Does free will exist?

[Interference]

Very much so, although determinism also allows that the concept of free will should also be part of our psychology.

I think we've already said here how impossible it is to prove either, as the freedom we seem to experience may be only the experiential appearance of freedom, while the religion deftly straddles both concepts by allowing that God gave us freedom of choice while determining the hour of our birth and the hour of our death. Contradictory? Perhaps, unless we accept that the path we take from one to the other is where the choice comes in.

On a positive note, if we have freedom of choice and mess up big-time, then we only have ourselves to blame. Equally, if we have that freedom and are hugely successful, then we only have ourselves to congratulate. If, on the other hand, it's all predetermined, than we may as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Ursa major]

Basically Determinists say that the Universe was created with a specific set of laws and given that everything in the Universe operates by those laws then, from the moment the Universe was created, everything that was going to happen was already determined.

I don't think that follows, though.

One example given of how chaos operates in a simple system involves swinging a piece of iron on the end of some string secured to a fixed point over a magnet. We understand the mathematics of how a pendulum swings; we understand the mathematics of magnetic attraction**. However, neither helps us to determine the path of that piece of iron, i.e. we cannot determine it.


The Universe consists of countless parts and countless interactions, some of which are near enough random. We also believe that the position and momentum of each of those countless parts cannot be simultaneously known. On top of that, no-one is sure if the universe is finite. (Even if "our universe" may be, some proponents of M-theory postulate that what we can observe is merely a part of one 'brane which may or may not come into contact with others. And then there's the multiverse....)

So, for all intents and purposes, determinism doesn't really work in the simple sense that we tend to think it does, i.e. "Fate said I had to nick that Plasma TV."




** - Which is better? Fight!

 

[Interference]

The Universe consists of countless parts and countless interactions, some of which are near enough random....

Even if each was precisely pre-determined, it would be impossible for us to predict any outcome whatsoever since our brains aren't (yet?) quite as godlike as we might wish.

On the other side of this spinning, flipped coin, if most things freely determined their own fates, we'd be in exactly the same position.

So, since to us (subjectively) whether or not free will exists is ultimately irrelevant, the question changes to What would we do differently if we found out for certain that Free Will doesn't exist?

In paraphrase of Dawkins, our Universe would be no different whether God existed or not, so why encumber ourselves with the concept in the first place?

 

[Ursa major]

If we didn't have annoyingly persistent defence lawyers on the look out for any and every reason to have the cases against their clients thrown out, we could probably accept perfect determinism (i.e. "everything is preordained and so not subject to will"). However, we do have them, and so cannot even conceive of it.

 

[Interference]

Isn't that really what the insanity defence is all about? Free will is presumed for all but the insane who "can't help" but act in a predictably anti-social manner.

 

[Parson]

Only this forum would resurrect this thread.
Of course it was all ordained from the beginning of time.
Any thought to the contrary would simply stem from what we were supposed to be thinking at the time.

 

[mosaix]

I don't think that follows, though.

One example given of how chaos operates in a simple system involves swinging a piece of iron on the end of some string secured to a fixed point over a magnet. We understand the mathematics of how a pendulum swings; we understand the mathematics of magnetic attraction**. However, neither helps us to determine the path of that piece of iron, i.e. we cannot determine it.

But that's not to say that given the identical starting point the pendulum wouldn't operate in an identical way. And just become we can't determine it means nothing. There's lots of things we can't determine but that doesn't mean to say they're not following a set of basic laws. Or perhaps you're saying the the piece of iron and the magnet are somehow operating outside the laws of the universe?

But, looking back through thread, I see we've been here before.

If we didn't have annoyingly persistent defence lawyers

Or bent coppers...

 

[Ursa major]

I'd be surprised if we hadn't.

And they're following all the laws of the universe, simultaneously.

It's the identical bit that gives us the get out. Assuming that the restrictions associated with the Uncertainty Principle aren't simply failures of ours as observers, but are part of the fabric of the universe, one couldn't set the pendulum in motion from a known point with a known momentum, if only because we couldn't be sure of the piece of iron's starting momentum and so couldn't determine what it would be even after the precise application of a force (in this case, gravity); and one certainly couldn't replicate the conditions or outcome (except by chance ).

 

[mosaix]

I'd be surprised if we hadn't.

And they're following all the laws of the universe, simultaneously.

It's the identical bit that gives us the get out. Assuming that the restrictions associated with the Uncertainty Principle aren't simply failures of ours as observers, but are part of the fabric of the universe, one couldn't set the pendulum in motion from a known point with a known momentum, if only because we couldn't be sure of the piece of iron's starting momentum and so couldn't determine what it would be even after the precise application of a force (in this case, gravity); and one certainly couldn't replicate the conditions or outcome (except by chance ).

Just because we can't replicate the starting point doesn't mean to say the outcome wouldn't be the same if we could.

In instances where we can replicate the starting point the outcome is as expected and we all live our lives on that assumption. Given the same set of starting conditions physical, chemical and biological systems perform as expected: jet engines, bread recipes and poppy seeds. When they don't it is because the starting conditions weren't as required: worn parts, wrong temperature, no water.

Even formulae with chaotic tendencies produces the same chaotic results given the same initial arguments.

It's only when we come to the human brain we seem to think that this doesn't apply. That seems a little convenient and requires some thought.

 

[Interference]

Intriguingly and somewhat annoyingly, when I look back through this thread I notice that my views haven't changed very much at all. A minor difference here and there, but overall the same.

Does this mean I've stopped thinking or that I'm right ?

