The brothers karamazov and absolute freedom

[bumab]

Oh I missed that thread, but I think that view is so Newtonian. In a Universe where Quantum Mechanics reigns (and I think ours does) there is NOTHING but free will! There is no way to predict anything given the current state of the system, so free will reigns supreme.

 

I was under the impression that QM had no effect on the macro scale of things, so there is no way our brains could somehow influence QM randomness in order to produce some outcome we want (i.e. free will). Simply because we cannot predict things doesn't mean free will exists, either. That's a nonsensical argument. I believe the weather could be predicted, given enough information and computing power. I don't think the weather is acting of it's own free will, although we can't predict it in practicality.

 

Giving your statement the benifit of the doubt, you could say "Given a universe where QM reigns, there is nothing but randomness, but randomness does not equal free will at all.

 

 

.....if you claim that the only truth and beauty comes from God, you're really missing out on some of the incredible things that we and the rest of nature can do. Moreover, I believe you can have faith in a higher power *and* still believe in the beauty and creativeness we create ourselves: this makes the religious hierarchies *very* nervous, so they work very hard to convince the flock that this view is wrong, and they should look for truth and beauty ONLY from them because they're the only ones in direct communication with God...hmm. sounds fishy to me....

 

True- I agree whole heartedly. We can create things- because we choose to do so. Those things are beautiful- if we choose to make them. But there's fre will again, which (back to the thread) is one of Dosteyvsky's favorite subjects (see the Grand Inquisitor). We can create beauty, because of free will- we have the power to make things by our own volition and from our own power.

 

Anyway- on the scale of us and our brains, nothing is random, everything is causally related to the state of the universe that preceded it. I don't see where there is room for decision making there.

[Buffy]

does this mean you are saying an ape in a cage who cannot measure its bars is a 'free' agent? i don't freewill exists simply because we are incapable of predicting actions.

I was referring to what bumab seemed to be saying in:

My difficulty with a non-theistic universe (i.e. one where a god...does NOT exist) is it preculdes any possibility of free will...

Which implies that without God, all actions and reactions are detiministic (predetermined), and I think we do have an ability to make choices even if there is no God, or more in line with my beliefs, if there is a God and he takes no action to affect the outcome of events.

 

Obviously a caged animal is limited somewhat, but that does not mean "no free will": he can still spit and throw things at his cager. I can't flap my wings and fly, but I don't think that means I have no free will...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

....implies that without God, all actions and reactions are detiministic (predetermined), and I think we do have an ability to make choices even if there is no God, or more in line with my beliefs, if there is a God and he takes no action to affect the outcome of events.

 

This is going on in another thread, I don't want to get to far from B.K., but if you think you have that ability, fine. How? How do you make decisions independent of the molocuar interactions that go on in your brain? How does the chemistry in your brain get altered by your brain when you make decisions? Through chemical means, I assume. But aren't those subject to causal rules?

 

As Fyodor says in another part of the book, "men of science often see the parts yet miss the whole, and miss the wonder of the earth and creation..." I doubt anyone here misses the wonder of the earth, but the point is still interesting.

 

I'm not being argumentative :Alien: , just trying to figure stuff out...

[Buffy]

I was under the impression that QM had no effect on the macro scale of things, so there is no way our brains could somehow influence QM randomness in order to produce some outcome we want (i.e. free will). Simply because we cannot predict things doesn't mean free will exists, either.

Two things:

1. Quantum effects *can* manifest themselves at a macro scale, although what you say is a common misconception. The randomness that exists within the behavior of individual atoms bubbles up in systems to create random effects at the macro level. All kinds of behaviors all the way up to the weather are in random because of quantum effects. That actually means that even given infinite computing power, no, you can't predict the weather (you might get close over short time spans only due to averaging) but you'd would NOT be able to predict an arbitrary amount of time into the future.
   
2. This IS the basis for saying that the world is non-deterministic, and free will exists to a great extent (if not entirely according to some), due to this non-determinism. So your statement "on the scale of us and our brains, nothing is random, everything is causally related to the state of the universe that preceded it" isn't really true, UNLESS you believe that the inherent non-determinism is being directed by God down to the level of the actions of individual atoms which would actually be saying that there is no free will, because it is all being controlled by God.
   

The thing I find most interesting about this whole discussion is that its easy to conclude both God=FreeWill and NoGod=FreeWill. Most of this argument is really based on the fact that we haven't really defined what "free will" means. When I use it, I mean that we can choose to do things like murder, since God clearly is not preventing us from doing so, or he wishes us to do so, or there's no God and we can do what we want, although I have a hard time believing that the particular pattern of people deciding to murder was predetermined at the Big Bang if there is no God because everything is deterministic because we've pretty much proven that there is no determinism in complex systems, unless God is twiddling every quark, in which case there's no free will! :Alien:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

How do you make decisions independent of the molocuar interactions that go on in your brain? How does the chemistry in your brain get altered by your brain when you make decisions? Through chemical means, I assume. But aren't those subject to causal rules?

Haha! You're forgetting I'm in software! I think arguments like this completely ignore what's happening as a result of the setup of the hardware. To oversimplify, "how can a computer make decisions when its just a bunch of electronic parts? How can it 'learn'?" The point I make is that all "higher creatures" (someone else can draw the line) who have "consciousness" are being driven by the "software" thats running inside the brain. I think its horridly simplistic to look at it as simple action-reaction, and also simplistic to think that "consciousness" or "free will" requires a God to make it happen. Consciousness is an amazing thing, but given what we know about computers, its not hard to see how we can create a non-deterministic thinking machine that can choose to act in moral ways (to get us back on topic), especially if that consciousness can preserve itself or its species by acting in moral ways.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[lindagarrette]

The thing I find most interesting about this whole discussion is that its easy to conclude both God=FreeWill and NoGod=FreeWill. Most of this argument is really based on the fact that we haven't really defined what "free will" means. When I use it, I mean that we can choose to do things like murder, since God clearly is not preventing us from doing so, or he wishes us to do so, or there's no God and we can do what we want, although I have a hard time believing that the particular pattern of people deciding to murder was predetermined at the Big Bang if there is no God because everything is deterministic because we've pretty much proven that there is no determinism in complex systems, unless God is twiddling every quark, in which case there's no free will! :Alien:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

I disagree completely. Free will is a metaphyscal concept. Despite what goes on at the quantum level, no one has ever proven that the universe we live in is not deterministic. First, iff it were not, there would be no predictability. Second, it would be impossible to show any relatiobnship between your decision to do anything and a quantum event. To exercise free will, you would have to be completely free of external influences and that's not possible. The only reason we don't see determinism in action is because we don't have all the information about all the variables. Read about chaos theory for more on the subject. There is no such thing as random, perhaps even on the quantum level, once we learn how it works. As a computer person, you should know that in a closed system. No matter how many times you execute a software program with the same input, you will get the same result. Any situation you are in at a given time, if you were in that same place with the exact precedents having occurred, you would do the same thing. Free-will, causal determinism has been an active topic in several threads of this forum in case you would like to read further.

[bumab]

Haha! You're forgetting I'm in software!

 

:Alien:

 

That's cool they've made computers do that!

 

So would you say we are like computers in that stimuli come in, we weigh it in terms of past experiences (presumably how those programs learn), run it through our pre-programming for morality or whatever, and then send out a response?

 

I don't see how that's non-deterministic. Given two identical universes, the same computer would produce the same outcome every single time, because of identical pre-programming and identical past experiences.

 

not trying to be over simplistic, just trying to get to the bare bones of your argument.

 

and I would not seek evidence for God in some moral code- as we all know, moral codes can be different, and could have quite easily evolved from group behavior as a way of keeping the peace. We see evidence of morals in animals (or at least project our moral ideas onto their behavior).

 

Dosteyvsy saw evidence for God in the glory and appreciation for nature. Animals do not appreciate nature- it's just their world. They don't see waterfalls as beautiful, just as places for food or shade (of course, we could be wrong about that). Thus, for Fyodor, one form of evidence for God comes in that appreciation. If one accepts a God, then the morals of said diety obviously hold more sway... (still trying to remain on topic, at least a little bit :Alien: )

[bumab]

First, iff it were not, there would be no predictability. Second, it would be impossible to show any relatiobnship between your decision to do anything and a quantum event. To exercise free will, you would have to be completely free of external influences and that's not possible. The only reason we don't see determinism in action is because we don't have all the information about all the variables. Read about chaos theory for more on the subject. There is no such thing as random, perhaps even on the quantum level, once we learn how it works. As a computer person, you should know that in a closed system. No matter how many times you execute a software program with the same input, you will get the same result. Any situation you are in at a given time, if you were in that same place with the exact precedents having occurred, you would do the same thing. Free-will, causal determinism has been an active topic in several threads of this forum in case you would like to read further.

 

Thanks lindagarrette for saying what I was trying to say, but much better... (although we obviously have vastly different reasons for saying it!) :Alien:

[lindagarrette]

I believe you can have faith in a higher power *and* still believe in the beauty and creativeness we create ourselves

 

Cheers,

Buffy

I don't believe that. What would be the point of a higher power unless you attribute something to it, such as creation and intervention? That's where you get into trouble. Religion becomes necessary to define the things that come from the higher power and try to isolate some creativeness that has never been the result of the higher power's actions. Without the higher power we have science to explain it all.

[Buffy]

On determinism:

 

I think where I disagree with both of you is that you're being absolutist: Its not either everything is deterministic or everything is completely random. Randomness is constrained by the existing conditions, but it can radically affect future outcomes. The ape in a cage scenario is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The ape's actions are bounded by the cage, but there's certainly free will within them. I know an awful lot about chaos theory and statistics and I'd strongly disagree that lack of enough understanding of systems is the only thing that keeps us from seeing everything as completely deterministic. Chaos theory in particular makes extensive use of non-determinism, although it does show how some seemingly chaotic behavior can be explained by simple deterministic equations, it does NOT say that all chaotic behavior is deterministic! There's lots of evidence of non-determinism and claims that "we just don't know" smack of the non-science of Intelligent Design, which I'll leave for the many other threads on that topic! If Heisenberg really is wrong, I'd love to see a theory to explain quantum mechanics as being completely deterministic. Also, any computer scientist will tell you that the interesting thing about programming is that you can never depend on the inputs you get, and algorithms indeed are classified as "non-deterministic" because in a system with enough complexity you can NEVER replicate the inputs. This means that a brain given the same "inputs" may indeed make different decisions, because intervening inputs have changed the programming of the system. To claim anything else oversimplifies the situation to the point of meaninglessness.

 

On the higher power topic:

My argument is probably only valid for those of us who think of the "higher power" as being "the gal who pressed the button for the big bang" and also believe in the multiple-universes theory of every conceivable thing is happening, and we're just in one of an infinite number of threads of reality. I believe that science can explain everything in creation, but I do believe that She "dropped the beaker on the lab table." Of course I also believe in Santa and the Passover Bunny (Turtle: that's my "paganism"). That's all metaphysics and I'm the first one to admit it! Don't anyone call me an atheist though for insisting upon Evolution, Einstein and Feynman!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

On determinism:

 

I think where I disagree with both of you is that you're being absolutist: Its not either everything is deterministic or everything is completely random.

 

Fair enough. I was not argueing against free will, though. I agree it exists, however I am offering it up as possible evidence of a higher something of somesort, because I do agree with lindagarette in that as the universe is protrayed from a scientific worldview, determinism is required for predictability, causality, etc. etc. Free will apparently requires faith...

 

 

There's lots of evidence of non-determinism and claims that "we just don't know" smack of the non-science of Intelligent Design...

 

It's a very different thing. "we just don't know" for the determinism argument is not a lack of understanding, but computing power. ID's "we just don't know" is much more final- "we can't know."

 

Also, any computer scientist will tell you that the interesting thing about programming is that you can never depend on the inputs you get, and algorithms indeed are classified as "non-deterministic" because in a system with enough complexity you can NEVER replicate the inputs. This means that a brain given the same "inputs" may indeed make different decisions, because intervening inputs have changed the programming of the system.

 

I bolded the statement in question- in the universe of science, a causal one, those interveneing inputs could also be predicted if all the relevent knowledge was had, thus the different outcomes are moot, it wasn't the same situation.

 

It seems to come down to this: I chose to brew an IPA yesterday :Alien: . Could I have chosen otherwise, a scotch maybe? All the inputs into my system (genes, molocules, levels of hormones, etc etc) were present that morning. Is it possible I could have chosen something else, were that situation repeated exactly?

[Buffy]

... I do agree with lindagarette in that as the universe is protrayed from a scientific worldview, determinism is required for predictability, causality, etc. etc. Free will apparently requires faith...

And *that's* what I disagree with...I don't really see why its necessary, since so much science has embraced non-determinism, and indeed made it central to the explanation of the way things work. If everything is deterministic, then the answer to the question about IPA vs. scotch is certainly true, but it requires making an a priori assumption of complete determinism in everything that happens, which I argue there's no evidence for. At the same time, there's nothing in non-determinism that I see that argues for the existence of a meddling creator, in fact I argue that non-determinism argues that if there is a creator, he doesn't meddle, and--to get back on topic again--that's why we don't see God actively making immoral acts impermissable. If the hand of God comes down and prevents people from shooting each other, that's evidence of determinism caused by a "system" determined by the laws of God. If "Thou shalt not kill" really is a programming instruction, then its converse won't be executed. Thus, because this rule isn't followed, there is no meddling (or maybe even non-meddling God). If murder is permissible, then there is no meddling God either, because by definition, he meddles! Moreover, if murder is permissible, there's free will! Getting further back to my original argument, the argument that a murder occurs is "pre-determined" and always was going to happen lets the murderer off the hook: "I had no choice." If you believed in determinism, you would believe that punishing a murderer would be wrong. This would be bad for the society, and no matter whether the universe was non-deterministic or not, the believers in determinism would be seen as an essential part of the problem and they'd be punished, and via social Darwinism, this belief would disappear, OR the society would self-destruct because murders would go free. Since that hasn't happened, there's further argument that the universe is non-deterministic.

 

In the multiple universes theory of course, all outcomes all occur, we just only experience one thread, but even this does not imply determinism because the thread you experience is determined by choices, decisions and random events that lead to the thread you experience!

It's a very different thing. "we just don't know" for the determinism argument is not a lack of understanding, but computing power. ID's "we just don't know" is much more final- "we can't know."

I take it back then. Don't want to slap you with that brush if you don't deserve it!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[motherengine]

let me just say one final thing concerning 'freewill'. regardless of quantum (or any other) theory the very fact that you cannot predict your own actions, let alone know everything that can and will happen should tell you that you probably don't have freewill in a scientific sense. how can any action be free unless it is unburdened? do you actually think you are in total control of your emotions and the chemical reactions that cause them? freewill is a metaphysical concept because it requires a belief in a mind/soul/entity unburdened from chemical influence. random does not equate freedom.

[bumab]

Getting further back to my original argument, the argument that a murder occurs is "pre-determined" and always was going to happen lets the murderer off the hook: "I had no choice." If you believed in determinism, you would believe that punishing a murderer would be wrong.

 

I think this is the heart of Dostevsky's argument (and the main topic) of "without God, all things are permissable." Dostevsky seemed to see the emerging scientific worldview as a deterministic one, where everything was determined by fundamental laws of physics, which were becoming more and more popular around when he wrote the book. I think he had quite a bit of foresight to see what all those laws would eventually entail- no freedom. This leads to the conflicted nihilism of Ivan in B.K., and the conflict between the view of free will from the Grand Inquisitor section. Fyodor saw free will as neccessary for Christianity (specifically, but I'm sure all religions by extension), otherwise- "all things are permissible."

 

I'm pretty sure he equated free will with God- the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden was seen as the "gift" of free will (from his book: Demons), although he argues that it was a dangerous gift indeed (Brothers K.)

[Buffy]

Yep, and back to my earlier post, this is "Newtonian" and not "Quantum"....I won't fault Fyodor for his view (you also have to be careful with determining what his views were versus what came out of his characters as mother aluded to in post #1, same with Melville by the way), its just no longer valid in my book, cuz science marches on!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

Yep, and back to my earlier post, this is "Newtonian" and not "Quantum"....I won't fault Fyodor for his view (you also have to be careful with determining what his views were versus what came out of his characters as mother aluded to in post #1, same with Melville by the way), its just no longer valid in my book, cuz science marches on!

 

It is hard to determine what both meant- they both used narrators that were not really intended to be the voice of the author...

[Buffy]

It is hard to determine what both meant- they both used narrators that were not really intended to be the voice of the author...

In Melvilles case at least, he made it clear outside his works that he was posing questions that he didn't feel were answerable, and that was the point: to shut people up who were claiming to own the truth...

 

Cheers,

Buffy