Free will re-redux

Let me try to make this a tad more formal.

1. A free decision is based on the current state of affairs.

2. However, a free decision is not necessitated by the state of affairs.

3. Nevertheless, a specific decision is made.

4. Therefore, there must be a factor W (for "will") that is also involved in making the decision.

5. Factor W is not a random factor in the sense of having no causes.

6. In what way does factor W contribute to the decision making?


~~ Paul

This seems like a question of existence, which is different than the original question of coherency?

But there seem to be some implicit assumptions here - the idea that a state of affairs could ever necessitate an outcome, and that randomness exists.

In any case W selects for a single possibility among the options. If you want to expand W to include subsequent action where that is necessary, it also actualizes the possibility.

The coherency question is why the above two bolded sentences are a problem, as in what logical issue is there that would preclude such a W from existing such that even God cannot have that factor?

Coherent just means it could exist. Unlike Physicalism, which faces a Something from Nothing problem, there's no violation of any logical axiom for free will. In fact it is in accordance with pedetic motion.

Stephen has been discussing mathematical modeling for two threads now?

The only quasi-scientific argument has been your attempts to force a randomness/determinism dichotomy on the QM level events.

Like I said, QED.

I gave up forcing the dichotomy about two months ago. I think you've tagged me as a dichotomist with a permanent pen.

How is it that what you're proposing eliminates the something-from-nothing problem? Ultimately, every ontology has a something-from-nothing problem.

~~ Paul

Randomness means something happens for no reason at all. Pedesis happens because the relations influence the outcome in a non-deterministic way.

The data bears out his claims, as in the case of half-lives. Why would we say the particles motion is deterministic, when earlier you were saying that it was random because we couldn't find out what influences the events?

Just because you can project the claim of determinism doesn't mean that is what is happening, especially since Physicalism's idea of determinism is just randomness of a special kind.

The data tells us that a certain type of particle has a half-life constant that determines the half life of a large group of particles. I don't know of any data that suggests that the decay of a particular particle is predictable, so it is stochastic. I still do not understand what it means to influence something in a nondeterministic way, but that is what this thread is about.

At no point did I claim that particle decay is deterministic.

~~ Paul

This seems like a question of existence, which is different than the original question of coherency?

But there seem to be some implicit assumptions here - the idea that a state of affairs could ever necessitate an outcome, and that randomness exists.

In any case W selects for a single possibility among the options. If you want to expand W to include subsequent action where that is necessary, it also actualizes the possibility.

The coherency question is why the above two bolded sentences are a problem, as in what logical issue is there that would preclude such a W from existing such that even God cannot have that factor?

I don't care about existence versus coherency versus whatever. I long ago stopped worrying about whether free will is a coherent concept. I'm just trying to get some notion of how it works.

1. A free decision is based on the current state of affairs.

2. However, a free decision is not necessitated by the state of affairs.

3. Nevertheless, a specific decision is made.

4. Therefore, there must be a factor W (for "will") that is also involved in making the decision.

5. Factor W is not a random factor in the sense of having no causes.

6. In what way does factor W contribute to the decision making?

If you don't think that an outcome can ever be necessitated, then you shouldn't object to (2). (I'm not sure how a computer works, then.)

We know there are stochastic processes, so randomness exists. It might always be parameterized so that it is never uniformly random. So then why would (5) bother you?

Yes, W, along with the other inputs to a free decision, select for a single possibility, as stated in (3).

Can you articulate in what way factor W participates in the decision making by selecting one of a set of unnecessitated choices?

~~ Paul

Isn't this doing an injustice to the poor old skeptic represented in this dramatisation? A computer is deterministic, so it cannot possibly have been given as an example of a "how", can it? I wonder what sort of example a skeptic would actually propose as a suitable illustration of the meaning of the word "how"?

I offer all of physics and electronics as an example of how something works; namely, a computer. Note that I am not asking for an explanation that goes all the way down; we probably agree that is impossible under any ontology. I'm just asking for a back-of-the-envelope sketch.


~~ Paul

I don't care about existence versus coherency versus whatever. I long ago stopped worrying about whether free will is a coherent concept.

Your claim that [free will] wasn't coherent is what started this debate?

If there's no issue with coherency now then there's no issue whatsoever?

The data tells us that a certain type of particle has a half-life constant that determines the half life of a large group of particles. I don't know of any data that suggests that the decay of a particular particle is predictable, so it is stochastic. I still do not understand what it means to influence something in a nondeterministic way, but that is what this thread is about.

At no point did I claim that particle decay is deterministic.

~~ Paul

What does it mean to claim something is influenced in a deterministic way?

I gave up forcing the dichotomy about two months ago. I think you've tagged me as a dichotomist with a permanent pen.

How is it that what you're proposing eliminates the something-from-nothing problem? Ultimately, every ontology has a something-from-nothing problem.

~~ Paul

There is no something-from-nothing problem for free-will, rather that is a problem for randomness.

Your claim that [free will] wasn't coherent is what started this debate?

If there's no issue with coherency now then there's no issue whatsoever?

Of course there's an issue. I don't understand how the free part of your mind contributes to decision making.

I wish people would allow me to give up on assumptions I was once making. After all, you think those assumptions are faulty. 

~~ Paul

What does it mean to claim something is influenced in a deterministic way?

It means that a set of causes produces the event and that the event is necessitated. Like a computer.

Please don't try to convince me that there is no such thing. Again, happy to accept that. Still don't understand how nondeterministic influence might work.

~~ Paul