Free-Will or Determinism

[Influx]

Determinism is the only rational answer to this at least to most. If free-will does exist and is not an illusion, we would not be able to explain how except randomness and uncertainty. Is there any proof that it does exist?

 

[Dwarf]

Interesting. I've gone for the 3rd option, namely that we can't come to any conclusions yet. There are many situations where 2 (or more) options are possible (like the example above), but if there was only one option, the other(s) couldn't exist since each option, by default, also defines the existence of the other(s).

 

[Phone Man]

(d)

Jim

 

[cyclic]

Notice these are al theories ! ergo not yet proof in any one capacity, I'm with Dwarf on this one.

 

[profdlp]

Free Will.

He mentioned the precision of the path of the electron as evidence of the "clockwork" nature of the universe. When I was at Naval Nuclear Power School one of the things I learned (which I found fascinating) was that in a nuclear reaction, while we could predict with uncanny accuracy the percentage of fissionable particles which would do a certain thing, there was no sure way of predicting the behavior of an individual particle.

Now, I'm not saying that my analogy about fissionable particles proves anything, but by the same token his analogy about electrons doesn't prove anything, either.

 

[Influx]

Interesting. I've gone for the 3rd option, namely that we can't come to any conclusions yet. There are many situations where 2 (or more) options are possible (like the example above), but if there was only one option, the other(s) couldn't exist since each option, by default, also defines the existence of the other(s).

Determinism is already a very rational conclusion. The only problem is, we cannot be so certain on to such conclusion. I don't exactly know why that is a problem, perhaps because our knowledge is too imperfect, we shall not delve into a conclusion and it is very absurd, but a lot do assume determinism is true. Free will would be something unexplainable and more absurd to consider. He did say we cannot predict what person will do using his past history. Actually, there are more things to consider aside from a past history. There's too much complexity there that we have to call it random, uncertainty does not suggest freewill. He is right that since our knowledge is still in its infancy, and also since this is a very absurd topic to easily conclude, we should be in the between. We cannot conclude anything.

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even the uncertainty principle does not suggest freewill, it just says that it is possible in some sense.

 

[marsmimar]

I think I'm going to have to go with "can't come to any conclusions yet." Or was that response pre-ordained by some higher power?

 

[James7679]

I'm going to have to go with free will. I know that I chose what I am going to do or not do.

As far as Physics go, well, speaking on an atomic level, you can't predict how everything will happen. So there are things that happen "randomly". A simple experiment; a tennis ball, a room with no ventilation and a release mechanism. Drop the ball 100 times, it will not go in the same direction, upon bouncing, every time. Things do just happen sometimes.

As far as humans and the way that we interact with one another, well, if we are going to say we don't have free will, how can there be any laws to punish those who do wrong? Is this going to be some kind of "scapegoat" eventually that everyone falls back on? This kind of thinking furthers my belief that mankind has become so weak, timid and frail, that they simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Dwarf]

Interesting. I've gone for the 3rd option, namely that we can't come to any conclusions yet. There are many situations where 2 (or more) options are possible (like the example above), but if there was only one option, the other(s) couldn't exist since each option, by default, also defines the existence of the other(s).

In addition, if there was only a single option then that option couldn't exist because of the lack of other option(s) to prove or otherwise disprove that that option did or did not exist.

 

[Influx]

I'm going to have to go with free will. I know that I chose what I am going to do or not do.

As far as Physics go, well, speaking on an atomic level, you can't predict how everything will happen. So there are things that happen "randomly". A simple experiment; a tennis ball, a room with no ventilation and a release mechanism. Drop the ball 100 times, it will not go in the same direction, upon bouncing, every time. Things do just happen sometimes.

As far as humans and the way that we interact with one another, well, if we are going to say we don't have free will, how can there be any laws to punish those who do wrong? Is this going to be some kind of "scapegoat" eventually that everyone falls back on? This kind of thinking furthers my belief that mankind has become so weak, timid and frail, that they simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

1. Randomness does not suggest free-will.
2. Laws punish humans so that they will avoid doing it [punishment] and to prevent them from doing it [prisonment].

We have actually no scientific proof that FreeWill does exist. Being aware of what your decisions does not suggest freewill. :/

 

[James7679]

I'm going to have to go with free will. I know that I chose what I am going to do or not do.

As far as Physics go, well, speaking on an atomic level, you can't predict how everything will happen. So there are things that happen "randomly". A simple experiment; a tennis ball, a room with no ventilation and a release mechanism. Drop the ball 100 times, it will not go in the same direction, upon bouncing, every time. Things do just happen sometimes.

