What is the point of free will?

[tonyrey]

God is not a policeman

The best way to teach people is not to impose anything on them! You claim not to believe in giving them unrestricted free will but in practice you would be the last person to tolerate restrictions on your thoughts and actions beyond those that already exist…

Only a very mean and stupid person would let other people to commit the same mistakes over and over again, and at the end give out an accumulated punishment.

The idea of meting out arbitrary punishment overlooks the fact that sooner or later our vices do incur their own punishment. If we despise others. for example, we are alienating them and ultimately we become isolated. Pride stems from an unrealistic view of reality in which we overrate ourselves and underestimate the value of others.

If you had the power would you brainwash everyone so that they never do

• anything wrong?

I already answered this MANY times. If I had the power I would only create people, who do not NEED policing, who would not wish to cause harm to others, who would only be filled with good will and no ill will. How many times do I have to repeat it, until you understand this? Such a simple concept… does it fly over your head?

You have never explained the means by which that hypothesis could be implemented. It savours more of fantasy than a feasible possibility.

Remember you believe we should be free to indulge to our heart’s content in any evil thoughts provided we don’t put them into practice. So according to you we should all have split personalities, spending our lives at two different levels:

Again… the people who simply fantasize about doing something, but do not want to put into practice will not have “split personalities”. Those who want to put those fantasies into practice, but are prevented from doing it - deserve what they get. Let them be frustrated.

Once again there is not even a hint of an explanation of the mechanism by which such an extraordinary feat could be achieved. It amounts to an appeal to ignorance rather than a rational argument.

People often accuse others of their own defects. In your opinion there is no price too high to pay for having our free will restricted so that we become intellectually impotent - like a Dr Hyde and a Mr Jekyll living two different lives!

Why do you keep twisting my words? There is no price too high to pay for getting into heaven. For good people there is no need for restrictions. For bad people, if the only way to get them into heaven is to impose SOME restrictions on their freedom to act, it is still better for them to be in heaven, than to burn forever in some cauldron. We habitually restrict the freedom of our children when their freedom would be harmful to themselves or others.

There is a fundamental difference between restricting the freedom of children and adults. They are subjected to physical restraint - and punishment if necessary. How would such measures be applied to grown ups apart from those that already exist?

A short summary is due here.1) You keep asking certain questions.
2) I answer them, in detail.
3) Then you ask the same questions over and over again.
4) Can’t you remember what you asked and I answered?
5) Then you twist what I said.
6) Can’t you understand my simple sentences?
7) How boring can you get?

Unsubstantiated assertions and implications are worthless…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Or, perhaps more basically, our experience with them. It is how the real world is related to us and how we are to it.

Very well said. So we know about the objective external reality by our senses. To be more precise, the senses are the “first hurdle”. Then we interpret the received signals, and build a pyramidal structure of knowledge, which needs to be constantly compared to the actual reality. How else could we find out if the mental image of reality corresponds to the actual reality?

This was a few hundred years before the scientific method was really set, and to be frank, the idea of empirical research seems to have actually come out of this way of thinking, not the other way around.

Not precise. The scientific method was explicitly formulated relatively recently, but the process was followed even by the cave-men. Moreover, it is followed by the animals, too. They observe, test, and learn from their experiences. Just look at the rats (a highly intelligent species). You feed them a poisoned food, and they will learn from the experience and avoid it. That is the “scientific” method - not formalized, of course. But it is the principle, the basic epistemological method.

After all, what is “knowledge”, but a correct model of reality? And how can we know if the model reflects the reality, if not by actually comparing them?

I don’t think we need to be arbitrarily restrictive and limit all knowledge to empiricism.

You are more than welcome to present an alternate epistemological method. Actually, that is what I have been asking for many decades now (on several boards), and never received an answer.

By the way, the scientific method is NOT universally applicable. It only applies to the objective, external reality. It is not applicable in the abstract sciences, and it is not applicable for the subjective assessments of the external reality. (“Beauty” is in the eyes of the beholder.)

You have no way to show that is true through a empirical approach and the assumption itself makes some metaphysical claims without any ground, it just becomes a brute fact.

Again, imprecise. One cannot “prove” an epistemological method like one can prove a mathematical theorem, or by presenting it like one can present a physical object. Epistemological methods either “work” or they don’t. Biblically speaking: “by their fruits you will know them”. This is another frequently presented “criticism” of the empirical method: it is not applicable to itself. Of course it is not. It does not have to be. The method itself is not an ontological object.

