Does free will exist?

[Reginleif]

Scientists say no. But is everything really predetermined in our lives? How we're going to act, what we're going to become, etc.? Is it possible for there to be a Nature vs. Nurture blend situation where some free will exists along with our subconscious?

 

[LarsINTJ]

I'll summarize the Determinist position:

1. All physical phenomena can be explained causally. Atoms behave in a consistent and predictable manner.
2. Human beings are composed of physical atoms.
3. Therefore human behavior is pre-determined.

Fair enough.

...but is a Determinist willing to accept the consequences of Determinism? These are the consequences:

- Ethical judgement is impossible, nobody is responsible for their actions in the absence of choice. In other words, in the deterministic paradigm, somebody wrecking your car with a sledgehammer is no different than it being crushed by a stray boulder. Would you take a boulder to court?
- It's ridiculous for a Determinist to debate anything because that implies a desire/ability to correct an opposing pre-determined perspective which was neither right or wrong to begin with (due to the lack of choice). A Determinist cannot exclude themselves from Determinism which is supposed to encompass everything, such is to acknowledge the possibility of free will.
- There's no reason to be emotional about anything. Love, happiness, sadness, fear, anger, etc. all of these feelings have no place in a Deterministic universe because they all assert a preference of some sort as well as assign responsibility to specific individuals. There are no preferences or responsibilities in Determinism, everything is what it is and could not have been any other way.

I have never met a Determinist who accepts the inescapable consequences of what they believe. Do they exist? I'll probably never know.

Another thing, the Religious idea of free will is actually fallacious. If there exists an all-knowing god, to possess free will is to nullify that god's omniscience. Anyway, Free will as a result of 'the soul' explains nothing. "Free will exists because I have a soul" is logically the same as "The universe exists because God".

Why do I advocate free will?

1. I am not willing to accept the consequences of determinism, it is an ethical disaster and anti-human.
2. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We as humans possess attributes which none of our component parts possess on their own. This applies to the mystery of life in general.
3. We all intuitively experience free will. Humans are able to imagine possible future scenarios and act accordingly by weighing short term vs. long term benefits. This also serves as a definition for Free Will. It could extend to lesser animals, although only humans are capable of comparing sensory stimuli with prior abstractions/conceptual theories, so not really.

As for nature vs. nurture. Epigenetics explains that we're all born with a set of given genes with a variable propensity to turn on and off depending on environmental exposure (both pre and post natal).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm surprised Lars, you're an atheist yet in a different subject you're willing to believe something simply because you want it to be true, when that's something often those who are religious do themselves. In fact I'm about to point out many forms of fallacies that you have surely faced from them and I shall point them out in the hope it assists your cognitive dissonance. First off, reality is not shaped by what we desire nor am I capable of even trying to skew the universe and humanity in favor of my wish-fulfillment or bias. So your 1. is completely without merit.

Fortunately, there's nothing actually awful about understanding determinism like you believe. No responsibilities and preferences without an arbitrary will that's not bound by the laws of human nature and reality? What definition of love, happiness, fear, and anger must you have for it to be so entirely disassociated with the very things that shape it? It's again much like with religion; without God's existence, what meaning could we possibly have? Without God's demands, what separates our day-to-day actions with murdering and ****** everyone?

Determinism says nothing about there being no preferences, in fact preferences find their explanation in it, they are bounded by what we are and what we've experienced. They are not born from some immaterial force that you cannot logical explain or physically demonstrate. I think you've truly acquired some sort of misconception about the entire concept. The Free Will and Determinism dichotomy only exists to explain how we get where we are, the process, it says nothing about what goes through it. The reasons you are attached to a loved one completely remain in tact, you just understand that it has to do with who you are as a person and what you are as a person and nothing else. This entire discussion is about whether there is that something else.

Your 2. offers no guidance to free will as the conclusion as you simply say that there is something transcendent and that parts in the whole offer capabilities that wouldn't exist without the other parts which would only lead us to believe that the parts interact and depend on one another and not that there is something "mysterious" above and beyond our bodies. And even if there was, it'd be an argument from ignorance which is also used by the religious to pin their belief system on as the explanation.

Your 3. only notes in the first sentence that while we're actively sensing it gives the impression that we're arbitrarily in command without 100% reference to our subconscious and body, even though that's not a real argument possessing any proof and is not odd even from the Determinist's point-of-view. The second sentence regarding scenarios also isn't odd from the Determinist's point-of-view and neither does it show any evidence whatsoever. Nothing about this debate has anything to do with the human's ability to construct images in our mind built with our memories using our body's functions (and absolutely nothing else). This only demonstrates our intelligence, our mental capacity, and has no meaning in this discussion.

You speak of ethics as well, which is yet another topic that has absolutely no involvement in this one in regards to what is the true mechanism for thought and action. You wish for their to be a true ethic so you've pre-determined your destination since you believe it is "needed" for your "needed" conclusion, much like the religious that we would get onto for such bias. Also, the point of laws and the court is for it to exist for humans to learn from, it deters actions by offering negative consequences to our actions, just like how we in day-to-day life don't wish to do stupid or insulting things to others not only because we might not find joy out of it but also it'd make life much more difficult as of consequence. So that is why we'd take a person to court and not a rock, which lacks anything that would allow it to benefit from the process.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I'm surprised Lars, you're an atheist yet in a different subject you're willing to believe something simply because you want it to be true, when that's something often those who are religious do themselves. In fact I'm about to point out many forms of fallacies that you have surely faced from them and I shall point them out in the hope it assists your cognitive dissonance. First off, reality is not shaped by what we desire nor am I capable of even trying to skew the universe and humanity in favor of my wish-fulfillment or bias. So your 1. is completely without merit.

