Free Will vs. Determinism.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

It wouldn't matter.
From an external, global viewpoint where I could theoretically see all the pre-conditions for an event to happen, I would take into account your obervation and effect on the butterfly effect and would know from all the causative pre-conditions the one and only outcome.

Your act of seeing the pre-conditions itself affects the pre-conditions.

Therefore the event was not pre-determined. It depends on whether you see or do not see.

Whether you see or do not see, itself depends on other factors. However, your investigation of those factors itself affects those factors.

Your investigation of that investigation itself affects the results of that investigation.

Your further investigation of that investigation into that investigation itself affects the results of the second-mentioned investigation.

Etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JoeGoldfarb

Yes. If there were a way of tracking the movement of every single particle, then all aspects of any system are known.

The tracking of the movement itself affects the movement.

that is a paradox and a flaw in QT. the fact that this paradox and other exist is proof QT is incomplete.

No doubt there is much more to discover about QT.

However the fact that you consider the QT paradox to be a flaw, merely shows that you have already made the assumption that pre-determinism prevails. But that is what we are discussing in the first place.

Easy answer - know/measure the temperature of the thermometer before it is inserted into the glass of hot water.

The determination of the thermometer's temperature itself affects the thermometer's temperature.

There will be a point when we may conclude that for all practical purposes of determining the hot water's temperature, these details are too miniscule to be any real significance.

In a free-will/pre-determinism context, however, there is probably no such point.

just because the reasons for causality are not apparent to you does not mean they do not exist. you are a victim of cause and effect, like everything else that belongs inside this universe - you are not somehow magically separated from this.

I do not tend towards the view that "I" am somehow magically separated from the rest of the universe. If anything, I tend to the completely opposite view -

"I" am the universe; everything is inextricably linked; consciousness overrides all else. Etc etc.

it is not thoughts that effect reality, it's actions.

You, dear Joe, have never performed any action in your life, which was not a consequence of your own thoughts.

[wolfgang]

free will exists in terms of one choice. we can choose to be exclusive and be a separate ego type person that thinks he/she has free will, which occurs. or we choose to surrender to what is and not exert our ego's free will at the universe -but rather we go with the flow and take clues from life.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by JoeGoldfarb

godot, are you using the popular Copenhagen interpretation of QT in real-life situations?

The interpretation appeals to me, but real-life examples of observer-affecting-event are so numerous and obvious that it is hardly necessarily to resort to using QT to explain the phenomenon.

As a former litigation lawyer, for example, I was involved in many cases where the judge, ostensibly, is out to discover the "truth" of the case. Yet the way a question is phrased and put to the witness, while ostensibly of a "truth-finding" nature, itself affects the nature of the answer is given.

As an investor in the stock market, I note that every investor's observation of the stock market's conditions leads the investor to make one of three possible decisions:

1. sell
2. buy
3. neither sell nor buy - ie do nothing

and in each case, the decision itself affects the market conditions.

As a parent, I note that my observation of my children's behaviour itself affects their behaviour. For example, if my little son is doing something naughty, and I stare at him, he stops doing the naughty thing.

As I observe the discussion in this forum thread, I may either:

1. do nothing; or
2. post a reply

and the future course of this forum discussion (ie other participants' future comments / posts in this thread) would be different, depending on whether I did post a reply or not.

Therefore it was not pre-determined how the trial would progress; or the stock market would perform; or my son would behave; or how this forum thread would progress.

My observation or non-observation itself affects the event.

Observation implies consciousness.

Follow it a few steps further, and we see that mind creates all reality. For we cannot know that reality exists, unless we observe it to exist, and our knowing is itself a state of mind.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

My observation or non-observation itself affects the event.

ALG, at the point of observing the butterfly, or whatever, you are not affecting the event, as the event has not yet occurred. Your observing becomes one of a myriad of other causational factors and conditions contributing to, and leading up to, the one and only certain event that can occur.

Something only happens because the conditions to enable it to happen have been met (and your observing may be one of those conditions), otherwise it wouldn’t happen.

Scenario 1: You are observing the butterfly. The butterfly is affected to some degree by your observing along with many other factors. The butterfly must fly off to the right (for example) because of the combined causational factors.

Scenario 2: You are not observing the butterfly. The butterfly flies off to the left because of the combined causational factors.

However, there are not two outcomes. Only one scenario occurs with one certain outcome.

I agree that observation implies consciousness, but the same principle can be applied to all your thoughts, desires, decisions and actions.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Scenario 1: You are observing the butterfly. The butterfly is affected to some degree by your observing along with many other factors. The butterfly must fly off to the right (for example) because of the combined causational factors.

Scenario 2: You are not observing the butterfly. The butterfly flies off to the left because of the combined causational factors.

However, there are not two outcomes. Only one scenario occurs with one certain outcome.

Yes. So the question is - which scenario will occur? Is the butterfly pre-determined to fly in any one particular direction?

To answer that question, I need to go back one step, and ask - will I observe the butterfly or not? And is it pre-determined that I will or will not observe the butterfly?

To answer this, I have to go another step back. What factors determine whether I will observe or not observe, and are those factors present? Let me check.

My very checking affects those factors. So I need to go one step further, to decide whether it was pre-determined that I would do this check.

Now I have to investigate whether I will do this check. But my very investigation affects that question.

Now I shall conduct an inquiry as to whether it is predetermined that I would do such an investigation. But that inquiry affects that investigation .......

You see?

So in the end, is the butterfly's outcome predetermined or not?

To investigate this, you may wish to google this word - "beginninglessness".

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yes. So the question is - which scenario will occur? Is the butterfly pre-determined to fly in any one particular direction?

To answer that question, I need to go back one step, and ask - will I observe the butterfly or not? And is it pre-determined that I will or will not observe the butterfly?

To answer this, I have to go another step back. What factors determine whether I will observe or not observe, and are those factors present? Let me check.

My very checking affects those factors. So I need to go one step further, to decide whether it was pre-determined that I would do this check.

Now I have to investigate whether I will do this check. But my very investigation affects that question.

Now I shall conduct an inquiry as to whether it is predetermined that I would do such an investigation. But that inquiry affects that investigation .......

You see?

So in the end, is the butterfly's outcome predetermined or not?

To investigate this, you may wish to google this word - "beginninglessness".

Well, there is only ever one scenario. At any moment in time, there is one ‘active’ scenario, so all the extant conditions and factors present in that moment generate the one and only next certain event, otherwise, how could any event occur?

The butterfly will always fly in the direction resulting from all the combined factors in that moment. It can take only one direction. I would say its flight was ‘determined’ by the current factors, rather than ‘predetermined’.

If you look at the way weather forecasting has improved over the years – the more data and analysis we have about the conditions, the more we can accurately predict. Imagine if we had all of the data.

It also applies going backwards in time. A popular scenario would be solving a crime. If you could retrace the thread of cause and effect and extract all the data, you would solve it. One thread, or chain of cause and effect, leads to the crime which is the only outcome, since that is the one that occurred.