FREE-WILL?

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:11 pm Post subject: FREE-WILL?

Considering its such a fundamental and controversial question in philosophy, religion and law, I think its about time we did a thread on Free-Will... so here it is!

Ok, Free-will: for or against?

Results (total votes = 16):


Free-Will exists	11 / 68.8%

Free-Will doesn't exist	3 / 18.8%

Don't know	2 / 12.5%

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Shoot...I thought it said Free Willy!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Damn I was worried about that! I've tried talking to the guys at work about it but all I get is free willy jokes! :lol

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Quite some time ago I came to the conclusion that free-will doesn’t exist but is merely an assumption or an illusion. I surmise that my every action, every choice, every thought, is not down to my own determining, stemming from some abstract state which matter cannot touch… but is a random sequence of cause and effect. Most people I’ve scratched the issue with instinctively find determinism pretty hard to grasp, but that is where I believe the logic lies. Its an emotive issue to a human and is of the utmost importance in religion so perhaps this has inherently debased the layman’s ability to look at it objectively. Quantum theory and its observation of purely random fluctuations at the atomic level upset traditional determinism *slightly* but it did nothing for free-will either.

I challenge any free agents to explain the means by which their ‘will’ is free. I find it physically impossible in the laws of the universe around us.

Tim

Interbane · Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

I believe the vast majority of the universe to be deterministic, yet I believe there are 'forms' that deal with chance. Quantum Mechanics seems a logical place for chance to exist, issuing causality that prevents the absurd idea of me writing this sentence having an unbreakable causal link to the big bang.

Parsimoniously, our complex present coming to exist through the lack of chance is not as simple as attributing it to chance. That statement I'm sure is debatable, yet once the idea is fleshed out I'm sure you'll agree.

EDIT - Reduce the singular action of any person as far as theoretically possible and you'll stop above the point where I assume chance to exist. On the other hand, follow a causal chain from the point of randomness(quantum mechanically) all the way through to a person's action, and you may see that chance affects our actions via the butterfly effect.

Edited by: Interbane at: 11/29/04 7:57 pm

Doc Tiessen · Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Hey Interbane,

I agree with you. I also believe that many things in the universe are deterministic... but randomness does indeed exist... it can be that it is small... at the quantum level... but as you said... even if it is very tiny, the consequences can blow up like the butterfly effect.
So, yes I believe that randomness exist because the universe is only nearly deterministic. The more you simplify, the more predictable it will appear to be. But God lies in the details.

You want an experimental proof? Ok, just measure anything you like several times... for example the distance between your eyes and your nose... how many times do you get exactly the same result for exactly the same measurement? You might get 2.567 2.610 2.582 centimeters. But why did you only measure four digits?
You will never get exactly the same result. Only if you simplify... by using only to significant digits, then you might get the impression that you are getting the same result. Approximately 2.6 cm.
But if you consider more and more digits, you will always get slightly different results.

And if you remember my early posts, I had defined randomness as when identical conditions can lead to different results. Randomness and free will are very tightly linked. However, the existance of both is rather an axiome, a scientific premise. It is not possible to provide definitive evidence. You can choose to believe or not. You either choose determinism or free will. This are the two options.

Diversity is Good!

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:22 am Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Hi all

I certainly agree that there (probably – but not definitely) are truly random events at quantum level… we may be surrounded by prime movers but we may not dictate where, when, or how, a prime mover takes place. So indeed, there may not be a causal link back the big bang as previously thought by the first determinists. But why should that equate to free-will? As I pointed at earlier: an area of the mind would have to be somehow detached from the events around us to be able to make pure free-will observations and choices.

Presently - but not dogmatically - I believe untainted free-will has to be a ‘ghost in the machine’ hypothesis. I don’t believe in a soul. However I can believe in the existence of a self – a metaphysical place where a repertoire of experience is amassed and organized, made meaningful and active, but its composites are still deterministic. Where is freedom injected?

Evolutionary mechanisms may have sculpted us into vastly complex systems but I don’t see how we can transcend the laws of physics - we are still cold, mechanical, biological computers. We may passively experience the passage of time but that experience is still firmly rooted in the universe and is hence slaved to its situation and that situation’s antecedence.

Free-will is an old axiom but perhaps it has lost its value and has become a hindrance, grossly simplifying everyday people’s perceptions. Most people have never even thought to question it. On a more terrestrial and practical level I’ve come to believe that our judicial system is out sync with the reality of accountability. Just as within Judaic religion; in law we place too much emphasis on blame and persistently loose track of causality… leading us to neglect real preventative measures.

For the record here is the dictionary.com definition of Determinism:

“The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.”

Tim

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:13 am Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Free-Will exists - this was my choice.

But, with that said, I should add that I think there are many factors influencing our behavior that most us do not or cannot understand.

I'm on the way out the door right now, so I don't have enought time to adequately respond to this poll, but it is an excellent discussion topic.

Chris

Interbane · Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:33 am Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Tim: "Free-will is an old axiom but perhaps it has lost its value and has become a hindrance, grossly simplifying everyday people’s perceptions."

Yet on the other hand, assuming that free will is limited or nonexistant and acting on that assumption are two different things. From our collective perspectives, the complexity is so great that many peoples actions reflect free will. How can we claim to trace cause and effect of actions back to a curable source?

Also, if my example came across as an idea that would attribute very little 'free will' to our actions, let me expand on it.

The stimulation part in the acronym "laser" is due to a natural phenomenon called synchrony. A domino effect is caused by the 'state' of certain (I think it's electrons), affecting the state of all the other electrons in a system. The end result is that the electrons emit a photon as energy. If the original few states of these photons were to vary due to a certain chance is what the critical state required to emit a photon is, the end result would vary with every 'cyclic' emission.

Inside our brains, electrons are the message carriers in each neuron, and neurotransmitters bridge the gaps. If the energy level needed to fire off and electron included an amount of chance, then a domino effect may occur.

I believe that that 99% of everything I do is predetermined. Yet I do think that 1% free will(or even less) is more than sufficient to change the course of every day.

While walking down the sidewalk and casually taking steps, one random electron fires in the motor control portion of my brain, causing an imperceptible twitch in my leg, which lengthens my stride a minute amount. A woman walking the toward me has the same thing happen to her, and her stride lengthens during one step. Upon passing each other, the minute variance has lead to our hands brushing, causing me to look over my shoulder. Is this a poor example of free will? Yes, but I like the example. I can give others if it doesn't satisfy. Others that are more attuned to the decision making process.

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:16 am Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

For some reason my previous post seems to have died. I'll do it again...

Interbane: "assuming that free will is limited or nonexistant and acting on that assumption are two different things. From our collective perspectives, the complexity is so great that many peoples actions reflect free will. How can we claim to trace cause and effect of actions back to a curable source? "

Practically putting free-will under the spotlight will be limited affair. But to a degree we have learned to embrace cause and marginalize choice as civilizations have become more advanced. Today we have areas in law and rehabilitation that take into account the deeper reasons why people commit crimes and whatever else. This is what I’m talking about; I’d like to see more of that in every area of life. Much of the media is miles behind in regard to this. I think I’m just trying to say that it would be progressive for people to see themselves and others in a more causal, less independent way… it would bring us closer to that elusive freedom!

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in accountability when the floodgates of experience are open to a person… such as our Political top brass.

Interbane: "The stimulation part in the acronym "laser" is due to a natural phenomenon called synchrony. A domino effect is caused by the 'state' of certain (I think it's electrons), affecting the state of all the other electrons in a system. The end result is that the electrons emit a photon as energy. If the original few states of these photons were to vary due to a certain chance is what the critical state required to emit a photon is, the end result would vary with every 'cyclic' emission."

I’ve never heard this theory before, got any links more comprehensively describing it? Are you saying that we might have evolved a way to harness and exploit a cyclic quantum condition in order to attain ‘free-will’ by way of emitting a photon stimulant? At the minute it sounds more like a way the brain functions and interacts with randomness, but I see no prerequisite for independence or freedom in that. Sorry if I’m off the scent on this, bare with me.

I’ve heard scientists postulate that the mind operates like a biological quantum computer but never really understood how.

Interbane: "I believe that that 99% of everything I do is predetermined. Yet I do think that 1% free will(or even less) is more than sufficient to change the course of every day."

I’d agree with that, I’m still looking for the 1%.

Interbane: "While walking down the sidewalk and casually taking steps, one random electron fires in the motor control portion of my brain, causing an imperceptible twitch in my leg, which lengthens my stride a minute amount. A woman walking toward me has the same thing happen to her, and her stride lengthens during one step. Upon passing each other, the minute variance has lead to our hands brushing, causing me to look over my shoulder. Is this a poor example of free will? Yes, but I like the example. I can give others if it doesn't satisfy. Others that are more attuned to the decision making process."