I’m glad we’re in agreement for the most part about how to gain knowledge. But I think you’re assertion that this is trivial shows a rather restricted mind-set, or at least one that has been operating on one set of assumptions as unquestioned brute facts.

There are many “brute facts”. Those who assert the universal necessity of PSR (principle of sufficient reason) forget that explanations cannot go on to infinity. One must stop somewhere, and that stopping point is a brute fact.

In the abstract sciences (like mathematics or logic) the ultimate “stopping points” are the axioms. One cannot expect to “prove” the “law of identity”. In the field of inductive sciences the ultimate stopping points are the “basic principles”. Now it might happen, that some of our “alleged basic principles” turn out to be at odds with reality in the light of new discoveries.

In this case part of the previous “knowledge” must be discarded or reconsidered. The ancient Greeks had their “metaphysics”, where they assumed that everything is composed of the “basic” elements, earth, water, air and fire… along with the ether. As our actual, physical knowledge grew, this metaphysics had to be discarded.

Important observation: “metaphysics, which is at odds with real physics is a useless, empty speculation”.

So if you ask about obtaining knowledge, I need to define how we do so, and it’s not something that should just be taken for granted.

All you have to do is show that it works. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. What could be a simpler epistemological method?

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. I try to anticipate an objection, and it just goes the other way.

As we know, guano happens.

In the times of Aristotle and later of Aquinas, the actual knowledge of reality was very small. So, they speculated. They had no idea that quantitative changes CAN lead to qualitative changes. They were just like the proverbial ant which was asked: “what is an elephant?” and he answered: “a very big, huge ant”.

A rock made of uranium will change qualitatively, when you add too many uranium atoms to it. Of course Aquinas had no idea about fission and critical mass, and could not have any idea about them. No one should criticize him for his ignorance. On the other hand those people who still take him seriously, must be criticized for their willful ignorance.

He did not have any idea about the “critical mass” of disgruntled humans either. As the number of dissatisfied humans grow, there is a critical mass, which will change a crowd into a mob, and simple dissatisfaction changes into a revolution.

Aristotle, Plato or Aquinas have nothing to offer today. The knowledge about reality expressed in actual physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, etc… overrode their simple and simplistic speculations.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The best way to teach people is not to impose anything on them!

Looks like you never heard of “feedback”, or “positive and negative reinforcement” as teaching tools. That post just about sums up your level of rationality. Good bye.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I have read and contemplated his posts for a while (quite a while). I tried to conduct a conversation with him. But it was all to naught, so I decided to ignore him and his nonsense. Life is too short to engage in a conversation with the unworthy. Of course he is not smart enough to realize that he is being ignored, and keeps on trying to get included… just like other nincompoops. Poor sucker.

Pallas!, Pallas! Life is certainly too short to be spent on unworthy activities; but which ones of your conversations here have been worthy enough to you? What is it that moves you: to learn, to teach; to convince yourself that you are superior to everyone else; to attack, to be attacked; to defeat, to be defeated…, to fantasize that you are being admired…? How long do you spend every week working on this activity? Is it really worthy? An obscure mechanism impels you: You need to destroy, and to see the destruction around you; but then what?

What is the point of your own free will?

Life is certainly too short, Greek guy…, really short.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are more than welcome to present an alternate epistemological method. Actually, that is what I have been asking for many decades now (on several boards), and never received an answer.

Of course you have asked before.

As I said many times, you (in general as well as personal “you”) are always welcome to present an **alternative **epistemological method about the objective reality.

Some background for those interested…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12554851&postcount=287
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12555597&postcount=293
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12558033&postcount=319
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12559606&postcount=341

Answers the challenge by asking whether objective reality is our principle concern, after all.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12566312&postcount=379
Response by Hee_Zen ¶ and rebuttal …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12568957&postcount=386

And Hee_Zen took the same trip down the “immediate reinforcement” rabbit hole.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12575029&postcount=406

**The main thrust of the response to Hee_Zen (PA’s alter-ego) was that an “alternative” (actually “additional” would be a better word) epistemological method is presumed by a couple of requirements that simply come with the territory of being human…

1. An additional method is necessary to answer the even more pressing questions prior to PA’s requirement regarding understanding the nature of objective reality – that is, in order:

• What am I?
• Why do I exist?
• What am I to do?

