Free Will Argument

[mcgaffer]

I got involved in a debate with someone at the pub tonight. He was a born again Christian and was deeply into his religion ( which i have nothing against, i used to be a very devout Catholic). He argued that God has a masterplan to which i replied, 'Then we have no free will. If God has already decreed how things happen then we are merely actors, better yet just figments of some great cosmic's imagination.' To which he replied but we do have free will and i replied with , ' If that is the case then we have the capability to not follow God's plan. If we have true free will then we are not tied to this cosmic blueprint.' He then went back and forth arguing that God has a plan and that we have free will without really answering either of my statements, so i thought lets put it to CBR, what is your view on the Free Will argument?

[Paul McEnery]

I got involved in a debate with someone at the pub tonight. He was a born again Christian and was deeply into his religion ( which i have nothing against, i used to be a very devout Catholic). He argued that God has a masterplan to which i replied, 'Then we have no free will. If God has already decreed how things happen then we are merely actors, better yet just figments of some great cosmic's imagination.' To which he replied but we do have free will and i replied with , ' If that is the case then we have the capability to not follow God's plan. If we have true free will then we are not tied to this cosmic blueprint.' He then went back and forth arguing that God has a plan and that we have free will without really answering either of my statements, so i thought lets put it to CBR, what is your view on the Free Will argument?

I note that this is your post number 616, and I reject your transparent attempt to send me screaming down to H-E-double-hockey-sticks.

[dingo]

This is an annoying chicken/egg thing.

I presume he means that God is already aware of what our free will choices are, and has incorporated them into his plan.

Which feels awfully close to not free will to me, but hey...

[Paul McEnery]

This is an annoying chicken/egg thing.

I presume he means that God is already aware of what our free will choices are, and has incorporated them into his plan.

Which feels awfully close to not free will to me, but hey...

Well, this is just a prescientific way of stating the rather more interesting question: is this a wholly-deteriministic universe?; indeed, could any wholly-deterministic universe actually exist?


Although any universe viewed from its end-state would have to seem inevitable, I think the answer to that has to be no.

[dingo]

Well, this is just a prescientific way of stating the rather more interesting question: is this a wholly-deteriministic universe?; indeed, could any wholly-deterministic universe actually exist?


Although any universe viewed from its end-state would have to seem inevitable, I think the answer to that has to be no.

What are you saying no to? there was a few questions you posed there.

[StoneGold]

You can still have free will within a master plan. I mean, any plan that doesn't account for deviations is a pretty shitty plan.

[Paul McEnery]

What are you saying no to? there was a few questions you posed there.

All of them!

I don't think any wholly-deterministic universes exist.

I haven't gone through the math with Rudy Rucker quite as thoroughly as I need to, but I'd take a heckuva lot of convincing.

[dingo]

You can still have free will within a master plan. I mean, any plan that doesn't account for deviations is a pretty shitty plan.

Yeah but most often this plan is mentioned in the statement "it is all part of the plan". 'All' being the important word there.

[dingo]

All of them!

I don't think any wholly-deterministic universes exist.

I haven't gone through the math with Rudy Rucker quite as thoroughly as I need to, but I'd take a heckuva lot of convincing.

Then you may have free will.

I want to believe I have free will, but I doubt I will ever know for sure, and I sure as hell don't want to be in a world where everyone knows they don't have it.

[K Von Doom]

Maybe he's the puppet master, in that, we think we're doing all the things we want to do, but he has manipulated events so that we're doing what he wants us to do, but granting the illusion of free will or...

On Judgement Day, God will just say to you: I knew you would do that, that and that.

[mcgaffer]

In the case of everything being part of God's big plan though how can you be held accountable for your actions. Heaven and hell are our reward and punishment but if God had already manipulated events to turn out the way he wants, is it right that some people go to hell because of the way his plan runs.

[Jack Zodiac]

You can still have free will within a master plan. I mean, any plan that doesn't account for deviations is a pretty shitty plan.

I think the simpler answer is, God's big fuckin' super-awesome plan is "wait and see." God does have a plan, and it is a shitty plan.

Also, this has happened to me twice in the past three months, and both times I asked the sloppy drunk person ranting about God if it was part of his plan for them to get sloppy drunk and rant about God in a dive bar and piss everyone else off. 'Cause if so, God's an annoying dick.

[mcgaffer]

When the drunk in question asked me what i thought about God's plan i said 'Well He exists, but he just don't give a fuck anymore.'

[Paul McEnery]

Then you may have free will.

I want to believe I have free will, but I doubt I will ever know for sure, and I sure as hell don't want to be in a world where everyone knows they don't have it.

Heh.

So, as I understand it, proving this is not a wholly-deterministic universe rules out a deterministic God. OTOH, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of our actions are parts of the universe that are beyond determination.

I mean, I'm inclined to think that the most complex emergent form (i.e. our minds) are the least likely things in the universe to be wholly-determined, but I don't know.

[Paul McEnery]

In the case of everything being part of God's big plan though how can you be held accountable for your actions. Heaven and hell are our reward and punishment but if God had already manipulated events to turn out the way he wants, is it right that some people go to hell because of the way his plan runs.

Yes. Because they are evil. Because God made them that way. Because He likes hurting people, but not if he doesn't have an excuse. Because then He'd look bad to the stakeholders.

[Chris N]

I note that this is your post number 616, and I reject your transparent attempt to send me screaming down to H-E-double-hockey-sticks.

Why? Because 616 is the number of the Marvel Universe?

[Erebus]

I made a thread on this once.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=106806

What I concluded and now believe is that time and fate itself is an illusion (yes, despite thousands of mathematicians and physicists saying otherwise). Albert Einstein and Carl Jung talked about how we live in an eternal "Now," and so only what we define as the present truly exists. To take Doctor Manhatten's example, time is a jewel with an infinity of faces, each with a moment in the Now. Also see Zeno's paradoxes for more detail.

[niall mc cann]

Heh.

So, as I understand it, proving this is not a wholly-deterministic universe rules out a deterministic God. OTOH, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of our actions are parts of the universe that are beyond determination.

I mean, I'm inclined to think that the most complex emergent form (i.e. our minds) are the least likely things in the universe to be wholly-determined, but I don't know.

It's the little things that make me doubt it... if tonight for my dinner I choose beef Koka Noodles rather than vegetable Koka Noodles, do I fundamentally believe that there's a vast direct series of chemical reactions going back to the big bang that make beef noodles the only possible option? Isn't it as reasonable that vegetable noodles could have resulted from an identical starting point?

Even if it is, I guess it doesn't mean I actually chose anything myself.

[DoctorDoom]

Bah. Will isn't free! It costs!

[a. non]

At my darkest, i used to believe this:

Everything has already happened. Every quantum state has collapsed, all possible timelines have played out, every decision has been made at the begining. If there is an Outside Creator, then One saw/designed everything in advance. What we call Free Will is not so much the ability to make a choice, but to witness ourselves traveling down one pre-established path at a time, like an near-infinite tree diagram

Say for lunch there are the options of a peanut butter sandwich or a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. You don't as such get to choose what sandwich you want, but rather you get to choose what pre-established path you want to go down. So, if you choose the PB sandwich, the Outside Creator saw/made it happen ahead of time. If you choose the PBJ sandwich, the Outside Creator saw/made it happen ahead of time. It doesn't matter which one you choose because you had already made that choice at the begining.

[kmeyers]

I've said from the start that I didn't think Will was guilty, and that he has been imprisoned unfairly.

FREE WILL!

[Paul McEnery]

It's the little things that make me doubt it... if tonight for my dinner I choose beef Koka Noodles rather than vegetable Koka Noodles, do I fundamentally believe that there's a vast direct series of chemical reactions going back to the big bang that make beef noodles the only possible option? Isn't it as reasonable that vegetable noodles could have resulted from an identical starting point?

