When someone makes a choice, is free will involved? Or, is the choice merely determined by the state of the universe?

In other words, if all the causes in the universe were somehow known, could every state of the universe at any time be determined? Or, is there a non-causal free will involved in making choices?

I can't really answer to either direction, primarily because I believe that it is Chaos that is the ruling determinator of the universe. I do, however, believe that the free will of yourself and others is part of that Chaotic system.

As such I do believe that free will plays a big part in the universe at large.

Loremaster wrote:I believe that it is Chaos that is the ruling determinator of the universe.

Are all attempts to find order in the universe -- to develop philosophic tools, to attune oneself spiritually, or to discover scientific laws -- fundamentally misguided?

...the free will of yourself and others is part of that Chaotic system.

A bit of nitpicking, but how is the universe chaotic if it's also systematic? I thought chaos was absence of system.

My views regarding Free Will are heavily related into my view on time and such. Time is like a track. It flows in one direction, never ceasing its move forward. Thus, when a choice is presented to you, you have the "free will" to make a choice, BUT when that choice is made, you can't change it, so how do you know if you could have made the other choice to begin with. We are the culmination of our experiences and influences, thus choices made that we perceive as Free Will are, in fact, already determined up to that point. Call it the hand of destiny or whatever. The point is that you can't change a choice once made. Even if you go and encounter the same thing, it's still a different choice because you have more experience and have already changed the rules of the game. People think there's a chaotic element to the universe, but really it's like a Rube Goldberg machine, just complex system leading you infinitely on. Since Time is linear and one-way, how are you to know whether you truly have free will or not? I could stop where I am and not post this, but how would I know if I could have posted it instead? I could go back and post it, but I will have already not posted it the first time, making the situation different the second time around.

Frostfire14 wrote:Since Time is linear and one-way, how are you to know whether you truly have free will or not? I could stop where I am and not post this, but how would I know if I could have posted it instead?

This is the essence of the issue. Is it possible to make a choice either way?

I would argue no: a choice is entirely caused by what comes before it. In an ideal scenario, we weigh pros and cons. In two identical cases, we weigh the same pros and cons.

Gautama wrote:

Frostfire14 wrote:Since Time is linear and one-way, how are you to know whether you truly have free will or not? I could stop where I am and not post this, but how would I know if I could have posted it instead?

This is the essence of the issue. Is it possible to make a choice either way?

I would argue no: a choice is entirely caused by what comes before it. In an ideal scenario, we weigh pros and cons. In two identical cases, we weigh the same pros and cons.

Exactly. We are only the products of those that came before us and the experiences we've encountered. Now, I'd like to turn this another way. What if we could change a choice? Assume for a moment, if you will, that I had gone back and had the me of yesterday not make that post. How would you know if I had done such an act? Time wouldn't just reset. So, perhaps we really do have Free Will and it just results in an unchangeable time line.

If you went back in time and change your post, wouldn't that require some different causes? In this case, the new cause would be "future-self changes past-self's action to its opposite".

Precisely. Again, changing a decision is not possible. We are stuck on our timeline, our track of reality, but, and I do counter my own statement, up until that point, how are you to know which of the decisions you will make? You don't, thus you have free will, but only up until the time that the choice is made. After that, free will becomes null and it is set in stone as history. So the question returns, do we really have the free will to decide whether or not to buy that loaf of bread tomorrow or are we just being led about on a leash we can't see down a likewise invisible walkway?

Free Will exists only in a set circumstance: For instance, I'm choosing to respond to this topic despite any hidden inhibitions I may have about how unnecessarily, stupid it is, yet I'm choosing to respond to it anyway. I could be watching television right now instead, or hanging out with a friend, but I'm choosing to be here, in the comfort of my own home instead.

Where Free Will doesn't exist: If a terrorist forces you into a scenario where you either have to A) Torture a little girl or B) Blow-up a city full of 10,000 people, then that's not free will. Something else is presenting two options, that did not originate from yourr own thoughts, and that is NOT Free-Will. That's someone else imposing their will upon you, and thus -- your free will is taken away.

