are there more views than deterministic and indeterministic

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Can you elaborate a little, maybe with an example? I do not understand what you are getting at.

I was debating with myself whether to start a new thread in answer or leave it here.

I see the moderators have moved this thread to General Philosophy, where IMHO it sits much better. This also give me more latitude in my reply.

So I will leave it up to the moderators if they want to spin it off at this point.

 

So here are my thoughts on Thermodynamcs, Quantum Mechanics, Determinism, Indeterminism and Free Will.

 

Consider the equation 3X  = 15.

This provides an example of determinism. X is completely determined by the equation. Mathematically there are no degrees of freedom.

 

Now consider the equation 2X² + 7X = 15

This is indeterminate without further information since there are two possibilities for X, although we can determine either or both with further information.

The indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics does not arise in this way.

QM indeterminism arises on account of the non zero commutator which means that operation A followed by operation B produces a different result from operation B first followed by operation A. This type of indeterminancy cannot be resolved by additional information. In other words we cannot even in principle resolve QM indeterminancy.
Spectroscopists observe this directly in the 'smearing' of spectral lines interpreted as the time for an electron to actually emit the EM radiation (delta t)  correlated with the frequency smearing (and thus the delta energy term in Heisenberg). The delta E and DeltaT are the operators referred to above.

This yields a small continuous range of possible answers. Infinite because the range is continuous.

Where this is sufficient or not to introduce free will on a mathematical basis, I can't say.

 

I offer Thermodynamics first because it is a much simpler example of a subject that includes determinism and indeterminism but does not include free will.

However it sets a pattern for what follows.

Thermodynamic theory divides the universal set, applicable to the system under consideration, into the system and the surroundings or rest of the universe.

The system is endowed with state variables, which are in principle completely deterministic.

So the state variable called temperature must have one defined value throughout the system, and the energy of the system is a defined total of the whole system.

In the surroundings there may be a defined amount of energy available or it may be so large that in is effectively infinite and therefore indeterminate.

The temperature of the environment may be defined or it may be meaningless as it varies from point to point.
This meaningless condition is another form of indeterminancy.
So far I have descibed indeterminancy that has a value, just that we can't determine it.

Finally for Thermodynamics it offers the idea of the exchange variables as the means by which the system can interact with its environment to change the values of its state variables.

It can for instance change its system temperature by loosing / gaining heat from the environment.
The process is deterministic.

 

 

OK so we can draw Venn boxes to show this approach, let us try it to include free will.

I have again drawn a universal box divided into system and rest of the universe.

Because the situation is dynamic, not static, something happens. There can be no free will if nothing happens.

For something to happen it requires an agent as well as the thing that undergoes the happening.

I have added a further box extending into both partitions and labelled it agents.

The agents must be either part of the system or part of the rest of the universe.

Since this box extends into both partitions I have labelled the part of the agents box in within the system as A and the other part as B.

Now we should consider what agents are permissible in A and B.

 

Consider an agent that produces a defined effect.

The effect is defined to act on the whole system (or the system is defined to be all that which is affected).

So if the agent is included in Box A it  acts on itself as well as the rest of the system box and is therefore determinate and not subject to free will.

If the Agent is included in Box B it need not act on itself so may be invoked/applied or not by a free will process.

 

This "almost a Russell paradox" is enough for now but it is also instructive to examine other cases.

 

[Eise]

Hi Studiot,

I think I understand what you mean.

But I think you are looking for the possibility of free will at the wrong place. It does not lie in physics, because we do not need some hole in the causal fabric of the universe. The only thing we must be sure of, that there is sufficient determinism in nature. 'Sufficient determinism' means that we can trust nature: if I do something, the results are the same (or at least very similar). It makes it possible to learn what works, and what does not. In order to be able to do what you want, you must have some guarantee, that when you act a certain way, similar results arise when you act the same way. This guarantee is given by experience. events are repeatable, and they lead to the same results. That is the kind of determinism that we need, and physics tells us that in daily life this view holds. Only when we descend into the deepness of matter, this guarantee is lost, but that should not bother us, walking along streets, driving cars, and repairing electrical devices.

As long as we see that 'free will' just means 'being able to do what you want', there is no conflict with determinism at all. Only when one defines 'free will' as 'interfering with the causal universe, but no caused itself' you clash with determinism. But as said above, this is an ideological concept of free will, not rooted in our experience. I assume this concept came into existence because of the problem of evil in the world, how this can be combined with the idea of an all loving, omnipotent and omniscient God. That we can do evil, is because God gave us free will. We can do things that are not caused by the universe, otherwise God would be responsible for our evil deeds.