5 ms·

Illustrating That Free Will Must Be an Illusion Using 25 Lines of Ruby

5 points by danielrm26 12y ago

novacole 12y ago
Since the code will never finish executing, it isn't correct to say that free will has been proven to be an illusion. Even if it could, the most that can be proved to be true is that a certain aspect of the universe is fully determined. It does not follow that simply because certain aspects of the universe are determined (such as a computer program) that human action is wholly determined. That would be like saying that because certain aspects of the universe are conscious and self-aware, the entire universe is conscious and self-aware.
- danielrm26 12y ago
  It is true that the program doesn't show free will is completely impossible for all instants in time (because it cannot test infinite instants), but one has to wonder why any instant n would be different than the first. Your second point equates to, "Well, we don't know everything about everything in the universe, so there might be a mechanism for free will we haven't discovered." True, but that also applies to every other proposition that we can safely disregard because there's no good reason to accept it. In the case of free will, we as potential authors of action need a lever for injecting ourself into the universe's chain of events. We need a hook. We need an influence point. But since we ourselves are products of that universe, such a mechanism is purely speculative. The only reason we think free will exists is because we experience it. But given our understanding of the brain and its propensity for projecting all manner of illusions onto our consciousness, I submit we should not consider this evidence. Show us how we have gained control over a previous state of the universe in one of the instants between the big bang and now, or show us how we can control the physics of transition from one state to the next. Only then will one have made a case for free will.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    > Only then will one have made a case for free will. That's why it's generally considered to be an open question. You, on the other hand, haven't nearly made a case against free will, but still act as if you had definitive proof. This is not a situation where the free will advocates have to prove it to you, and unless they can, you win.
sytelus 12y ago
There are several problems with author's argument. 1. Future outcomes are not entirely determined by just past state + laws of physics. There is a very important component that author seems to be only eluding fleetingly: Randomness. So future = past + laws + randomness. Here laws are implicitly understood to be probabilistic that requires some randomness source. 2. An all important question now is this: What is the source of randomness in universe? I think if we can answer this question, we will likely have understood pretty much everything that is to be understood about the universe. A perfect random generator is theoretically required to store infinite amount of information. If universe is finite in the sense that (space X time) is finite then perfect true randomness is not possible. BTW, concept of true randomness is not some fuzzy thing. It's very well defined mathematically (see Vol II by Knuth). Summary: Let's say a random number generator produced a sequence of 0s and 1s. The perfectness of RNG can be measured by the distribution of every possible permutation of all length of 0s and 1s occurring in that sequence. 3. Let's say universe has some master random number generator that sources randomness in to all its outcomes. Is it possible to add or subtract randomness from this generator? Can processes or particles within universe themselves be source of randomness? If so these particles or processes would meet the definition of free will. In other words, free will is nothing but random number generator itself because no one can predict or influence its behavior. So in essence, our question becomes can humans be source of randomness?. As humans are made of same fundamental particles, it would imply, if humans have free will then particles must also have free will (i.e. Convey's Free Will Theorem). The difference that humans make over fundamental particles is this: Humans can filter their free will by setting up complex set of computation on the top of it. So imagine normal particles simply generating random behavior while humans acting as some algorithm like hash function that sets up the computation on the top of their "free will" to generate probabilistically desired outcome. Obviously keyword here is desired. Are our desires simply deterministic or influenced by free will? Our desire to survive is obviously programmed by genes. However our desire to climb a mountain because its there or draw a painting is probably much more influenced by free will.
- danielrm26 12y ago
  1. Randomness is part of the laws. 2. Determining the source of the randomness is like figuring out why the strong and weak force constants were set the way they were. They exist at the ends of our epistemological limits. 3. You seem to be missing that even if we were a source of randomness, we would not be in control of it. Free Will isn't about a lack of predictability, it's about control.

5 points by danielrm26 12y ago

Since the code will never finish executing, it isn't correct to say that free will has been proven to be an illusion. Even if it could, the most that can be proved to be true is that a certain aspect of the universe is fully determined. It does not follow that simply because certain aspects of the universe are determined (such as a computer program) that human action is wholly determined. That would be like saying that because certain aspects of the universe are conscious and self-aware, the entire universe is conscious and self-aware.

danielrm26 12y ago
It is true that the program doesn't show free will is completely impossible for all instants in time (because it cannot test infinite instants), but one has to wonder why any instant n would be different than the first. Your second point equates to, "Well, we don't know everything about everything in the universe, so there might be a mechanism for free will we haven't discovered." True, but that also applies to every other proposition that we can safely disregard because there's no good reason to accept it. In the case of free will, we as potential authors of action need a lever for injecting ourself into the universe's chain of events. We need a hook. We need an influence point. But since we ourselves are products of that universe, such a mechanism is purely speculative. The only reason we think free will exists is because we experience it. But given our understanding of the brain and its propensity for projecting all manner of illusions onto our consciousness, I submit we should not consider this evidence. Show us how we have gained control over a previous state of the universe in one of the instants between the big bang and now, or show us how we can control the physics of transition from one state to the next. Only then will one have made a case for free will.
- Tomte 12y ago
  > Only then will one have made a case for free will. That's why it's generally considered to be an open question. You, on the other hand, haven't nearly made a case against free will, but still act as if you had definitive proof. This is not a situation where the free will advocates have to prove it to you, and unless they can, you win.

sytelus 12y ago

There are several problems with author's argument. 1. Future outcomes are not entirely determined by just past state + laws of physics. There is a very important component that author seems to be only eluding fleetingly: Randomness. So future = past + laws + randomness. Here laws are implicitly understood to be probabilistic that requires some randomness source. 2. An all important question now is this: What is the source of randomness in universe? I think if we can answer this question, we will likely have understood pretty much everything that is to be understood about the universe. A perfect random generator is theoretically required to store infinite amount of information. If universe is finite in the sense that (space X time) is finite then perfect true randomness is not possible. BTW, concept of true randomness is not some fuzzy thing. It's very well defined mathematically (see Vol II by Knuth). Summary: Let's say a random number generator produced a sequence of 0s and 1s. The perfectness of RNG can be measured by the distribution of every possible permutation of all length of 0s and 1s occurring in that sequence. 3. Let's say universe has some master random number generator that sources randomness in to all its outcomes. Is it possible to add or subtract randomness from this generator? Can processes or particles within universe themselves be source of randomness? If so these particles or processes would meet the definition of free will. In other words, free will is nothing but random number generator itself because no one can predict or influence its behavior. So in essence, our question becomes can humans be source of randomness?. As humans are made of same fundamental particles, it would imply, if humans have free will then particles must also have free will (i.e. Convey's Free Will Theorem). The difference that humans make over fundamental particles is this: Humans can filter their free will by setting up complex set of computation on the top of it. So imagine normal particles simply generating random behavior while humans acting as some algorithm like hash function that sets up the computation on the top of their "free will" to generate probabilistically desired outcome. Obviously keyword here is desired. Are our desires simply deterministic or influenced by free will? Our desire to survive is obviously programmed by genes. However our desire to climb a mountain because its there or draw a painting is probably much more influenced by free will.

danielrm26 12y ago
1. Randomness is part of the laws. 2. Determining the source of the randomness is like figuring out why the strong and weak force constants were set the way they were. They exist at the ends of our epistemological limits. 3. You seem to be missing that even if we were a source of randomness, we would not be in control of it. Free Will isn't about a lack of predictability, it's about control.