This is taken from the Boot topic, but is more relevant here, so I'll reply to it in this thread. I usually don't like the "quote - reply" format, but oh well.
This is what I said after altf4warrior said that science proved free will nonexistant, which is what he made a thread about. I have th thread open right now, and these are some of the things he said:
"Free will has a couple of problems when trying to reconcile with physics. The most major issue with having choice is that it violates a very fundamental principle of science: Causality. To quote the matrix: “You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect.”"
- causality doesn't violate free will. To use your billiard analogy, what if a person grabs the stick, or takes away one of the balls or the cue ball? Also, the matrix isn't a reliable source to quote as a scientific reference.
I think you meant to say "free will doesn't violate causality". So I'm going to assume that's what you meant to say.
You are choosing another arbitrary action for the person to take in the billiards analogy. This does not change the effects of the analogy, however. Whatever action the person takes will have a causal chain of events, and leads right into the rest of our discussion.
Also, I used the Matrix quote as an anecdotal aside, an artifact to illustrate that which I am discussing. It is in no way evidence of what I later discuss and was never intended to be.
"Events in the present cause things to happen in the future. Things that are happening in present were caused by events in the past. Every cause has an effect, and every effect was made by a cause. It is a basic, fundamental, essential assumption that must be made for anything to make sense. All of human history can be summarized by the gradual realization that things in the world happen according to physical laws, and not by whim or superstition. It is impossible to stress just how important causality is in science. Without it, there is no reason for anything that happens. Any scientific theory that comes about that contradicts causality is assumed to be false. In fact a typical method of disproving a theory is to show that it violates causality."
-You are already assuming that free will doesn't exist when you make your decisions. How about in a chess match, if your opponent moves somewhere, you can move several different ways. If you have been trained to play chess, you can see the good and logical ideas. But you can choose to do something foolish, like attack with your king. what if people don't always react? What if we could react in more than one way? We would have free will. But you assume that we don't haev free will in this argument, and you say that every cause only has one definite effect. But that isn't something you can prove by assuming youare right tand then proving it. And that is a poor summary of human history, because why has faith grown? And why are more people going to church? Are all those people foolish?
I do not see how I am presupposing free will doesn't exist, but that's okay. Also, I don't quite see the point of your chess example. You say "what if people don't always react?" "what if we could react in more than one way?". Well, okay. What if? Saying "what if?" is not an argument for anything.
Also, I never say that every cause has only one effect. That is in fact false. Every cause has an effect, but it is not the same effect. Such a world would be deterministic, but we'll get to that in a moment.
"But that isn't something you can prove by assuming youare right tand then proving it" This just plain doesn't make sense. If I assumed I was right, I wouldn't need a proof. I assumed it.
"Put another way, go down the evolutionary list and ask yourself: “Does this have free choice?” Humans, dogs, rats, flies, ants, grass, bacteria? From a biological standpoint, we are not in any relevant way different from these other organisms that we assume to not have free will."
-Yes, we are. We have a written language, more complex brain, and a belief in God, right and wrong, which non of those other things have. Biologically, we also walk on our feet and have opposeable thumbs. But look psychologically, and that is where free will is from.
The ability to understand written language, having a belief in a god, having a sense of morals, walking upright, and having opposable thumbs are not definitive Human qualities. There are humans that exist without each of those.
The "advanced" brain is the only thing in that paragraph worth mentioning. At a surface level, this sounds like a valid place to insert free will, but it is not. I already addressed this in my previous thread when discussing causality. All actions must come from a causal chain leading to the brain. But it cannot begin there. To do so would be to violate causality.
Um, what about my thing with animals and courage which is true? And your billiard analogy? You stated that free will was like a billiards game with out any proof.
You misunderstand again. The billiards analogy is just an illustrative technique. It is not a definitive proof by itself. It is used as a frame to help make sense of the actual argument. The real argument comes in 2 forms. Causality and the problem of emergence.
another quote by altf4warrior in his free will topic:
" How this affects the topic of free will is that Quantum Mechanics destroys the previous possibility of determinism. It was thought before Quantum Theory that if you were to know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at one point in time, you could predict the future from that point forward. We now know that this is false. "
You are assuming that quantum mechanics id right, specifically the theory called the Copenhagen interpretation, where there are functions in space that if you observe them they will change into infintiely many and different futures.
Where's the proof there? You just stated someone else's theory on something you cannot see or guess, and that few people are smart enough to really understand.
It would appear that your experience in theoretical physics comes entirely from Wikipedia. I'll give you some info.
1) The Copenhagen Interpretation is not a scientific theory. It is a qualitative description to try and make conceptual sense of quantum mechanics, which is notoriously difficult to understand at a high level. I am not relying on the Copenhagen interpretation because it is impossible to do so.
2) Where's the proof? The proof is in Quantum Mechanics. This is not something I made up. This is a well known result from Quantum Mechanics.
Determinism is impossible for two reasons:
a) The Uncertainty Principle: It is impossible to know precisely the position and velocity of any particle at any time. This is not an observational phenomenon, this is a quality of matter itself. If there is a god, not even he can know the position and velocity of a particle at any time. Because particles do not HAVE a position and velocity. Their existence is nothing but a probability distribution.
We can describe the probability distribution precisely, but not the particle itself.
b) A cause does not always produce the same effect. Every effect must have a cause, and thus creates a causal chain, but it does not do so in a deterministic fashion. Given a cause, we can describe at best the probability of various effects, but it is not 100% for any potential outcome.
This is derived from the uncertainty principle. If a cause always produced the same effect, you could use that fact to violate the Uncertainty Principle. You could run an experiment once and measure the position of a particle. Then run it a second time and measure the velocity.
Here is a meta-statement: You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science itself. Science is provisional, it is the best guess that we have at the moment, given the information we have.
Science changes vastly and quickly. One small discovery can lead to an entire paradigm change in thought. And this is welcomed with open arms.
A belief should be based on evidence. There must be a reason for someone to believe in something, and this is what science is about. It is not about "proving" things. But rather the pursuit of knowledge.
When talking about Free Will, it becomes abundantly clear that every shred of evidence from many facets of knowledge all converge to one clear answer: it is impossible. There is no evidence to the contrary. That is why I believe what I do: because it is what the evidence currently indicated.
You, on the other hand, have already decided that you believe in Free Will (for apparently religious reasons) and are merely trying to rationalize it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
