Free Will?

[Moronium]

I have been told many times that there is no such thing as free will, and that any notion to the contrary is the product of self-deluding illusion.

 

The primary assumptions underlying this claim seem to emanate from the presumption of a mechanical materialistic reductionism that controls nature, where everything that happens has been preordained by fate.

 

The concept of cause and effect seems to prevail here.  Everything that happens is simply a necessary effect of an antecedent cause, ad infinitum (both forwards and backwards).

 

Every word a person says, every thought he thinks, every action he takes, every (illusory) decision he makes is the product of an antecedent cause over which he had no control.  And this chain of causation goes back to the beginning of time--call it the big bang, if you want.

 

The upshot is that we're all just automatons reading from a pre-written script that cannot be altered. We can't make real "choices" any more than a cannonball can "choose" not to leave the barrel of a cannon once it has been detonated.

 

These people will advance any number of arguments which are to designed to persuade you that their view is correct.

 

But I can't see why.  If they are correct, then they're just reciting things they have been forced by all-pervading causation to say.  They are not capable of logical reasoning.  They have no control over their thoughts.  Such a person has no free will to say anything other than "I (and you) have no free will."  That's the way they've been programmed.  They were predestined to say that eons ago.  Under those circumstances, how could their claims possibly be persuasive?

 

So I just tell them:  "Come back and tell me that when you're no longer a robotic machine and are able to control, and discriminate in, your own utterances, eh?"

 

All you've done is persuade me that, even assuming you're right, you have no reason for claiming you're right.  So quit bullshitting about having "reasons" for your claims.  I might as well listen to a parrot.

 

Is there some other explanation for the claim that people have no free will?  Something other than the irresistible force of cause and effect, I mean?

Edited February 2, 2019 by Moronium

[Orion]

Free-will is possible until you affect anothers.

That is why we have Laws.

[Moronium]

Well, yeah, Orion.  The imposition of criminal punishment presupposes that people have a choice, and that their choices are not simply a product of immutable fate.

 

Anyone who believes individuals have no free will should strenuously object, on moral grounds, to ever punishing anyone for their actions.  They are not responsible for their actions; fate is.  They have no choice and are therefore completely innocent. It would be like blaming someone for falling down when they get run over by a car, ya know?

 

“RESPONSIBILITY, n. A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.”   (Ambrose Bierce)

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Cool.  I love comic book "science."

[Vmedvil2]

There is no such thing as "free will" only my Will! 

Edited February 2, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Cool.  I love comic book "science."

 

This comment was made in response to a series of posts made by Poly, which he has since apparently deleted.  I should have copied and pasted them.  He claimed to have a formula, one suggested by comic books, that explained every event in the universe and which gave him the ability to control all people's thoughts.

[Moronium]

The key to Nirvana is in my third paper, which is completely handwritten... There is a third paper, that's hand written, it has made mathematical regimes capable of calculating anything that was, is, and even that which has not yet come to pass

 

 

 

Handwritten!?  Why didn't you reveal that in the first place?  If it's handwritten then it HAS to be true.  The "key to Nirvana," which also predicts the entire future and explains the entire past, could never be typewritten, that's obvious.

 

For those who missed the original posts on this theory, it's called ALE (short for "anti-life equation").  Look for it in a theatre featuring comic book characters which will certainly be coming soon.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Moronium

[montgomery]

I have been told many times that there is no such thing as free will, and that any notion to the contrary is the product of self-deluding illusion.

 

The primary assumptions underlying this claim seem to emanate from the presumption of a mechanical materialistic reductionism that controls nature, where everything that happens has been preordained by fate.

 

The concept of cause and effect seems to prevail here.  Everything that happens is simply a necessary effect of an antecedent cause, ad infinitum (both forwards and backwards).

 

Every word a person says, every thought he thinks, every action he takes, every (illusory) decision he makes is the product of an antecedent cause over which he had no control.  And this chain of causation goes back to the beginning of time--call it the big bang, if you want.

 

The upshot is that we're all just automatons reading from a pre-written script that cannot be altered. We can't make real "choices" any more than a cannonball can "choose" not to leave the barrel of a cannon once it has been detonated.

 

These people will advance any number of arguments which are to designed to persuade you that their view is correct.

 

But I can't see why.  If they are correct, then they're just reciting things they have been forced by all-pervading causation to say.  They are not capable of logical reasoning.  They have no control over their thoughts.  Such a person has no free will to say anything other than "I (and you) have no free will."  That's the way they've been programmed.  They were predestined to say that eons ago.  Under those circumstances, how could their claims possibly be persuasive?

