Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 102

Mon, 30 Nov 2020

• 1. ad hayom hazeh (Joseph Kaplan)
• 2. free will (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: ad hayom hazeh (Brent Kaufman)
• 4. Re: ad hayom hazeh (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: free will (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: free will (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: free will (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: free will (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: free will (Micha Berger)
• 10. Yaakov and Lavan (Sholom Simon)

RAM suggested two different examples of analyzing possible desired end states: 
?1) Looking from the perspective of Adam and Chava before they sinned: Was
"the desired end state" an entry into Olam Haba the very next day? Or was
"the desired end state" that they should err, and then grow by learning
from that error?

2) From the perspective of the recently-freed Egyptian slaves: Was "the
desired end state" a quick entry into Eretz Yisrael? Or was "the desired
end state" that we should learn the lessons of 40 years in the desert, and
of a lengthy conquest of the Land??

While both do raise interesting end state analyses, they?re very different.
In the first, had they entered olam haba the next day, humanity?s existence
would have no relationship to what actually happened; living in olam haba
has nothing to do with living in the world that humanity has lived in since
the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. In the second, while there may very
well have been differences, the end result on both would have been that the
Jewish people would have entered the land of Canaan and had to deal with
the people living there, establishing a Jewish nation etc. etc.

Joseph 

I have listened to about 10 shiurim of Rav Michael Avraham on free will
(Hebrew) which are available on his website

He analyzes determinism vs free will from just about every angle from
philosophic to chaos theory to quantum mechanics to brain experiments.

He basically comes to the conclusion that there does not exist any logic or
experiment that demonstrates determinism. All experiments have their weak
points and he doesn't believe that one could construct a better experiment
that would prove determinsim.

Given that there is no proof in either direction he founds it more
reasonable that there is a nonphysical possibility for man to make free
choices that then get translated into some action.
He stresses that free will means that at times a person can choose his
action and it is not determined by physics. That does not mean that one
always has free choice. To prove determinism one needs to prove that man
never has free will. Hence, the various Libet type experiments only show
that under some simple laboratory conditions man is controlled by physics.

The last in this series of talks will probably be this coming Friday
morning (Israel tiume) and then saved on his website

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201128/3790f04e/attachment-0001.html>

>>Both.  The original desired end state was to go immediately, and that
would have been good.  But the end state that we will eventually achieve
after thousands of years of work will be better.

But that is saying that HKBH's original way was less, or, not the best way;
rather, Adam's way was better. That is obviously problematic.
The same, and even parallel, is the Sheviras HaKeilim (and it isn't my
intent to take the discussion anywhere that the moderators would rather
not) in which there is, embedded in creation, a need for a fall and
eventual higher aliyah.
Whatever was the original desired goal was, Adam achieved exactly what he
hoped to achieve. It just would take longer than he expected; 6,000 years
of billions of people and human history, as opposed to Adam doing the
necessary teshuva and tikunim by himself, in a shorter time. Either way, it
had to come through a sin, or it wouldn't have worked.

>>Obviously "echta
ve'ashuv" is not a derech.  But bediavad it turns out that by sinning
and repenting one ends up in a better place than one would have achieved
without the sin.

But this rise to a "better" way could only have happened through sin.
*In effect*, HKBH said 'Yasher kochacha' to the sin.

>>> Yes, but theoretically if each individual made decisions that in total
> did not get to the desired end state, doesn't this imply that HKBH would
> have to limit someone's bechira to reach the end state?

We do not have free bechira at all times. I don't remember the source but I
was taught that only in those things which are regarding yiras Shamayim, we
have bechira, but not necessarily in other things; i.e. moral choices,
mitzva dependent decisions...

But even in those things which are mitzva/yiras Shamayim issues, we don't
always have free choice. People are born into non-observant families have
no choice, at least for certain periods of their lives, to keep or not keep
Shabbos, kashrus and other mitzvos. Those neshamos were put in those
situations for whatever reason HKBH had.  Even things in which we think we
are deciding, it could be that we aren't deciding, but HKBH just needed it
to be that way.

Chaimbaruch Kaufman


-- 
*"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201127/b0f52d15/attachment-0001.html>

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 03:14:05PM -0600, Brent Kaufman via Avodah wrote:
>> Both.  The original desired end state was to go immediately, and that
>> would have been good.  But the end state that we will eventually achieve
>> after thousands of years of work will be better.

