Free-Will or Determinism

[Influx]

free will is like free speech..its an illusion.

Free Speech is an illusion? Tell me more.. :shock:

 

[Dwarf]

I'm sitting on the fence with this one. Indeed, I have voted that we can't determine anything yet.

From one philosophical question to another. According to various notions, matter has always existed, though not always in the same form. Given that all elements present on the Earth have originated from within stars at various points in their lives and have been flung through the interstellar medium by the solar winds, it must follow that the raw material to form these elements, namely hydrogen, must have existed (which we know to be true, since our own sun also burns hydrogen at its core transforming it into helium). But if you go back far enough, where did the hydrogen come from in the first place?

 

[James7679]

But if you go back far enough, where did the hydrogen come from in the first place?

It evolved from nothingness.

 

[seekermeister]

Free speech has it's limits, yet the right is not an illusion, anymore than free will. There may be a price to pay for the exercise of a right, but the right exists regardless of how it is used. The same is true with free will.

 

[w1dpc]

there are consequences for free speech therefore it is not free.

 

[seekermeister]

Nothing is free, regardless of any laws that might or might not be involved. If a person want to say or do anything, they must weigh the consequences. Those consequences exist at both a personal level and on a governmental level, if one uses their freedoms to do harm to others. If they do good, or at least no harm, then the law has no jurisdiction. It is simply a matter if seeing reality as it truly is.

 

[smarteyeball]

I'm sitting on the fence with this one.

Realistically, it's the only place to sit as neither can be proved/dis-proved.

From one philosophical question to another. According to various notions, matter has always existed, though not always in the same form. Given that all elements present on the Earth have originated from within stars at various points in their lives and have been flung through the interstellar medium by the solar winds, it must follow that the raw material to form these elements, namely hydrogen, must have existed (which we know to be true, since our own sun also burns hydrogen at its core transforming it into helium). But if you go back far enough, where did the hydrogen come from in the first place?

Expanding further on that question:

From other elements that were already determined to mesh and form hydrogen. Of which those pre-hydrogen elements were already determined to be the separate elements required to create hydrogen, and so on and so forth. And with each backtrack, keep in mind that it's all determined to happen. (determined by who/what is a completely separate topic)

Or

It was random elements that happened to create what we now know as hydrogen. Those separate elements were once made up of further separate random elements and so on and so forth. Nothing was determined - it all 'just happened' that way.

Either way, backtrack far enough and we encounter the other all time great - is there actually a beginning of time and if there is, what existed before time? Nothing?

But is nothing actually nothing, or is the state of 'nothing' actually something?

And if nothing is something, then our arbitrary conceptual construct of 'time' is reintroduced. Since nothing is something - What existed before 'nothing' and before that etc?

That in itself raises more questions that have answers we'll never know.

Even if time is now cyclical, it stands to reason there had to be a 'first time round' Including the differing states of 'nothings' and 'somethings'.

On much,much smaller scales, we can prove/disprove certain things, yet on larger scales the ability to prove/disprove, or even comprehend will forever be beyond humanity.

 

[Golden]

But if you go back far enough, where did the hydrogen come from in the first place?

The Big Bang Model

<H4>Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

One of the primary successes of the Big Bang theory is its explanation for the chemical composition of the universe. Recall that the universe is mostly hydrogen and helium, with very small amounts of heavier elements. How does this relate to the Big Bang?

Well, a long time ago, the universe was hot and dense. When the temperature is high enough (a few thousand degrees), atoms lose all their electrons; we call this state of matter, a mix of nuclei and electrons, a fully-ionized plasma. If the temperature is even higher (millions of degrees), then the nuclei break up into fundamental particles, and one is left with a "soup" of fundamental particles:

• protons
• neutrons
• electrons

Now, if the "soup" is very dense, then these particles will collide with each other frequently. Occasionally, groups of protons and neutrons will stick together to form nuclei of light elements ... but under extremely high pressure and temperature, the nuclei are broken up by subsequent collisions. The Big Bang theory postulates that the entire universe was so hot at one time that it was filled with this proton-neutron-electron "soup."
But the Big Bang theory then states that, as the universe expanded, both the density and temperature dropped. As the temperature and density fell, collisions between particles became less violent, and less frequent. There was a brief "window of opportunity" when protons and neutrons could collide hard enough to stick together and form light nuclei, yet not suffer so many subsequent collisions that the nuclei would be destroyed. This "window" appeared about three minutes after the starting point, and lasted for a bit less than a minute.
Which nuclei would form under these conditions? Experiments with particle colliders have shown us that most of the possible nuclei are unstable, meaning they break up all by themselves, or fragile, meaning they are easily broken by collisions.