 

So I just tell them:  "Come back and tell me that when you're no longer a robotic machine and are able to control, and discriminate in, your own utterances, eh?"

 

All you've done is persuade me that, even assuming you're right, you have no reason for claiming you're right.  So quit bullshitting about having "reasons" for your claims.  I might as well listen to a parrot.

 

Is there some other explanation for the claim that people have no free will?  Something other than the irresistible force of cause and effect, I mean?

The laws on what constitutes a crime are basically the same but the crime rate varies from country to country. For one example, the crime of rape is much higher than all or nearly all other first world countries. 

 

This seems to suggest that there's more to it than just being predetermined. Government and society have to be playing a big part in the question.

[SaxonViolence]

EE...

 

Free Will presents a thorny Philosophical Problem.

 

Let us take a simplified determinism first:

 

In the beginning—well as soon as atoms condensed—each atom was given a certain impetus and a direction of travel as well as a number of rules that it must obey: 

 

Momentum, Gravitational Attraction, Electrical Attraction, Conservation of Angular Momentum—and such like and so on.

 

The possible permutations defy even the possibility of calculation even in principle.

 

However, every atom—or sub-atomic particle—today, arrived precisely where it is today, in precisely the state it is in today—purely as an inevitable consequence of the initial impetus that it was given at "The Big Bang." This includes every atom in your brain.

 

Where is there the slightest possibility to improvise or deviate from that predestined script?

 

"But Wait!!!" you cry.

 

Quantum Mechanics introduces random number generators into the underlying fabric of reality. Even though the influence of a single random Quantum event is minuscule, Chaos Theory provides us a way to bootstrap the results of even the most minuscule randomness into the macroscopic world.

 

EE...

 

This makes things sloppier, but it doesn't create "Free Will."

 

Have you ever played one of those paperback novels where you select different storylines at crucial junctures by rolling dice? That doesn't mean that the characters in the novel have "Free Will" just because their fate is subject to truly random occurrences.

 

So, what do we need to have true "Free Will"?

 

I'd say that you must be capable of weighing past experiences—but not to be bound by them. Rolling dice isn't "Free Will," So you need something that can reach outside of space and time and let you make a fully independent decision.

 

So where is this "Decision Maker"? How can it contravene the laws of space and time, that should make you a helpless puppet dancing to the beck and call of the physical nature of your physical being?

 

Yes! Free Will presents a Logical Contradiction and It requires both Faith and Mysticism to believe in it—so what?

 

I believe in it.

 

Now, is it immoral to punish deterministic creatures for actions they have no control over?

 

Well, presumably, the folks who make the rules, prescribe penalties and then enforce them are just as much puppets in thrall to the laws of motion as anyone else. They are not privileged by the system.

 

There can be no morality in a purely Deterministic universe. What have you ever done that you could have done differently? Apparent choice is only an illusion.

 

But consider, if certain punishments and consequences are part and parcel of the system, then these are some of the factors that form the bars of our Deterministic prison.

 

Less puppets will murder other puppets if there are strong prohibitions on killing. The "Rules" also affect the makeup of each and every puppet.

 

If we are all just robots though, what difference does it really make whether we are tortured and slaughtered or not? We may THINK that we feel pain, agony and despair—but this is an illusion—a byproduct of atoms colliding in a very controlled and predestined order.

 

Joseph Chilton Pearce once said:

 

"Life becomes Daemonic when confined to such a tiny sphere."

 

Indeed, contemplating Determinism or Determinism+Random Number Generation will drive one to the depths of depression. You're lucky to be predestined to feel despair. Some puppets are so constructed, that even when they perceive their true nature, they don't particularly care.

 

 

…..Saxon Violence

Edited May 31, 2019 by SaxonViolence

[Amplituhedron]

 

In the beginning—well as soon as atoms condensed—each atom was given a certain impetus and a direction of travel as well as a number of rules that it must obey: 

 

Momentum, Gravitational Attraction, Electrical Attraction, Conservation of Angular Momentum—and such like and so on.

  

The idea that determinism precludes free will rests on an assumption. Roughly, the formulation is this:

 

The laws of physics, which govern the universe, in conjunction with antecedent events, entail all future events, including human actions.

 

It should be pointed out that this formulation already runs afoul of logic: it commits a modal scope fallacy, assuming that all contingent events are actually necessary ones; i.e., modal collapse.

 

But it’s worse than that. The formulation rests on the idea that the laws of physics govern the universe. 

 

What if they don’t?