Even if it is, I guess it doesn't mean I actually chose anything myself.

I think it's a probabalistic universe, and choices are made all the time, and the more choices that are made, the fewer the possibilities are, and we keep on until we're all out of possibilities and the universe dies the heat death.

[Paul McEnery]

Why? Because 616 is the number of the Marvel Universe?

And the number of the beast.

[Paradox]

On a practical level, belief in predestination is a doggle. I look at it this way. If there is predestination, and I believe there isn't, it's predestined that I believe that way. If there isn't predestination, and I believe there is, I'm just frigging wrong. Not believing in it seems to have the safest outcome.

[thehod]

It's not so much the thing about free will and God's plan, than it is the restrictions on free will.

God gave us free will, to do in this world what we will. Except that. And that. Oh and those other things as well. I wouldn't be eating that now. Or wearing that. Don't go sleeping with them, and especially not them either. And don't let me catch you worshipping him. Or him. Or them, or... look, just to be on the safe side, only worship me in this prescribed manner. Hmmm, this list is getting a little long isn't it. I better write it all down for you just in case you forget it.

So do what thou whilt. Apart from all those other things I just said there. That great big long list of things. Oh and if you break any of them you'll burn for all eternity in a great big firey pit.

Have a nice day.

[Winslow]

I believe that we shape our own destiny by the power of choice. Yet I also believe there is an unseen guidance to those decisions that shapes our fate. And no, my small brain cannot reconcile those beliefs.

[Paradox]

It's easy, Win. "He" will help you if you seek out the help, but otherwise you're on your own. Does that work for you?

Also remember "God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is 'no'."

[Winslow]

It's easy, Win. "He" will help you if you seek out the help, but otherwise you're on your own. Does that work for you?

Also remember "God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is 'no'."

It's a little more complicated than that. I have that whole omniscience thing to reconcile as a Christian.

But I give you points for a pragmatic and practical approach that I respect. Many Methodists think the way you do, and they are some of the most wonderful Christians I know.

[Dreadstar]

The whole "free will" question and all its various permutations is the reason I tend toward the Deist version of God whenever I'm in the mood to consider the possibility. To envision, you think of God as a guy standing at the top of a hill with a bowling ball. He starts the bowling ball rolling down the hill. Now: He *knows* that the ball is going to roll to the bottom. He might even know exactly where the ball is going to stop. He's just curious as to how many bounces and turns it takes and which ants and insects are squashed along the way. Because the whole thing is some sort of grand experiment or somesuch, he's not going to exert any influence in any way to save any of the ants or make the ball go this way or that.

Basically:

When the drunk in question asked me what i thought about God's plan i said 'Well He exists, but he just don't give a fuck anymore.'

...with the addendum the he *might* give a fuck, it's just in his plan to not interfere.

Once I explained that to a fellow who thought he was being clever and said "But God is omniscient, he *knows* which ants are going to be crushed."

Yes. However, I believe that he only knows *AFTER* he releases the bowling ball. In which case, just think of the whole of time (the ball rolling down the hill) as being instantaneous to him. We're in the middle of a great long "rolling down the hill." God on the other hand, is already waiting at the bottom. (And simultaneously at the top of the hill releasing the ball, but I digress.)

[Rabid Trekkie]

I got involved in a debate with someone at the pub tonight. He was a born again Christian and was deeply into his religion ( which i have nothing against, i used to be a very devout Catholic). He argued that God has a masterplan to which i replied, 'Then we have no free will. If God has already decreed how things happen then we are merely actors, better yet just figments of some great cosmic's imagination.' To which he replied but we do have free will and i replied with , ' If that is the case then we have the capability to not follow God's plan. If we have true free will then we are not tied to this cosmic blueprint.' He then went back and forth arguing that God has a plan and that we have free will without really answering either of my statements, so i thought lets put it to CBR, what is your view on the Free Will argument?

God having a plan isn't the same as God forcing that plan on you. We can choose to follow God's plan or work against it. The plan is for humanity to live in Paradise. Originally that was without sin and we'd all be shiny happy people living on a perfect world. But then Adam and Eve screwed everything up, but God had a way to bring out the ultimate goal through a different way.

[Puma]

Yes. However, I believe that he only knows *AFTER* he releases the bowling ball. In which case, just think of the whole of time (the ball rolling down the hill) as being instantaneous to him. We're in the middle of a great long "rolling down the hill." God on the other hand, is already waiting at the bottom. (And simultaneously at the top of the hill releasing the ball, but I digress.)

And then there is the idea that the cosmic creator simply started the ball rolling with the only the intent to watch its progress; no knowledge of its path or outcome, nor any concern to those things affected by the rolling ball.

Then everything is based on free will because there is no plan, no omnipotent deity, just life.

[Paradox]

Nice. Sometimes you really make me smile, Puma. :smile:

[Paradox]

Monica is our shepherd, we shall not want...to double post.

[Mac Danny]

I BELIEVE, I do not presume to say this is how it is, that the major events in your life are going to happen no matter what you do. They may not take the same form, but I do believe that they certain events will happen anyway. Things happen how they happen and how they are supposed to happen.

Example: I think if you went back in time and killed Hitler before WWII, WWII would still happen. It might not be the same, but it would still take place.

Things like Cereal or pancakes for breakfast is free will. We have control over choices that have no real effect on the overall plan.

This is what makes sens to me. Your mileage may vary.

[4thHorseman]

This came up in a religious course I took one time, and the teacher (who was a priest for years and years), explained it in a way like this:

God is outside of time and reality itself. He can look at time and the universe all at once. So twenty years from now would be God's present, along with twenty years ago would still be God's present. He doesn't necessarily have any "plan" (this never came up), but more or less that the reason God knows what will happen to you 50 years down the road is because God sees it as if it's something currently happening. So seeing you eat an apple the day after tomorrow is still your free will because you chose to do so, and he saw you do it...at the time you did it...two days before you know you'll eat that apple....and I'm getting confused again.

[Justin D.]

You can still have free will within a master plan. I mean, any plan that doesn't account for deviations is a pretty shitty plan.

Exactly. If there is a God who has a plan and we do have free will, I imagine he knows the many different paths we can take to get to many different ends. It might help to think of it this way. God has given you one starting point, but He has laid down multiple tracks (hundreds, thousands, millions) for you to run down with each track branching off into more multiple choices. He even knows what finish line you'll reach for every choice you make. However, the choices you make and where you stop is up to you.

It is all part of a plan, but it's a plan you have a part in.


Also, this has happened to me twice in the past three months, and both times I asked the sloppy drunk person ranting about God if it was part of his plan for them to get sloppy drunk and rant about God in a dive bar and piss everyone else off. 'Cause if so, God's an annoying dick.

I love that response, except that I usually don't mind getting into religious conversations at bars.


And then there is the idea that the cosmic creator simply started the ball rolling with the only the intent to watch its progress; no knowledge of its path or outcome, nor any concern to those things affected by the rolling ball.

Then everything is based on free will because there is no plan, no omnipotent deity, just life.

That's the way I've thought of for a long time. It has a bit of the watchmaker analogy to it.

[Dreadstar]

I love that response, except that I usually don't mind getting into religious conversations at bars.

Nor is it a great idea to tell the annoying drunk evangelist that his god is a dick.

[Paul McEnery]

This came up in a religious course I took one time, and the teacher (who was a priest for years and years), explained it in a way like this:

God is outside of time and reality itself. He can look at time and the universe all at once. So twenty years from now would be God's present, along with twenty years ago would still be God's present. He doesn't necessarily have any "plan" (this never came up), but more or less that the reason God knows what will happen to you 50 years down the road is because God sees it as if it's something currently happening. So seeing you eat an apple the day after tomorrow is still your free will because you chose to do so, and he saw you do it...at the time you did it...two days before you know you'll eat that apple....and I'm getting confused again.

