From: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:20:14 -0000
To: "James W Stark" <stark2301@voyager.net>, <asa@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Re:Preprogrammed
Hi James,
James Stark wrote:
>I'm a little late entering this discussion on free will a preprogrammed pattern
of >action. I've been traveling without access to my e-mail.
>No one seems to have questioned the validity of Glenn's Sierpinski's Gasket as
an
>example of free will. As a mathematician who has used varied programmed
languages
>to create computer programs, I see no evidence that any computer program could
>ever
>simulate the free will that humans all experience. That free will always
exists
>outside the computer in the human designer of the program.
>
>No random generator can create this free will. Just because a choice is
>unpredictable does not establish human free will. We can not even create a
>program
> for true randomness. Roger Penrose speaks to this problem of creating random
>generators in Shadows of the Mind.
>
Actually, Dave did raise the question you have about does the gasket say
anything about free will. Here was my reply:
********my reply*********
Dave raises some interesting points. I would like to comment on one of them.
----- Original Message -----
From: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 5:05 PM
> There is, hoiwever, a more basic problem with the analogy, namely, that
> the motion is determined by chance. Whether this is connected to a
> pseudo-random or truly random number generator, it does not represent
> personal choice
<It can be due to personal choice. Lets replace the dot with an intelligent
agent. The dot has a choice, do the moral thing and move halfway to dot 1,
do the sinful thing and move halfway to dot 2 or do a neutral thing an move
halfway to dot 3. As with all of us in life, we do some moral things, some
bad things and some that really don't make a difference (like belching in
public). This intelligent agent will now produce a Sierpinski's gasket as
surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. So these systems actually illustrate
that God could self-limit his knowledge of which choice we will make, but
our life will still provide the pattern required to fit into his global
scheme.
*********end of my reply********>
Comment from Jim
I saw this response after I sent my comment. You did not resolve the
validity question.
The dot can not be replaced by an intelligent agent in the computer. The
dot has no free will. It behaves "randomly" because of a mathematical
equation. An intelligent agent does have free will and can not be
programmed into any computer. The system illustrates nothing that is even
plausible. There is no valid analogy between the choices of a human agent
and Sierpinski's gasket.
end of Jim's comment here.
Glenn continues: The fact that we can't always do good ensures that Burgy's
limiting case will never occur--I.e. that we will always chose good. It is
also impossible to chose pure evil every time. To do that might mean going
on a lifelong murder rampage shooting everyone you see. The thing that is
similar (as you note below) is that free-will involves unpredictability.
The random number generator does create some unpredictability.
Concerning the rest of your note:
>However, everyone seems to agree that the free will that humans do have is
>constrained by programmed decisions both in our brains and by our environment.
>Our
>freedom is bounded by both nature and nurture. Free will decisions are not
>predictable.
<And neither is the output from a random number generators. And this is why
Sierpinski's gasket works as an analogy. You are confusing or conflating a
few terms. First there is free will. Free will must be linked to
unpredictability (i.e. randomness). >
Jim's response
The output from a random generator does not create human free will!!
Because the use of both random numbers and free will appear unpredictable,
we can not assume that they are related. You apparently choose to believe
that they are. Many scientist will treat free will as a fixed program so
that they can create a deterministic explanation. That is a extremely
simplified free will. It is not human free will!! Human free will selects
between the intentions of a human during an evaluation and response. This
is certainly not random. How predictable that human free will may be
depends on how rational the human is behaving. Humans make many free will
decisions based on emotional input that overrides cognitive judgment.
Hence, they become irrational or arational. Francis Fukuyama in The Great
Disruption provides a useful classification of human norms based on a
rational-arational dimension. He is the senior social scientist for the
RAND Corporation.
We have yet to use mathematics to estimate rational decisions, because of
our poor understanding of relationships between values. Evaluating
irrational and arational decisions based on our emotions with mathematics
may be impossible. I choose to see this human free will as a spiritual
force that interacts with our brains. We must use that gift of free will to
reach out to God for guidance in our decisions. Those intentions become the
causes for our actions after the act of using human free will. We foolishly
hide this true free will in our concepts of chance, randomness, spontaneity,
etc.
end of Jim's comment here
<Predictable behavior is not free behavior. Secondly, there is intelligent
behavior vs. non-intelligent behavior. Non-intelligent behavior does not
have to be predictable and being unpredictable it can be free. Unpredictable
behavior may or may not be intelligent but it is free behavior. In
Sierpinski's Gasket, we have a non-intelligent dot moving freely(randomly).
In Newtonian mechanics we have an unintelligent meteor (since it is dense as
a rock it is clearly inintelligent) which moves predictably and thus it is
not free. We can have an intelligent being who is not free to chose(a
prisoner or a person falling off of a bridge who is constrained to follow a
parabolic trajectory). I think you are confusing free will with intelligence
and one can't do that. Free will REQUIRES randomness.>
>Jim said: That [human free will] is part of the gift of God, who used God's
free will to share it with humans. God knows what range of actions we will
do because of the fixed
>constraints. Within those constraints God lets us shape our own futures. God
>chose to limit what God could know for a reason.
<Glenn says: First, I would point out that by building a random number
generator (to the best of our ability), we also limit our knowledge of the
future. If I want a deterministic result, I can program the computer to
print "You are a really handsome guy" everytime I log on. I would know that
it is going to happen and there is no freedom for it to do anything else. I
would have perfect knowledge and could amaze my friends with my predictive
powers by telling them what the computer would do when I turned it on.
However, if I program a random number generator that outputs a number
between 1 and 100,000, and I like the computer to print one of 100,000
statements, Then I am not going to know what it will say when I log on. I
have limited my knowledge just like you say God did when he created us.
There is almost no way to limit knowledge without randomness coming into
play. Thus, in programming Sierpinski's gasket, we are doing exactly what
you say God did when he created the universe--limited his knowledge. So I
don't see exactly what it is that you find objectionable to the gasket
analogy.>
Jim's comment
God does not have to hide God's free will behind randomness. Your
explanation just shows your preference for a deterministic worldview. We
need to build coherent worldviews. You seem to leave no room for true
spiritual forces that are beyond deterministic models. Deterministic models
ignore true human free will.
<Glenn continues: And concerning the nature of God's self-limitation on his
knowledge, I would add that it appears that this universe is built upon an
edifice of probability amplitudes--quantum mechanics--in which the outcome
of any given microscopic interaction may be unpredictable, but on the whole,
when lots and lots of them take place, patterns arise from the chaos. An
example would be the electron diffraction experiments. If you have one slit,
no wave behavior of the electron is observed. It is a system with perfect
certainty--the electron went through the only slit available. But with two
slits, one can't tell which slit it went through and a pattern of wave-like
interference develops behind the grating. And in this situation, more
electrons strike the detector behind the grating IN BETWEEN THE TWO SLITS,
not, as would be expected in a deterministic world,directly behind each
slit! However, in spite of ones uncertainty about which slit the electron
went through, one can be certain of the diffraction pattern amplitude behind
the grating.
Jim's comment:
You have more faith in quantum mechanics for spiritual answers than I do.
Quantum mechanics has a horrendous measurement problem about what does and
does not exist. Science has assumed that for something to exist it must be
measured. Quantum mechanics extended that existence to possibilities. At
some point a possibility has to change to an actuality. When that occurs
can not be established. Measurement of spiritual existence can be hidden in
possibilities. However, any test of its validity can only be done through
human testimony. There is a measurement barrier between the Universe that
we can measure and the spiritual realm. We can not scientifically test for
the existence of a spiritual realm or the existence of God. We can only use
our human free will to believe or not believe.
Glenn continues: So when you said at the first of your note:
>No random generator can create this free will. Just because a choice is
>unpredictable does not establish human free will.
It is inconsistent with your two statements: "Free will decisions are not
predictable." and, "God chose to limit what God could know for a reason."
I see no way for God to limit his knowledge without randomness. If there is
another way for God to limit his knowledge without introducing randomness,
please explain it. And please explain the contradictory nature of your
statements above.>
Jim's conclusion
The inconsistencies that you see are based on your worldview and your
definitions. We have to reach out beyond our personal worldviews to better
understand where others are coming from. We can only share our personal
worldviews and let each other choose to change our own worldviews when valid
conflicts become evident. Change can follow revealed valid conflicts within
our personal worldviews, not between different worldviews. We are in the
process of privatizing religion. Searching for common assumptions upon
which to build a coherent worldview is what we all must do. It requires the
use of human free will to change those assumptions. One of those common
assumption ought to be the existence of a human free will that is beyond
randomness, chance, or spontaneity. The truth in reality is not completely
deterministic or programmed. Human free will exists within the constraints
set by God. Our task is still to learn how to better use that human free
will to build a stable global community.
Thanks Glenn for sharing. Are other readers willing to share their
convictions about the existence of human free will? What assumptions ought
we hold in common?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 09 2000 - 11:04:14 EDT