Gyan, yes, you’re right: non-locality is not ruled out (I believe M Theory makes some steps in this direction). However, I don’t see how your “will” can be non-local.
In any case, I think we’re talking past each other a little. My Oxford English Dictionary defines determinism: **n.[/n] Philosophy the doctrine that all events and actions are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
Now, that to me incorporates some “random” element whether or not it is truly random or just appears so to us macroscopic 3-D, temporal beings. You seem to be using the word “deterministic” in the sense a deterministic algorithm. If so, then of course I agree that “will” is “deterministic”.
If I may ask, do you go along with my consideration of a “choice” as a calculation having many inputs? If not, as Aeschines asked, what is different when this “will” entity is introduced?
Just like entanglement. More seriously, with the theosophic/Buddhist basis, that all multiplicity is illusory.
Yes, I do. Choice is a label tagged onto certain junctures within streams of experience. With events before juncture tagged as ‘input’. Events of bodily/cognitive action afterward tagged as ‘action’ and some mystical moment in between, tagged as ‘choice made’.
Quantum entanglement is not an example of non-local hidden variables in my understanding. When you say that a “will” variable is “just like entanglement” are you alluding to Penrose and Hammeroff’s Quantum Consciousness or something?
Again I ask, if a choice is a “calculation”, why are you introducing a mystical element? What difference does it make?
Nor am I implying that. Just like relativity drilled into us that all communications take time, but entanglement defies that, the problem of resolving will as ‘non-local’ doesn’t seem like a showstopper. That’s all.
Well, because functionally world seems dualistic. Their interface is adjudged mystical.
As to difference, if free will doesn’t exist, then you live life with a different perspective than if it does.
That link didn’t work for me, but I found this at wikipedia
So, what exactly is this “mind” or “consciousness” that is omnipresent throughout the universe? What is it made of? What does it derive from? What rules/laws does it operate on?
While QM makes problems for strict determinism (in the sense that future states can be read in past ones), it doesn’t really add anything at all helpful in regards to the free will debate.
That’s because the debate has still yet to get so far as to actually explain what the heck people mean when they say we have “Free Will.” Random elements don’t change the discussion much at all: if something is truly random, then it can’t have been willed: that would merely make the will a hidden variable that would then itself have to be accounted for.
‘Mind’ is a stretch. Think of ‘consciousness’ as the ability of awareness. It is not made up of any simpler essence. That’s the point. Consciousness is primary and fundamental, not a higher-level emergence, like ‘energy’ is a fundamental property. It is crucial to understand what’s meant by ‘consciousness’ here. It refers to the ability itself, not a particular end-product. So, the observation that humans have such and such modalities as vision, audio, touch, emotions…etc pertains solely to a specific formation and is not being exported to all matter. All matter, by virtue of some property (maybe form), could fashion a mind. ‘Mind’ is like a jigsaw picture. What picture is formed depends on some (unknown) property, but the fact that the pieces exist is not a derivation of more basic laws, but as fundamental as existence.