This assumes a single universe that always does the same thing.

This is not the case.

[Paul McEnery]

I believe that we shape our own destiny by the power of choice. Yet I also believe there is an unseen guidance to those decisions that shapes our fate. And no, my small brain cannot reconcile those beliefs.

God as scoutmaster? Foolishly believing he's in control?:evilsmile:

Though yes, you are assuming that the guide and the creator are the same thing.

This is not the case.

[Justin D.]

Nor is it a great idea to tell the annoying drunk evangelist that his god is a dick.

True enough too. Although, I've found that a laugh when talking in the right place can do wonders.


This assumes a single universe that always does the same thing.

This is not the case.

Maybe it's the case that He knows what all universes do, a la my example above with the tracks.

Why does philosophy and religious discussion always sound like pot talk?

[Paradox]

Because it's a "gateway drug"? :tongue:

[Paul McEnery]

Maybe it's the case that He knows what all universes do, a la my example above with the tracks.


This assumes a database large and accurate enough to encompass all possible eventualities.

This is not the case.

(Well, it kinda is, actually; but the universes are the database.)

[Paul McEnery]

I BELIEVE, I do not presume to say this is how it is, that the major events in your life are going to happen no matter what you do. They may not take the same form, but I do believe that they certain events will happen anyway. Things happen how they happen and how they are supposed to happen.

Example: I think if you went back in time and killed Hitler before WWII, WWII would still happen. It might not be the same, but it would still take place.

Things like Cereal or pancakes for breakfast is free will. We have control over choices that have no real effect on the overall plan.

This is what makes sens to me. Your mileage may vary.

This nearly assumes a predictable universe.

I don't know if the universe is deterministic. I know it isn't predictable (except in certain limited cases). Where classical physics works, (i.e. we can exclude most eventualities), then we can accurately predict the future. But in most cases, things are more complicated than that, and all we can do is pull a Calvin: do it and see what happens.

Which is to say, you're broadly right; except that, as far as the Universe is concerned, the whole of human history is pancakes.

[Mac Danny]

This nearly assumes a predictable universe.

I don't know if the universe is deterministic. I know it isn't predictable (except in certain limited cases). Where classical physics works, (i.e. we can exclude most eventualities), then we can accurately predict the future. But in most cases, things are more complicated than that, and all we can do is pull a Calvin: do it and see what happens.

Which is to say, you're broadly right; except that, as far as the Universe is concerned, the whole of human history is pancakes.

Yes.. Does that help?

My belief allows for a "no Regret" system. Basically it says that the decisions you made are the decisions you made, every experience teaches you something and you are where you are supposed to be. To wonder otherwise is the way to madness.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes.. Does that help?

My belief allows for a "no Regret" system. Basically it says that the decisions you made are the decisions you made, every experience teaches you something and you are where you are supposed to be. To wonder otherwise is the way to madness.

It certainly is. Because after I've made the choice to drink the Full Sail, a part of my mind goes: but what about the Racer X?

And I think we all know what happens next.

So if we think of God as someone who's sidled up to the bar of all possible oh-so-intoxicating eventualities, we have a fair explanation for why everything's such a shambles.

[niall mc cann]

I think it's a probabalistic universe, and choices are made all the time, and the more choices that are made, the fewer the possibilities are, and we keep on until we're all out of possibilities and the universe dies the heat death.

Okay... so way back in the beginning when those first elementary particles formed hydrogen, they did it because it became more probable than not, but it could have happened that it became less probable within some equally rational model... and that's true of all possibilities to this day. Does that sound reasonable?

It's still not what I'd call free will though, really. The particles didn't choose to become hydrogen, they just reached a state where the inevitibility of hydrogen was greater than anything else. If, when I choose beef noodles, I'm just acting out a matter of increasing probability rather than engaging in any real human agency, that's not free will, is it? In the popular sense, at least.

Are we all just dominoes arranged in a row from the beginning of the universe to the end, tumbling down in a series of collapsing probabilities?

[Winslow]

God as scoutmaster? Foolishly believing he's in control?:evilsmile:

Though yes, you are assuming that the guide and the creator are the same thing.

This is not the case.

I rarely agree with you on matters of philosophy and religion, but I DO like your replies.

[Paul McEnery]

I rarely agree with you on matters of philosophy and religion, but I DO like your replies.

The closer you come to the centre of the labyrinth, the more you will find yourself understanding what lies behind my words.












Worse luck for you, what lies behind my words has tentacles.

[Paul McEnery]

Okay... so way back in the beginning when those first elementary particles formed hydrogen, they did it because it became more probable than not, but it could have happened that it became less probable within some equally rational model... and that's true of all possibilities to this day. Does that sound reasonable?

That's exactly how it works. I think. In fact, that goes all the way back to the original parameters: settings like the universal forces, leading to the evolution of the universal constant, the speed of light, and that sort of thing. To the extent that these actually are universal, and not just a feature in our light cone.

The way I look at it, our universe is just one instance in a stack of universes. The others try the other routes. The only question is, are these universes serial or parallel? What I think is that, in the last analysis, that question turns out to be merely academic; but in the process it's a valuable distinction.


It's still not what I'd call free will though, really. The particles didn't choose to become hydrogen, they just reached a state where the inevitibility of hydrogen was greater than anything else. If, when I choose beef noodles, I'm just acting out a matter of increasing probability rather than engaging in any real human agency, that's not free will, is it? In the popular sense, at least.

Ah well, the deeper we go, the more consequences our semantics turns out to have. That's why it's important to Copernicize our language, stop using "free will" (because it's a term that turns out to beg the question) and use instead the term "agency" (since agency need not be human, and isn't prey to the binary thinking we attach to free will; there are degrees/flavours of agency, whereas free will tends to be an either/or proposition the way we first come across the idea).



Are we all just dominoes arranged in a row from the beginning of the universe to the end, tumbling down in a series of collapsing probabilities?

Ah, that one's easy. No. It's not dominoes.

I think it's Ray Kurzweil who looks at the universe as two overlapping cones. From the left we get a spread from the point of maximum energy (the singularity) to maximum entropy (heat death of the universe); from the right we get a spread from the maximum order (all probabilities focused into the singularity of pure predictability) to maximum chaos (anything can happen in the next half hour!).

At any given point, we're cusping between energy and order.

[niall mc cann]

Ah well, the deeper we go, the more consequences our semantics turns out to have. That's why it's important to Copernicize our language, stop using "free will" (because it's a term that turns out to beg the question) and use instead the term "agency" (since agency need not be human, and isn't prey to the binary thinking we attach to free will; there are degrees/flavours of agency, whereas free will tends to be an either/or proposition the way we first come across the idea).


Okay then, basic question: what does agency mean, in that sense?

I've come accross the term thrown around like that before, and it seemed at the time to be almost an attempt to force the reconciliation of irreconcilables. What is agency, as distinct from free will, and even probability?

[mattx110]

Okay... so way back in the beginning when those first elementary particles formed hydrogen, they did it because it became more probable than not, but it could have happened that it became less probable within some equally rational model... and that's true of all possibilities to this day. Does that sound reasonable?

It's still not what I'd call free will though, really. The particles didn't choose to become hydrogen, they just reached a state where the inevitibility of hydrogen was greater than anything else. If, when I choose beef noodles, I'm just acting out a matter of increasing probability rather than engaging in any real human agency, that's not free will, is it? In the popular sense, at least.

Are we all just dominoes arranged in a row from the beginning of the universe to the end, tumbling down in a series of collapsing probabilities?
Yes. But there is an illusion of sentience and free will that can only be defeated by a molecular map of the universe that accounts for all physical theorems, and electron properties.

[Paul McEnery]

Okay then, basic question: what does agency mean, in that sense?

I've come accross the term thrown around like that before, and it seemed at the time to be almost an attempt to force the reconciliation of irreconcilables. What is agency, as distinct from free will, and even probability?

