Is libertarian free will coherent?

[robrecht]

OK then. What terms do you want me to define?

I did. I made the argument in my initial thread post. What I made was a philosophical argument, the a priori argument. There are also an a posteriori argument.

I honestly don't know. I'd need some possible examples.

You're right, I haven't. Here it is:



This equation describes everything in our everyday experience, including our bodies, brains, and everything that goes on in it. This leaves no possible room for a soul or immaterial mind to have a causal effect on any of the atoms in your brain or body. To claim otherwise would require you take up the burden of proof and disprove this equation.

And you're right, this is not a Christian issue. It's an issue that applies to everyone.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the vast majority of philosophers reject LFW because LFW is logically incoherent and scientifically unsupported, and philosophers are the ones who most closely think about these things. Once you critically examine LFW you will most likely see this too. Most philosophers are compatibilists, but the only point I want to raise in this thread is regarding LFW not CFW. So if you're a compatibilist, great, but that's off topic.

I don't think you have yet sufficiently clarified your definition of libertarian free will, which is why you first described my position as compatibilist and then described it as libertarian free will. This was a definition that Christians defined as compatibilist free will, and I suspect it is the probably the majority view of most people. And this is also why we still need to unpack exactly what it is that the majority of philosophers accept or reject.

With respect to your marvelous equation, I will need some time to digest it, and that will probably affect my response to your initial 'demonstration' of determinism.

[Leonhard]

This equation describes everything in our everyday experience, including our bodies, brains, and everything that goes on in it. This leaves no possible room for a soul or immaterial mind to have a causal effect on any of the atoms in your brain or body. To claim otherwise would require you take up the burden of proof and disprove this equation.

First of all, this equation doesn't describe everything, not even within the domain of physical terms, this equation merely describes the behavior of some physical observables, and how these will behave. It would not describe how such circumstances would come to be, why physical stuff would exist to begin with, the ratios of elements, compositions, large scale structures of space, etc... also its incomplete in as much as you can't boil the Standard Model down to this equation.

Secondly, only a really committed materialist would believe this. There's no scientific evidence that could possible justify materialism, and it remains a worldview choice for metaphysicists. I know many within the field of Philosophy of Science who would object, even scientists themselves such as chemists and biologists, who take a different approach.

The equation is borderline useless in the form given. We can't solve it in this state, only by introducing multiple levels of approximations can we derive actual results. Pick off the terms describing space time, and the higgs field, now make the approximation that electrodynamic fields can be treated seperately from weak fields (reasonable given in chemistry we work with low energy), make the semi-classical approximation that electromagnetic fields can be treated as continous fields (reasonable given we're not a low light intensity situation most of the time in nature, and not high intensity where pair production can happen), then make the classical approximation and derive a version of the Shroedinger equation with some corrective terms added, and finally apply that to the problem of the reaction rate of two hydrogen atoms in an aqueous solution.

Even with all those approximations you're basically at a loss in making such simulations, even by brute-force application of supercomputers, and you'd be forced to add further layers to solve even this childishly simple example. This can be done, but beyond very simple system, or systems where we already have a good idea of what to expect, and what can be ignored.. simulating only a small part of the system such as the transfer of a single ion, its simple not within practical testability.

And you want to claim that we have good evidence that this equation explains everything, even the behavior of biological systems? That's an impressive claim, but its not a theory, nor is it a hypothesis (I'm not even sure what a test would look like). Its at most an expectation, or a reasonable metaphysics.

Arguing that its others duties to disprove this not correct. You're the one that has to convince us that its true.

[Leonhard]

No, you were appealing to A-T metaphysics, which itself denies LFW. If you deny A-T metaphysics, just say so.

By A-T I suppose you're referring to Aristolelian Thomistic Metaphysics, like Scholasticism. In that case, you're simple contradicting the field, so you'd have to elaborate here.

[Leonhard]

How do you choose your next thought or belief? Explain this coherently. Until you can, you cannot claim LFW is true.

I have the power to choose my thought, or to direct my thinking. I see no reason to claim that we have absolute power over our thoughts, or that this is required in order for us to have free will. We can choose to think about certain topics, or to avoid thinking about others. This is a basic observation which is frankly undeniable. At the very least you're the one who has to work to explain why this common sense perception is actually an illusion we'd have to reject.

