3 ms·

> Everyone who has taken a class on complex systems is aware of the phenomenon of emergence. Interactions (any observed results) are side effects of determinis

> Everyone who has taken a class on complex systems is aware of the phenomenon of emergence. Interactions (any observed results) are side effects of deterministic properties. Not knowing all initial states or the complexity of the intetactions being incomprehensible in aggregate (by humans) is not relevant. Emergence is not incommensurate with determinism. Full stop. Once you figure out that time is an illusion of local shared human memory (if you travel to nonlocal spacetime you will have a divergent memory), the situation becomes clearer. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M Wake me up when there's something new to talk about.

elevenoh 6y ago
>Interactions (any observed results) are side effects of deterministic properties That's my understanding as well. I'm trying find utility in the 1st comment, but I don't see the direction of causality - e.g. emergence of culture from physics (bottom up) - is relevant in determining whether something non-deterministic.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >I'm trying find utility in the 1st comment, but I don't see the direction of causality - e.g. emergence of culture from physics (bottom up) - is relevant in determining whether something non-deterministic. physical determinism isn't relevant for the concept of free will, that is the point of the comment. Emergent properties of the system by definition do not exist at the reductionist level of physics, but that does not render them "not real". It's simply a category error to say that free will does not exist because constituent parts of a system are deterministic, in the same sense as saying that consciousness does not exist because you cannot find it at the level of a neuron, or that the car cannot drive because none of its parts can. Also on the issue of causality which is important, complex systems don't just exhibit bottom-up causality, but the reverse, the system can only made sense of if one takes into account the downward causality from the macro to the micro level which explains why the system functions the way it does and that is what 'will' is in the context of a human to begin with. It's because the system cannot be reduced to bottom-up processes that it is complex, and it is for that reason that concepts such as 'freedom', autonomy', 'intentionality' and so on make sense.
maest 6y ago
> deterministic properties. Thing is, I don't see this addressing quantum mechanics. The randomness in QM is _truly_ random, it's not just a deterministic system where we can't learn the initial state. I'm not saying that means there is free will, but it does counter the argument that everything is _deterministic_. The other wrinkle is that you can have a deterministic system in an infinite space - I'm not sure if that setup still precludes free will.
- withinboredom 6y ago
  You’re making the assumption that nondeterministic QM is the right one. There are other interpretations that are deterministic[1]. Even if it is not deterministic, it’s not determined by free will so it’s a nonissue. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

elevenoh 6y ago

>Interactions (any observed results) are side effects of deterministic properties That's my understanding as well. I'm trying find utility in the 1st comment, but I don't see the direction of causality - e.g. emergence of culture from physics (bottom up) - is relevant in determining whether something non-deterministic.

Barrin92 6y ago
>I'm trying find utility in the 1st comment, but I don't see the direction of causality - e.g. emergence of culture from physics (bottom up) - is relevant in determining whether something non-deterministic. physical determinism isn't relevant for the concept of free will, that is the point of the comment. Emergent properties of the system by definition do not exist at the reductionist level of physics, but that does not render them "not real". It's simply a category error to say that free will does not exist because constituent parts of a system are deterministic, in the same sense as saying that consciousness does not exist because you cannot find it at the level of a neuron, or that the car cannot drive because none of its parts can. Also on the issue of causality which is important, complex systems don't just exhibit bottom-up causality, but the reverse, the system can only made sense of if one takes into account the downward causality from the macro to the micro level which explains why the system functions the way it does and that is what 'will' is in the context of a human to begin with. It's because the system cannot be reduced to bottom-up processes that it is complex, and it is for that reason that concepts such as 'freedom', autonomy', 'intentionality' and so on make sense.

maest 6y ago

> deterministic properties. Thing is, I don't see this addressing quantum mechanics. The randomness in QM is _truly_ random, it's not just a deterministic system where we can't learn the initial state. I'm not saying that means there is free will, but it does counter the argument that everything is _deterministic_. The other wrinkle is that you can have a deterministic system in an infinite space - I'm not sure if that setup still precludes free will.

withinboredom 6y ago
You’re making the assumption that nondeterministic QM is the right one. There are other interpretations that are deterministic[1]. Even if it is not deterministic, it’s not determined by free will so it’s a nonissue. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory