sethoflagos

6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

i may be going off on a tangent again, but to me we live in a non-linear world, and if it is such, should we not have non-linear theories trying to explain it?

We already have them!

They are explicitly represented in the systems of partial differential equations that describe most macroscopic physical processes eg Navier-Stokes equations, macroscopic form of Maxwell's equations, Heat equation, Fokker-Planck eqn etc. etc.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

I suppose what I mean is that the next idea is not likely to be suggested by a flight of fancy. Rather, it's likely to be about taking the principles dead seriously and wholeheartedly trusting that the solution would come from a re-interpretation/re-examination of the old principles rather than the finding of new principles.

Like deciding not to simply ignore the advance wave in the wave equation?

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Maybe waves are coming from the future? (Cramer et al.)

No probs so long as there's no informative content?

11 hours ago, iNow said:

and in the long run we’re all dead. 

Is it my imagination or has Fatalism suddenly gone on the rampage on this site?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbL9Vsobx8I

I could order you to have a medical examination...

18 hours ago, joigus said:

I've heard physicists say this or that is "emergent" or an "epiphenomenon" as if they were synonyms.

Google says that charge and current have been described as 'epiphenomena' of events in the 'more fundamental' underlying electromagnetic field. I could imagine someone describing them as 'weakly emergent' also, but there are problems with both usages,

However, if those field events were of appropriate frequency to effect a mental response of 'red', then in philosophy of mind the colour would be epiphenomenal to the field. In this sense, the causal relationship differs significantly from those implied in Maxwell's equations. Distinguishing physical events from mental events in this way have indeed lead some to a new form of dualism so I guess this is the extreme interpretation understandably condemned by @Eise.- "any perceived impact of free will on the physical world is illusory". 

'Epiphenomenon' again means something entirely different in medicine (symptoms that just happen to correlate)

And all three differ from the original sense employed in metaphysics.

Bad word!  

A better framing of the question may be to determine initially whether 'volition' as a concept is abstract or concrete. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I also hope it felt good to get that out.

Yes, it did rather, and thank you. 

It was a bit bloggy, I know, but these days I find it difficult to get a complex train of thought in order without actually writing it out longhand. Otherwise I get halfway through and forget both the point I'm responding to and the response I intended to make.

Apologies to those who find that sort of thing too me-me-me. 

3 hours ago, joigus said:

The word "tomorrow" already implies that the Sun rises (otherwise I can picture no tomorrow), so I'm guessing we're talking about conditional probability and the answer is "yes".

 

At every instant, the sun is rising in a variety of locations around the solar system. Would anything short of a vacuum decay catastrophe halt this phenomenon?  

50 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A bachelor, then.

😀

Given that my wife and I are often residing in different countries, I must declare this a moot point.

19 minutes ago, Eise said:

@sethoflagos: are you sure you used the compatibilist definition of free will? If you apply the libertarian definition of free will, sure, then these statements are inconsistent. 

I try to steer a course through life in such a way that I never get boxed into an undesirable situation from where there is no escape. One key principle that has helped me in this over the years is to resist any urge to commit myself to a dogmatic position unless it has the firmest of foundations. I might drift through most days with the spirit of Sartre in my blood yet spend other darker days going full on Freddie Ayer. There is value to be found in both so why commit to one tribalist belief and so deny myself the benefits and personal connections I can only find with the other camp? This is not the way to maximise my options for overcoming any future challenges to my comfort and well-being. 

So no. I will not choose between one obscure definition of free will and another. Neither will I even commit to the existence of any abstraction of free will since the concept is so nebulous it seems to have lost any shred of meaning that I could pin a flag on. 

That is not to say that I am reluctant to take decisive action when necessary, but nine times out of ten I shall wait until I believe it IS necessary (much to my wife's irritation!) and then act in the surety that I have done so in the light of all relevant considerations and to the best of my judgement.

I trust that clarifies precisely where I stand on this issue (and many other diversity limiting false dichotomies as it happens).

In the words of the Prisoner - "I am not a number!" 

So yes, I do find the Compatibilist position inconsistent. But only on certain days. Others not so much. 

5 hours ago, Eise said:

The wiggle room does not exist: either events are random, or they are determined. Randomness disturbs compatibilist free will, determinism makes it possible.

La plus sa change, la plus c'est la meme chose.

5 hours ago, Eise said:

Compatibilism's determinism is just as hard as what is supposed to be 'hard determinism'. 

5 hours ago, Eise said:

Compatibilism is the position that there is no conflict between determinism and free will

5 hours ago, Eise said:

So if the world is completely determined, the possibility for free will exists

5 hours ago, Eise said:

We know the real world is not deterministic through and through

If you believe that these four statements are mutually consistent and affirm compatibility, then that's fine. We can leave it at that.

It's an interesting position but not one I would care to take on board. Thanks anyway.

2 hours ago, julius2 said:

A question, how come we don't see much development in living species on earth today?

I mean in evolution there was a change from fish to walking fish say.....

We don't see that degree of change today, do we?

Genetic mutations and related changes are sporadic events. Therefore evolution cannot be a continuous process and we may have to wait some time before we suddenly observe a small step change in a population. This waiting time can be quite short for microorganisms that reproduce very quickly.  

In recent years we've observed evolutionary process produce new strains of COVID every few months.

Evolution in larger creatures can take much longer to accrue sufficient change for an observable effect. In the last 10,000 years or so we've seen the evolution of blue eyes in some eurasian populations of humans; lactose tolerance in pastoral populations reliant on dairy produce; the appearance of the sickle cell gene in populations subject to infection with malaria.

Such timescales are far beyond the lifetime of any single human; beyond the lifetime even of a civilisation; so why should we expect to see anything happening before our very eyes?

 However, if we can see some small change occur on the scale of 1,000 years, think how much change we could see in 1 million years! Our ancestors of 1 million years ago didn't actually look that different to how we look now. But we would see that they were different enough to consider whether or not we were all of the same species.

If we could go back in time 100 million years, we'd probably see no more evolution happening in our daily lives than we do now. But the animals around us, including our ancestors, would have looked very different.

And there is no need for any 'guiding hand' here. A bit of low level background radiation, and some small degree of unreliability in certain complex chemical reactions are quite sufficient to explain the all the natural diversity we see.

And time is, along with the space occupied by the planet's surface simply the passive stage on which this activity plays out. 

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

I envisage in evolution that there might have been a "base animal" one with 4 legs, a heart, lungs, neck etc

Nearly.

It is not known with absolute certainty that the last common ancestor of all living tetrapods was itself a tetrapod. But either way, it would have been almost indistinguishable from some closely related lobefin fish living at the same time around 380+/-10 million years ago (mid- to late Devonian). So it had lobefins rather than legs and it not known with absolute certainty that it had a neck.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I use 'sufficient determinism' because we do not live in an absolutely determined universe. Now small random hiccups may not disturb much, but if the deviations from determinism become too big, it disturbs the connections between my intentions, knowledge, decisions and actions. For free will to be possible, their relations must be pretty fix determined.

Concur without exception.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

The possible actions are given by our surroundings: e.g. in a restaurant, it contains a menu card, on which my 'alternative actions' are listed. Supposing that it is a free choice, i.e. nobody coerces me to some special choice, then what I will choose then depends on me only. So given the situation, my preferences determine what action I will take. Then the action is really free. And I couldn't care less if the action potential goes up before I become conscious of my choice.

Concur without exception.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

There is simply no contradiction between determinism and free will.

Exception: Hard determinism precludes free will.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Compatibilism is not the view that there somehow is a little wiggle room in determinism in which we can choose. It is the view that free will can only exist in a determined world, so arguments in favour of determinism does in no sense argue against compatibilist free will.

Self-contradiction: Compare with your statement "we do not live in an absolutely determined universe" in the first quoted section. This is the basis of your definition of 'sufficient determinism' and hence your most vital justification for the exisence of free will. The applicable degree of determinism is a vital element in understanding your use of the term. You certainly clarify that degree in your framing of 'free will'. However you appear not to in critical cases when framing 'determinism'. 

You seem to implicitly demand 'wiggle room' to frame free will, only to deny its existence when framing the degree of determinism require to justify a 'gospel' Compatibilist position.

Cake = Have + Eat again on the face of it.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

If you would like to give another 'Frankfurt case', one that can also be understood by somebody who is not in the world of active chess players, maybe we can discuss that.

The example I prepared requires no special understanding of the rules of the game beyond what a child may comprehend after a few hours exposure.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

The floating quote function has removed the quoted portion within that quote, sorry.

In my book, that counts as an entirely sufficient book review ☺️

5 hours ago, Eise said:

No. I have read a little Frankfurt, but I do not like his contrived examples. And then you pick one of the most contrived ones as example ... No, I was just referring to my conception of free will, in which (sufficient) determinism is even a necessary condition for free will to exist.

... but not sufficient determinism to remove the alternative actions necessary for free will to be any more than an abstract concept? 

This is not a compatibilist position as I understand it.

I agree that without sufficient determinism, causal connection between actions and effects diminishes and with it any significance of will, free or otherwise. A wholly undetermined world (eg Khaos) is not of this universe.

I also agree with you insofar as the Frankfurt Objection example does seem contrived. That is why I deliberately modified it to a close to real life scenario that occurs continually, every day in online chess communities. Perhaps it too is unworthy of your consideration, but for the moment, I don't see why that should be.

