What If Free Will Is An Illusion?

[tk102]

Um, the point of the thread is to posit a hypothetical proof that the future is predetermined -- and ask how you would react to that.

[GarfieldJL]

I'd just think the scientists had gone off the deep end or the next year or so they'd find evidence that free will does exist.

[Jae Onasi]

If everything was predetermined, I'd probably quit trying to be such a good girl.

[GarfieldJL]

Also I could think it was a way to excuse people for committing violent crimes saying it was predetermined and not their fault...

[True_Avery]

Well, a God aside, do we really have free will at all?

 

I mean, we grow up as children, then puberty basically makes our bodies infinitely more powerful than our mind, urges take over, we fall in love, etc. What control do we really have over all of that? If you look at us from an animal point of view, we still have animal instincts, urges, and wants. We are controlled mainly by gluttony and an urge to be wanted, so we randomly fall in love with people we see as a good match for us. In most people, the urge for sex controls portions of the mind no matter how hard to try to ignore it. We find other people attractive, others repulsive, and are even controlled to an extent by our society and media. What free will is in any of that but the idea that we can consider ourselves individuals? We can think for ourselves, sure, but can we all say and do what we want all the time? America may be the land of the free, but go up to a bunch of gang members and cuss them out and see just how long that freedom keeps you alive. Shoot someone under the thought that it is free and see how long you stay out of jail/prison. That pretty much goes under the ideal of common sense, but I think you get the point.

 

We are controlled by everything we say and do, and controlled by the society we live in. Even if we find out time has already been set by a God or not, what does it matter? I don't see how that changes anything serious in the long run. Despite what people do, they will still be controlled by fear, love, instinct, etc. Maybe finding it out will erase fear of the unknown, but knowing that time is pre-determined still does not prove there is an afterlife so the fear of death would still be present. All our lives are in the control of those around us, and those around us can choose to make our life better or end it completely.

 

I am content knowing that I have no real control over my life in the long run, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying life.I hate sex and don't want children, so I guess that makes me unique in some strange way, which is at least a nice thought I hang onto to show I at least have some individuality.

[Totenkopf]

Um, the point of the thread is to posit a hypothetical proof that the future is predetermined -- and ask how you would react to that.

 

In short, I'd not worry about anything I did b/c I would know it wasn't really my fault. That I was basically an incarnation of someone else's thought processes, and as such, had no control over anything. After that.....I'd go on a holy terror and "rape/pillage/plunder", knowing that morality had no real meaning (I'm just a puppet on a string, afterall) Seriously, I'd just play out the rest of my life till it ended. There's really little else to do after making such a discovery. I'm guessing that unless I missed something, that's pretty much what you'd do as well.

 

Also, I wasn't quite clear on how discovering that the world is of a predetermined nature means that we would also possess the knowledge of what took/takes/will take place, rather than just that it's predetermined by factors beyond our control.

 

Then we are using different definitions. I don't think choice is needed for responsiblity at all.

 

The Definition of Responsible I Use (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible):

3. Being a source or cause.

 

I would agree we are coming at this from different philosophical points. I disagree with your notion that chioce is immaterial. Also, taking your definition of responsibility, it could be argued that a gun used to end someone's life is "responsible" b/c it was involved in the act. If life is predetermined, ie we've no say in how it plays out, then we are essentially the gun and talk of responsibility (as TK suggests) is meaningless.

 

But then why would anyone join the Underground?

Sticking with the Nazi example, let say this person who was born in Germany got exposed to liteature that talks about the glory of freedom, of America, etc. Reading this book changed him. Or what if he had friends, or parents, or even a preacher who told him that freedom was good? All these variables caused this person to join with the Underground.

If it wasn't for these variables, if it wasn't for him listening to messages about freedom and being told that the Nazis were evil, he would have joined the Nazis and be very, very happy.

There is still no free will involved. You are still controlled by outside sources.

