Do you believe in Free Will? If so, why? If not, why?
What do Free Will and Determinism even mean?
Is it possible that we have free will at one level, but everything is actually determined at another level? (Or vice versa?)
There seems to be a strong correlation between (1) believing in God and believing in free will, as well as (2) being an atheist and believing in determinism. Can you share any evidence against these correlations?
Challenge for Group #1: If there exists an omnipotent and omniscient God, why do humans even need free will? Having an all-powerful and all-knowing God seems to be precisely the situation where everything in the universe, including in human life and human actions, is taken care of by God, so there seems to be no purpose for human free will. If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined?
Challenge for Group #2: If there’s no God and everything’s determined, then by whom and/or how did it get determined? If determined means everything that happens was caused by something else, then how did the “big deterministic machine” get set into motion?
If you don’t fit Groups #1 or #2, please set for us your own context.
You don't need to answer everything to participate here. Offer what you can. Asking each other questions is, of course, encouraged.
| Quote: |
| If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined? |
God is outside of time. Seeing all at the same time, God can know what we will do in the furture and that has nothing to do with forcing someone to do something.
So no its not at all the same thing as having things determined.I define free will as the ability to do what I want. Whether I am determined to want it or not doesn't matter in this case.
I see reality as the calculation or simulation of itself. One state doesn't necessarily invoke another one. The possibility of something happening itself makes it real. The observation of reality ties is down to one state of all possibilities. What we see/undergo as reality is a combination/row of observations.
This implies that reality is a combination of all possibilities with no beginning nor end. No need for something to start the "big deterministic machine" or end it, it just exists, always existed and always will.
Free will to me is illusionary, the assumption that we have total control of our lives is deceitful. Whilst it may appear that the choices we make are entirely our own, the fact is that each choice you make is governed by an infinite amount of environmental variables. To truly have that control, one would have to escape from the boundaries of conventional life, which is rarely practical in the modern world.
That said, I think fate is a load of ****.
I don't know as I believe in "free-will", my understanding of it is as Bondings described....being able to do what you want. In this day and age, the ability to actually do what you really want to do is severly curtailed by the current laws and legal structure, not to mention the concepts of morality that some people use as a hammer to beat someone else into thier mold of thinking. Granted, there are some things that we are free to chose from, but even those are limited by certain standards we all seem to have to follow. It seems to me that alot of our choices are made for us by our parents even before we are born (or shortly after) and we grow up believing that we made that choice for ourselves.
I also don't believe in destiny, life is what we make of it given the options we have to chose from. I do believe in God, but I do not think that God really cares what we do in life as we are living it, as we are [alegedly] judged after we die.
I don't really know what "Determinism" is, so I can't comment on that.
This would make an interesting poll.
The following is offered as definitional rather than assertively.
~~~~~~~~~~
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| I don't really know what "Determinism" is, so I can't comment on that. |
Let me give you a simplistic definitional explanation to at least get you to a point where you can compare/contrast determinism somewhat with what you’re already saying and thinking. There will be other competing definitional explanations.
Consider how you scratch where you itch and you don’t scratch where you don’t itch. You could say that itches cause scratches, a case of what could be called Cause and Effect. But, the determinist says, you don’t just get itches for no reason, so something else causes the itches. And then, something else causes that something else, and so on, and so on. (Of course, it’s more complicated, because, as determinists might say, it’s not just one thing that causes something else, but a whole set of circumstances.)
When one considers all the things that happen (all the effects) in the universe, and they believe that there are none without causes, then they could be called a determinist.
Then when we consider this determinism model with regards to a given human, the question is:
(1) Are all the things that human does because of causes external to that human? or
(2) Does that human make at least some choices that were not caused by a combination of (a) the external world around them, and (b) their genetic “code” (which was caused external to them)?
In this particular explanation, a person who believes #1 is a determinist, while a person who believes #2 is a free willer. | Saber wrote: |
| Quote: | | If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined? |
God is outside of time. Seeing all at the same time, God can know what we will do in the furture and that has nothing to do with forcing someone to do something.
So no its not at all the same thing as having things determined. |
Yes it is. If God can see the entirety of time at once, it must be there for him to see, and was thus determined before hand. Even if you take the view that we make our own decisions based on the information we have you still except God as having predestined us, because he can control the information we have and what random events affect us. Thus, he ultimately controls us.
Now, that isn't the view I subscribe to. I believe that the wonderful computer that is our brain decides what we will do based on the information available to it and certain predispositions of genetics and previous decisions. Thus, if one knew all the variable and understood perfectly the way in which the brain functioned, and could of course compute all this, one could predict someone's actions. This is of course irrelevant as it is not possible to know all the variables, much less be able to compute them. Thus: free will, though not of the romanticized spiritual sort that many subscribe to. | The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
There seems to be a strong correlation between (1) believing in God and believing in free will, as well as (2) being an atheist and believing in determinism. Can you share any evidence against these correlations?
|
The correlation opposing determinism against theism is flawed. It is usually the other way around for example creationists are determinists and evolutionists believe in random natural selection. Evolutionists aren’t atheists, but themes of randomness and futility play a major role in atheistic existential literature, like Camus and Satre.
The most interesting example is when Einstein argued against Niels Bohr’s philosophical implications of a random universe painted by Quantum Mechanics: he retorted, “God does not role dice with the universe!” Ultimately Einstein was proven right with the Gauge Theory which stipulates that all four forces of the universe (gravity, EM, strong, weak) are transmitted by virtual particles. So, although interactions in Quantum Mechanics are random, they are controlled by the unseen deterministic layer of virtual particle interactions. The visible random layer is a second order layer, but the primary layer is deterministic, according to science. So Einstein was right, God really doesn’t play dice with the universe.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
Challenge for Group #1: If there exists an omnipotent and omniscient God, why do humans even need free will? Having an all-powerful and all-knowing God seems to be precisely the situation where everything in the universe, including in human life and human actions, is taken care of by God, so there seems to be no purpose for human free will. If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined?
|
Not necessarily, recognizing statistical trends does not predefine anyone’s future. God can’t escape the Halting Problem in computer science, the only way to know whether or not the code will halt is to run it, it is mathematically impossible to come up with a halt detection program that doesn’t just run the code. So people have free will and the outcome of their choices can’t be predicted, yet at the same time all of the peoples’ choices as a whole have a certain obvious flow and predictability about them, just as gas particles move randomly yet gases have very predictable dynamics. This was the theme of Asimov's Foundation trilogy, a branch of mathematics that could predict the future with probablistic trends, and what that branch did.Ah I am surprized to see a topic on Free Will. I actually wrote an essay on the topic of freedom in Aristotle's temrs...
I'd figure that about 1/20 people who see this post will actually read all of what is said in here... so for all those lazy readers here is the thesis: one has freedom as the capacity to exercise choice, only when one’s voluntary actions are completed after a process of deliberation. In the absence of deliberation, one’s choices are influenced by feelings and/or habit, thus, one has no freedom of choice.
Now if you want to find out how is that true... read the rest 
Here are some of the main thoughts summary:
------------------------------------
In the study of human actions, we come to realize that one has freedom as the capacity to exercise choice, only when one’s voluntary actions are completed after a process of deliberation. In the absence of deliberation, one’s choices are influenced by feelings and/or habit, thus, one has no freedom of choice.
