Science sings two different tunes on this. In terms of quantum physics neither the future nor the past can be known exactly. Therefore the very idea of determinism becomes absurd. On the other hand, according to relativity both the past and the future exist and furthermore are the present from something or someone's perspective. For example, an alien a hundred light years away could exist in either our past or our future depending on his direction and velocity of travel. So of the two great theories in science one says the future must already exist and the other says the future can not be predetermined. No great wonder that when you put them together they explode.

I'm convinced the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a lack of knowledge of all factors involved. However, if everything was simply a question of fundamental probability then all action is random at it's heart and still shows no intent on the part of the individual. So... no free will.

Lukisod wrote:I'm convinced the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a lack of knowledge of all factors involved. However, if everything was simply a question of fundamental probability then all action is random at it's heart and still shows no intent on the part of the individual. So... no free will.

It goes without saying that to be convinced that the most experimentally verified theory in the history of physics is wrong you best be a leader in the field of its study. As for me, I'm just an ameteur so I find it hard to be so convinced. Einstein was convinced quantum physics was wrong and had a right to be because he was freaking Einstein. Unfortunately, he has actually been proven wrong in many similar instances. For example, in quantum entanglement Einstein made a similar argument as you do against Heisenburg. He said that we simply did not know the spins, that they weren't 'chosen' the instant the particles were observed rather they existed the whole time and we just did not know. Yet, in the eighties an experiment was designed that decidedly proved Einstein wrong. The universe on the quantum scale is truly probabalistic before we observe it. Consider the two slit experiment. You get a wave interference pattern on the far side of the slits even if you fire single electrons, but the moment you try to set up any apparatus to determine which slit that electron goes through, BOOM, you're back to particle land. On a side note the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle is the only law we have which explains why electrons don't fall into the nucleus. They can not because as their spatial location becomes more confined their momentum becomes more erratic and they jump back to a higher energy state.

As for probability not being equated to free will I put to you this question, what does free will look like from the outside? Forget the subjective feeling of having free will just consider the exterior observation of an object possessing it. Going back to Star Trek the Next Generation, as Picard explains, there is no way to objectively verify free will, it can only be inferred. How is it inferred, well we would expect that an object with free will could not have its actions fully predicted, it would surprise us and as a result we would, at best, be able to state the probability that it would do such and such.

Of course I am not a quantum physicist ^_^

I am merely extending the description of randomness or probability as an event in which the outcome depends on variables which are not or cannot be accounted for. If the randomness "just is" then I have no response. It is well outside my realm of comprehension. However my point of it's relation to free will stands.

Apparently after some reading causation might not even hold true if events from the future can affect the past in certain ways. My entire premise falls down in this case :D

I am working off a different definition of free will where by the entity involved displays intent to commit to one action or another without being funnelled into such a choice by virtue of wiring. Meaning there is some internal mechanism which can "flip a switch" without external input being a factor. I would define such a mechanism as the basis of intent and therefore free will. Unpredictability could be an aspect of this, however an action which is truly random at it's heart shows no intent and therefore is not an act of will.

dealing with it wrote:At best, free will is an approximation of how consciousness feels, divorced of scientific explanation.

Sounds good to me.

Lukisod wrote:I am working off a different definition of free will where by the entity involved displays intent to commit to one action or another without being funnelled into such a choice by virtue of wiring. Meaning there is some internal mechanism which can "flip a switch" without external input being a factor. I would define such a mechanism as the basis of intent and therefore free will. Unpredictability could be an aspect of this, however an action which is truly random at it's heart shows no intent and therefore is not an act of will.

I second this notion. A mechanism is a complex construction which, when fed the appropriate fuel, or the correct stimulus is applied, an exact response is provided by the mechanism itself. To suppose that a random sub-system were applied to the mechanism means that any of the programmed responses could be provided by the mechanism, but that the mechanism would be forced to provide one because a stimulus was recognized. A mechanism's requirement to supply some type of out-put when any in-put is applied is not a choice and thus does not reflect free will.

Put another way, "Humanity's capacity to do nothing when prompted is an evidence of free will."

Scumbag_Brain wrote:Going back to Star Trek the Next Generation, as Picard explains, there is no way to objectively verify free will, it can only be inferred. How is it inferred, well we would expect that an object with free will could not have its actions fully predicted, it would surprise us and as a result we would, at best, be able to state the probability that it would do such and such.

As great and practiced of an actor as Patrick Stewart is, this sentiment leads to insanity. To explain, "If free will is impossible to prove then discussing the subject repeatedly is a pointless waste of time." Even more, I notice quite clearly that the arguement concerning physics is entirely moot. Even given randomization and variation, electrons do not make a choice about whether to act or not. Electrons do as they do because it is their nature and not because they have any kind of desire to do so. Nearly any observable evidence in physics is tied to the presumption that, "This is the way the Universe works because these are the functions we see in the Universe." This neither proves, nor disproves, the existence of free will. The argument does not address free will at all.

To be extremely simplistic, the apple did not decide to fall on Mister Newton.

dealing with it wrote:First, if we make a decision entirely unhinged from our environment, we are not acting freely, but arbitrarily.[...]At best, free will is an approximation of how consciousness feels, divorced of scientific explanation.