 

Because, perhaps, they chose to. Much like others would've simply left Germany or maybe become communists, etc... An idea doesn't force you to choose it. What you decide to read/listen to helps you decide what path you will take. If you cave into peer pressure, while others do not, that is on your head. Being informed may help you make seemingly more intelligent decisions, but doesn't make the decisions for you.

[Samuel Dravis]

I guess I'd borrow this definition of free will*:

 

"The power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances".

Interesting. I would have previously agreed with you on this, but after a bit of thought it seems contradictory; it wants to rationally choose between options, but the decision is not necessarily decided in a rational manner... To me, it seems that at some point external circumstances are aren't used in the decision, and if circumstances don't matter, what's the difference between a 'free will' choice and a random one?

[tk102]

it wants to rationally choose between options, but the decision is not necessarily decided in a rational manner...

I don't follow. The person with free will chooses according to his/her own whim, rational or not, he or she is the ultimate source of the choice.

 

To me, it seems that at some point external circumstances are aren't used in the decision, and if circumstances don't matter, what's the difference between a 'free will' choice and a random one?

There's no such thing as a random "choice" because choice implies a chooser. If you mean to suggest there is no difference between an externally caused act (that is, caused by unfixed randomness) and the act chosen by a free agent, I would argue that there is. The free agent has control over the choice.

 

Now to the outside observer, there may be no discernible distinction. Indeed the actors (you and I) may not even be able to tell the distinction. We may *believe* we have free will and everything seems to suggest we do, but if our consciousness and especially our volition is caused by unfixed random events, we wouldn't know.

 

So in summary I see the two scenarios you describe as distinct and non-contradictory: both suggest a non-determined universe, but one has agents acting with free wills and the other has agents (if you can still call them that) only reacting to random events.

[Samuel Dravis]

I don't follow. The person with free will chooses according to his/her own whim, rational or not, he or she is the ultimate source of the choice.

But if you're not rationally choosing between the options, what exactly are you doing? Since the definition says that free will must include rational decisionmaking, how is simple whim rational? If it is not rational, is it still free will?

 

"The power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances."

 

There's no such thing as a random "choice" because choice implies a chooser. If you mean to suggest there is no difference between an externally caused act (that is, caused by unfixed randomness) and the act chosen by a free agent, I would argue that there is. The free agent has control over the choice.

 

Now to the outside observer, there may be no discernible distinction. Indeed the actors (you and I) may not even be able to tell the distinction. We may *believe* we have free will and everything seems to suggest we do, but if our consciousness and especially our volition is caused by unfixed random events, we wouldn't know.

 

I would say that, in the absence of any outside world, there can be no expression of will, free, determined or otherwise. If someone were to choose something completely without regard to reality, then that choice has the same value as a true random occurrence and there is no way to distinguish between them. If so, what's the point in saying we have it when it doesn't help us anyway? How can you hold someone responsible for something when they can't make a choice based on the relevant factors (reality)?

 

So in summary I see the two scenarios you describe as distinct and non-contradictory: both suggest a non-determined universe, but one has agents acting with free wills and the other has agents (if you can still call them that) only reacting to random events.

I'd have to say that, if there's no distinguishable characteristics separating the random universe from the free-willed one, they are equivalent in practice. This obviously doesn't help out any of the problems caused by the free-will issue, unfortunately - to quote Asimov - "Insufficient data for a meaningful answer."

[tk102]

But if you're not rationally choosing between the options, what exactly are you doing? Since the definition says that free will must include rational decisionmaking, how is simple whim rational? If it is not rational, is it still free will?

So you're asserting that if you act out of emotion, you are out of control and have given up your free will? So the rational man is more free than the irrational? Seems to me either you're free or you're not. I hesitate to embrace the idea of a grayscale here.

 

If someone were to choose something completely without regard to reality, then that choice has the same value as a true random occurrence and there is no way to distinguish between them. If so, what's the point in saying we have it when it doesn't help us anyway? ...

I'd have to say that, if there's no distinguishable characteristics separating the random universe from the free-willed one, they are equivalent in practice.