1. The above answers are absolutely required before we can make any sense whatsoever of the nature of objective reality because the significance of any epistemic determinations we make about objective reality presumes that knowledge of objective reality (aka the physical world) is significant or meaningful. Yet, how is THAT known? By what epistemic method?

Ergo, another epistemic method to prioritize the significance, meaning or value of things to be objectively known is required prior to deciding that any particular knowledge of the objective world is worth pursuing, or that objective knowledge is worth having and why. **

Some more background…

We should begin by pointing out the distinction between oberver, knower and agent. What you are trying to insist is that “observer” is the only possible role that human beings can play. Certainly, that role has been facilitated and enhanced by the scientific method such that we have come to believe that our observations accurately depict - to a more or less complete extent - the way the physical world functions. The accuracy of that depiction lends itself to an assumption that our observations allow us something approaching “knowledge” or certainty regarding the workings of the physical world.

The problem, however, is that all the data that comes from the physical world tells us absolutely NOTHING regarding what our agency should look like with respect to our being or living in that world.

As philosophers have long pointed out, the is-ought distinction remains intact. Knowing everything there is to know about the physical world tells us absolutely nothing about the way we OUGHT to act nor about the way the physical world, itself, ought to be.

You advocate leaving the ought question up to the individual as an entirely subjective one. But is that allowance true, workable or even coherent?

Knowing everything there is to know about the physical world tells us nothing about what it means to be an agent in that world. Playing the role of observer, even perfectly, does not fulfill in us the complete qualifications or “job description” for what it means to be an agent in the world or as “human,” properly speaking.

Knowing everything about objective things, what they are and how they function tells us NOTHING about what we are, as agents, and what we are to do day by day, minute by minute, second by second.

Here, I am not talking about physiology or biochemistry, but subjectivity itself. What am I? What ought I to do at this moment as an agent in the world?

Descartes’ cogito, accepted as given, tells me that I am, but does not tell me what I am nor what I am to do.

Likewise, taking on and completing fully the role of observer gets me absolutely nowhere with respect to the questions of, “What am I?” and “What am I to do?” precisely because focusing on the role of observer to the exclusion of answering those questions deflects attention away from them in the same way that an attention deficit makes it difficult or impossible to focus on any key issue to its complete resolution.

What is gravity? What is a quark? How does light travel? Etc., Etc. May be important questions, but how would I know that they are important to me until the question of: “Who or what am I?” gets fully and completely resolved. From there, the subordinate question of "What do I do, now? Can be addressed.

What you seem to be doing is using the “observer” mode to completely ignore and gloss over the knower and agent modes, precisely because your view of the observer mode entails that nothing can be known about agency qua agency but, rather, you insist that all of our resources should be dedicated to collecting evidence about the physical world with no attention whatsoever left to understanding what it means to be agents with a distinctively acausal relationship to the world.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last.

You insist that physical evidence MUST be the foundation for all of our knowledge, yet you… have to admit that the role of agent has its own characteristic reality and qualities and that agency can be objectively assessed on its own qualitative merits - not simply by the observable character of physical reality.

You thereby admit the existence of an objective reality that supervenes on observable, physical reality - the existence of a reality “superior” to the merely observable one. Hence “supernatural” [or above the causal order or “nature”] in its very essence.

…[we are compelled to] believe agency is important and that whatever moves agents towards certain behaviours can be assessed on its own merits - not with any reference to physical causality or the way the observable world alone functions causally, but, rather, with reference to subjective agency as its own “supernatural” reality beyond the scope of the scientific method and methodological materialism. [As observers, knowers and agents our role transcends the merely causal order of the objective world. Therefore, our priority above gaining knowledge of the objective world is to uncover our role in the objective world as observers and agents.]

 

[Peter_Plato]

Looks like you never heard of “feedback”, or “positive and negative reinforcement” as teaching tools. That post just about sums up your level of rationality. Good bye.

“Teaching tools” or tools for the manipulation of others?

I think Tony is alluding to the fact that teaching fundamentally and primarily involves the recognition of the other as a person, not an object or thing to be manipulated.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course you have asked before.

