A chellange to anyone who think free will exists

Post Reply New Topic

the humanly discovered laws of physics do not cover all that exists.
there is a universal "uncertainty" that is very real that can instigate circumstances that have no cause derived from 4 dimensional reality.


nothing can be "pinned down" in the world of microscopy of speculation which arrives at uncertainties at the boundaries of testable concepts.


what i said is just speculation.
i want to return to thinking about reasons.

You are mistaken about new physics. New theories emerge but the universe always works the same way. Newtonian mechanics still works in many situations, even though it has been 'replaced' by relativity and quantum mechanics. The size of neurons is well within the domain of classical physics (chemistry). There is no reason to think some 'new physics' will suddenly 'enable' the sun to rise from the west.



You have free will to choose traveling by plane or train but how your body move to the train station / airport as a result of your free will?



What does that mean? Do you think the weather is totally predictable?

'Free will' is a convenient label in legal and ethical discussions but is not relevant here.

If free will does not exist... how would you be able to prove it?

Essentially if free will does not exist, then the mental impulses conform more to the laws of the universe. You have not given us any reason to think that such laws would facilitate, in any reliable way, a truthful outcome. You have fallen into a logical position upon which no epistemological truths can really be derived, how then can you claim a truth like 'free will does not exist'?

what? read the thread title.

Welcome back 91!

What do you think 'epistemological truths' IS? How is that relevant? Given a computer clearly does not have free will are you saying it is therefore impossible for a computer to do computation or automatic recognition?

Yes, it has been a while

Well take the computer as your example. The computer can produce a truthful outcome, it can also produce a untrue outcome; it is dependent on the process. However, a computer that produces an untrue outcome really cannot 'know' it. If the will of man is governed by arbitrary universal laws, then there is no guarantee that any truth can be obtained. It does not follow that from arbitrary laws of the universe that truth can be derived (there are many situations were they would blatantly contradict).

I personally do not put that much stock in predestination. If there IS such a think as Calvinist-style predestination, it doesn't really negate the choices we have.

The Bible does teach predestination, but I think of predestination as belonging to those who freely choose the path of salvation. In other words, it was "predestined" that all who make "this choice" would enter into heaven. It just wasn't "predestined" that certain people WOULD make the choices they end up making.

IF such a thing as Calvinist predestination exists, and I stress IF, it's merely that God knew all the choices that we WOULD make and allowed us to make those choices. We are "predestined" in the sense that God "foreknew" and did not stop us from making the choices we make. In terms of free will, though, even if that means we aren't truly free, it does not counter that there existed a choice to make in the first place.

That's why, from my perspective, free will makes more sense. But I also see it in another way. Christians really aren't free. I think we make the choice to surrender our own will to God's will and do our best to acknowledge that in the way in which we live--which we all do to varying degrees of success (and failure). I am not free. But surrendering my freedom for me has been the greatest benefit. It is something I do because I WANT to. Nobody forced me to. Whether God "foreknew" this or "predestined" it becomes irrelevant.

Now, calling Pascal, if I'm wrong and I'm predestined for hell, then it doesn't really matter, does it? I can choose to be a good person and place my faith in Christ, living accordingly, and maybe improve the lives of people around me. If all I'm going to do is burn in hell, at least I'll burn knowing that the things I did will live on after me. I would say that's worth burning for more than just living for myself. But the idea that I chose Christ and lost anyway is contrary to Biblical teaching. Predestined or not, I'm still going to the same place.

Nervous transmitting are governed by exact electrical signals, and the summation of many of them is the stuff of thoughts. I imagine there are quite a few undiscoved laws in the brain, but even if there they are as such; laws.



Where is the evidence the Universe is entirely predictable through laws? F = ma, s = vot+1/2 at^2, and a plethora of other ratios. I could talk you through the specifics of Nervous transmittion on a lower level of hierarchical reduction, or through the Libet experiment at the apex.



you mistake fatalism and determinism. The inability, due to the mass of data required, of Scientists to predict the future does not imply it is not possible. I could gather the oceans up into a trillion bowls, but I would never bother. The difficulty of an action does not reflect on its possibility within the laws of the Universe.



It is irrelevant; Quantum events are purely random, not "free". Look at a Geiger counter and tell me that atom "chose" to disintegrate.



There is, and it doesn't

What is stopping you besides laws?

ryan -

agreed, quantum uncertainty ids not free will, but I would say it it the other way around:

random is FREE - but not will.

I agree, completely.

I saw an argument against the existence of free will in Philosophy class. It proposes:
1. All actions are either determined or random
2. If our actions are determined, then there is no free will
3. If our actions are random, then there is no free will
4. Therefore, there is no free will

I didn't like this argument because it assumes that everything is either random or determined. All it seems to say to me is that free will can be neither of those things. Anyone who believes in free Will is going to naturally say that free will is neither random nor determined. As it's not really possible to say anything about an event that is not random or determined, any argument about it stops here with both sides insisting.

As far as I'm aware, all scientific models are either deterministic or random (but that doesn't mean that you can't say make any predictions about it). It seems incredible to me that any combination of models that are inherently unwilled could produce anything but another unwilled model. Of course, science will probably never say anything about free will, even if there were no other alternative explanation, because it presumes a natural explanation. As of yet, free will has not been necessary to explain anything.

Einstein once said something like (a paraphrase), "Although I do not believe the murderer is responsible for his actions, that does not mean that I want to have tea with him."

It's up to the pro-free will camp to define something that is neither determined or random then.

From my limited grasp of math, I would say that if P always implies Q (or not Q), there is a deterministic law governing it. I would say there is a correlation co-efficient of either 1 or -1. The only other possibility (-1< correlation <1) would be random to some degree. I don't think their is a third possibility.



Well, "Natural" means that which manifests itself in Nature (i.e here), so the explanation would be natural. Also, there was an experiment done by Benjamin Libet on free will, here's one version...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs

Ok, so I am able to make the choice to kill. True?

Why haven't I chosen it yet? Is it because I'm wary of the consequences and do not want them or is it because I'm truly free not to choose to kill without any determining factors (such as wariness of the consequences)?



But I am not those people you're describing. Unlike them, I have this factor called "wariness of the consequences" that prevent me from murdering people. And as for those people they, too, are bound by factors that make them do what they do (whether it's due to personality disorders, extreme desperation, blackmail, and so on).

So yes, thus far, I have been prevented from murdering people.

It's all about sneaky factors that we're unaware of determining this and that for us and our choices.

My conscience. The consequences I lack desire for are not just legal ones.