How philosophy blends physics with the idea of free will

How does philosophy try to balance having free will with living in a deterministic universe?

Most people with a scientific worldview agree with the idea of causal determinism, the notion that everything is subject to the laws of physics, and anything that happens is the result of these laws acting on how things exist in the world or existed in a prior moment. However, it can be challenging to figure out how this idea meshes with the notion of free will.

more…

How does philosophy try to balance having free will with living in a deterministic universe?

Seems like a similar problem to quantum physics and General theory of Relativity, the two cannot be made into one.

Larger cosmic scales seem more deterministic than smaller atomic scales.

perhaps an idea, or way, that better accommodates free will, makes it possible, probably makes thought possible, is that largely what a person inhabits is a space, made a space (of possibilities) by what was prevented from happening, or inhibited

large part of everything both of inner and substantial part of external environments people inhabit is in fact the product of what was prevented from being otherwise, maintained so

things that are prevented from happening haven’t physically happened, but they are happening in the way of being prevented from happening, which has implications for thought, characteristics of thought

take something really dumb as an example, there are lots of examples, lots of possibilities

I look after 6km~ of 25 year old plumbing, most of it is buried, I run it all at the minimum pressure to do the job, to the extent I vary it (the pressure) depending on what flow is or might be required on the line/s

which brings me to the leaks that haven’t happened, the water that hasn’t been lost, what was prevented from happening

what was prevented from happening never happened, yet it is large part of what contributes to the present physical state of the plumbing, it’s been less stressed by unnecessary high pressure, and the water that could have been wasted stayed in the mains utility pipeline and went elsewhere

that example above suggests large part of reality is the product of what doesn’t happen, is prevented from happening

i’d suggest free will probably largely comes from something similar, the analogy is possibly useful

all that is prevented from happening, the otherwise, travels with what is, the indeterminate along with what can be determined, the physicality that eventuates (the state) is largely the product of what was prevented from physically happening

so I doubt free will is necessarily a hard question, just the most suitable explanation has some potentially very uncomfortable implications for thought more broadly

Determinism and Free Will in Science and Philosophy

Compatibilism

Causal Determinism

Free Will

What’s missing from most naive models of a deterministic cosmos is a very simple ingredient: the determined inevitability for further deterministic agencies to emerge as the history unfolds.

Once you understand that “will” is, by definition, a deterministic agency, you realise why there can be no rational conflict between “human will” and a deterministic universe, as coherently understood.

The word “free” is irrelevant in this context.

I wonder.

There is a proof in science that the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved.

The proof is based on that fact that there are 4 equations in 10 unknowns. And any attempt to add more equations results in more unknowns.

The problem can be traced all the way back to General Relativity. In the four dimensions of space-time, the stress-energy tensor has 4*4 = 16 components. Symmetry reduces this to 10 components because T^ij=T^ji, which leaves four terms on the diagonal and six terms off the diagonal as shown below. The four equations are the conservation of mass-energy and the three conservation of momentum equations.

So the universe is not only unknowable in actuality but unknowable in theory.

This unknowability in actuality gives the appearance of free will.
Well, it’s a hypothesis.

Tau.Neutrino said:

How philosophy blends physics with the idea of free will

How does philosophy try to balance having free will with living in a deterministic universe?

Most people with a scientific worldview agree with the idea of causal determinism, the notion that everything is subject to the laws of physics, and anything that happens is the result of these laws acting on how things exist in the world or existed in a prior moment. However, it can be challenging to figure out how this idea meshes with the notion of free will.

more…

One of the days these so-called philosophers will read the works of Car, B., and see the error of their ways.

mollwollfumble said:

I wonder.

There is a proof in science that the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved.

The proof is based on that fact that there are 4 equations in 10 unknowns. And any attempt to add more equations results in more unknowns.

The problem can be traced all the way back to General Relativity. In the four dimensions of space-time, the stress-energy tensor has 4*4 = 16 components. Symmetry reduces this to 10 components because T^ij=T^ji, which leaves four terms on the diagonal and six terms off the diagonal as shown below. The four equations are the conservation of mass-energy and the three conservation of momentum equations.

So the universe is not only unknowable in actuality but unknowable in theory.

This unknowability in actuality gives the appearance of free will.
Well, it’s a hypothesis.

Background info on the Navier-stokes equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

I don’t think the Navier-Stokes equation is anything special in sometimes being insoluble. That occurs all over the place in the maths of mechanical objects, including buckling of struts for instance.

That’s why the Universe would not be deterministic, even if it wasn’t for quantum mechanics.

That is, if you have finite data about the state of any object in the Universe, there is no way to predict what the state of that object will be into the future (although for simple objects quite good approximations can be made for some finite period of time).