Free Will exists, and that's just how it is The only difference is that there are certain scenarios where you can exercise your free will and other scenario's where you can't.

Frostfire14,

Frostfire14 wrote:So the question returns, do we really have the free will to decide whether or not to buy that loaf of bread tomorrow or are we just being led about on a leash we can't see down a likewise invisible walkway?

The nominalist in me applies Occam's razor to this situation. Free will is an unnecessary addition to the world. Reality works perfectly fine with just causality.

Alucroas,

Alucroas wrote:Something else is presenting two options, that did not originate from yourr own thoughts, and that is NOT Free-Will.

I fail to see how the options in the first scenario originated from your own thoughts. You're just in a different area, and the things around you give you ideas as to what to do. Without a TV, that option wouldn't occur to you. The mind doesn't exist independently of the natural world: all your thoughts are caused by something else.

I fail to see how the options in the first scenario originated from your own thoughts. You're just in a different area, and the things around you give you ideas as to what to do. Without a TV, that option wouldn't occur to you. The mind doesn't exist independently of the natural world: all your thoughts are caused by something else.

How did these thoughts originate from my own head? I had to come up with them from somewhere, didn't I? The mind can't function without things around it to give it those ideas in the first place. When you make a decision, your brain calculates the need vs the want, and the want vs the need. What you're saying here is a paradox, because in order to have will in the first place, there has to be an object linked to that will, otherwise it cannot exist.

The mind will NOT sit idly by and become a biological tool of indecisiveness; it will act according to the options that are presented to it. Fight or Flight is a perfect example of where emotions and basic instincts take control. You have the option of combatting the threat, or you have the option of running away from it. It is ONLY if you're cornered that your free will is taken away, and that you have NO choice but to fight back.

Everything is based on circumstances, and our emotions, i.e. how we feel about something determines whether or not we are going to do it, our brain serves to calculate the odds of whether or not we will succeed in our agendas.

Gautama wrote:The nominalist in me applies Occam's razor to this situation. Free will is an unnecessary addition to the world. Reality works perfectly fine with just causality.

But somewhere within you, is there not a part of you that screams for the alternative? Perhaps it's the libido rioting you brain for breaking down barriers in society, pushing against the norm. Perhaps it's the kid in you who refuses to believe that Santa isn't real. Somewhere within you, is there not a part of you that tells you that you DO have a choice? We, as human beings, are bound to our own thoughts. We may be mounds of flesh, of proteins and chains of DNA, but we are also more. People don't like being caged up. People like the idea of a choice. Why else would you have opened the debate if you hadn't already decided what was what in the universe? We are constantly bombarded by choices, whether to say one thing to a person or another, and we do choose. From our perspective, in a linear view, we have the options. Perhaps from a 3rd person perspective we don't, but we, as living humans, are not inclined to believe that we are set in stone, that our actions mean nothing because that's the way it was to happen anyway.

But... perhaps we are bound to something, and yet we plod on, traveling towards our destiny that has been decided, unwittingly seeing the path before us. It is said by the Catholic church that God has already decided our fate, that we are doomed to what he decides, and yet we are taught to seek a path of good works and of good prayer. Why does the church tell Catholics this? Because we WANT a choice. Because we have the choice here and now of whether we go to God's embrace, which is heaven in and of itself, meant for all people, of all religions, or do we turn from God, as he allows us to do, and give in to vice? He has chosen, but we still have a choice.

Alucroas,

Alucroas wrote:What you're saying here is a paradox, because in order to have will in the first place, there has to be an object linked to that will, otherwise it cannot exist.

The will is metaphysical, and yes: one metaphysical position that disagrees with its existence is materialism.

Alucroas wrote:ou have the option of combatting the threat, or you have the option of running away from it.

