free will

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]The alternative of course being that they are not conditional and therefore arbitrary.
I dispute your claim that the universe is deterministic.


I think the findings of quantum mechanics strongly suggest that it is not deterministic - although I concede that this can probably never be proven.

i haven't said the universe is deterministic. i said it would be deterministic if it was a closed system. the findings in quantum mechanics may reveal that the universe is an open system, which would open new possibilities of research.

I would call a computers decisions 'free will'. Why would you not?

i would not.

Is the computer being forced by and external force at the time of the decision? No. It may be forced into decisions by its programming, but that is part of its nature, and its nature or origins are not important when it comes to free will, all that is important is where the decision is generated at the time the decision is required.

it is subject to the laws that govern its existence. it's programming and hardware determine the laws that govern its existence, ergo it's a deterministic system. given a certain 'saved state,' it will always make the exact same decision no matter how many times that saved state is restored and executed.

apparent randomness is added to a program by user interaction (an outside influence). this opens new state possibilities, but does not guarantee randomness.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
a computer cannot make random decisions.

I did not say a computer can make random decisions, if that is what you are implying. The following is what I posted.

"A computer can not have free will because it does not have a mind to give it free will. The computer may make randon decisions due to the programming, but that is different from the free will that we have. I also do not consider the instinct of animals to be free will."

Perhaps I should have used the word "outputs" instead of "decisions" to make it clear to all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say a computer [b]can make random decisions, if that is what you are implying. The following is what I posted.

"A computer can not have free will because it does not have a mind to give it free will. The computer may make randon decisions due to the programming, but that is different from the free will that we have. I also do not consider t ...[text shortened]... haps I should have used the word "outputs" instead of "decisions" to make it clear to all.[/b]

no, "decisions" is fine. computers make countless decisions. this is the part i was responding to:

"The computer may make randon decisions due to the programming"

a computer cannot and may not make random decisions. the programming and machine state determines all the decisions it makes.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no, "decisions" is fine. computers make countless decisions. this is the part i was responding to:

"The computer may make randon decisions due to the programming"

a computer cannot and may not make random decisions. the programming and machine state determines all the decisions it makes.

True. However, programmers have been able to program dice and card games to produce random results and even produce random passwords, etc. So at least, it appears that random decisions or outputs are being made by the computer through the programming.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i haven't said the universe is deterministic. i said it would be deterministic if it was a closed system. the findings in quantum mechanics may reveal that the universe is an open system, which would open new possibilities of research.

You are essentially claiming there is a larger enclosing 'universe' that is necessarily deterministic. I don't think you have given any valid reasons why you believe this.

i would not.
But thats because you define 'free will' as 'arbitrary decision making'. I realise you are not alone in this, but neither is that the only interpretation out there.
You are of course free to have your own interpretation so long as we understand you and you understand that others may have a different definition.
As I said before, I think you will find most people simply haven't thought it through and don't have a strict definition at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are essentially claiming there is a larger enclosing 'universe' that is necessarily deterministic. I don't think you have given any valid reasons why you believe this.

[b]i would not.
But thats because you define 'free will' as 'arbitrary decision making'. I realise you are not alone in this, but neither is that the only interpretation out the ...[text shortened]... ost people simply haven't thought it through and don't have a strict definition at all.[/b]

i think most people think that statistical randomness is randomness (as per rjhind's response). that is good enough for most purposes, but i'm talking on the grand scale.

an closed system universe has to be deterministic. this is not a belief i hold, it's a logical certainty. all the particles/waves in that universe follow physical laws. we may not understand all those laws, but they are there and they govern the destiny of all the particles. ergo, without outside influence to introduce external state changes (like a user interacting with a program), there can be no randomness.

Originally posted by RJHinds
True. However, programmers have been able to program dice and card games to produce random results and even produce random passwords, etc. So at least, it appears that random decisions or outputs are being made by the computer through the programming.

you are talking about statistical randomness. computer generated dice rolls, card games etc. are not truly random, they are based on pseudo-random algorithms which provide subjective unpredictability.

the good algorithms have traits that pass the tests for statistical randomness, which is good enough for most human applications.

a truly random system would generate objective unpredictability. as of now, the only system that seems to produce objective unpredictability is quantum physics. which influences my suggestion that the quantum level may be a gate to outside of the universe. but other speculative ideas exist and are also intriguing.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
an closed system universe has to be deterministic. this is not a belief i hold, it's a logical certainty.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. If it is a logical certainty, you should be able to present your logic. Instead you just keep repeating it like its obvious fact - yet it isn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. If it is a logical certainty, you should be able to present your logic. Instead you just keep repeating it like its obvious fact - yet it isn't.

repeating or denying it any number of times doesn't make something true or false.

the laws of physics are in effect and they work in a closed system. these are known facts. ergo, what i said remains consistent. if the universe is a closed system, there is no randomness. if it's an open system, there is potential to randomness. if you are unable to understand this principle, there is nothing more i can say to convince you.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if the universe is a closed system, there is no randomness.

Closed systems tend to increase in entropy, or randomness.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Closed systems tend to increase in entropy, or randomness.

Entropy is not randomness nor is it disorder.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Entropy is not randomness nor is it disorder.

"In classical thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is defined phenomenologically by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant. Thus, entropy is also a measure of the tendency of a process, such as a chemical reaction, to be entropically favored, or to proceed in a particular direction. It determines that thermal energy always flows spontaneously from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, in the form of heat. These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness. This is the basis of the modern microscopic interpretation of entropy in statistical mechanics, where entropy is defined as the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system, given its thermodynamic specification. The second law is then a consequence of this definition and the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Originally posted by RJHinds
"In classical thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is defined phenomenologically by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant. Thus, entropy is also a measure of the tendency of a process, such as a chemical reaction, to be entropically favored, or to proceed in a particular d ...[text shortened]... d the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Wikipedia is wrong. Want an example?

edit - entropy is defined by the equation S = k log w which is neither randomness or disorder.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Wikipedia is wrong. Want an example?

edit - entropy is defined by the equation S = k log w which is neither randomness or disorder.

If wiki is wrong, it isn't alone. It seems very common for entropy to be equated to 'randomness' or 'disorder'.

If you're going to present an equation to a room full of non-physicists, the least you could do is explain what the variables mean. 😕

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If wiki is wrong, it isn't alone. It seems very common for entropy to be equated to 'randomness' or 'disorder'.

If you're going to present an equation to a room full of non-physicists, the least you could do is explain what the variables mean. 😕

It's a common error. A system will tend to increase in entropy if left alone. Take a cup of coffee with a little creamer in it. As entropy increase the creamer disperses itself which would lead one to call entropy disorder. Now take a mixture of oil and water. Given time, it separates into layers, that isn't disorder.

In the equation S = k log w

S = Entropy
K = Boltzmann's constant
w = the number of microstates

edit - gravity will also make the disorder and randomness wrong.