Does Free Will Exist?

[bricklayer]

I guess this means that you believe free will is not free of all influence, but that you still believe free will exists.
So, you consider yourself a compatibilist?

A free-will is not free from limitation.
A free-will is simply a will free to act according to its nature.

A human-free-will does not equate to a human-sovereign-will.
A human-free-will does not equate to a will free from being known.

Human-free-will is not incompatible with a sovereign God.
Human-free-will does not trump God's first choice.

 

[jonmichael818]

NO !

Why?

Effect goes back to cause and cause goes back to effect.
Are you implying that effect is the first action?
Did the chicken or the egg come first?

Not sure where I wrote that, but even if I did it was not my intention to imply that effect came before cause.

Actually, I do not believe there was a "first" cause or effect, I don't believe there was a first anything(at least in terms of the idea of something coming into existence from nothing.)
I believe that something has always existed, and that the idea of "nothing"(as in absolute nothing) does not or has not ever existed.

But, I do believe in a first cause in that whatever it was that existed, caused the first effect. That effect then became the cause of the next effect ect..

 

[quatona]

WE HAVE A FREE-WILL
We are free to do anything we can do,

So is an apple.

 

[bricklayer]

So is an apple.

There you go. That's free-will, no more, no less.

 

[jonmichael818]

A free-will is not free from limitation.
A free-will is simply a will free to act according to its nature.

A human-free-will does not equate to a human-sovereign-will.
A human-free-will does not equate to a will free from being known.

Human-free-will is not incompatible with a sovereign God.
Human-free-will does not trump God's first choice.

So I was right, you are a compatibilist.
Essentially, it boils down to how you define what free will is.

I define free will as such:

FREE WILL- freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.-Merriam-Webster/Freewill

 

[bricklayer]

So I was right, you are a compatibilist.
Essentially, it boils down to how you define what free will is.

I define free will as such:

Do you believe that a human-free-will is free from being known?
Do you believe that God is subject to Human-free-will?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

NO !

Effect goes back to cause and cause goes back to effect.
Are you implying that effect is the first action?
Did the chicken or the egg come first?

The Egg.

Physics has shown us that causality is overrated: events need not be caused by pre-occuring events, and if you measure event A to occur after event B, I could just as accurately measure B as preceding A.

So it's entirely possible that our brains evolved to take advantage of that. Some complex process exploiting quantum indeterminable in electrons is, perhaps, maybe, somehow, the physical origin of free will.

 

[jonmichael818]

Do you believe that a human-free-will is free from being known?

I believe that in principal if a being or computer of some sort took into account ALL the variables, then everything about any given individual can be predicted and known.

Do you believe that God is subject to Human-free-will?

I believe that if a god did exist, and in order for free will (as I define it) to exist, then yes that god would be limited by human free will.

 

[jonmichael818]

The Egg.

Physics has shown us that causality is overrated: events need not be caused by pre-occuring events, and if you measure event A to occur after event B, I could just as accurately measure B as preceding A.

So it's entirely possible that our brains evolved to take advantage of that. Some complex process exploiting quantum indeterminable in electrons is, perhaps, maybe, somehow, the physical origin of free will.

That is possible, but when dealing with the issue of causality at the quantum level, doesn't it depend upon which interpretation of quantum mechanics you hold to be true?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is possible, but when dealing with the issue of causality at the quantum level, doesn't it depend upon which interpretation of quantum mechanics you hold to be true?

Our understanding of causality also comes from Relativity, don't forget.

 

[freereason]

I think that one can be said to have free will if their next actions cannot be determined. I think it is important to distinguish the ability to determine a persons next actions from saying that they are not determined. In theory, if there are laws, both newtonian and quantum that govern our universe, then it's plausible to say that all actions, based on a universe of data applied to physical laws can be determined. However, in reality, we do not posses anything close to the ability to predict even a small portion of the universe. So an effective model is that of free-will, because effectively we have no idea what will happen next. I think we would have to limit free will to those things sufficiently complex as to be unpredictable. As such, a computer program can be said not to have free will because it's output can be determined when given the same input, whereas a persons actions may not.

My 2 cents..

 

[Tielec]

I think that one can be said to have free will if their next actions cannot be determined. I think it is important to distinguish the ability to determine a persons next actions from saying that they are not determined. In theory, if there are laws, both newtonian and quantum that govern our universe, then it's plausible to say that all actions, based on a universe of data applied to physical laws can be determined. However, in reality, we do not posses anything close to the ability to predict even a small portion of the universe. So an effective model is that of free-will, because effectively we have no idea what will happen next. I think we would have to limit free will to those things sufficiently complex as to be unpredictable. As such, a computer program can be said not to have free will because it's output can be determined when given the same input, whereas a persons actions may not.

My 2 cents..

Another person in the thread noted that if a computer had all the information and sufficient power it could predict everything that would happen in the future.

I was always under the impression this was impossible because certain processes are completely random, such as the individual decay of radioactive molecules.

Is that wrong?

 

[freereason]

Another person in the thread noted that if a computer had all the information and sufficient power it could predict everything that would happen in the future.

I was always under the impression this was impossible because certain processes are completely random, such as the individual decay of radioactive molecules.

Is that wrong?