Not a good start. Here's an immediate straw-man and attack on my integrity, although I do apologize if I was not clear enough in the first post.

First and foremost, Determinism ('illusion of choice') is not a scientific fact, it has yet to be proven using the scientific method, if it can be proven at all. When people find a way to perfectly predict all human behavior based on their chemical states then I'll gladly reverse the ideologies I've come to support thus far. As things stand, I see determinism as both a mockery of philosophical discourse and a self-fulfilling prophecy for its proponents.

Yes, there's no way to refute someone who relentlessly insists that every single action is predetermined due to the omnipresence of causal factors, not because they are valid assertions, but because it is utterly irrelevant to do so. Inevitable ex post facto justifications address nothing concerning whether there was choice involved in a particular event.

Yes, there's no way to logically prove the validity of free will since it is an internal experience. We can't prove the content of our dreams either.

So which is true? The answer is subjective. Whether somebody accepts free will or not is entirely preference-based (ironically, Determinists can't have preferences). Does free will serve my interests? Sure it does. Does determinism serve your interests? I assume so.

Fortunately, there's nothing actually awful about understanding determinism like you believe. No responsibilities and preferences without an arbitrary will that's not bound by the laws of human nature and reality? What definition of love, happiness, fear, and anger must you have for it to be so entirely disassociated with the very things that shape it? It's again much like with religion; without God's existence, what meaning could we possibly have? Without God's demands, what separates our day-to-day actions with murdering and ****** everyone?

I know this is difficult to grasp, but responsibility and preferences can only be assigned in the presence of alternative scenarios. If there are no possible alternatives then there are no responsibilities or preferences. Keep in mind that preferences require a value judgement, there is no 'better' or 'worse' in determinism.

Why feel love for someone? They demonstrates behavior and values which are preferable over alternatives.
Why feel happiness? To value your present state over other potential present states.
Why feel fear? You are opposed to a possible outcome compared to other outcomes.
Why feel anger? You would rather a particular event to have played out differently.

Emotion and determinism do not mix.

Determinism says nothing about there being no preferences, in fact preferences find their explanation in it, they are bounded by what we are and what we've experienced. They are not born from some immaterial force that you cannot logical explain or physically demonstrate. I think you've truly acquired some sort of misconception about the entire concept. The Free Will and Determinism dichotomy only exists to explain how we get where we are, the process, it says nothing about what goes through it. The reasons you are attached to a loved one completely remain in tact, you just understand that it has to do with who you are as a person and what you are as a person and nothing else. This entire discussion is about whether there is that something else.

Please don't straw-man my position, did I ever assert that free will is soul-based? No.

Like I mentioned, an aggregation can possess properties entirely opposed to each of its component parts. Do our individual atoms possess consciousness? Of course not. Humans are animate beings composed of inanimate objects. Why is the capacity for choice invalid?

Free Will vs. Determinism focuses exclusively on why, not how. The journey to our current circumstance defines who we are, thus the present cannot be assessed in isolation - both Free Will and Determinism should accept this. Please do not conflate the established definitions.

Your 2. offers no guidance to free will as the conclusion as you simply say that there is something transcendent and that parts in the whole offer capabilities that wouldn't exist without the other parts which would only lead us to believe that the parts interact and depend on one another and not that there is something "mysterious" above and beyond our bodies. And even if there was, it'd be an argument from ignorance which is also used by the religious to pin their belief system on as the explanation.

Yeah... I don't appreciate the straw-manning.

Your 3. only notes in the first sentence that while we're actively sensing it gives the impression that we're arbitrarily in command without 100% reference to our subconscious and body, even though that's not a real argument possessing any proof and is not odd even from the Determinist's point-of-view. The second sentence regarding scenarios also isn't odd from the Determinist's point-of-view and neither does it show any evidence whatsoever. Nothing about this debate has anything to do with the human's ability to construct images in our mind built with our memories using our body's functions (and absolutely nothing else). This only demonstrates our intelligence, our mental capacity, and has no meaning in this discussion.

Oh I see, our intuitive human decision making process (Free Will) is just meaningless, so the opposition can automatically be dismissed! You may want to review this paragraph a little.

You speak of ethics as well, which is yet another topic that has absolutely no involvement in this one in regards to what is the true mechanism for thought and action. You wish for their to be a true ethic so you've pre-determined your destination since you believe it is "needed" for your "needed" conclusion, much like the religious that we would get onto for such bias. Also, the point of laws and the court is for it to exist for humans to learn from, it deters actions by offering negative consequences to our actions, just like how we in day-to-day life don't wish to do stupid or insulting things to others not only because we might not find joy out of it but also it'd make life much more difficult as of consequence. So that is why we'd take a person to court and not a rock, which lacks anything that would allow it to benefit from the process.

I don't know how to respond here without repeating myself.

...

Also, Mr. (Miss?) Heel, you neglected to acknowledge my second point regarding why it's ridiculous for a Determinist to debate anything.

To elaborate, there are some implicit premises in debating.
1. Truth exists independent of consciousness.
Note: What is Truth? A consistent relationship between thoughts and reality.
2. Truth is preferable over falsehood. We debate to realign our potentially false internal states toward truth.*
3. We possess the capacity to change our minds.**

Determinists claim that our internal experience is irrelevant compared to external truth because Free Will is just an illusion, right?
Uh oh. In the act of debating, they implicitly affirm the exact opposite.

"I am (pre)determined to convince you that beliefs are never chosen, nor do they even matter" - Determinist

Here's another one - let's debate about whether our eyes are working!
...Or let's send each other letters complaining about how the mail is never delivered.

*Preferences are impossible under Determinism due to the absence of alternatives, so why is truth better than falsehood?
**We cannot chose to change our mind under Determinism.

