything is (or at least could be) random, as in completely up to Chance, including [seemingly] deterministic processes. What the materialist Quentin Meillassoux calls Hyper Chaos.

This seems to be quite a leap, however, and runs against the idea that things happen for some reason, and how we determine relations like how different substances have different half-lives. It also means a mathematical train of thought like the Pythagorean Theorem is just a matter of Luck - a particular instance of the pure Chance that governs reality - with no more actual truth content than Chomsky's deliberately meaningless phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

And of course all that theorem's applications, along with every other mathematical proof, in our engineering just happens to work by a further stroke of Luck. We can't even calculate the odds of such a bizarre chain of events happening, since there are no probability distributions when literally anything - or at least that which is logically possible - could happen next.

But given such implications it isn't clear to me why someone would insist that stochastic processes are pure Chance that resolve into probability patterns via pure Luck/Chance, rather than simply recognize that a stochastic process is neither deterministic nor random...unless someone is trying to make the claim that every indeterministic process *has* to be pure Chance.

And if there's no argument/proof for the claim that every indeterministic process has to be an occurrence of pure Chance, it's not clear what the problem is for free will to exist in some possible world? Free will seems to be not that much different from the non-random, non-deterministic QM processes. I guess could claim the key difference is that QM processes have no mental content, but that's begging the question against the Panpsychic if not the Idealist...

Okay, we are obviously thinking about this from very different angles.

Why are you assuming that some pure randomness at the quantum mechanical level implies pure randomness at all levels? It's clear that at some level, in our world, the chaotic randomness of QM gives way to a high degree of determinism. Enough for computers to be almost perfect. The wave functions collapse. Could there be a world where this doesn't happen? I don't know. Could it happen, but at a higher level? That would be interesting.

I don't know what you're trying to say in your third paragraph. Why are you trying to eliminate the apparent pure chance of particle decay by postulating some indeterministic nonrandom, nondeterministic process? What does it buy you? Are you really going to propose that there is some process that selects the next particle to decay so that it looks random to us (not just when measured, but as predicted by QM) and yet . . . what . . . follows some indeterministic rules so that the selection is not actually random? What are those rules?

If what it buys you is an opening for free will, I guess that is understandable. But nowhere does any of this answer my question. In fact, if you go back and read the final two sentences in my previous paragraph, you will see that I was almost unable even to write them. It's not random, yet it's not deterministic. But there must be some identifiable rules, or it would be random. Is it fair to call it a process? Why can't we catch a glimpse of the process?

~~ Paul

Why are you trying to eliminate the apparent pure chance of particle decay by postulating some indeterministic nonrandom, nondeterministic process?

Why is it apparent pure chance? Because it's not deterministic?

Is there a proof that everything which is not determnistic has to be pure chance?

If there is no proof/argument, why would you think this to be true?

Why is it apparent pure chance? Because it's not deterministic?

Is there a proof that everything which is not determnistic has to be pure chance?

If there is no proof/argument, why would you think this to be true?

It's apparent pure chance because (a) it is predicted by QM, and (b) we measure it and there is no pattern. I'm talking about which particle decays next, not half-lives of groups of particles.

Everything that is indeterministic is not pure chance. I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that. There are half-lives. But it is pure chance which particle decays next.

So there is argument and there is evidence. There is no proof, because this is science, not math.

As I've agreed, though, I'm happy to talk about indeterminism that is not stochastic. That is, indeterminism that does not involve random variables. I just don't understand what that is or how it could work.

~~ Paul

[Ninshub]

I suppose I prefer to think more in terms of some expansion of physics - philosophy can become so vague. If you remember, I put the suggestion that time might have two axes - one for the embodied and a second for the disembodied - to Christian Sundberg, who seemed to like the idea.

BTW, my conversation with home became a bit acrimonious after that because of his obsession with love, love, love!

Did you mean "him", David?