 

[Parson]

There are less complimentary reasons why your views have not changed.

 

[Interference]

But everyone around here is far too polite to say what those are

 

[Moonbat]

I'm not.
It's because you are pig headed and stubborn

I agree with Mosaix, that systems that seem chaotic only seem that way because we don't have a high enough level of precision to understand the system fully.

Isn't this one of those arguments that can never really be proved either way? can I be agnostic on the matter of free will?

An interesting point to note would be how illusionists (I'm thinking Derren Brown here) can get people to choose the option that they want them to choose, and so would be providing evidence that the choice by the individual was not down to free will but manipulated by them to choose the colour/animal/card that they had preordained. But...if an illusionist can do this with certain technicques then it is not evidence for the fact that normally they would have the choice?

On a simplification level does free will equate with choice? I'm not sure that it does.

If I give you three choices, one could argue that the option you pick will be as a result of your experiences through life, and therefore (if we knew enough about your life) we could predict accurately which one you would choose and so the choice is moot.
My three options are

a) Hat
b) Cheese
c) Cheese Hat

 

[HareBrain]

But...if an illusionist can do this with certain technicques then it is not evidence for the fact that normally they would have the choice?

It doesn't mean they have any more choice, just that the manipulation (by genetics, life experience etc) is too subtle to be revealed -- as would also be the case with the illusionist if he didn't reveal himself. If he remained secret, the subject would be convinced they acted under free will.

 

[mosaix]

Intriguingly and somewhat annoyingly, when I look back through this thread I notice that my views haven't changed very much at all. A minor difference here and there, but overall the same.

Does this mean I've stopped thinking or that I'm right ?

The important thing, Interference is that you should consider at all whether or not your views change. I think this is very healthy.

Last year I made a concious effort to challenge everything I thought I knew to be 'correct' on an ongoing basis. Part of this is trying to discover the origins and sources of my 'beliefs' and whether I believed them because I had been taught them at a young age and still accepted them without thought or I had acquired them through experience and logical reasoning.

Some of my feelings (views), I think, are inbuilt. As an example I think there's a bit of Neanderthal in all of us and, in me, this gives rise to racism or as I prefer to call it 'tribalism'. There was a natural fear amongst cavemen of the stranger coming over the hill - he was going to 'invade our territory, steal our women etc.' I think this is still a gut reaction in a lot of people today - certainly me. I'm not ashamed of this - I can't control my genes but I can say "I'm a rational human being, able to rise above my caveman origins - welcome."

I seem to have gone off topic.

 

[HareBrain]

The important thing, Interference is that you should consider at all whether or not your views change. I think this is very healthy.

Last year I made a concious effort to challenge everything I thought I knew to be 'correct' on an ongoing basis. Part of this is trying to discover the origins and sources of my 'beliefs' and whether I believed them because I had been taught them at a young age and still accepted them without thought or I had acquired them through experience and logical reasoning.

Some of my feelings (views), I think, are inbuilt. As an example I think there's a bit of Neanderthal in all of us and, in me, this gives rise to racism or as I prefer to call it 'tribalism'. There was a natural fear amongst cavemen of the stranger coming over the hill - he was going to 'invade our territory, steal our women etc.' I think this is still a gut reaction in a lot of people today - certainly me. I'm not ashamed of this - I can't control my genes but I can say "I'm a rational human being, able to rise above my caveman origins - welcome."

I seem to have gone off topic.

To me, that's right on topic (unusually for this thread), because you're describing the attempt to make yourself conscious of your subconscious influences, so you can decide whether they're helpful or harmful. To the extent that free will exists at all, it must be the result of exactly this process, and the world would be a lot more civilised if more people tried it.

 

[mosaix]

To me, that's right on topic (unusually for this thread), because you're describing the attempt to make yourself conscious of your subconscious influences, so you can decide whether they're helpful or harmful. To the extent that free will exists at all, it must be the result of exactly this process, and the world would be a lot more civilised if more people tried it.

More food for though, HairBrain. Thank you.

 

[Ursa major]

I agree with Mosaix, that systems that seem chaotic only seem that way because we don't have a high enough level of precision to understand the system fully.

But one can never get anywhere near that precision. Apart from anything else, a lot of reality at a quantum level seems to be truly probabilistic. This isn't just because we don't have the tools to see what's happening at an ultra-microscopic scale. Who knows what effect of the brief existence of a particular () pattern of events in the quantum foam might be?

As this foam is, to mix metaphors, sewn into the very fabric of the universe, it must undermine perfect determinism at every turn.

 

[mosaix]

But one can never get anywhere near that precision. Apart from anything else, a lot of reality at a quantum level seems to be truly probabilistic. This isn't just because we don't have the tools to see what's happening at an ultra-microscopic scale. Who knows what effect of the brief existence of a particular () pattern of events in the quantum foam might be?

As this foam is, to mix metaphors, sewn into the very fabric of the universe, it must undermine perfect determinism at every turn.

The fact that you say 'who knows' means that we don't know, so your use of the word 'must' seems a little out of place.

But, in every instance that we can measure the laws of the universe (as established shortly after the big bang) hold supreme. Same input - same output.

 

[Ursa major]

I would have thought the construction, who** knows, which strongly implies that no-one does (or can) know, is a perfect companion to a phrase which, spelt out, says: must undermine a theory which says 'the outcome can only go one way, a way that is, and always has been, predetermined'.


(Re the laws of the universe: isn't it more of a case 'same input, probably same output'? )



** - Given the context, this is a cosmic who. (Not the Doctor, though.)