It is necessary to understand that every human action is determined through thought, feeling and habit. One must also understand that one deliberates using thought, and that deliberation cannot occur through feeling or habit. Consequently, actions determined through thought are performed after a process of deliberation; actions determined by feelings and habit lack of process of deliberation, unless the habit itself is to deliberate.
For example, imagine an alcoholic who knows that drinking is unhealthy. If he goes and drinks because alcohol simply brings him pleasure, his action is determined by his feelings, thus, there is no deliberation involved. In a similar panorama, if the drunkard simply drinks because this is what he is used to, it is what he sees all the time, his action is automatically influenced by his habit of doing/seeing, thus lacking in deliberation. Yet, if the same person comes to the conclusion that he shouldn’t drink because it could later hurt his health, and after doing so, he doesn’t drink, we could agree that this person reflected upon his action and, consequently, there is a process of deliberation involved in his decision.
Here then, we can visualize how not every action involves thought; the alcoholic man who drinks due to habit doesn’t necessarily think about his action, he simply does it. In addition, as Aristotle explains, “not everything voluntary is object of choice” (V.2 - 1112a.14). Thus, the fact that the alcoholic man is drinking voluntarily doesn’t indicate that he is necessarily choosing to do so.
Since actions done through feeling and habit are voluntary actions, with no deliberation involved, one could say that not every action involves choice, “for choice involves reason and thought” (V.2 - 1112a.14). Furthermore, if freedom is the capacity to exercise choice, yet not every action involves choice, we don’t exercise this capacity through every action. Thus in the absence of deliberation, one has no freedom of choice.
It is then reasonable to proclaim that no human being has freedom of choice unless he/she deliberates about the actions they intend to commit. However, although one’s actions are occasionally caused by habit, one’s upbringing will determine whether one becomes a morally weak or strong person. Furthermore, the most proper upbringing is that which provides the person with proper information and also creates the habit of deliberating about one’s own actions; this will then allow one to have freedom of choice.
------------------------------------
Enjoy... I believe God knew how we'd behave and placed us in the world order to best suit that behaviour so as to bring out the best in people according to His design. We all play our role in deciding how we play our our own life, but God has placed us in a set time and place to best bring out that role. God then laid the plans in Intelligent Design before our existence, knowing ahead what would happen. Then the universe unfolded, and we came about doing what we want and what God expected. In His Almighty Omnipotence, His design is perfect, with laws of nature and physics and psychology all focused on our Eternal Happiness in his presence.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| This would make an interesting poll. |
Just to let you know, I did think about that, but realized that when people are starting out in a conversation with different understandings of the important terms for that conversation, then taking a poll will generate results that are not very accurate. I’d rather take a poll after we’ve talked about it awhile.
I think you agree and understand, but just to give an example anyway: My use of determinism was kind of new to you. I’m hoping with my previous post, here, you’ll come back and share your views on that. But it surely wouldn’t have made sense for you to respond to a poll when you weren’t yet familiar with the term.
~~~~~~~~~~
All: I am thrilled at the very high quality of posts here. I can’t remember seeing such sincere thinking -- and only that -- on one thread.
FYI my plan is to stay as Facilitator on this one, rather than getting into my own opinions [%%]. Therefore, I’m free (
!) to ask both (all) sides’ probing questions -- in order to draw them out, rather than assert myself.
[%%] Within reason. Someone claiming that humans are actually plants not animals will be treated differently.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will be out of town for a couple days but look forward to delving into this one.Our freedom of choice is almost infinite ...I believe.
We have to answer calls of nature of course, but there's a lot of room left to play and to postpone.
We often choose to stay with the herd though ...which narrows our freedom of choice a lot.
Anybody recognize this quote?
"... youv'e already made the choice, what your'e here to do is to figure out why you made the choice..."
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Anybody recognize this quote?
"... youv'e already made the choice, what your'e here to do is to figure out why you made the choice..." |
Was it from one of The Matrix movies?Indeed it was.
I took just the quote, because explaining the entire philosophy behind it would be tiresome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beleive in free will, but I also realize that one's capacity to use it is severely limited. The brain is a computer, and if you know enough about how it works, you can predict it's output based on any given input.
You have the freedom of choice, but would you make choices that hurt you just to prove it?
Do animals have freedom of choice? In one of my earlier threads, the poinion on that seemed to be mostly negative.
@The Philosopher Princess...
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me so eloquently. Your right about the poll of course, to many people make comments while not being properly informed. This all has me thinking and I will be searching and reading up on the subject, so I may be able to comment properly
Good looking out. Here are a few tangential comments. (Still haven’t finished my deeper analyses 
.)
~~~~~~~~~~
The bringing up of The Matrix by ocalhoun was very relevant. I just borrowed a friend’s taped copy, and jotted down the following transcriptions (from 2 different scenes):
| The Matrix movie wrote: |
Morpheus: “Do you believe in fate, Neo?”
Neo: “No.”
Morpheus: “Why not?”
Neo: “Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.”
Morpheus: “I know exactly what you mean.” |
Interesting that the Neo character admits he doesn't believe based on evidence, but because of his wishes for how he would like things to be. It's an approach to beliefs that we all might be subject to.
| The Matrix movie wrote: |
| Morpheus: “Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?” |
~~~~~~~~~~
(In my quest to track down support for my belief that The Matrix’s agent’s voice totally copies Carl Sagan’s, I found the following.)
From http://university.imdb.com/title/tt0081846/quotes:
| Quote: |
| Carl Sagan: The cosmos is interesting rather than perfect, and everything is not part of some greater plan, nor is all necessarily under control. |
I wonder what he offered us to back up that assertion.
~~~~~~~~~~
And, I wonder if our own Frihost mOrpheuS is an expert on some of these issues. 
(I'll have to do some research. ) The second movie went into it again when the Architect tells Neo about the problems with the other matrices and how the Oracle came up with the solution. She used subconscious agreements: even if people don't know what is going on, if they subconsciously agree to it then the Matrix was stable. So we have free will, but for most people it is tremendously fettered by these kinds of subconscious contracts. It’s like they are hard-wired into the Matrix, they are robots that are really just extensions of agents. But being hard-wired is not a binary thing, some people are more hard-wired and robotic than others.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Challenge for Group #1: If there exists an omnipotent and omniscient God, why do humans even need free will? Having an all-powerful and all-knowing God seems to be precisely the situation where everything in the universe, including in human life and human actions, is taken care of by God, so there seems to be no purpose for human free will. If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined? |
The answer is, we don't need it, but we have it. God wanted us to choose to follow Him, not force us, God wanted us to come to Him on our own, so life is really a test. So, in essence, you are right, there's no need for it, but we have it anyway.
And yes, God does determine what we do, but it can always change in the blink of an eye. Think of God's plan as a tentative schedule, subject to change at His will.i believe in free will. fate is a load of crap.
and
for all those fate believers, you still have free will even if i'm wrong; there is more than one path to the same destination.
Determinism is very attractive.
It is a theory that can never be refuted. There cannot be a proof to the contrary.
Because that's how it was meant to be. 
But being a firm believer of science, I can't be convinced by that.
The basic method used by science, especially physics, to better understand/explain something is that of modelling the system.
If the model's behaviour is in agreement with the system itself, we can say that we finally understand the system.
I believe that if all the significant environmental variables (aka "the system") can be modelled, and my behaviour accounted for by some method (human psychology) ... my actions can be reproduced/explained, but only with a finite precision.
I believe I'm free to make my choices, even though my range of choices can be bound by the parameters imposed by the system.
In that sense, it's my free will within the "big deterministic system".