As Spinoza, I think, said: everything wants to persist in its own being. Hydrogen atoms and amoeba, plants and planets, hurricanes and halibut, galaxies and bad habits, they all act in their own self-interest.

Agency.

[mattx110]

As Spinoza, I think, said: everything wants to persist in its own being. Hydrogen atoms and amoeba, plants and planets, hurricanes and halibut, galaxies and bad habits, they all act in their own self-interest.

Agency.
I'd like to addend that free internet porn is the only true self-less humanitarian.

[mcgaffer]

Same guys were in the pub tonight and i really got them going by saying this, ' If God is all powerful, ask Him to create the stone He can not lift. If He can't create it then He is not all powerful, but if He cannot lift it He is also not all powerful.'
This one really got them going as i sat back and watched.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Free Will is basically an illusion; we are all acting out the program that is our self, at the end of the day everything you do is everything that "you" would do.

Its all domino's, there is no such thing as chaos, supreme being or not there is no true free will.

From the beginning to the end its all one thing after another, cause and effect.

The moment the first particle moved or the big bang went off, was the moment all reality was decided.

But back to the original question of "if there is a supreme being with a plan" doesn't that cross out free will?

Don't know; after all it would be like playing domino's but you are the table, the wind, control the laws of physics etc...and so on.

Does the domino have a choice about falling? Or is it just obeying its intrisic nature that you set up?

Though of course; omniscience kind of sets up a scenario where God might be as trapped by his own nature as everybody else, after all it has to happen the way he saw it, because even if he being God had the ability to change it and change his mind, that would mean it "didn't" happen the way he saw it if only due to its own self.

Basically things have to happen the way it sees it as defined by its own omniscience and there is nothing God can do about it.

[darkkeeperjr]

The master plan: God is going to win this chess game.

You are a pawn at one of the ends of the board. You can move one space or two. you use your free will to move one or two. Doesn't matter,God or his opponent is not planning on touching pieces from that side of the board again anyway.


God wins the game and your free will move did not change the game at any time.

[Paradox]

mcgaffer calls in an old one:

Same guys were in the pub tonight and i really got them going by saying this, ' If God is all powerful, ask Him to create the stone He can not lift. If He can't create it then He is not all powerful, but if He cannot lift it He is also not all powerful.'
This one really got them going as i sat back and watched.

I think if they hadn't heard that one before, you need a new pub to hang out in. :wink:

[Paul McEnery]

The master plan: God is going to win this chess game.

You are a pawn at one of the ends of the board. You can move one space or two. you use your free will to move one or two. Doesn't matter,God or his opponent is not planning on touching pieces from that side of the board again anyway.


God wins the game and your free will move did not change the game at any time.

I'm betting you're the kind of chess player who gets taken by Fool's Mate every now and again.

[Paradox]

Gumbo Maximillian is my polar opposite:

Free Will is basically an illusion; we are all acting out the program that is our self, at the end of the day everything you do is everything that "you" would do.

Its all domino's, there is no such thing as chaos, supreme being or not there is no true free will.

From the beginning to the end its all one thing after another, cause and effect.

The moment the first particle moved or the big bang went off, was the moment all reality was decided.

But back to the original question of "if there is a supreme being with a plan" doesn't that cross out free will?

Don't know; after all it would be like playing domino's but you are the table, the wind, control the laws of physics etc...and so on.

Does the domino have a choice about falling? Or is it just obeying its intrisic nature that you set up?

Though of course; omniscience kind of sets up a scenario where God might be as trapped by his own nature as everybody else, after all it has to happen the way he saw it, because even if he being God had the ability to change it and change his mind, that would mean it "didn't" happen the way he saw it if only due to its own self.

Basically things have to happen the way it sees it as defined by its own omniscience and there is nothing God can do about it.

Bah to determinism. :smile:

I believe entirely the opposite. That order doesn't exist and is an illusion pushed on us by human perception tools. It's just how we filter all this chaos. :tongue:

[Rabid Trekkie]

Why does philosophy and religious discussion always sound like pot talk?

Because it's Paul and this is what happens when Eastern and Western philosophies collide with science in a big orgy of chaos with the Old Ones.

[niall mc cann]

As Spinoza, I think, said: everything wants to persist in its own being. Hydrogen atoms and amoeba, plants and planets, hurricanes and halibut, galaxies and bad habits, they all act in their own self-interest.

Agency.

I'm trying very hard to understand what you're saying...

So... I'm an expression of agency, rather than a source. Or at best, I'm both. Agency is a force that works to engineer probability. Is this like Jung's idea of unconscious-as-rhizome? Or a gravity of probability?

[Paul McEnery]

I'm trying very hard to understand what you're saying...

So... I'm an expression of agency, rather than a source. Or at best, I'm both. Agency is a force that works to engineer probability. Is this like Jung's idea of unconscious-as-rhizome? Or a gravity of probability?

Well, I'm trying equally hard to not be too simplistic in being counter-intuitive. While on the other hand knowing it took 3000 words to get it down last time.

The important thing is that agency is free will without the freedom or the will. :biggrin:

Or, to put it less irritatingly, our assumptions about free will are probably wrong. Everything acts as if it is free and has will -- what's so special about us? We can understand freedom in the sense of degrees of freedom i.e. how much leeway you've actually go; and we can understand will as fulfilling the drives that make an entity what it is. So a cat is utterly deterministic (well, actually, I doubt it about cats); but say there really is a robotic animal; nevertheless, withing the contraints available to it, it's reasonable to say "the cat wanted to eat the mouse", yeah?

Well, same thing.

Ah. Here we go. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5036301&postcount=1062)

[darkkeeperjr]

I'm betting you're the kind of chess player who gets taken by Fool's Mate every now and again.

About once every 3 years or so,if I'm not paying attention.

[socool8520]

In the case of everything being part of God's big plan though how can you be held accountable for your actions. Heaven and hell are our reward and punishment but if God had already manipulated events to turn out the way he wants, is it right that some people go to hell because of the way his plan runs.

i agree. if he sends you to hell for being a murderer but he already knew you were going to do it, then what was the point? that would be the most evil thing a so called perfect being could do. that's why i don't believe in master plans. everything you do is up to you and only you.

[Paul McEnery]

i agree. if he sends you to hell for being a murderer but he already knew you were going to do it, then what was the point? that would be the most evil thing a so called perfect being could do. that's why i don't believe in master plans. everything you do is up to you and only you.

No no no.

That's to give the Devil and all his minions something to keep them occupied.

Like giving a hamster to your kids.

[meethraa]

God having a plan isn't the same as God forcing that plan on you. We can choose to follow God's plan or work against it.
But how does that work with the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent God?

That's a bit like me writing a script, getting cast and crew, filming the whole thing, editing it the way I want to, burning it to a dvd, and then, as I'm watching it in my living room, yelling at the tv "hey, you're free to say and do whatever you want, you know?"

[Paul McEnery]

But how does that work with the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent God?

That's a bit like me writing a script, getting cast and crew, filming the whole thing, editing it the way I want to, burning it to a dvd, and then, as I'm watching it in my living room, yelling at the tv "hey, you're free to say and do whatever you want, you know?"

Hey, that's what I yell at my internet porn.

[socool8520]

No no no.

That's to give the Devil and all his minions something to keep them occupied.

Like giving a hamster to your kids.

oh i see. it's all in the sake of entertainment. that changes things. it's kinda like survivor: eternal destination. i hope i don't get voted off. lol

[meethraa]

Hey, that's what I yell at my internet porn.

I can't yell at my internet porn. Don't want to make the other people at the café uncomfortable.
I giggle quite a lot, though,

[darkhanamaru]

Like giving a hamster to your kids.

or this thead to Paul.

[Puma]

or this thead to Paul.

Paul just kinda took this thread and is now squeezing it for all its worth.


a little like a kid with a hamster in fact.