Beyond that I don't have to explain anything more. Those details can always be discovered. We can say that the soul has causal powers to do these things and leave it at that for now if you want.

[The Thinker]

I don't think you have yet sufficiently clarified your definition of libertarian free will, which is why you first described my position as compatibilist and then described it as libertarian free will. This was a definition that Christians defined as compatibilist free will, and I suspect it is the probably the majority view of most people. And this is also why we still need to unpack exactly what it is that the majority of philosophers accept or reject.

I think I did explain LFW in my initial post. If you have specific question, you can ask. But CFW is not really held by most people, it's held by most philosophers for sure. But most lay people hold to LFW. I did naively until just a few years ago.

With respect to your marvelous equation, I will need some time to digest it, and that will probably affect my response to your initial 'demonstration' of determinism.

For an explanation you can watch this video here which explains the equation in simple terms. It demonstrates no LFW, no soul or immaterial mind, not necessarily determinism, which technically isn't required to show LFW is false scientifically:

https://youtu.be/40eiycH077A?t=3m52s

[The Thinker]

First of all, this equation doesn't describe everything, not even within the domain of physical terms, this equation merely describes the behavior of some physical observables, and how these will behave. It would not describe how such circumstances would come to be, why physical stuff would exist to begin with, the ratios of elements, compositions, large scale structures of space, etc... also its incomplete in as much as you can't boil the Standard Model down to this equation.

Strawman. It's not intended to show how everything came to be. It's to show there is no soul or immaterial mind or any forces that have any effect on the atoms that make up our world of everyday experience - meaning us and how we behave. This equation does describe all physical matter in our everyday experience. And as far as the Standard Model, this equation is fully compatible with it, but it includes gravity, which the SM doesn't. So your science is incorrect.

Secondly, only a really committed materialist would believe this. There's no scientific evidence that could possible justify materialism, and it remains a worldview choice for metaphysicists. I know many within the field of Philosophy of Science who would object, even scientists themselves such as chemists and biologists, who take a different approach.

Well, 77% of philosophers of physics are atheists. Now atheism doesn't = materialism, but most atheists are materialists. And 72% of those philosophers of physics are physicalists when it comes to the mind. The vast majority hold my view. All you're making is just large claims, backed by no argument.

The equation is borderline useless in the form given. We can't solve it in this state, only by introducing multiple levels of approximations can we derive actual results. Pick off the terms describing space time, and the higgs field, now make the approximation that electrodynamic fields can be treated seperately from weak fields (reasonable given in chemistry we work with low energy), make the semi-classical approximation that electromagnetic fields can be treated as continous fields (reasonable given we're not a low light intensity situation most of the time in nature, and not high intensity where pair production can happen), then make the classical approximation and derive a version of the Shroedinger equation with some corrective terms added, and finally apply that to the problem of the reaction rate of two hydrogen atoms in an aqueous solution.

Blabber, blabber, blabber.

Even with all those approximations you're basically at a loss in making such simulations, even by brute-force application of supercomputers, and you'd be forced to add further layers to solve even this childishly simple example. This can be done, but beyond very simple system, or systems where we already have a good idea of what to expect, and what can be ignored.. simulating only a small part of the system such as the transfer of a single ion, its simple not within practical testability.

See above.

And you want to claim that we have good evidence that this equation explains everything, even the behavior of biological systems? That's an impressive claim, but its not a theory, nor is it a hypothesis (I'm not even sure what a test would look like). Its at most an expectation, or a reasonable metaphysics.

OK, so here is where your strawman begins that reveals the reason for your responses. I did not say this equation is the explanation for everything, it's the explanation for everything in our everyday experience. This does not include black holes, or the planck epoch, or things like that, but they are irrelevant for our understanding of regular everyday interactions, which we completely understand the laws for. See here, and here, and here for further explanation.

Arguing that its others duties to disprove this not correct. You're the one that has to convince us that its true.

You did nothing to challenge this equation. You just don't understand it, or what I mean by it.

[The Thinker]

I have the power to choose my thought, or to direct my thinking.

OK, prove it with a logical argument. Define what is "I". Is "I" your thoughts, your body, neither, or both?

