Nondeterminism doesn't necessarily imply free will?

[Gorgias]

No. It is impossible to measure perfectly because of the uncertainty principle.

Quantum mechanics tells us that a precise measurement with no uncertainty is impossible.

Nope. Yet again, we have to fix that: “Quantum mechanics tells us that a precise measurement with no uncertainty at quantum scales is impossible…”

As @whatistrue points out, the toss of a tie isn’t something that happens on a quantum scale, just as the path of a storm isn’t something that happens on a quantum scale. Oh, sure, if you drill down far enough, you’ll be able to point to some component and say “ah-ha! quantum mechanics!”… but the effects are happening – and predictable – on a larger, classically-describable scale.

It apples to the measurement of the initial conditions or conditions required for the calculation such as for example the initial height of the die from sea level (gravitational force on the die) and the initial placement of the die in the cup and the length of time you take to shake the die, the velocity of the die as it is tossed from the cup, etc.

None of these are on a quantum scale.

None of these quantities can be measured with absolute precision

Red herring. They can be measured with sufficient precision. (Or, at least, they are theoretically able to be measured sufficiently.)

 

[AlNg]

They can be measured with sufficient precision.

No. You need to read a bit more about complex nonlinear systems and the butterfly effect. It is shown in chaos theory that the slightest difference in the initial conditions can bring about huge differences in the effect.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s almost impossible for me to imagine such a scenario in order to speculate.

We can speculate on whether or not concepts such as intention and a will to an end can have physical descriptions. Given a universe that is not at it’s most fundamental levels acting for a purpose and does not move with intention, we can certainly consider whether or not it makes intelligible sense for such a thing to exist as a physical activity if only physical rules existed.

I say, given only a physical system, intention and freewill as an activity should not exist because they behave contrary to the physical rules of the system.

To put it simply, freewill is the antithesis of a natural event because no choice if it is truly free can be the direct result of natural activity (blind non-directed processes). In this respect we can see that it’s existence and effect in the world cannot be due to the continuation of physical activity alone.

That which has Freewill is something that intervenes in the system. And since it cannot come out nothing, it must posses a nature that is distinct from the system; a supernature.

 

[Freddy]

That which has Freewill is something that intervenes in the system.

No. It’s part of the system itself.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

They can be measured with sufficient precision.

No. You need to read a bit more about complex nonlinear systems and the butterfly effect. It is shown in chaos theory that the slightest difference in the initial conditions can bring about huge differences in the effect.

Nevertheless, non-quantum initial conditions can be measured and modeled in order to predict effects.

 

[AlNg]

Nevertheless, non-quantum initial conditions can be measured and modeled in order to predict effects.

With each toss, the initial conditions are changing. There will be different positions, configurations, momenta, angular momenta, and acceleration. And as well the complex structure of the basin boundaries will add to the randomness of the throw. Further a periodically oscillating table with a hard surface will add to the randomness. This implies that the initial configuration - final configuration map will be strongly nonlinear, and chaotic with the result that the sequence of numbers obtained from the die toss will be random.

 

[Gorgias]

And as well the complex structure of the basin boundaries will add to the randomness of the throw.

“Complexity”, not “randomness”.

with the result that the sequence of numbers obtained from the die toss will be random.

“Difficult to predict with current technology”, not “random”.

 

[AlNg]

“Difficult to predict with current technology”, not “random”.

Impossible to understand what you are talking about because of your current refusal to define randomness.
If you are given a sequence of numbers, how would you decide whether or not it is random ?

 

[Gorgias]

Impossible to understand what you are talking about because of your current refusal to define randomness.

I could say the same about you, then, too… right?

If you are given a sequence of numbers, how would you decide whether or not it is random ?

We’re talking about a single trial, aren’t we? Or have you finally abandoned that claim?

 

[AlNg]

I could say the same about you, then, too… right?

Completely wrong. I have defined random above and i have given two methods to determine whether or not a sequence of numbers is random.
But you were the one on this thread who introduced the issue of randomness and therefore should be the one defining your terms. You should not require someone else to define the words that you are using. I told you then that randomness and nondeterminism were not the same thing and that the topic was nondeterminism and not randomness.

We’re talking about a single trial, aren’t we?

No we are not. In this scenario, the die is being tossed hundreds of thousands of times and i am hiding from you the initial conditions. You do not know the original position, the momenta, the acceleration, the height from the table and the angle at which the die is tossed. These all change each time and remain hidden from you. And with each toss i am not choosing the same cup, but i am choosing from 100 different cups in no particular order. Further the table with a hard surface is oscillating periodically with varying angular velocities.
I only give you the sequence of numbers obtained from the toss. The initial configuration - final configuration map will be strongly nonlinear, and chaotic with the result that the sequence of numbers obtained from the die toss will be random.

 

[Gorgias]

I have defined random above and i have given two methods to determine whether or not a sequence of numbers is random.

No… you moved the goal posts. We were talking about a random number, and you’ve been attempting to change the discussion to a random series:

AlNg:

Gorgias:

I guess you don’t [have a definition], either?

A random sequence of numbers is one without order or pattern and which is serially uncorrelated.

See? Goalposts. Moved.

I told you then that randomness and nondeterminism were not the same thing

No; you asserted that randomness was irrelevant to the discussion.

No we are not. In this scenario, the die is being tossed hundreds of thousands of times and i am hiding from you the initial conditions.

No… in the scenario of this thread, we’re talking about whether we must call an event “deterministic”. More to the point, we’re asking “if we can assert that there is at least one basis which helps give rise to the event which is ‘random’, then can we say with any reasonableness that the event is ‘deterministic’.”

 

[AlNg]

you moved the goal posts

The definition of randomness includes the notion of sequences.

 

[Gorgias]

The definition of randomness includes the notion of sequences.

So, if I asked you “what is a random number?” or, more to the point, “is the roll of a die a random event?”, you’d talk about a sequence?

 

[Trifleton]

Indeterminism doesn’t imply free will. An indeterministic event could be purely chancy/random (if such events are possible, of course). A free act is not random, it is an act which is deliberately willed and acted on by a rational agent.

A free action is a sui generis category. It is not deterministic, but it is not random either. But we all have an idea of what it is like, when we engage in introspection considering our own power to choose to do things.

Quantum mechanics is pretty irrelevant here, since there is no reason why we should limit the acts of persons to physics, even QM. Unless one is a materialist. If persons are not entirely reducible to physics, then physics doesn’t exhaust the range of for explaining human acts. We are free, and free actions are in their own sui generis category.