Warpspeedpeteys' Proof

[warpspeedpetey]

its very rough, but here is my beginning.

P1. this universe is determinant.

P2. free will exists in this determinant universe.

P3. free will is therefore transcendant of this determinant universe.

P4. transcendant free will then can only spring from a greater transcendant being.

P5. the maximal state of being is existence.

C1. G-d, the maximal state of being, must therefore exist.

i am attempting to formulate a proof based on the contradictory nature of free will and the deterministic universe. this is, of course a work in progress. i expect to see a great many counter arguments. which i will use to refine the argument. let me explain the most common that come to mind immediatley.

P1.

the universe is determinant. nuff said.

P2.

free will does exist, it is empirically tested trillions of times per day with every decision people make and has been thousands of years, the alternative is that it is an illusion and the determinant universe simply unfolded this way giving a perfect illusion of free will for no reason other than mere chance. is that possible in some way? yes, is it reasonable? no. trillions of data points per day say otherwise.

P3.

free will cannot be accounted for by deterministic processes, because then it would not be free, but deterministic. as above the data says otherwise.

P4.

if not determinant it must be transcendant of the physical universe, things that are not transcendant do not have that quality to lend and therefore cannot give transcedence to anything else.

P5.

there is nothing greater than pure existence, transcendant to all possible worlds that are predicated on it. the null set would be nothing, which doesnt seem to exist as anything other than a negation of existence, an artifact of language. simply placing it in a set makes it something rather than nothing.

C1.

the necessary being, the cause of the existence of all contingent beings. the maximal state of existence then.

i admit its full of holes and very rough, but im hoping other viewpoints will help clean it up. thanks

 

[James_S_Saint]

P1. this universe is determinant.

i am attempting to formulate a proof based on the contradictory nature of free will and the deterministic universe. this is, of course a work in progress. i expect to see a great many counter arguments. which i will use to refine the argument. let me explain the most common that come to mind immediatley.

P1.

the universe is determinant. nuff said.

Can I interject a strong suggestion, since you say that you are just beginning?

Any worthy proof of God, I think, should reflect the perfection of that God…? :bowdown2:

If you will begin the “perfect proof” with clear, “probably not arguable” definitions of the significant words that you intend to use, most counter-arguments will never appear and in addition, you will probably correct many of your own prior thoughts before you even begin.

I had to immediately question what you personally meant by “determinant”. This being a premise, is pretty critical to get right.

Presumption is the impetus of ALL sin. It is dangerous to presume that everyone understands the words that you use in the same manner as you do.

 

[Oreoracle]

Haha. The thread title is an eye-catcher.

P1. this universe is determinant.

I would assume the same.

P2. free will exists in this determinant universe.

Hold on a sec…define “free will.” Free will advocates say that we can make our own choices, but aren’t “we” just a collection of qualities (intellectual and emotional biases, genes, etc.) that might very well be as determined as the states of other objects? I’m not saying free will doesn’t exist, I just don’t see how you could prove that it does or even define it in any meaningful way. (Indeed, one of my recent posts pertained to the free will vs. determinism debate. But that was on an ethical topic, so it’s not relevant here.)

So let’s start here: Does the faculty of free will come along with qualities, as others do, or does it contain no qualities? If it does, it’s use could be just as determined as the course of movement a thrown object will take. If free will is made up of no qualities, it doesn’t exist and thus cannot be exercised. Or perhaps it is made of non-physical qualities? In that case, you’d need to develop a self-consistent system of the nature of non-physical entities. Indeed, this feat alone would require a metaphysical treatise unto itself. Then, you would need to prove that non-physical entities exist (and that they possess the nature you claim they do) and formulate a reliable method to experiment with them. Until these things are accomplished, you’re merely pointing at the unknown and claiming that it must conform to your arbitrary laws.

P3. free will is therefore transcendant of this determinant universe.

So non-physical entities can participate in the events of the physical universe? My, what abilities they possess! Any luck with that treatise and method of experimentation?

P4. transcendant free will then can only spring from a greater transcendant being.

And this entity doesn’t need to be caused while the other does? Your laws seem to be contradictory or at least have little distinction.

C1. G-d, the maximal state of being, must therefore exist.

The ambiguity of (P2) and the mysterious nature of non-physical objects (if they exist) seem to be your greatest obstacles. Good luck!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Can I interject a strong suggestion, since you say that you are just beginning?