I see no reason to claim that we have absolute power over our thoughts, or that this is required in order for us to have free will. We can choose to think about certain topics, or to avoid thinking about others. This is a basic observation which is frankly undeniable. At the very least you're the one who has to work to explain why this common sense perception is actually an illusion we'd have to reject.

Never said you have to have absolute power to have LFW.

Logically explain how you can choose your next thought please with a robust argument that is not internally incoherent.

[Leonhard]

OK, prove it with a logical argument.

Why?

I didn't posit it as based on other facts. My ability to control my thinking is an ordinary experience. Its shared by most people. Its up tp you to argue persuasively that this experience is misleading.

I might as well ask you to prove the color blue by a logical argument. The real answer is to point up to the cloud free midday sky. After its Dan Dennetts and The Churchlands task to try to explain coherently why 'blue' doesn't really exist.

Define what is "I".

A generic term referring to the agent using that term. In this case the writer of this post.

Though perhaps you meant to ask what a human being is? Or an agent

An agent refers to a person capable of doing actions and making choices.

With regards to the metaphysical nature of humans, personally, I'm a hylemorphic dualist, so I consider the soul to be the substantial form of the body (basically what makes it what it is: living, thinking, acting, as well as the physical state of the body. So I am both my thoughts and my body.

[Truthseeker]

This equation describes everything in our everyday experience, including our bodies, brains, and everything that goes on in it. This leaves no possible room for a soul or immaterial mind to have a causal effect on any of the atoms in your brain or body. To claim otherwise would require you take up the burden of proof and disprove this equation.

Show me where one's consciousness is represented in the equation.

[Leonhard]

Strawman. It's not intended to show how everything came to be.

The equation makes for an awesome t-shirt but its really another way to say 'Only stuff recognised by the Standard Model and General Relativity is real.' The equation doesn't demonstrate this. Its just a way to sum up the best we know from particle physics.

This equation does describe all physical matter in our everyday experience.

How would you use this equation to derive say the behavior of genes, when we can't even fully (or satisfyingly, in vacuum conditions, much less real world conditions) simulate chemical reactions quantum mechanically, even after peeling off all irrelevant terms, and using the semi-classical, the newtonian and even the Bohn Oppenheimer approximation?

If you can't actually test the claim that this equation applies to all common sense experiences, then how can you claim you've got scientific evidence for this?

I will grant you that this equation comes very close to describing the essential behavior of subatomic particles, and covers all we know about them. And one can also derive many behaviors for large scale systems. The latter follows since it describes electromagnetics and also has gravity in it.

Its still up to you to prove that we have good reasons for thinking all large scale phenomenons are covered. I don't see why anyone should be forced to think this due these results from particle physics.

And as far as the Standard Model, this equation is fully compatible with it,

Of course it is, but you can't derive all of the Standard model from it. How heavy is a Higgs boson, what's the size of the fine-structure constant, etc... That's basically what I meant. There's twenty or so parameters.

but it includes gravity, which the SM doesn't. So your science is incorrect.

Granted, a peccadillo.

Well, 77% of philosophers of physics are atheists. Now atheism doesn't = materialism, but most atheists are materialists. And 72% of those philosophers of physics are physicalists when it comes to the mind.

I'm sorta confused here, you're saying that half of all philosophers of physics are atheist materialists?

Beyond that I know not all of them are, and the outlook of chemists and biologists on this subject is different. To this day it remains an open question whether genetics can be reduced to mere molecular biology. I'm personally open to it (and it would not contradict my metaphysics) but I find the prospect a bit dubious, especially when it comes to the hope of a mechanistic explanation.

The vast majority hold my view. All you're making is just large claims, backed by no argument.

You mean two thirds of philosophers of physics agree with a version of what you believe. That's hardly a vast majority. Come back when it looks like climate change science regarding the question of global warming, or history regarding the holocaust, or Jesus studies regarding whether he was an actual living historical person.

In philosophy what you can argue for is important. Can you defend materialism? Remember, you're running a thread about the coherence of libertarian free will. As a counter to some people here, you offer materialism as an argument. As if its an established fact.

Blabber, blabber, blabber.

See above.

Okay this is getting childish.

You're the one claiming it can describe the behavior of everything and leaves nothing out. I agree it describes the behavior of particles free of all natural influences, and likely gives us the essential behavior of these particles.

Yet if you can't take it beyond simple problems like that and move into anything large, especially anything that interacts in ordinary environments, then how can you be justified in making the claim that it proves materialism?

