free will

[Whatwhat]

"As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." - Albert Einstein, 1943.

Once you see the universe as nothing more than a massively complex series of natural phenomena you realize that understanding everything happens for a reason doesn't make it any less random or fun when things happened unexpectedly.

This quote of Einstein merely proves how human he was because God does play dice with the universe. Well you can say that nobody is playing dice with the universe but things do happen randomly and the quantum level does influence your decisions. Your decisions are basically neurons comunicating with each other via electrical signals and guess what electrical signals and other particle-particle interactions are very random so you can say that free will exists becuase of this. Of course you could say that from the outside of our universe this is all predetermined (if there is an outside) but we are here and we are restricted by the fact that we experimenting inside a system (it would as if you would try to do surgery on yourself)

TLDR Randomness at the level of electrons does strongly indicate a presence of free will (some things are more probable to happen but you have the possibility of deciding anyway you want to).

Source: I am physicist (well I am studying to be one).

 

[Single Shot]

"As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." - Albert Einstein, 1943.

Once you see the universe as nothing more than a massively complex series of natural phenomena you realize that understanding everything happens for a reason doesn't make it any less random or fun when things happened unexpectedly.

This quote of Einstein merely proves how human he was because God does play dice with the universe. Well you can say that nobody is playing dice with the universe but things do happen randomly and the quantum level does influence your decisions. Your decisions are basically neurons comunicating with each other via electrical signals and guess what electrical signals and other particle-particle interactions are very random so you can say that free will exists becuase of this. Of course you could say that from the outside of our universe this is all predetermined (if there is an outside) but we are here and we are restricted by the fact that we experimenting inside a system (it would as if you would try to do surgery on yourself)

TLDR Randomness at the level of electrons does strongly indicate a presence of free will (some things are more probable to happen but you can decide literally anyway).

Source: I am physicist (well I am studying to be one).

Except the context it was initially used in that quote is Einstein's rebuttal to that very concept. he was postulating that all actions and reactions follow a set of causal links, including those we don't understand yet. It suggests that electron movement is ordered, but follow a system so complex we see it as disorder. This is basic level Chaos Theory where all systems follow set rules but appear random because a tiny change in the input creates vast disparities in outputs.

 

[Da Orky Man]

So lets say that you're right and genes, experience, and surroundings completely dictate every action a person makes.

In theory that would mean that since a parent has the same genes as their child, and shares their child's surroundings, and knows all of their child's experiences up to a certain age (lets say it's a stay at home parent with a single child, and the child doesn't go to school yet), then that parent should be able to predict that child's behavior with 100% accuracy.

Talk to any parent in the world and they will all tell you that children are unpredictable as hell.

Bam, free will.

Not quite.

Consider that, at the moment of the big bang, every molecule had a definite position and velocity. If you somehow knew those attributes, you could calculate with 100% certainty what the universe would look like in a second's time. And two seconds. And three seconds.

Repeat that for a few billion years, and you have now. Since everything had a definite position and velocity, everything that has happened was always going to happen, and nothing you do can change it. The signals in your brain were always going to move in the precise pattern to get you a D on the Chemistry paper, but an A in Computing.

Therefore, free will does not exist.

 

[zumbledum]

So lets say that you're right and genes, experience, and surroundings completely dictate every action a person makes.

In theory that would mean that since a parent has the same genes as their child, and shares their child's surroundings, and knows all of their child's experiences up to a certain age (lets say it's a stay at home parent with a single child, and the child doesn't go to school yet), then that parent should be able to predict that child's behavior with 100% accuracy.

Talk to any parent in the world and they will all tell you that children are unpredictable as hell.

Bam, free will.

the humans are gods defence. i cant do it so its not possible.

i throw 100 dice up in the air after they have left my hand the only thing that is going to affect them is the momentum i gave them , the forces of gravity and air resistance, temperature pressure the friction of the floor their weight etc all measurable affects so its mathematically very easy to predict what all these dice will "roll" theres nothing difficult in the maths involved its all high school stuff if you know all the details. and ofc we dont know or have any way to divine the details so we call it random.

It is NOT random.

a humans thought is vastly more complex. why does our inability to work something out mean its not predictable?

we cant make a self sustaining fusion reaction , does that mean the sun doesnt exist anymore?

 

[maninahat]

I'd say OP is just arguing semantics. If we are defining free will as something that isn't affected by any outside influence, then nothing can be free will. Every "decision" is made based on the sum of these factors. That's how decisions work.

