Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)
On 31 May 2012, at 21:38, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 18:29, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won a price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state law forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to Mars without annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and the version of earth complained, and so try again and again, and again ... You are the observer, and from your point of view, you can of course only see the guy who got the feeling to be infinitely unlucky, as if P = 1/2, staying on earth for n experience has probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter experience). Assuming the infinite iteration, the guy as a probability near one to go quickly on Mars. Bruno, Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend to get back to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading about the above experiment that I wanted to clear up. You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is (1/2)^n, where n is the number of teleportations. Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred by the person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time the probability is 1/2, but his experience is harry- Potter-like. I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after the first teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue, does it remain 50%? Yes. Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1 copy on earth. Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be equal to 1/6th? You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense. While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so that I see the probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport button is pressed, I split in two). It is easier for me to see how this works in quantum mechanics under the following experiment: I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y-axis, the probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in 32 (as I have caused 5 splittings), OK. but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5 electrons, but stop once you find one in the up state. That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding to the earth/mars experience. In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following records: 1. D 2. DU 3. DDU 4. DDDU 5. U 6. D However, not all of these copies should have the same measure. The way I see it is they have the following probabilities: 1. D (1/2) 2. DU (1/4) 3. DDU (1/8) 4. DDDU (1/16) 5. U (1/32) 6. D (1/32) I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter experiment, it seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5 copies on mars) is no different from the case where the transporter creates all 5 copies on Mars at once. This is ambiguous. What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net result being 1 copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like stepping into the teleporter once, and the teleporter then creating 5 copies (with delay) on Mars. Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies created with delay on Mars (instead of one with delay). When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created on Mars (with various delays between each one being produced) is the probability of remaining on Earth 1/6th? Yes. That would be a good idea to enhance the probability to be the one, or a one, finding himself of mars. But again, the guy on earth will be in front of the looser, even if you multiply by 20. billions your delayed copies on mars. Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the knowledge that the other copy made it to Mars before stepping into the Teleporter again? I don't understand the sentence. It looks like what is the difference between 24. I apologize for not being clear. There are two different experiments I am contrasting: 1. A person steps into a teleporter, and 5 copies (with varying delays) are reproduced on Mars. 2. A person steps into a teleporter, and a duplicate is created on Mars. To increase the chance of subjectively finding himself on Mars, he does it again (when he fails) and the copy on Earth does so 5 times before giving up. For experiment 1, you and I seem to agree that subjectively, that person person has a 1 in 6 chance of experiencing a continued
Re: Free will in MWI
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote: On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was nonsense not gibberish; I do six impossible things before breakfast is nonsense, sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is gibberish, as is free will. Except that sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is not in every dictionary of the English language that exists, but free will is. It's not a term that is looked up very often though probably, since everyone except you knows exactly what it means already. Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled Free Will and from the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very little agreement as to what it means. Sam, for example, rejects compatibilist free will (e.g. as defended by Daniel Dennett) because he says 'free will' decisions must be conscious decisions. The idea that free will need consciousness and the idea of compatibilism seems compatible to me. Have you an idea why Sam find those ideas incompatible? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On 01 Jun 2012, at 00:14, RMahoney wrote: Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John Clark... Interesting. I would say John has the edge. And I have some comments... Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in this Universe? Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually this universe is a quite vague concept with comp. They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. If that exists. Again my existence is quite a vague notion. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. We are all molecular machines. Locally, that is very plausible, but near death, this is no more assured unless you introduce actual infinities in bith matter and mind, and some link between. We are not bodies, we own bodies. Molecules are clothes, and actually they are map of our most probable computations in arithmetic. This is a consequence of the idea that we are machines. It makes materialism wrong eventually. Matter is a mind construction. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. If that exists. Locally, it is true, but not globally. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. OK. Locally. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. OK. But with different probabilities, and we can manage them from inside. A good thing to avoid sending to a gibberish message. If it is possible for it to exist, it exists, and always can exist. Else it would be impossible, and not exist. I doubt anything like this could ever be proven, but it makes logical sense to me. This is more or less guarantied by the comp hypothesis indeed. But I do not see that this non-deterministic quality of the Universe in any way creates a free will. I agree. That is the key point. Indeterminacy would not add free will, which needs some amount of determinacy to assure the possibility of planning. Free will is more a form of awareness of self-indeterminacy. We just don't live at the level of the determinate laws. No murderer will justify his crimes by saying that he was just obeying to the physical laws. It is basically a confusion of level of description. It just makes the Universe really infinite in possibilities. Will cannot be executed without cause. OK. Even if the result of that process of executing a will was at some point affected by a random quantum event. OK. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Look up 'teleology'. Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is supposed to be. One thing is clear, they had a purpose for a reason or they had a purpose for no reason, there is no third alternative. Almost any reason a person will give If he has a reason then he is deterministic. for their actions will be a reference to some future state. I did it because I desire to be in state X and I believe my present action will bring that about; and my desire and my belief have a cause or they do not have a cause, there is no third alternative. In a deterministic world all physics is time reversible Not necessarily, in a deterministic world X and Y will always produce Z, but Q and T could also always produce Z, so if you detect the existence of Z you can't reverse things and figure out what the world was like in the past, you don't know if it was a world of X and Y or a world of Q and T. In a universe like that you could predict the future but you wouldn't know what happened in the past. Of course this is really moot, we probably don't live in a deterministic world, some things happen for no reason, some things are random. the question is whether this reason in terms of future purpose had a *physical* cause. I don't understand your emphasis, even information is physical, it determines entropy and takes energy to manipulate. I don't know what on earth would a non physical cause be like but I do know that the non physical cause would itself have a cause or it would not have a cause, there is no third alternative. Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. they think some events are physically uncaused So they think it had no cause but not-random So they think it happened for no cause and didn't happen for no cause and once again we enter into the merry world of gibberish. because they are purposeful. Then the purpose is the cause, and the purpose exists for a reason or the purpose exists for no reason, there is no third alternative. it is hard to eliminate the possibility that a 'spirit' might influence the distribution of these random events Then of course they would not be random but determined by the spirit, and the spirit influenced those things for a reason or for no reason, there is no third alternative. I think the apparent markers of 'free will', unpredictability and purposefulness, are easily explained without invoking 'spirits'. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)
On 6/1/2012 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 21:38, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 18:29, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won a price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state law forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to Mars without annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and the version of earth complained, and so try again and again, and again ... You are the observer, and from your point of view, you can of course only see the guy who got the feeling to be infinitely unlucky, as if P = 1/2, staying on earth for n experience has probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter experience). Assuming the infinite iteration, the guy as a probability near one to go quickly on Mars. Bruno, Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend to get back to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading about the above experiment that I wanted to clear up. You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is (1/2)^n, where n is the number of teleportations. Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred by the person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time the probability is 1/2, but his experience is harry-Potter-like. I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after the first teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue, does it remain 50%? Yes. Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1 copy on earth. Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be equal to 1/6th? You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense. While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so that I see the probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport button is pressed, I split in two). It is easier for me to see how this works in quantum mechanics under the following experiment: I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y-axis, the probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in 32 (as I have caused 5 splittings), OK. but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5 electrons, but stop once you find one in the up state. That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding to the earth/mars experience. In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following records: 1. D 2. DU 3. DDU 4. DDDU 5. U 6. D However, not all of these copies should have the same measure. The way I see it is they have the following probabilities: 1. D (1/2) 2. DU (1/4) 3. DDU (1/8) 4. DDDU (1/16) 5. U (1/32) 6. D (1/32) I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter experiment, it seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5 copies on mars) is no different from the case where the transporter creates all 5 copies on Mars at once. This is ambiguous. What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net result being 1 copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like stepping into the teleporter once, and the teleporter then creating 5 copies (with delay) on Mars. Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies created with delay on Mars (instead of one with delay). When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created on Mars (with various delays between each one being produced) is the probability of remaining on Earth 1/6th? Yes. That would be a good idea to enhance the probability to be the one, or a one, finding himself of mars. But again, the guy on earth will be in front of the looser, even if you multiply by 20. billions your delayed copies on mars. Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the
Re: Free will in MWI
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote: On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was nonsense not gibberish; I do six impossible things before breakfast is nonsense, sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is gibberish, as is free will. Except that sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is not in every dictionary of the English language that exists, but free will is. It's not a term that is looked up very often though probably, since everyone except you knows exactly what it means already. Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled Free Will and from the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very little agreement as to what it means. Sam, for example, rejects compatibilist free will (e.g. as defended by Daniel Dennett) because he says 'free will' decisions must be conscious decisions. The idea that free will need consciousness and the idea of compatibilism seems compatible to me. Have you an idea why Sam find those ideas incompatible? Because, almost all of our thinking, including making decisions, is unconscious. I think he implicitly relies on the fold idea of free will so, How can I be the author of my decision if I didn't even think about it. He argues that we can't accept the unconscious working of our bodies as instantiating free will decisions because, he says, it would be absurd to accept the actions of bacteria in your body as representing your free will. Of course Sam rejects incompatibilist free will too and says free will is an illusion of an illusion. Anyway, if you're interested you can read it yourself, it's only 66 pages. Brent Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)
On 01 Jun 2012, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote: On 6/1/2012 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 21:38, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 18:29, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won a price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state law forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to Mars without annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and the version of earth complained, and so try again and again, and again ... You are the observer, and from your point of view, you can of course only see the guy who got the feeling to be infinitely unlucky, as if P = 1/2, staying on earth for n experience has probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter experience). Assuming the infinite iteration, the guy as a probability near one to go quickly on Mars. Bruno, Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend to get back to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading about the above experiment that I wanted to clear up. You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is (1/2)^n, where n is the number of teleportations. Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred by the person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time the probability is 1/2, but his experience is harry-Potter-like. I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after the first teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue, does it remain 50%? Yes. Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1 copy on earth. Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be equal to 1/6th? You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense. While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so that I see the probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport button is pressed, I split in two). It is easier for me to see how this works in quantum mechanics under the following experiment: I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y- axis, the probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in 32 (as I have caused 5 splittings), OK. but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5 electrons, but stop once you find one in the up state. That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding to the earth/mars experience. In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following records: 1. D 2. DU 3. DDU 4. DDDU 5. U 6. D However, not all of these copies should have the same measure. The way I see it is they have the following probabilities: 1. D (1/2) 2. DU (1/4) 3. DDU (1/8) 4. DDDU (1/16) 5. U (1/32) 6. D (1/32) I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter experiment, it seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5 copies on mars) is no different from the case where the transporter creates all 5 copies on Mars at once. This is ambiguous. What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net result being 1 copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like stepping into the teleporter once, and the teleporter then creating 5 copies (with delay) on Mars. Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies created with delay on Mars (instead of one with delay). When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created on Mars (with various delays between each one being produced) is the probability of remaining on Earth 1/6th? Yes. That would be a good idea to enhance the probability to be the one, or a one, finding himself of mars. But again, the guy on earth will be in front of the looser, even if you multiply by 20. billions your delayed copies on mars. Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the knowledge that the other copy made it to Mars before stepping into the Teleporter again? I don't understand the sentence. It looks like what is the difference between 24. I apologize for not being clear. There are two different experiments I am contrasting: 1. A person steps into a teleporter, and 5 copies (with varying delays) are reproduced on Mars. 2. A person steps into a teleporter, and a duplicate is created on Mars. To increase the chance of subjectively finding himself on Mars, he does it again (when he fails) and the copy on Earth does so 5 times before giving up. For experiment 1, you and I seem to agree
Re: Free will in MWI
On 01.06.2012 19:19 meekerdb said the following: On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote: ... Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled Free Will and from the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very little agreement as to what it means. Sam, for example, rejects compatibilist free will (e.g. as defended by Daniel Dennett) because he says 'free will' decisions must be conscious decisions. The idea that free will need consciousness and the idea of compatibilism seems compatible to me. Have you an idea why Sam find those ideas incompatible? Because, almost all of our thinking, including making decisions, is unconscious. I think he implicitly relies on the fold idea of free will so, How can I be the author of my decision if I didn't even think about it. He argues that we can't accept the unconscious working of our bodies as instantiating free will decisions because, he says, it would be absurd to accept the actions of bacteria in your body as representing your free will. Of course Sam rejects incompatibilist free will too and says free will is an illusion of an illusion. Anyway, if you're interested you can read it yourself, it's only 66 pages. Recently I have seen another book in this direction: Derk Pereboom, Living without Free Will (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy) Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism. It just boils down to how you want to define 'free will'. The definition is purposeful and free of coercion is important because it plays a part in social judgement and legal assignment of responsibility. Determinism is thought to be inconsistent with responsibility because some cause outside yourself doesn't count as your responsibility; but given determinism each of your actions can be traced back to causes outside yourself, even to before your birth. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)
On 6/1/2012 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You might be disturbed by the fact that in experience 2, the original remains the same person, so we don't count him as a new person, each time he steps in the box. This, in my opinion, illustrates again that we have to use RSSA instead of ASSA. Suppose the original goes to Mars and the copy stays behind. Then the probability the original went to Mars is 1. The question is asked before the guy enter in the box. This is a step 5 case. The probability to feel to stay the original is 1/2. Everybody feels they are the original. The question before he enters the box is, Will you find yourself on Mars? To which he could reply, What does 'you' refer to? Brent Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John Clark... Interesting. I would say John has the edge. And I have some comments... Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in this Universe? Some might, but I don't. They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where I don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I control, some I don't, some control me. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. No, just free from automatism. If you look at the patterns of low level inorganic matter and distill the most simplistic mathematical patterns within that, and then consider them the only 'laws of the Universe' then you succumb to the cognitive bias of mechanemorphism. The laws of inorganic matter cannot be applied to meaning and awareness. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. Where would sequences of molecular action get a sense of 'will' from? It doesn't make sense. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, What are the laws of probability built on? and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. If it is possible for it to exist, it exists, and always can exist. Else it would be impossible, and not exist. I doubt anything like this could ever be proven, but it makes logical sense to me. But I do not see that this non-deterministic quality of the Universe in any way creates a free will. It just makes the Universe really infinite in possibilities. Will cannot be executed without cause. Even if the result of that process of executing a will was at some point affected by a random quantum event. What you have written here...were you a helpless spectator to the event of it being written deterministically or was it random? Why do you have any more awareness of it than you have of peristalsis or your hair growing? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but incomprehensible. I disagree since there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide evidence against them. But on your view there cannot be evidence for or against because the concept cannot be given any meaning, much less an operational meaning that can be tested. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that Free will is not meaningless. Free will has to mean something before it can be attacked. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean free will is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have in choosing my beliefs. I am not bound to agree with you nor am I bound to disagree with you. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. So what is the fuss about? The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the concept is attacked by scientists and some philosophers as incoherent or empirically false. If they are right it would seem to imply revision of the social/legal concepts and laws derived from it. Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: free will and mathematics
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: Freedom is defined by the observer. Exactly! A man is walking down a road and spots a fork in the road far ahead. He knows of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so he isn't sure if he will go right or left, he hadn't decided. Now imagine a powerful demon able to look into the man's head and quickly deduce that he would eventually choose to go to the left. Meanwhile the man, whose mind works much more slowly than the demon's, hasn't completed the thought process yet. He might be saying to himself I haven't decided, I'll have to think about it, I'm free to go either way. From his point of view he is in a sense correct, even a robot does not feel like a robot, but from the demon's viewpoint it's a different matter, he simply deduced a purely mechanical operation that can have only one outcome. Or it may not be deterministic at all, perhaps I took the left path for no reason at all, either way the free will noise that some human beings like to make is of no more help clarifying the situation than the quack noise ducks like to make. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines free will as follows “ Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents If they're rational there is a reason they do what they do, hence they are deterministic. to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. And there is a reason for making that particular choice or there is not a reason for making that particular choice, there is no third alternative. So what is the fuss about? No fuss at all as long as you don't examine too closely what it is actually trying to say; but to be fair that definition of free will is not significantly more idiotic and self contradictory than the verbiage most professional philosophers churn out. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in this Universe? Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually this universe is a quite vague concept with comp. Don't know comp. As far as I'm concerned, universe can be everything, all permutations. I don't believe there is a mind separate from body. You don't have a mind (or a soul, or whatever metaphysical description of consciousness one might subscribe to) until you have the matter and energy arranged to form the mind. I know matter is a mental concept but yeah, whatever makes up the calculation of that stuff we perceive as matter and energy. When that comes together, you have a mind, and at some point that mind develops a will, but not the other way around. They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism. I agree, will (free has no meaning to me) is enabled by determinism. If there were no process of cause/effect then there could be no calculation of will. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. If that exists. Again my existence is quite a vague notion. Basically I'm saying existence is needed before a will can exist, not the other way around. You have to build the computer before you can execute a program, not the other way around. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. We are all molecular machines. Locally, that is very plausible, but near death, this is no more assured unless you introduce actual infinities in bith matter and mind, and some link between. We are not bodies, we own bodies. Molecules are clothes, and actually they are map of our most probable computations in arithmetic. This is a consequence of the idea that we are machines. It makes materialism wrong eventually. Matter is a mind construction. We are the program which does not exist without the machine (computer). Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. If that exists. Locally, it is true, but not globally. Locally and currently, yes, I understand. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. OK. Locally. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. OK. But with different probabilities, and we can manage them from inside. Yes I understand. We can manage to an extent. There are probable outcomes of our attempts at managing. If restarted with all same initial conditions, our same attempt at managing the probable outcome may result in a different outcome. (Many with equal probability, some not so probable). At any instant in time I think multiple outcomes emerge in the next instant, each just as real to the observer/manager. Or should I say observers/managers, as there are multiple of these for each multiple outcome. A good thing to avoid sending to a gibberish message. I didn't catch the intent of this statement. Maybe I did. Snipped the rest as we seem to agree on the rest. - Roy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 1, 12:27 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism. It just boils down to how you want to define 'free will'. The definition is purposeful and free of coercion is important because it plays a part in social judgement and legal assignment of responsibility. Determinism is thought to be inconsistent with responsibility because some cause outside yourself doesn't count as your responsibility; but given determinism each of your