BothAndBlog Forum

The Argument There Is Determinism And Free Will
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/909891

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon

Your Fork-in-the-Road argument may illustrate the notion of Free Will choices. But as a philosophical proof, it may or may not be convincing to determinists. Nevertheless, I agree that world Causation is both Deterministic and Indeterminate (undecided, uncertain). Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. Yet the unconstrained choice itself is not random (chaotic)*1, but determined by future-aimed intention.

Materialist arguments against FreeWill tend to be based on Physics, not Metaphysics. So, here's a physical analogy of that BothAnd process, both universally deterministic, and locally indeterminate. It can be found in Chaos Theory, sometimes labeled "deterministic chaos"*2. In the 1960s, meteorologist Ed Lorenz did experiments in weather simulations, and summarized his findings in the Lorenz Equations. The math, when graphed, looked a bit like a butterfly*5 {image below}, and eventually inspired the meme of a "Butterfly Effect" : a butterfly in Brazil could indirectly cause a tornado in Texas --- depending on initial conditions, and statistical absences (missing data points).

The Lorenz equations are completely deterministic, but inherently unpredictable. From preset Initial Conditions, the dynamic process will evolve over time into a graph that cycles around so-called "Attractors", as-if bound by gravity. But there's no mass at the center, only empty statistical space (potential). In Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon used that physical principle of a self-organizing dynamic system as an illustration of "downward causation"*3. However, "An attractor does not "attract" in the sense of a field of force; rather it is the expression of an asymmetric statistical tendency"*4.

The statistical nature of Nature was found to be fundamental in Quantum Physics. So perhaps, that mathematical structure has gaps like the Cosmic Voids*6 {image below} in the distribution of spatial matter. Anyway. it's a neat metaphor for the gaps in Determinism that leave empty space (junctions ; decision points) to be filled by human Choices.



*1. Does freedom mean chaos?
Freedom is an adjective describing a state of being. It means one can act without limit or restraint in some form or manner. Example being freedom of speech, one is allowed to speak his opinions without feeling limited from federal law. Chaos is describing the landscape in which the being is making those decisions.
https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-lead-to-chaos

*2. Deterministic Chaos :
This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as: Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Note --- I assume that, by "approximate", Lorenz meant local causes and effects. That's why the eventual Butterfly Effect (Texas Tornado) is typically far from the initial state (Brazil Butterfly). In other words, the effect is indirect. Likewise, my mental choice to start or stop my 3500lb material car, is indirect --- mediated by machinery.

*3. MInd has Causal Efficacy :
"In the end, mind has causal efficacy because it is itself a hole, an attractor, and by disturbing the metaphorical shape of its own attractor"
https://ruminations.blog/2017/06/27/rev ... te-nature/
Note --- Deacon called that "hole" at the focal point of a chaotic attractor an example of "causal absence". Hence, the choosing Mind is a Determining Factor of subsequent events.

*4. https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_webl ... ogies.html

*5. divergence3final.png

*6. Cosmic-Web-1024x768.jpg

Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. — Gnomon
The orthodox articulation of the debate requires either positing free will as a magical kind of cause that is causally determined and/or a gap in causality that allows this unique kind of event to occur. Neither is at all plausible. — Ludwig V

Yes. I'm aware that my "articulation" of a Causal Gap in Determinism is un-orthodox. But it's based on science, not magic. Beginning in the early 2000s, scientists began to study Complexity and Chaos seriously. The Santa Fe Institute was established specifically to bring together physicists & mathematicians, and a few philosophers, to learn about some of the Uncertainties in Nature that puzzled the early Quantum pioneers. Quantum Mechanics seemed to be missing a few gears. So, the Uncertainty Principle has been postulated as an opportunity for the exercise of FreeWill. In opposition, the Conjecture of SuperDeterminism*1 has been proposed, but as the link below notes, its argument seems circular.

For my own philosophical purposes, I'm trying to think ahead of pragmatic science. The metaphor I'm postulating is not yet "plausible" for scientific purposes, but I think it can provide fodder for philosophizing. Most traditional arguments against Fatalistic Determinism are based on Morality. But this metaphor is based on physical Contingency*2 : opportunities for innovation.

Based, in part, on the studies linked in my previous post, I have concluded that Magic is not necessary to control Destiny. Instead, Physics has found Gaps in Natural Determinism for Meta-Physics to fill with the kind of statistical Potential that Terrence Deacon described as "Causal" or "Constituitive Absence"*3. That counter-intuitive notion may begin to make sense though, if you combine it with Ed Lorenz's non-linear complexity equations that, when graphed by a computer {dynamic image below}, reveal an absence at the center of Chaos, that has been labeled a "Strange Attractor". Complexity is indeterminate, due to the Contingencies of Initial Conditions.