[niall mc cann]

Ah. Here we go. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5036301&postcount=1062)

Okay, I read it and I've been thinking it over.

So "agency" isn't about free will as much as it's about the fullfilment of potentiality, which always exists (or will until we finally run out of potential).

But the concept of oneness is important there too... is it fair to say that agency, defined as free will in the classical sense, is almost an expression of seperateness? All potentialities are aspects of the universe, so to say that my agency has a certain, finite number of possible avenues of expression is to view only a subset of a much larger unit. Or am I misunderstanding?

[Tages]

Well, I'm trying equally hard to not be too simplistic in being counter-intuitive. While on the other hand knowing it took 3000 words to get it down last time.

The important thing is that agency is free will without the freedom or the will. :biggrin:

Or, to put it less irritatingly, our assumptions about free will are probably wrong. Everything acts as if it is free and has will -- what's so special about us? We can understand freedom in the sense of degrees of freedom i.e. how much leeway you've actually go; and we can understand will as fulfilling the drives that make an entity what it is. So a cat is utterly deterministic (well, actually, I doubt it about cats); but say there really is a robotic animal; nevertheless, withing the contraints available to it, it's reasonable to say "the cat wanted to eat the mouse", yeah?

Well, same thing.

Ah. Here we go. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5036301&postcount=1062)

Ah, I remember that essay.

BTW, as it turns out, there is a word for "be not hungry" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/satiated). :biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

Paul just kinda took this thread and is now squeezing it for all its worth.


a little like a kid with a hamster in fact.

Hammer, hamster; hamster, hammer.

Hmm.

[Paul McEnery]

Okay, I read it and I've been thinking it over.

So "agency" isn't about free will as much as it's about the fullfilment of potentiality, which always exists (or will until we finally run out of potential).

But the concept of oneness is important there too... is it fair to say that agency, defined as free will in the classical sense, is almost an expression of seperateness? All potentialities are aspects of the universe, so to say that my agency has a certain, finite number of possible avenues of expression is to view only a subset of a much larger unit. Or am I misunderstanding?

YOU GIVE ME ICE CREAM BRAIN!

I dunno. First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is. What level do you fancy a crack at today, Player One. It's all just moving the plot along, like that big guy, you know who I mean, the enabling freak you find in every mosh pit.

Or did I use that one before? I don't know! I'm not reading that rubbish. Written by a lunatic.

[niall mc cann]

YOU GIVE ME ICE CREAM BRAIN!

Jesus, Paul, you're moving very fast for me...

What kind of ice cream are we talking about?

[Paul McEnery]

Jesus, Paul, you're moving very fast for me...

What kind of ice cream are we talking about?

SpisTASHio. Very cold. With the jelly bits. On a waffle cone!

[Rabid Trekkie]

But how does that work with the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent God?

That's a bit like me writing a script, getting cast and crew, filming the whole thing, editing it the way I want to, burning it to a dvd, and then, as I'm watching it in my living room, yelling at the tv "hey, you're free to say and do whatever you want, you know?"

An omnipotent being deciding not to force you to do something doesn't make the being any less omnipotent.

As for omniscience (spelling?) still not sure how it works. Maybe God lives outside of time and therefore everything is an eternal now for Him. Maybe He rented the video and fast forwards to the middle to see what we're going to do later.

The main problem I see is that people over think this whole "Master Plan" that God has. As I said earlier, the real "plan" is to get as many people as possible to choose to spend eternity with Him. Everything else is neither here nor there. Ecclesiastes 9:11 even talks about how most of life is just random chance. That chance was forseen, but we decided to take that chance or not. Some things may be set in stone, to take a biblical story lets look at Exodus. God wanted to get the Israelites out of Egypt, and he was going to find someone to do it. Moses was the first choice and Moses excepted. If Moses had turned it down, someone else would have gotten the opportunity. The part that was set in stone was that the Israelites would get out of Egypt, who got them out and how that was done depended on Moses saying "yes" or "no".

[Cthulhudrew]

I refer you to the wonderful essay "Is God A Taoist?" (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html) by Raymond Smullyan. There's also an excellent piece on Free Will vs. Determinism that I read in college, but I can't recall the author offhand. I believe I still have a copy of it here, and I'll check to see. In essence, the author's viewpoint was: If everything is determined according to a plan, but only the creator has the omnipresence to see the entire scope of the plan, then is not the illusion of free will essentially the same thing as the actuality of it?

Even as an atheist, the principle behind it is sound, IMO.

[Cthulhudrew]

Bah. Will isn't free! It costs!

A buck o' five.

Oh, wait. That's Freedom.

[Paul McEnery]

An omnipotent being deciding not to force you to do something doesn't make the being any less omnipotent.

As for omniscience (spelling?) still not sure how it works. Maybe God lives outside of time and therefore everything is an eternal now for Him. Maybe He rented the video and fast forwards to the middle to see what we're going to do later.

The main problem I see is that people over think this whole "Master Plan" that God has. As I said earlier, the real "plan" is to get as many people as possible to choose to spend eternity with Him. Everything else is neither here nor there. Ecclesiastes 9:11 even talks about how most of life is just random chance. That chance was forseen, but we decided to take that chance or not. Some things may be set in stone, to take a biblical story lets look at Exodus. God wanted to get the Israelites out of Egypt, and he was going to find someone to do it. Moses was the first choice and Moses excepted. If Moses had turned it down, someone else would have gotten the opportunity. The part that was set in stone was that the Israelites would get out of Egypt, who got them out and how that was done depended on Moses saying "yes" or "no".

Leaving aside the historicity of Moses -- not a lot of evidence there, to be honest -- Meethra is completely correct.

As always, the difficulties dissolve when we define our terms properly. Yes, once one has observed a particular moment, the past becomes set.

There's a couple of non-trivial exceptions to this which are rather interesting

One is Stephen Baxter's thought experiments on time wars, where you exploit certain relativistic loop holes to go back in time and mess around. So in this model, the universe gets do-overs, and all iterations of all possible universes are achievable in the one framework.

The other is that linear time is only a function of consciousness, and that there is only the present instant, which creates both past and future. In this model, we have to look at the universe from the weave's point of view; the whole business is a tapestry that weaves itself; whether or not the tapestry is determined is not clear in this model.

Now If one assumes an observer of the universe outside time, then it's trivial to show a determinist universe. However, it is not trivial to define an observer outside time; quite the opposite, in fact.

Information theory shows there is no such thing; or rather, information theory shows that if there were such a thing as an exhaustive obervation of the universe, it would be identical to the universe. This is obvious when you think about it: an exhaustive observation of the universe requires a point-by-point mapping of all particles.

We know, of course, that this is actually impossible (by Heisenberg). What is less obvious is that to add such a "knowledge" of the universe to a "knower" sets up a useless infinite regress. The model = what is modelled. But also: Model + Knower = Model (in a similar way to Infinity + 1 = Infinity; but there are any number of infinities to cope with this problem mathematically; in the epistemological sense, there are not an infinity of knowers). The Knower is functionally non-existent.

This is all just shorthand. I can go into much greater detail showing how the assumption of a Thomist God leads to the conclusion that there is no Thomist God. I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

Meanwhile, here's a fun fact, from this week's New Scientist: our prefrontal cortex starts doing whatever it is we mean to do a full seven seconds before consciousness wakes up and says "I meant to do that!". The previously measured latency was about a third of a second; so we're now much deeper into the decision tree.

This is lethal to "free will", of course, as constructed in a Thomist-Rationalist framework. It's completely copernican, in that it shows that the part of our mind we most I identify with ("This came out of me!") is always the last to know. The ego is Dilbert's Boss.

So either we expand the concepts of agency and self to include unconscious physical processes, or we toss the whole thing out. The expanded version is the Buddhist idea of self, of course; when prompted with stupid desires ("Hey, let's go invade Iraq!"), we are able to use our ego/anterior cingulate cortex to act mindfully.