> But that is saying that HKBH's original way was less, or, not the best way;
> rather, Adam's way was better..

Which is why I tried to suggest that had Adam not sinned, Hashem's
response would have been the best way for for one kind of creature, since
Adam did sin, Hashem's response was the best way for our kind of creature.

And on the meta-level, the best meta-way was to let Adam choose which
kind of creature he wanted for himself and his descendents to be.

With neither plan being "better" because HQBH choosing one of the
other would have been less bechirah than He Wanted to bestow due to the
"best meta-way".

>> Yes, but theoretically if each individual made decisions that in total
>> did not get to the desired end state, doesn't this imply that HKBH would
>> have to limit someone's bechira to reach the end state?

> We do not have free bechira at all times. I don't remember the source but I
> was taught that only in those things which are regarding yiras Shamayim, we
> have bechira, but not necessarily in other things; i.e. moral choices,
> mitzva dependent decisions...

I suggested an easier way in which free will is limited: we don't have
bechirah whether or not to fall if we walk off a cliff.

My earlier example of eventually reaching yemos hamoshiach is of this
sort... We could take the path of kulo chayav, and having made ourselves
incapable of redeeming ourselves, Hashem forces redemption on us.


But REED's concept of nequdas habechirah limits bechirah in a way
different than either of our descriptions so far. He says that bechirah
chofshi is only when we have choices that compete. When we are balanced
enough pro and con for the decision to come to conscious attention and
decision-making.

So, for example, I hope none of us see a watch in a store and think
about whether or not to shoplift it. The thought doesn't cross our minds,
so it's not the subject of bechirah chofshi.

However, for many of us the question of whether to rip off the government
(by far more than the value of that watch) by lying on tax forms may very
well become the topic of conscious deliberation.

From R Aryeh Carmel's translation in Strive for Truth:

   When two armies are locked in battle, fighting takes place only at
   the battlefront. Territory behind the lines of one army is under that
   army's control and little or no resistance need be expected there. A
   similar situation prevails in respect of territory behind the lines
   of the other army. If one side gains a victory at the front and pushes
   the enemy back, the position of the battlefront will have changed. In
   fact, therefore, fighting takes place only at one location.

And:

   With each good choice successfully carried out, the person rises
   higher in spiritual level; that is, things that were previously in
   the line of battle are now in the area controlled by the yetzer hatov
   and actions done in that area can be undertaken without struggle
   and without bechira. And so in the other direction. Giving in to the
   yetzer hara pushes back the frontier of the good, and an act which
   previously cost one a struggle with one's conscience will now be done
   without bechira at all.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Every second is a totally new world,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and no moment is like any other.
Author: Widen Your Tent              - Rabbi Chaim Vital
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 07:31:51PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> I have listened to about 10 shiurim of Rav Michael Avraham...
> 
> He analyzes determinism vs free will from just about every angle from
> philosophic to chaos theory to quantum mechanics to brain experiments.
> 
> He basically comes to the conclusion that there does not exist any logic or
> experiment that demonstrates determinism. All experiments have their weak
> points and he doesn't believe that one could construct a better experiment
> that would prove determinsim.

Yeah, but, that just proves the possitility of "free".

I mean the brain is arguably a perfectly designed Chaotic System, with
85-100bn neurons in complicated non-linear feedback loops.

Definition: Chaotic System: A system that is unpredictable because
immeasurably small difference in initial conditions can create huge
differences in outcome. Because the system has feedback, which can
magnify a small change (or dampen it) in response to other microscopic
differences. Like the proverbial butterfly fluttering its wings in Africa
making the difference between whether or not a tornado develops in the US.

But the brain is more than just chaotic. Because a neuron's behavior can
depend on stimuli on the subatomic level -- a single photon or electron's
state. Its microscopic initial conditions get down to quantum uncertainty.

So the brain can end up in very different macroscopic states due to
quantum randomness.

Then there is the No Cloning Theorem, an idea in Quantum Mechanics
which says that there is no way to copy an existing quantum state.
(Entanglement is something else, since that's about a *shared* quantum
state, not a copy.) No outside machine could ever determine what some
brain's qauntum initial microscopic state was.

So the "free" part of free will is done.

Now, define "will". Rolling a die and getting a 6 isn't an expression
of the will of the die.

Free Will requires the mind to be both deterministic and not simply
random.

And if the mind is not physical, how does it intervene in causing physical
effects without violating laws of nature. Even those, like quantum ones,
that "only" give us probabilities.