Some background for those interested…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12554851&postcount=287
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12555597&postcount=293
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12558033&postcount=319
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12559606&postcount=341

Answers the challenge by asking whether objective reality is our principle concern, after all.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12566312&postcount=379
Response by Hee_Zen ¶ and rebuttal …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12568957&postcount=386

And Hee_Zen took the same trip down the “immediate reinforcement” rabbit hole.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12575029&postcount=406

**The main thrust of the response to Hee_Zen (PA’s alter-ego) was that an “alternative” (actually “additional” would be a better word) epistemological method is presumed by a couple of requirements that simply come with the territory of being human…

1. An additional method is necessary to answer the even more pressing questions prior to PA’s requirement regarding understanding the nature of objective reality – that is, in order:

• What am I?
• Why do I exist?
• What am I to do?

1. The above answers are absolutely required before we can make any sense whatsoever of the nature of objective reality because the significance of any epistemic determinations we make about objective reality presumes that knowledge of objective reality (aka the physical world) is significant or meaningful. Yet, how is THAT known? By what epistemic method?

Ergo, another epistemic method to prioritize the significance, meaning or value of things to be objectively known is required prior to deciding that any particular knowledge of the objective world is worth pursuing, or that objective knowledge of any particular thing is worth having and why. **

Some more background…

Continued…

 

[tonyrey]

“Teaching tools” or tools for the manipulation of others?

I think Tony is alluding to the fact that teaching fundamentally and primarily involves the recognition of the other as a person, not an object or thing to be manipulated.

Pallas prefers to jump to a false conclusion rather than face the inconvenient fact that we don’t treat people like children when they grow up - as he implies…

 

[tonyrey]

Pallas!, Pallas! Life is certainly too short to be spent on unworthy activities; but which ones of your conversations here have been worthy enough to you? What is it that moves you: to learn, to teach; to convince yourself that you are superior to everyone else; to attack, to be attacked; to defeat, to be defeated…, to fantasize that you are being admired…? How long do you spend every week working on this activity? Is it really worthy? An obscure mechanism impels you: You need to destroy, and to see the destruction around you; but then what?

What is the point of your own free will?

Life is certainly too short, Greek guy…, really short.

Unfortunately for him his attempts at destruction have had a boomerang effect and he is being reduced to silence by one person after another. Farewell, Pallas. It has been interesting and entertaining…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

…which ones of your conversations here have been worthy enough to you?

All those where I keep responding. When the conversation peters out, or becomes futile, I stop wasting time and effort on them. Simple, eh? Of some of the ignored ones cannot take “NO” for an answer, and keep pestering me with their nonsense. They remind me of those small children who keep on “performing” when the adult’s do not pay attention to them. With children it is understandable, with adults it is rather pitiful.

What is the point of your own free will?

Ah, we have a misunderstanding. For atheists there is no “point”, free will simply is. “Point” can only be for believers, who think that their free will (along with other attributes) is bestowed on them by their “creator”.

The question was (and still is) about the optimal level of freedom. When a rational person creates a system, there are three possible methods. One is to create a fully deterministic system, where everything works as intended. The other one is stochastic, where there are certain deterministic features and some undetermined, “free” features. This second one makes the creator’s job easier. He does not need to program each and every possible scenarios.

However, in this case he needs to build in safeguards, so the creation does not “spin off” into some undesired state. Freedom, yes, but only limited freedom, so the creation will “work” as intended.

Now there is a third possibility, the lazy and irresponsible creator, who does not “bother” with the safeguards, rather just puts together “something” and when the created beings do not behave as “intended”, he simply punishes them…

 

[JuanFlorencio]

All those where I keep responding. When the conversation peters out, or becomes futile, I stop wasting time and effort on them. Simple, eh? Of some of the ignored ones cannot take “NO” for an answer, and keep pestering me with their nonsense. They remind me of those small children who keep on “performing” when the adult’s do not pay attention to them. With children it is understandable, with adults it is rather pitiful.

Ah, we have a misunderstanding. For atheists there is no “point”, free will simply is. “Point” can only be for believers, who think that their free will (along with other attributes) is bestowed on them by their “creator”.

The question was (and still is) about the optimal level of freedom. When a rational person creates a system, there are three possible methods. One is to create a fully deterministic system, where everything works as intended. The other one is stochastic, where there are certain deterministic features and some undetermined, “free” features. This second one makes the creator’s job easier. He does not need to program each and every possible scenarios.