And, in my opinion, this "big deterministic machine" which determines the course of the system(including my actions) is nothing but the system itself.
The origin of which, scientists more qualified than me are working hard to figure out.
I guess I differ from the group#1 and group#2 of your first post because I don't believe in god or determinism in its absolute sense.
I believe I am a part of the "big deterministic machine" and that I have the power ("maybe" not absolute 
) to determine the system's actions. The "control" is not just one-way.
Which is my understanding of free will.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| And, I wonder if our own Frihost mOrpheuS is an expert on some of these issues. (I'll have to do some research. ) |
Evidently, I'm not.
And that's because my nickname has not much to do with my nick-namesake movie character. (if that's what made you assume my expertise on the subject)
My nick, morpheus - the greek god of sleep, was given to me by my friends when I made a habit of sleeping through exams. 
| Quote: |
The answer is, we don't need it, but we have it. God wanted us to choose to follow Him, not force us, God wanted us to come to Him on our own, so life is really a test. So, in essence, you are right, there's no need for it, but we have it anyway.
And yes, God does determine what we do, but it can always change in the blink of an eye. Think of God's plan as a tentative schedule, subject to change at His will.
|
What about the bush tribes who have no knowledge of god, how and when do they get to choose? If they are exposed to religion via missionaries then one can conclude that any decision to convert would be predicated by the imposition and opinions of external forces, not much of a choice, is it?
Another argument that comes to mind is the nature/nurture, are we predisposed to certain behaviours and all it takes is the slightest bit of nurturing to trigger a behaviour.
just a thought.... No matter what choice you make, there will always be a reason for making that choice and if you reason there will be determining factors. We reason based on knowledge and passed experience.
Dar. | Quote: |
| There seems to be a strong correlation between (1) believing in God and believing in free will, as well as (2) being an atheist and believing in determinism. Can you share any evidence against these correlations? |
I think Moslems may disagree with that statement. They are devoutly religious & believe that the will of Allah determines everything.
My opinion lies between free-will & determinism. I believe there are 2 things in our lives that are pre-determined - our birth & our death. What we do in between is up to us. However, the nearer we are to 1 of those fixed points, the less choice we have.
An analogy would be making a journey by car. You have to set off from a given point at a given time, and arrive at your destination at a given time. The only thing you cannot do is take a route that takes you nearer to your origin (that would be the equivalent of moving backwards in time). When you first set off, your choice of direction may be very limited - say, left or right. As you move away from your origin, the wider your scope becomes. However, as you get closer to your destination, so your choices again become more limited.
You can also view it as 2 trees end-to-end with their branches inter-twined. You have to start from the root of 1 and end at the root of the other. In between there are many possible routes (branches) that you can take. But gradually those choices become more and more limited.yes we have free will in a way as we can say what we want and think what we want but rules and religion obstruct this as if we are ment to woriship a god how is that free will and if the law says we cant do something then that is an obstical in the way of free will and this is only my opion but is a strong opion of mine
It depends on how you interprete "determinism." I find that humans are very predictable, if you would have enough studies you would be able to predict which choice someone would make. You'll have to take a lot of factors into account, but I think we can exactly predict human behaviour (in theory at least.)
We are determined by a bunch of factors: culture, parents, social background, friends (which is largely determined by social background), our DNA, the country and the time we were born...
We have a free will, I interprete this as follow: we can do what we like in a limited extend, but we're always determined by some factors and we're predictable. That's my opinion on the subject at least.
| Gieter wrote: |
| We have a free will, I interprete this as follow: we can do what we like in a limited extend, but we're always determined by some factors and we're predictable. That's my opinion on the subject at least. |
This sounds exactly like Sri Ramakrisha, who compared free will to a teathered cow. She has a limited freedom of movement around the teather, but is not free to go anywhere she wants.This is a really tough one. I have pondered it many times and it is (for me) the biggest paradox. It's a very good topic for a discussion. Lets hope for some solid thinking and not just the usual trite one-liners.
I certainly feel like I have free will - I could move a finger or not, apparently at will. I also don't believe in fate. So I guess that at a macroscopic scale, I don't believe in determinism.
However, I am also coming from a strong physics background, so (in theory) if we knew every particle's position and speed and all the forces at any time in the universe, we should be able to predict the complete future with absolute accuracy. I acknowledge Hiesenberg etc., so we could never know this information, and solving the many-body problem for all the particles in the universe is probably a bit hard too (especially given that the brains and/or machines we would use are actually part of the problem); but that doesn't stop the argument that it is certainly possible that at a given instant in time every particle did have a position and velocity and every force did have a value and a direction. In which case, the future must be completely deterministic. Quantum mechanics might give us a get-out clause though - some quantum states might be truly superpositions, and some quantum processes might be truly random (they might also be deterministic, but we might not be able to detect or prove that determinism). It is also (of course) hard to define what a unique instant in time is/was everywhere in the universe.
Somewhere, I feel that the micro-determinism must give over to (something that feels like) macro-scale free will. But how or why I have no idea.
Logic tells me that if everything was completely determined from the subatomic level up, then we couldn't tell if everything was deterministic or not anyway; even my thoughts in writing this could actually have been completely predetermined billions of years ago, but I couldn't know that. Its just that we don't know the starting conditions and the sums are too hard.
On the other hand, it feels really quite scary to even consider such total determinism. What does that imply for my actions or those of others? Does that excuse the actions of criminal or evil people? - they had no choice but to do what they did because it was predetermined?
Relating belief (or not) in determinism to belief (or not) in a god is an interesting variant. My own views seem to go against the correlation you propose - I am not religious but still find myself beliving in (at least, micro) determinism too. But I can't reconcile a purely deterministic viewpoint with how I actually percieve the world and my (apparent) free will.
I don't have any really good answer. For me this is a real hard paradox. I just have to live with it.
Well, say you have two freinds okay? One friend has chosen to be your friend and you two are very close. The other friend has no choice, she either must be your friend or be shunned forever. Which one brings your spirits up? God wants us to choose whether or not we want to follow him and allow him to take our lives into his power. If he forced you to obey him and take his word to be true whether you liked it or not, he wouldn't feel the same way. He knows it would be your choice to follow him and that makes him happy. He doesn't want his people to be enslaved, if he did he wouldn't have saved us from sin by giving his won son so we can go to heaven.
A lovely debate on free will/determinism... thanks all!
I generally subscribe to a sort of soft determinism. Where on the one hand we are products of our genetics, environment and circumstance. Therefore we are not entirely free. However, we can exercise a degree of freedom in our choices. Hopelessly non-commital I know
My real concern however...
What are the implications for morality if we accept hard line determinism?
Does anyone else wonder how responsibility can work in a determined universe? How can we be held accountable? We have no choice but to commit the crime and accept the punishment.
This just doesn't wash with me, how about you?
Cheers Fate, God all things that can't be proven as stated in the matrix, "I don't want to believe I"m not in control of my life" is the exact same way I feel. The last thing I did before I decided to denounce my fate in 'god' was to look into it more and fight for a religous cause, you know try to porve god exists via science...little did I know that was impossible because like the concept of fate there is nothing to prove it...and I know people who beleive in karama, fate and god all at the same time...and its like theyre contridicting thier every move. WHat I found interesting however has soulfires comment on the fact that 'god' gave us free will when we didn't need it...thats like a kick in the a** ? don't you think, Thats like building something and putting something in it that makes it malfunction, if this 'entity' you speak of is so kind why would he give us the will to choose, to screw up and to learn if we have eternal life already.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
I think Moslems may disagree with that statement. They are devoutly religious & believe that the will of Allah determines everything.
|
its muslim, and allah or الله
is just 'god' in arabic.I think the fundamentals about the statements of free will are inherently paradoxical. I also think that our universe cannot function without paradox. I.E. almost everything about theism requires a paradox; as well does the “science” atheistic views. (not that they can’t coexist.) I also think it was designed that way, mostly to prove that science didn’t create itself but had a creator that was greater than that said science.