That is to say, we take more than seven seconds to consider our actions; we bring them into consciousness; we run an eventualities subroutine and compare to previous results.

Like: I really really want to reply to this post and bring in the whole of physics, pscyhology and the philosophy of linguistics, and I'd have a lovely time doing it. And there goes the day.

Maybe I'll go do something more productive.

[beetlebum]

Here's a post I wrote in another thread :


In other words, the more accurately you know the momentum of a particle, the less accurately you'd be able to measure its position (and vice versa) This is more than just a practical limitation: it is a theoretical principle. It appeals to ideal measurements as well.

What this means is that we are limited by accuracy of measurement, since every measurement will consist of probable values, rather than a consistent one. So even if you had a totally deterministic model of the universe, you cannot predict the current state based on a previous state (or a set of measurements) with total accuracy. Thus, any prediction of the state of the universe at a certain time is a probabilistic measure. In essence, it means non-predictability.

This would certainly seem to indicate that the universe is non deterministic, but advocates of the determinism appeal to the film roll theory. Meaning? Everything is pre-determined, but cannot be predicted until it happens.


But if the universe is non deterministic, is the Law Of Causalty invalidated? Must everything have a cause and effect? The fact that we cannot fully predict what will happen next certainly provides a good argument for a non deterministic universe.

David Suzuki states in 'The Sacred Balance' that because we cannot know with certainty the position of a particle we therefore have no hope in understanding the universe as we do not understand the most elementary levels.

Newtonian physics is completely deterministic in the sense that if you knew the position and velocities of all the particles in the universe you could then form an equation of motion for the universe which would evolve deterministically through time (this equation would, of course, not be solve-able analytically and must be approximated by an incredibly powerful computer).

What quantum mechanics says is that we cannot know with infinite accuracy the positions and velocities of any particle in the universe. So, at first glance it seems we cannot form an equation of motion in the way in which we would want to previously.

However, we can, in theory, know the wave function of every particle in the universe. We can even consider the wave function of the universe itself. Once we know the wave function at a particular time, thanks to measurement, the wave functions will evolve deterministically as governed by the Time Dependent Schrodinger Equation, so that we can know the wave function of the universe at any time after it is measured.

The idea of a wave-function is quite a difficult one to understand until you've done a little more formal quantum mechanics.

How the wave function behaves after subsequent measurements is where quantum mechanics becomes unpredictable. The idea of the wave function itself is quite difficult to comprehend until you've studied quantum mechanics formally (keep in mind, I have not.)

Quantum mechanics is essentially a theory of measurement, so until we make a measurement, we know absolutely nothing of certain wave functions.

So whereas we can make certain predictions about how the wave-function evolves with time we cannot make certain predictions about the outcome of a particular measurement of things like position, momentum and energy until the wave-function has collapsed into, what is known as, a definite position/momentum/energy .

It all goes back to whether or not you believe in a deterministic universe, or a chaotic universe. Kind of like a free will vs. determinism debate.


Can the universe be both chaotic and deterministic? After all, chaos is not synonymous with randomness.

For example, our weather system is actually determined by Newtonian mechanics, which is deterministic in nature, but it also has elements of chaos, because the equations of motion cannot be solved analytically, and must be approximated by computers. These approximations mean there is an error carried forward with each "step", which means that after many steps, the error becomes bigger.

Thus explaining why we can make good predictions about the weather in the near future, like say, within the hour. But we cannot make good predictions for next week.


Could it simply be stated that the apparent randomness is due to our inability to precisely measure the initial conditions of all the variables? If we could measure the initial conditions precisely, than a deterministic, predictable outcome would result.

But because minute changes in initial conditions become large ones due to the fractal nature of smaller patterns, creating larger ones of similar structure then small measurement inaccuracies will create large errors in predictions. Isn't this why the butterfly flapping its wings can change the weather from what was predicted? Because the butterfly was not considered in making the predictions?

But since the smallest level of particles measurement inaccuracies are unavoidable due to the aforementioned, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle doesn't that mean that all predictions will be inaccurate? I assume that the probabilities can be combined to predict the most likely outcome. But isn't there always some uncertainty?

The inability arises out of two things, first of all, our inability to measure with infinite accuracy, but it is also the process of solving the equations themselves, is where error can arise.

Even something as simple as a double pendulum exhibits chaotic behaviour because of the non linear nature of the equations governing its motion irrelevant of whether we can measure the initial conditions accurately enough.

The main difference between quantum mechanics and Newtonian is that they disagree on whether or not you can actually measure with infinite accuracy. Chaotic behaviour can be exhibited by both theories, but it is never solely because of our inability to measure precisely.

Deterministic in that sense would only occur for entities which do not have the capability for abstract thought, and what Dennet describes as 'avoiding agents'.
The rules have changed since than.

So in other words, random things happen.

The Newtonian model states that every property of every physical entity can be determined. Every event is a logical reaction to the preceding event. An event in this description is simply the change of one or more physical properties of an entity. With this theory, LaPlace theorized that if one would have knowledge of every single entity in the entire universe, one could determine the next sequence of events, thus predicting the future. One of the most famous arguments against the deterministic universe is the theory of ir-reversibility. Some have even argued that the deterministic universe has become less popular amongst scientists. Whether this is true or not is still subject to debate.


In contrast, the in-determinist theory states that every event takes place based on probability. Probability on the sub atomic level makes it so the future cannot be determined. The biggest contrast between the indeterministic and deterministic universe is the existence of absolute randomness.

Absolute randomness makes the future hard to predict.

I say that, in light of what I just posted above, absolute free will does not exist. Probablistic causation in more like it. An example: A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B.

And given that an agent who possesses a virtue is a person who possess it, along with all of the complexities of the human mind, and may even be subjected to a multi track disposition ( as opposed to an occurrent belief); than that makes it hard for there to ever be pure free will, or pure determinism.

[Paul McEnery]

Here's a post I wrote in another thread :



I say that, in light of what I just posted above, absolute free will does not exist. Probablistic causation in more like it. An example: A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B.

And given that an agent who possesses a virtue is a person who possess it, along with all of the complexities of the human mind, and may even be subjected to a multi track disposition ( as opposed to an occurrent belief); than that makes it hard for there to ever be pure free will, or pure determinism.

That's about right.

And in a sense, nothing new there. That's the result Hume proved centuries ago, that causation was a muddy thought.

I doubt he expected to find that the answer was that causation itself is muddy -- well, he'd have said so, wouldn't he. But in the light of later information, that's certainly where he'd have gone.

And this is what we find in our experience, on the whole. We very rarely bother to actually make choices. In fact, we bloody hate it!

Torn between two lovers, feeling like a fool, loving both of you is breaking all the rules.









Sorry.

[gorthon616]

I say that, in light of what I just posted above, absolute free will does not exist.

Obviously not absolute free will. To have absolute free will, you have to determine everything. If I stab you, you bleed but not out of free will. Of course, we constantly refine "will" until it's smaller and smaller. Well this affected me so it's not "free" until ultimately you're will is nothing and you are nothing. Of course, if you are nothing then what is holding you back?

I love metaphysics, philosophy, and all that nonsensical garbage as much as the next guy who is totally obsessed with it...

But at the end of the day, you have free will if you decide to have it. Makes sense right? If you didn't decide to have it, it wouldn't really be "free" right? It's imposed. And hence, inherently non-volitional. Freedom is not something given, it is something taken. At best it could be that we have the capacity for it, rather than being it.

Determinists make me laugh sometimes. They can break down reality and master the universe, but at the end of the day they end up being nothing. What a waste. Long way to go just to say "well, I didn't have any choice other than to do it." And really you could do the same, break down reality and master the universe.... but instead of saying you are bound you could say that you are free. And you know what? All the determinist are going to tell you that you aren't. But so what? At the end of the day, because they are "determinists" they can't make you do anything, nor can they make you be anything. See they can only speak to what is, they can't create or affect it. So even if you're wrong, they would be the last person to tell you because they inherently speak to the fact they are blind to free will.