Say what you will about Frankfurt; at least his position has clarity. A quality much lacking elsewhere.

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

And I see that there is a whole range of terms for playing vigorously, available, but none that I can see related to my version of coerce. 

Obbligato ("indispensible") springs to mind, as opposed to ad libitum (as you will). But Obbligato can also mean an alternate variation which moreorless reverses the meaning.

The sense of 'thou shalt not deviate' has a whole host of forms. Just those for tempo include

Quote

Italian
a battuta	in strict time (literally, with the beat)
aggiustatamente	strictly in time
alla misura	measured, in exact time
con giustezza	exactly, precisely
con precisione	with precision
deliberato	deliberately
diritto	direct, straight
giustamente	exactly, precisely
misurato	measured, in exact time
osservato	carefully observed, strict
preciso	with precision
rigore	strictness, rigor
rigore di tempo	strict tempo
ritmico	strict, rhythmic, measured
severo	strictly, tempo and expression exactly as marked
stabile	steady, firm
French
à la mesure	in strict time
en mesure	measured, strict
mesuré	measured, moderate, in exact time
rythmé	measured, rhythmical
German
abgemessen	measured; in strict time
mässig	measured, moderate
streng	severe, strict

Source: https://www.spindrift.com/Thesaurus/thestrict.php

But this is straying increasingly off topic. Apologies in advance.

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

Your "miscalculation" statement reminds me of one time I thought maybe the whole question of free will is an ill-posed problem in the first place:

Pretty much my position.

Consequently I find myself atheist to any form of absolute determinism and no more than agnostic regarding any form of absolute free will.

Arguably every situation is bit of both with a healthy dose of absurdity thrown in for good measure.

Post script: Arguably Alice could be 100% free 100% of the time. I see no absolute constraint here.

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

You did a bad thing => You did it because you chose to do it ("free will" for you)

I did a bad thing => I did it because I had no choice ("determinism" for me)

Alice did a bad thing => Alice had no choice, but it is what she was inclined to do even if alternate courses of action were available to her ("compatibilist" ?) 

I did a bad thing => I had several choices but simply miscalculated due to some freak quantum event. Possibly. ("A plague on both your houses")

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

So can you suggest alternative words for my terms coerce,  force,  and constrain.

Only you can define your own terminology. And that doesn't even begin to address transferability across different languages. 

Is the 'true' German translation of 'force' die Macht or die Kraft for example. In some contexts they may be interchangeable, in others not. 

The 1st movement of Hindemith's trumpet concerto is marked to be played 'Mit Kraft'. There have been many arguments on English speaking trumpet forums over the years as to what this actually means. For 'reasons' I interpret it as 'like a machine' based on context rather than linguistics. Others differ. I don't dispute their interpretation but won't accept them declaring mine invalid without a bit of a scrap.

Concensus meanings are only valid if arrived at by concensus. Clarity can be very elusive.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I give no quarter to vthose who take a word they did not invent, create a special meaning for it, and then fail to make their special usage plain when they trot it out infront of others.

See etymology

To be fair, the word only began to lose its more absolute sense in the 19th century. Its use in philosophical and law literature predates that by some margin, so it isn't the philosophers who altered the meaning, it's us.

Compare with our use of 'calculus'. Not much to do with pebble counting in the regular use found on this site. 

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is coercion because of the will of Parliament, combined with a threat.

Got to distinguish between possible differences in everyday use and the meaning of 'coercion' in philosophical literature.

The latter seems to me to be more absolute. Less absolute contexts would be seen more as 'influence' or some such.

On 12/2/2023 at 1:20 PM, Eise said:

Me too. E.g. the dichotomy between determinism and free will. Compatibilism removes the dichotomy.

Just to be clear, is this latter statement founded on Frankfurt's objection to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) or some further thinking?

As an avid if mediocre chess player, the following version engages me:

Alice and Bob are two opposing, reasonably competent chess players. Each is supplied with one of two chess computers (Holly and Hal?) allocated by a single quantum coin flip to refer to if they wish. Each unit outputs what it computes as the strongest next three move sequence but the depth of analysis is limited, sufficient to give advantage in short range tactical play but no better than either player in long term strategy. Critically, the depth horizons are different, though the players are unaware of who's is best at the start of play. Neither can see the other's computer output.

The game progresses until Alice has high hopes of winning if Bob makes a certain attractive but blundering move at his next turn. However, she notices that her computer evaluation has suddenly nose-dived. Even with her best move, Bob has a different move available that will reward him with a winning position. However, she's noticed that Bob is in the habit of inadvertently staring at the piece he intends to move next.

a)If Bob is looking at the piece she wants him to move should Alice:

     a1) proceed with Holly's recommended move and hope Hal is too weak to alert Bob to her weakness?

     a2) play a different move that further encourages the desired response albeit compromising her winning opportunity?

b) If Bob is looking at the other piece should should she:

     b1) still proceed with Holly's recommended move hoping she is the one that's miscalculated?

     b2) find a 'confounding complication' that diverts the attention of Bob (and Hal) back to the desired option?