With that said.
Knowing something does not determine it. Ex. If I drop something it will fall to the ground. The preset laws determined it not my knowing it. And yes God would have made those laws so how could we choose independently of him? We cant it’s a paradox.
Lets see if I can elaborate as to not make myself look foolish.
Morality is the best example here. There are LAWS of morality, and I know that some would like to debate that but I think your wrong if you disagree, and that’s okay. These laws are like the laws of gravity. However you are allowed to break these laws. So a predetermination based on laws of morality is not set in stone. For example john would not murder someone because it is against the law of morality. John murders someone. He did so outside of the laws of morality making it his choice. Now God knowing that john was going to do so did not make him do so. It is now that one would have insert a fact that God chooses not to interfere in things directly. So, against the set up laws someone does something of his own choices. God knows it because he is omniscient. Now the paradox here is whether the laws of morality that were broken also predetermined john to do what john did.
Man I hope I explained that well…
Then there are delves into the multidimensional views in which everything happens and that’s what Gods knows, everything. So in our dimension we would choose of a free will. Or would that be the necessity of generating all possibilities?
I would also imagine that upon thinking about it… that being the key, the ability to think about it, we would then deduce that we must have free will because we are able to think about it. But the evolutionist don’t like that theory because it demands that we would be “outside the box” of evolution.
In conclusion it’s all a paradox! And that’s okay.
p.s. this does not exactly 100% reflect my views but as I am a man of religion / spirituality I think it's lame to just say, and that's how it is. although EVERYONE has to in some part or another for almost everything regardless of beliefs.
First I have to confess that i didn't read all of the threads in the discussion, for I was to eager to reply. I guess i used my free will to just scroll through it
Well, I have to turn this question around a bit, for my answer doesn't really fit in the model. First, though, as I guess many of you know, there is a classical philosophical answer to the first question asked; If there is an omnipotent god that is good, how can there then be evil in the world? And the theological (christian) philosopher's answer is the free will.
Now, for my opinion, that is based on action and consequence. I'd say that our every little action generates some consequence. Sometimes we can predict where, when and what is affected, but very seldom we get the whole picture. That makes it tricky to talk about free will, but still, I'd say there is one. Thogh it often pulls us so far from the first action that the consequence seem to be un-controllable and not in any way linked to something we've done. To grasp it at all and spare our selves, we call it fate or destiny, and add that there was nothing we could have done to change it, when in fact, it was our selves that started it!
I hope you get what I'm saying, but to simplifiy it I can say that it's all a kind of 'butterfly-effect' 
| Bondings wrote: |
| I define free will as the ability to do what I want. Whether I am determined to want it or not doesn't matter in this case. |
Well said. As an atheist, I would fall into group 2, if I believed in determinism. Fortunately, I do not and so cannot be stereotyped .
On a serious note, it only matters if everything is determined or not if we not only know about it, but also know it. If we know that everything has been set beforehand, but do not know what everything has been set too, then it is as if we know nothing at all, and we act in inherent (even if really not) free will. Assuming "god" has set everything already and he isn't telling us about it, than it is as if he didn't set anything at all; it is of no use to us to just know that everything has been set, we need to know what is has been set to.i tihnk we do have free will to a extent. We are free to do what we want, but it has to be within the laws govening us. sometimes this is good, as it stops some stuff happening, imagine if there were no laws. There would be nowhere to run and hide. We would end up being ruled by someone or something. as far as determination is cncerned, i think everyone has it, but does not use it to the full potential. Anyways everyone is free to say what they want. Within reason.
peace~
I must say, that some people who beleive in God don't beleive in Free Will.
If god knows what's going to happen already, can you avoid fulfilling His knowlege??
Also, when people do soemthing bad, they say, "The Devil mad me do it." When they do something good, they say "God allowed me to do it, without Him I'm nothing."
Personally, I beleive that a lack of free will is just a way for people avoid responmsibility for their actions.
I believe that our abilities and personality determine likely ways in which to interact with the Universe, but ultimately the choice is yours. That, and the reason God know's the future is because he's already there. So, that sepeartes Him temporallly, so down here in linear time, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Determinism may give us stability in our lives, but ultimately its a crutch. Free will is a burden we all must carry.
In america everything is determined from the minute your born. What you want to do? Want you want to be? Where you poop and pee? Where you go to have fun and how you can have it? What OS you use on your computer? and practically everything else and this is because of FEAR of change and waht it will do to that perfect state of harmony. America is a determinest nation and will always be becuase we learn from an early age and by the time we are adults we are swayed by peer pressure , politics, websites, and wahtever else we encounter. We all have freewill but the influence of freewill only goes so far. You may believe u have freewill but then why is there a consitition in every state and nation or not all and theyre just on the dictator ship plan. Tryyany no is not that cause but still FEAR is the case because of its special power of its own freewill expressed by the masses which forces determinism into ourlives and keeps pushing.
I believe in scientific determinism, i.e. that a sufficiently complete knowledge of the world around us will allow to predict how events will turn out, as there is no truly random factor, and all current (apparently) random things like quantum are just patterns waiting to be discovered ("God does not play dice").
Yes, the famous "God does not play dice." I'm a fan of that phrase myself.
One thing I might point out is that this is a root in a philosophy (and being a philosophy, it can't be proven) that the Universe can be explained entirely by math.
That's a philosophy--not "science" as in we think of it--and therefore can NOT ever be proven.
So, it comes down to pschology. Do you personally beleive in mystery and choice or do you beleive in determinism?
So, I say again, determinism is NOTHING BUT AN EXCUSE FOR BEHAVIOR. "Nature made me do it," basically. Under dterminism, punishment becomes obscure and useless, as accountibility is useless.
Determinism is, than, an unprovable wishy-washy religion. The scientist/mathematician becomes not only the Seer, but also God, because you have no choice but to accept what he says. Crap. Crap. Crap.
everyone has free will, as long as they give themselves permission to do so I believe in "Free Will" to a certain extent. But this depends on how you define it. A more interesting question is how do we come to our belief? When we say we BELIEVE in free will, how do we come to that believe? I think attempting to answer that question can be the beginning of a profound spiritual journey.
> There seems to be a strong correlation between (1) believing in God
> and believing in free will, as well as (2) being an atheist and believing
> in determinism. Can you share any evidence against these
> correlations?
I am not sure this is true. First of all, Christianity is but one religion among many other major religions. While they may not have coined the word "free will", the same question essentially exist. For example, in Buddhism, it is believed that our lives are determined to a large extent by past karma, and yet, it is not totally pre-determined. There is a possibility of breaking through the chained of conditioned existence. Conditioned existence is actually predeterminism, because conditioned actions determined the retribution one reaps, depending on the nature of such actions, whether they are virtuous, harmful, or neutral. Without a certain extent of free will, it is not possible to break out of the chain of conditioned existence. So this is an example of a non-Christian in for which free will and determinism are not totally exclusive.