If quantum mechanics says that the odds of something happening is .5,
the soul would have to interact with brains such that over huge numbers
of interactions, it happens half the time.

Me, I think this middle ground between deterministic and random is
ineffible. I think R/Dr Moshe Koppel proves it exists in Metahalakhah
ch. 2, and I summarized his demonstration a number of times on-list
over the decades. One of which got edited and ended up on my blog
https://www.aishdas.org/asp/neither-random-nor-predetermined

But I don't think we can say what it is. Because if we could describe it
in words, we could turn it into an algorithm -- and it would be either
deterministic or random.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The true measure of a man
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   is how he treats someone
Author: Widen Your Tent      who can do him absolutely no good.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Samuel Johnson

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 11:16 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 09:27:28PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> > Chaos theory only says that the path is so complicated that we can't
> follow
> > it and small changes can make a big difference
> > However it is completely deterministic
>
> Not if those small changes aren't deterministic
>

That is meaningless. If one thinks the world is deterministic then the
small changes are deterministic. You can't prove free will by assuming
small changes are not determined. You are assuming what you want to prove

>
>
>
> >                      More problematic
> > is that it replaces determinism by probability that has nothing to do
> with
> > free choice
>
> That was my point.
>
> So in summary neither chaos nor quantum theory disproves determinism.


Otoh he shows why libet type experiments and other brain research does not
prove determinism

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201129/3c85cdf5/attachment-0001.html>

He went in detail into chaos theory and quantum mechanics and showed that
neither has anything to do with free will.

Chaos theory only says that the path is so complicated that we can't follow
it and small changes can make a big difference
However it is completely deterministic

With quantum mechanics there is first the problem whether it applies to
macroscopic systems. More problematic
is that it replaces determinism by probability that has nothing to do with
free choice

RAM claim is that there is no proof for either detrminism or libertism.
Since we we feel we have free will so that is the better choice
but there is certainly no proof for free will.

Again he has a whole series in Hebrew on the topic on his web site

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 8:29 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 07:31:51PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> > I have listened to about 10 shiurim of Rav Michael Avraham...
> >
> > He analyzes determinism vs free will from just about every angle from
> > philosophic to chaos theory to quantum mechanics to brain experiments.
> >
> > He basically comes to the conclusion that there does not exist any logic
> or
> > experiment that demonstrates determinism. All experiments have their weak
> > points and he doesn't believe that one could construct a better
> experiment
> > that would prove determinsim.
>
> Yeah, but, that just proves the possitility of "free".
>
> I mean the brain is arguably a perfectly designed Chaotic System, with
> 85-100bn neurons in complicated non-linear feedback loops.
>
> Definition: Chaotic System: A system that is unpredictable because
> immeasurably small difference in initial conditions can create huge
> differences in outcome. Because the system has feedback, which can
> magnify a small change (or dampen it) in response to other microscopic
> differences. Like the proverbial butterfly fluttering its wings in Africa
> making the difference between whether or not a tornado develops in the US.
>
> But the brain is more than just chaotic. Because a neuron's behavior can
> depend on stimuli on the subatomic level -- a single photon or electron's
> state. Its microscopic initial conditions get down to quantum uncertainty.
>
> So the brain can end up in very different macroscopic states due to
> quantum randomness.
>
> Then there is the No Cloning Theorem, an idea in Quantum Mechanics
> which says that there is no way to copy an existing quantum state.
> (Entanglement is something else, since that's about a *shared* quantum
> state, not a copy.) No outside machine could ever determine what some
> brain's qauntum initial microscopic state was.
>
> So the "free" part of free will is done.
>
> Now, define "will". Rolling a die and getting a 6 isn't an expression
> of the will of the die.
>
> Free Will requires the mind to be both deterministic and not simply
> random.
>
> And if the mind is not physical, how does it intervene in causing physical
> effects without violating laws of nature. Even those, like quantum ones,
> that "only" give us probabilities.
>
> If quantum mechanics says that the odds of something happening is .5,
> the soul would have to interact with brains such that over huge numbers
> of interactions, it happens half the time.
>
> Me, I think this middle ground between deterministic and random is
> ineffible. I think R/Dr Moshe Koppel proves it exists in Metahalakhah
> ch. 2, and I summarized his demonstration a number of times on-list
> over the decades. One of which got edited and ended up on my blog
> https://www.aishdas.org/asp/neither-random-nor-predetermined
>
> But I don't think we can say what it is. Because if we could describe it
> in words, we could turn it into an algorithm -- and it would be either
> deterministic or random.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger                 The true measure of a man
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp   is how he treats someone
> Author: Widen Your Tent      who can do him absolutely no good.
> - https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Samuel Johnson
>


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201129/9f41d63a/attachment-0001.html>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 09:27:28PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Chaos theory only says that the path is so complicated that we can't follow
> it and small changes can make a big difference
> However it is completely deterministic

Not if those small changes aren't deterministic.

