INVESTIGATING FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM

[Sculptor]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality. What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

[attofishpi]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality.

2) would suggest that at the decision making level of consciousness, quantum indeterminacy in the least means that determinism has no hand to play in the decision, ergo free will.

What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

On outcome 1) I'd say that the more choices in films that there were, the more I'd hedge against there being any form of free will.

[Skepdick]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality. What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

You can draw no conclusions whatsoever.

IF you can have TWO identical worlds; if you can make perfect copies/clones of things then Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; and the No-cloning theorem don't hold.

In what sort of universe does the entity setting up the experiment live in where that is possible? Because it's not the universe we live in.

[FlashDangerpants]

What might 1) and 2) say about reality. What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

It tells us that the only way for the question to have any impact at all is to operate two or more universes for it to play out in.

This should tell us that the question of free will is a matter of description only with nothing at all resting on the outcome. In particular this message should be conveyed to the many persons who appear to think it has religious and moral significance.

[Sculptor]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality.

2) would suggest that at the decision making level of consciousness, quantum indeterminacy in the least means that determinism has no hand to play in the decision, ergo free will.

What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

On outcome 1) I'd say that the more choices in films that there were, the more I'd hedge against there being any form of free will.

But if 2 then reality is not determined. but random. Is that what free will is, randomness?
If free will is true then on what basis was the choice made?

Outcome 1 means that his will is determined by the antecedent conditions, and that as it was not compelled it is freely determined.

[Sculptor]

Thought experiment..

Let's say there are two identical worlds. Earth A and Earth B, that have been so arranged to each and every molecule, is in the same relative position and each has the exact types and amounts of energy.

In both of these worlds Lorikeet has been asked to chose one out of a dozen films to see tonight at the local cinema. Happy to demonstrate his wonderful free will he decides upon a film and in the next second he makes he expresses that choice

There are two possible outcomes here.
Either

1) Lorikeet A and B choose the same film.
OR
2) Lorikeet A choses a different film from B.

What might 1) and 2) say about reality. What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

You can draw no conclusions whatsoever.

IF you can have TWO identical worlds; if you can make perfect copies/clones of things then Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; and the No-cloning theorem don't hold.

In what sort of universe does the entity setting up the experiment live in where that is possible? Because it's not the universe we live in.

So you have insufficient imagination to answer the question?
Or does the thought experiment worry you for some reason that you avoid making an answer.

[Sculptor]

What might 1) and 2) say about reality. What bearing has determinism and or free will on these outcomes, and what would be the consequences for understanding what 1 and 2 say about Lorikeet..?

It tells us that the only way for the question to have any impact at all is to operate two or more universes for it to play out in.

This should tell us that the question of free will is a matter of description only with nothing at all resting on the outcome. In particular this message should be conveyed to the many persons who appear to think it has religious and moral significance.

Or you could just be honest and answer the question.

[Skepdick]

So you have insufficient imagination to answer the question?
Or does the thought experiment worry you for some reason that you avoid making an answer.

No, you fucking idiot.

Here is your "experiment" codified in 5 lines of Python

Code: Select all

In [1]: films = list(range(1,13)) # Generate a list of 12 elelements representing "a dozen films"
In [2]: from random import choice # Import the random.choice library
In [3]: LorikeetA = choice(films) # Let Lorikeet A choose a film at random
In [4]: LorikeetB = choice(films) # Let Lorikeet B choose a film at random.
 
In [5]: LorikeetA == LorikeetB #Did they choose the same film?
Out[5]: True #Yes! They did!

In [6]: LorikeetA # Lorikeet A chose film 12
Out[6]: 12

In [7]: LorikeetB # Lorikeet B ALSO chose film 12
Out[7]: 12

WOW! What conclusions can we draw from this? Well, NONE whatsofucking ever. By completely random chance Lorikeet A and Lorikeet B chose the exact same movie.

But if you run the experiment again... who knows what might happen.

Code: Select all

In [8]: LorikeetA = choice(films)

In [9]: LorikeetB = choice(films)

In [10]: LorikeetA == LorikeetB
Out[10]: False

In [11]: LorikeetA
Out[11]: 1

In [12]: LorikeetB
Out[12]: 12

They chose different movies this time.

Does this tell you anything useful? No! Everything you need to know is in the source code of the choice() function! It chooses options at random! BY DESIGN.

Will the choice function make the exact same choice if you seed it (preconfigure it!) with the same "random" number? YES!

In [18]: random.seed(3)

In [19]: random.choice(films)
Out[19]: 4

In [20]: random.seed(3)

In [21]: random.choice(films)
Out[21]: 4

In [22]: random.seed(3)

In [23]: random.choice(films)
Out[23]: 4

Will the choice-function make a diferent choice if you seed it with a different "random" number? YES!

