@eden/DOOM

I feel I should elaborate on that by saying it wouldn't make a difference except for all the physical theories that I believe it would break. Those could have larger implications than are immediately apparent.

Don´t get me wrong, logic says not they are both false assertions. It says you can make no true conclusion, none of it MUST be true, only can be.

@Miro

I think you've lost me. If we suppose that the Universe is determinant (which I doubt). Then I see two options. The Universe was started by something outside the universe (we'll call it god) or it has no beginning (cyclic, or my infinite line or what have you). If we suppose the universe is determinant, how can one of these not be true?

However, this is a moot point, because I see no evidence still that the universe is determinant.

@Miro

I also have no idea what you are talking about now either.

Every particle of energy and every particle of matter obey a specific set of mathematical rules, correct?

And when set in a certain situation, mathematically, the matter and energy would only move/react in a certain way, correct?

Thus if you have the conditions of the Big Bang, there is only one possible way for everything to turn out. Of course, this assumes Matrix Theory isn't true...

But Kreator, in response to:

"But all of those events leading up to you believing in free will are entirely deterministic in my opinion. So you are predetermined to believe in free will because you are human, and you would be predetermined to be utterly depressed if you had no concept of free will, etc..."

This does not respond to my critique. There is no reason, deterministically, that a belief in free will would have evolved. Because it serves no purpose if free will does not exist.

@Thucy

I don't think that an animal that didn't believe it had free will would be very successful in the game of life, just sayin'. How could it possibly do anything for itself if it didn't instinctively believe that it had free will?

@Ray

Yes, that is the concept, but the main arguement against determinism is Quantum Theory which basically says that even if we know all of the factors affecting subatomic particles, we still cannot predict where those particles will end up, only a probability of how likely they will end up somewhere as opposed to somewhere else.

You're not understanding what I'm saying:

Since you claim we have no free will, you posit that:

We are creatures who act independently of a free will. As such, fooling a part of your mind into believing it is choosing what to do, when it is not, is at best a waste of the body's resources.

Thus, evolutionarily, it can be said to be a "dead end" to have a consciousness which believes in its own agency. But look around you... it's clearly not a dead end.

@Thucy

I just think that it's such a basic concept ingrained in the minds of any conscious animal. It is just far simpler to have the illusion of free will than to confuse our minds with the concept that we have none.

no... what i am trying to tell you is that a "mind" as you call it or as i say a "consciousness" is essentially superfluous if you act only on instinct. what is the purpose of the conscious mind if not to execute voluntary actions?

why would a consciousness exist which is nothing but a powerless observer? what purpose does that serve

Can somebody define "free will" please? I don´t get what you actually mean by this, because "free will" in my understanding is, when ones actions were made by oneself and were not forced by another person. So the "free will" is not standing against determinism.

A consciousness is a tool to help to survive, it´s purpose is to find new solutions on new problems. For example: If the weather turns very cold and you can´t survive an animal would just try to live on and die. A human knows "damn i will die if i don´t find something to keep me warm" because you are aware of yourself and your limitations. So you could make up a fireplace or craft some clothes to keep you warm.
It does not stand against determinism.

"Free will" in the philosophical sense means you decide your actions and they aren't predetermined by nature or God or whatever. Determinism pretty much precludes philsophical free will because other forces determine your actions and the actions of, well, everything.

You implication that an animal will just die in the cold is wrong. Of course, this same statement implies animals don't have a conciousness because you think they aren't somehow self aware. That too is wrong. Koko the gorilla proved beyond doubt that animals can be self aware and can communicate complex thoughts and emotions when taught a means of communication.

The only thing that sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom in that regard is our ability to speak. Our vocal chords are more sophisticated than any other animals. Other primates also have opposable thumbs so, while that may have contributed to our developing intelligence, it is not what sets us apart.

Gorillas and dolphons and, believe it or not, dogs are very intelligent, self aware, and would talk to us if they had a way. Koko was taught sign language and communicated well through it.

From Koko.org:

During the course of the study, Koko has advanced further with language than any other non-human. Koko has a working vocabulary of over 1000 signs. Koko understands approximately 2,000 words of spoken English. Koko initiates the majority of conversations with her human companions and typically constructs statements averaging three to six words. Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal."

