Free will re-redux

I'm not sure why I should believe in the possibility of nonrandom indeterministic decisions based solely on a claim of irreducibility.

~~ Paul

Are you okay with non-random, indeterministic motions of matter that aren't decisions?

Well I meant "random" as the selection of a possibility by pure Chance, so not in the sense of interest-relative causal ignorance. In fact I think that's inconceivable for the reasons Thomas Nail gives when talking about Pedesis ->

The very idea of a purely random motion presupposes that it was not affected by or related to anything else previously, which presupposes that it was the first thing and before it was nothing, which is a version of the internally contradictory hypothesis of ex nihilo creation: something from nothing. The ontology of random motion claims that from pure disorder of discrete nonrelational particles comes high-level composite order. Given the high level of order and complexity in our present age, randomness is demonstrably not the case.

Nail, Thomas. Being and Motion

I'd say the very fact that we have stochastic knowledge of QM indeterminism (like half-lives) is the biggest reason to reject the idea of quantum "randomness", as - to give another example - the fact 4 out of 100 photons on average reflect rather than pass through glass indicates a relation between the individual instances [of photons making contact with the glass].

Nail also says ->

Indeterminacy, however, is not random or even probabilistic, because position only occurs in continuous relation to momentum. Heisenberg thus showed that even at the quantum level, matter in motion is both relational and uncertain, or pedetic. Pedesis may be irregular and unpredictable, but it is not random. What is interesting about movement is not simply that it is pedetic, but that it is through pedesis and turbulence that metastable formations and emergent orders are possible. By contrast, the ontology of randomness is quite bleak. In a purely random ontology, all of matter would be moving randomly, and thus nonrelationally, at all times.

Nail, Thomas. Being and Motion

To me this is a genuine description of non-random, non-deterministic events. It makes far more sense than the idea that some possibility is actualized for absolutely no reason. It's odd to me that you don't find "randomness"

But no one is asserting a purely random ontology. No one is even claiming that a random event has no precursors. The precursors led to the situation where a random event can occur. It's just that the random event outcome is not a function of the precursors. The situation is, but the outcome is not.

Not all of the photons pass through the glass because some of them interact with the particles of glass, producing new photons. Why is it 4%? Why does 6% of the population bounce off a 6-foot door if they don't bend forward?

Isn't the description Laird put in the PsienceQuest Wiki exactly on that level?

I don't think so, no. The critical question is bypassed with a claim of irreducibility.

~~ Paul

At the very least, I could say that the irreducibility I suggested is less of a mystery than the mystery of why "necessitating" deterministic rules hold; or of how a coherent "effect" (that which exemplifies the "randomness" postulated in this thread) could be without a cause.

I disagree. I think you are relying on having consciousness underneath. Given consciousness, it is, indeed, easier to think that the event could be willed by that consciousness. Whereas, with deterministic and random events, we have nothing underneath to cause them. But now you have consciousness to explain, so, in the end, I don't think that nonrandom indeterministic events are less mysterious.

What we do have for deterministic and random events are plenty of examples and amazing explanation down to that elusive bottom. If I could just get some of that for free events, I'd be happy. Even accepting consciousness underneath, I have no notion how that consciousness is making a decision that is based on the current state of affairs and yet could be different, except by flipping a coin. What is the intuition for how the agent chose the decision but could have chosen differently?

~~ Paul

Are you okay with non-random, indeterministic motions of matter that aren't decisions?

No.

I assume that by "indeterministic" you mean that there are indeterministic events that are not simply stochastic.

~~ Paul

No.

I assume that by "indeterministic" you mean that there are indeterministic events that are not simply stochastic.

~~ Paul

I mean what Thomas Nail said in that last post I replied to you, that matter is moving in a way that is not deterministic but still within a web of causality.

Or another way of saying this is there's a valid materialism where matter can move in ways that violate a supposed randomness/deterministic dichotomy.

I assume it's still "No" from you?

Basically the problem is not consciousness-possibility-seleciton exclusively, it's the violation of the randomness/deterministic dichotomy...right?

I mean what Thomas Nail said in that last post I replied to you, that matter is moving in a way that is not deterministic but still within a web of causality.

Or another way of saying this is there's a valid materialism where matter can move in ways that violate a supposed randomness/deterministic dichotomy.

I assume it's still "No" from you?

Basically the problem is not consciousness-possibility-seleciton exclusively, it's the violation of the randomness/deterministic dichotomy...right?

I agree that random events occur within a web of causality. I'm just not sure why I should believe that there are nonrandom indeterministic events. I also agree that stochastic processes that are not uniformly random are interesting. I'm not sure photon reflection is one of them, but particle decay appears to be.

The problem isn't the violation of the dichotomy per se. I'm willing to believe that I simply cannot conceive of a third possibility. So I'm looking for a description that sounds compelling.

~~ Paul

I agree that random events occur within a web of causality. I'm just not sure why I should believe that there are nonrandom indeterministic events. I also agree that stochastic processes that are not uniformly random are interesting. I'm not sure photon reflection is one of them, but particle decay appears to be.

The problem isn't the violation of the dichotomy per se. I'm willing to believe that I simply cannot conceive of a third possibility. So I'm looking for a description that sounds compelling.

~~ Paul

So it's the same problem for free will as it is for Thomas Nail's non-random, non-deterministic materialism?