Free will re-redux

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

Of course there is a something-from-nothing problem for free will. Hell, that's the subject of this thread. How does free will produce a decision?

And even if we ignore that question, where did free will come from? We agree that there is no bottom to the question of where things come from, right? Not even god gets to be the bottom.

~~ Paul

Of course there is a something-from-nothing problem for free will. Hell, that's the subject of this thread. How does free will produce a decision?

And even if we ignore that question, where did free will come from? We agree that there is no bottom to the question of where things come from, right? Not even god gets to be the bottom.

~~ Paul

What is the something-from-nothing problem [with free will]? For Physicalism the problem is clearly presented by Atheist Horseman and Neuroscience PhD Sam Harris:

To say “Everything came out of nothing” is to assert a brute fact that defies our most basic intuitions of cause and effect—a miracle, in other words.

Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken.

We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

And for Randomness the materialist Thomas Nail makes the something-from-nothing problem clear in On Being & Motion:

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.

edit: I think God is the Bottom, if such an entity exists?

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

This seems to be the crux of the problem. What is the explanation for how a deterministic influence works?

What does it mean that the event is necessitated?

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

I think it's fine to give up on assumptions...So what assumptions are you making now?

Is the conversation about why others should not believe in free will, or your personal desire to fit free will into the Physicalist belief system?

Or something else?

What is the something-from-nothing problem [with free will]? For Physicalism the problem is clearly presented by Atheist Horseman and Neuroscience PhD Sam Harris:


And for Randomness the materialist Thomas Nail makes the something-from-nothing problem clear in On Being & Motion:

edit: I think God is the Bottom, if such an entity exists?

So your final brute force statement is not a something-from-nothing problem? Why does it get a special dispensation?

Meanwhile, those guys can say anything they want. Why don't they include consciousness in the list of something-from-nothing problems? It's almost as if things-that-we-think-just-are are not something-from-nothing issues.

~~ Paul

I think it's fine to give up on assumptions...So what assumptions are you making now?

Is the conversation about why others should not believe in free will, or your personal desire to fit free will into the Physicalist belief system?

Or something else?

I'm making only the assumptions in this informal list of premises and final question. I was hoping it would focus the conversation.

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?

So your final brute force statement is not a something-from-nothing problem? Why does it get a special dispensation?

Meanwhile, those guys can say anything they want. Why don't they include consciousness in the list of something-from-nothing problems? It's almost as if things-that-we-think-just-are are not something-from-nothing issues.

~~ Paul

How would the existence of God - if such an entity exists - be a Something from Nothing problem? [Getting a bit off topic but it's only a brute fact if there's no reasoning for God's existence.]

The Physicalist faith creates its own problem, by claiming there is no consciousness at the fundamental level. T

And the believer in Randomness similarly insists that something can happen for absolutely no reason at all?

Why would consciousness have a something for nothing problem?

I'm making only the assumptions in this informal list of premises and final question. I was hoping it would focus the conversation.

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?

I assume you want me reply to this ->

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

Why did you use "Nevertheless" in 3? - that implies that there is a way causes necessitate their effects.

There is a way to necessitate effects, which requires a relation between the effect - which doesn't exist yet - and the cause that produces it. The only experience I have with such necessity is when the effect is in mind [as a potential outcome], and then my mind selects one possibility out of the outcomes.

You say you know randomness exists because there are stochastic processes, but to me the very fact these processes can be modeled using probability/statistics shows they aren't random. They maintain a relation to the world.

You seem to be thinking of W as intervening in what is the usual way things work, whereas I've yet to see a reason for why determinism/randomness are the usual way.

In fact since randomness is illogical, facing a Something-from-Nothing problem, and determinism is just a projection of certainty so really a special kind of randomness, still no problem for free will that I can see.

Why I say QED to the coherency question - clearly there's no reason to think free will is impossible. Whether it exists is some other question that hasn't been my concern in these threads.

Cheers,

Sci

edit: A computer works - based on current physics knowledge - because of the averaging out of indeterministic processes at the QM level leads to "adequate determinism". But really how a computer works is largely irrelevant to how free will works since only a single event in the computational/engineering process would be analogous.

How would the existence of God - if such an entity exists - be a Something from Nothing problem? [Getting a bit off topic but it's only a brute fact if there's no reasoning for God's existence.]

The Physicalist faith creates its own problem, by claiming there is no consciousness at the fundamental level. T

And the believer in Randomness similarly insists that something can happen for absolutely no reason at all?

Why would consciousness have a something for nothing problem?

Okay, so it sounds like you use "something from nothing" when talking about something like an event, but not when talking about proposed fundamental existents or processes. I presume you consider god and consciousness to be fundamentals.

But if that is the case, then randomness can just as well be a fundamental. If not, could you please explain when you think "something from nothing" applies and when it does not?

~~ Paul

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?

Why did you use "Nevertheless" in 3? - that implies that there is a way causes necessitate their effects.

Why does it imply that? I'm just trying to emphasize that a specific decision is made even though the current state of affairs does not necessitate that one. Is there a better way to emphasize this?

There is a way to necessitate effects, which requires a relation between the effect - which doesn't exist yet - and the cause that produces it. The only experience I have with such necessity is when the effect is in mind [as a potential outcome], and then my mind selects one possibility out of the outcomes.

Now I'm confused. Are you saying that you select the final choice from the possible choices out of necessity?

You say you know randomness exists because there are stochastic processes, but to me the very fact these processes can be modeled using probability/statistics shows they aren't random. They maintain a relation to the world.

They are random within parameters. That is what a stochastic process is. The group of particles have a known half-life, but a particular particle decays at a random time. You cannot list the order in which the particles will decay nor point to the next one that will.

If you won't grant that the particles decay randomly, then please describe what you think is going on. And if it's something else, then the claim that all this is supported by physics is incorrect. From Wiki:

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed.[2][3][4] However, for a significant number of identical atoms, the overall decay rate can be expressed as a decay constant or as half-life."

You seem to be thinking of W as intervening in what is the usual way things work, whereas I've yet to see a reason for why determinism/randomness are the usual way.

I'm not using words like "intervening." The only time I used the word "random" is to say that factor W is *not* random. I'm simply asking for an overview of how the decision is made. It doesn't matter whether determinism and/or randomness exists. There is still a decision-making "process" to be described.

In fact since randomness is illogical, facing a Something-from-Nothing problem, and determinism is just a projection of certainty so really a special kind of randomness, still no problem for free will that I can see.

You have not proven anything about randomness or determinism, except to say you don't like the ideas. "Something-from-nothing" is not a proof. But, sure, let's discard them. Now, how do I make a free decision?

Why I say QED to the coherency question - clearly there's no reason to think free will is impossible. Whether it exists is some other question that hasn't been my concern in these threads.

You have used "QED" without a proof. But if your entire goal here is to say it's coherent, I'm happy to agree, at least as a means to move on in the conversation.

edit: A computer works - based on current physics knowledge - because of the averaging out of indeterministic processes at the QM level leads to "adequate determinism". But really how a computer works is largely irrelevant to how free will works since only a single event in the computational/engineering process would be analogous.

Oh, so now we have "adequate determinism." I think that needs defining. But I didn't say that computers were relevant to free will. I said that computers are a demonstration that the "how" of something can be pretty deeply specified.

~~ Paul