In a given scenario, you will only behave according to one of these, and this action will depend entirely on what came before it.

Alucroas wrote:Everything is based on circumstances, and our emotions, i.e. how we feel about something determines whether or not we are going to do it, our brain serves to calculate the odds of whether or not we will succeed in our agendas.

It seems you are not defending free will at all, but determinism.


Frostfire14,

Frostfire14 wrote:We are constantly bombarded by choices, whether to say one thing to a person or another, and we do choose.

The choice is simply another link in a long chain of causes and effects. The information we deal with in the choice, the habits we've fostered, and so on, are all there, and work to make the decision.

Why invent something beneath choices, some free will that splits the number of possible futures into two?

Frostfire14 wrote:Why does the church tell Catholics this? Because we WANT a choice.

That's a perfect model of wishful thinking.

Frostfire14 wrote:Why else would you have opened the debate if you hadn't already decided what was what in the universe?

I opened this debate because atheism/theism and evolution/creationism are overdone. I'm sick of hearing both sides of those two debates. Besides, determinism is a substantially easier topic to debate than enlightenment. (I don't remember why I'd've thought it wise to start the enlightenment thread. Now that I'm here and not preaching to the choir, convincing someone that enlightenment is a realistic goal is like trying to convince a sane person that magic exists -- even though enlightenment has nothing to do with magic, and everything to do with not having any beliefs at all.)

From a purely physical science perspective of things, there isn't much of a case for free will. The movement and action of all particles in the universe is a direct result of other particles acting upon them. Everything from the creation of life to the decisions you make are inevitably governed by atomic and sub atomic interaction. Conscious thought is the product of specific electrodes in your brain firing in a specific pattern which is determined by preset genetic blueprint and new neural pathways which developed as the result of other actions upon you (such as your environment, parents, friends etc. which were in turn similarly preset.) Physics I think sufficiently causation and even predestination, but certainly can't be used to disprove free will (an actor which would necessarily have to be apart from all other particles).

chaoslord29 wrote:Physics I think sufficiently causation and even predestination, but certainly can't be used to disprove free will (an actor which would necessarily have to be apart from all other particles).

Belief in causation is sufficient to disprove free will. Unfortunately, it is impossible from a purely physicalist perspective to guarantee causation all the time. It takes a bit of logic to prove that all things, being both finite and changeable, are subject to causality.

Gautama wrote:

chaoslord29 wrote:Physics I think sufficiently causation and even predestination, but certainly can't be used to disprove free will (an actor which would necessarily have to be apart from all other particles).

Belief in causation is sufficient to disprove free will. Unfortunately, it is impossible from a purely physicalist perspective to guarantee causation all the time. It takes a bit of logic to prove that all things, being both finite and changeable, are subject to causality.

Does it though? Since all actions of particles can be found to be the cause of a previous particles interaction with it, doesn't that not leave room for choice? Where is the break in causality? I'm not denying it exists (in fact that would be very comforting), but an example of a situation is not subject to causality at the atomic or subatomic level is one I haven't thought of yet. Certainly no human action anyway.

chaoslord29 wrote:Does it though? Since all actions of particles can be found to be the cause of a previous particles interaction with it, doesn't that not leave room for choice?

I'm talking about the method of reasoning, not the particular case.

Science proper uses inductive and hypothetico-deductive reasoning methods. With inductive reasoning, we have to believe that future will be the same as the present (all sheep I see beside the highway have been white, therefore the next sheep will be white). And with hypothetico-deductive reasoning, the best we can say is that our hypothesis has been worked thus far, but never a priori and in all cases, which leaves us in a similar rut. There's plenty of room to add in ridiculous levels of skepticism while still being scientific (only the sides of the sheep facing the highway are white).

If you want perfect certainty, you need to use pure deductive reasoning. Many modern thinkers consider the discoveries of raw deduction to be trivial -- as trivial as A always being equal to A -- albeit true. A trivial form of causality (where any given thing is caused by the existence of all other things) can hold as always true.

