Does free will exist?
- Thread starter Spectral Dragon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hawgh said:
It really doesn't matter whether the universe is deterministic or not, random chance is not any more "free" than determinism. A (metaphorical) dice roll in your brain is not a choice.Twilight_guy said:
With no particular quote because there are too many to pick from, I must take issue with people who say something like "I choose to do this" or "there are some things we choose". The "I" or "we" in such statements is a collection of things (memories, instincts, a brain to process them) determined by previous events in the universe (and perhaps random chance). So the fact that you choose something does not mean that choice was not determined by previous events, because you yourself are determined by previous events (and random chance perhaps).
We have free will in sense that we are the things which make up our mind, we lack it in the sense we cannot do something which is both non-determined and non-random, not because that violates any specific physical law, but simply because it is logically impossible - what is something that is not determined if it is not random?
Theories can always be wrong, lots of good theories that could easily be "proven" have been proven wrong. Someone could believe that quantum theory is wrong and since it's not a law they could be right. Probably not, but they could be.nobleee said:
It's pretty much a pointless discussion, in my opinion. While you can be tied down by biological, social, and situational pressures, you always have the choice not to follow them. Or even to take a third option. There's no real room for a free will discussion because even if you FEEL trapped, you never truly are.
More philosophically:
You believe life is opened-ended, a series of choices, a naked frolic through the twin fields of possibility and freedom and thus free will exists...
OR
You believe that all choices are pre-determined and the immovable hand of destiny *****-slaps you down a path you have no power to change, so free will doesn't exist.
There's really no middle ground unless you think destiny is some slightly lenient force that only pushes you in a certain direction or calls once in a while to see if you want to hang out.
But then again, the original concept of "destiny" really didn't have any wiggle room. Destiny was unchangeable, so that *****-slap was coming your way whether you liked it or not.
Either way, there's no way to go back to the past, despite what we all wish, and so there is only one path things will ever take. Whether you believe it's just one path of infinite possibilities, or the only path that can happen is just a matter of personal preference.
Then there's that scientific theory that EVERYTHING in the universe, including your own choices as a person, are predetermined on a physics/chemical/biological/atomic/blahblah level down a path that was put in motion at the big bang or whatever.
Personally I think that's a terrifying theory.
The very fact that we're having this discussion at this time could just be the result of SCIENCE, you guys.
Personally, I try not to think about this topic. If you do want to, remember: either side has positives:
(free will: we're free! endless possibilitieeeees)
(destiny: no use worrying about things because it's all meant to be)
negatives:
(free will: Responsibility for all misfortune you encounter/regret)
(destiny: there's no point to all of this/depression.)
More philosophically:
You believe life is opened-ended, a series of choices, a naked frolic through the twin fields of possibility and freedom and thus free will exists...
OR
You believe that all choices are pre-determined and the immovable hand of destiny *****-slaps you down a path you have no power to change, so free will doesn't exist.
There's really no middle ground unless you think destiny is some slightly lenient force that only pushes you in a certain direction or calls once in a while to see if you want to hang out.
But then again, the original concept of "destiny" really didn't have any wiggle room. Destiny was unchangeable, so that *****-slap was coming your way whether you liked it or not.
Either way, there's no way to go back to the past, despite what we all wish, and so there is only one path things will ever take. Whether you believe it's just one path of infinite possibilities, or the only path that can happen is just a matter of personal preference.
Then there's that scientific theory that EVERYTHING in the universe, including your own choices as a person, are predetermined on a physics/chemical/biological/atomic/blahblah level down a path that was put in motion at the big bang or whatever.
Personally I think that's a terrifying theory.
The very fact that we're having this discussion at this time could just be the result of SCIENCE, you guys.
Personally, I try not to think about this topic. If you do want to, remember: either side has positives:
(free will: we're free! endless possibilitieeeees)
(destiny: no use worrying about things because it's all meant to be)
negatives:
(free will: Responsibility for all misfortune you encounter/regret)
(destiny: there's no point to all of this/depression.)
Incorrect use of scientific terminology. The word "Theory" in science does not convey doubt like it does in casual conversation, scientific theories are very well supported - gravity is a theory. A scientific law is based on a single observation whereas a theory is based on many observations, that is the distinction, it is not based at all on levels of certainty. The scientific word for what casual conversation would call a theory is a "hypothesis".Twilight_guy said:
Well, first I believe you mix up the expressions "scientific theorem", "theorem" and "law". To fill you in, a scientific theorem is what we consider to be a law (i.e. a law of physics), a theorem is an educated guess. Above, the word "theorem" is meant as "scientific theorem". Other than that, you are right in the sense that we cannot actually be sure that we know anything about anything, but such a view is not very pragmatic. This since then we can no longer assume that the chair you are most likely sitting on will not randomly disappear.Twilight_guy said:
Edit: Just noticed Supertask was quicker than me to explain this, to him or her: well done
Sorry, poor choice of words. What I meant to say was:GLo Jones said:
"Why? Because my conscious mind sorted through a number of possible images and chose one for it's vibrant absurdity and a quiet reference to a classic Disney film that most people on the forums are unlikely to get."
