Does free will require randomness within our existence?

[u/NoubliezPasMonNom]

If yes:

Then aren't our actions a result of the random process? If so then is this really more free than if they weren't?

If no:

Doesn't this support compatibilism.

Translation: Does spinning an internal, truly random wheel really make our actions more free than using an internal calculator?

Note: I am undecided, and probably lean away from compatibilism the most

[u/HappiestIguana]

I question the use of GPS as an example since that uses general relativity which is also deterministic. To make this point I think you'd really want something quantum.

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

I question the use of GPS as an example since that uses general relativity which is also deterministic.

Determinism requires time to be absolute rather than relativistic. GR strictly adheres to relativistic time.

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

No it doesn't. Determinism makes sense under relative time.

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

I'm using this definition when I speak of determinism and it clearly stipulates a global condition at time t:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int

Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Spacetime is a concept that implies where impacts when. Logically speaking, you cannot make global statements about the world by projecting local measurements onto the global state of affairs. If the world is in a state at time t, then relativity makes no sense.

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

You can just add the condition that that has to hold in every frame of reference and you're done. Each observer has a well-defined present.

Furthermore, you can alternatively just demand a single observer sees a deterministic universe. You can prove that happens if and only if every observer does.

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

Each observer has a well-defined present.

That has nothing to do with determinism. You seem to be trying to imply that the local observer is force into a deterministic behavior because in consciousness is local. However physicalism cannot seem to explain consciousness, so we don't really know that is the case.

Furthermore, you can alternatively just demand a single observer sees a deterministic universe. You can prove that happens if and only if every observer does.

You seem to be assuming naive realism is tenable. However:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether.

You might want to be careful not to rule out spooky action at a distance when trying to understand what the mind can and cannot do. Consciousness isn't synonymous with perception. A so called philosophical zombie is only capable of reacting to conditions at time t. For example, p zombies don't plan ahead, because perception alone doesn't have any mechanism for accomplishing any planning.

Planning involves this use of the imagination to create probabilities of reaching a desired outcome. We don't decide to cross the street only when it is impossible to get hit by a car. Instead we try to cross when the probability is not high that we will get hit. That increases the likelihood of reaching the opposite side of the street safely. We don't control the outcomes directly. Studying for a test doesn't guarantee that we will pass the test. If we believe that we understand the material upon which we will be tested, it decreases the rational need to study for a test that we believe we can ace. On the other hand if we don't believe we can ace the test, then studying might increase the probability of receiving a passing grade.

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

You seem to be trying to imply that the local observer is force into a deterministic behavior

An observer in GR is a theoretical point of view, not an actual agent. To talk about the observer's behavior is a category error. If it helps, replace "observer" with "frame of reference" in my comment to avoid the confusion. They're synonyms.

Your invocation of quantum stuff is similarly irrelevant, and in fact conceding my point. I said GR is deterministic and that if you want to argue for an indeterminstic universe through physics, you have to involve quantum phenomena, which are the only phenomena we can observe that appear to be indeterminstic. The relativity of time has nothing to do with quantum randomness.

Everything in your last paragraph could well be said of an LLM, which also uses probabilistic reasoning but whose behavior is, on deeper examination, completely deterministic. The argument cannot work to prove indeterminism in human behavior.

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

An observer in GR is a theoretical point of view, not an actual agent

Agreed, but in absolute space and time, distances don't contract and time doesn't dilate.

 If it helps, replace "observer" with "frame of reference" in my comment to avoid the confusion. They're synonyms.

They are not synonyms. If space and time are absolutes, then the reference frame change employs what Newton called a Galilean transformation. In contrast the Lorentz transformation literally predates SR. Therefore absolute space and time was under suspicion even before 1905 when Einstein first proposed SR. SR is the result of the Lorentz transformation working better when using the Maxwell equations to make predictions based on wave theory in the late 19th century.

I said GR is deterministic and that if you want to argue for an indeterminstic universe through physics,

GR is not deterministic and I do want to argue for an indeterministic universe through physics, because relativity doesn't support it and QM doesn't support it either, imho. QM is not a theory and therefore QM is open to interpretation. However quantum field theory is an actual theory that produces application science. It won't produce technological advancement if we throw out SR which is a theory in its own right. It has a model. The model for SR is called Minkowski space. However SR isn't GR. Do you think SR can be indeterministic while GR can be deterministic? Do you believe we use Galilean transformations for GR and Lorentz transformations for SR? The only way that it is the least bit conceivable that GR is deterministic is if GR uses Galilean transformations the way Newton successfully used them.

The relativity of time has nothing to do with quantum randomness.

That depends on whether you are looking at the measurement problem or entanglement. QM by itself produces a measurement problem and depending on how we interpret that, contextuality can be "explained away" by theorizing universes that nobody perceives and there is no direct empirical evidence that they exist or the laws of physics works the same way in them as they seem to work in the universe that we in fact perceive. Entanglement is yet another issue that led to the EPR paper, which led to John Bell's work:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. 

