Abra have you had a chance to read that thread over at the JREF? I think it right up your ally.

Qauntum indeterminism is not acausal, therefore not truly random.

If I poured water from a glass and it suddenly began to boil in mid-air while simultaneuosly taking a path towards another, then I could not be held responsible for the outcome. There was no way to know about that outcome, which would be purely random.

It is the description required for the probability of a well known range of outcomes stemming from well known causes.

Therefore there is no such thing as a free will, whether the universe is completely organized, causal, or completely disorganized and uncaused. The third possibility (mixed caused and unrestrictedly originated events) and the fourth possibility (nothing exists) are shown to be impossible -- the third, as shown above, the foruth, by Descartes' "cogito ergo sum".

The set of natural numbers is infinite, try this one 25^50*15^25, now use a negative definitions to resolve this answer before you die of old age? Not going to happen without a super computer.

If only free will was as easy as 2+2, then we could all brush off our hands and be done with it regardless of positive or negative definitions.

My statements stands negative definitions tell you what something is not, not what something is, even with a neg def, you must then use analysis to reach a conclusion, it provides very little information for your analysis and in a large set its near on useless.

One's will is determined by ones perceptual faculty. What one believes about perceived correlation determines not only which choices one recognizes, but also the possibility of choice one can even be capable of making.

In order to choose 'A', one must first recognize the existence of 'A', for choice presupposes volition.

That is irrefutable.

One is no more responsible for a purely random event than they are for a pre-determined one.

Knowing that the will is determined by belief provides the most freedom one can possibly have to 'better' guide their own thinking/will!

A very important distinction Creative is making here.

Random does not solve free will. A random choice is no more free then a pre-determined one. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ******************

Is it possible that randomness and free will are different 'wavelengths' of the same condition.

Or the crest and trough of the wavelength of another event?
(I am having trouble translating this thought to english)

wux's point:


Well said... But, perhaps, it is wrong to discuss a free will in Absolute terms:
after all, there are many degrees of a free will -- since it really is a relative matter. Consequently, it might be propper to discuss only the degree of a free will -- in that respect it might be clearer what the term means... * * *

Obviously, there ain't no such thing as a Free -- especially when paired with "will". But, to a certain degree, the will might be "free" -- within a strictly defined set of conditioms...

I personally do not feel like I have free will to control the chemical reactions going on in my own body; these reactions appear to be totally random and not under my control. Do these so-called "random chemical reactions" that allow thinking to occur give me free will? My answer is no. Free will is an illusion, in my opinion.

Agreed, except do consider that the carbon atoms will drive you to the grocery store to buy food and will drive you (cause you to go) to find a mate, but the same carbon atom next to you in the wood of your chair does not want to and can not want to do the same actions. Despite the two carbon atoms being completely identical and indistinguishable from each other. The deterministic model does not transfer from chemicals directly to the world of humans. I have not come to any sort of fruitful settling this, but it's for your to consider.

If I do not have "free will" to control the chemical reactions and quantum events occuring in my brain, I do not feel that I have free will. This is why I believe in pre-determinism. Chemical reactions and quantum events happen for a reason, based upon the previous event that ocurred, and other events in the environment...and snow-balling on to the next, and next and next.

In the case of rolling the dice, we say there is a probability of getting such and such. But, if you looked at each milli, milli, milli second from the time the dice is thrown, and analyzed each individual unit of time down to approaching zero time, based upon the trajectory, velocity, wind conditions construction of the dice, you could determine what number was going to land in my opinion. It is an illusion that you cannot determine what the number will be, you can if you know all the conditions affecting each subsequent milli, milli milli second.


Maybe I do not understand the question, I dunno.

I did read some of it.

I have so many comments and concerns that I decided it wouldn't be worth bringing them up. I'd be better off just writing a book.

In the OP of that thread it is stated:

"Some think nature's indeterminism only exists at the level of quarks and electrons. But Searle says this is wrong. Indeterminism goes all the way from quarks to baseballs."

Personally I see no need for indeterminism to exist on the macro level. It simply isn't required. Creation begins at the quantum level, not the macro level.

This is especially true with respect to human thinking. Our brains don't operate on a macro scale. We may think of brains as being macro objects, but they don't operate on a macro level. They operate on a quantum level via electrical activity, and other quantum phenomena

Therefore what a baseball might do after it is hit by a bat is totally irrelevant to the topic of "free will". What's relavent to free will is the conscious process of the entity who swung the bat.

The indeterminism of the universe arises from the quantum level, and that would include the cerebral processes of all beings that have organic neural nets. But it would also include other natural processes that gave rise to the very evolution and existence of bilogical neural nets.

To now look at a baseball and ask if it's behavior is 'indeterminant' is to entirely miss the point, IMHO.

Indeterminism is the basis of creation, and the thinking process of biological neural nets. In fact, this would also be true of manmade neural nets as well. When mankind prefects the construction of "artificial" or manmade neural nets (which they are already building), they very well may create a conscious sentient mind that has it's own free will.

I expect that they most certainly will do this. I only hope that they recognize the free will sentience of the being they create.

But they probably won't. Mankind as a whole tends to be quite arrogant about things like that, unfortunately.

I already have a very solid working understanding of QM as well as the macro world. I'm totally comfortable with how free will and conscious sentience can exist in this world.

I try to share my understanding with other people, but all they want to do is argue about it. I have no desire to argue about it. I'm quite content with my own understanding of things. It makes perfect sense to me. I have no fear of randomness. From my point of view it's the greatest gift we could have ever been bestowed with. Why people find it so repugnant is beyond me.

You're just denying the accepted formal meanings of these words.

Quantum indeterminism is indeed acausal. Just as the outcome of a toss of dice is acausal.


The fact that the dice have 'form' does not equate to the 'cause' of any particular roll.

Tossing dice is considered to be a "truly random' act mathematically speaking. In fact, the probability curves of tossing dice over many rolls can be predicted only because it's a truly random act. If it wasn't truly random the probability formulas wouldn't work.

If you want to say that the over-all probability distributes are restricted, then no one would argue with that. This is indeed the case. Yet that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that each individual quantum event is indeed truly random.

You're must mincing words in ways that don't fit the formal definitions of those words as they are used within the sciences and mathematics.

It's simply incorrect to say that quantum events aren't 'truly random'. That's simply not true based on what these words mean within the formalism.

You must have a phobia to 'randomness' to go to such extremes as to deny the very meanings of these formal terms.

You're probably confusing it with complete chaos. In fact, I'm sure you are based on what you say,...



That wouldn't merely be "random", that would be random "chaos"

If you drop a coin and it can only land in one of two positions but you can't predetermine which of those two positions it's going to land in, then that coin toss is 'truly random'.

It wouldn't need to do something absurd like trun into a butterfly and fly away in order to be considered to be 'truly random'.

If all it ever does is land heads or tails, and nothing else, but those two states are unpredictable, then it's 'truly random'.

You're insistence that other possibilities must be present for something to be 'truly random' is simply incorrect by the formal accepted meaning of 'randomness'.

You're demanding definitions for 'randomness' that simply don't exist. You're making up your own semantics.