Newcomb's Paradox

[jason1990]

I think you (or perhaps the religious people you speak of) might need a shave. With Ockham's razor, that is. If expanded notions of time and causality are needed to reconcile the simultaneous belief in free will and determinism, then it is probably better to simply accept that these ideas are contradictory.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you (or perhaps the religious people you speak of) might need a shave. With Ockham's razor, that is. If expanded notions of time and causality are needed to reconcile the simultaneous belief in free will and determinism, then it is probably better to simply accept that these ideas are contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was very clear in stating that none of the religious part of this was my view. I am not religious AT ALL, for the third time. I was using that as an example to illustrate the fact that there is more to the argument than the OP -- and you -- seem to think. It was perhaps misleading to say that determinism and free-will can co-exist.

Rather, the fact that things can be predicted accurately (even 100% of the time) is not inconsistent with the idea of free will, at least not with many people's conception of it, including mine. How would you react if I could predict everything you would say and do? Would you no longer believe you had free will? And don't say it's impossible that I could do that -- I'm making a point about your concept of free will, assuming you believe in it. My point is, if I started doing that, and was consistently right, would you still believe in your own free will? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. But it certainly would not be a clear-cut logical answer, at least IMO.

gm

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't understand my previous post, I think. The point is that free-choice and predetermination are not necessarily at odds

[/ QUOTE ]

My definition of free choice includes that you have a choice and that it impacts future events. By that I mean that there are at least two possible decisions at every decision point, the decider is free to choose between them, and the choice will have an impact.

By my definitions, free choice (will) precludes absolute knowledge of the future. With my definitions, this is provable. If your definitions are different, that's fine. I have argued before with people who tried to maintain free choice and the future being known, but the people on the other end of the argument have never been able to put forth an argument more sophisticated than "It's not like that."

[gaming_mouse]

Well,

If it's just a difference of definitions, that's fine. No point arguing.

I guess my point is... if someone could predict everything I do perfectly accurately, I would still believe in free choice. I see no inconsistency there, not by my definition. For me, the concept of free choice intersects with many other concepts, like the feeling of responsibility for my actions -- which I would still feel even if my life could be predicted by some God or force or really smart dude or whatever. Also, it has to do with the feeling of being consious, being able to move my hand this way and that, control my thoughts, etc. Determinists would claim the feeling of control is an illusion, but I don't buy it and no amount of prediction is going to change that.

Anyway, we've now veered into the region of personal belief or personal definition, so there's nothing really to argue about.

gm

[jason1990]

I didn't mean to imply that you are religious. I had already read your two previous denials of that fact. If you inferred that and were offended, then please accept my apology.

[ QUOTE ]
It was perhaps misleading to say that determinism and free-will can co-exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I was arguing via Ockham's Razor that, in the absence of any real (i.e. non-hypothetical) evidence that they do co-exist, it is logical to assume that they do not. So if I was arguing against an ill-formed statement, then I guess we are not in disagreement.

[MortalWombatDotCom]

Hypothetically, assume that an all powerful being could reverse time and perform the following experiment.

The being allows you to make a choice and act upon it (like deciding whether to open two boxes or only one, or deciding whether or not to jump off that ledge you are standing on).

Then, the being rewinds time and allows you to make the decision again. Everything is exactly the same. You have no knowledge of the reversal of time, because for you, the "first" runthrough hasn't happened yet.

Do you make the same decision the second time, and every other time this experiment is run?

If so, then you are essentially a machine running a program. You take as inputs all the things you observe, and your memories of everything that you have ever observed, and certain heuristics you have assembled as a result of things you have observed, and you produce the choice and you try to execute that choice. Your "free will" is just your name for the algorithm you use. It will always produce the same choice given the same EXACT inputs, and physics will take care of whether or not you successfully execute it. Why couldn't there be a reliable predictor of your choice?

If not, then you believe that what you do is random. given any particular choice, you might do one thing, you might do another thing, there is some random element that shapes the outcome. What is your free will now? In one trial, you are standing on a ledge, and you decide to jump. In another trial, you are standing on a ledge, and you decide not to jump. Is that really the way it works? That's a reasonable belief (i guess), but i personally couldn't reconcile that with a belief in a god that sends you to hell if you commit suicide but might admit you to heaven if you don't. If you're lucky, you go to heaven, if not, you go to hell. Wow. For what it's worth, I still think in this scenario you are a machine executing a program, but now your program uses as one of its inputs the output of something that is produced randomly. But i am forced to admit that there is a way of defining that random element as "free will". Congratulations. You have free will.

[gaming_mouse]

This is has now devolved into an argument about whether or not free will exists, which I think is about as pointless to have as an argument about religion.

I would say, though, Mortal, that you're argument has not "proved" anything any more than people's arguments for or against the existence of God prove anything. It is a point of view. My own happens to be different, but I doubt I could change your viewpoint any more than you could change mine, so there's no point in discussing.

gm

[KingDan]

I'd flip a coin, and decide based on that. Make it random, so the predictor cannot outthink me.

[mannika]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd flip a coin, and decide based on that. Make it random, so the predictor cannot outthink me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't the predictor know what the coin was going to land on? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

(I'm just being a dick now)

[EliteNinja]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude. You have know idea. Just trust me. He'll know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I trust you. If what you say is true, I'd play it safe and only pick Box B. Then take that money and GAMBOOOOL!!!! and win the other $1000.

The coinflip idea is pretty cool, though.