 

As Norman Swartz, philosophy professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University, has persuasively argued, the so-called laws of physics do not govern the universe, but rather describe the universe.

 

Once this is understood, as Swartz has pointed out, the supposed incompatibility of determinism and free will simply collapses; the so-called problem cannot even be coherently stated.

 

All of Swartz’s work on this and other matters, including his three books, can be found online. Google time!

[SaxonViolence]

The idea that determinism precludes free will rests on an assumption. Roughly, the formulation is this:

 

The laws of physics, which govern the universe, in conjunction with antecedent events, entail all future events, including human actions.

 

It should be pointed out that this formulation already runs afoul of logic: it commits a modal scope fallacy, assuming that all contingent events are actually necessary ones; i.e., modal collapse.

 

But it’s worse than that. The formulation rests on the idea that the laws of physics govern the universe. 

 

What if they don’t?

 

As Norman Swartz, philosophy professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University, has persuasively argued, the so-called laws of physics do not govern the universe, but rather describe the universe.

 

Once this is understood, as Swartz has pointed out, the supposed incompatibility of determinism and free will simply collapses; the so-called problem cannot even be coherently stated.

 

All of Swartz’s work on this and other matters, including his three books, can be found online. Google time!

 

 

My attention span isn't what it used to be.

 

I went and watched a 20-minute video on the Modal Scope Fallacy. I will try to run Swartz down later.

 

Interesting. I encountered a new term "Necessitism."

 

At present, I see no physical or material alternative to Necessitism. 

 

Perhaps Swartz may change my mind.

 

Anyway, thanks for taking the time read my arguments, responding and giving me some leads to pursue.

 

 

…..Saxon Violence 

[Amplituhedron]

My attention span isn't what it used to be.

 

I went and watched a 20-minute video on the Modal Scope Fallacy. I will try to run Swartz down later.

 

Interesting. I encountered a new term "Necessitism."

 

At present, I see no physical or material alternative to Necessitism. 

 

Perhaps Swartz may change my mind.

 

Anyway, thanks for taking the time read my arguments, responding and giving me some leads to pursue.

 

 

…..Saxon Violence 

 

Suppose I say that God exists, and is omnipotent. He knows what I will do tomorrow, even before I do it.

 

Today, God knows that tomorrow, I will kill Tim. Therefore, I must kill Tim.

 

This is an argument frequently deployed by atheists to argue that we are not morally responsible for our acts: Since God already knows what we will do, we have no choice but to do that thing; if we have no choice, we are not responsible for the act. Therefore, God cannot hold us morally responsible for what we do, defeating the whole premise of Christian thesism.

 

The argument commits the modal scope fallacy. It illicitly assigns necessity to the consequent of the antecedent, rather than to where it belongs: Jointly to the antecedent and consequent.

 

Wrong: Today, God knows that tomorrow, I will kill Tim. Therefore, I MUST kill Tim.

 

Right: Necessarily (if today God knows that tomorrow I will kill Tim, then I will [not MUST!] kill Tim).

 

What if I DON’T kill Tim? Then a DIFFERENT proposition would be true: God would necessarily foreknow that I DO NOT kill Tim; i.e., I can (freely) either kill Tim or not; what I cannot do is escape God’s foreknowledge.

 

Suppose I dispense with God and say that future contingent propositions are true even before the events that they describe happen. This was Aristotle’s sea battle worry.

 

The idea is that if what happens tomorrow is true even today, then the event MUST happen.

 

Same modal fallacy. If tomorrow there is a sea battle, then today it is true that tomorrow there will be a sea battle. If, on the other hand, no sea battle occurs tomorrow, then today it will be true that tomorrow, there will be no sea battle. 

 

Causal determinism: Today it’s true that tomorrow I will have eggs for breakfast, because past antecedent events, like a row of falling dominoes, make it necessary that I have breakfast.

 

The modal fallacy yet again. I am free to have eggs or anything else for breakfast; if I have, say, pancakes, then a different set of antecedent events would have preceded my decision.

 

That is, given a certain set of antecedent events, it does not follow that I MUST choose eggs for breakfast, only that I WILL. To argue otherwise is to fall into the logical fallacy of necessitism.

 

All arguments that determinism precludes free will are therefore false.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Thoth101]

I think many religious entitles don't believe in a freewill because they believe their God does everything for them or that a Satan makes everything bad happen. And that the future is already written in a book. Such as they believe Revelations is the future and it can't be changed.

 

I think it is pretty obvious we have free will. Even a very simple example of it would be. Say you are offered two jobs that you really like. You can chose one to go on one timeline or you can chose the other to go on another timeline. There are always atleast 2 roads.