They may be equivalent in practice, but they have distinct ontologies and our own nature is quite different in the two universes.

 

But upshot of what you're saying kind of goes back to the idea of "let's forget this and get on with life."

[Ray Jones]

Frankly, I rather doubt that science will ever to be able to prove determinism. It makes for nice parlor scenarios, but doesn't seem realistic. What we do know is that people are confronted by choices daily and how they respond is a reflection of their grasp on the world around them.

The choices and opportunities people encounter are all results to other choices that have been made, and results of former happenings and events. It's the principle of causality. Everything is a result and has a result.

As I see it, science has yet to prove that there is something that happens totally random and without any cause.

 

If I look at the surface of a lake it's structure appears to be totally random but is rather the result of the movement of who knows how much water molecules, surroundings, fish farts, earth rotation, the moon, and so much more. The dependencies are so complex, impossible to comprehend, but still: not one single wave on that lake's surface is truly of random nature, neither its actual state, nor its way of creation, nor its future development.

And in fact it all is just a huge bunch of atoms - neutrons, electrons, and protons - quarks - interacting with each other.

And we are made of the same stuff like the lake or everything else that exists. Thus we are bound to the same set of laws and rules. Best example: gravitation.

 

Free will is simply non existent, everything we decide to do or not to do, every train of thought is a process in our brain which is a result of all other thoughts we had before. Memories, experiences, ideas - all just a lake's surface.

 

Does that mean everything is predefined, made up by one small green gnome with beard sitting somewhere in a small room and a somewhat questionable sense a humour but an obviously superb understanding of the universe? NO.

 

It does mean: without who-knows-what no matter, without matter no gravity, without gravity no stars, without stars no elements, without elements no molecules, without molecules no life, without life no brain, without brain no thought.

 

Determism smacks of the same cop-out as "the devil made me do it", a complete abrogation of personal responsibility.

No it doesn't, it merely just states that every cause has a result, which will again cause another result, and so on.

 

 

 

 

Determinism and generative processes

 

In emergentist or generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will does not exist. However an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.

 

As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, emergentists or generativists suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behaviour would become predictable.

[Darth InSidious]

DI, that's sure one way to attract all the randy guys to read your post. .

Stop going off-copic!

 

Topic! I said topic!

 

[SilentScope001]

I would agree we are coming at this from different philosophical points. I disagree with your notion that chioce is immaterial. Also, taking your definition of responsibility, it could be argued that a gun used to end someone's life is "responsible" b/c it was involved in the act. If life is predetermined, ie we've no say in how it plays out, then we are essentially the gun and talk of responsibility (as TK suggests) is meaningless.

 

Alright, we'll agree to disagree. While I antipcate the gun's possiblity, the thing that differnates us from the gun is that the gun does not know anything at all, while we humans do. Hence, that makes us a bit interesting.

 

Because, perhaps, they chose to. Much like others would've simply left Germany or maybe become communists, etc... An idea doesn't force you to choose it. What you decide to read/listen to helps you decide what path you will take. If you cave into peer pressure, while others do not, that is on your head. Being informed may help you make seemingly more intelligent decisions, but doesn't make the decisions for you.

 

As Ray Jones. Plus, why would someone choose anything? Because they were informed that the choice is the right one, wherever, whenever. If they were nobody that told them something was wrong and they still think it is wrong, then maybe it was just genetics or the subconsisus, that told them it is wrong, and that person is still not free. But, yeah, we do see different views.

 

I'd have to say that, if there's no distinguishable characteristics separating the random universe from the free-willed one, they are equivalent in practice. This obviously doesn't help out any of the problems caused by the free-will issue, unfortunately - to quote Asimov - "Insufficient data for a meaningful answer."

 

The thing is, actually, a free-willed universe would have no reason, to well do anything. A random universe would make a random choice, but the free-willed universe would have no reason to make any choice. Still, who says the free-willed universe has to be reasonable?