I am a christian myself ( Though I'm not really sure I am. O.o ) And what I have to say might contradict my religion? Erm...
I believe we determine our own lives. Though we determine our own lives, our death has already been set. As in, the date. So in between Born and Death, we get to decide what to do with our lives. Nothing is fated to be, nothing is planned for you. You write your own stories, and no one can write it for you.
If everything was pre-determined. If everything was already planned out for you. Then what's the point of living? We live to see through the plan? Do we live to die in the end accomplishing nothing? I don't think so... Do you?
When Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe", his idea of how the universe works was wrong, as Bell's inequalities prove.
To quote from Hawking's public lecture which is online at http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html:
| Quote: |
Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.
Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion. |
Bell's experiment do not prove determinism or not. For example you can do away with you ideas of locality (I am over here, and you are over there and we can't transmit information faster than the speed of light) and there is no problem... But it does at least show that Einstein's idea of how the universe worked is wrong.
Personally I do not know if the universe is deterministic or not. I am depressed if I think that it is, but not sure that I am right when I think that it isn't. I do not have enough evidence to prove one way or the other, but it is interesting to think about both ways. I hope that one day it will be an experimentally testable proposition. I didn't want to read all the comments because it would have taken all day. And I didn't want that. At all....
I have an opinion but it's pretty hard to fit into either of the categories.
Umm. Let's see. I don't think it's determined by anything because that seems to have something to do with the God category, and I don't know why you even divided it. I think the world is round and that everything grows and dies and while it's growing it's shaped by experience and conflict. We're just like trees, maturing like the bark on the pine tree or the redwood or any other tree. We bloom like flowers. Our emotions are like the waves of the ocean. I don't know if there's a god or not but I don't believe in conflict (although I'm a human being and I can't help it if I get into a fight. you know.) I don't think there are methods, systems, rules or regulations to like. becuase life is hard and beautiful not at once but at different times and undetermined. It's all by chance and nothing matters for emotions are just another blooming substance. so if we someone die we feel for that person and that becomes a dying rose or whatever.the brances that makes us are what we HAPPENED to be around when we were being condition by society and the people we were around.
KNow what I mean/ It's all chance. And there is only a god for the weak to have a crutch to lean on. Even though people die horrible deaths and my opinion is stated silently but show unsubtly every day throughout the news and in Iraq. Everywhere. 
In my opinion we have got all a free will (, given by God).
This free will makes us able to choose for God or against God, to love Him or to love Him not.
But God will see the totally image of our lives, He stands outside the time.
We only see the history and the present, we are not able to get a complete image of the future, but God is able.
And that is were I'm very happy with, I can trust on Him.
On one side of things religion has too many answers that contradict each other and on the other side of things philosophy has only contradicting questions and no answers. Any way that you slice open this pandora's box of worms you are not going to get an answer. You may get many different answers that attempt to answer these questions but then the questions that arise from those answers will start to contradict the original questions and thus that is why I am writing this and you are reading it.
I would like to quote "Freewill" by Rush, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." By that they are saying that your choice was to abstain and that can have disastrous effects, like republicans winning elections. Anyway you cannot not do something, like there is no complete silence, there is always some kind of vibration flowing through the air that you can hear. btw... If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, it does make a sound. If someone asks you how you know this just ask them how do they know it fell.
Anyway getting back to the subject at hand. Let me give you another example from music. Someone wants to listen to something "new and different" maybe something that you don't hear on the radio, something they think they can call their own, but how are they hearing it. The question I'm asking is how was this new and different music possibly made if someone out there didn't already think that not only was it good but good enough to market to a consumer. So is this "new and different" music buyer really listening to anything "new and different". Maybe to that listener and their friends but also remember that somewhere out there are more people just like them.
Here is another more biologically founded example. The human species is a social being, and survived because it realized that there are strength in numbers, so those who were anti-social human beings did not live very long. So when the essence of survival, our most basic survival instinct, is to conform to the group, it is hard to believe that there is such a thing as free will. However, as long as it is within the confines of society, I do believe that there is freewill but you cannot break out of the box even if you found a way, and as you can see right there I'm on my way to contradicting myself. So happy debating, I hope this shed some light on something.
I'm a Christian, and I'm puzzled by what I read in the Bible about this:
- We all choose our own actions, which means there's free will.
- God knows in advance what will happen, which means there isn't.
Do we choose God, or does God choose us?
I freely admit that I'm confused about it, and don't understand, even when it patiently explained to me by a well meaning pastor for the fifth time...
Strangely I find exactly the same paradoxes appearing when I think about physics.
every action or thought we do or have is a result of chemical reactions in the brain which are ultimately the result of the laws of physics. what you think 1 second after you read this post is already going to happen. we are destined to have a single future. choice is only an illusion...unless we have souls.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Bell's experiment do not prove determinism or not. For example you can do away with you ideas of locality (I am over here, and you are over there and we can't transmit information faster than the speed of light) and there is no problem... But it does at least show that Einstein's idea of how the universe worked is wrong. |
Indeed. Bell's experiments (without getting into a lengthy explanation of the experiments themselves - I'm sure Google can help) show that we have to do away with one of three assumptions about our world:
1. Basic logic works (because our (Einstein et al.'s) predictions of the outcome of the experiment are based on logic, and those predictions were wrong). Or...
2. Particles have properties even if we don't measure them. Or as Einstein supposedly put it, the moon exists even when noone is looking at it. That's the equivalent of "hidden variables". We know - from quantum mechanics - that particles behave unpredictably - not deterministic, but some scientists like to think that some hidden law/variable lies beneath the uncertainty. Or...
3. The particles making up the universe don't - and can't - communicate instantly with each other - or at least they can't communicate faster than the speed of light (which is a cornerstone in the theories of relativity). That's the "locality" bit. Things happen locally. If I look at a particle here, it doesn't instantly influence a particle in the other end of the universe.
Bell's experiments show one of those three to be wrong. Logic - quantum mechanics already shaked the basis of that one a bit, by making supposedly complementary statements ("the electron is a wave", "the electron is a particle") be both "kinda true" and "kinda false" at the same time. And Gödel famously showed that "logical proof" is inferior to "truth". But let's just look at the other two...
Probably the less radical (but maybe not) assumption to get rid of is locality. So, sure, we can live with entangled particles communicating instantly with each other, wherever each of them is (well, Einstein couldn't, but we can ). Extrapolating from that: OK, the entire universe is probably connected. That can easily lead to religious thought, so let's call it "the religious solution to quantum physics".
I find getting rid of hidden variables much more interesting, i.e.: No, nothing in the universe has a state until we (as conscious beings) observe it. In general terms, it might not even exist. And the moment we observe it, we disturb it. Wheeler said there were no observers, only participators. And also: "The universe gives birth to communicating participators. Communicating participators give meaning to the universe". Let's call that "the humanistic solution to quantum physics".
I prefer the "humanistic" solution. If it would ever get proven, it would also prove free will, because the universe itself isn't determined. We determine it.
This also addresses what tony said:
| tony wrote: |
| every action or thought we do or have is a result of chemical reactions in the brain which are ultimately the result of the laws of physics. |
... since the laws of physics include the uncertainty principle, which, while being statistically "cancelled out" on a macro scale, certainly applies to the micro level of the chemical/electrical processes of the brain. Maybe you could call that "souls".
But in the end, as Bondings said first and very succinctly, what matters is that we feel we have free will. Whether we actually do is irrelevant, as long as we don't know for sure that we don't.