However, in this case he needs to build in safeguards, so the creation does not “spin off” into some undesired state. Freedom, yes, but only limited freedom, so the creation will “work” as intended.

Now there is a third possibility, the lazy and irresponsible creator, who does not “bother” with the safeguards, rather just puts together “something” and when the created beings do not behave as “intended”, he simply punishes them…

Ah, I admire you, Greek guy! Very wisely you put yourself on the safe side! No possible questions for you!

On the other hand, I feel I am at risk: given the fact that your freedom simply is, the worthiness or unworthiness of any discussion -this included- is exclusively decided by you, without notice. My legs tremble. How could anyone be smarter than that?

But, please be merciful, Greek guy (if that is one of your algorithms, or if you can develop it right away): Let me understand your smart position, because it seems interesting.

Then, you are within a system, in which free will simply is. So, which kind of system is it? Of the three which are possible, it seems that we have to discard the fully deterministic one, because it would not include free will in it. Which of the other two kinds is this system?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

How lucky I am. After a good night’s sleep I checked the board, and there was no new reply. So I went out to the virtual casinos and collected the daily bonuses, just for the fun of it. Maybe later I might play a little. (But never for real money, of course). So coming back I found your reply, and I will be happy to answer.

Then, you are within a system, in which free will simply is. So, which kind of system is it? Of the three which are possible, it seems that we have to discard the fully deterministic one, because it would not include free will in it. Which of the other two kinds is this system?

Now I am not sure if I understand your question. There are two possible ways to parse it. One is “what system would I create if I had the power?”. The other possible understanding is “which system we live in now”?

1. If I had the power to create a world, it would be “second” scenario. Give as much freedom to the beings in it as possible, but only as much where their actions could not destroy the world or the reason it was created for. This opens up new venues, which might be explored, if you happen to be interested.
2. The answer is: “the fourth one”. All three presented scenarios presuppose a “creator”. Since I do not believe that there is a creator, the amount of free will we have is “just what it happens to be”. Personally, I would love to have MORE freedom to help others, and LESS freedom to hurt others. But that is only wishful thinking.

As a matter of fact I used to be a computer programmer, so I actually built systems. Not something like a “world”, of course. But in those systems any resemblance to “free will”, that is deviation from the design specs was a “bug”, not a “feature”. However, as I said, those were small systems. I attempted to do the #1 scenario, as much as I could - no freedom at all. Much larger systems, like “Watson” (I hope you know what I am talking about) are not (and cannot) be fully deterministic, since the (name removed by moderator)ut cannot be “foreseen”. But that system can only misunderstand the question, without “harming” anything or anyone.

Now, if I misunderstood your question and both of me understandings were incorrect, please let me know.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

How lucky I am. After a good night’s sleep I checked the board, and there was no new reply. So I went out to the virtual casinos and collected the daily bonuses, just for the fun of it. Maybe later I might play a little. (But never for real money, of course). So coming back I found your reply, and I will be happy to answer.

Now I am not sure if I understand your question. There are two possible ways to parse it. One is “what system would I create if I had the power?”. The other possible understanding is “which system we live in now”?

1. If I had the power to create a world, it would be “second” scenario. Give as much freedom to the beings in it as possible, but only as much where their actions could not destroy the world or the reason it was created for. This opens up new venues, which might be explored, if you happen to be interested.
2. The answer is: “the fourth one”. All three presented scenarios presuppose a “creator”. Since I do not believe that there is a creator, the amount of free will we have is “just what it happens to be”. Personally, I would love to have MORE freedom to help others, and LESS freedom to hurt others. But that is only wishful thinking.

As a matter of fact I used to be a computer programmer, so I actually built systems. Not something like a “world”, of course. But in those systems any resemblance to “free will”, that is deviation from the design specs was a “bug”, not a “feature”. However, as I said, those were small systems. I attempted to do the #1 scenario, as much as I could - no freedom at all. Much larger systems, like “Watson” (I hope you know what I am talking about) are not (and cannot) be fully deterministic, since the (name removed by moderator)ut cannot be “foreseen”. But that system can only misunderstand the question, without “harming” anything or anyone.

Now, if I misunderstood your question and both of me understandings were incorrect, please let me know.

Of course I am interested on those other venues; but my algorithms need that the (name removed by moderator)uts come with certain order; otherwise I cannot process them. If it does not bother you, let me ask you according to my intellectual ways.