[fred10]

Oh, god. Oh, man. This is brutal, man. There's no way I can read through all this. Is there any way we can start this discussion all over again? Here, I'll go:

I believe in free will because my mommy told me so! Is that good enough? It's really the reason for most of my beliefs.

[beetlebum]

Obviously not absolute free will. To have absolute free will, you have to determine everything. If I stab you, you bleed but not out of free will. Of course, we constantly refine "will" until it's smaller and smaller. Well this affected me so it's not "free" until ultimately you're will is nothing and you are nothing. Of course, if you are nothing then what is holding you back?

I love metaphysics, philosophy, and all that nonsensical garbage as much as the next guy who is totally obsessed with it...

But at the end of the day, you have free will if you decide to have it. Makes sense right? If you didn't decide to have it, it wouldn't really be "free" right? It's imposed. And hence, inherently non-volitional. Freedom is not something given, it is something taken. At best it could be that we have the capacity for it, rather than being it.

Determinists make me laugh sometimes. They can break down reality and master the universe, but at the end of the day they end up being nothing. What a waste. Long way to go just to say "well, I didn't have any choice other than to do it." And really you could do the same, break down reality and master the universe.... but instead of saying you are bound you could say that you are free. And you know what? All the determinist are going to tell you that you aren't. But so what? At the end of the day, because they are "determinists" they can't make you do anything, nor can they make you be anything. See they can only speak to what is, they can't create or affect it. So even if you're wrong, they would be the last person to tell you because they inherently speak to the fact they are blind to free will.

Um; I'm not a determinist. More like a compatibilist, really. Hence why I said there is no pure free will, and no pure determinism.

And when it comes to metaphysics, I say that I am more of a moderate realist than anything else.

We all make choices in life, and empiricism does play a part in the decisions we make.

EDIT: I obviously don't consider philosophy, metaphysics and the like garbage, and you're being a bit harsh in your critiques of determinism.

EDITTOADDNOTE: The content in my posts before the bit about probabilistic causation was actually an argument against pure determinism, as well as pure free will. Chaos and randomness make it hard for there the universe to be that way. The jury is still out in regards to this. I'm also baffled by what set off your little tangent about determinism, as nothing in my post indicated that I was a 'hard' determinist, and opposed to the concept of free will.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, god. Oh, man. This is brutal, man. There's no way I can read through all this. Is there any way we can start this discussion all over again? Here, I'll go:

I believe in free will because my mommy told me so! Is that good enough? It's really the reason for most of my beliefs.

It's not a matter of belief.

[Paul McEnery]

But at the end of the day, you have free will if you decide to have it. Makes sense right? If you didn't decide to have it, it wouldn't really be "free" right? It's imposed. And hence, inherently non-volitional. Freedom is not something given, it is something taken. At best it could be that we have the capacity for it, rather than being it.

Er, no. It is a matter of science as to whether we live in a deterministic universe or not. We don't actually know the answer to it yet. But rather than frame the question as a zero sum game, better to ask what degrees of freedom there are within any given system.

[mattx110]

When we have equations and theorems for every physical property of the universe, then we'll know if we have free will or not.


Although experience with now-defunct CompUsa and those darn mail-in rebates has lead me to believe nothing is free.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Bah to determinism. :smile:

I believe entirely the opposite. That order doesn't exist and is an illusion pushed on us by human perception tools. It's just how we filter all this chaos. :tongue:

Chaos is just a description for a path of events that we can't see or totally understand.

If you looked at it from far enough away or with a good enough microscope, you would see all the other events richocheting off one another to affect and cause these events.

Or to put it this way, if you were God you would see how it all works.

And if that is even remotely possible, than Chaos is not chaos but a large and complex scale of events.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Obviously not absolute free will. To have absolute free will, you have to determine everything. If I stab you, you bleed but not out of free will. Of course, we constantly refine "will" until it's smaller and smaller. Well this affected me so it's not "free" until ultimately you're will is nothing and you are nothing. Of course, if you are nothing then what is holding you back?

I love metaphysics, philosophy, and all that nonsensical garbage as much as the next guy who is totally obsessed with it...

But at the end of the day, you have free will if you decide to have it. Makes sense right? If you didn't decide to have it, it wouldn't really be "free" right? It's imposed. And hence, inherently non-volitional. Freedom is not something given, it is something taken. At best it could be that we have the capacity for it, rather than being it.

Determinists make me laugh sometimes. They can break down reality and master the universe, but at the end of the day they end up being nothing. What a waste. Long way to go just to say "well, I didn't have any choice other than to do it." And really you could do the same, break down reality and master the universe.... but instead of saying you are bound you could say that you are free. And you know what? All the determinist are going to tell you that you aren't. But so what? At the end of the day, because they are "determinists" they can't make you do anything, nor can they make you be anything. See they can only speak to what is, they can't create or affect it. So even if you're wrong, they would be the last person to tell you because they inherently speak to the fact they are blind to free will.


Freewill isn't really about whether its been given to you, you could argue that since your are born and created via another being whether that be God or your parents, that your will isn't free then because you didn't have a choice in getting even the possibility of it, from that theory anyways.

Though the bit about if your not God you basically don't have free will is interesting in its own way, of course if God is omniscient he doesn't truly have free will either.

And of course at the end of the day you can't truly make anyone do anything, whether in a deterministic one or a free will universe.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

An omnipotent being deciding not to force you to do something doesn't make the being any less omnipotent.

As for omniscience (spelling?) still not sure how it works. Maybe God lives outside of time and therefore everything is an eternal now for Him. Maybe He rented the video and fast forwards to the middle to see what we're going to do later.

The main problem I see is that people over think this whole "Master Plan" that God has. As I said earlier, the real "plan" is to get as many people as possible to choose to spend eternity with Him. Everything else is neither here nor there. Ecclesiastes 9:11 even talks about how most of life is just random chance. That chance was forseen, but we decided to take that chance or not. Some things may be set in stone, to take a biblical story lets look at Exodus. God wanted to get the Israelites out of Egypt, and he was going to find someone to do it. Moses was the first choice and Moses excepted. If Moses had turned it down, someone else would have gotten the opportunity. The part that was set in stone was that the Israelites would get out of Egypt, who got them out and how that was done depended on Moses saying "yes" or "no".


So God isn't omniscient enough to know if Moses would say yay or nay to the question?

The thing is if God is omniscient, then he saw this coming, a billion infinities before the infinity before time and then he made everything and set it up.

Everything goes exactly as he dictated and set the universe to be.

Actually if I remember correctly; Moses did turn it down and they were going to get his brother to do it instead but I guess he just felt "inspired" when it all went down to do it himself.

Also God made some unrepentant bastards out there, the devil being among one of them, so at least a few of the individuals out there are not and were not ever planned on going to heaven.

For that matter why not just invite everybody to heaven?

God can't do that?

God is unable to bring enlightenment to all?

Or is he just hardcore enough he doesn't care to set up events so as to bring this about?

Its these weird limitations that make you realize; alot of people don't really believe in an all powerful god, only one that is relatively all powerful as compared to you but ultimately still limited in some way.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

I refer you to the wonderful essay "Is God A Taoist?" (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html) by Raymond Smullyan. There's also an excellent piece on Free Will vs. Determinism that I read in college, but I can't recall the author offhand. I believe I still have a copy of it here, and I'll check to see. In essence, the author's viewpoint was: If everything is determined according to a plan, but only the creator has the omnipresence to see the entire scope of the plan, then is not the illusion of free will essentially the same thing as the actuality of it?

Even as an atheist, the principle behind it is sound, IMO.