Most people define free will as the opportunity to make a choice in the first place. Someone like Kant may say that you always have a choice: that even in a country where media or drugs are banned, you can still choose to state your opinions in the press or take drugs (despite certain punishment). Generally though, what people mean by free will is that they can make such decisions (writing a news blog/lighting a spliff) without having that decision heavily influenced by a major, negative external influence (prison sentences/beatings).

People arbitrarily flip flop between a Kant version of freewill, and the other one I just described. For example, technically, you are free to jump in the cactus patch if you want, but the fear of pain will strongly discourage you from doing it; so do you have the luxury of free will in this situation, or is it the same as the punitive government, and another case of you being forced towards one logical decision? People would usually pick the former, despite it being exactly the same scenario in a different outfit.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Free will is a rather pointless subject. People like to argue that a deterministic universe (or at least deterministic biology) means that there is no free will. Rarely do they define free will though.
Here's what google says:

noun: free will
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

If you choose the first definition then there is no free will, if you choose the second then there is.

 

[PromethianSpark]

Free will exists, regardless of whether or not one wishes to believe in it. Same as love and mental illnesses (yes, I have heard of people saying that Mental Illnesses don't exist, it is all *made up* in the person's mind).

I am not going to elaborate on an absurd question like this, as there is no point. There is little chance to sway someone who so devotedly believes that free will doesn't exist that it actually does. Let them believe everything is "written in stone". I will be over here living my life to the fullest that I can.

While I have already conceded in this thread that arguments for determinism can never actually prove that there is no free will, I doubt you or any one else can muster a decent argument for its existence, other than blind faith thinly veiled in bad examples of 'choice' in action. I suspect this is the real reason you do not try. Even my philosophy professor who staunchly defended freewill against me and the other determinists in the class, admitted that he could only say that he believed in free will and could produce no rational argument for it. It is in the nature of our consciousness (itself a product of the brain) that we perceive the world and ourselves as though we have free will, but this is no more a guarantee than it is that we all perceive colours the same. Staunchly holding on to the idea of free will in the absence of a rational argument suggests to me an inability to be skeptical of ones own perception of reality and/or a profound attachment to a narrative of self.

On the subject of mental health that you brought up, I am aware of people who deny its existence. I live in Northern Ireland where there are many 'hardcore' Christians who also deny its existence. It is funny though that you brought this up, because it seems that the chief reason they do so, is that they find objectionable its use in explaining and excusing (to some degree) human behaviours. In other words, it strongly conflicts with their world view of the connected concepts of Free Will, Sin, and Judgement. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the idea that murdering a child is an irredeemable Sin for which you will burn in hell, with the idea (or fact) that a women experienced such crippling and psychosis inducing post-natal depression that she murdered her child in a fit of insanity. An idea that is even legally considered a temporary lose of free will. TO believe in free will and mental illness simultaneously is like saying that we have free will, except for when our brain chemistry alters sightly. To which I ask, what is the magic balance of brain chemistry that produces free will, and if all people have slightly different brain chemistry, how does that even work?

Finally,your contention that you will be 'living [your] life to the fullest that [you] can',thereby implying that those who do not believe in free will are somehow lacklustre, cynical or depressed is completely absurd. I have believed in determinism since I reached the age of reason, and anyone who knows me knows I have a zeal for life. I don't even need to prove that, the very idea is a house of cards. Its like Christians believing that atheism results in some existential crisis that causes depression at best, and evil at worst. Even in you are not an atheist you must surely know that is not the case. Abstract believes about the nature of reality and our place in it rarely, if ever, influence how we think, feel and behave.

 

[Whatwhat]

"-snip-

TLDR Randomness at the level of electrons does strongly indicate a presence of free will (some things are more probable to happen but you can decide literally anyway).

Source: I am physicist (well I am studying to be one).

Except the context it was initially used in that quote is Einstein's rebuttal to that very concept. he was postulating that all actions and reactions follow a set of causal links, including those we don't understand yet. It suggests that electron movement is ordered, but follow a system so complex we see it as disorder. This is basic level Chaos Theory where all systems follow set rules but appear random because a tiny change in the input creates vast disparities in outputs.

Well Einstein very famously hated the very concept of Quantum Mechanics and he spent the latter part of his life trying to disprove it (might I add that unsucessfully). You are right that there still is a possibility that there is a set of rules that eliminates the randomness but to see the rules you would have to looking at it all from the outside. For example if you are trying to determine the position of particle then how do you do it? You could possibly fire a photon at it and see if it is there. The shorter wavelength of the photon the more you know about the position of the particle but you bump it with a photon and give it momentum (you give it more momentum as it has a shorter wavelength). So to conclude this thread you can't possibly tell at the present moment if there is a free will or not. Statistically speaking there isn't but with every individual person there is could be a certain amount of free will.