EDIT: Oh, and yes, I'm an agnostic who believes in free will. And I know a lot of atheists who do the same. And I know religious people who believe God decided every tiniest thing in advance (but don't base their decisions on it). So the split into "religious+free will" and "atheist+determinism" doesn't quite ring true for me. Quite the contrary.to me, free will is simply being able to make a choice for myself. whether the choice was predetermined does not matter. like i never chose to be born in this world. there was no freewill to choose who my parents are, where i was born etc.. but are these the choices that i made in my past life???
assuming that god's will is already predetermined, what does he leave us to decide. i think god gives us a broad view of what is wrong and right and leave the decision to us. and that is free will. you know what you can do, and you choose it accordingly. everyone knows that killing someone is wrong. but there are so many murderers in this world. it is only because they chose to commit the crime, and not because it was predetermined. ..
I think free will and determination are just both real. Therefore, to come back to the first statement, I would'nt join the first group and neither the second one.
My oppinion is, that we're living in a world with defined and absolute nature-laws. But that's the only thing which is absolute, all other things in our life, can be free choosen and created by ourselfes.
But those, how I called it, "defined nature-laws", I think they are a synonyme to god, allah, budha etc. We decide how we call it, but anybody, who takes his life in his own hands, needs something like that in his wold which is absolute, at least for orientation and explanation of our daily life.
Now, for example some scientific people would say that this is wrong and that they don't need and don't have an "replacement for god". But what is sience? It's exactly what I'm talking about, science tries to creates those "natural-laws" which are accepted as the absolute truth (like allah is accepted as the one and only god in islam e.g.).
So I don't know if it's just a brain-virus by myself or if anybody else could reconstruct and understand that theorie, but if so I would be pleased to read it here | simplyw00x wrote: |
| I believe in scientific determinism, i.e. that a sufficiently complete knowledge of the world around us will allow to predict how events will turn out, as there is no truly random factor, and all current (apparently) random things like quantum are just patterns waiting to be discovered ("God does not play dice"). |
I agree with you, I think I posted this before but the way you formulate it is better! I've spoken about this to some people, like a doctor, and she says you never can predict what humans will decide/do, because of something with the structures of the brains.
I believe in scientific determinism, but you're also determined by several other things, like the place where you were born, your DNA, parents, your looks,...
But people still have a free will, although this "free will" is determined by scientific determinism. You can call this free will, but you also can't. | Kaneda wrote: |
2. Particles have properties even if we don't measure them. Or as Einstein supposedly put it, the moon exists even when noone is looking at it.
I find getting rid of hidden variables much more interesting, i.e.: No, nothing in the universe has a state until we (as conscious beings) observe it. In general terms, it might not even exist. And the moment we observe it, we disturb it. Wheeler said there were no observers, only participators. And also: "The universe gives birth to communicating participators. Communicating participators give meaning to the universe". Let's call that "the humanistic solution to quantum physics". |
I agree. Getting rid of logic seems wrong, considering the proven success of science and quantum mechanics, and getting rid of locality violates relativity (not to mention causality) which are principles that I certainly believe are true... and that only leaves realism.
I don't agree with your interpretation of the observer though. I don't think that humans, or any consciousness being plays a special role in the universe. We are just collections of atoms and molecules, and we too should be described by quantum mechanics. I think a measurement device, whether someone is looking at it or not should be described in the same way... and that leads me to either an interpretation based on decoherence or on some type of relative state (many worlds) interpretation. Of course, in the relative state interpretation, the universe is deterministic, but it's not in the Copenhagen picture. So we're still left with the same dilema...
I still wondering if we can come up with an experiment which would test or limit determinism or not.I've been ping-ponging back and forth with this question for quite a few years. I don't know exactly if there's free will or predestination, or a mix between them, but I know that in the end, it doesn't matter.
Even if free will is an illusion, for us it's very real.
Even if everything is predetermined, we can't feel it. We are the Players on the Stage. We can however understand the Structure, and view Synchronicities for what they really are, and therefore we become able to align our Will (Free or Otherwise) with the Universal/Supreme/Ultimate Will.
Ah well, I think too much.
--Epistis/Epistathai/Epistalotus, call me what you Will. | nopaniers wrote: |
| I don't agree with your interpretation of the observer though. I don't think that humans, or any consciousness being plays a special role in the universe. We are just collections of atoms and molecules, and we too should be described by quantum mechanics. |
With that, I agree, actually. Conscious beings make no difference on an objective scale. We do make a difference on a subjective, observing scale, though, because in the end, our measurements of particles have no meaning other than what we give to them. It's just interpretations of something we can't actually describe - electrons are both particles and waves when we describe them, but in reality they're ("probably") neither.
So, it's not the measurement itself that makes the difference, it's the interpretation of what we measured, which converts it into our own mindset. Which is why relative states, decoherence etc. all describe the same results, without either of them being provable as "the right one" - they're just mindsets. That's how we give meaning to the universe - we don't actually change it, except from our subjective point of view, which is what matters (since we don't have any other reference).
Which somehow reminds me of Bohr's horseshoe (don't know if that story is known outside Denmark - probably is, though). Bohr was asked by a journalist who saw a horseshoe over the door at his summer residence, if he, as a scientist, actually believed in the superstition? To which he answered (paraphrased) "Certainly not, but they say that it brings luck whether you believe in it or not".
To be clear, Wheeler's thoughts are just one interpretation of the original Copenhagen interpretation, which itself gives no explanation of the wavefunction collapse. I prefer decoherence, myself (probably because it's the least classically explained, most vague of the modern interpretations ).
The more important part (of the Copenhagen interpretation) is that of removing determinism - or at least the claim of irreducability of quantum mechanics (= there are no hidden variables).
| Quote: |
| Of course, in the relative state interpretation, the universe is deterministic, but it's not in the Copenhagen picture. So we're still left with the same dilema... |
Well, from the observer's point of view it makes no difference, does it? We can't prove either experimentally as far as I can tell, but I'm not a scientist
But studying (humanities albeit) at the place where complementarity was brought up in the first place, living 500 meters from the Niels Bohr institute, and daily walking the same streets and gardens as he did, I guess I'm just prejudiced towards the vagueness of his interpretation - probably, I'm trapped in his mindset I think that we do and dont have free will because
1.There is the law
inc rules
2. But if we do our own thing there is a chance we can get away with it and also theres a chance that you go to prison
So my conclusion is that
We dont have our free will in crimnes and thyings but in ordinary tasks we do.
Life all depens on karma my friend. What goes around comes around as they say.
I'm a new member who came to the forum merely to fulfill the requirements to qualify for webspace. Fortunately, I stumbled first on this discussion. Now I'm hooked.
This discussion is, I believe, about one of the fundamental aspects of humanity. I think it is one of the most difficult questions that we as homo sapiens sapiens face. I am impressed with the variety and depths of opinions expressed here.
As a "scientist" and one who taught argumentative writing to college students for many years, I expect some level of "provability" from any claim.
Yet, as a "humanities" person, I am well aware of the shortcomings of science and logic, so tend to enjoy the philosophical considerations of any question. Consider this:
In her best selling novel, The Time-Traveler's Wife, Audrey Niffeneger (see my blog http://51stcentury.blogspot.com/) has her main characters engage in a discussion of just what happens when he travels back and forth in time while she remains in the present.
She is afraid that he will be killed in the past, or somehow alter events so that they will not be married in the present. But his argument is that the past is the past, and that nothing he can do there can alter anything that will happen in the future. This flys in the face of that old science-fiction saw that a change in the beat of a butterfly's wings can alter history.