[sanctus]

I just read in an amazing book (Firefall, peter watts) the best argument against free will o far.

As far as we know neurons fire only on external stimuli, never by themselves QED


So as long as neuorons do not fire on their own, there can be no free will...
 

[Mutex]

Any choice you make is deterministic, but it is deterministic specifically to you. Free will is the product of the structure of your brain (nature) and everything you have experienced up to the point of the decision you make.

 

That is, every choice you make and every decision you make is the product of everything you have done and experienced and who you are, everything that you have experienced and know and how you are wired is specific to you and only you, and the decision you make is the product of those two principles.

 

So it is completely deterministic, but it is deterministic on so many variables (the total of 'who' you are), that it is impossible to determine. So your decision is deterministic but based on factors that are impossible to determine.. 

 

You might choose fish instead of chicken for dinner because it was cold yesterday and once you stubbed your toe! Or because it's Monday, not even the person making the choice is aware of the factors leading up to that decision at that time. Could you have made a different choice, yes sure, even under identical conditions because that's just how 'fuzzy' the brain works. 

[OceanBreeze]

Any choice you make is deterministic, but it is deterministic specifically to you. Free will is the product of the structure of your brain (nature) and everything you have experienced up to the point of the decision you make.

 

That is, every choice you make and every decision you make is the product of everything you have done and experienced and who you are, everything that you have experienced and know and how you are wired is specific to you and only you, and the decision you make is the product of those two principles.

 

So it is completely deterministic, but it is deterministic on so many variables (the total of 'who' you are), that it is impossible to determine. So your decision is deterministic but based on factors that are impossible to determine.. 

 

You might choose fish instead of chicken for dinner because it was cold yesterday and once you stubbed your toe! Or because it's Monday, not even the person making the choice is aware of the factors leading up to that decision at that time. Could you have made a different choice, yes sure, even under identical conditions because that's just how 'fuzzy' the brain works. 

 

I agree with the sentence that I added bold font to.

 

I’m sure everyone here knows about those little robotic vacuum cleaners, that make their way by bumping into walls or using infrared sensors or even 360-degree cameras. I think we can all agree that they all depend on some degree of programming and therefore do not have free will, although their path along the floor is not exactly predetermined; some of it is due to chance encounters with obstacles.

 

So, we can all agree these robovacs do not have free will; but have you considered this from the perspective of the robovac? Perhaps, as seen from the perspective of a robovac, they have all the free will they can ever require or ask for.

 

My point is; if the choices available to us are so complex, perhaps infinitely complex, that we cannot even model them; then we cannot hope to distinguish free-will choices from determinism. And, if we cannot distinguish any difference, as far as we are concerned, there is no difference.

 

If anyone believes there is a difference that matters to us, what do you base that belief on and why do you think it matters?

[Amplituhedron]

I agree with the sentence that I added bold font to.

 

I’m sure everyone here knows about those little robotic vacuum cleaners, that make their way by bumping into walls or using infrared sensors or even 360-degree cameras. I think we can all agree that they all depend on some degree of programming and therefore do not have free will, although their path along the floor is not exactly predetermined; some of it is due to chance encounters with obstacles.

 

So, we can all agree these robovacs do not have free will; but have you considered this from the perspective of the robovac? Perhaps, as seen from the perspective of a robovac, they have all the free will they can ever require or ask for.

 

My point is; if the choices available to us are so complex, perhaps infinitely complex, that we cannot even model them; then we cannot hope to distinguish free-will choices from determinism. And, if we cannot distinguish any difference, as far as we are concerned, there is no difference.

 

If anyone believes there is a difference that matters to us, what do you base that belief on and why do you think it matters?

 

You and Mutex have nicely restated compatibilist free will — the idea that free will is not only compatible with determinism, but actually requires it. Without determinism, how could we reliably predict that our determined choices would produce the desired results? A completely non-deterministic universe would be so chaotic and unpredictable that sentient creatures could not exist at all. Tegmark models this with toy universes consisting of more of fewer spatial and/or temporal dimensions — he concludes that more dimensions would be too chaotic for sentient life (no reliable predictions possible) and fewer  dimensions would be TOO predictable and boring for sentient creatures, which also rely on variety. Our existence in a 3 + 1 metric may be an anthropic effect, the only abode possible for sentience.

 

Today I ate eggs for breakfast, according to certain deterministic inputs from my personal past. Could I have done otherwise? Sure — if past deterministic inputs had been slightly different. Maybe yesterday, if I had eaten some eggs that made me sick, today I would choose pancakes instead.