In other words, when we stop looking at particles, they stop bouncing into each other.

Gautama, I respect your ability to use examples to supplement your points. You struck me thus far as someone who could counter with words but not put any significant information behind them. Now, I see otherwise. With this in mind, I argue the following point.

You say that all particles are affected by all other particles, whether indirectly or directly, and while this is true for the universe, this does not refute the alternative argument. I say this because your part of the argument is flawed. It does not always apply in every case, as we see when we look back in history. Now, I realize that the following theory is, in fact, a theory, but the significant evidence is enough to prove at least a similar event. If we look about us, we find, scientifically measured, that the universe is expanding. What's more is that it is expanding at an increasing rate, not at a steady rate. This is a prime example of acceleration in our universe. This acceleration stems from an event that occurs at the beginning of the universe, an event known as the big bang. Again, this is not proven to be fact, but then again, nothing is ever proven fact.

So, now we have this big bang, this moment when everything exploded into being. Before this moment, what was there? Due to the expanding of the universe, we can conclude that everything was compressed, compressed into one point, known as a singularity. Now, what's interesting about having everything compressed into a singularity is that EVERYTHING is compressed. There are no other particles to interact with this singularity. I don't have an answer as to whether or not this proves the existence of free will, but what it does prove is that the actions of one particle are not entirely governed by the actions of every other particle because there was a time when all particles were one. Because the universe is not a perpetual motion machine, we can only trace back the interactions of particles for so long before there's nothing left to interact with. So, again, the reasoning does apply, but not in every case, and thus can not be used to conclude the argument.

I'll just push the boundary of Existence back a little bit farther, to the point where it is no longer bounded by anything else (the point where Reality is Infinite, and is not bound by space and time). I do agree with you in principle, but I think I can make this idea a bit more All-inclusive.

If you want to talk of singularities, all of Reality is singular (in the strict sense). There's nothing other than Everything-that-Exists (Existence itself). Causality itself is an illusion that arises solely when we invent things, and which disappears entirely when we consider all particulars en masse. Causality requires thingness. You already revealed how having just one thing makes speaking of causality impossible.

Since it's possible that all of Reality is not contained within the universe that emerged from the Big Bang, I can take a position outside of our universe as a possibility. Our universe, in that case, remains a singularity relative to that view, but is related causally to whatever else is out there. However, I cannot take a position outside all of Reality.

Alucroas wrote:

I fail to see how the options in the first scenario originated from your own thoughts. You're just in a different area, and the things around you give you ideas as to what to do. Without a TV, that option wouldn't occur to you. The mind doesn't exist independently of the natural world: all your thoughts are caused by something else.

How did these thoughts originate from my own head? I had to come up with them from somewhere, didn't I? The mind can't function without things around it to give it those ideas in the first place. When you make a decision, your brain calculates the need vs the want, and the want vs the need. What you're saying here is a paradox, because in order to have will in the first place, there has to be an object linked to that will, otherwise it cannot exist.

The mind will NOT sit idly by and become a biological tool of indecisiveness; it will act according to the options that are presented to it. Fight or Flight is a perfect example of where emotions and basic instincts take control. You have the option of combatting the threat, or you have the option of running away from it. It is ONLY if you're cornered that your free will is taken away, and that you have NO choice but to fight back.

Everything is based on circumstances, and our emotions, i.e. how we feel about something determines whether or not we are going to do it, our brain serves to calculate the odds of whether or not we will succeed in our agendas.

Related to this, not making a choice is making a choice in a way, but I think the OP was more about "are we free, or are humans biological robots (things that can only THINK we are making choices.) I am of the compromise view, we have our own natural urges programed in by the fact we are organic and evolved from lizard like things (see the brain stem/lower brain for remnants of that heritage, fear of snakes and things like that) We are however, able to transcend that (See monks for example) and able to do what would seem impossible for our purely biological forms