Free Will

[Jet Black]

There is MUCH MORE fullfillment for God when people love Him with all their heart because he is their Creator.

charming, I am God's lack of an ego boost then, to hell with me :/

 

[Douglaangu]

Free will to choose between Good and evil...


what does man do everytime with his free will....


chooses evil every time

"Frankenstein took some flesh and bones and blood and made a man out of them; the man ran away and fell to raping and robbing and murdering everywhere, and Frankenstein was horrified and in despair, and said, "I made him, without asking his consent, and it makes me responsible for every crime he commits. I am the criminal, he is innocent." ... [That's exactly] the case of God and man... God made man, without man's consent, and made his nature, too; made it vicious instead of angelic, and then said, "Be angelic, or I will punish you and destroy you." But no matter, God is responsible for everything man does, all the same; He can't get around that fact. There is only one Criminal, and it is not man."
​

Mark Twain​

​

 

[Meatros]

If man didnt have free will, he would be a robot.
Look at it this way, how would you appreciate someones love just because you made them love you.

There is MUCH MORE fullfillment for God when people love Him with all their heart because he is their Creator.

Note: I didnt read replies this may have been said already sorry!

I think that's psychosomatic. Besides, *you* believe in God-so how can you say there is much more fullfilment? How would you know?

 

[Mike Flynn]

God is not needed to believe in determinism... environmental, biological, social factors among many others influence every decision we make... but to what extent? It seems like if i wanted to i could stop typing right here... or could I? I am simply fulfulling some need that I had no choice but to fill?

One thing has influenced the next since the beginning of time, but what sparked it all? Well that is a whole 'nother issue.

I guess you could say that 'one thing influences the next'. But, according to physics, its more accurate to say that one thing influences the LIKELIHOOD of the next. So you might feel like typing another message on this forum, and given your background and influences that may be quite likely...but (according to physics) it would be incorrect to say that the event is pre-determined.

Determinism is based on the idea that if you know all the variables, all the conditions, and all of the various forces that act on a system, then you can determine the exact postion, speed, energy, etc of a particle at any time based on these initial conditions. This appears to work reasonably well in the macroscopic world...ie Newtonian mechanics. But in the microscopic world, the whole notion disintegrates (an interesting topic, maybe for another thread?). Quantum physics tells us that when you extend this probabalistic character of particles into the macroscopic world, the most likely outcomes tend to boil down to the familiar, predictable newtonian mechanics...but the underlying 'non-deterministic' nature to the universe and everything in it still applies.

I guess my point is that your position on determinism is simply not supported by what we now know about physics and the universe (which is subject to change of course).

 

[ZaraDurden]

Good points, Mike.

I am pretty sure I understand what you said about physics and cause and effect. That said, my stance on determinism is leaning much more on the "determined by psychology" side. I feel that its quite possible that all of our actions are determined by mostly unconscious motives.

I feel that there could be a set of rules to how the mind works, much like there is in the physical world (laws of physics), we just have not discovered them yet. Sadly, psychology is a field where our knowledge of how things work is very limited. What are your views on this possiblity?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Good points, Mike.

I am pretty sure I understand what you said about physics and cause and effect. That said, my stance on determinism is leaning much more on the "determined by psychology" side. I feel that its quite possible that all of our actions are determined by mostly unconscious motives.

I feel that there could be a set of rules to how the mind works, much like there is in the physical world (laws of physics), we just have not discovered them yet. Sadly, psychology is a field where our knowledge of how things work is very limited. What are your views on this possiblity?

My knowledge in this area is practically zero. Certainly, the brain works in mysterious ways (at least as far as the science is concerned for now). I think your view is reasonable, however. And certainly the balance of hormones, among myriad other factors, in the body have direct effects on the mind...

I think that these factors might predispose people to act and behave in certain ways, and in some way 'determines' the character of an individual. But the freedom to decide what one does with oneself seems to be a fundamental part of human character (just my opinion).

 

[revolutio]

I have never seen any reason to believe that we actually have free will. It is an illusion that we perpetuate because we don't like the idea that our thoughts are nothing but a big display of causality.

I was in a 9 page debate on this topic in another forums I haunt.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I have never seen any reason to believe that we actually have free will. It is an illusion that we perpetuate because we don't like the idea that our thoughts are nothing but a big display of causality.

I was in a 9 page debate on this topic in another forums I haunt.

I guess you've never studied quantum physics then...

Why don't you share your evidence of the 'big display of causality' with us. I've never heard of that before. I suppose you have lots of reason to believe in it.

 

[David Gould]

I guess you've never studied quantum physics then...

Why don't you share your evidence of the 'big display of causality' with us. I've never heard of that before. I suppose you have lots of reason to believe in it.