This scenario includes Frankfurt's assertion that Alice's attempted coercion in b2) does not absolve Bob of moral responsibility for the poor move he intended to make in case a) anyway. However, the quantum selected Holly provides Bob with a fundamentally indeterministic option (Holly's computation is purely deterministic but her selection is non-causal to my eyes at least) and this removes one horn of the 'two-horned dilemma' raised by Fischer et al.: the link between Bob's inclination and action is not wholly deterministic therefore Frankfurt cannot be begging the question here.

But if the link between Bob's inclination (the decision he would take in the absence of Hal) and the action he finally takes is indeterminate, doesn't that put the nail in the coffin for causal determinism?

Alice's actions share this indeterminant element but excepting a1) have her selecting moves she may strongly suspect of being sub-optimal. Interesting from a chessy point of view at least. 

3 hours ago, JimA said:

• My feet move very slowly - approx 1mm/5sec or 1mm/10 sec --- initially hard to discern movement at all.

•  

  It can't be elasto-hydrodynamic - which would cause rapid movement.
• It can't be just gravity induced forces and friction --- the forces would have to be exactly equal !

   

• Can it be viscosity in the thin water film under my feet ?

•  

  Can it be stick/slip at the many micro contacts of my feet to the bath ?

You don't say whether or not your rear end is moving likewise.

Either way, my money would go on dot items 3 & 5 working in tandem. Gravity provides the driving force for pulse-induced creep. Every heartbeat lifts and lowers you ever so slightly allowing gravity to slowly inch (millimetre?) you down the gravity well. 

It's an unsupported hypothesis, but I'd be willing to accept a reasonable research grant if you'd like more flesh on the bones.

47 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, 4c above an ambient of 10c. One of the joys of single-planed windows was 'Jack  Frost's' work on them in the 60's and 70's. My earliest memory was tiptoeing on the stones laid in grass to the toilet (outhouse) at the end of the garden and relieving my bladder on iced water. Bath times were in front of the fire in a galvanized tin bath in the winter,  otherwise it was in the square ceramic sink where Mum did the washing. Kitchen was a single-paned 'conservatory' extension with red tiles laid on dirt. Fun times.,

This is the York Marygate I remember from the early '60s. I'm not sure top left actually is Walker Street (during 'slum' clearance), as they were all very similar.

I

We were right by the river and I do remember being flooded out a couple of times. A bit of an inconvenience, but the area had more character than you can easily find these days. 

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

6.4C above incoming ?

SJ was looking for 14C

Yes, but his 'incoming' was 10^oC so 600W is more than enough for him for that room.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Perhaps that explains why what most estate agents in the UK would call a good sized double bedroom that tend to have 2.5kw wet radiators these days.

I guess we're both old enough to remember unheated bedrooms with ice on the inside of the windows. Mine became a town centre car park in the 70's.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I am skeptical about this. 600w is a very low powered heater and it depends upon the construction of the room and what you mean by warm.

The OP room is ~ 40 m³ air space - typical of say a medium sized British bedroom.

British bedrooms are typically not ventllated as much as they might be, especially at this time of year, but for the sake of argument let's give it the full 7 volume changes per hour: 280 m³/hr.

Air density is oto 1.2 kg/m³ for a mass flow of 336 kg/hr or 0.933 kg/s.

Air specific heat is 1,005 J/kgK for an energy flow of 93.8 W/K.

Therefore 600W dry heat input gives a room temperature of ~600/93.8 or 6.4 degrees above that of the incoming air.

Since the incoming air is likely to be preheated air from elsewhere in the house, I suspect the room will be noticeably warm by most people's standards.

Add to that the 80W or so contribution from @StringJunky's metabolism and taking the reasonable assumption that the room is not fully aired continuously, then things might be getting a bit toasty, don't you think? We're certainly well above his 15^o C upper threshold of comfort.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Was “I do NOT mean 'the first bit of bs I found via google” something I imagined?

No

3 hours ago, swansont said:

the first couple of dozen results on Google.

You referred to in belittling my initial post are typically not

3 hours ago, swansont said:

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) or NIST

references. They are predominantly unreliable as you implied in your original post.

You are once again being deliberately disingenuous in your argument. This is not worthy of a figure of your standing in this community.

Find I have nothing I can usefully add now.

Thanks for the reps anyway.

15 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I agree a clear definition of free will by the OP is vital for the discussion.

Good luck in getting one 😉