5 ms·

It seems a question of whether, given that you made a decision y[c] and the prior state of the world is x, how much of y[c] could we have determined just knowin

It seems a question of whether, given that you made a decision y[c] and the prior state of the world is x, how much of y[c] could we have determined just knowing state x.

danbruc 8y ago
That is what I thought, free will means that, when I face a decision, my choice is neither determined by the current state of the universe - me and my entire environment - nor is my choice independent of the current state of the universe, i.e. it is not purely random. If you rewind the universe to the same decision again and again, I will make different choices in different iterations, i.e. the choices are independent of and therefore not predictable from the state of the universe, but they are also not just random because that would not be free will either. And we can also allow mixtures of both, say for example were the current state of the universe determines a probability distribution and the choice is random but distributed according to that probability distribution. With this interpretation of free will it seems almost obvious that it can not exist, how could a choice neither be depended nor independent of the current state of the universe? I can not even start to imagine such a thing, it seems we would have to have missed something very fundamental about the world, like discovering that two things can not only be the same or not the same but that there is actually a third option. But as it turns out some and probably many people don't think of that when they say free will. They mean something a lot weaker, namely that their choices reflect their desires, that they do what they want, at least to the extend that external constraints allow it. For that definition of free will it is totally fine that your choices are determined by the current state of the universe as long as they align with your desires. I would say it seems quite obvious that humans have this kind of free will, we mostly do what we want as far as allowed by external constraints. I would also say that we generally do not perfectly have this free will, an arachnophobic person, for example, may desire not to be scared by a small spider but may be unable to control their instinctive reaction. So my current point of view is that free will does and doesn't exist, it just depends on what precisely you mean when you say it. I also wanted for quite some time to go over all the common views on free will and see how many of them are really conflicting views, I could well imagine that there are far less real conflicts than it may seem at first glance.
- Maybestring 8y ago
  >If you rewind the universe to the same decision again and again, I will make different choices in different iterations, i.e. the choices are independent of and therefore not predictable from the state of the universe, but they are also not just random because that would not be free will either. That is still randomness, it's a random distribution conditioned on the world state.
  - danbruc 8y ago
    No, what I mean is that the choice must not be determined by the state of the universe, that would not be free will in the sense I try to define here, and it must not be independent of everything, i.e. it must not be random, because that would not be free will either. I am defining free will and I am requiring specific properties, among others non random choices, I am not looking at the properties of a given definition, for example whether choices are just random. So the challenge is, if you want to argue that this kind of free will exists, to find or invent something, that can influence your choices but that is neither the state of the universe nor randomness. It is the inability to do this - assuming we really can not do this - that proves that this kind of free will does not exist. The example I usually use is that you are sitting in a restaurant and you have to choose between ordering steak and fish. And we repeat this over and over again by rewinding the universe to the point just before you make your choice. If you have free will in the sense I am just trying to defining with this, you will not always make the same choice in every iteration, or at least not necessarily, but maybe you really don't like fish, I wich case the experimental setup is just bad. But the important thing is that your choice it not simply a deterministic function of the current state of the universe, including your personal history and the environment you are in. On the other hand I also require that your choice is not simply random, possibly according to a probability distribution depending on the state of the universe reflecting your past experiences with and preferences for steak and fish, maybe in the specific restaurant, maybe depending on your mood or whatever else may play a role. If it were just random, then I would not consider it free will either under this definition. And now the challenge is to identify something that could influence your choice but that is not the state of the universe and that is not randomness. If you can find such a thing, then you can have free will according to this definition of it, otherwise there is no free will in this sense. This is obviously quite hard because there are not that many things remaining after taking away the current state of the universe and randomness. Nevertheless you could try to come up with souls or minds or, I don't know, maybe Platonic mathematical objects that are not part of the state of the universe and outside of space and maybe even time and then you could investigate whether those things could somehow provide what is required for you to have free will in this sense. Personally I don't think you can come up with something that works and that is consistent with itself and the world as we know it, but what do I know? EDIT: While I edited out some mistakes, I got an idea that I had not thought about before and that is not too esoteric. Your choices could not only depend on the current state of the universe but also on a past state of the universe or its entire history so that you could not necessarily predict choices by just looking at the current state of the universe. It also would not just be a random choice. That does not, as far as we know, work in our universe because the evolution of the universe is unitary so that all past - and future - states of the universe are implicit in any one state of the universe, but one could probably imagine a consistent universe with certain laws of nature where the current state of the universe does not entail all information about the past and the future. So maybe, but certainly not obviously, that could be a path towards free will in the sense I defined it, by messing a bit with the laws of nature so that the current state of the universe looses some if its power.

