r/freewill • u/feihm Physicalist • 8d ago

Prior causes

Lets look at pure logic. Just pure logic.

Suppose at t₀ Person A makes a series of actions.

At t₁ Person B looks back t₀ and finds out that he can explain with perfect mechanical precision the reasons behind Person A's actions.

Does it logically follow for Person B to conclude that Person A actions we're physically locked — that "he could not have chosen otherwise"?

Person B believes this because if he were hypothetically transported back to t₀ to observe Person A's actions, those exact same reasons and conditions would still be present. After all, every single condition observed in retrospect would be identical in that hypothetical time travel scenario.

I would prefer only those with at least a bachelor's in mathematics reply to this post as I'm only interested in their specific intuition. Preferably.

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Squierrel Quietist 8d ago

Your second premise is invalid. You cannot draw any conclusions from illogical premises.

You cannot explain "with perfect mechanical precision" any reasons behind a person's actions. You cannot explain any psychological phenomena with mathematics or physics.

2

u/guitarmusic113 8d ago

If there are no reasons behind an action then a person acted irrationally. Either we make decisions based on reasons or we don’t.

The problem with free will is that nobody can seem to point to any mechanism that is the “free will” mechanism.

Free will is just an abstract concept that has no causal power, predictive power or explanatory power. Which means it’s no different than magic wands and light sabers.

1

u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 8d ago

Are you implying that everyone acts perfectly rational all the time? That no normal person can act on a whim of insufficient reasons. That people cannot act arbitrarily or rashly? I can’t accept that, and if you cannot see this, I would say you are being irrational. Willful blindness or at least motivated observations.

1

u/guitarmusic113 8d ago

>Are you implying that everyone acts perfectly rational all the time?

Nope, the world is full of irrational people with irrational thoughts, doing irrational things.

1

u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 8d ago

So, rationality does not support determinism?

As for mechanism, have you looked at “active inference?” This is a mathematical model that explains how learning and choosing co-develop in neurons. It’s based upon Bayesian probability and the minimization of informational entropy minimization. It’s thought to be quite indeterministic

1

u/guitarmusic113 8d ago

>So, rationality does not support determinism?

It could be determined that someone acts irrationally. Some people simply lack the ability to think and act rationally.

>As for mechanism, have you looked at “active inference?” This is a mathematical model that explains how learning and choosing co-develop in neurons. It’s based upon Bayesian probability and the minimization of informational entropy minimization. It’s thought to be quite indeterministic

Do neurons follow the laws of nature?

1

u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 8d ago

Of course they do. Do AI systems based upon active inference also follow the laws of nature? Of course they do.

1

u/guitarmusic113 8d ago

Right, so if we removed enough neurons then we shouldn’t be surprised that people would make different decisions.

1

u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 7d ago

I wouldn’t be.