Not being an expert in radioactive decay, I would propose that if the unverse is governed by physical laws, and if we had sufficient data on the reason why individual molecules decayed then it would be theoretically predictable. But again, effectively, we cannot predict them so they are effectively random much like our effective model of free will. But that brings up a good point about whether or not radioactive molecules have free will because they are complex.

Is consciousness then necessary for free will, I ponder?

 

[Tielec]

Not being an expert in radioactive decay, I would propose that if the unverse is governed by physical laws, and if we had sufficient data on the reason why individual molecules decayed then it would be theoretically predictable. But again, effectively, we cannot predict them so they are effectively random much like our effective model of free will. But that brings up a good point about whether or not radioactive molecules have free will because they are complex.

Is consciousness then necessary for free will, I ponder?

I would think so. To possess free will implies that one has the ability to choose. Consciousness would seem a neccessary pre-condition to the ability to choose. A radioactive particle did not choose to float off, it was subject to forces outside of it's control.

I'm no expert on radioactivity or physics, but surely there are processes in the universe which are truly random. However, the more I think about this statement the less true it seems to be. For example if we knew about the wiring and electric currents flowing through a random number generator we could predict what number would appear. I have heard rumblings of true random number generators, but never really investigated it.

Assuming that there is no real randomness in the universe I would agree with you freereason.

 

[Girder of Loins]

but surely there are processes in the universe which are truly random. However, the more I think about this statement the less true it seems to be.

Uncertainty Principle: it is impossible to determine both the momentum and the location of an electron simultaneously.

Meaning that there are unpredictable events. And if there are random events, the the universe can't be predetermined by someone in the physical world.

 

[jonmichael818]

Another person in the thread noted that if a computer had all the information and sufficient power it could predict everything that would happen in the future.

I was always under the impression this was impossible because certain processes are completely random, such as the individual decay of radioactive molecules.

Is that wrong?

You are correct. As far as I know radioactive decay and quantum uncertainty are the only two examples of truly random(or perhaps truly uncertain) phenomenon that occur.

That being said, this does not mean that these so-called random phenomenon will always be uncertain. What I mean is that their uncertainty may just be due to our lack of undersdanting, or that we just do not have a theory that describes these events with certainty, but rather in terms of probability. This is one of the reasons why we do not have a "Theory of Everything," if such a theory is possible.

However, if we did have a complete understanding of the laws of physics and could take into account ALL variables, in principle it may be possible to predict events in the future.

 

[jonmichael818]

Is consciousness then necessary for free will, I ponder?

First I think it depends on how you define free will. If you take the compatibilist's definition of free will, then I would say that consciousness IS needed for free will. Because unless an agent has some degree of self awareness and awareness of its surroundings how could that agent even have a "will" let alone a "free will."

If this is correct, then I think that the degree to which an agent has free will is dependant upon the level of conscious awareness that agent has. For example we as humans have a higher degree of consciousness then that of a gold fish.

However, from a "hard determinist's" perspective (which I take) of consciouness, consciousness is still a result of prior influences no matter how complex they may seem. Even if you take into account the random and uncertain aspects of reality those still do not seem to constitute free will. The very fact that the random is random, means that we did not have any control over any such randomness, eliminating the possibility of free will.

 

[jonmichael818]

Our understanding of causality also comes from Relativity, don't forget.

Are you referring to the idea of time travel using a transversable wormhole, singularities and that kind of thing? That stuff is really interesting.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are you referring to the idea of time travel using a transversable wormhole, singularities and that kind of thing? That stuff is really interesting.

They are indeed interesting, but no: I was referring to simultaneity in Relativity.

Consider this hypothetical: you have two people, O1 and O2, standing on a train and a train platform, respectively. On top of the train in the middle is a device that emits two laser beams, one towards the front of the train (i.e., in the direction of movement), and one towards the back. At either end are laser detectors, and inside the train is enough C4 to make Guy Fawkes salivate. When both detectors are simultaneously hit with the lasers, the C4 will go off. A delay will not set it off.

Now, the lasers are turned on, the beams emitted. The question is, does the C4 go off?

From the point of view of O1, standing on the train and moving with it, yes: the laser hit the detectors simultaneously, and boom goes the cyclotrimethylene trinitramine.

From the point of view of O2, standing on the platform and watching the whole rig trundle past at (let's say) 0.9c, no: the aft laser hits first, then the fore laser. Thus, the C4 doesn't explode.

So, according to General Relativity, the two observed events are not simultaneous: two events that occur at the same time in one inertial frame, might well occur at different times in another. That is, simultaneity is not invariant.

(Obviously the C4 either will go off or won't go off, regardless of inertial frame; the solution to this apparent paradox is that the trigger mechanism is itself experiencing a delay: a signal has to be sent from both detectors to the 'fuse', and only if that is hit simultaneously (from its own point of view) will the C4 go off - and, indeed, it will. So, O2, who sees the laser hit non-simultaneously, will also see the burning 'fuse' travel at various speeds due to length contraction and time dilation - and the C4 explode)

(It's far too early in the morning for this...)

 

[SithDoughnut]

Meh, the topic's already gone on it's own route but I'll jump in anyway.

Assuming that our brains are not capable of randomness (and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are) then it depends on what you want to define free will as. We have the ability to make whatever choices we want, it's just that with the same stimuli we'll make the same decision. It'll be our decision, it won't have been decided for us, but we'll still make the same decision.

Whether that counts as free will or not, I'm not sure.