...

I consider Free Will to be like a muscle, it atrophies if you don't exercise it.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Not a good start. Here's an immediate straw-man and an attack on my integrity, although I do apologize if I was not clear enough in the first post.

Except you did in fact argue throughout that post that you don't accept the position not out of any evidence or logical consistency but due to preference. You even admit so again in this very post right here.

Whether somebody accepts free will or not is entirely preference-based.

So why are you here in the Debate Hall where we are trying to get to the truth of the matter if you've only come to stick with your personal preference?

First and foremost, Determinism ('illusion of choice') is not a scientific fact, it has yet to be proven using the scientific method, if it can be proven at all. If people find a way to perfectly predict all human behavior based on their chemical states then I'll gladly reverse the ideologies I've come to support thus far. As things stand, I see determinism as both a mockery of philosophical discourse and a self-fulfilling prophecy for its proponents.

Again, it very interestingly parallels the God discussion. "First and foremost, the lack-of-a-God-entity is not a scientific fact, it has yet to be proven using the scientific method, if it can be proven at all. If people find a away to perfectly predict all of the universe based on the natural laws then I'll gladly give up on my religion I've come to support thus far". I'm a determinist for the same reason I'm an atheist: I've never once been shown that we need the existence of a God or Free Will to explain anything and I've yet to find anyone that genuinely understands the concept. And personally, I see Free Will as a mockery of philosophical discourse if it is indeed just as you say, mere preference, as that is a waste of a philosopher's time.

Yes, there's no way to refute someone who relentlessly insists that every single action is predetermined due to the omnipresence of causal factors, not because they are valid assertions, but because it is utterly irrelevant to do so. Inevitable ex post facto justifications address nothing concerning whether there was choice involved in a particular event.

Yes, there's no way to logically prove the validity of free will since it is an internal experience.

So which is true? The answer varies depending on the individual, that's what it comes down to as of now. Does free will serve my interests? Sure it does. Does determinism serve your interests? I assume so.

Serve my interests? To be honest this is not a very interesting topic and I've only developed a tendency to think and discuss it because of my interest in religion and philosophy as a whole, inevitably this kind of topic was put into my face. I've no qualms personally with you picking and choosing things because they serve your interests, in fact I'd otherwise be happy for you, but in here when we're trying to actually understand it in conversation, it is you in this instance, the Free Will proponent, that is useless to speak to, not the Determinist, because the former is the only one with a bias. That is why trying to dissuade a cultist is difficult because arguments concerning logic cannot reason with them, preference and what they're used to reasons with them.

I know this is difficult to grasp, but responsibility and preferences can only be assigned in the presence of alternative scenarios. If there are no valid alternatives then there are no responsibilities or preferences. Keep in mind that preferences require a value judgement, there is no 'better' or 'worse' in determinism.

You're not understanding the concept of determinism which means I've failed to explain it the first time. Determinism makes no judgment on the contents that goes through its mechanism, this entire debate says nothing about who "Holder of the Heel" is or "LarsINTJ" and even walking away with this topic if we were to exchange sides on this topic, me thinking Free Will is true and you being convinced of Determinism, the process goes unchanged despite our "preference".

Our bodies and memories can of course produce "better" or "worse", for again, those are the forces that create "better" or "worse" for us, not some extra part of us. Simply because our bodies and our memories and constant flux of experiences dictate what we end up feeling does not mean we don't feel, for otherwise that is a pretty clear contradiction.

Why feel love for someone? A person demonstrates chosen behavior and values which are preferred over alternatives.
Why feel happiness? To value your present state over other potential present states.
Why feel fear? You are opposed to a possible outcome of an event compared to other outcomes.
Why feel anger? You would rather a particular event to have played out differently (regarding a prior perception of choice).

Emotion and determinism do not mix.

Choice exists for the Determinist too, in fact, if there wasn't a choice this topic wouldn't exist because the question being raised here is "How did we make our choice?" "How did we prefer one over the other and eventually choose it over every other acknowledged possibility?"

The choices that we make, do we make them necessarily, or if we were to say that there were multiple universes that were copies of this one, there would be instances which would diverge from the original path because there's an arbitrary element in play?

This idea you have of Determinism is false and it leads me to believe you've not researched the concept or listened to people smarter than anyone you'd find here discuss the topic at length because no one ever makes the claims you're trying to make here. You're framing the idea of Determinism in a such a way that no one will or ever has defended it. It's an entirely causal issue.

And once more, saying that simply because there wasn't some third-party force going on in this process does not change the biological drives and psychological processes going on that literally makes up the topics your saying is mutually exclusive with determinism. I'd argue Free Will and emotion don't mix for it necessarily speaks less for the body and mind by being by definition separate from it (for otherwise it'd simply be another cog in the machine and no longer be whatever a "free will" is). In fact, insofar as it is "free" and not predetermined it lacks values and preference for it'd necessarily be impartial.

Please don't straw-man my position, did I ever assert that free will is soul-based? No.

I didn't say you were, I was trying to demonstrate the parallel between it and a soul because I know you dislike the latter. After all, before we can use reason to talk about this fully I have to appeal to your tastes as that is what you've admitted to be the heart of the matter right now.

Like I mentioned, an aggregation can possess properties entirely opposed to each of its component parts. Do our individual atom possess consciousness? Of course not. Humans are animate beings composed of inanimate objects. Why is the capacity for choice invalid?

Consciousness is just a name we use to describe an effect that is acquired by the parts being together the way they are. That doesn't mean there is "something" "more" than the parts. When we put together a car and it works, it isn't something more than the pieces and processes we used to make a functional vehicle, we just say it's only a car when it's finally put together and not when the pieces are apart because we've assigned a name to the utility of the combined parts.

Free Will vs. Determinism focuses exclusively on 'why', not 'how'.

No, it's the latter. This is not an existential question we're pondering here, it's purely mechanical and because it's such a metaphysical question we're left with philosophizing about it.

The journey to our current circumstance defines who we are, the present cannot be assessed in isolation. Both Free Will and Determinism should accept this. Please do not conflate the definitions.

I agree, but the mechanism that processed those circumstances does not mean anything about who we are.

Oh I see, so our intuitive human decision making process is meaningless in this discussion about Determinism vs. Free Will. In other words, the notion of Free Will is automatically meaningless, it can be dismissed without reason. You might want to review this paragraph a little.

No it's fine, you're just misunderstanding it. The mere fact that we're actively sensing and thinking does not = Free Will, but I acknowledged that it certainly gives the impression that it does. However, Free Will and the ability to use our sensory data and body to construct images that we call possibilities does not mean we're appealing to some third-party force if we look back at the fact that I'm using my body, memories, and subconscious to do all of this.

Also, Mr. (Miss?) Heel, you failed to acknowledge my second point regarding why it's ridiculous for a Determinist to debate anything.

I already did by telling you that this has nothing to do with the existence and nonexistence of desire. You've continued to treat it as if it has to do with a way of living (this is not a topic of ethics) but it's not nor has it ever been that way. Again, the idea of determinism you've built to defeat is purely of your own construction and does not represent the debates, lectures, research, etc. that has been undergone since it began and I've never once seen it treated as such. I'd recommend looking up on it some more.

 

[LarsINTJ]

By the way, I added to the previous post and reworded most of it to be clearer.

I'm not going to respond anymore for the sake of self-respect.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

As you wish, although I think you would hold more self-respect by not letting yourself believe you're disrespecting your ego so pettily. Just my opinion though. That, and this doesn't have to be such a personal and insulting exercise for anyone, we're here to try and understand things together and enjoy ourselves.

Also, to the OP, I don't know why a new topic was made when on this page there was one that you could've revived provided you offered an opinion, and if you didn't, you could've read through it. Click here to see it for yourself.

 

[Thor]

I can choose to dress ugly or I can choose to dress nice - I don't believe that sort of thing is pre-determined every single day. If it is then I'm never EVER going to realize it.

And people can overcome their biological natures - James Fallon was studying brains often talked about "killer's brains" and when he did a random scan of various people, one had the brain and he was like "This guy is a classic killer." Turns out it was him = he'd overcome his own nature according to himself without even realizing it. Here's a link to an article about it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

I might end reading more of this later, I just read the OP and I don't think science actually say no at all.

 

[Deleted member]

As much as I'd like to think that free will does exist, I highly doubt it. Assuming the big bang really happened, because of the laws of science everything after that would've happened in a predictable way, the same as with knocking over a domino and the rest falling over. From there, life would've been created as a result of the predictable domino effect, with our genetic make up, environment, etc. also resulting from the domino effect. Since things like our genes, environment, etc. shape everything about us, we're nothing more than a bunch of sentient dominoes.

 

[Sucumbio]

If there's any argument at all that suggests the Universe is truly random and not bound to fate, it's in the exploration of The Uncertainty Principle. Which involves a lot of math and I hate math so it's all you, yo.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Determinism is compatible with free will... properly defined. At any rate, determinism is compatible with a notion of freedom sufficient to establish ethical responsibility, and we may reasonably call this notion "free will". This deterministic freedom is self-determination, that is, freedom from coercion.

When your choices are products of your identity, then you deserve praise or blame (responsibility) for them, even though your identity is ultimately determined by outside influences. On the other hand, when your 'choices' are overwhelmingly due to external circumstances, with your identity playing a negligible role, then you're blameless because they aren't genuine choices. The practice of assigning responsibility gets its utility in this manner by incentivizing ethical behavior.

 

[Warlock*G]

Does free will exist? Here is an interesting video on that very subject:

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'm sure the answer to the question might be academically interesting, but it doesn't seem relevant to one's experience, in the end.

In the actual world, one of the following must apply:

-All of my actions, past, present, and/or future, are (pre)determined (I have no agency);
-All of my actions, past, present, and/or future, are not (pre)determined (I have agency).

Yet in the actual world, I have the experience of agency -- even if, fundamentally, this experience of agency is in itself determined.

So, a world that is determined and a world that is non-determined are virtually indistinguishable, since in both, I have the experience of making my own choices. As a result, the question of whether Free Will or Determinism apply is not relevant to he experience of daily living. We feel as though we experience agency, so what does it matter whether we do or don't in the grand scheme of things?

I think this position is known as Compatibilism, though I'm not well-read enough in the subject to present myself as an avid compatibilist, nor to effectively defend that stance. I simply find it agreeable due to its emphasis on pragmatism, since it focuses on the common denominator between these binaries (i.e. one's subjective experience).

... Even so, I'll say that I do lean toward determinism being likelier than authentic agency, in the ultimate scale of things. When you have such things as the conscious experience being (greatly) influenced by subconscious input and physiological stimulus, for one, it's more difficult to say with confidence that indeed, I am utterly the author of my every intention, action, and thought, conscious or otherwise.

I'm less savvy in the science behind theories of time, but this also complicates the issue. If all frames of time (past, present, future) exist simultaneously (as per B-Theory), then all my actions are determined; my life, then, is simply the experience of flipping through the mental states of Sehnsucht's frames, arranged along the timeline of the universe. An infinite multiverse would also eliminate agency, for while my "choices" cause divergent universes, all choices I can conceivably make are being made, have been made, and will be made, due to the infinite range of outcomes.