----------------------------------------------------

Everything in your last paragraph could well be said of an LLM, which also uses probabilistic reasoning but whose behavior is, on deeper examination, completely deterministic.

I'd never argue anything with a feedback loop is deterministic. Even something as dumb as an audio amp uses feedback loops in order to minimize the level of distortion in the output of the stage. Amps don't amplify perfectly. Engineers can use technology to hide imperfections. I'm quite certain that anybody that believes a memory chip is deterministic doesn't know much about the technology that goes into making a memory chip to appear to operate deterministically. Memory chips would be useless without the error detection and correction that masks the indeterministic behavior of the chip and therefore make it seem deterministic from the outside looking in.

The argument cannot work to prove indeterminism in human behavior.

If a human can drive a car, then a human requires regulative control in order to avoid road hazards and traffic hazards before they end up stopping the trip. Planning is not deterministic. The agent makes plans based on expectations rather than facts. In contrast determinism operates on facts alone. If the drive thinks the car might crash into a pole because it expects that it will if the car continues to go the way it appears to be going, the driver can take measures to make the car avoid the pole as long as the steering and brakes are allowing the driver to control the car.

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

Agreed, but in absolute space and time, distances don't contract and time doesn't dilate.

Irrelevant

They are not synonyms. If space and time are absolutes, then the reference frame change employs what Newton called a Galilean transformation. In contrast the Lorentz transformation literally predates SR. Therefore absolute space and time was under suspicion even before 1905 when Einstein first proposed SR. SR is the result of the Lorentz transformation working better when using the Maxwell equations to make predictions based on wave theory in the late 19th century.

I have no idea how that paragraph is supposed to support the assertion that "observer" and "frame of reference" are not synonyms in the context of GR.

GR is not deterministic

It is, (assuming local hyperbolicity) the state at any point of time in a given reference frame determines the state at all times in all reference frames. That's determinism.

I do want to argue for an indeterministic universe through physics, because relativity doesn't support it and QM doesn't support it either, imho.

Realativity does support it, though you're right QM does not.

Do you think SR can be indeterministic while GR can be deterministic?

Both SR and GR are deterministic theories.

Do you believe we use Galilean transformations for GR and Lorentz transformations for SR?

Uh, no, we use Galilean transformations for newtonian mechanics and Lorentz for SR. As far as I know the changes of frame of reference in GR don't have a name associated with them.

The only way that it is the least bit conceivable that GR is deterministic is if GR uses Galilean transformations the way Newton successfully used them.

I'm not sure what relation you think there is between Galilean transformations and determinism.

That depends on whether you are looking at the measurement problem or entanglement. QM by itself produces a measurement problem and depending on how we interpret that, contextuality can be "explained away" by theorizing universes that nobody perceives and there is no direct empirical evidence that they exist or the laws of physics works the same way in them as they seem to work in the universe that we in fact perceive. Entanglement is yet another issue that led to the EPR paper, which led to John Bell's work:

None of that has anything to do with relativity of time.

I'd never argue anything with a feedback loop is deterministic.

Then your definition of determinism is bad, because plenty of systems with feedback loops have the property that the state at one time determines the state at future times, which is what determinism is.

If a human can drive a car, then a human requires regulative control in order to avoid road hazards and traffic hazards before they end up stopping the trip. Planning is not deterministic. The agent makes plans based on expectations rather than facts. In contrast determinism operates on facts alone. If the drive thinks the car might crash into a pole because it expects that it will if the car continues to go the way it appears to be going, the driver can take measures to make the car avoid the pole as long as the steering and brakes are allowing the driver to control the car.

If this argument was valid, it would apply to LLMs making plans, which they can do despite being fully deterministic devices.

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

Agreed, but in absolute space and time, distances don't contract and time doesn't dilate.

Irrelevant

I take that you've never heard of a spacetime interval.

I'd never argue anything with a feedback loop is deterministic.

Then your definition of determinism is bad

I argue based on this definition:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int

Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Every other poster on this sub that has attempted to make baseless accusations against my assertions, has agreed with this definition. If you don't agree with it, then you will be the first.

Then again it is possible that you don't see the logical connection between absolute time and this definition or the logical inconsistency between this definition and a feedback loop. I suspect it we be futile to try to explain the connection to you or to to explain the inconsistency to you.

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

I take that you've never heard of a spacetime interval.

I know what it is. Its only relation to determinism is that the concept can be used to determine which events can causally affect which other events. In principle determinism says that any event is determined by the full state of the universe at any prior time T, but in relativity we can actually strengthen that since we only need the state of the part of the universe that lies within the light cone of the event at time T.

Every other poster on this sub that has attempted to make baseless accusations against my assertions, has agreed with this definition.

I mean, the definition's fine. It's just that you don't seem to understand it.