As far as humans and the way that we interact with one another, well, if we are going to say we don't have free will, how can there be any laws to punish those who do wrong? Is this going to be some kind of "scapegoat" eventually that everyone falls back on? This kind of thinking furthers my belief that mankind has become so weak, timid and frail, that they simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

1. Randomness does not suggest free-will. I never said it did. Randomness and free will are relative to the topic of conversation. For example, anything that can think, or make decisions for itself abide by the laws of free will. Every human or animal makes it's decision based on it's needs(first), abilities(second), and wants(third). A tree, however, grows towards light, because that's what it's programmed to do on a cellular level. A piece of lumber, falling off the back of a truck, while you are traveling down the highway, may or may not hit your vehicle based any number of variables. A bullet, fired from a sniper's rifle, may or may not hit exactly where it is intended, based, again, on any number of variables. "Thinking species" and Atomic Particles, do not adhere to the same set of rules. Period.
2. Laws punish humans so that they will avoid doing it [punishment] and to prevent them from doing it [prisonment]. Yes, and some people are stupid enough to continue to break the same laws over and over. Is that because they have no power in the matter? Or is it because their moral compass is defunct and therefor they continue to CHOSE to make the same decision based upon their "needs", "ability" and "wants".

We have actually no scientific proof that FreeWill does exist. Being aware of what your decisions does not suggest freewill. :/ I would agree with you, except that the basis of "Science" is THEORY. Science is an ever-changing world of guesses and hypothesis. Every decade brings new ideas and new beliefs. There are many beliefs in Science that are sound. But mostly, it's just a guessing game. Ask any real scientist, who doesn't have a bloated head, they will tell you the same.

In short, if you aren't going to accept responsibility for YOUR actions, who do you think should???

 

[seekermeister]

In a sense, both 1 and 2 are correct. It's rather like the concept of fate or predestination, while a person may make a choice of alternatives, that choice could be easily predicted if viewed in hindsight, if one fully understood the mindset of the person at the time. Kind of like putting mice in a maze, it would be difficult to know before hand the exact path that the mice would take to find the exit, but you know that they eventually will, if they are normal and healthy mice. Some feeble mice might die in the maze, if very large or complex, Thus free will and predetermination go hand in hand. The walls of the maze of life for people are not visible, therefore not obvious, but they are just as solid and real. One should not confuse the concepts of free will and free choice.

 

[Influx]

I'm going to have to go with free will. I know that I chose what I am going to do or not do.

As far as Physics go, well, speaking on an atomic level, you can't predict how everything will happen. So there are things that happen "randomly". A simple experiment; a tennis ball, a room with no ventilation and a release mechanism. Drop the ball 100 times, it will not go in the same direction, upon bouncing, every time. Things do just happen sometimes.

As far as humans and the way that we interact with one another, well, if we are going to say we don't have free will, how can there be any laws to punish those who do wrong? Is this going to be some kind of "scapegoat" eventually that everyone falls back on? This kind of thinking furthers my belief that mankind has become so weak, timid and frail, that they simply refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

1. Randomness does not suggest free-will. I never said it did. Randomness and free will are relative to the topic of conversation. For example, anything that can think, or make decisions for itself abide by the laws of free will. Every human or animal makes it's decision based on it's needs(first), abilities(second), and wants(third). A tree, however, grows towards light, because that's what it's programmed to do on a cellular level. A piece of lumber, falling off the back of a truck, while you are traveling down the highway, may or may not hit your vehicle based any number of variables. A bullet, fired from a sniper's rifle, may or may not hit exactly where it is intended, based, again, on any number of variables. "Thinking species" and Atomic Particles, do not adhere to the same set of rules. Period.
2. Laws punish humans so that they will avoid doing it [punishment] and to prevent them from doing it [prisonment]. Yes, and some people are stupid enough to continue to break the same laws over and over. Is that because they have no power in the matter? Or is it because their moral compass is defunct and therefor they continue to CHOSE to make the same decision based upon their "needs", "ability" and "wants".

We have actually no scientific proof that FreeWill does exist. Being aware of what your decisions does not suggest freewill. :/ I would agree with you, except that the basis of "Science" is THEORY. Science is an ever-changing world of guesses and hypothesis. Every decade brings new ideas and new beliefs. There are many beliefs in Science that are sound. But mostly, it's just a guessing game. Ask any real scientist, who doesn't have a bloated head, they will tell you the same.

In short, if you aren't going to accept responsibility for YOUR actions, who do you think should???