B-Theory seems less strange than A-Theory, which advocates a definitive "present", wherein the past is determined, but the future is not, and time is being written one "frame" at a time (this point called "the present"). It's an intuitive idea, since we experience "the present" at any moment, but it also means there is a privileged, objective frame of reference, which doesn't sound compatible with the Theory of Relativity (in which there exist no privileged frames). But again, I don't know quite nearly enough to make any more sophisticated a point than that, so don't tase me, bro.

So there's my negligible contribution to this thread. 8D

 

[AfungusAmongus]

... Even so, I'll say that I do lean toward determinism being likelier than authentic agency, in the ultimate scale of things. When you have such things as the conscious experience being (greatly) influenced by subconscious input and physiological stimulus, for one, it's more difficult to say with confidence that indeed, I am utterly the author of my every intention, action, and thought, conscious or otherwise.

Why should we regard deterministic agency as false or superficial or apparent (opposite of authentic) agency? There's agency (a property of minds related to causing effects in the world), and then there's this absurd expectation that each mind be uncaused.

There is a problem of free will only for those who think that the notion of the voluntary can be metaphysically deepened. [...] What threatens it is the attempt to make it profound, and the effect of trying to deepen it is to put it beyond all recognition.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Why should we regard deterministic agency as false or superficial or apparent (opposite of authentic) agency? There's agency (a property of minds related to causing effects in the world), and then there's this absurd expectation that each mind be uncaused.

Mm, yes. Authentic isn't the right term.

I was looking for a term to express how agency in Free Will scenario would be maximal, in that the agent dictates the future without predetermined (e.g. future set in stone) or determined (e.g. agency as sum of unconscious neurological processes) influences. Which is to say, that authenticity in agency increases as conscious influence on choice is further uninhibited by other factors external and internal.

In my layman encounters of notions of Free Will, this is usually how I've seen it framed -- that the agent's conscious experience is the sole author of that agent's decision-making process, as only then can the Will be said to truly be Free.

If agency is the capacity of a mind to enact causes, then agency in both scenarios is equally as authentic, so the term becomes void of meaning. Best to throw all notion of authenticity away, then. XS

And nice quotes, by the way. Minds being uncaused is indeed an immensely bizarre proposition, to say the least.

Thanks for catching my poor language!

 

[AfungusAmongus]

My pleasure! Let me consider your comments re: physics.

I'm less savvy in the science behind theories of time, but this also complicates the issue. If all frames of time (past, present, future) exist simultaneously (as per B-Theory), then all my actions are determined; my life, then, is simply the experience of flipping through the mental states of Sehnsucht's frames, arranged along the timeline of the universe. An infinite multiverse would also eliminate agency, for while my "choices" cause divergent universes, all choices I can conceivably make are being made, have been made, and will be made, due to the infinite range of outcomes.

Quantum mechanics seems to violate causality, motivating the multiverse theory (many-worlds interpretation). This theory bothers me, so I'd rather revise our notion of causality (and therefore our notion of agency). How exactly, I dunno. Quantum mechanics are pretty weird.

B-Theory seems less strange than A-Theory, which advocates a definitive "present", wherein the past is determined, but the future is not, and time is being written one "frame" at a time (this point called "the present"). It's an intuitive idea, since we experience "the present" at any moment, but it also means there is a privileged, objective frame of reference, which doesn't sound compatible with the Theory of Relativity (in which there exist no privileged frames).

Relativity preserves causality, so our usual ideas about agency are adequate there (although our notion of "simultaneous" becomes velocity-dependent).

 

[Sehnsucht]

Quantum mechanics seems to violate causality, motivating the multiverse theory (many-worlds interpretation). This theory bothers me, so I'd rather revise our notion of causality (and therefore our notion of agency). How exactly, I dunno. Quantum mechanics are pretty weird.

True. I was referring to topics about the Philosophy of Time (A-Theory and B-Theory). The hard science of Time makes things even more difficult to parse.

By violation of causality, do you mean non-linearity, or actual breaks in causal chains? I recall that radioactive decay is apparently utterly spontaneous, violating causality (i.e. it can't yet be explained how radioactive decay is caused, since there's zero way to predict that decay). I forget what other QM effects violate causality; maybe virtual particle pairing and quantum foam shenanigans. If you know any, I invite you to list some.

That QM effects violate causality isn't relevant to one's experience of agency, since I experience my agency just fine in spite of being the sum of random quantum processes. But I agree that if, at the fundamental level, causality is incoherent, then it may have implications for both determinism and agency.

How might quantum decoherence affect this issue? Is it an actual phenomenon, or is it just a posited band-aid to reconcile the apparent causal behaviour of the classical scale, and the non-causal behaviour of the quantum scale? If you don't know, no need to strain yourself; I'll likely look into it anyway (that is, if I remember to).

Relativity preserves causality, so our usual ideas about agency are adequate there (although our notion of "simultaneous" becomes velocity-dependent).

*brainfart*

I'm certainly a physics enthusiast, but I daren't say that I know the first thing about Relativity. I will take your word on this, however. 8D

 

[Sucumbio]

The issue is that at the quantum level things don't behave as they do at the atomic or larger level. This suggests that causality is the illusion but i submit that causality is still the correct model unless we were to experience the universe AS quantum beings. Then we may learn more, or rather be able to prove that somehow both models exist. As it is now we can't even see quantum particles we can only notice their effects. There is little real world data or explanation for things like one particle existing in two places but with opposite rotation, etc.