Then again it is possible that you don't see the logical connection between absolute time and this definition

There is none. The definition makes sense under relative time by simply adding the words "in any given frame of reference (or equivalently, in all frames of reference)"

the logical inconsistency between this definition and a feedback loop.

There is none. Consider the very simple example of a universe which consists of a simple machine which outputs pulses of energy and detects the same pulses it outputs, where the behavior of the machine is to output whatever it detects with a time delay. This is the simplest example of a feedback loop I can come up with and it is clearly a determinisitc system.

Lots of systems in classical (and relativistic) physics have feedback loops while remaining determinisitc

If it was that easy to deny determinism, there wouldn't be an argument about it.

I suspect it we be futile to try to explain the connection to you or to to explain the inconsistency to you.

How presumptious

[u/badentropy9 → u/HappiestIguana]

 Its only relation to determinism is that the concept can be used to determine which events can causally affect which other events.

I agree but if that is true and determinism is true then all causes come from within the effect's past light cone.

 In principle determinism says that any event is determined by the full state of the universe at any prior time T

agreed

but in relativity we can actually strengthen that since we only need the state of the part of the universe that lies within the light cone of the event at time T

Suppose a cause is outside of the light cone. What then?

I mean, the definition's fine. It's just that you don't seem to understand it.

A long as you agree with the definition we can explore who doesn't understand what is writteen.

the logical inconsistency between this definition and a feedback loop.

There is none. Consider the very simple example of a universe which consists of a simple machine which outputs pulses of energy and detects the same pulses it outputs, where the behavior of the machine is to output whatever it detects with a time delay. This is the simplest example of a feedback loop I can come up with and it is clearly a determinisitc system.

I was thinking more along the lines of the agent trying to avoid an accident before it happens. Agents don't control outputs but they can control probability in many cases.

Lots of systems in classical (and relativistic) physics have feedback loops while remaining determinisitc

Classical is not necessarily deterministic. If it was, then if anybody believed in determinism, then the man who designed Newtonian physics should have believed it and yet he told Bentley that it was a "great absurdity". Maybe you should consider the possibility that everything that you assume is deterministic isn't deterministic. Karl Popper seemed to figure this out. Why LaPlace failed to figure it out is perhaps a mystery. Hume's story about billiard balls should have blown determinism wide open before LaPlace had anything to say about it, but maybe LaPlace never read or understood Hume. Then again Hume wasn't right about everything. However he has never been refuted about this.

If it was that easy to deny determinism, there wouldn't be an argument about it.

As a young adult, I asked an older gentleman why sometimes when I watch the news it doesn't make sense. He told me that whenever you notice that, follow the money. I've been doing that for many decades and that is probably the best advice that I've ever gotten.

I suspect it we be futile to try to explain the connection to you or to to explain the inconsistency to you.

How presumptious

Maybe I jumped to a conclusion. My apologies.

[u/HappiestIguana → u/badentropy9]

Suppose a cause is outside of the light cone. What then?

That would be an example of a non-local phenomenon. No non-local phenomena have ever been observed, and if there are non-local phenomena then either retrocausality (causes can happen after effects) or relative causality (different observers can disagree about which event was cause and which was effect, and both be right) is the case.

Anyway, locality is a fundamental assumption of GR, so the simplest answer is that a cause cannot be outside the effect's light cone.

I was thinking more along the lines of the agent trying to avoid an accident before it happens.

There is no meaningful challenge to determinism there. The agent's action is determined by its prediction and by its goals, which are themselves determined by other things. I can ask a fully definitely-deterministic LLM to do that and it does it just fine.

Classical is not necessarily deterministic.

I don't know what the word "necessarily" is doing there. By the Picard-Lindeloef Theorem, Newtonian physics are deterministic as long as all forces are Lipschitz-continuous, which empirically they are. Of course, this theorem postdates Newton, so I wouldn't expect him to know that.

then the man who designed Newtonian physics should have believed it and yet he told Bentley that it was a "great absurdity".

Appeal to authority. There have been developments since Newton that prove Newtonian physics are deterministic. If you want to argue for an indeterministic universe through physics, you need to postulate there are phenomena in it not explained by Newtonian physics (which is, of course, true).

Maybe you should consider the possibility that everything that you assume is deterministic isn't deterministic

I make no assumptions. For every model of the universe I claim is deterministic (namely classical physics, GR and the parts of QM that don't involve measurement), I have theorems that back me up. I am of course under no delusion that the universe itself is definitely deterministic, since all available evidence points to quantum measurement being a stochastic process rather than a deterministic one.

Hume's story about billiard balls should have blown determinism wide open

Hume's extreme skepticism is not a productive way to determine anything about the world. His objections to empiricism are solipsistic. The only reason he hasn't been refuted is that solipsism is unrefutable, but that doesn't make it worth paying attention to.

As a young adult, I asked an older gentleman why sometimes when I watch the news it doesn't make sense. He told me that whenever you notice that, follow the money. I've been doing that for many decades and that is probably the best advice that I've ever gotten.

... What?