actions can be traced back to causes outside yourself, even to before your birth. Brent Social judgement and such are all human constructs. What is physically behind free will? The programming of our human mind affects the choices we make. We choose to call heads, or we choose to call tails. What is behind our choice? Our complex system of memories and information, current physical cues, etc, all will go into our decision.. we feel the power to make the call whichever way we choose, but that feeling comes from our internal program developed and shaped by our life history. It was determined by our past and our current information. In the instant we make the call, we could be teetering on the very edge of probability, we could go either way, and some quantum event could be just the slightest push needed to have us fall on one side of the fence or the other, in making that call. Replay the same event over again, and we just might make the opposite call, and write a different number in on our lotto ticket, and end up a million dollars richer rather than a dollar short, affecting the rest of our lives so much differently. Free will, or will, is the feeling of having a choice, regardless of the ultimate outcome. What shapes our choice is the deterministic quality of our universe. We have a choice but that choice is determined by all events leading up to that choice. The choice can be between a multitude of potential possibilities, any of which we can make real. All of which are real, to the observer in that particular future. Somehow that gives us a sense of free will. An illusion of free will. Just like the illusion of time. I've come to believe there was no beginning and no end to the universe (universe defined by everything possible), it has always existed and will always exist. It is the set of all possible states, all possible computations. This life I'm leading has been there forever, has played out forever, and every possible variation of it has played out forever, as has every other possible existence, from the lowest form of life to the most intelligent possible. A universe short of infinite might as well be nothing. A large but fixed number of possibilities is about as boring as having only smallest number of possibilities, white versus black, on versus off. The universe should have been nothing at all, or it should be infinite, for me there is no in between. Infinite does not imply there are no impossibilities. Just that the number of possible computations is infinite. Anyway, that's my feeling. Subject to change without notice. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where I don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I control, some I don't, some control me. There is the molecular process that occurs when you command movement, but there is also the molecular and electrical process that occurs to develop that command. It doesn't happen out of thin air. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. No, just free from automatism. If you look at the patterns of low level inorganic matter and distill the most simplistic mathematical patterns within that, and then consider them the only 'laws of the Universe' then you succumb to the cognitive bias of mechanemorphism. The laws of inorganic matter cannot be applied to meaning and awareness. There is no such thing as magic. A computer program can become self aware, and obtain the sense of a free will. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being and sequence of molecular action. Where would sequences of molecular action get a sense of 'will' from? It doesn't make sense. The molecular and electrical action creates a closed loop system of action and observation of it's action, and resulting adjustment of it's action. It is a program with a broad matrix of inputs and outputs. That matrix of senses is consciousness. Molecular action doesn't get a sense of will, it creates a sense of will. Therefore, it does, make, sense. Now I myself believe that probably the laws of the Universe allow it to be non-deterministic. My logic might be simple on this, but if there were no randomness at all, there could be no evolution of the Universe (and probably the laws of the Universe) to become the Universe we observe today. I think if we started (over and over again) with the same initial condition of this moment, that the next moment could be any number of potential outcomes, all within the same laws of the same Universe. The Universe is built upon the laws of probability, What are the laws of probability built on? Mathematics. Quanta. and at the short term macro level things can be fairly predictable, but at the micro level and over long periods of time, things are not so predictable, due to random events at the quantum level. I also subscribe to the idea that all possible outcomes exist simultaneously and forever, as do all possible histories. If it is possible for it to exist, it exists, and always can exist. Else it would be impossible, and not exist. I doubt anything like this could ever be proven, but it makes logical sense to me. But I do not see that this non-deterministic quality of the
Re: Free will in MWI
On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote: They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the Universe in ways that avoid it's laws. Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the universe, therefore whatever we do or can do is inherently a potential of the universe. Free will is not a basic law or building block of the universe. The sense of free will is a result of the process of the universe. I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What process would produce it? I don't believe I willed myself into existence. I cannot will myself to avoid the end of my existence. While I'm here I cannot break any of the laws of the Universe. You don't break the laws, you make new laws. The law of the universe was once 'human beings cannot fly'. Laws of the universe I'm referring to are the real laws, not human's attempt at defining them. Human beings cannot fly is a human thought, not a law. All laws that we understand are necessarily defined by humans. They are our interpretations of observations using our senses, our body, and instruments which we have designed with our senses to extend our human body and human mind. If there is any truly real law, it is that our understanding of what they are gets rewritten frequently. We are all molecular machines. Then molecular machines are also us and molecules are telepathic. Systems of molecules and energy can transmit information across distances, so? Not information. Feelings. Thoughts. Images. Comedy. Irony. Human life. A bar graph is information. Getting your molars ripped out with a pair of pliers is more different. Those molecules operate within the laws of the Universe. We wouldn't know. We only experience molecules indirectly through our instrument-extended perception. What we see of molecules is even less than what an alien astronomer would see looking at the grey patches of human mold growing on the land surfaces of the Earth. The result of their action allows me to think and reason and decide on a course of action, execute a will so to speak, but that will is determined by the sequence of events of the molecules that make up my self. If I move my arm, I directly move it. I don't even need to cognitively 'decide' to move it, I just move the whole arm all at once from my point of view on my native scale of perception. That there are molecules, cells and tissues which make up my brain and body is a fact of a different layer, a different perceptual inertial frame where I don't exist at all. The fact remains though, that I can move my arm at will, and whatever molecular processes need to happen to fulfill my intention will be compelled to happen. That's why there is a difference between voluntary muscles and involuntary muscles. Some I control, some I don't, some control me. There is the molecular process that occurs when you command movement, but there is also the molecular and electrical process that occurs to develop that command. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens out of my active participation in the semantic context of myself and my world. It happens out of desire, purpose, whim, intuition. I command my brain directly. It is top-down as well as bottom up. You are assuming bottom up only which would posit the tortured reasoning of neurons moving my arm for some evolutionary or biochemical reason...which is not true. If it were true, it would be easy to tell because we would have no division of voluntary and involuntary muscle tissue in our body. It would all be automatic. To say free will implies that I somehow avoided the laws of the Universe and resulting cause and effect. Free from the laws of the Universe. No, just free from automatism. If you look at the patterns of low level inorganic matter and distill the most simplistic mathematical patterns within that, and then consider them the only 'laws of the Universe' then you succumb to the cognitive bias of mechanemorphism. The laws of inorganic matter cannot be applied to meaning and awareness. There is no such thing as magic. Imagination is pretty close to magic and it is part of the universe. A computer program can become self aware, and obtain the sense of a free will. No byte of information has ever felt anything or done anything by itself. No program will ever obtain any sense of free will. We may fool ourselves into projecting our own free will onto it, as we do with stuffed animals and good luck charms, but a program has no reality. It's a sophisticated recording. In that sense, there is no such thing as free will, only will, that is determined by your physical being
Re: free will and mathematics
On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not,
that
my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any
determinative physical antecedent.
A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led
to a thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising
really, confusion is inevitable if you insist on trying to make
sense out of gibberish.
So you think the existence of soul or spirit is not just false but
incomprehensible. I disagree since there are experiments (e.g.
healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have provided evidence for
these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide
evidence against them. But on your view there cannot be evidence for
or against because the concept cannot be given any meaning, much less
an operational meaning that can be tested.
From Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans:
p. 300 To make matters worse, there are four distinct ways in which
body/brain and mind/consciousness might in principle, enter into casual
relationship. There might be physical causes of physical states,
physical causes of mental states, mental causes of mental states, and
mental causes of physical states. Establishing which forms of causation
are effective in practice has clear implication for understanding the
aetiology and proper treatment of illness and disease.
Within conventional medicine, physical - physical is taken for granted.
Consequently, the proper treatment for physical disorders is assumed to
be some from of physical intervention. Psychiatry takes the efficacy of
physical - mental causation for granted, along with the assumption that
the proper treatment for psychological disorders may involve
psychoactive drugs, neurosurgery and so on. Many forms of psychotherapy
take mental - mental causation for granted, and assume that
psychological disorders can be alleviated by means of 'talking cures',
guided imagery, hypnosis and other form of mental intervention.
Psychosomatic medicine assumes that mental - physical causation can be
effective ('psychogenesis'). Consequently, under some circumstances, a
physical disorder (for example, hysterical paralysis) may require a
mental (psychotherapeutic) intervention. Given the extensive evidence
for all these causal interactions (cf. Velmans, 1996a), how we to make
sense of them?
Velmans, M. 1996a: The Science of Consciousness: Psychological,
Neuropsychological and Clinical Reviews, London: Routledge.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