When I wrote my question, I was thinking on your second way of understanding it: “which system we live in now?”. So, without thinking on a creative act, how do you conceive our system?:

1. 
   *]Partially deterministic and partially stochastic (free processes not being but mere stochastic processes).
   *]Partially deterministic, non stochastic, and partially free.
   *]Partially deterministic, partially stochastic, and partially free (free processes being different from stochastic processes).
   *]Non deterministic, and fully stochastic.
   *]Non deterministic, partially stochastic, and partially free.
   *]Non deterministic, non stochastic, but purely free?
   
   Taking into account your previous posts, I have discarded a fully deterministic system, because you admit freedom.
   
   To have more freedom to help others and less freedom to hurt others, wouldn’t depend on your ability to discontinue some of your current algorithms and develop new ones? Don’t you have that ability, Pallas?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course I am interested on those other venues; but my algorithms need that the (name removed by moderator)uts come with certain order; otherwise I cannot process them. If it does not bother you, let me ask you according to my intellectual ways.

When I wrote my question, I was thinking on your second way of understanding it: “which system we live in now?”. So, without thinking on a creative act, how do you conceive our system?:

1. 
   *]Partially deterministic and partially stochastic (free processes not being but mere stochastic processes).
   *]Partially deterministic, non stochastic, and partially free.
   *]Partially deterministic, partially stochastic, and partially free (free processes being different from stochastic processes).
   *]Non deterministic, and fully stochastic.
   *]Non deterministic, partially stochastic, and partially free.
   *]Non deterministic, non stochastic, but purely free?
   
   Taking into account your previous posts, I have discarded a fully deterministic system, because you admit freedom.

1. 
   It is #3 of course.
   

   To have more freedom to help others and less freedom to hurt others, wouldn’t depend on your ability to discontinue some of your current algorithms and develop new ones? Don’t you have that ability, Pallas?

   My algorithm is fine, only the ability is missing.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It is #3 of course.

My algorithm is fine, only the ability is missing.

If you hurt others, Pallas, it means you have the algorithms to do it; if you help others, it means you have the corresponding algorithms as well. Do you say that you don’t have the ability to develop new algorithms and get rid of old ones, or is it only that such task has become harder than it used to be for you?

Please, now give me a definition or description of deterministic processes, stochastic processes and free processes, so that we can understand each other and I do not confuse them. What characterizes each one of them?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If you hurt others, Pallas, it means you have the algorithms to do it; if you help others, it means you have the corresponding algorithms as well. Do you say that you don’t have the ability to develop new algorithms and get rid of old ones, or is it only that such task has become harder than it used to be for you?

It all depends. For example I have a good algorithm to help a homeless: “reach for my pocketbook and give him some money”. Now I do NOT have enough money to help out a hundred homeless people, even though the algorithm is true and tested, but I don’t have the necessary wherewithal to help all.

On the other hand, I do not possess the necessary algorithm to save the life of victim of a gunshot. I would need to develop a new algorithm to do that. What is the point of these questions?

Please, now give me a definition or description of deterministic processes, stochastic processes and free processes, so that we can understand each other and I do not confuse them. What characterizes each one of them?

That is easy, and I am sure I will not tell you anything that you don’t already know. Three examples will suffice:

1. Deterministic process: Lift a pebble and release it. Gravity takes over.
2. Stochastic process: The Brownian motion of molecules, or radioactive decay.
3. Free process: To pick which tie to wear, a blue or a red one, or no tie at all.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It all depends. For example I have a good algorithm to help a homeless: “reach for my pocketbook and give him some money”. Now I do NOT have enough money to help out a hundred homeless people, even though the algorithm is true and tested, but I don’t have the necessary wherewithal to help all.

On the other hand, I do not possess the necessary algorithm to save the life of victim of a gunshot. I would need to develop a new algorithm to do that. What is the point of these questions?

It’s nothing, Pallas. You mentioned how much you would like to help more and hurt less. I think it depends on you. Though it might be difficult, being perseverant allows you to become better each day (which you must know, after all). Let’s leave here this part of the dialog.

That is easy, and I am sure I will not tell you anything that you don’t already know. Three examples will suffice:

1. Deterministic process: Lift a pebble and release it. Gravity takes over.
2. Stochastic process: The Brownian motion of molecules, or radioactive decay.
3. Free process: To pick which tie to wear, a blue or a red one, or no tie at all.