On the other hand, his trips into the future have the potential to alter their present, and thus future lives. For instance, he can observe future stock market activity, return to the present and purchase stocks based on that information. It may take a while, but they can eventually become wealthy.
But this doesn't work the other way. He can't go back to the past and buy Microsoft stock, because he didn't do that in his own past, and that past is unchangeable.
I'll have more to say later. Thank you all for creating this community. | Kaneda wrote: |
Well, from the observer's point of view it makes no difference, does it? We can't prove either experimentally as far as I can tell, but I'm not a scientist
But studying (humanities albeit) at the place where complementarity was brought up in the first place, living 500 meters from the Niels Bohr institute, and daily walking the same streets and gardens as he did, I guess I'm just prejudiced towards the vagueness of his interpretation - probably, I'm trapped in his mindset |
You're right. It doesn't make any difference to the observer. It's strange that two pictures which seem so different can't be told apart. I'm not sure which interpretation is right. This is real the reason why I'm agnostic about determinism or not. Personally I want to believe in free will, but I am not convinced. I'm sure that there's more to come in this story in the next couple of decades, but I don't know yet what it will be.OK, consider another aspect, again from humanities rather than science/logic.
A short story by Josip Novakovich from his extraordinary collection Infidelities: Stories of War and Lust called "The Bridge Under the Danube."
During an anti-war meeting at a Baptist church in a Balkan town, the attendees are attacked by a Serbian mob. The police are summoned and the members of the congregation are allowed to leave. Relieved, one of the women, Milka, wonders at the miracle of deliverance:
"...somebody's prayer worked. Whose prayer could have done this? Who could pray that good? Or maybe God didn't need prayers; he acted when people could not take more misery, so they could get refreshed, so the new misery would hurt doubly once it came. And she censored herself for thinking so."
Not so long ago, a statement like that would have brought Mister Novakovich a horrible death by torture for heresy. Thank goodness for scientists, who eschewing superstition, are only engaged in making life better for the rest of us.
Except that scientists invented machine guns, mortars, bomber aircraft, land mines, napalm, chemical and biological weapons, atomic/nuclear bombs, etc.
Was that determinist? Or was it free will?
| Saber wrote: |
| Quote: | | If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined? |
God can know what we will do in the furture and that has nothing to do with forcing someone to do something. |
that's right. everything you do is up to you, and in that way everything you do has it's consequences.. this is not only applied to religion, on everyday's life we make desitions.Even if God knows all of the choices you make in advance, it still is you making the decisions based on what YOU want. God just happens to be omni-everything. You could go a step further with that and say that, if God created everything, he effectively made everything predetermined, but does that matter? The choices are still your choices.
Let's write some lines about this determinism / free will subject. It's a hard one. I don't know the answers, but if I knew them it would be a determined world with laws for everything, admiting the answers are constant and clear. So if you go to a particular cinema, there is a set of rules that determined your decision. For instance, women like shopping more than men. There must be a law that states that.
Right now you are reading these words because you want. Or is there a law for that? You are still reading? Ask yourself why?
Have a nice day!
Personally I believe in free will. Things would not have happened if it were all determined by god before hand (I don't really understand the question of such, so correct me if I'm wrong please), because if it were determined beforehand by god. Say, if it were determined by god why would god determine if many people died in September 11, for instance.
Free Will?? Isn't that a movie about a little guy and a Orka? It is a good movie by the way.
| Quote: |
| Personally I believe in free will. Things would not have happened if it were all determined by god before hand (I don't really understand the question of such, so correct me if I'm wrong please), because if it were determined beforehand by god. Say, if it were determined by god why would god determine if many people died in September 11, for instance. |
I think Hogwarts is right | Huubske wrote: |
Free Will?? Isn't that a movie about a little guy and a Orka? It is a good movie by the way.
| Quote: | | Personally I believe in free will. Things would not have happened if it were all determined by god before hand (I don't really understand the question of such, so correct me if I'm wrong please), because if it were determined beforehand by god. Say, if it were determined by god why would god determine if many people died in September 11, for instance. |
I think Hogwarts is right |
You're mixing up with Free Willy, which is the best movie of the 20th century in my opinion. Free will is the personal belief or the philosophical doctrine that holds that humans have the power to choose their own deeds. (The concept has also been extended on occasion to animals or artificial intelligence in computers.) Such a belief has been supported as important to moral judgment by many religious authorities and criticized as a form of individualist ideology by writers such as Spinoza and Karl Marx. As typically used, the phrase has both objective and subjective connotations, in the former case indicating the performance of an action by an agent that is not completely conditioned by antecedent factors, and in the latter case the agent's perception that the action was incepted under his or her own volition.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, psychological and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, free will may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In psychology, it implies that the mind controls some of the actions of the body. In the scientific realm, free will may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain, are not wholly determined by physical causality.
The existence of free will has been a central issue throughout the history of philosophy and science.
Free will is a nice idea, but as someone who has studied psychology and biology for a large number of years now I know what a large amount of human behaviour is controlled by primitive instinct rather than conscious thought. It's a bit depressing really. There is probably even a good biological reason why we delude ourselves that we have free will.
I think this is an interesting topic. What purpose would it server God to map out everything till the end of creation? Wouldnt that be boring (assuming God can get bored) and predictable?
I think it's like God is watching a movie, and were the actors. He wont control us (but he could if we wanted to). But it's like were playing out a script, we act according to reason/intellect that we were given.
We might also be a giant computer built to figure out the question to 42 There is no such thing as "free will"
I believe that free will is just an illusion, that our minds have created for us.
Every decision that we will take, every single, small step in our lives, could be calculated, if we had some data, and an extremely compex machine to calculate them.
The breakfast that you will choose to eat, is pre-determined.Some of the the factors of your decision will be:
1.The available breakfast options
2.What you have eaten the last days
3.What your body needs
4.The food that people in the place that you live in usually eat
5.The atmosphere of the room that you are in
6.How you slept
7.What you saw in your dream
8.The prices of each option
9.If any of these options, smell to you
10.If you have seen any comercial lately about any of them.
11.Your taste(which depend on some things that can't be developed here)
12.The available free time that you have for breakfast
13.What you usually eat
14.Your childhood
15.Your genes.
16.If you are in a mood for preparing a complex breakfast
17.MUCH much more..
I found 17 factors(and there are many many more) which will determine your choice.YOU WILL NOT CHOOSE.THE FACTORS WILL LEAD TO THE OUTCOME, WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON YOU.THE ONLY PART THAT DEPENDS ON YOU, is your DNA and childhood, which has nothing to do with free will though...
If we had a machine that could calculate all these, we would know the future...
Free will is an illusion...Want it or not, believe it or not...
I think that, before you can answer this question, you have to define the exact meaning of 'free will'.
DecayClan, may I point you at the fact that the factors 2,3,6,7,9,11,12,13,16 may have (partially) to do with your free will, or is a result from your previous actions?
| DecayClan wrote: |
| If we had a machine that could calculate all these, we would know the future... |
You know, scientists believed that too until quantum mechanics entered the picture. If we knew the position and direction/speed of every single particle in the universe, we would know the future, because we could calculate where each particle would be at every single moment from that point on. And since our brains consist of those same particles, we would be able to predict behaviour just as easily as anything else.