My post to you was perfectly civil - in fact, I only posted in this thread because you were so thoughtful and insightful in your post. In what way was I obnoxious to you?GLo Jones said:
And if you're commenting on my treatment of a previous poster who now resides on my ignore list, I could once again list all the ways he insulted everyone who disagreed with him, but it would honestly be easier to link you to my previous post on the matter.
Of course free will exists
I can choose to post in this thread
I can choose to pay my taxes
I can choose to have a family
I can choose what to spend my money on
I can choose where I live
I can choose the company I keep
I can choose who I do business with
I can choose to post in this thread
I can choose to pay my taxes
I can choose to have a family
I can choose what to spend my money on
I can choose where I live
I can choose the company I keep
I can choose who I do business with
I took a Philosophy of Religion class in college. The professor said true Christians can't believe in free will. If God knows what was, what is, and what will be, somehow it has to have been predetermined. You can't have free will if God knows what you are going to do. If you change your mind, God knew that was going to happen too, so how do you call that free will?
Yes, I know that. Let me demonstrate by example before you pedantically reply again.Supertask said:
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
Numerous scientific theories with strong evidence to support them and many proved hypothesis have in fact been wrong. The scientific community has ardently believed in them but been shown new evidence and thus had to change there theory. For example, before plate tectonics scientists didn't just throw there hands up and say "I don't know how the earth works" they had a theory. They had evidence for that theory. SO much so that when Alfred Wegener presented his idea of plate tectonics people didn't immateriality just go "well okay" they showed how there theory worked and said he didn't have the evidence to support his hypothesis. 50 years later that changed as new evidence came to disprove the old theory and show that plate tectonics was in fact correct. In this way, even though scientific theory has lots of evidence to back it up and many proved hypothesizes, theory is not in fact fact, it can be shown to be wrong. In fact the ability to show that it might be wrong is a part of every good hypothesis and thus every good theory. Saying "I proved this with some hypotheses shown to work with it" and then never ever admitting it might not be 100% correct is not science, it's zealotry. It will also get you kicked out of any scientific community faster then you can bat an eye. The moral of the story: science is not about absolutes about best explanations. Think about that the next time you post your canned explanation of how a the word theory differs in its meaning between every day use and scientific use.
Maybe I messed up the terms, science tends to be anal that way. I'm just saying that its possible that free will doesn't exists because there is a small chance the universe is deterministic. It's not a practical view but scientists must always be open tot he possibility of being wrong or they risk manipulating science to achieve there own prejudiced ends and that's a big no-no.nobleee said:
Technically we don't. Whatever we do is decided by one type of chemical balance, and that balance is out of our control. If given enough variables, a computer could predict without fault how someone would react in any situation.
Well, my opinion depends on my mood, but I like to imagine that there is some part of the personality outside of the observable brain; the soul, perhaps. And that part of the mind is not simply dictated by cause and effect; we can make a conscious decision to go against the choice that our physical brains push on us. However, I suspect that I am a rationalist at heart, so I don't truly believe in this, I just wish I did.
Twilight_guy said:
Very true indeed. And I apologise for assuming the misuse of the words. However, at some point I still would argue that believing that nothing is certain is not very pragmatic, some things we assume to be true until proven otherwise. However, as you point out, there is of course the chance that it is not true, that chance there always is, but thinking much about it in real life is not very pragmatic.Twilight_guy said:
//nobleee
Edit: As you say, of course as a scientist one is always open for the chance of a theorem not to be true. In fact, most physicists I know rather embrace it.
This is exactly right.Saippua said:
So you made the choice to come to this thread. Okay. That choice was dictated from where? Your brain. What is your brain? It's stuff. It's some seriously complicated stuff, but it's still just stuff. You make decisions. Right. The you making these decisions is your self, your consciousness--ultimately, your brain. Again, your brain is stuff. It is influenced by DNA, by experiences, conditions, etc. Choice comes from the mechanics of your brain. If you believe in true free will, then you basically believe that the human brain transcends normal existence. But it doesn't, does it? It's made of the same kind of matter as everything in the universe. It's a unique, highly effective and complicated arrangement of matter, but it isn't transcendent.
While it is true that science advances by refuting previous ideas, all of these "theories" were weak to begin with. Most of them were not even real theories by scientific standards. Phrenology was never backed up by hard evidence and Spontaneous Generation, Phlogiston and Aether all date back to a largely pre-scientific age - and all fell when exposed to scientific scrutiny. Blank Slate was always a philosophical and never a scientific theory and Cold Fusion was a single experiment (which was never replicated), performed by individuals unqualified in the relevant field, that merely created a media fanfare (not really a hard thing to do).Twilight_guy said:
Arguably, no. I do not have the free will to fly, nor do I have the free will to walk through walls.
But that's merely a definition type of thing.
I think that, within the laws of physics, free will of end exists, but free will of means does not.
But that's merely a definition type of thing.
I think that, within the laws of physics, free will of end exists, but free will of means does not.