I don’t want to be awkward but I still can’t see a 'free' action in that. I can see a truly random action with meaningful consequences however, which I don’t deny happens.

Cheers

Tim

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: Intervention

Hi Doc.

Do you go for the interventionist/libertarian theories in free-will?

What makes you say the mind is more than a biological computer program?

Tim Nonzero · Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:05 am Post subject: Quantum Confusion

I think one of the key issues in free-will and moral responsibility would be ‘Is the past fixed’ or ‘could a subject have done otherwise’. Intuitively I would say that once the time has passed I would say yes it IS fixed, and NO the subject could never do otherwise. I suppose this is the back bone of my hard-determinism.

This might get you thinking…

Hypothetical 1:
Say I was to pause the universe in a minute’s time, replicate it, and then set the two universes off again simultaneously.... while observing from a distance, I estimate that the two would universes would be much different within a short period. This would be down to quantum irregularities; truly undetermined events.

Hypothetical 2:
If I was to re-wind the events in this universe, in this dimension, and play them back, would they play out exactly the same way? Intuitively I say yes.

…but my friend tells that Quantum theory says no. He says this relates to the ‘is the apple in the box when I close the lid’ conundrum, and is not simply down to quantum randomness.

All this is leading me to question my concept of time. I read a bit about block time (or 4dimensional time) where it alluded that all time is fixed including the future and the present… which sounds like old-school determinism, before the advent of quantum theory! I’m quickly becoming confused. Can anyone shed any light on what he’s getting at?

Tim

Interbane · Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:08 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum Confusion

Tim: "Say I was to pause the universe in a minute’s time, replicate it, and then set the two universes off again simultaneously.... while observing from a distance, I estimate that the two would universes would be much different within a short period. This would be down to quantum irregularities; truly undetermined events."

I think you might be interested in the multiverse theory. It states that at those points in time where the outcome of an event is random, all outcomes are real, yet they are each only in one universe. The other outcomes branch off into other universes, creating an ever expanding multiverse. It sounds sci-fi, but it's been gaining some backing from well known scientists.

About the humor of using the word machine; The power of inference that this word holds isn't at first obvious. Those of us who see similarities between our loose will and machines balk at the connection, as we are mostly not creationists. The connection infers that we are created, in a sense, and not self creating. Machines are created by humans, so if humans share characteristics with machines, is it also likely that we are created?

In a sense, I think we were created, not by an onmipotent creator overseeing every detail, rather the physical laws of the universe using itself through trial and error to create a replicating self awareness. This distinction fits better in my worldview. Yet at the same time, I'll maintain that humans still retain a bit of uncontrolled will in contemplation and decision making. We cannot know if this is true or not, so I will hold to the idea that leaves most separation between myself and machine.

Tim: "I read a bit about block time (or 4dimensional time) where it alluded that all time is fixed including the future and the present… which sounds like old-school determinism, before the advent of quantum theory! I’m quickly becoming confused."

Sounds like the thermodynamic arrow of time, an explanation of which you can find in Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

That is, if only time is fixed. Time being fixed would not set many parameters on how events in the universe play out, it merely means they play out at the same speed/rate of time.

irondemon · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:14 am Post subject: Re: FREE-WILL?

Interbane:
I think you might be interested in the multiverse theory. It states that at those points in time where the outcome of an event is random, all outcomes are real, yet they are each only in one universe. The other outcomes branch off into other universes, creating an ever expanding multiverse. It sounds sci-fi, but it's been gaining some backing from well known scientists.

I hope my intrusion doesn't interrupt the flow of this, a most interesting thread. I found myself pondering the multiple-universe or multiverse theory just yesterday, and I have a question: how can the definition of the word universe comport with a theory of multiples? Isn't a universe, by definition, that...substrate (I think this is a Kantian use of the word) within which all things must exist, if they are to exist at all? My sticking-spot seems to be more semantic in nature. If there are such divergences at those points wherein an outcome is said to be random, shouldn't we call the result a divergent world, and not a divergent universe? Multiple universes appeas to me as a self-contradictory label. Has it also been dubbed the many-worlds hypothesis? I seems to me that I've read that somewhere.

Interbane · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:27 pm Post subject: Multiverse

I just posted a big post and it was erased, how irritating.

To summarize, I think it's a matter of semantics, where we change the definitions of words with eruditional progression.

New theories require new words and changed definitions for understanding.

Edited by: Interbane at: 12/9/04 12:29 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT