What if the phrase “free will” is just a word game inherent to some languages?
Willing physically impossible things has no effect. This example is not relevant, because I am stating that will can only select between physically possible outcomes.
That depends entirely on which interpretation you are talking about. If MWI is true then the wave-function describes everything happening in the cosmos – it applies at every scale equally. And if the interpretations I described in the OP are correct then the wave-function selects a specific brain state which in turn has a critical influence on animal behaviour – and macroscopic movements of the body were the first thing (in terms of evolutionary history) that consciousness/will was for controlling.
That would indicate a pretty profound rift regarding morality. Does the Russian hold herself responsible for her actions?
I don’t think that is possible, because the questions we are dealing with here are inherent to science and logic.
Although it is certainly the case that the precise meanings of the words being used have a huge affect on the way that science and logic must be applied and analysed. But this is true of most analytical philosophy (in Continental philosophy, words can mean anything you want them to, which is why CP is mostly meaningless tripe).
It says that each of these possible universes is equally real:
- Electron 1’s spin is up, electron 2’s spin is up, electron 3’s spin is up, etc. (repeat for every electron in the universe)
- Electron 1’s spin is down, electron 2’s spin is up, electron 3’s spin is up, etc. (repeat for every electron in the universe)
- Electron 1’s spin is up, electron 2’s spin is down, electron 3’s spin is up, etc. (repeat for every electron in the in universe)
- etc. (repeat for every possible spin-configuration of electrons)
It doesn’t say that the universe is in a superposition of me raising my hand and me not raising my hand.
I don’t see why. I honestly don’t care about whether someone else could compute my decision or not, since:
- It makes no difference, from my own perspective, of how my reasoning works
- You can’t compute my decision without simulating my brain, my personality and my conscious thoughts. So essentially such a simulation is duplicating me and asking the duplicate what it wants to do.
The first two are relevant because I am illustrating that people are implicitly fine with our decisions being constrained by what we know and can do i.e. are grounded.
For the final one, I think you’re still missing what I am saying.
A person piercing their skin to “overcome” their wiring is still doing something that’s the product of antecedents. The culture they were raised in, and their personality of wanting to show they can endure pain, or how much they love god or whatever are still what I would call antecedents of knowledge and predilections.
If it sounds like I’m going to say that to every decision a human makes – I am. Because that’s what decisions are. They are done for reasons, or randomness, or a combination of the two. If there’s another option, I haven’t heard it.
I would say that words—as descriptive constructs of reality—can be varied. They can describe something in one way or another, adding or subtracting nuances. This becomes especially noticeable when you step outside your own paradigm, trying to see things differently.
But this is also possible within language: just read the various interpreters.
“Freedom” and “Will” are the faithful wives of political agitators. They applaud the strong, but they dislike obsolescence. They need an energetic husband. They often change their meaning; you just have to be determined enough to force them to do so.
Studying the current color of a chameleon is an interesting activity, but I’m more interested in studying the conditions of its current color.
Nope.
Doing what you want means you have wants and that’s how your decision is being formed. In the case of a God, if we’re saying He desires goodness or whatever, well that’s an antecedent to the decision, right?
If we’re saying he has no wants, then it would seem his decision is random then.
There’s no getting around it, because, like I say, a choice, a reasoned decision, is inherently the product of prior information and wants. An entirely non-causal , non-random decision is meaningless.
Yes. I have a friend who read War and Peace in English, German, and Russian. She says it’s a different book depending on the language.
Freedom of the will is the basis for responsibility, though. That would be weird if the concept of guilt has been nuanced out of existence by the Russian language.
Why is it a problem if the desire precedes the act?
What it says is functionally identical, in terms of what we are discussing. If we look at the system as a whole, there exists a superposition of all things. MWI just calls this a multiverse and declares it to be classical-relativistic as well as quantum.
The deeper point is that we cannot just assume anything about which metaphysical interpretation of QM is correct, because there are 12+ of them, and they all have different implications for other metaphysical debates, such as this one.
It’s not a problem at all.
Like I say, my position is that we are as free as it is possible for any being to be. And what that means is acting on our knowledge and predilections.
It’s not functionally identical. It doesn’t say that there is a universe where I raise my hand and a universe where I don’t raise my hand, and so you cannot use anything like “consciousness causes the collapse of the universal wave-function” to justify the claim that I have free will with respect to whether or not I raise my hand.
This isn’t about linguistic diversity. It’s about understanding different languages in depth, as one of the keys to deconstructing one’s own imagination (often imposed by discourse).
This idea interests me.
Whether it’s Russian, English, or Aymara—all are capable of expressing ideology precisely enough to motivate the interpreter to behave as desired.
But all these languages simultaneously preserve the different histories of their peoples’ evolution. This is interesting.
1 Like
Well, you stated that the concept of free will makes no sense. That’s a pretty strong assertion, requiring the demonstration of a contradiction. I don’t think you showed a contradiction in the case of God’s free will, so we could back off of “makes no sense” and just say you have reasons to believe humans lack freedom because their actions are determined by causes beyond their control.
1 Like
Ah, but if consciousness is non-computable then it is not possible to compute your decision by simulating your brain. This is exactly what Penrose has been arguing about since the 1980s. It is deeply controversial, and directly relevant to this discussion.
You have now. Non-computational valuations are neither determined nor random. They cannot be determined (that would be logically impossible) and they cannot be random because they are valuations - something non-computable has had an influence on which quantum possibility manifests.
I might add that I do not understand why Penrose also claims to be a physicalist, because I think his own position on this rules that out. I don’t think there can be a deeper level of non-computable physics. I think this is metaphysics.
Yes. Are you saying there are hidden agendas in philosophy? 
that would be too flat
2 Likes
That is precisely what MWI says.
so you cannot use anything like “consciousness causes the collapse of the universal wave-function” to justify the claim that I have free will with respect to whether or not I raise my hand.
MWI doesn’t say that. But Wigner and Stapp have said it, and Penrose has implied it.
No, it doesn’t. It concerns such things as the spin and position of every electron in the universe (rather than just the spin and position of a single electron).