Quantum indeterminacy is irrelevant because at macroscopic levels all the quantum weirdness (e.g. quantum indeterminacy and superposition) averages out. — Truth Seeker

Only sometimes, but not the important times. There are chaotic systems like the weather. One tiny quantum event can (will) cascade into completely different weather in a couple months, (popularly known as the butterfly effect) so the history of the world and human decisions is significantly due to these quantum fluctuations. In other words, given a non-derministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, a person's decision is anything but inevitable from a given prior state. There's a significant list of non-deterministic interpretations. Are you so sure (without evidence) that they're all wrong?

Anyway, it's still pretty irrelevant since that sort of indeterminism doesn't yield free will. Making truly random decisions is not a way to make better decisions, which is why mental processes do not leverage that tool.

The program is not able to generate any other results — Fire Ologist

Neither are you. Only one choice can be made, free will or not.

Or you didn’t explain the distinction you see well enough for my thick skull.

Choice: Having multiple options available and using a natural process to select among them.
Free Choice: Having multiple options available and using a supernatural process to select among them.

It kind of comes down to your beliefs concerning the nature of your process. I have no idea why the latter renders one responsible for the choice made and the former does not. That makes no sense at all to me. It just sounds better. "Hey, the one is called 'free', so I must have it, right? Right??". The other one sounds compelled to me, despite the opposite being the case. The former is the thing in question making its own choices and the latter involves the thing being compelled by a demon that has possessed the entity, overriding what it would have otherwise chosen. That gives the demon free choice, but it takes it away from that which it has possessed.


I generally agree with most of what flannel jesus says. He knows how to apply physics to philosophical issues.

what does it mean to hand him to me? — flannel jesus

I think he means that he is essentially parroting the teachings of Schopenhauer in his reply. I wouldn't know, I don't know the teachings of almost any of the well known philosophers. The vast majority of them do not know how to apply physics to philosophical issues, even those that were around during the 20th century when so much changed.

what does it mean to hand him to me? — flannel jesus

He wrote an essay on determinism. It won a prize. It shows how that determinism is common sense just as much as free will is.

I'm not going to repeat it though. :grin:

generally agree with most of what flannel jesus says. He knows how to apply physics to philosophical issues. — noAxioms

I agree with him as well. He didn't use any physics though.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

I see people talking about going back in time and doing things differently. I assumed your question, to phrase it in the present, is: Given multiple options that are, in the physical sense, equally possible (for example, I am equally able to press the Netflix or Disney buttons on my remote, and I am equally able to buy the chocolate or caramel ice creams), is it possible that I might choose either? Or is only one possible, due to the hideously complex interactions of particles and structures taking place within my brain, which is really all anything amounts to, regardless of words like consciousness, perception, and memory, and which can and will work out to only one possible resolution?

I say the former. Either because that is the correct answer, or the hideously complex interactions of particles and structures taking place within my brain, which is really all anything amounts to, regardless of words like consciousness, perception, and memory, can and do work out to only that one possible resolution, every time I consider the question.

I say the former. Either because that is the correct answer, or the hideously complex interactions of particles and structures taking place within my brain, which is really all anything amounts to, regardless of words like consciousness, perception, and memory, can and do work out to only that one possible resolution, every time I consider the question. — Patterner

The two alternative that you are considering, one that seems to leave open alternative opportunities for choice, and the other one that portrays those choices as being pre-determined by antecedent conditions and neural events, seem not to be alternatives at all. They seem to be two compatible viewpoints, or stances, on the same decision point.

The first one is an agential stance taken by the agent themselves who are contemplating some range of opportunities.

The second one is the stance of an external observer who is singularly well informed about microscopic details of the situation but who isn't concerned with evaluating the range of opportunities for actions in terms of desirability of practical rationality.

From this spectatorial stance, it may look like only one option was predetermined but no explanation as to why it is an action of that particular kind that had to take place is in view. From the agential perspective, the sort of action that took place is intelligible in light of the agent's aims, beliefs and reasons. From this stance, the specific path that was chosen among a range of open paths was chosen by the agent, and not by external pressures and/or "internal" (i.e. neural) circumstances. The latter sorts of factors are better seen as impediments, to and/or enabling conditions of, the agent's ability to make rational decisions.

The answer depends on whether or not the Universe is comprehensively and rigidly deterministic . Current scientific understanding says it is not. But then the question is whether (assuming that our current understanding is correct) randomness on the quantum level produces a fully deterministic macro world.

I don't know the answer to that, and I doubt whether the question is even decidable in principle, because regardless of whether the macroworld is subject to randomness to a sufficient degree to make randomness operative at the macro level, knowing the answer would seem to depend on us experiencing a counterfactual reality, which is impossible in principle since anything we experience cannot rightly be thought to be a counterfactual.

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences are variables which determine and constrain our choices. They are real and their effects on our choices are real. — Truth Seeker

They could be thought of the qualities of your being. They are not direct effects and causes for your choices. Extending the effects and causes to your general qualities of being is committing the fallacy of relevance.

The answer depends on whether or not the Universe is comprehensively and rigidly deterministic . Current scientific understanding says it is not. — Janus

I think an interesting question is, where does quantum randomness come from? There are a few interesting options, but one option in particular I personally really struggle with.

With many worlds, the randomness is actually only apparent randomness, an inevitable subjective experience but not random at all from a meta perspective.

Pilot Wave theory says there's no randomness, the conditions are there which determine any quantum result (maybe retrocausally).

Random-collapse says neither of the above are the right way to conceptualise the randomness, but in this way there are still two possibilities:

1. Non-local causal reason for why this random result was observed instead of that other random possibility. Imagine a universal random number generator that can affect quantum particles non locally.