This is my argument against free will:

1.) All causes are either caused or uncaused. (Law of excluded middle)Examples of uncaused causes might be God or quantum events.

2.) If a cause is caused, then it is not free.

3.) If a cause is uncaused, then it is not willed.

4.) As such, free will cannot exist. It is logically impossible.



Consciousness (imo) is the result of us being detection and pattern recognition engines that are so amazing that we can detect ourselves detecting and recognise that that is what we are detecting.

 

[Mainframes]

No not every time does he choose evil; as there are times when he chooses Jesus!

There is also hidden answer number 3:

Choose good without having to rely on Jesus to guide us. I am a good person and I don't follow Jesus in any way, shape or form.

 

[Jet Black]

I guess you've never studied quantum physics then...

I fail to see how QM relates to "free will" though.

a decision between A and B is either random, or there is a predisposition to voting for A or B, or some mix of the above (the suck it and see approach). Even if there were some controlling entity, then it would also fall back one these principles. The decision may not be predetermined, but that doesn't make it free will either.

 

[Mike Flynn]

This is my argument against free will:

1.) All causes are either caused or uncaused. (Law of excluded middle)Examples of uncaused causes might be God or quantum events.

2.) If a cause is caused, then it is not free.

3.) If a cause is uncaused, then it is not willed.

4.) As such, free will cannot exist. It is logically impossible.



Consciousness (imo) is the result of us being detection and pattern recognition engines that are so amazing that we can detect ourselves detecting and recognise that that is what we are detecting.

A good philosophical approach...and a pretty compelling argument when you think about it!

There's still one catch...the logic assumes that determinism (causality) and indeterminism are mutually exclusive. But there is evidence that this might not be the case.

When you fire an electron at a double slit, (involving a series of events) the system has a degree of causality, the apparatus disturbs the motion of the particle in a way that has a degree of predictability, according to the wave formulation of the particle (or the laws of physics if you like). To some degree, then, we can determine the fate of the electron in the system. AT THE SAME TIME, quantum physics tells us that it is impossible to determine the precise fate of that electron in the system...to some degree the system is inexorably indeterminable (and there are actually an infinite number of possible fates...even in the most constrained systems). So its reasonable to say that the system has a degree of BOTH determinism and indeterminism AT THE SAME TIME.

One very plausible idea that has been put forward is that somehow, all possible fates for this particle happen simultaneously (and there are lots of wild theories about how this happens). But once we actually measure the particle (or observe it), the whole system collapses into only one of the possible 'fate'. But one can't deny all of the other possible fates...they are still intrinsic to the system.

So if our only sense of free will involves a kind of passive 'detection' as you put it or observation, you should know physics tells us that no observation is 'passive', and very notion has an undeniable effect on the determination of events. So 'observing' the causality of your brain, actually has an effect on the brain events themselves. And at the very least it puts big question marks over the whole notion of causality.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I fail to see how QM relates to "free will" though.

Well, most people refer to a 'caused' event to be one that results from a series of conditions, influences, etc. Some use this principle and apply it to what is known about brain chemistry...ie its a set of molecules that move about and undergo physical/chemical changes in a mechanistic, predictable way. The orgins of this idea are rooted in classical physics (Newton, Maxwell, and others). The sense we have of free will, then, is nothing more than an illusory product of a complex set of caused (or predetermined) events and conditions. So if you buy fries instead of a baked potato, then that choice could have been predetermined based on a set of defined and measurable variables that describe your brain chemistry since before you were even born!

QM blurs this whole process since randomness is now known to be inextricably linked into particle physics. So no matter how much information we collect about the chemical systems in your brain...even if we know EVERYTHING there is to know about it...we can only assign likelihood's (or probablilities) to the various possible outcomes. In addition, if we hook your brain up to some complex measuring device in an attempt to track all these variables as you make your choice...then QM says that the measurement itself will have an effect on the possible outcomes...influencing the whole process. This is true no matter how much discretion we try to use making the measurements.

Another issue: QM says that both choices happen at the same time! Of course if we decide to make the measurement, we will just see one. Its not just a matter of semantics...QM essentially says that all possible events happen (at the same time). Our measurement causes a 'collapse' in our measurement space, seeing the particular event.

Now the distinction of 'caused' events and 'random' (or uncaused) events gets blurry...and I think we need to redefine these terms in the philosophical arguments for/against free will.

 

[Mike Flynn]

BTW...

I'm not using QM to prove free will. I'm not sure if it ultimately does. I just think that the old philosophical 'proof' is at least called into question by it.

I think we can agree that free will, if illusory, is one 'mind-blowing' illusion. Thats not proof at all...just an opinion.

 

[David Gould]

A good philosophical approach...and a pretty compelling argument when you think about it!