Some of my text presented above addresses this topic. I suppose that many of us were typing all at once. My contention is that a will truly free has the freedom to be arbitrary and is not constrained as a mechanism is. Also, the closing sentiment from Dwit is one which supposes that free will is a meter, a gauge or read-out of some kind, which displays the measurement of some other quantity or quality. This definition is quite different from certain definitions adopted earlier, such as free will being a force, an agent, or a substance to be measured rather than a system used to measure a substance specified.

I state this in order to formally note it, not specifically to argue against it.

Tea wrote:As great and practiced of an actor as Patrick Stewart is, this sentiment leads to insanity. To explain, "If free will is impossible to prove then discussing the subject repeatedly is a pointless waste of time." Even more, I notice quite clearly that the arguement concerning physics is entirely moot. Even given randomization and variation, electrons do not make a choice about whether to act or not. Electrons do as they do because it is their nature and not because they have any kind of desire to do so. Nearly any observable evidence in physics is tied to the presumption that, "This is the way the Universe works because these are the functions we see in the Universe." This neither proves, nor disproves, the existence of free will. The argument does not address free will at all.

You can infer things without proving them, you do this everytime you treat your girlfriend as something other than an extraterrestrial android replicant sent to earth to deceive you. We do not SEE free will or consciousness. We infer others have it by observing them from the outside. The behavior which leads to this inferance is a lack of predictability, same as the electron which I use merely as a metaphor. Human action is therefore random (like the electron), governed by free will, or so complex it can not be determined. I rule out the first because humans are, by and large, rational which leaves free will or complexity. Unfortunately for the determinist, recent mathematics shows that many complex systems (many of which are far less complex than the brain) also defeat attempts at prediction.

I do not know who the last part of your argument is directed at. Some person who said single electrons have feelings and desires. This is a ridiculous thesis and very easy to poke holes in. In fact, it would make an excellent straw man for these very same reasons. If you get a chance in an argument accuse someone of making this thesis and then proceed to argue against it, works like a charm. People will think you are arguing against the person when in fact your just committing a blatant logical fallacy.

If we do have free will then it's only a very diluted or weak version of it. Within every action that we make there are a huge numbers of factors influencing our decisions; genetics and our innate personality, environmental factors, memories and past experience etc. Most people hold this belief that we largely have free will because it's an easier way to judge the actions of others and to hold people accountable. But the truth is that I had muesli this morning because my taste buds tell me that I enjoy it, because my past experiences with it have been good and because I've been told that it's a relatively healthy breakfast choice. Even if I have a different kind of breakfast tomorrow, that will still just be the product of a number of different factors within a certain moment. This is the sort of full determinism that I believe in; that we will only ever make one choice in an exact moment of time based on all our influencing factors. I'm still open to the idea that a minimal level of free will exists, or maybe just free will that is heavily filtered through all the influencing factors. To me, it's only our ignorance about some of these factors that might lead us to assume that free will is untainted.

I don't see how free will, defined as a person being able to have theoretically chosen differently after the fact, can logically exist. It's a simple cause-and-effect relationship -- if subsequent events come about because of prior ones, then we can't have free will, as the same exact set of circumstances will always lead to you 'choosing' the same action. You can't just go 'I want to kill this person' on one timeline, but 'I don't want to kill this person' on another without something changing. Think of a computer, or any system, really. And it doesn't matter either if the universe isn't entirely deterministic, because randomness can't have a bearing on it.

Chaosut wrote:This is the sort of full determinism that I believe in[...]I'm still open to the idea that a minimal level of free will exists, or maybe just free will that is heavily filtered through all the influencing factors.

It is dandy to believe in something when adding discussion. If that is the purpose of the post then I applaud it to some degree. However, debate walks a different path. Can you please explain to me the difference between a weak free will and free will allowing stimulus to play a role in choice?

Patcharoo wrote:Yes or we don't and it doesn't matter.

Seriously.

/discussion

Unless you care about ethics/morality.

Ethics and morality are human constructs which we run our particular stimulus through in order to get an action. If someone kills someone, it's wrong because everyone's reaction to that is that it is wrong. You lock this person up because it is reasonable to assume they will continue to kill (and because you're predestined to lock them up :D). Inherent right or wrong in an action is another discussion entirely.

Lukisod wrote:Ethics and morality are human constructswhich we run our particular stimulus through in order to get an action. If someone kills someone, it's wrong because everyone's reaction to that is that it is wrong. You lock this person up because it is reasonable to assume they will continue to kill (and because you're predestined to lock them up :D). Inherent right or wrong in an action is another discussion entirely.

Yes, but I'm saying that, for a lot of people, free will is an intrinsic assumption for their ethics. The non-existence of it certainly makes me rethink my previous thoughts about morality.

My preferred way of dealing with it is to go about acting as if I had free will, even if I know philosophically that I do not.

Lukisod wrote:My preferred way of dealing with it is to go about acting as if I had free will, even if I know philosophically that I do not.

I'd go as far as to say it's impossible not to act as if you had free-will.

There is much difference between determined action and being convinced. When you make a choice you balance out what consiquences go with each action. If the consiquences are say; prison, and prison is not a desireable outcome, then I would make a choice by which I would not go to prison. There is still a choice and intent there.