What extra component could our biological ‘computer’ possibly possess that would enable free will?

Are you talking about a soul?

But surely there is a massive difference between free will and not free, but impossible to model accurately?

Well I am not convinced you can model either, I don’t think.
Eg a perfect universe model, would just be another universe.
So given that we are unlikey to ever be able to answer the free will question, then so what.

Ps I think I kind of intimated at the very begging that I don’t really think we have free will, not for the deterministic reasons you have been pushing, but because if free will means doing whatever you want, well you cant. As I said before, physics stops you from being able to fly unaided or survive 200ft drop. You cannot will that into happening, therefore you are not free to choose to do absolutely anything you want.
I appreciate that perhaps my definition of free will is not the same as yours..

But surely there is a massive difference between free will and not free, but impossible to model accurately?

Of course. If you take a simple chaotic system like a dual pendulum then the equations governing it are pretty easy to work out but if you plug in the initial conditions and let it go it will diverge from your predicted movement pattern fairly quickly. That doesn’t mean it’s free to move differently, in the same way a predetermined universe would mean you’re not free to think even though your thoughts can’t be predicted.

Of course. If you take a simple chaotic system like a dual pendulum then the equations governing it are pretty easy to work out but if you plug in the initial conditions and let it go it will diverge from your predicted movement pattern fairly quickly. That doesn’t mean it’s free to move differently, in the same way a predetermined universe would mean you’re not free to think even though your thoughts can’t be predicted.

Doesn’t that mean we just don’t have the tools to model it properly? And perhaps do not understand all the variables?
Eg they are highly dependant on initial conditions, well perhaps we just do not control them accurately enough. If we did then perhaps they would be 100% repeatable?
Issues with a physical model for example would be equal mass, equal mass distribution, equal lengths, and equal frictional properties of the pin joint.
Also the equations of motion are solved numerically – which also makes it hard to be accurate.

Are you talking about a soul?

Well I’m an atheist. But I’m saying that if we do believe in true free will, then we need some extra unknown “thing” to provide it, because the known ones don’t appear to.

Well I am not convinced you can model either, I don’t think.

Agreed. But unmodelable is not the same as free.

In the same way that we know a wall full of lava lamps isn’t really random, but it is so complex and chaotic that it is unmodelable

[video]https://youtu.be/1cUUfMeOijg[/video]

As I said before, physics stops you from being able to fly unaided or survive 200ft drop.

EDIT: these have nothing to do with the concept of free will

Well I’m an atheist. But I’m saying that if we do believe in true free will, then we need some extra unknown “thing” to provide it, because the known ones don’t appear to.

You is preaching to the converted… 😆
I agree that is exactly what I meant too.

No that’s the thing about chaotic systems – while they can be modelled perfectly as an equation (or set of), an infinitesimal change in the initial conditions can deliver a huge difference in the system’s behaviour.

So the system is modelled correctly and if you could perfectly reproduce the initial conditions you’d get the same result, but in reality that’s not possible so the system can’t be predicted accurately.

Also Lava lamps are much less complicated than humans, I bet we model them before us…

Nick I don’t agree, free will to me is doing whatever you want. Wanting to quit work and ride all day has practical limits that I choose not to explore, much like doing an RKelly. The outcome have different levels of severity, but I cannot wish up an unlimited income on the spot, exactly as I can’t wish myself invincible.

Apologies if it was too preachy. I find it a really interesting discussion.

not possible so the system can’t be predicted accurately.

Hmm I wonder if we just dont have the ability yet, either in knowledge or computing power.
Which just goes to show, if we can’t model two sticks, forget modelling wether I choose to wipe clockwise or anticlockwise after my coffee tomorrow.

Sorry Graham, I was just using you to make an excellent joke… (Atheism/preaching geddit?)

Also nick, I read the whole wikipedia page on free will earlier. It fits my definition exactly…

I wish we were in thepub. This is v interesting. Beer anyone?

Also thepurist you know? about numerical solutions right? The solution is an approximation.

Also thepurist you know? about numerical solutions right? The solution is an approximation.

Not sure about that. I spent a chunk of my third year at uni defining 0 and 1 from first principles and then proving that 0+1 = 1 and 1+1=2,so I’m on pretty firm ground there.

Also on the dual pendulum thing the computing power and knowledge to calculate it is pretty basic. For any given set of starting points you can accurately predict what happens to the system. It’s perfectly predictable in theory but in real life half an atoms todger (*) of difference in the starting point can have a big impact on where it ends up.

(* or small measure of your choice)

I wish we were in thepub. This is v interesting

Funnily enough last time I discussed this in earnest it was in the pub with an old uni mate and we were both smashed.

I spent a chunk of my third year at uni defining 0 and 1 from first principles and then proving that 0+1 = 1 and 1+1=2

Yet people still claim that uni degrees are pointless? 😉

Also nick, I read the whole wikipedia page

Oh, ok, I bow to your greater knowledge. 😆

defeying the laws of nature is Counterfactualism, and although has some common themes with determinism, it’s not “free will” in the classic ancient Greek sense.

Counterfactualism is about perception, esse est pircipi all that stuff, if your world is just perception, is it real…Your brain sits in a dark room with no actual connection to the outside world, so it perceives everything second hand (so to speak).

Nick I don’t agree, free will to me is doing whatever you want. Wanting to quit work and ride all day has practical limits that I choose not to explore, much like doing an RKelly. The outcome have different levels of severity, but I cannot wish up an unlimited income on the spot, exactly as I can’t wish myself invincible.

Is that not a bit like saying the choice between life and death proves there’s no free-will because no-one ever chooses to die?

Is that not a bit like saying the choice between life and death proves there’s no free-will because no-one ever chooses to die?

No, sometimes people do choose to die, you however cannot choose to not die in a situation where the universe removes your chance of living. IE it aint your choice, even if you do not want to die, you still die. Therefore, no free will.

defeying the laws of nature is Counterfactualism, and although has some common themes with determinism, it’s not “free will” in the classic ancient Greek sense.

It is in the modern 5plusn8 sense… I do not have 100% free will, somethings will always happen, like death and taxes. I cannot decide not to have death, or taxes.

Not sure about that. I spent a chunk of my third year at uni defining 0 and 1 from first principles and then proving that 0+1 = 1 and 1+1=2,so I’m on pretty firm ground there.

Can we have a demo please?

I am drinking cider tonight by the way, its nice, have a sip. The wife passes Waitrose in Horley on a daily basis and get me the boxed stuff. Left over from last weekends England rugby game.

https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/westons-organic-vintage-cider-draught/030323-14813-14814

I do not have 100% free will, somethings will always happen

Sort of. You may (or may not, after all the jury’s still out) have free will over the decisions that you have available to you i.e. you can chose or not to jump from a cliff, the decision to then not hit the ground at 32ft/sec/sec is not yours to make, it will happen to you, and therefore outside of the discussion of free will.

With flying, again it’s not a valid free will decision, you cannot choose to fly or not fly, as (in this world at least) as one of those options is not open to you (not a valid choice). You may (or may not) act within the boundaries of this physical world freely, what happens to you after you’ve made your last decision may be out of your hands, but as it’s out of your immediate control cannot be said to be in the gift of your free will.