There's still one catch...the logic assumes that determinism (causality) and indeterminism are mutually exclusive. But there is evidence that this might not be the case.

Not necessarily. I have looked at this in logic systems where the law of the excluded middle does not hold - fuzzy logic, for example. Even if causality and indeterminism are not mutually exclusive then it does not seem to help as the original free thought that supposedly provides the impetus (the free will) is still trapped in the 'yes, no' system of whether it is caused or uncaused. Partially caused, partially uncaused, does not help. Because then we get 'partially free partially will' which cannot be considered to be the same as free will, surely.

When you fire an electron at a double slit, (involving a series of events) the system has a degree of causality, the apparatus disturbs the motion of the particle in a way that has a degree of predictability, according to the wave formulation of the particle (or the laws of physics if you like). To some degree, then, we can determine the fate of the electron in the system. AT THE SAME TIME, quantum physics tells us that it is impossible to determine the precise fate of that electron in the system...to some degree the system is inexorably indeterminable (and there are actually an infinite number of possible fates...even in the most constrained systems). So its reasonable to say that the system has a degree of BOTH determinism and indeterminism AT THE SAME TIME.

I agree. QM is very interesting. But I do not think that that is the conclusion you can draw. At the micro level, it is indeterminate; at the macro level it is determinate because of the probabilities. I think that is very different.

One very plausible idea that has been put forward is that somehow, all possible fates for this particle happen simultaneously (and there are lots of wild theories about how this happens). But once we actually measure the particle (or observe it), the whole system collapses into only one of the possible 'fate'. But one can't deny all of the other possible fates...they are still intrinsic to the system.

This to me denies free will even more completely ... but maybe I am misinterpreting it.

So if our only sense of free will involves a kind of passive 'detection' as you put it or observation, you should know physics tells us that no observation is 'passive', and very notion has an undeniable effect on the determination of events. So 'observing' the causality of your brain, actually has an effect on the brain events themselves. And at the very least it puts big question marks over the whole notion of causality.

I do not think that the brain is a passive detector in the way you mean. If the brain detects something, it reacts to it. If it detects itself detecting, it reacts to that, and then reacts to it detecting that it is reacting. And so on ...

As such, the fact that we can detect ourselves detecting and recognise that that is what we are indeed doing creates an amazing looping system of detection/response.

(That is my opinion, anyhow )

 

[Mike Flynn]

Because then we get 'partially free partially will' which cannot be considered to be the same as free will, surely.
....At the micro level, it is indeterminate; at the macro level it is determinate because of the probabilities. I think that is very different.

Its off topic..but actually QM guarantees that the macroscopic is decidedly not determinite. It fundamentally works by random chance, its just that its overwhelmingly unlikely (but not impossible) that would conflict with our everyday experience of newtonian physics.

I understand the philosophy here...its very interesting. Because our system of control is a machine (the brain) that exists in a causal framework of the universal machine, it precludes free will. QM dissolves determinism, but asserts randomness, denying any possibility of control (or will).

Here's a thought, but its completely unscientific (and probably not new):

We could reclaim free will if some controlling part of the self existed outside the causal framework of the universe. Like this:

1. cause...a set of conditions and events, forces, etc.
2. QM nullifies determinsm, and assigns probabilities to an infinite array of possible outcomes
3. a control SELECTS an outcome, and the 'machinery' of the control exists independant of the causal mechanisms themselves. So it is neither RANDOM or CAUSED.

One might argue that this eliminates the 'randomness' intrinsic to QM. So we might find evidence for this if the control continually tends to select outcomes that disagree with the probable distribution of the outcomes. Like if we fired a beam of billions of electrons at a double slit and measured the exact same resulting position for each particle. Not impossible according to QM, but stunningly improbable...evidence of a control?..it would defy objective 'proof' of its existence since there is no violation of QM explicitly.

Is this measurable for living things? Or perhaps for the evolution of life itself? Certainly describing this kind of cause and effect for something like an amoeba is so far out of the bounds of the workable scale of QM that we may never be able to test this (at least in this lifetime). I studied for 5 months the QM model for the H-atom (the simplest one)...and we were all lost by the end of that program...of course the professor told us that that was the point!

I find it fascinating that, as far as we know, there is no causal structure for free will. And yet it seems like a part of existence that is so intensely REAL. One wonders why we ever thought to question it at all...

As such, the fact that we can detect ourselves detecting and recognise that that is what we are indeed doing creates an amazing looping system of detection/response.

I can't wait to see what I do next .