It seems a question of whether, given that you made a decision y[c] and the prior state of the world is x, how much of y[c] could we have determined just knowing state x.

danbruc 8y ago

That is what I thought, free will means that, when I face a decision, my choice is neither determined by the current state of the universe - me and my entire environment - nor is my choice independent of the current state of the universe, i.e. it is not purely random. If you rewind the universe to the same decision again and again, I will make different choices in different iterations, i.e. the choices are independent of and therefore not predictable from the state of the universe, but they are also not just random because that would not be free will either. And we can also allow mixtures of both, say for example were the current state of the universe determines a probability distribution and the choice is random but distributed according to that probability distribution. With this interpretation of free will it seems almost obvious that it can not exist, how could a choice neither be depended nor independent of the current state of the universe? I can not even start to imagine such a thing, it seems we would have to have missed something very fundamental about the world, like discovering that two things can not only be the same or not the same but that there is actually a third option. But as it turns out some and probably many people don't think of that when they say free will. They mean something a lot weaker, namely that their choices reflect their desires, that they do what they want, at least to the extend that external constraints allow it. For that definition of free will it is totally fine that your choices are determined by the current state of the universe as long as they align with your desires. I would say it seems quite obvious that humans have this kind of free will, we mostly do what we want as far as allowed by external constraints. I would also say that we generally do not perfectly have this free will, an arachnophobic person, for example, may desire not to be scared by a small spider but may be unable to control their instinctive reaction. So my current point of view is that free will does and doesn't exist, it just depends on what precisely you mean when you say it. I also wanted for quite some time to go over all the common views on free will and see how many of them are really conflicting views, I could well imagine that there are far less real conflicts than it may seem at first glance.

Maybestring 8y ago
>If you rewind the universe to the same decision again and again, I will make different choices in different iterations, i.e. the choices are independent of and therefore not predictable from the state of the universe, but they are also not just random because that would not be free will either. That is still randomness, it's a random distribution conditioned on the world state.
- danbruc 8y ago
  No, what I mean is that the choice must not be determined by the state of the universe, that would not be free will in the sense I try to define here, and it must not be independent of everything, i.e. it must not be random, because that would not be free will either. I am defining free will and I am requiring specific properties, among others non random choices, I am not looking at the properties of a given definition, for example whether choices are just random. So the challenge is, if you want to argue that this kind of free will exists, to find or invent something, that can influence your choices but that is neither the state of the universe nor randomness. It is the inability to do this - assuming we really can not do this - that proves that this kind of free will does not exist. The example I usually use is that you are sitting in a restaurant and you have to choose between ordering steak and fish. And we repeat this over and over again by rewinding the universe to the point just before you make your choice. If you have free will in the sense I am just trying to defining with this, you will not always make the same choice in every iteration, or at least not necessarily, but maybe you really don't like fish, I wich case the experimental setup is just bad. But the important thing is that your choice it not simply a deterministic function of the current state of the universe, including your personal history and the environment you are in. On the other hand I also require that your choice is not simply random, possibly according to a probability distribution depending on the state of the universe reflecting your past experiences with and preferences for steak and fish, maybe in the specific restaurant, maybe depending on your mood or whatever else may play a role. If it were just random, then I would not consider it free will either under this definition. And now the challenge is to identify something that could influence your choice but that is not the state of the universe and that is not randomness. If you can find such a thing, then you can have free will according to this definition of it, otherwise there is no free will in this sense. This is obviously quite hard because there are not that many things remaining after taking away the current state of the universe and randomness. Nevertheless you could try to come up with souls or minds or, I don't know, maybe Platonic mathematical objects that are not part of the state of the universe and outside of space and maybe even time and then you could investigate whether those things could somehow provide what is required for you to have free will in this sense. Personally I don't think you can come up with something that works and that is consistent with itself and the world as we know it, but what do I know? EDIT: While I edited out some mistakes, I got an idea that I had not thought about before and that is not too esoteric. Your choices could not only depend on the current state of the universe but also on a past state of the universe or its entire history so that you could not necessarily predict choices by just looking at the current state of the universe. It also would not just be a random choice. That does not, as far as we know, work in our universe because the evolution of the universe is unitary so that all past - and future - states of the universe are implicit in any one state of the universe, but one could probably imagine a consistent universe with certain laws of nature where the current state of the universe does not entail all information about the past and the future. So maybe, but certainly not obviously, that could be a path towards free will in the sense I defined it, by messing a bit with the laws of nature so that the current state of the universe looses some if its power.