The equation is a servicable amplitude useful for figuring out the behavior of a 10 TeV electron-positron collision near a blackhole.

Now, how would you get the reaction behavior of 1-erhylbromide gas (sea level pressure) when passed through ammonia in ethyl solution. Room temperature.

Outside of abstract thought, where we can presume a possible world where materialism is true, and where we have a computer with unlimited power. Is there anyway to sensibly make this claim? And that would just be the first baby step. The next would be to try to reduce molecular biology to physical chemistry, and then trying to reduce biology to molecular biology, before you had even gotten near to explaining all behavior in the body and brain by that one equation.

That's a herculean task I think you'd in all honesty would have to agree with me is impossible in all but fantasy.

So given that, why believe this equations accounts for all ordinary experiences?

You did nothing to challenge this equation. You just don't understand it, or what I mean by it.

Why would I challenge that this equation is correct? I'm merely saying its dubious that the behavior of all things can be reduced to it. At least this wouldn't be properly called science. Its untestable. And it shares the problem of anyone trying to reduce one scientific field to another.

And perhaps a bit of the old physicist arrogance.

No one sane would try to derive how genetics or natural selection works using this equation.

If it is possible, proceed.

[The Thinker]

Why?

I didn't posit it as based on other facts. My ability to control my thinking is an ordinary experience. Its shared by most people. Its up tp you to argue persuasively that this experience is misleading.

I might as well ask you to prove the color blue by a logical argument. The real answer is to point up to the cloud free midday sky. After its Dan Dennetts and The Churchlands task to try to explain coherently why 'blue' doesn't really exist.

Because my whole post was showing how that's logically impossible, and you come along and simply claim it is, on no evidence and no argument whatsoever. You just assert it.

A generic term referring to the agent using that term. In this case the writer of this post.

Though perhaps you meant to ask what a human being is? Or an agent

An agent refers to a person capable of doing actions and making choices.

Does it have to be human? Is a comatose person an agent?

With regards to the metaphysical nature of humans, personally, I'm a hylemorphic dualist, so I consider the soul to be the substantial form of the body (basically what makes it what it is: living, thinking, acting, as well as the physical state of the body. So I am both my thoughts and my body.

But all that is explained via materialism. There is no need to import anything non-physical or not in accordance with physics to explain a living, thinking, acting being. True, we do not fully understand consciousness, but positing anything immaterial like a soul that has causal effect on the body is a non-starter.

[The Thinker]

The equation makes for an awesome t-shirt but its really another way to say 'Only stuff recognised by the Standard Model and General Relativity is real.' The equation doesn't demonstrate this. Its just a way to sum up the best we know from particle physics.

It actually is a T-shirt. It doesn't say that 'Only stuff recognised [sic] by the Standard Model and General Relativity is real.' It says that every experiment that ever took place and every particle and force ever discovered is demonstrated by this equation. No immaterial soul fits into this. You're once again attacking a strawman.

How would you use this equation to derive say the behavior of genes, when we can't even fully (or satisfyingly, in vacuum conditions, much less real world conditions) simulate chemical reactions quantum mechanically, even after peeling off all irrelevant terms, and using the semi-classical, the newtonian and even the Bohn Oppenheimer approximation?

The behavior of genes is described at the chemical level, not the physics level, so this equation would not be used to derive that. But, all chemical reactions are explained by the standard model.

If you can't actually test the claim that this equation applies to all common sense experiences, then how can you claim you've got scientific evidence for this?

Not sure how these even makes sense. This equation describes everything in your everyday experience and it has all been tested.

I will grant you that this equation comes very close to describing the essential behavior of subatomic particles, and covers all we know about them. And one can also derive many behaviors for large scale systems. The latter follows since it describes electromagnetics and also has gravity in it.

Its still up to you to prove that we have good reasons for thinking all large scale phenomenons are covered. I don't see why anyone should be forced to think this due these results from particle physics.

Large scale phenomenons are covered by relativity, which is in the equation.

Of course it is, but you can't derive all of the Standard model from it. How heavy is a Higgs boson, what's the size of the fine-structure constant, etc... That's basically what I meant. There's twenty or so parameters.

This equation is not supposed to tell you the weight of the Higgs but its relationship with other forces.

I'm sorta confused here, you're saying that half of all philosophers of physics are atheist materialists?

Beyond that I know not all of them are, and the outlook of chemists and biologists on this subject is different. To this day it remains an open question whether genetics can be reduced to mere molecular biology. I'm personally open to it (and it would not contradict my metaphysics) but I find the prospect a bit dubious, especially when it comes to the hope of a mechanistic explanation.

I'm saying that 77% of philosophers of physics are atheists.

You mean two thirds of philosophers of physics agree with a version of what you believe. That's hardly a vast majority. Come back when it looks like climate change science regarding the question of global warming, or history regarding the holocaust, or Jesus studies regarding whether he was an actual living historical person.

It's more like 3/4ths. That's a pretty substantial majority. As far as Jesus studies in historicity, that will begin to drop just as it did with Moses's historicity 40 years ago.

In philosophy what you can argue for is important. Can you defend materialism? Remember, you're running a thread about the coherence of libertarian free will. As a counter to some people here, you offer materialism as an argument. As if its an established fact.

I don't actually need materialism to make my point, as it clearly was shown in my opening thread post. I made a purely logical argument and the only thing you've done in response to it is claim that LFW just seems true. As far as materialism, the equation I showed doesn't try to prove materialism is true. Please stop strawmaning this. It shows that there are no forces besides the Standard Model and gravity that affects atoms in our everyday experience and the burden of proof would be on you to show there is.

You're the one claiming it can describe the behavior of everything and leaves nothing out. I agree it describes the behavior of particles free of all natural influences, and likely gives us the essential behavior of these particles.

Yet if you can't take it beyond simple problems like that and move into anything large, especially anything that interacts in ordinary environments, then how can you be justified in making the claim that it proves materialism?

I'm not claiming it proves materialism. It's just one strawman after another with you. Geez.

Outside of abstract thought, where we can presume a possible world where materialism is true, and where we have a computer with unlimited power. Is there anyway to sensibly make this claim? And that would just be the first baby step. The next would be to try to reduce molecular biology to physical chemistry, and then trying to reduce biology to molecular biology, before you had even gotten near to explaining all behavior in the body and brain by that one equation.

Strawman again. I'm not trying to "prove" materialism. I clearly said in my comment, "This equation describes everything in our everyday experience, including our bodies, brains, and everything that goes on in it. This leaves no possible room for a soul or immaterial mind to have a causal effect on any of the atoms in your brain or body. To claim otherwise would require you take up the burden of proof and disprove this equation."

Everything that goes on in your body is ultimately reducible to atoms that behave according to this equation.

So given that, why believe this equations accounts for all ordinary experiences?

Because if it didn't you'd be able to point to something that violates it.

Why would I challenge that this equation is correct? I'm merely saying its dubious that the behavior of all things can be reduced to it. At least this wouldn't be properly called science. Its untestable. And it shares the problem of anyone trying to reduce one scientific field to another.

That's ridiculous. Every experiment confirms this equation. The whole point of me showing it is that if you claim that there are forces that interact with atoms like an immaterial soul, or an intellect or formal cause -- anything that is not in the Standard Model and gravity, that would violate this equation and therefore the burden of proof would be on you to empirically demonstrate that.

No one sane would try to derive how genetics or natural selection works using this equat

ion.

No one's trying to do that.

[The Thinker]

Show me where one's consciousness is represented in the equation.

That's completely the wrong question to ask.

[Truthseeker]

That's completely the wrong question to ask.

OK. Let me ask something different. Can the equation explain consciousness? Or, how does the equation explain the unique perception that every sentient human has of being conscious?

Why is a person more attractive than another person? Can the equation explain? That is a pertinent question because life would be different if on the other hand the first person is no more attractive than the second one in the eyes of the observer.

[Tassman]

OK. Let me ask something different. Can the equation explain consciousness? Or, how does the equation explain the unique perception that every sentient human has of being conscious?

Why is a person more attractive than another person? Can the equation explain? That is a pertinent question because life would be different if on the other hand the first person is no more attractive than the second one in the eyes of the observer.

Consciousness is not unique to humans. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness declares that most animals are conscious and aware in the same way that humans are and confirmed that virtually all animals have at least some degree of sentience.

http://fcmconference.org/img/Cambrid...sciousness.pdf