Is the illusion of free will the same as having it?

Kind of sounds like asking if "not having free will" is the same as "having free will".

A question that kind of answeres itself.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

It's not a matter of belief.

I think its supposed to be a joke, he believes in something because he was told too, basically going against free will or whatever.

[Paul McEnery]

Chaos is just a description for a path of events that we can't see or totally understand.

If you looked at it from far enough away or with a good enough microscope, you would see all the other events richocheting off one another to affect and cause these events.

Or to put it this way, if you were God you would see how it all works.

And if that is even remotely possible, than Chaos is not chaos but a large and complex scale of events.

Well, no.

We do, in fact, understand Chaos. Or we wouldn't have Chaos Theory.

Chaos Theory is at its simplest just the study of non-linear systems, which tend by their nature to be non-predictable; which is to say that there are no shortcuts to calculating what will happen, and the quickest way to figure out the output of a chaotic system is to actually run the program.

So Chaos is actually about uncovering underlying (implicate) structure and revealing the simple algorithms that drive non-linear systems to create complexity.

Off the top of my head, Wolfram/Rucker define four levels of complexity: Noise (no actual structure), Steady State (sterile structure), Periodic (most basic generativity, alternating between two steady states), and Gnarly (your classic chaos, with a generative non-linear complexity).*

Then there's several classes of predictability:

Feasible and predictable -- like simple arithmetic.
Feasible and unpredictable -- you have to run the program to find out.
Unfeasible and predictable -- you understand the general principle and can define the result, but the program never terminates.
Unfeasible and unpredictable -- You can't even work up a program to model it.


Human thinking falls into the fourth category. At the moment.




*I had to cheat and look it up. First coffee on a Sunday, dammit!

[Paul McEnery]

I think its supposed to be a joke, he believes in something because he was told too, basically going against free will or whatever.

I get that. But it's like one of those defensive Christian jokes that only culty people laugh at, because they're meant to reaffirm governing assumptions that simply don't pertain.

Like, oh, I don't know: if man was made to fly, why didn't God give us wings, eh, eh, tell us that mister smart guy aviator man.

Oh. Okay. Here's nine gazillion dollars for a ticket. Can I go again, can I can I?

[Paul McEnery]

Is the illusion of free will the same as having it?

Kind of sounds like asking if "not having free will" is the same as "having free will".

A question that kind of answeres itself.

It's a koan!

[Paul McEnery]

So God isn't omniscient enough to know if Moses would say yay or nay to the question?

The thing is if God is omniscient, then he saw this coming, a billion infinities before the infinity before time and then he made everything and set it up.

Everything goes exactly as he dictated and set the universe to be.

Actually if I remember correctly; Moses did turn it down and they were going to get his brother to do it instead but I guess he just felt "inspired" when it all went down to do it himself.

Also God made some unrepentant bastards out there, the devil being among one of them, so at least a few of the individuals out there are not and were not ever planned on going to heaven.

For that matter why not just invite everybody to heaven?

God can't do that?

God is unable to bring enlightenment to all?

Or is he just hardcore enough he doesn't care to set up events so as to bring this about?

Its these weird limitations that make you realize; alot of people don't really believe in an all powerful god, only one that is relatively all powerful as compared to you but ultimately still limited in some way.

Excellent point.

[Paul McEnery]

Bah to determinism. :smile:

I believe entirely the opposite. That order doesn't exist and is an illusion pushed on us by human perception tools. It's just how we filter all this chaos. :tongue:

It is not the flag that moves, it is Mind that moves.

Ah, but where is Mind?

[Cthulhudrew]

Is the illusion of free will the same as having it?

The point is, since we can't see the results of all of our choices, or the choices of others, it doesn't matter whether there is a "big picture" already set in stone or not. For all intents and purposes, then, we do have free will.

In other words, since we're not omniscient, we can never really know whether we have free will or not, so why not just assume that you do and live happy?

[Syzygy]

I think the simpler answer is, God's big fuckin' super-awesome plan is "wait and see." God does have a plan, and it is a shitty plan.

I don't if this is a serious remark or not, but it comes close to what I believe most of the time. That is, that while God is the most powerful being, He's not omnipotent, and this universe, with all its shit, is the best He could do.

[fred10]

I get that. But it's like one of those defensive Christian jokes that only culty people laugh at, because they're meant to reaffirm governing assumptions that simply don't pertain.

Like, oh, I don't know: if man was made to fly, why didn't God give us wings, eh, eh, tell us that mister smart guy aviator man.

Oh. Okay. Here's nine gazillion dollars for a ticket. Can I go again, can I can I?

I don't understand. How could it be a 'defensive Christian joke' if I was 'going against free-will'? 'Methinks' you all are just too clever for your own good, and fucking crazy, to boot.

These circuitous, never-ending discussions about free-will are funny. If you think that you have free-will, why would you ever "choose" to spend your time discussing/ trying to convince others of it? And if you don't think you have free will, what sense does it make to "convince" anybody of anything other than what they already believe?

I don't know much about the subject of free will, itself. It never struck me as something that would change anything, whether I thought one way about it or the other. But, I think it is interesting that there are 'Evolutionary Psychologists' who don't believe in free will, but who think that believing in free will is adaptive, and heritable. The same as been said by some atheists about believing in God. So, I got to tell you, guys, if it's increasing my reproductive success, I'm jumping on that bandwagon (or... in the face of ambiguity, my genetic predisposition to believe in free will compels me to resort to my most adaptive response to think that I have the choice to do so).

Any 'culty' people out there laughing?:wink:

[fred10]

bloopidy bloop!

[Gumbo Maximillian]

I'm not sure that actually contradicts what I posted, basically it comes down to things we can't know or predict and humans being arrogant assume that these things can't be known or predicted.







Well, no.

We do, in fact, understand Chaos. Or we wouldn't have Chaos Theory.

Chaos Theory is at its simplest just the study of non-linear systems, which tend by their nature to be non-predictable; which is to say that there are no shortcuts to calculating what will happen, and the quickest way to figure out the output of a chaotic system is to actually run the program.

So Chaos is actually about uncovering underlying (implicate) structure and revealing the simple algorithms that drive non-linear systems to create complexity.

Off the top of my head, Wolfram/Rucker define four levels of complexity: Noise (no actual structure), Steady State (sterile structure), Periodic (most basic generativity, alternating between two steady states), and Gnarly (your classic chaos, with a generative non-linear complexity).*

Then there's several classes of predictability:

Feasible and predictable -- like simple arithmetic.
Feasible and unpredictable -- you have to run the program to find out.
Unfeasible and predictable -- you understand the general principle and can define the result, but the program never terminates.
Unfeasible and unpredictable -- You can't even work up a program to model it.


Human thinking falls into the fourth category. At the moment.




*I had to cheat and look it up. First coffee on a Sunday, dammit!

[Gumbo Maximillian]

I don't if this is a serious remark or not, but it comes close to what I believe most of the time. That is, that while God is the most powerful being, He's not omnipotent, and this universe, with all its shit, is the best He could do.

But what about heaven?

That is presuming you belief in an after life of some sort, which admitably isn't a given.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

The point is, since we can't see the results of all of our choices, or the choices of others, it doesn't matter whether there is a "big picture" already set in stone or not. For all intents and purposes, then, we do have free will.

In other words, since we're not omniscient, we can never really know whether we have free will or not, so why not just assume that you do and live happy?

Not really; lack of knowledge doesn't mean we do or don't have free will, it is simply lack of knowledge.

And of course, omniscience could lead to one ultimately not having free will either.

And at the end of the day, why not assume you don't have free will and live happily?

[Paul McEnery]

Not really; lack of knowledge doesn't mean we do or don't have free will, it is simply lack of knowledge.

And of course, omniscience could lead to one ultimately not having free will either.

And at the end of the day, why not assume you don't have free will and live happily?

Will not!
...