Any worthy proof of God, I think, should reflect the perfection of that God…? :bowdown2:

If you will begin the “perfect proof” with clear, “probably not arguable” definitions of the significant words that you intend to use, most counter-arguments will never appear and in addition, you will probably correct many of your own prior thoughts before you even begin.

I had to immediately question what you personally meant by “determinant”. This being a premise, is pretty critical to get right.

Presumption is the impetus of ALL sin. It is dangerous to presume that everyone understands the words that you use in the same manner as you do.

sure, but i m not trying to be overly formal, determinant refers here to physical determinism. i try not to get caught up in definition fights. and if some occur here it will be helpful in setting the correct language to use as the argument is refined, your right, though.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If I could offer some suggestions concerning the definitions…

Within this argument;
“Determinant” == having no freedom to alter from destination
“Free Will” == the ability to accomplish a chosen goal
“Transcendent” == independent of the limits of physics
“Existence” == having the property of affect
“Being” == an incident of existence
“Maximal” == highest possible

There has been a mind-game, trick, deception that has kept this argument going for all these years. If you look very closely to those definitions, you can correct the long standing fallacy in prior arguments.

But expect to have to start over.

 

[concerneduser]

Wow, this is deep, take a look at my post please on almost the same topic, predestination and free will. It seems that youall have a good research under your belt.

 

[hatsoff]

Free will as we experience it is not incompatible with determinism. In order to make it incompatible, you must imbue it with additional, unobserved properties.

Now, maybe the sort of free will compatible with determinism isn’t something you think deserves the label “free will.” If that is the case, then we will say that free will as you envision it is not real.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Haha. The thread title is an eye-catcher.

yeah, if it were to work out, its going to look funny in the annals of Thomistic history. St. this and St. that, Dr. this and that and then me, the redneck, warpspeedpetey.

I would assume the same.

i think this is the least troublesome of the premises too.

Hold on a sec…define “free will.” Free will advocates say that we can make our own choices,

thats a fine definition by me.

but aren’t “we” just a collection of qualities (intellectual and emotional biases, genes, etc.) that might very well be as determined as the states of other objects? I’m not saying free will doesn’t exist, I just don’t see how you could prove that it does or even define it in any meaningful way. (Indeed, one of my recent posts pertained to the free will vs. determinism debate. But that was on an ethical topic, so it’s not relevant here.)

the problem of determinism masquerading as free will are those empirically observed trillions of data points everyday, for tens of thousands of years. if we can determine the beginning state of a closed system we can predict the state of that system anywhere along its developement. if free will is deterministic that means that the start of the universe was randomly formed in such a way as to perfectly fake all those data points. for no reason at all other than pure chance. such an arrangement though, if true, would smack of design rather than random chance. after all what would be the odds of every particle in the universe being arranged in such a way as to give us a near perfect illusion of free will, by chance? it would be something like pouring out a bagful of letter blocks, only to see them land and form the text of every book in the library of congress, and then repeating the feat 10 or 20 thousand times. it would be unreasonable to think that such a thing occured randomly. so it seems much more reasonable to me and by occams razor it is more economical to believe that we just have actual free will. even though this contradicts the determinant nature of the universe.

So let’s start here: Does the faculty of free will come along with qualities, as others do, or does it contain no qualities? If it does, it’s use could be just as determined as the course of movement a thrown object will take. If free will is made up of no qualities, it doesn’t exist and thus cannot be exercised.

i wouldnt assign any greater quality than that inherent to the definition. simply the ability to choose.

Or perhaps it is made of non-physical qualities?

thats my position, it obviously cant be physical in nature. though that alone seems evidence of non-physical beings.

In that case, you’d need to develop a self-consistent system of the nature of non-physical entities. Indeed, this feat alone would require a metaphysical treatise unto itself. Then, you would need to prove that non-physical entities exist (and that they possess the nature you claim they do) and formulate a reliable method to experiment with them. Until these things are accomplished, you’re merely pointing at the unknown and claiming that it must conform to your arbitrary laws.

obviously we cant experiment with the non-physical, that isnt really much of a problem though, science shares that flaw, in that nothing prior to planck time can be experimentally proven either, but most everyone accepts the big bang theory. if one simply stops at the planck time immediately after the BB then one is either denying or ignoring the PSR and that is tanatamount to the denial of the ability to practice the scientific method or the ability to know anything at all.

So non-physical entities can participate in the events of the physical universe? My, what abilities they possess! Any luck with that treatise and method of experimentation?

see above.