Perhaps I would propose similar examples; but I was asking you either for a definition or at least for a description of each one of those processes. What is it that makes them different from each other? But I understand that to define or even to describe them might not be a simple task. Never mind…

Anyway, might it be that one kind of processes gives origin to another kind; for example, stochastic processes to deterministic processes or deterministic processes to stochastic ones? Or instead of that, do you think that the current proportion of the different kind of processes must have been a constant along the time?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s nothing, Pallas. You mentioned how much you would like to help more and hurt less. I think it depends on you. Though it might be difficult, being perseverant allows you to become better each day (which you must know, after all). Let’s leave here this part of the dialog.

You are absolutely right. We all can try to improve ourselves. But it is still just a droplet in the ocean. What I would like is significant way to change the way things are. Anyhow, we can leave it at that.

Perhaps I would propose similar examples; but I was asking you either for a definition or at least for a description of each one of those processes. What is it that makes them different from each other? But I understand that to define or even to describe them might not be a simple task. Never mind…

I think the examples describe the different processes quite adequately. Two events can be independent of each other (free), or one of them can be dependent on the other. In this case one event can totally “predict” the other (deterministic) or only with a certain probability (stochastic). Let’s use P(A, B) = C as the probability function. If C = 0 then we have “freedom”, If C = 1 we have a deterministic relationship. If C > 0 and C < 1, the we have a stochastic relationship.

Anyway, might it be that one kind of processes gives origin to another kind; for example, stochastic processes to deterministic processes or deterministic processes to stochastic ones? Or instead of that, do you think that the current proportion of the different kind of processes must have been a constant along the time?

The deterministic / stochastic relationships depend on the laws of physics, which seem to be constant. The “free” action depends on living beings, which seem to be relatively new in the universe… at least as far as we know it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think the examples describe the different processes quite adequately. Two events can be independent of each other (free), or one of them can be dependent on the other. In this case one event can totally “predict” the other (deterministic) or only with a certain probability (stochastic). Let’s use P(A, B) = C as the probability function. If C = 0 then we have “freedom”, If C = 1 we have a deterministic relationship. If C > 0 and C < 1, the we have a stochastic relationship.

The deterministic / stochastic relationships depend on the laws of physics, which seem to be constant. The “free” action depends on living beings, which seem to be relatively new in the universe… at least as far as we know it.

Interesting! But I have the doubt if this freedom as you have defined it above is the same freedom we were talking about before.

Let me take the example of the tie: Given the three options that you mentioned, I think we could talk about the probability of each one of them, and each probability would have a value greater than 0. Then, choosing between your blue tie, or the red one, or nothing, would not be an example of a free process anymore -if we subject ourselves to your definition above.

Concerning stochastic and deterministic relationships: I remember a very special class that our dear teacher of Physics imparted to us. She was an expert on Statistical Physics, and we had asked her to show us what it was. She selected the topic of the equations of state for gases. We all knew several of those equations already; but it was astonishing to many of us to see how she derived one of them starting from a probabilistic analysis of the motions of the gas particles. What we had learned in other courses was a set of relationships between variables like temperature, volume and pressure (these are the main variables, but as the equations of state become more accurate other variables are introduced), and we believed that those equations were deterministic models; but I heard from that teacher, for the first time in my life, that “temperature” was nothing but an aspect of the movement of the gas particles. And the trajectories of those movements were not only irrelevant for the development of an equation of state, but also unpredictable… However, depending on which equation of state she wanted to derive, she had to assume certain very well defined modes of interaction between the particles. So, determinism seemed to be there again, but at a microscopic level. Why then was the trajectory of the particles unpredictable? Because there are too many collisions! There is no physical law which describes which collisions are going to happen. Then, we cannot predict them; still, collisions will happen anyway. But at the same time it is because there are so many particles and so many collisions between them that we perceive certain regularity at a macroscopic level which can be modeled as if it were the result of a deterministic interaction.

The question to me at that moment of my life was this: is an equation of state a probabilistic relationship or a deterministic one?

And this is quite a different question: Are physical processes in gaseous state deterministic or stochastic?

So, when you say that “deterministic / stochastic relationships depend on the laws of physics” it is an statement which for the moment I cannot process in my mind. Please, provide an example of a physical law which regulates a deterministic / stochastic relationship, and show me how such relationship is constant.