 

[OfficeMonkey]

Hello,
I would be so happy if anyone could answer this question. It would clear up a lot for me. God can't control free will, true? Well if something is "wrong" (used lightly) with you for example being gay. God could "fix" that. This "abnormalty" has something to do with CHEMICALS in your brain and hormones. Since this is NOT free will God could "fix" it by changing the HORMONES AND CHEMICALS. Same with how we think.Are thoughts are nothing but ELECTRICAL IMPULSES which GOD would be able to change. If you have anythign contradicting this or a good reason. I would like to hear it. I am not trying to trash on all of you. I am just showing another side of the story. So you can open your minds to more.

Hi Met,
I think you are right. It doesn't seem fair that we should be either rewarded with heaven or condemned to hell on the basis of choosing to love God or not, when there are so many factors out of our control that would stack the odds against making the 'correct' choice. Hormones and chemicals are one, and even more compelling, what if I lived and died in a time and place where Christianity had not yet arrived, say a pre-invasion Mayan or something. Say I never heard of the Christian God. Do I go to Hell for not believing in him, or am I exempt?

 

[franklin]

Hello,
I would be so happy if anyone could answer this question. It would clear up a lot for me. God can't control free will, true? Well if something is "wrong" (used lightly) with you for example being gay. God could "fix" that. This "abnormalty" has something to do with CHEMICALS in your brain and hormones. Since this is NOT free will God could "fix" it by changing the HORMONES AND CHEMICALS. Same with how we think.Are thoughts are nothing but ELECTRICAL IMPULSES which GOD would be able to change. If you have anythign contradicting this or a good reason. I would like to hear it. I am not trying to trash on all of you. I am just showing another side of the story. So you can open your minds to more.

If God is omniscient, how can theist's think they have freewill ?

Did the omniscient God know what you were going to have for breakfast yesterday one thousand years before He supposedly created you ?

If you have freewill omniscience is impossible.

 

[Washington]

MikeF
There's alot more to it than Heisenburg. Unpredicability and random chance seem to be factored in to the stuff of the universe at a very fundamental level. This causes the breakdown of notions like cause and effect. And this is the pillar that determinism is based on.

Really!? In just what way do you preceive "Unpredicability and random chance. . .to be factored in to the stuff of the universe at a very fundamental level"? What specific characteristic of universe points to such an odd notion?

Since we are all made from the fundamental building blocks that make up the universe then, theoretically, the fate of the particles in your body is not pre-determined.

How do you conclude that " theoretically the fate of the particles in your body is not pre-determined" by the mere fact that "we are all made from the fundamental building blocks that make up the universe"? I fail to see the connection. Help me out here.

I suppose if one still 'believe's' in determinism, then it would imply a belief in an outside force (God?) that imposes a kind of cause and effect.

What leads you to such a supposition? Why is it necessary that a belief in an "outside" force be the only implication arising from a belief in determinism?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Really!? In just what way do you preceive "Unpredicability and random chance. . .to be factored in to the stuff of the universe at a very fundamental level"? What specific characteristic of universe points to such an odd notion?

Check my other posts in this thread...and keep in mind the explanation for this is quite technical, and not particularly easy to explain. I could get into it if you like...but it might be better to research the idea yourself. There are lots of good books and web sites out there on Quantum Physics...If you like I could reccommend a couple.

How do you conclude that "theoretically the fate of the particles in your body is not pre-determined" by the mere fact that "we are all made from the fundamental building blocks that make up the universe"? I fail to see the connection. Help me out here.

...'mere fact'? I'm not sure why you are implying that this 'fact' is insufficient. It is certainly true that you are made up of particles that we have come to call quarks and electrons. And the quantum theory is quite clear about 'determination' in the classical sense when applied to any one, or groups of these particles. If determination is not possible for the particles, then its not possible for your whole body either. So, the 'connection' here is that your body ACTUALLY IS the sum of those particles, right? What else would it be?

What leads you to such a supposition? Why is it necessary that a belief in an "outside" force be the only implication arising from a belief in determinism?

Suppose you shoot a particle at a tiny hole. You collect all the possible information there is about the experiment...the velocity, the various forces, the trajectory, etc. You might expect that you can exactly determine the final resting place of that particle before you launch it...thats determinism...you can 'determine' the fate of an object based on pre-defined variables. When you do this experiment with an electron...you find that you simply can't precicely determine the outcome...no matter how hard you try...it will defy your best efforts. You CAN determine the 'chances' from a set of possible fates. But when you do the experiment...its like rolling the dice. The randomness is entrenched, and can't be factored out even if you made the most precise measurements.

So, despite this, if you are content to believe in determinism anyway...this completely disagrees with QM...and could imply that you believe in an outside element 'determining' the event and destroying the inherent randomness of QM.

But the randomness is undeniably there, myriad experiments can be done to demostrate it. So I don't believe in determinism. But I do believe in God...but that has little or nothing to do with QM.