In [24]: random.seed(7)

In [25]: random.choice(films)
Out[25]: 6

In [26]: random.seed(7)

In [27]: random.choice(films)
Out[27]: 6

In [28]: random.seed(7)

In [29]: random.choice(films)
Out[29]: 6

So what does this tell you about Lorikeet? Nothing! No matter how long the streak of Lorikeet A and B making the exact same choice there's always the chance that they will make a different choice next time they go to the movies! You are stuck in the realm of epistemology and inductive reasoning forever!

Either your knowledge is deterministic - meaning it allows you to correctly predict/determine Lorikeet's next choice; or your knowledge is non-deterministic (meaning you can't correctly predict/determine Lorikeet's the next choice).

[Sculptor]

So you have insufficient imagination to answer the question?
Or does the thought experiment worry you for some reason that you avoid making an answer.

No, you fucking idiot.

Here is your "experiment" codified in 5 lines of Python

Code: Select all

In [1]: films = list(range(1,13)) # Generate a list of 12 elelements representing "a dozen films"
In [2]: from random import choice # Import the random.choice library
In [3]: LorikeetA = choice(films) # Let Lorikeet A choose a film at random
In [4]: LorikeetB = choice(films) # Let Lorikeet B choose a film at random.
 
In [5]: LorikeetA == LorikeetB #Did they choose the same film?
Out[5]: True #Yes! They did!

In [6]: LorikeetA # Lorikeet A chose film 12
Out[6]: 12

In [7]: LorikeetB # Lorikeet B ALSO chose film 12
Out[7]: 12

WOW! What conclusions can we draw from this? Well, NONE whatsofucking ever. By completely random chance Lorikeet A and Lorikeet B chose the exact same movie.

But if you run the experiment again... who knows what might happen.

Code: Select all

In [8]: LorikeetA = choice(films)

In [9]: LorikeetB = choice(films)

In [10]: LorikeetA == LorikeetB
Out[10]: False

In [11]: LorikeetA
Out[11]: 1

In [12]: LorikeetB
Out[12]: 12

They chose different movies this time.

Does this tell you anything useful? No! Everything you need to know is in the source code of the choice() function! It chooses options at random! BY DESIGN.

Will the choice function make the exact same choice if you seed it (preconfigure it!) with the same "random" number? YES!

In [18]: random.seed(3)

In [19]: random.choice(films)
Out[19]: 4

In [20]: random.seed(3)

In [21]: random.choice(films)
Out[21]: 4

In [22]: random.seed(3)

In [23]: random.choice(films)
Out[23]: 4

Will the choice-function make a diferent choice if you seed it with a different "random" number? YES!

In [24]: random.seed(7)

In [25]: random.choice(films)
Out[25]: 6

In [26]: random.seed(7)

In [27]: random.choice(films)
Out[27]: 6

In [28]: random.seed(7)

In [29]: random.choice(films)
Out[29]: 6

So what does this tell you about Lorikeet? Nothing! No matter how long the streak of Lorikeet A and B making the exact same choice there's always the chance that they will make a different choice next time they go to the movies! You are stuck in the realm of epistemology and inductive reasoning forever!

Either your knowledge is deterministic - meaning it allows you to correctly predict/determine Lorikeet's next choice; or your knowledge is non-deterministic (meaning you can't correctly predict/determine Lorikeet's the next choice).

Completely irrelevant.
You are just too stupid to know what is happening here.
Fuckk off to another Forum moron.

[Skepdick]

Completely irrelevant.
You are just too stupid to know what is happening here.
Fuckk off to another Forum moron.

You are too fucking stupid to understand the relevance, moron.

I literally re-created your entire experiment in a computer and you still can't grasp the relevance.

You probably don't even understand the free will theorem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles.

[Sculptor]

My reaction to Dickhead's Python answer in BASIC.

10 REM Skeptic is a Moron.
10 Print " Skeptic is a dickhead"
20 GOTO 10

[Skepdick]

My reaction to Dickhead's Python answer in BASIC.

10 REM Skeptic is a Moron.
10 Print " Skeptic is a dickhead"
20 GOTO 10

*yawn*

https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teachin ... stra68.pdf

Code: Select all

loop { print "Sculptor is a twat." }

[iambiguous]

Of course, the tricky part here is that until we are able to pin down definitively whether we do in fact have free will, we have no way in which to fully determine if our investigation itself is or is not wholly in sync with human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

And that means coming to grips with this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

These discussions seem ultimately futile to me given both "the gap" and "rummy's Rule".

But some of us, for whatever reason [rooted largely in dasein], have just come to be so fascinated with all things philosophical that [compelled or not] we just cannot not keep from groping about for answers.

Til death do we part.

[Impenitent]

the real question should be if there are two identical Lorikeets, shouldn't they be a Pairakeets?

-Imp

[attofishpi]

the real question should be if there are two identical Lorikeets, shouldn't they be a Pairakeets?

-Imp

I'm just extremely amazed they give a shit about films. Maybe in those universes humans hang out in trees and chirp all day.