In addition to intensive studies of vocabulary acquisition, the project has investigated spontaneous gorilla language use. This involves the study of innovative linguistic strategies, invention of new signs and compound words, simultaneous signing, self-directed signing, displacement, prevarication, reference to time and emotional states, gestural modulation, metaphorical word use, humor, definition, argument, insult, threat, fantasy play, storytelling and moral judgment. The depth and variety of gorilla language use has significantly exceeded initial expectations. Indeed, evidence has been found for the existence, in less developed form, of almost every aspect of human behavior

@Doom

"It is just far simpler to have the illusion of free will than to confuse our minds with the concept that we have none. "

Isn't it even easier to have no free will and no concept? We could all act like a Hive, which we know is possible because we see other animals do it. If there was no free will, then in seems like every creature would have a hive mind.

So, I don't care much about the free will thing or god in this context (I do not believe in any of them). On some other things I'd like to add one thing or another.
1. QM is the best theory that ever existed (in the sense of its predictions being the most accurate).
2. Do not talk about (local) hidden parameter theories without knowing Bell's equations or an understanding of what is considered a measurement at all. It's pointless.
3. QM is right (physically, not philosophically) on a microscopic scale because gravitational effects are incredible small there under normal circumstances (however, they probably exist). There is no unified theory and thus no theory that claims to fully describe the world.
4. What is time? What is space? What happens when an observer changes his referance frame? Actually, what is an observer? Sure as hell space and time are not simply independant and as you would like them to be. Speaking about curved spacetime and then discussing the problem of the beginning of time as it is done here makes no sense.

On topic. What about Many-Worlds? Would you consider that "deterministic"? For me it solves the problem of QM vs determinism.

@zarat

Thank you for explaining that clearer than I was able to.

As to many worlds, I'll have to think about that for a moment and get back to you.

@Thucy

I would argue that consciousness is not a powerless observer, and it is in fact very useful for animals to have. I have not said that we run on instinct. Even in determinism, there is a difference between the conscious mind and instinct, and while our conscious mind can't make choices, it can help the mind as a whole decide on the best course of action at the time.

@Thucy and abge

I think that you guys misunderstand my disbelief of free will. I believe that animals do make decisions, it's just that those decisions are predetermined as well as everything else in the universe. They are predetermined by different factors including genetics, how the animal was raised, and what the environment was like at the time of the decision. This means that the smarter an animal is, the more likely it will make intelligent decisions, because they are predetermined to make those more intelligent decisions. That is why the belief in free will, and the conscious mind that some animals have, are certainly not evolutionary dead-ends.

@zarat

I find it hard to believe in multiple universes simply because it seems so farfetched to me. While it's possible, I believe that it is far simpler to think that our science is not advanced enough to find the possible hidden variables that would cause QM to be disproven.

Kreator, I want to see if I can get your point through an analogy:

If you have the code to a computer program, you can figure out in advance what output will follow from a given input. But not all computer programs are equally effective. So a person who makes good decisions may have a particularly powerful program, but it's still, at root, a program that behaves in predictable ways.

@Pasto

Yes, exactly.

"This means that the smarter an animal is, the more likely it will make intelligent decisions, because they are predetermined to make those more intelligent decisions."

But is it really intelligent if it's predetermined? Would you call a computer intelligent?

It is much more unlikely that QM is completely wrong when virtually everything but "I don't like the implications" speaks for it.

@abge

I'm not sure if I would or would not.

@Zarat

Well, also the fact that there is so much that we do not know about the universe that the possibility of NOT finding a hidden variable that disproves QM is virtually impossible, at least in my opinion.

I have a question about Multiworld interpretation (MWI):

I understand that instead of the waveform collapsing, each event happens, creating "new worlds." But, the even that an individual world is still probabilistic, correct? The wiki article claims MWI is deterministic, but I don't see how that's possible if we can't assign a bijection between the events and the worlds.

Did that make any sense?

@Doom,

Then why do you call a human intelligent, if it's essentially a computer?

@abge

Well the human mind works in a much different way than a computer does. It works slower and with more of a creative aspect that most computers do not (yet) have.