Freewill

[Wootah]

Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?

Eating the cake seems to demonstrate action and so demonstrate free will but not eating the cake demonstrates free will more so because you are overcoming something you want to do.

Always doing what you want demonstrates less freewill than not doing what you want. IMO...

[Bubuche87]

[Replying to Wootah in post #30]

Ok, at this point you are trolling I don't an other explanation.
How is you argument strong?

To prove freewill you'll need to prove that there aren't complex (yet fully determined!) systems that influenced the result.

And yes I am using words. The difference is that I am not trying to prove something is the case.

You make an assumption, you have the burden of proof to show it's true. And using words for that isn't gonna make it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bubuche87 in post #31]

Well just to try to flesh this out ....

Assumptions
All deterministic systems always follow and have to follow a causal chain to completion/rest/energy runs out.
All deterministic systems always perform the same given the same conditions SLC


OK so when humans eat, Since there is enough energy to eat and energy is nearby to eat the fact that sometimes we don't eat indicates determinism is false.

Basically, I have never seen a fire not burn the wood it can reach. I have seen people not eat food within reach.

Either there is a causal step we don't understand that if we did understand we would see why they were determined not to eat at that point OR there is no causal step hence free will.

But the belief 'determinism did it' is falling to the faulty thinking called God of the gaps. God of the gaps thinking is when we don't know why something happens, we claim God did it, and so we maintain our belief in God.

We don't know why determinism failed, we still assert determinism and we maintain our belief in determinism.

So either we dogmatically assert determinism or we accept room for free will until we can find the deterministic reason for something?

And in this case, we have visible evidence of people not eating all the time, violating an obvious causal chain.

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

edit: I posted this on that youtube video as a comment. Will see if anyone responds.

I defined determinism.

I showed a counter-example (eating).

And I explained that God of the gaps claims are bad logic.

So for today, while today is the day that the deterministic steps are not known we can say determinism has issues.

[Bubuche87]

[Replying to Wootah in post #32]

You don't get to define eating as a counter example, it begs the question.

"All deterministic systems always perform the same given the same conditions"

This is your definition and you failed to prove that the _same conditions_ were met between the person deciding to eat and the person deciding not to eat

In fact, given YOUR definition they weren't the same conditions because those two persons wasn't occupying the same location in space-time.

So with your definition you can never rule out determinism because conditions are never the same.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bubuche87 in post #33]

And with that approach you throw out science as we know it. No one can reproduce results to the standard you require.

Eating is an example of consuming energy like fire does. But fire eats and eats. Quite deterministically.

[Bubuche87]

[Replying to Wootah in post #34]

No, YOU do it. It's why I emphasized many times that it's YOUR definition.
Your definition is useless. It's not a problem with science, not a problem with me, it's a problem with you and your definition.

Also, the science is not what you think it is.
It's a set of refutable-not-refuted-yet models. In those models you can put whatever hypothesis you want, as long as it doesn't remove the refutable part.

Every model starts as irrefutable (because you cannot find a contradiction in an empty model - because it's empty , by definition), eventually grows as refutable (if the correct hypothesis are added) or dooms itself to be forever irrefutable (if an hypothesis preventing any refutation is added).
If it manages to be refutable, it has several more things it needs to accomplish: it must be *actually* refutable, not just hypothetically
Counter example: A model making a prediction about an even in hundreds of billions of years is only hypothetically refutable, for example.
It the "testable" in "novel testable repeatable predictions".

It must be more refutable than other existing models.
Counter example: if my model predicts the sun will rise tomorrow, it may be refutable (if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow) but there are already models that would be refuted by that. It's there we say it must make NOVEL testable repeatable predictions.

It must remains refutable.
Counter example: if my model predicts the next coin flip will be head, it's refutable. If the next flip is head, the model is not refuted (). But now because the model isn't making more predictions, it lost its refutability.
It's the "repeatable" part.

There must be other constraint but these ones are the main ones.
And as you can see they don't talk at all about determinism or anything like that.

Now I'll try to speed up the conversation and not assume you understood the implications of the above: the determinism is IN the models.
It's like for a car : you don't NEED wheels, you could theorically create a car without them (flying or warping or whatever). But in practice we don't know yet how to make cars without wheels.
For models, the wheels are those principles of determinism etc. You are not obliged to put them in your model, like you are not obliged to put wheels on your car. But with the experience we know that you will have a hard time obtain refutability if you don't put those principles in your model.

But science doesn't care about determinism. In fact, you have fields in science that got rid of them (quantum mechanic).

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bubuche87 in post #35]

Do you believe determinism or free will is correct?

And yes you rightly perceived that I did not understand your post.

[Bubuche87]

[Replying to Wootah in post #36]

What I believe is irrelevant and private.

You made the assumption that with my reasoning science was impossible. I explained why you are wrong.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #36]

What I believe is irrelevant and private.

You made the assumption that with my reasoning science was impossible. I explained why you are wrong.

OK. Moving on. What about the topic?

[Difflugia]

Do you believe determinism or free will is correct?

Just to interject a bit, these aren't the only two options. Determinism makes most definitions of free will impossible, but indeterminism alone isn't sufficient to infer free will.

[Wootah]

Do you believe determinism or free will is correct?

Just to interject a bit, these aren't the only two options. Determinism makes most definitions of free will impossible, but indeterminism alone isn't sufficient to infer free will.

If you could show I am arguing for indeterminism would be good. I think I am arguing for the obvious atm.