

Illustrating That Free Will Must Be an Illusion Using 25 Lines of Ruby - danielrm26
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/25-lines-ruby-show-free-will-impossible/

======
sytelus
There are several problems with author's argument.

1\. Future outcomes are not entirely determined by just past state + laws of
physics. There is a very important component that author seems to be only
eluding fleetingly: Randomness. So future = past + laws + randomness. Here
laws are implicitly understood to be probabilistic that requires some
randomness source.

2\. An all important question now is this: What is the source of randomness in
universe? I think if we can answer this question, we will likely have
understood pretty much everything that is to be understood about the universe.
A perfect random generator is theoretically required to store infinite amount
of information. If universe is finite in the sense that (space X time) is
finite then perfect true randomness is not possible. BTW, concept of true
randomness is not some fuzzy thing. It's very well defined mathematically (see
Vol II by Knuth). Summary: Let's say a random number generator produced a
sequence of 0s and 1s. The perfectness of RNG can be measured by the
distribution of every possible permutation of all length of 0s and 1s
occurring in that sequence.

3\. Let's say universe has _some_ master random number generator that sources
randomness in to all its outcomes. Is it possible to add or subtract
_randomness_ from this generator? Can processes or particles within universe
themselves be _source_ of randomness? If so these particles or processes would
meet the definition of free will. In other words, _free will_ is nothing but
random number generator itself because no one can predict or influence its
behavior.

So in essence, our question becomes _can humans be source of randomness?_. As
humans are made of same fundamental particles, it would imply, if humans have
free will then particles must also have free will (i.e. Convey's Free Will
Theorem). The difference that humans make over fundamental particles is this:
Humans can _filter_ their free will by setting up complex set of computation
on the top of it. So imagine normal particles simply generating random
behavior while humans acting as some algorithm like hash function that sets up
the computation on the top of their "free will" to generate probabilistically
desired outcome. Obviously keyword here is _desired_. Are our desires simply
deterministic or influenced by free will? Our desire to survive is obviously
programmed by genes. However our desire to climb a mountain because _its
there_ or draw a painting is probably much more influenced by free will.

~~~
danielrm26
1\. Randomness is part of the laws.

2\. Determining the source of the randomness is like figuring out why the
strong and weak force constants were set the way they were. They exist at the
ends of our epistemological limits.

3\. You seem to be missing that even if we were a source of randomness, we
would not be in control of it. Free Will isn't about a lack of predictability,
it's about control.

------
novacole
Since the code will never finish executing, it isn't correct to say that free
will has been proven to be an illusion. Even if it could, the most that can be
proved to be true is that a certain aspect of the universe is fully
determined.

It does not follow that simply because certain aspects of the universe are
determined (such as a computer program) that human action is wholly
determined. That would be like saying that because certain aspects of the
universe are conscious and self-aware, the entire universe is conscious and
self-aware.

~~~
danielrm26
It is true that the program doesn't show free will is completely impossible
for all instants in time (because it cannot test infinite instants), but one
has to wonder why any instant n would be different than the first.

Your second point equates to, "Well, we don't know everything about everything
in the universe, so there might be a mechanism for free will we haven't
discovered."

True, but that also applies to every other proposition that we can safely
disregard because there's no good reason to accept it.

In the case of free will, we as potential authors of action need a lever for
injecting ourself into the universe's chain of events. We need a hook. We need
an influence point. But since we ourselves are products of that universe, such
a mechanism is purely speculative.

The only reason we think free will exists is because we _experience_ it. But
given our understanding of the brain and its propensity for projecting all
manner of illusions onto our consciousness, I submit we should not consider
this evidence.

Show us how we have gained control over a previous state of the universe in
one of the instants between the big bang and now, or show us how we can
control the physics of transition from one state to the next.

Only then will one have made a case for free will.

~~~
Tomte
> Only then will one have made a case for free will.

That's why it's generally considered to be an open question.

You, on the other hand, haven't nearly made a case against free will, but
still act as if you had definitive proof.

This is not a situation where the free will advocates have to prove it to you,
and unless they can, you win.