But then it turned out that we can't know the position and direction/speed of just one single particle. This is not just a matter of limitations in our technology. Actually, to this day it seems to physicists that the particle doesn't have a specific position or direction until the moment we measure it - and at that point we've lost the possibility of finding one of them (the one we didn't measure). It's still unclear exactly why this happens, re. nopaniers' and my discussion earlier.
So, even if everything is predetermined (and everything we've learned since Bohr and Heisenberg points towards it not being so), science has stopped believing in us ever knowing it since the mid-1920's.
Also, your own signature gives the other point. Whether everything is predetermined or not, we have free will. Since reality doesn't matter. Only what we know and can understand (actually, I'd prefer to say, that is reality).The element of unpredictability in particle physics operates at a different aspect of the questions than the two statements put forth by the Princess. IF God is outside of time and other dimensions of which we conceive, unpredictability is moot. However, whether or not God engages creation is not moot.
I, however, happily/gratefully place God in time and space. Changability is much more vital than being all knowning.
I think its pretty arrogant to think determinism is true.
Basically, views like these are matters of philosophy, and to say your philosophy is the only one that's good, or the only one period, is technically religion.
So atheists beware! You're following a religion. (assuming atheists beleive this idea.)
And as far as religious lack of free will... well, its the lazy man's religion.
Determinism is wishful thinking.
Take responsibilty. What happens will happen because of what you do or fail to do.
So, I say that determinism is a negative philosophy.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
Do you believe in Free Will? If so, why? If not, why?
What do Free Will and Determinism even mean?
Is it possible that we have free will at one level, but everything is actually determined at another level? (Or vice versa?)
There seems to be a strong correlation between (1) believing in God and believing in free will, as well as (2) being an atheist and believing in determinism. Can you share any evidence against these correlations?
Challenge for Group #1: If there exists an omnipotent and omniscient God, why do humans even need free will? Having an all-powerful and all-knowing God seems to be precisely the situation where everything in the universe, including in human life and human actions, is taken care of by God, so there seems to be no purpose for human free will. If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined?
Challenge for Group #2: If there’s no God and everything’s determined, then by whom and/or how did it get determined? If determined means everything that happens was caused by something else, then how did the “big deterministic machine” get set into motion?
If you don’t fit Groups #1 or #2, please set for us your own context.
You don't need to answer everything to participate here. Offer what you can. Asking each other questions is, of course, encouraged. |
Well I belong to group 2 and you gave us a challenge. Well I do not know what determined what in the beginning as well but I believe that it can be explained mathematically. These are the times that i wish albert Einstein was here because he would have given us a simple formula such as E=mc^2.
However I think I can answer the challenge by saying that everything is a cycle so you cannot say that one came before the other. it is somehow like asking which came first? the egg or the chicken so people should stop looking at history in a heirachy way and look at it in a circular way.
What do you think about that. I am sure Albert Einstein would be very proud of me for posting this message on his behalf.I have also attained $frih for representing him.
Gravity is not responsible when people fall in love!!(A. Einstein)No one made us, we may not be alive, we could be random thought processes of some degenerate "prehistoric" man dreaming. The fact of the matter is to have fun, live life to the full, do whatever you want. Your beliefs are yours and no one else so don't enforce onto others
| MWANGI wrote: |
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: | Do you believe in Free Will? If so, why? If not, why?
What do Free Will and Determinism even mean?
Is it possible that we have free will at one level, but everything is actually determined at another level? (Or vice versa?)
There seems to be a strong correlation between (1) believing in God and believing in free will, as well as (2) being an atheist and believing in determinism. Can you share any evidence against these correlations?
Challenge for Group #1: If there exists an omnipotent and omniscient God, why do humans even need free will? Having an all-powerful and all-knowing God seems to be precisely the situation where everything in the universe, including in human life and human actions, is taken care of by God, so there seems to be no purpose for human free will. If God knows what we’re going to do, isn’t that essentially the same as it has been determined?
Challenge for Group #2: If there’s no God and everything’s determined, then by whom and/or how did it get determined? If determined means everything that happens was caused by something else, then how did the “big deterministic machine” get set into motion?
If you don’t fit Groups #1 or #2, please set for us your own context.
You don't need to answer everything to participate here. Offer what you can. Asking each other questions is, of course, encouraged. |
Well I belong to group 2 and you gave us a challenge. Well I do not know what determined what in the beginning as well but I believe that it can be explained mathematically. These are the times that i wish albert Einstein was here because he would have given us a simple formula such as E=mc^2.
However I think I can answer the challenge by saying that everything is a cycle so you cannot say that one came before the other. it is somehow like asking which came first? the egg or the chicken so people should stop looking at history in a heirachy way and look at it in a circular way.
What do you think about that. I am sure Albert Einstein would be very proud of me for posting this message on his behalf.I have also attained $frih for representing him.
Gravity is not responsible when people fall in love!!(A. Einstein) |
I don't think you can solve the problem of whether we're determined or not simply by a formula. Actually, you can, but it's not the way to go.
I think that if we're determined (and everything is determined), there isn't a machine or a system behind all that. It's just logic: cause and effect. It's an infinite (or maybe a finite) chain reaction. It's all logic, there is no thing that really has determined "this will happen then." Everything would be determined by laws of nature.Philosophy and science, although interesting, are methods created by human beings to understand the events which take place around us. We are meaning-making machines, and have taken it upon ourselves to place a label on everything. In reality everything just is. We then attach language and meaning onto it.
So in this respect, you could say that my actions are predetermined, that i was alwas going to write this, down to the tiniest detail such as spelling 'always' without a y (as above). But you'd really just be playing with language. You might be able to prove something indefinately through the medium of language and reason, but any conclusion you arrive at is your own projection. There is no truth. Not even this post. Hi, Smue! I follow your first part. Good! I’d like to make a definitional objection to your second part.
As you say: | Smue wrote: |
| In reality everything just is. |
And I agree. So, what if we were to call “everything [that] just is” by the term of the truth? Then, the following would not be true: | Smue wrote: |
| There is no truth. |
Instead, I’d say this:
Everything that just is, is true. Everything that just is not, is not true.
Do you follow me? This is important because only by getting common terminology can we get to discussing more complex assertions. If you don’t follow, I’d like to take another stab at it, and can only do so if you give a clue as to your thinking after reading this. (And, by the way, welcome to Frihost! ) I apologize in advance, because I don't have the time to read all the posts leading up to this point, and if I repeat what has been said I did not mean to.
I think that we can all agree that determinism is the most LOGICAL description of physical phenomena, even though it cannot be PROVEN correct.
Now, Determinism has one main fault, as the Princess has shown; that the "machine" had to get started somehow, and if that's the case, that something had to be precursor to it.
Well, that's true, but there's a larger question here: How come the human interperetation of time has to be applied to the surrounding universe?
We see things as having a beginning and an end, having duration. We are given this sense from our memory, as we are able to record a certain amount of data in our mind. However, this does not mean that things actually work this way. Our memory is a very misleading tool, in that it suggests to us that time is linear, from start to finish, or from point A to point B. However all of the "major questions" about the way existence works seem to conflict with this view.
Determinism conflicts with "human time" because we see our actions as a consequence of our personality and our conciousness, as determined by our memory.
However, it does not conflict with a universe absent of time.
What I mean by that is; when you remove the variable of memory, what you are left with is a pervasive atomic flowering that is happening simultaneously and permanently. Memory is able to record states of this flowering and suggest that it has duration, when it it more likely that its duration is zero.
In other words, the universe is in a constant state of "present time," it has no past, no future, it