2. Genuinely no reason at all. Literally no reason whatsoever why one random thing was observed instead of another. True ontological randomness.

I can't really wrap my head around 2. A lot of people go for #2 but, to me, literally any other possibility seems more comprehensible.

Obviously the universe just does what it does, with no concern for what I find comprehensible, so I could easily be wrong. If #2 is reality then I just don't comprehend reality. But damn, I really don't think it's #2. I'm with Einstein: things don't happen for no reason.

When it comes to a situation, you are either sure or unsure. This is a valid dichotomy. You do what you want to do if you are sure. But what about when you are unsure? I think we can agree that we all experience a sense of uncertainty in a situation, as in the maze example. That is when we say we are unsure in a situation. The important question is how could we possibly be uncertain if matter is a deterministic thing. In other words, how the sense of uncertainty is created in the brain considering that the brain is made of matter. This is something that I am currently thinking about and I believe no one has a clear answer to it.

The important question is how could we possibly be uncertain if matter is a deterministic thing. In other words, how the sense of uncertainty is created in the brain considering that the brain is made of matter. This is something that I am currently thinking about and I believe no one has a clear answer to it. — MoK

I don't understand why there's a problem to think about at all. Our brain doesn't have direct access to all the knowledge of the world. Our brains build models of how we think the world is, based on limited information, and sometimes those models aren't actually close to how the world is.

I don't understand why there's a problem to think about at all. Our brain doesn't have direct access to all the knowledge of the world. Our brains build models of how we think the world is, based on limited information, and sometimes those models aren't actually close to how the world is. — flannel jesus

How are thoughts created in the brain? What is the source of the information and how the information could be processed in the brain? All we know is that there is motion of matter and change in the electromagnetic field in the brain. Without these, I am sure we can tell that no thought is possible. You have certain thoughts when you are unsure in a situation, for example when you are in a maze though. The question of how we could possibly have a sense of uncertainty when the motion of matter and electromagnetic field are deterministic is then valid.

There are maps, and there are territories. Our brain is a territory in itself, but it's a territory which contains maps of other territories. Those maps can be wrong. Being wrong is a feature of the map, not the territory. Uncertainty is a feature of the map, not the territory.

There are maps, and there are territories. Our brain is a territory in itself, but it's a territory which contains maps of other territories. Those maps can be wrong. Being wrong is a feature of the map, not the territory. Uncertainty is a feature of the map, not the territory. — flannel jesus

What do you mean by map and territory?

Territory is the shit that exists. Map is a representation of the shit that exists.

By territory, I think you mean matter and forces, and by representation, you mean thought. However, that does not answer my question. How could we have a single thought, knowing that all that exists is matter and forces?

One tiny quantum event can (will) cascade into completely different weather in a couple months, (popularly known as the butterfly effect) so the history of the world and human decisions is significantly due to these quantum fluctuations. In other words, given a non-derministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, a person's decision is anything but inevitable from a given prior state. There's a significant list of non-deterministic interpretations. Are you so sure (without evidence) that they're all wrong? — noAxioms

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion about it. Please tell me more about how quantum events affect the weather. Is there a book you can recommend so I can learn more about this? Thank you.

They could be thought of the qualities of your being. They are not direct effects and causes for your choices. Extending the effects and causes to your general qualities of being is committing the fallacy of relevance. — Corvus

My genes preceded me and formed the foundation of my existence and nature. I didn't choose my genes and I don't have direct control over them. The same goes for my early environments, nutrients and experiences. You should read "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will" by Professor Robert M. Sapolsky.

The important question is how could we possibly be uncertain if matter is a deterministic thing. — MoK

We are uncertain because we are not all-knowing. Which lottery numbers will be the winning numbers? If we knew that we would always be able to pick the winning numbers for the jackpot.

There are maps, and there are territories. Our brain is a territory in itself, but it's a territory which contains maps of other territories. Those maps can be wrong. Being wrong is a feature of the map, not the territory. Uncertainty is a feature of the map, not the territory. — flannel jesus

I agree.

You ask:

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Is it not a more fundamental question of should, regardless of could? What must one begin doing now, currently, in the gateway of this moment such that all the "could have beens" were worth suffering through?

I don't know.

We are uncertain because we are not all-knowing. Which lottery numbers will be the winning numbers? If we knew that we would always be able to pick the winning numbers for the jackpot. — Truth Seeker

So you agree that we are uncertain on many occasions. If the existence of options is not what causes us to be uncertain then what it is?

how could we have a single thought period?

What do you mean?

My genes preceded me and formed the foundation of my existence and nature. I didn't choose my genes and I don't have direct control over them. The same goes for my early environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

No one has chosen their genes. But people don't blame their genes for the choices they have made. Free will is your mental state, which has nothing to do with your genes, environments and nutrients.

Making a choice is your mental event based on your reasoning and thinking on the various options. Nothing else is involved in making choices.

As I already said in my previous post, we are uncertain because we are not all-knowing. Only an all-knowing being is always certain about everything.

As I already said in my previous post, we are uncertain because we are not all-knowing. Only an all-knowing being is always certain about everything. — Truth Seeker

I understood your point but it seems that you didn't take my point.

No one has chosen their genes. But people don't blame their genes for the choices they have made. Free will is your mental state, which has little to do with your genes, environments and nutrients.

Making a choice is your mental event based on your reasoning and thinking on the various options. Nothing else is involved in making choices. — Corvus

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants, constraints and consequences. Our reasoning and thinking depend entirely on our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.

If the existence of options is not what causes us to be uncertain then what it is? — MoK

I did take on board your question and I answered it to the best of my knowledge. If you have a better answer, I am happy to read about it.

You say "How could we have a single thought, knowing that all that exists is matter and forces?" As if you know of some other way to have a single thought.