No one is responsible of our actions, theoretically. We do avoid evil through our moral knowledge. If we do evil, for example, a murderer, it is because of his biological personality and lack of education, therefore he should be taught and possibly be prohibited from freedom to avoid harm from the public. I do agree with you a lot. Most of science's knowledge, afaik, has been improvised and ever-changing. We do not even have the tools to predict human decisions. We should leave the problem, a problem, until we reach a definite level of certainty. I thought of it though, that determinism is clear in larger forms, this should be more intuitive, for example, you cannot feel love properly, when your hypothalamus is not working well. This just goes to say, our actions depend on physical things and what happens in the surroundings (or in our body) and it's unreasonable to consider that other things could happen in a given situation, environment, state of mind, unless if REAL randomness does exist. Well, infact there is no such thing as Random (theory), randomness is simply too much complexity. It's very difficult to conclude at this point and this is pretty counter-intuitive and absurd. I've conducted a poll at another forum, most would say Determinism is the only rational conclusion on our current knowledge, and Free Will is usually supported by religious beliefs. But since our current knowledge is in its very infancy, we should not make it a basis.

 

[seekermeister]

While I would never say that a person's physical condition doesn't have an influence on what a person thinks, feels and does, they are not a controlling factors. Many things have an influence on this, such as intelligence, moral foundation, environment, etc., but these are nothing more than components of the maze walls that I mentioned above. Sure, a person will tend to blame one or more of these "walls", instead of themselves, but a person that is well balanced takes these bounces in stride, and will not persist in bouncing off the same wall time after time. Some have defined insanity as the condition that exists when a person persist in making the same mistake repeatedly, without learning from their experience, and remains in the same dead end until they run out of strength and die.

 

[smarteyeball]

I think I'm going to have to go with "can't come to any conclusions yet." Or was that response pre-ordained by some higher power?

lol

Did I quote the above and go lol because It's already been determined or did I randomly decide to since nothing is pre-ordained?

Personally I believe there is an answer, but humans will never know it. Just add it to the list

Determinism is the only rational conclusion on our current knowledge, and Free Will is usually supported by religious beliefs.

Wouldn't determinism reinforce religious dogma rather than free will since at it's core, Determinism suggests that every thing is already pre-ordained.

And since generally human knowledge and the ability to grasp concepts beyond conception is limited in it's scope of understanding, the only way such complex machinations could possibly be constructed and explained is by the existence of a God?

That's the spin I'd use at any rate. Then again, these concepts work at many levels and thus, can be manipulated to suit the situation.

 

[Golden]

This is just too heavy - whats wrong with just working out whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead?

There are many beliefs in Science that are sound.

And once more we confuse ourselves.....science is not based on belief. Belief requires faith, science requires theory tested by observation.

 

[James7679]

There are many beliefs in Science that are sound.

And once more we confuse ourselves.....science is not based on belief. Belief requires faith, science requires theory tested by observation.

lol, semantics. I used the wrong word there. So yeah, using that one portion of my quote, it is easy to take it out of context. Are you in the media?

This was the whole statement;

I would agree with you, except that the basis of "Science" is THEORY. Science is an ever-changing world of guesses and hypothesis. Every decade brings new ideas and new beliefs. There are many beliefs in Science that are sound. But mostly, it's just a guessing game. Ask any real scientist, who doesn't have a bloated head, they will tell you the same.

Maybe I should have said, There are many beliefs in science that are backed by the appropriate testing, and are therefor sound.

 

[Golden]

Perfect James And no I'm not in the media, but I am a scientist by profession. I just have a thing about using those two words together. For example, here in Australia, our PM deflects arguments about climate change with these words: "I believe in the science of climate change". The thing people don't get, is if you believe in climate change, you don't need the scientific facts to justify your belief.

I just found a useful illustration of Schrodinger's thought experiment :

 

[Influx]

Perfect James And no I'm not in the media, but I am a scientist by profession. I just have a thing about using those two words together. For example, here in Australia, our PM deflects arguments about climate change with these words: "I believe in the science of climate change". The thing people don't get, is if you believe in climate change, you don't need the scientific facts to justify your belief.

I just found a useful illustration of Schrodinger's thought experiment :

The 50%-50% is only a human measurement. Chances only exist with the lack of information. If every movement, state of mind, atomic behavior, and all other,. will be recorded and calculated, then we would have 100% if we have the tools and knowledge on how to emulate such occurrence and predict the only outcome. Hence, determinism. I think we could not say a decision could have possibly been another, I do believe that freewill cannot be debunked since we cannot even exactly explain how could everything be as it is right now such that there is no basis, if it could have been different.

 

[MilesAhead]

I wanted to vote for free will ... but ...

I wanted to vote for free will. But I had to vote for determinism since my response was preordained. I must say it pisses me off. But there's nothing I can do about it!!