 

[PromethianSpark]

The chicken and the egg is also one of the most debated philosophical debates despite the fact that we have a definite answer for that question. Or the falling tree when no-one is around to listen. The fact that it's widely debated doesn't mean it's actually a good subject. Although the free will is quite interesting.

I am only being playful, but tell me, what did come first? (I Of course have an idea myself). As for the tree thing, biocentrism certainly renews that debate.

 

[PromethianSpark]

As I said, I am not going to take this seriously. Give me candy.

You ridicule an idea and perspective with out taking the time to learn anything about it. There is a word for that.

 

[zerragonoss]

snip

He is not ignoring since hes pointing out that their is a difference between the scientific definition and the social definition, and that difference is what the question is made to make you think about. Are you saying that it is impossible for people to have different definitions of a concept depending on their point of view?

On topic their are several ways to look at it. To start off is all the determinism argument assume the reality of the physical world. which is not really provable from withing the physical world.
To look at while assuming the physical world is real we can look at three definition of free will. One that exist for each person an independent entity that makes their decision and that exist outside the physical world, aka the soul. Two That all these that all these factors that make up your decision are you, so even though is just physics going to work its still qualifies as your choice. Three, the one I use, that you have an original cause influencing decisions through the law of physics.
Now when accepting the physical world you have to address infinite regress which is something pure causality can not do, as everything has to be because of something else. You run into problems going in two directions, More fundamental (What make the laws of physics work, than what makes those work ect), and origin of matter (where did stuff come from). From here you can fit in free will in two ways. first that each person has their own presence in the fundamental laws of physics. They are a unique set of rules that act only in very specif circumstances, or they have their own type of particle. Second that all your decision where made by a you at the creation of the universe, so things are deterministic now but are still made by an independent entity.

 

[PromethianSpark]

As I said, I am not going to take this seriously. Give me candy.

Posts on a forum, doesn't like to read....

I ridicule nothing. As I have said, I am not going to put in the time and effort to learn something that is complete bullshit.

 

[Yopaz]

The chicken and the egg is also one of the most debated philosophical debates despite the fact that we have a definite answer for that question. Or the falling tree when no-one is around to listen. The fact that it's widely debated doesn't mean it's actually a good subject. Although the free will is quite interesting.

I am only being playful, but tell me, what did come first? (I Of course have an idea myself). As for the tree thing, biocentrism certainly renews that debate.

I'll keep this short since it's been a long day, but the chicken came first because evolution would have to happen during embryology.

Now the process would be slow and gradual and generations upon generations of recombination, selection, mutation, random coupling, genetic drift and some other factors making the chicken, but all of these steps would happen in the egg phase thus the chicken is first.

He is not ignoring since hes pointing out that their is a difference between the scientific definition and the social definition, and that difference is what the question is made to make you think about. Are you saying that it is impossible for people to have different definitions of a concept depending on their point of view?

There's only a philosophical conundrum when you are ignoring the physical explanations, thus if he insists on making it one he can only do so by ignoring the science.

 

[Delance]

Any debate would be pointless if free will didn?t exist.

 

[PromethianSpark]

I'll keep this short since it's been a long day, but the chicken came first because evolution would have to happen during embryology.

Now the process would be slow and gradual and generations upon generations of recombination, selection, mutation, random coupling, genetic drift and some other factors making the chicken, but all of these steps would happen in the egg phase thus the chicken is first.

Well you thought about this completely different than me. I would have said the egg came first, because something that was not quite a chicken laid an egg from which a chicken emerged. A gross simplification granted, for at what point is an organism a chicken?

The falling tree... well that's simply the law of physics. Energy can't disappear or we'll violate the strongest laws known, the laws of thermodynamics with no known exceptions.

If biocentrism is to be believed, as absurd as it is, isn't every thing/event basically Schroeder's cat? The tree exists in a state of having fallen and not, until it is observed by a living thing.

 

[zerragonoss]

There's only a philosophical conundrum when you are ignoring the physical explanations, thus if he insists on making it one he can only do so by ignoring the science.

I don't get the problem. Biology would define sound as the effect going on in the recipients brain. Physics by the vibration in the air. They are both science, and they both have their uses. So how is accepting that their are multiple possible definitions for sound unscientific?. The tree falls in the forest question is just supposed to make you look at the fact that you can look at if from different angles.