 

The main difference between a universe with free will instead of a universe with random is whom gets to choose. And what they choose? Well, they get to choose what random limitations to place on their free will (so that they have a reason to choose), and then after that, get to use their free will however they want. I randomly choose, say, a doctrine, and from there, I will do whatever it will take to protect that doctrine. In the begining, it starts off looking at Random, with that person making a random choice, but once he does it, he sticks with that random choice and framework, and do whatever he wants from that choice, so it is no longer appears to be Random, but rather controlled by "Prime Movers".

[Totenkopf]

While I antipcate the gun's possiblity, the thing that differnates us from the gun is that the gun does not know anything at all, while we humans do. Hence, that makes us a bit interesting.

 

I don't disagree that we "seem" to know something, but then so do some characters in a novel (at least within the context of their existence). Yet, if we, like them, have no control over what happens to us (ie our actions and outcomes are predetermined), then we are about as interesting as that gun b/c all our actions were chosen for us. There is merely the illusion of seeming interesting.

 

If they were nobody that told them something was wrong and they still think it is wrong, then maybe it was just genetics or the subconsisus, that told them it is wrong, and that person is still not free.

 

If people cannot override their "programming", are they even interesting at all? If they can make choices, limited or otherwise, they still retain some form of freedom of movememnt. Just because people are free to make choices doesn't mean there can't be predictable consequences. What isn't guaranteed is what the response will be to their choices. If I point a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money or I'll kill you....there are multiple ways for that scenario to play out. Your freedom to chose does not predetermine EXACTLY which result will play out. I could let you go, rough you up or even blow your brains out. That limited menu of options doesn't remove the fact that you can choose from an equally limited menu of responses to my action.

 

@Ray--perhaps I should have typed "predeterminism", as in the sense that everything I do in life is following a script generated elsewhere (perhaps by your "little gnome" ). That smacks of "the devil made me do it" (ie it wasn't MY choice, rather someone else's). I do wonder, though, if the concept of free will thrown around isn't just being confused with the ability to control the outcome in one's favor. Just b/c you have "free will" doesn't necessitate you getting the result you want.

[Windu Chi]

The choices and opportunities people encounter are all results to other choices that have been made, and results of former happenings and events. It's the principle of causality. Everything is a result and has a result.

 

That's classical physics, Quantum Mechanics offer other possibilities: intelligent beings from other universes, biasing the principle of causality in our universe, from their perspective, since we probably won't be easily aware, of their influence.

As I see it, science has yet to prove that there is something that happens totally random and without any cause.

Looking for mathematical proof for every single thing for something as complex as a whole universe seem to be a fool's errand.

But there always seem to be unknowns, that will probably make it possible.

If I look at the surface of a lake it's structure appears to be totally random but is rather the result of the movement of who knows how much water molecules, surroundings, fish farts, earth rotation, the moon, and so much more. The dependencies are so complex, impossible to comprehend, but still: not one single wave on that lake's surface is truly of random nature, neither its actual state, nor its way of creation, nor its future development.

And in fact it all is just a huge bunch of atoms - neutrons, electrons, and protons - quarks - interacting with each other.

It's a chaotic system!

And we are made of the same stuff like the lake or everything else that exists. Thus we are bound to the same set of laws and rules. Best example: gravitation.

And we are linked on a quantum scale, and we may be linked through our consciouses, by way of information producing electron, photon interactions.

 

Free will is simply non existent, everything we decide to do or not to do, every train of thought is a process in our brain which is a result of all other thoughts we had before. Memories, experiences, ideas - all just a lake's surface.

"Other thoughts we had before".

That sound like a CTC (Closed Timelike Curve), of information exchange.

Or, a spacetime hyperboloid shape distortion: time machine.

Well, some cultures believe history will repeat it's self literally.

 

Does that mean everything is predefined, made up by one small green gnome with beard sitting somewhere in a small room and a somewhat questionable sense a humour but an obviously superb understanding of the universe? NO.

