The brothers karamazov and absolute freedom

[bumab]

You must realize that you are part of the equation. Your actions cause other events. Of course you are a self. You exist as the sum of all your experiences, your genetic makeup, your present frame of reference, and your environment. How much more complete could you be? That's how I feel. This is a unique and awesomely wonderful existance that could only be possible after billions of years in the making. It doesn't take any supernatural or extraordinary aspect to be human. There is no disembodied mind with its own set of rules, separate from nature.

 

Very interesting- thanks for the good reply! Cuold I imagine your position as this?

-We are all actors on the big, universe stage. While we have no control over our lines,

actions, and the plot (human or universe scale plot), we can still appreciate the drama.

 

Now, to get back to the point of the thread... :confused:

 

"Without God, all things are permissable."

 

Let's substitute God for "the supernatural." If Linda is right, free will falls into this catagory. I also agree it falls into that catagory.

 

So, the new statement- "without free will, all things are permissible."

 

What do you think about that? Perhaps we should state "without free will, all things are inevitable." How would you respond to that statement?

[lindagarrette]

I can understand your explanation of determinism. One problem is the big bang. why would energy suddenly come into existence at that singularity? Quantum gravity? THat still does not dispell the problem.

 

When I first replied to this thread, and for that matter, any other regarding determinism, I specifically stated that quantum effects have no noticeable bearing on our existance and should not be used to refute the ligitimacy of cause and effect in our observable universe. Any influence on our world at the quantum level would be too remote and too small to be detected, at least by me, in my lifetime. Whatever happens to subatomic particles is still up for grabs. But it seems that is the only alleged evidence of non-determinism that anyone can come up with.

[lindagarrette]

That's not true. While quantum effects are direct only at small scales, these effects *propagate upward*. This is why we use radioactive decay meters to create true random numbers: the incidence of atoms undergoing radioactive decay is due to quantum effects, and is easily measurable. The location and momentum of electrons--per Heisenberg--cannot be determined or controlled--the random motions of those electrons can and do affect their motions (they really don't operate like billiard balls!), etc. Googling "macroscopic quantum effects" will get you over 200,000 hits.

 

If you read science history books on the topic, you will see a constant theme that quantum theory was revolutionary because it overthrew Newtonian determinism.

 

So again, are you saying that Heisenberg will be proven wrong? Do you have any evidence of this?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

When I first replied to this thread, and for that matter, any other regarding determinism, I specifically stated that quantum effects have no noticeable bearing on our existance and should not be used to refute the ligitimacy of cause and effect in our observable universe. Any influence on our world at the quantum level would be too remote and too small to be detected, at least by me, in my lifetime. Whatever happens to subatomic particles is still up for grabs. But it seems that is the only alleged evidence of non-determinism that anyone can come up with.

[lindagarrette]

That's not true. While quantum effects are direct only at small scales, these effects *propagate upward*. This is why we use radioactive decay meters to create true random numbers: the incidence of atoms undergoing radioactive decay is due to quantum effects, and is easily measurable. The location and momentum of electrons--per Heisenberg--cannot be determined or controlled--the random motions of those electrons can and do affect their motions (they really don't operate like billiard balls!), etc. Googling "macroscopic quantum effects" will get you over 200,000 hits.

 

If you read science history books on the topic, you will see a constant theme that quantum theory was revolutionary because it overthrew Newtonian determinism.

 

So again, are you saying that Heisenberg will be proven wrong? Do you have any evidence of this?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

I googled your suggestion and found some rather far fetched essays on the possibility that quantum actions could somehow effect observable reality, although none confirmed actual results from experiments. Here is an example I found very strange.

NeuroQuantology 2004 |Issue 4|Page 237-262

 

Rakovic, D et al. Macroscopic quantum effects and consciousness

 

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

 

Macroscopic Quantum Effects in Biophysics and Consciousness1

 

Dejan Rakovic1,4, Miroljub Dugic2,4, Milan M. Cirkovic3

 

Abstract

 

It is shown that investigations in the field of microwave resonance stimulation of the acupuncture system, as well as investigations of the interactions of consciousness with microscopic and macroscopic environment - imply the existence of local and nonlocal macroscopic quantum biophysical effects, with great potential implications in medicine, psychology, biology, physics, engineering, and philosophy/religion.(item 6)

 

(6) philosophy/religion (ontological nature of individual and collective consciousness; removal of the matter/spirit duality; post-mortem consciousness continuity; nonlocal transfer of individual loads on descendants in emotionally loaded transitional states of consciousness; origin of free will; fundamental significance of nonlocal holistic space-time reprogramming of collective consciousness in prayer for fellow-men, enemies, and the dead; renaissance of the behavior based on hesychastic spiritual principles of charity).