And this entity doesn’t need to be caused while the other does? Your laws seem to be contradictory or at least have little distinction.

as “nothing” doesnt exist, there was no cause necessary for the maximal state of being. because there would be nothing from which to be caused. there is then no such thing as non-existence for the maximal state of being.

The ambiguity of (P2) and the mysterious nature of non-physical objects (if they exist) seem to be your greatest obstacles. Good luck!

thank you. but i think that the later premises in the build up are going to be the real problems. we will see though.

 

[redhen]

its very rough, but here is my beginning.

P1. this universe is determinant.

I’m new so maybe I’m missing something, but in light of quantum uncertainty and potentiality, I would question p1.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Some of the latest quantum mechanical interpretations are “super-deterministic”, which means that they do not accommodate any kind of contrafactual definiteness, including divine intervention.

Deterministic = follows a set path, like a computer program doing exactly what it is told.

Super-deterministic = a demo version of that computer program, which just has a sequence of canned outputs corresponding to preplanned (name removed by moderator)uts, and cannot accommodate any deviation from those preplanned (name removed by moderator)uts.

 

[liquidpele]

Even if the universe was determinant… it’s really really really really really big… so it certainly could account for your “free will”.

Think of it this way… the mandelbrot set is from the simplest fractal there is… and yet is has what can only be described as infinite complexity from that. Saying your free will couldn’t have come from a determinant universe is like saying certain designs can’t be found in the mandelbrot set.

 

[reggieM]

So non-physical entities can participate in the events of the physical universe?

Thoughts, memories, imagination, logic, rationality, the square root of 152.256

My, what abilities they possess! Any luck with that treatise and method of experimentation?

Proposal: The entire universe is composed only of physical entities.
Proof to the contrary: The rules of logic used to develop or argue the proposal are non-physical.
Experimentation: Seek the known universe for physical evidence of the rules of logic.
Result: No trace of physical evidence of such rules have ever been found.
Conclusion: The idea that there are no non-physical entities participating in the physical universe is easily falsified.

 

[hatsoff]

Logic is a manifestation of thinking, which is indeed a physical phenomenon.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If I could offer some suggestions concerning the definitions…

Within this argument;
“Determinant” == the current state being determined solely by the previous state
“Free Will” == the ability to choose any course of action
“Transcendent” == independent of the physical universe
“Existence” == predicate of being
“Being” == an incident of existence (not sure here)
“Maximal” == highest possible

There has been a mind-game, trick, deception that has kept this argument going for all these years. If you look very closely to those definitions, you can correct the long standing fallacy in prior arguments.

But expect to have to start over.

i would alter them as above, though that may change as new information comes in, and yes, i may have to start over.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wow, this is deep, take a look at my post please on almost the same topic, predestination and free will. It seems that youall have a good research under your belt.

predestination is theology a little out of the range i wish to adress here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Free will as we experience it is not incompatible with determinism. In order to make it incompatible, you must imbue it with additional, unobserved properties.

Now, maybe the sort of free will compatible with determinism isn’t something you think deserves the label “free will.” If that is the case, then we will say that free will as you envision it is not real.

free will is entirely incompatable with physical determinism, the trillions of data points generated everyday dont lie, the universe is deterministic and we have free will, if we are to say that some quality of free will makes it an illusion, as shopenhauer, we still have the problem that such an illusion is massively mathematically improbable, every particle in the universe just happening to be in the exact right position to generate an illusion of free will across trillions of data points a day seems completely unreasonable. if true that would smack of design rather than random generation. applying occams law then brings us to the inescapable conclusion that free will exists.

as a further explanation let me repeat what i said to oreo

the problem of determinism masquerading as free will are those empirically observed trillions of data points everyday, for tens of thousands of years. if we can determine the beginning state of a closed system we can predict the state of that system anywhere along its developement. if free will is deterministic that means that the start of the universe was randomly formed in such a way as to perfectly fake all those data points. for no reason at all other than pure chance. such an arrangement though, if true, would smack of design rather than random chance. after all what would be the odds of every particle in the universe being arranged in such a way as to give us a near perfect illusion of free will, by chance? it would be something like pouring out a bagful of letter blocks, only to see them land and form the text of every book in the library of congress, and then repeating the feat 10 or 20 thousand times. it would be unreasonable to think that such a thing occured randomly. so it seems much more reasonable to me and by occams razor it is more economical to believe that we just have actual free will. even though this contradicts the determinant nature of the universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m new so maybe I’m missing something, but in light of quantum uncertainty and potentiality, I would question p1.