Helium (the ordinary sort, with 2 protons and 2 neutrons) is by far the most stable and robust compound nucleus. Deuterium (one proton and one neutron) is easily destroyed, and so is helium-3 (2 protons, one neutron). So, it seems that this period of hot, dense plasma would create a lot of helium.

</H4>

 

[Influx]

Nothing is free, regardless of any laws that might or might not be involved. If a person want to say or do anything, they must weigh the consequences. Those consequences exist at both a personal level and on a governmental level, if one uses their freedoms to do harm to others. If they do good, or at least no harm, then the law has no jurisdiction. It is simply a matter if seeing reality as it truly is.

No, our decisions are free since they are based on our wants and preferences. Being preordained does not contradict the fact of their basis.

 

[FuturDreamz]

I think it comes down to: What is the definition of free will?

According to Wikipedia:

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

According to Wikipedia:

Choice consists of the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them

According to Merriam-Webster:

Merit; individual significance or justification

Which, to my understanding, means that all choices mare made using predefined criteria, no matter how minute (such as choosing a red shirt over a blue shirt because the room is slightly stuffy and deep down you have an association of blue+stuffy=bad, due to your big Aunt Bertha hugging you when you were three, while she was wearing a blue dress).

My understanding is that everything we do is based on past experiences or current conditions, which can be based on a judgement so complex or arbitrary as to seem random.

 

[smarteyeball]

The Big Bang Model

Ahh, but 'who/what/why' ignited the Big Bang in the first place?

Was it intentionally lit, or was it random?

I think it comes down to: What is the definition of free will?

True - and for sake of this debate, what is the scope of either?

So far I've seen a lot of semantics arguing to and fro based on small scopes and not a lot of stepping back and viewing things from a much larger context.

 

[Golden]

The Big Bang Model

Ahh, but 'who/what/why' ignited the Big Bang in the first place?

Was it intentionally lit, or was it random?

Good question, but according to Heisenberg we can never know the answer. At the singularity, Newtonian physics counts for nought (or should that be one? or maybe both?) The quantum world is a strange place..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

[seekermeister]

Disregarding any theories, quantum or otherwise, one thing is certain...where there is an effect, there is a cause. Science may not be able to determine the cause, but it was there, and remains today.

 

[Golden]

Disregarding any theories, quantum or otherwise, where there is an effect, there is a cause. Science may not be able to determine the cause, but it was there, and remains today.

Eh?

 

[Influx]

Good question, but according to Heisenberg we can never know the answer. At the singularity, Newtonian physics counts for nought (or should that be one? or maybe both?) The quantum world is a strange place..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

We can never know that we can never know the answer. We are completely hopeless. :shock:

 

[smarteyeball]

Good question, but according to Heisenberg we can never know the answer.

Good to see he agrees with me

(It still counts if you arrive at the same conclusion independently )

At the singularity, Newtonian physics counts for nought (or should that be one? or maybe both?) The quantum world is a strange place..........

Tbh, most of quantum physics count for nought since most theories and conclusions are predicated on filling in the blanks within arbitrary parameters in the first place.

But it sure is fun thinking about and it's far a better and more productive alternative to drawing a line in the sand and going "Nope. No more questions"

 

[seekermeister]

Disregarding any theories, quantum or otherwise, where there is an effect, there is a cause. Science may not be able to determine the cause, but it was there, and remains today.

Eh?

Sorry, I don't know how to put it any more simply. A basic principle of physics is that there is a cause for any specific effect. The effect is usually obvious, it is the cause that can be elusive, at least when digging into a subject such as this. The point is that nothing just happens chaotically. Chaos is nothing more than the perspective that some are left with when they fail to understand the cause.