I would be very interested to learn how some subatomic particle interaction could influence my propensity to be or not to be a murderer. Pardon the extreme example but I'm responding to an extreme claim.

 

[motherengine]

Now, to get back to the point of the thread... :Alien:

 

"Without God, all things are permissable."

 

Let's substitute God for "the supernatural." If Linda is right, free will falls into this catagory. I also agree it falls into that catagory.

 

So, the new statement- "without free will, all things are permissible."

 

What do you think about that? Perhaps we should state "without free will, all things are inevitable." How would you respond to that statement?

 

with or without freewill all things are inevitable. once upon a time my car came close to another persons vehicle (my fault fw or not) and after i parked and got out we had a brief discussion concerning the event. at one point in our debate the other driver said something like 'but you did almost hit my car' and i replied 'nothing can almost happen, it either does or it doesn't'. the other driver said that that was a very 'existential' point of view and we parted ways. i don't think my rather flippent remark was particularly existential, but i do believe it to be true. now if we can agree that everything is inevitable than we also have to agree that moral reactions and thus laws are inevitable as well. all i am saying here is that those moral laws are not 'written in stone' but in the soft tissue of the brain and so are as malleable as opinions or ideas unless an overriding universal mental force is at work.

[bumab]

The difficulty for most people (i think) is they equate "inevitable" WITH "permissable," simply because if you can't help it, you shouldn't be punished for it.

 

In this model of inevitability, I don't think morals can exist, because morals involve what someone SHOULD do. So, in these arguments, those that argue against free will shouldn't use terms like morals, IMO. If there is no choice, then it's inevitable, if it's inevitable, no one is responsible (in a moral sense). Agree/disagree?

 

i personally agree with Fyodor, because of the argument I just stated... (i'll stop trying to be ambiguous) :)

[lindagarrette]

The difficulty for most people (i think) is they equate "inevitable" WITH "permissable," simply because if you can't help it, you shouldn't be punished for it.

 

In this model of inevitability, I don't think morals can exist, because morals involve what someone SHOULD do. So, in these arguments, those that argue against free will shouldn't use terms like morals, IMO. If there is no choice, then it's inevitable, if it's inevitable, no one is responsible (in a moral sense). Agree/disagree?

 

Agree, although we are still constrained by the social mores of our environment.

[bumab]

Only constrained in the sense that water flowing downhill usually flows between two banks- it's not like we choose to follow the social norms, we just do, right?

 

So- let's take two people, one "normal," one a serial killer. Let's say the normal person could have been a serial killer if the pre-requisit conditions were met, which they weren't. Further, let's say the serial killer was only a killer because those pre-requist conditions were. I'd even say that because of whatever makes up the serial killers mind, it had a larger range of pre-conditions that could set it up to become said killer- that is meant to take care of genetic predisposition and such. (i'm just trying to set up a scenario, hope it comes out ok)

 

Since both are simply responding to stimuli (in your view), one is responding "well" and one is responding "poorly."

 

Let's say we could change how the serial killer responded to stimuli through some Clockwork Orange thing. Would you say that's OK? It's simply fixing somebody, right? Is a Clockwork Orange solution acceptable in the no free-will worldview, since it's all stimuli-response anyway? (i realize i'm starting to drag in a little morality- if you object, don't play along)

[Buffy]

In this model of inevitability, I don't think morals can exist, because morals involve what someone SHOULD do. So, in these arguments, those that argue against free will shouldn't use terms like morals, IMO. If there is no choice, then it's inevitable, if it's inevitable, no one is responsible (in a moral sense). Agree/disagree?

Agree, although we are still constrained by the social mores of our environment.

How can we be "constrained"? This implies that we can choose to do one thing or another, based on what we think is right, but you just said there are no morals, only actions that are predetermined by prior states. This seems to me to be a contradiction...in any case, it does indeed seem that you are agreeing that there should be no punishment for actions that are not under anyone's control, since they are inevitable.