QM is part of the causal chain in determinism because it relies on a vacuum already existing to draw lagrangian values from. its more a situation of we dont know than a violation of the PSR.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Even if the universe was determinant… it’s really really really really really big… so it certainly could account for your “free will”.

Think of it this way… the mandelbrot set is from the simplest fractal there is… and yet is has what can only be described as infinite complexity from that. Saying your free will couldn’t have come from a determinant universe is like saying certain designs can’t be found in the mandelbrot set.

the size of the universe would seem to have no bearing, it is either determinant or it is not, from everything we know it is, if it is not then why do we not see indeternminant effects. i.e., you turn left but go backwards, a butterfly lands on a leaf, causing a nuclear event, and so on. yet we never see such things.

 

[Oreoracle]

the problem of determinism masquerading as free will are those empirically observed trillions of data points everyday, for tens of thousands of years. if we can determine the beginning state of a closed system we can predict the state of that system anywhere along its developement. if free will is deterministic that means that the start of the universe was randomly formed in such a way as to perfectly fake all those data points. for no reason at all other than pure chance. such an arrangement though, if true, would smack of design rather than random chance.

Come now, Petey. Making arguments for free will based on the appearance of such? This isn’t like you at all.

I think you’re trying to block me from the wrong angle. I do not contest that we each make use of willpower hundreds of times a day. What I contest is that this will is “free.” What does it mean to be free? If it means to be undetermined and indefinite, then it seems strange to posit that our will is free. Our usage of will can often be traced to our personalities, which seem to have form. Every quality of our personalities is a shackle that prevents us from being free (more precisely, the personalities are “us”), just as the qualities of a rock and its surroundings will direct its course as it soars through the air. You can’t escape the fact that willpower is used by you, and you are anything but free or indeterminate, which is why we label you as an object in language (by calling you “you”). Indeed, the only “thing” that is free is that which is without qualities: nothingness.

obviously we cant experiment with the non-physical, that isnt really much of a problem though…

Of course it is! The law of gravity was derived from our observations of falling objects. We didn’t just begin speaking metaphysical babble and claim that gravitative force must exist without having experienced it. Without observations, you have nothing.

as “nothing” doesnt exist, there was no cause necessary for the maximal state of being.

Why couldn’t the maximal, necessary being have been inanimate? Why did it have to be conscious, intelligent, and sentient?

because there would be nothing from which to be caused. there is then no such thing as non-existence for the maximal state of being.

You even admitted on another thread that the causal chain never had to exist. Nothingness, as in no causal chain, was a possible world.

thank you. but i think that the later premises in the build up are going to be the real problems. we will see though.

Since your later premises build off of (P2), then any problems with (P2) will be severely damaging to your argument. As of now, your argument is resting on the unstable grounds of ambiguity and mystery.

 

[hatsoff]

free will is entirely incompatable with physical determinism, the trillions of data points generated everyday dont lie, the universe is deterministic and we have free will, if we are to say that some quality of free will makes it an illusion, as shopenhauer, we still have the problem that such an illusion is massively mathematically improbable, every particle in the universe just happening to be in the exact right position to generate an illusion of free will across trillions of data points a day seems completely unreasonable. if true that would smack of design rather than random generation. applying occams law then brings us to the inescapable conclusion that free will exists.

as a further explanation let me repeat what i said to oreo

the problem of determinism masquerading as free will are those empirically observed trillions of data points everyday, for tens of thousands of years. if we can determine the beginning state of a closed system we can predict the state of that system anywhere along its developement. if free will is deterministic that means that the start of the universe was randomly formed in such a way as to perfectly fake all those data points. for no reason at all other than pure chance. such an arrangement though, if true, would smack of design rather than random chance. after all what would be the odds of every particle in the universe being arranged in such a way as to give us a near perfect illusion of free will, by chance? it would be something like pouring out a bagful of letter blocks, only to see them land and form the text of every book in the library of congress, and then repeating the feat 10 or 20 thousand times. it would be unreasonable to think that such a thing occured randomly. so it seems much more reasonable to me and by occams razor it is more economical to believe that we just have actual free will. even though this contradicts the determinant nature of the universe.

I don’t know where you’re getting all these bizarre preliminary assumptions. In what way is free will “mathematically improbable” in a deterministic universe? And what is this business of “fak[ing]…data points”?

Free will is simply our ability to exercise voluntary physical action. In other words, it’s a trivial consequence our organismal ability to think. Nothing about determinism changes that.