That hole at the center of Determinism may be "strange" but it's not a god-of-the-gaps conjecture. It's a feature of Nature that the human mind may be able to exploit in order to impose its will on Nature. We know it happens --- we call it Culture*4 --- but explaining exactly how mind-over-matter works may take more time. For now, we can draw upon Complexity & Chaos science for philosophical metaphors to help us understand how human Will can evade Fate.

Lorenz's equations have already been used to explain why the weather is unpredictable. Maybe, in time, they will also reveal why the human mind is unpredictable. It's called Creativity.


*1. Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? :
In a recent video, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, whose work I admire, notes that superdeterminism eliminates the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics. . . .
The arguments seem circular : the world is deterministic, hence quantum mechanics must be deterministic.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... free-will/

*2. Contingency vs Destiny :
"Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life used the story of the origin of animals during the Cambrian radiation to argue that contingency has had a dominant role in the history of life. . . . .
Although contingency may play a central role in many other complex adaptive systems, few have explored the importance of contingency and determinism, and this discussion has been largely lacking at SFI".
https://santafe.edu/events/contingency- ... ve-systems

*3. What is Constitutive Absence?
A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html

*4. Nature vs Culture :
Nature didn't give us wings to fly to the moon. But it gave us the ability to impose our collective Will upon the physical world by means of Culture : human intellectual & intentional achievements.


PS___ Notice that the moving dot --- a point in statistical phase space --- cycles over time toward infinity, but it never crosses its own path, and it never enters the Destiny Gap in the center. This may be the Absence that Deacon labelled "Causal".
A_Trajectory_Through_Phase_Space_in_a_Lorenz_Attractor.gif

Yes, and they are less than persuasive for that reason. . . .
Laplace's demon is a version of fatalistic determinism and easier to refute on logical grounds than causal determinism. — Ludwig V

I think you missed the point of my post in favor of FreeWill for moral agents. Moral arguments carry no weight for scientists. But shouldn't they be indicative for philosophers? I wasn't presenting empirical evidence of freedom from determinism, but merely a suggestive analogy, to indicate that, in natural processes, Determinism is not absolute. So, why assume human choices are forbidden by the gapless Chain of Cause & Effect?

Laplace's Demon was a metaphor*1, similar to my own Determinism Gap conjecture. Obviously, he was not talking about an actual Demon, but a hypothetical fiction. Is there some logical error in his If-Then model? If an omniscient entity exists, then all future states are pre-known. But Determinism is actual & absolute in effect, only if that Causal entity freely chooses to make it so.

*1. Spooky Science : Laplace's Demon
The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future. That creature is Laplace's demon.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-sc ... ces-demon/
Note --- Although Laplace responded to Napoleon's question about a place for God in his science with : "I have no need for that hypothesis", he felt the need to conjecture a different supernatural agency, whose omniscience is necessary to pre-determine every step into the future.

It's a feature of Nature that the human mind may be able to exploit in order to impose its will on Nature. — Gnomon
If we think of it like that, we are making a mistake. The human mind is a product of Nature and part of it. Or, to put it another way, to think of Nature as something to exploit perpetuates the practices that have landed us with climate change. Worse than that, although we can and do exploit Nature in some ways, Nature also imposes itself on us - witness climate change and antibiotic resistance. It has to be a balance. — Ludwig V

Sorry if my term "exploit" offended your liberal sensibilities. I intended the word to be taken literally --- in the sense of manipulating Nature to derive some benefit to humanity --- but not politically. Everything artificial in the world "exploits" some feature of nature to give humans an advantage over animals. If humans hadn't "exploited" the natural phenomenon of fire, how would they survive the Ice Ages with no natural fur to keep them warm. Yes, the influence works both ways as give & take. But that's a whole other issue.

When we exploit the Causal Gap in Determination, the effect is literally un-natural. I didn't intend to start a Nature vs Culture argument. However, your cell phone is a multifaceted example of such exploitation. It serves the human purpose of storing & transmitting artificial ideas & images in an unnatural manner, by exploiting radio waves to impose artificial patterns that only humans can interpret as meaningful.

Lorenz's equations have already been used to explain why the weather is unpredictable. Maybe, in time, they will also reveal why the human mind is unpredictable. — Gnomon
Yes, I'm aware that there are many examples of systems and situations that reveal that the systems at work in the world are much more complex and much less predictable than our classical models have recognized. They do give us a basis for thinking that human life may be, in the end, not incompatible with scientific explanation. But they do not get us there, any more than simple randomness gets us there. I think that the research into self-constituting autonomous systems, feedback loops and ideas like Conway's Game of Life are much more to the point. — Ludwig V

Personally, I don't think human Life, or Culture, is incompatible with scientific explanation. We are just at the early stages of a science of Complexity & Chaos. Your examples of research into complex feedback & looping systems are along the same lines that the Santa Fe Institute is trying to make compatible with scientific methods.

