Eternalism. Does it allow free will?

Post Reply New Topic

If the future already exists, does that allow for free will? Presentism, where only the present exists, not the past or the future, and growing block universe where the past and present exist, but not the future certainly allow free will, but what about eternalism, where the past, present and future all exist?

It does allow for at least a decent amount of free will, in my opinion.

Basically, it depends upon your personal circumstances, and where you live, and who you live with.

if the future is laid out(implying every action is predetermined), it logically follows that free will is an illusion of choice, since what you're going to do is already planned.

I don't think you even need eternalism for full determinism to be true.

To sum it up:

1) We exist in a temporal structure where no action we give that isn't a reaction to a cause.
2) We select our reactions in that same structure, which means we're locked in to what we can and can't know as well as our external and internal environmental factors.
3) The stimulus we respond to comes to us from the outside, our responses are based on both a body that was given to us and a history of past reactions and character development that we consult if we're given the time to do so which is made of more things that we inherited rather than chose. Ultimately this is computation, not choice.

I know of a few stories involving parallel worlds where the same people had different lives depending on what choices they made. On one basically identical version of Earth, Joe Smith is a successful business man. But on another he's a homeless junkie. The idea being I suppose is that we write our own script as time progresses and shape our future. However something as simple as deciding to leave the house two minutes later, could mean the difference between getting into a crippling traffic accident or avoiding it. So we are still at the mercy of fate and not entirely in control of our destiny.

I think this is both true and false. It's true because causality is true.
It's false because "free will" doesn't really mean what people think it means.

In order to choose, a mind must first model some options, then calculate which one is better. This probably has to do with creating an internal matrix of key points and allowing them to accumulate weight by counting action potentials that represent "pro" and "con" assessments of the action. When some threshold is reached, one choice "feels" better and a "decision" is made. It has to be something like that.

We don't get to freely choose our cognitive states and histories. We don't get to freely choose our knowledge of the universe and we don't get to freely choose the parameters of the circumstances in which we are presented with choices.

Nevertheless, in that time when we consider options and form up the idea of a decision to be made, we feel that we have a choice, because that's what the process of modeling options and weighing simulated outcomes in our minds feels like. In that sense, we really do have to make choices and in the time before the calculating process spits out an answer, it feels like "free will."

The more closely we look at the neural correlates of "decision making," the more clearly this becomes evident.

No argument with that.

I've seen the same split in the definition of free will as well as some people mean literal choice from nothing, other people mean something that falls within the domain of determinism but has a particular set of qualities to it where ownership of agency is seen as more fair. About the only thing I can think of that approximates the spirit of the later well is uncoerced choice, ie. situations where people are able to shop around for their best option if they don't like the ones they have vs being under the gun to play a particularly bad hand.

I still don't like how the two, ie. ability to draw action from nothing vs. uncoerced agency, both can be assigned to the same word interchangeably - it's really tough to tell what claim people are actually making.