> With quantum mechanics there is first the problem whether it applies to
> macroscopic systems.

Except that it /has/ to apply to macroscopic *chaotic* systems.

Here's a good essay on the topic:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159

     Quantum Physics
     Title: The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine
     Author: Scott Aaronson

     Abstract:
     In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out
     some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life,
     the question of physics and free will. I focus relatively narrowly
     on a notion that I call "Knightian freedom": a certain kind of
     in-principle physical unpredictability that goes beyond probabilistic
     unpredictability. Other, more metaphysical aspects of free will
     I regard as possibly outside the scope of science. I examine a
     viewpoint, suggested independently by Carl Hoefer, Cristi Stoica,
     and even Turing himself, that tries to find scope for "freedom"
     in the universe's boundary conditions rather than in the dynamical
     laws. Taking this viewpoint seriously leads to many interesting
     conceptual problems. I investigate how far one can go toward solving
     those problems, and along the way, encounter (among other things)
     the No-Cloning Theorem, the measurement problem, decoherence, chaos,
     the arrow of time, the holographic principle, Newcomb's paradox,
     Boltzmann brains, algorithmic information theory, and the Common
     Prior Assumption. I also compare the viewpoint explored here to the
     more radical speculations of Roger Penrose. The result of all this
     is an unusual perspective on time, quantum mechanics, and causation,
     of which I myself remain skeptical, but which has several appealing
     features. Among other things, it suggests interesting empirical
     questions in neuroscience, physics, and cosmology; and takes a
     millennia-old philosophical debate into some underexplored territory.

But I have to warn you it's more of a small book than an article. I'm
in the 20s, the main text ends on 71.

>                      More problematic
> is that it replaces determinism by probability that has nothing to do with
> free choice

That was my point.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
Author: Widen Your Tent                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 11:25:25PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> > Not if those small changes aren't deterministic

> That is meaningless. If one thinks the world is deterministic then the
> small changes are deterministic. You can't prove free will by assuming
> small changes are not determined. You are assuming what you want to prove

No, I am combining two ideas you are insisting on treating separately:
The effects of Chaos on a Quantum Mechanical system.

The small changes are on a quantum uncertainly level. So, Chaos will
magnify quantum effects to macroscopic level. I am not assuming quantum
uncertainty; I am taking it for granted that verifications of Bell's
Inequality have ruled out "hidden variables" and other deterministic
models. This is experimental data, not an assumption.

And thus even if quantum randomness can't exist on a macroscopic level,
and the wave function collapses into some classical state Chaos Theory
will tell us that those classical states need not resemble each other.


I wrote about Libet here in the past. See a couple of explanations at
https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n344.shtml#03

Libet concluded that there is a 300 to 500 ms (roughly 1/3 - 1/2 sec)
delay between making a decision and consiousness. That the neurons
actually choosing to move of not fire first, then we make up explanations
to ourselves to align them with our "will". The latter just being a
fiction we tell ourselves.

I like the idea that Libet measured the time lag between making a free
will decision and realizing one has just watched themself making that
free will decision. (Which is likely why I chose that quote to put
last.) Libet was off by one level of meta.

Alternatively, REED wouldn't expect the kind of arbitrary choice like
when to press a button to involve free will. It doesn't reach the nequdas
habechirah. Only decisions that involve warring interests that push
themselves to awareness, concious choice, and bechirah chofshi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   heights as long as he works his wings.
Author: Widen Your Tent      But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

I found enjoyable an essay over last shabbos on the parsha:   R Yitzchak
Etshalom, ?Shades of White: A Fresh Look at Lavan?s Relationship with
Yaakov?,
https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/shades-of-white-a-fresh-look-at-lavans-relationship-with-yaakov/


I suspect it might be in his book series ?Between the Lines?, which I don't
have.

-- Sholom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201130/c3791a1e/attachment.html>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)