I don't think that unpredictability is a significant phenomenon here. Volcanoes and football matches, not to mention the weather, are all unpredictable. But no-one thinks that free will is involved. — Ludwig V

Again, I was using weather complexity as a metaphor, from which to draw inferences about human exploitation of natural properties. I wasn't implying freewill in Natural phenomena, but in Cultural noumena, which is commonly assumed to result from collective human intentions & purposes & willpower. Here's just one of many examples of someone who thinks FreeWill is associated with the unpredictability of Complexity*2. Google "Emergence" and you will find many articles with similar associations.

*2. Emergence and Free Will :
"Free will is the ability to make choices, but if our bodies and brains are governed by deterministic physical laws, our choices are completely determined. . . .
The complex systems in this book suggest the alternative that free will, at the level of options and decisions, is compatible with determinism at the level of neurons (or some lower level). In the same way that a traffic jam moves backward while the cars move forward, a person can have free will even though neurons don’t.
https://runestone.academy/ns/books/publ ... eWill.html
Note --- Emergence is a Holistic phenomenon, which is overlooked by Reductive scientific methods.



PS___
although Laplace and Napoleon argued about who had created the universe – a chain of natural causes, which was also responsible for its preservation, according to Laplace; that plus divine intervention according to Napoleon and Herschel himself – Laplace does not seem to have used that brilliant phrase as an answer.
https://institucional.us.es/blogimus/en ... n-and-god/

Yes. Physics doesn't have the conceptual apparatus to describe or even acknowledge choices. Ordinary life requires a whole different way of thinking. — Ludwig V

Good point! Until the advent of Quantum physics, scientists had no need for a "conceptual apparatus" of "choices". But the necessity for Observer choices --- in experimental set-up, and interpretation of evidence --- resulted in "a whole different way of thinking". For example, Multiverses and Many Worlds conjectures would never have occurred to classical physicists. The Uncertainty Principle has raised many questions & eyebrows : not least about the continuity of Cause & Effect in the physical world, and the role of mental Choices in material physics.

Choices in Physics :
According to quantum physics, when we choose a path in decision making in our life, do we also create an alternative branch reality that we chose a different path? . . . .
Quantum physics has no model of human intention and decision-making. Usual physicalists would deny any actual decision happening, thinking of consciousness as an (emergent) effect of millions of microscopic neuronal processes.
https://www.quora.com/According-to-quan ... erent-path

Determinism is not absolute. So, why assume human choices are forbidden by the gapless Chain of Cause & Effect? — Gnomon
Any events that are not determined by cause and effect are indeterminate. Freedom (or at least the philosophical version of it) is a language-game distinct from physics, etc. — Ludwig V

Yes. I was using physical indeterminacy as a parallel analogy to the philosophical question of Freedom vs Determinism. Do you consider philosophy to be an ideal "language game" of no importance in the "real" world?

Classical Physical Determinism (cause & effect) implied that only one course of events is possible*1. But Quantum Physics is uncertain and indeterminate at the fundamental level, allowing more than one path from Cause to Effect. Some scientists inferred that the mind of the scientist could play the role of a Cause in the experiment.

Do you see any philosophical implications of that well-known fact? Indeterminacy is a mathematical concept ; whereas Freedom is a human feeling, derived from lack of obstacles to Willpower*2. Do you see any relationship between physical freedom (mathematical value) and mental freedom*3 (metaphysical value)?


*1. Quantum indeterminacy is the assertion that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

*2. Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon. ___Wikipedia

*3. Quantum Consciousness :
New research indicates that consciousness may rely on quantum mechanics. Perhaps the brain does not operate in a "classical" way.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain ... anglement/

But the necessity for Observer choices --- in experimental set-up, and interpretation of evidence --- resulted in "a whole different way of thinking". — Gnomon
H'm. I probably don't know enough to evaluate that. But I would have thought that observer choices in setting up experiments and interpreting evidence have always played an essential role in science. Though it is true that scientists have mostly assumed that it is possible to observe phenomena without affecting them, and that only becomes inescapably false at the sub-atomic level. — Ludwig V

Yes. But, at the macro level, the minuscule "observer effect"*1 could be ignored. Only after scientists began probing into the microscopic level of physics did the Observer play a significant role in the outcome of an experiment.

Although the Double-Slit Effect is well-attested, its philosophical & metaphysical implications are still debatable. Some think the Cause of the effect is physical nudging, while others infer that Conscious probing can affect entanglement. No need for us to untangle that conundrum here. We can still draw analogies from physics to metaphysics.


*1. The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

I try not to mention metaphysics, since I don't know what it means. . . . .
Now there's something to agree with, so long as it isn't taken to have metaphysical implications. — Ludwig V

I've enjoyed discussing the old Freedom vs Determinism question with you. But if you are going to place Metaphysics*1 off-limits in a philosophical forum, my arguments will be nullified, because the whole point is to explore the "metaphysical implications" of physical observations.