Though i think time travel worm holes transporters and other sci-fi bull crap will be made possible by exploring these concepts. Then again it could be a dead end. There's even a mathematical concept surrounding the calculation of the worth and difficulty of specific math problems lol

 

[_ToAsT_]

So I finished watching a movie called "Cabin in the woods" and it got me to thinking about something I believe to be interesting. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd say it's worth the watch (at least for understanding this post). Not to give too much away but things are put in front of people in the movie to see how they react to it. Based on what they do would decide whether they live or die and how and even though that wasn't supposed to be full point of the movie, it did get me to thinking about that concept.

For those who believe in a god who knows what you're going to do before you do it or believe in predetermined fate, what do you think of it instead being the possibility of things being put in place from a higher being to see how one would react as opposed to a higher being already knowing the outcome of a situation?

I would believe in the first rather than the latter because if you really think about it, how boring would it be for a higher being to already know exactly what someone is going to do up until the moment they die and why would "free will" even exist in the first place? I mean wouldn't that mean that every thought isn't of your own, but instead the thought of an already preconceived idea with an already predetermined outcome, and wouldn't that also mean that everything you do was already precalculated up until the moment of death and how one dies?

I'm not going to go into specifics for any specific god because that's not as much as important as the idea of predetermined fate as opposed to objects or obstacles set in place to see how one would handle it. I would like personal opinions only and ideas that are of your own rather than a scripture of some sort or what you've been taught to believe. So, thoughts?

 

[Other]

Does it matter? Not trying to be rude or anything, but I want to seriously pose the question. We live, we make choices (whether it is actually us making the choices or not) and we die. There is no real point to asking questions like this because we can't find the answer, and the answer itself holds no real value or meaning. If we knew we had free will, something impossible to prove, then nothing would really change, since most people already assume they do. If we don't, something pretty much just as impossible to prove, then everything was predetermined and once again, nothing would be changed.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Does it matter? Not trying to be rude or anything, but I want to seriously pose the question. We live, we make choices (whether it is actually us making the choices or not) and we die. There is no real point to asking questions like this because we can't find the answer, and the answer itself holds no real value or meaning. If we knew we had free will, something impossible to prove, then nothing would really change, since most people already assume they do. If we don't, something pretty much just as impossible to prove, then everything was predetermined and once again, nothing would be changed.

This is the sentiment I touch on in my first post in this page, above.

A world where Free Will exists, and one where it doesn't, is indistinguishable to the experience of living. As a result, it doesn't matter which applies, since I will nevertheless have the experience of making my own choices. And in the end, my experience is all that matters, since I am my experience.

Finding the answer to these questions will only serve to give me more variables to factor in the process of my decision-making. But the questions are still of academic interest, if only to further narrow the gaps in human knowledge. So finding the definitive answers, whether through philosophy or science or whatever else, is worthwhile for that alone.

 

[Other]

This is the sentiment I touch on in my first post in this page, above.

A world where Free Will exists, and one where it doesn't, is indistinguishable to the experience of living. As a result, it doesn't matter which applies, since I will nevertheless have the experience of making my own choices. And in the end, my experience is all that matters, since I am my experience.

Finding the answer to these questions will only serve to give me more variables to factor in the process of my decision-making. But the questions are still of academic interest, if only to further narrow the gaps in human knowledge. So finding the definitive answers, whether through philosophy or science or whatever else, is worthwhile for that alone.

However, pursuing the question of free will for the sake of deciding whether or not we have free will doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it is incredibly unlikely we will ever have a definite answer. So, the only things we can gain from asking the question are the realizations and discoveries that we find along the way. In a way I am countering my own argument, but I do believe there is a reason to think about the existence of free will if we don't think of it simply as a way to find one answer to one question.

 

[Sehnsucht]

However, pursuing the question of free will for the sake of deciding whether or not we have free will doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it is incredibly unlikely we will ever have a definite answer. So, the only things we can gain from asking the question are the realizations and discoveries that we find along the way. In a way I am countering my own argument, but I do believe there is a reason to think about the existence of free will if we don't think of it simply as a way to find one answer to one question.

Indeed.

My point was that the only real value in the answer is to have the answer -- to complete our picture of knowledge. And secondarily, perhaps knowing might help us make more informed decisions, concerning our choices (since making informed decisions is generally preferable to uninformed ones). But we're certainly doing fine as we are without this knowledge.

Also, I don't know that it's necessarily impossible to determine how "free" our wills might be. Perhaps, in the furthering of our understanding of space, time, quantum mechanics, probability, biology, and more, we might be able to uncover with greater clarity to what extent the laws and rules of reality influence our choices, and how much agency we might objectively possess. Though this level of understanding is likely still some time away from us.

And yes, discussing matters of agency is useful, if only as a mental exercise to get us thinking about how we go about making choices, and if there are better ways than others. Hence the fun of philosophy.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

By violation of causality, do you mean non-linearity, or actual breaks in causal chains? I recall that radioactive decay is apparently utterly spontaneous, violating causality (i.e. it can't yet be explained how radioactive decay is caused, since there's zero way to predict that decay). I forget what other QM effects violate causality; maybe virtual particle pairing and quantum foam shenanigans. If you know any, I invite you to list some.

I was thinking of the double slit experiment. Particles are launched one at a time towards a wall with 2 slits, and depending on the arrangement of detectors, each particle is either a wave spreading out through both slits (creating an interference pattern over many trials), or a point particle passing through one or the other slit. Detectors can be arranged after the particle has passed the wall yet still - retroactively - determine the path through one (or both) slits.

Physicists are still trying to work out whether quantum mechanics threatens causality, publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Nature. Some philosophers (David Ellerman) argue that the apparent conflict is due to a logical fallacy, but I believe that the threat is real.

That QM effects violate causality isn't relevant to one's experience of agency, since I experience my agency just fine in spite of being the sum of random quantum processes. But I agree that if, at the fundamental level, causality is incoherent, then it may have implications for both determinism and agency.

How might quantum decoherence affect this issue? Is it an actual phenomenon, or is it just a posited band-aid to reconcile the apparent causal behaviour of the classical scale, and the non-causal behaviour of the quantum scale? If you don't know, no need to strain yourself; I'll likely look into it anyway (that is, if I remember to).

Decoherence is real, and successfully explains why quantum mechanics are so different from everyday life. Waves are coherent if they match up so that they interfere with each other, stacking to form a distinct pattern. Any event that destroys the interference pattern is called 'decoherence'. Large ensembles of particles bumping into each other (ordinary matter), traveling as waves only between collisions, have vanishingly small chances of keeping a coherent pattern.

 

[Xcano]

As far as I am aware, scientists have said nothing on free will. But I will say this. You cannot change the past. If you did it would've already been changed. If we assume the future exists and that we're just "catching up" to it then we wouldn't have free will, we would just be filling out what has already happened.

 

[Xcano]

Free will doesn't exist not because of a hypothetical god, but rather because time is immutable and unchangeable. We can't ever change the past even with a time machine, and because of that we can extrapolate that we can't change the future either.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

There are predetermined factors to life that you are born into such as race and sex. However, I believe the level of significance that race and sex have on one's future is largely dependent on income. Economic status of your family and the support network around you tend to be the largest contributing factor to being able to exert one's free will as there are several severe monetary restrictions placed upon those who are raised in families that have very little.

Families that have very little for instance may be denied reliable living conditions, transportation like cars, and time to spend raising children if they have to work multiple jobs to make income to support the family. Even if a child is a prodigy in a valued area, they are still subjected to be legally forced to scale with a setting of impoverishment around the age of seventeen or eighteen when they are allowed to drive and take on jobs outside of their local area which is likely not in a good area.

Gender and sex play a huge part in predetermining what roles you potentially serve due to impoverished areas largely having jobs that are centered around age and sex. However, opportunities that scale with talent primarily exist for those who are privileged and have sufficient income to take on a skill set beyond a subsistence existence. I don't think that we even need to involve a God in this conversation when considering this question because the monetary game right now is so pronounced that some people are pretty much screwed regardless of how much potential they could bring to society.

 

[_ToAsT_]

There are predetermined factors to life that you are born into such as race and sex. However, I believe the level of significance that race and sex have on one's future is largely dependent on income. Economic status of your family and the support network around you tend to be the largest contributing factor to being able to exert one's free will as there are several severe monetary restrictions placed upon those who are raised in families that have very little.

Gender and sex play a huge part in predetermining what roles you potentially serve due to impoverished areas largely having jobs that are centered around age and sex. However, opportunities that scale with talent primarily exist for those who are privileged and have sufficient income to take on a skill set beyond a subsistence existence. I don't think that we even need to involve a God in this conversation when considering this question because the monetary game right now is so pronounced that some people are pretty much screwed regardless of how much potential they could bring to society.

#HBC, I can see where you're coming from in some areas. I can definitely agree with you on the matter of not being able to choose what family, race, and gender one is born into/as, but I'm not sure if you're fully answering the question. What I mean by this is to my understanding and going by your logic, if one was poor and wanted to buy a car, they'd not be able to buy a nice one due to insufficient funds and this is a predetermined matter. Now that person would have to settle for a cheap car if that person could buy one at all.

But.. let's pretend this person knew a friend who was really wealthy and this person wanted to borrow some money from this wealthy friend with the promise of paying said person back with possible interest. This poor person has a possible settlement coming in soon that could more than pay off the money borrowed. Now let's also pretend that this person somehow said "yes" so now this poor person can indeed buy that luxury car they wanted.

Now let's also say that this same scenario happened but with a different outcome; that wealthy person said "no." The question is would this scenario be predetermined regardless of the outcome of whether or not the person said yes or no or would it have been the free will of the individual who came to this conclusion all on his own? In other words, is everything we do in this world already decided before we even do it so no ideas, opinions, etc. are of our own, or does free will exist for things that can be controlled (like yes or no answers) and it's not already pre-decided to what we'll say and or do? This is the question to be answered.

Free will doesn't exist not because of a hypothetical god, but rather because time is immutable and unchangeable. We can't ever change the past even with a time machine, and because of that we can extrapolate that we can't change the future either.

Xcano, that's a very interesting theory. Based off this logic, does that mean it was predetermined that this post was going to be posted on Smashboards by me , already decided that you were going to read this post, and predetermined that you were going to reply to it? Wouldn't that also mean that your post wasn't an idea all of your own and not created by your own thoughts, but instead something that was predetermined for you to respond with? If that's also the case, am I really talking to you and who or what's behind your thought that made you respond to this post if it is predetermined that you were going to do it? Especially if there isn't a god.

 

[Xcano]

It's me replying, my thought processes allow me to do this. Like, hold on. Say some rocks are falling down, they won't kill me, just bump me on the head and make it hurt a little. But before this can happen, my future self shows up and pushes me out of the way. When I become my future self, I go back and push myself out of the way.

The universe/god/whatever could care less if I got bumped in the head. It was my decision to go back and save me. So I guess it's more like "you're predetermined, but your will still matters"?

 

[LightlyToasted]

I don't think time is as linear as people seem to be saying it is. The future as a concept exists, but it does not exist as an actuality until it happens, in which case it is no longer the future. All of these terms are just abstractions to help us understand and survive day to day, perhaps one day full grasping the true concept of time.

 

[LoveGame]

There's a quote from Legacy of Kain that really hits home with me:

"Our futures are predestined. We each play out the parts fate has written for us. Free will is an illusion."
I can't say I completely believe this ideal, but it is really interesting to think about, especially if you believe in that "other side of the coin" business.