 

It also has occurred to me in going back and reading the other threads on determinism and free will here, that oddly enough, the determist point of view actually provides strong support for James Putnam's view of intelligence as pre-existing in the universe--not created--since with absolute determinism *everything* is a consequence of the first instant of the Big Bang. I'm doing some research on macroscopic quantum effects (which contrary to the above posts are *not* just a bunch of wackos unless you consider people like Roger Penrose to be a wacko), but I'll open up another thread on it: it hasn't really been covered except in passing in any of these other threads.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

It also has occurred to me in going back and reading the other threads on determinism and free will here, that oddly enough, the determist point of view actually provides strong support for James Putnam's view of intelligence as pre-existing in the universe--not created--since with absolute determinism *everything* is a consequence of the first instant of the Big Bang.

 

I agree, and I think free will, if it exists, is strong support of the existance of the supernatural. It's interesting what you discover when you think and discuss something for a while....

[Buffy]

I agree, and I think free will, if it exists, is strong support of the existance of the supernatural. It's interesting what you discover when you think and discuss something for a while....

Well, actually, I just said that if there is no free will, then there's a meddling God! I actually agree with Linda about almost everything except I believe that non-determinism and free will show there is *no* meddling God!

 

Whoo!

Buffy

[bumab]

Well, actually, I just said that if there is no free will, then there's a meddling God! I actually agree with Linda about almost everything except I believe that non-determinism and free will show there is *no* meddling God!

 

Ha! Showing two people can see the opposite things from the same example. :)

 

True, true, a meddling God would probably preclude free will to an extent. But I just said the existance of God, not the existance of a meddling God. I was thinking of a God who supports free will, for better or worse, not a God who controls human actions at all. (see the Grand Inquisitor chapter of Brothers' Karamozov for an example)

 

I also agree with Linda (go linda!) about almost everything- I think there is no scientific evidence for non-determinism, other then the implict understanding everyone has that they are somehow in control of their lives. That's my "evidence," although again- note it's not scientific evidence, and I make no claims otherwise. Since I agree with her position (it's the only position possible for science to work- causality and all), I see free will as all but neccessarily implying some supernatural force. Otherwise our minds would be capable of breaking the causality rule, which is a big thing indeed!

[lindagarrette]

Well, actually, I just said that if there is no free will, then there's a meddling God! I actually agree with Linda about almost everything except I believe that non-determinism and free will show there is *no* meddling God!

 

Whoo!

Buffy

Well, actually, determinisn shows there is no meddling God. A meddling God would interfere with the normal sequence of events in the universe, i.e. cause and effect. Like he allegedly did with the great flood, etc....

[bumab]

Well, actually, I just said that if there is no free will, then there's a meddling God! I actually agree with Linda about almost everything except I believe that non-determinism and free will show there is *no* meddling God!

 

I still don't understand your argument... perhaps I'm just slow.

 

Here's my problems with it:

 

QM randomness is really small, most think it has no effect on macroscopic scales for the reasons linda mentioned. But, for the sake of argument, even if they had a macroscopic effect, that doesn't explain free will. If that were the case, and these random fluctuations were having an effect on our behavior, it would simply be random, but not controlled by us.

 

Unless you think our brains can manipulate QM randomness. Not only do I have serious doubts my brain is that powerful, how would we do such a thing? And, if we did, it wouldn't be random at all, would it?

[TINNY]

I'm doing some research on macroscopic quantum effects (which contrary to the above posts are *not* just a bunch of wackos unless you consider people like Roger Penrose to be a wacko),

some works, maybe most, by roger penrose are outside the realm of accepted science. anyway, if penrose is correct, then that offers exciting prospectives which support many of my views on metaphysics.

[TINNY]

QM randomness is really small, most think it has no effect on macroscopic scales for the reasons linda mentioned. But, for the sake of argument, even if they had a macroscopic effect, that doesn't explain free will. If that were the case, and these random fluctuations were having an effect on our behavior, it would simply be random, but not controlled by us.

No. it appears random to us from our view of reality. but i believe the absolute reality is that there is order. Anyway, I think that Buffy was just trying to point out the difficulty of determinism by pointing out the seemingly undeterministic quantim world.

About the macroscopic thingy, it is of no relevance. If it is random at the microscopic level, it stills begs the question on how all that randomness is determined from a prior cause.

[lindagarrette]

No. it appears random to us from our view of reality. but i believe the absolute reality is that there is order. Anyway, I think that Buffy was just trying to point out the difficulty of determinism by pointing out the seemingly undeterministic quantim world.

About the macroscopic thingy, it is of no relevance. If it is random at the microscopic level, it stills begs the question on how all that randomness is determined from a prior cause.

According to the Big Bang theory, there was order in the beginning, then entropy increased and continues to increase until According to the Big Rip theory, when the fabric of the universe is shredded and spread so thin it will appear to not exist, there may be order, again.