From my personal perspective, Philosophy is not Physics, but Meta-physics*2 --- in the scientific Aristotelian sense, not the religious Scholastic sense. Philosophy is about Ideas, not real things. And Freedom is an Idea, that can't be placed under a microscope, but under the penetrating eye of Reason. If you don't like the medieval connotations of the term "metaphysics", let's just call it "Philosophy".

*1. Aristotle. …metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-philosophy

*2. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I'll buy that. I'm sure we can get along and maybe occasionally agree to disagree. Most topics in philosophy seem to have only contested definitions, so there's nothing new here. — Ludwig V

This is a philosophy forum, not a Communist Re-education Camp. So of course we are free to disagree. But, I suspect that we are not that far apart on the topic of this thread. So, once more into the breach . . .

The traditional arguments against human Freewill were typically based on the assumption that the whole world, from Big Bang onward, is a linear deterministic physical system. But 20th & 21st century physics has cast doubt on that 17th century Classical assumption. LaPlace's Demon may have been a prescient insight about that presumption ; he described inevitable gapless Demonic Determinism as supernatural instead of natural. Modern physics has found a limited role for non-linear Chaos*1 --- butterfly effect --- within natural systems, that might conceivably have allowed freethinking humans to evolve from dumb robotic apes.

Even skeptical Daniel Dennett claims to be a compatibilist*2, in his book Freedom Evolves. So, that's all my linear-Determinism-vs-non-linear-Freedom analogy is proposing. The rest is up to the individual, to decide if her willpower is capable of imagining and implementing un-predetermined novelties within the physical (phenomenal) and metaphysical (noumenal) realms of reality. For example, is it possible that a long-standing human metaphysical desire/will for a short-cut from Atlantic to Pacific oceans could have a physical causal effect on the geology of Panama --- not moving mountains by faith, as suggested by Jesus, but moving mountains by dynamite, as implemented by French & American engineers.

Anyway, all I'm suggesting is that FreeWill is not incompatible with the mathematics of natural processes, as sometimes argued. Instead, physics has instances of both boring linear and surprising non-linear changes over time. With that in mind, what is your positive or negative "definition" of Freedom within Determinism? Yea or Nay?



*1. Does Chaos Theory Allow For FreeWill?
“The two things are not directly connected. We certainly have free will (the ability to make decisions that are ours), and chaos theory certainly works for complex physical systems, so the two must be compatible.
The brain/mind, however, is the kind of complex system that chaos theory describes, so how we perceive ourselves is predicated on the kind of systemic consistency and specific unpredictability which chaos theory helps describe.”
https://www.quora.com/Does-chaos-theory ... -free-will


*2. Determinism-Freedom Compatibilism :
“Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves

That's true only because of quantum indeterminacy. So, instead of strict determinism from big bang to present, there's numerous instance of probabilistic determinism along the way. It remains to be seen if quantum indeterminacy plays a role in mental processes (some think it does), but if so- it would only seem to add a random element to the otherwise fully deterministic processes, which doesn't make it more free (in a libertarian free will sense). — Relativist

Yes. That's why I'm only advocating FreeWill in a Compatibilist sense. Humans obviously don't have god-like magical freedom to do anything they want. But they are also not constrained from exercising a few degrees of freedom from absolute locked-in Determinism. If I choose to reach-out and pick-up a cup of coffee, I don't have to stop and think whether this choice was allowed by the all-powerful Big Bang roll-of-the-dice 14 billion earth-years ago. I just do it. My freedom is not an illusion, if the cup actually rises to meet my mouth.

Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic. So, our few degrees of freedom lie in the gray transition zone between Physics (matter) and Meta-physics (mind). You could say that Quantum Physics forced us to acknowledge that nothing in the world is absolute. It's governed, not by certainty, but by probability. Instead, the statistical nature of Nature, randomness, adds an element of uncertainty to any action.

Unfortunately, Las Vegas gamblers imagine that the odds favor the clever or lucky, instead of the house, holding all the cards. That's what a compatibilist would call "pushing your luck".


The statistical nature of Nature :
A deterministic model is a mathematical model in which the output is determined only by the specified values of the input data and the initial conditions. This means that a given set of input data will always generate the same output.
A statistical model is a mathematical model in which some or all of the input data have some randomness, for example as expressed by a probability distribution, so that for a given set of input data the output is not reproducible but is described by a probability distribution. . . . Statistical models can be run by using Monte Carlo simulation.
https://www.sv-europe.com/blog/what-is- ... al-models/

There is only an illusion of freedom. — Relativist

What material evidence do you have to support your belief that personal choice is illusory?