 

[Koga_]

I believe we have free will but each of us have different limitations on this free will. For instance, one can concentrate their all into being an all star hockey player but if they have a disqualifying disease of some sort this will destroy those hopes they had of "willing" themselves to their ultimate goal. And since the disease occurred, the said person's "fate" was predetermined in a sense

 

[Vic]

I think the notion of free will in religious context is nonexistent (at least in the sense of Christianity), and free will is also limited if you choose to not believe in said religion. Each of us are born with "X-factors", unchangeable variables about our being that do affect the the way our lives play out such as, unfortunately, the color of our skin, the social class we were born into, and so on. Someone born in Little Village in Chicago who may have the will to aspire to be of a certain profession might not have access to that realistically due to their economic standing; on the opposite end of the spectrum someone born in a wealthy suburb can utilize their free will in a plethora of ways thanks to the aformentioned X-factors of their living condition.

 

[LordCarlisle]

Well, there certainly isn't free will in any religious sense of the term. Having some all-knowing deity that has already orchestrated our fates and knows what will happen to all of us destroys that concept. Though as an atheist, I don't believe this to be the case, and I don't think it's even worth discussing.
The question is whether we're slaves to chemical reactions to our environments, or whether we actually have control over our choices.

 

[AlMawile]

Being a Muslim, free will is more symbolic than anything else. It represents the ability to do what we want within our limits. I will quote a saying from one of our religious figures to better understand this.

"An atheist came to the Imam Ali (as) and asked him, "How can free will and predetermined fate exist at the same time?" Ali told the man "Jump up and down." The man did so. "Now jump up, but don't come down." the man replied "I can not do this, because I can't fly." Ali said "This is how you have free will, but also destiny."

This shows that we can do whatever we want within our abilities, but our natural barriers, like genetics, place of origin, resources, and others affect our outcome. At the end, we will go to a certain point, but it's how we get their that counts. Simple example from the Monkey's Hand. The parents wanted 500 dollars. They received it, but through bloodmoney paid by the company due to their son's death. If they had gotten 500 dollars through thoughtful ways within their own capacities of judgement, even with the use of the monkey's hand, they could have gotten 500 dollars in a better way. They would have gotten 500 dollars either way.

Hope you understand what I mean.

 

[JoBee]

My take on this question is that free will definitely exists. We all already understand that we can we choose what we do because we are autonomous beings. Concerning how this free will influences our fate is the tricky part. I do somewhat believe in a higher power but I don't believe that that higher power determined what each of our whole lives would be like even before conception. I feel as if our fate is determined as we go along with life. Whenever we perform an action there is a consequence, whether you see it or not, somebody is affected by your actions and your actions determine the fate of yourself as well as others.

Regarding unchangeable traits that we receive at birth such as gender, skin color, or risk of/possessing certain diseases, I think this is all just science and sometimes luck of the draw.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

@ AlMawile : do you believe God is omniscient and omnipotent? This is different from the kind of 'predetermined fate' or 'destiny' in your story. An omni- God continuously determines everything, not just your ultimate fate, and is thus a more serious threat to free will.

 

[toadster101]

Of course we have free will. That doesn't necessarily mean that we will get what we want, but we may certainly try. You don't get to choose your skin color, no, but you are free to do as you please within the confines of your genetic makeup. This whole notion that our decisions are predetermined by, say, God, or even the universe itself, doesn't jive with me for a variety of reasons. Would we have the ability to question whether or not we have free will if we were nothing more than sentient machines? Would you program AI that is able to question, and potentially rebel against its maker?

What we need to do is separate "free will" from "destiny". While it may be true that some individuals are hindered by their living conditions or upbringing, I don't believe for a second that anybody is destined to follow a certain path. Every decision we make, even something as minor as deciding on what to wear, can have a dramatic impact on the rest of our lives. Let's say you decide to wear a flannel shirt and you meet a woman who, for whatever reason, is turned on by the idea of being ****ed by a lumberjack. She asks you out on a date, and you two get married several months later. But what if you wore something else? What if you simply chose not to leave your house that day? Just like the universe itself, I think our lives are influenced, not by destiny, but by luck. However, we have the ability to rig those odds in our favor, thereby proving the existence of free will.

 

[AlMawile]

@ AlMawile : do you believe God is omniscient and omnipotent? This is different from the kind of 'predetermined fate' or 'destiny' in your story. An omni- God continuously determines everything, not just your ultimate fate, and is thus a more serious threat to free will.

No. It is actually quite the opposite.

Being a Muslim, our concept of God, or Allah, is not "I am God, I created this world, now I do whatever i want and you have to suck it up." It's more like "I created this world with certain laws that guide the nature of this universe. These natural laws are what guide your fate." Free will, in our religion at least, is our ability to do anything within these laws. God, or Allah, has always said that he has knowledge over all things. He only says he has power over all things when talking about the Heavens. He has given us free will so that we are the rulers of this earth. It is how we use this power/free will that God will test us on at our death. He only intervenes when he thinks that even our own free will can not solve our problem. Most of the time, we can, which is why he doesn't solve our problem. He wants us to. This is the Islamic concept of God anyway.

Hope that cleared that up.

 

[Braydon]

Assuming quantum physics work in a predictable way that is just beyond our grasp, and therefor everything truly is predetermined, that doesn't mean humans lack self control.

When people say everything is predetermined, they look at the world as one long equation, all the factors are guaranteed to have a certain result and therefor it's predetermined. However in such an equation, the person is a factor, and therefor they partially dictate what the result is, what they do still matters, if it is predetermined it's just because they are who they are, and they make the choices they want to. Maybe put in the same situation they always make the same choices but that is inherent to who they are.