I'm of the opinion of a infinite progression, of wise Supreme Beings with each with some specific limited knowledge of the infinite existence, that other Supreme Beings not aware of, but that's my opinion, Ray.

But it still maybe something that exist out there that is even greater than our society's definition of Supreme Beings, something that none of us have yet to conceive of.

 

 

No it doesn't, it merely just states that every cause has a result, which will again cause another result, and so on.

 

Repeating histories, in a closed universe with positive curvature.

The the possibilty I have.

Possibly!

Like a billard ball can come around again in the same closed trace path, by predictable ordererd force interaction, in a close system, only closed to matter or mass exchange, open to energy exchange.

Like for example, by shaking a circular container back and forth, in a circular then reversable motion, to cause the ball to circle it's previous trace path in the opposite direction.

 

A universe with matter and energy configurations that alow time to flow back and forth in inifinite oscillation cycles, at set point in the future of the universe, like Big Crunch scenarios.

 

 

 

 

Now in a universe with repeating histories, it seems to be no free will, from the perspective of specific intelligent beings, since everything they do in their world volume will be repeated, unless anyone of them somehow become aware of the info, from a outside source.

Which of course, will bias fatalism, in the open universe with repeating histories.

And the outside source will, start to set (be resposible) new events in motion in the open universe it is in contact with; from the perpective of the intelligence beings things would seem to be preordain, but they probably won't be aware of that knowledge, only the ones in contact with outside source.

The ones in contact with the outside source will probably have free will.

I say probably, because it always seem to be unknowns, like yet another unknown influence, that will bias that apparent free will, by influencing the outside source, so on ad infinitum.

I guess you can interpret this as people who claim they are in contact with God or other gods.

 

world volume: all matter past and future influences in 3-D space and time; spacetime volume.

 

fatalism:A philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them.

[Darth InSidious]

I'm no expert, but I thought quantum physics said that the universe is essentially random and unpredictable?

[Ray Jones]

No it doesn't. If at all it merely says that for us it behaves "strange" if you go really close to the things in the universe.

 

A universe with matter and energy configurations that alow time to flow back and forth in inifinite oscillation cycles, at set point in the future of the universe, like Big Crunch scenarios.

Time does not oscillate. Past, present, future, everything exists altogether. And seen from the now, past events are unchangeable and result inevitably and unalterable in everything that is happening right now, what again will cause future results. And since the present and unalterable now is the unchangeable past of the future (inevitably and unalterable) now, future results can't be influenced in any way from within our three dimensions. It looks like, but is impossible. We just happen to perceive in fragments what the past "currently" causes in the now within our 3D reality.

[Samuel Dravis]

So you're asserting that if you act out of emotion, you are out of control and have given up your free will? So the rational man is more free than the irrational? Seems to me either you're free or you're not. I hesitate to embrace the idea of a grayscale here.

Not exactly. A person could possess emotions and still have the ability to be rational. Their decisions could be based on the information available to them.

 

However, with this free will concept, the decision is explicitly not based on anything in reality, and I don't think that this 'choice' is free at all - you still wouldn't have any real control over the decision because you have no information to base your decision on. If you ask a blind man whether red or yellow is lighter, what's he supposed to say?

 

If this is indeed how free will is supposed to work, then it doesn't resolve any of the free will problems. Who's to blame for the evil they cause? No one, because they lack the very ability to make a moral choice. They simply can't take context into account.

 

This is exactly the same practical effect as the other two options, determinism and true randomness.

 

Rather depressing!

 

They may be equivalent in practice, but they have distinct ontologies and our own nature is quite different in the two universes.

I agree.

 

But upshot of what you're saying kind of goes back to the idea of "let's forget this and get on with life."

Yeah.

[Windu Chi]

Time does not oscillate. Past, present, future, everything exists altogether.

I'm saying hypothetical, Ray.

But this the Big Crunch theory, fate for a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, then began again with a big bang; oscillatory universe.

Also I'm talking about oscillating matter and energy, with specific directional motion configurations of high density concentrations or vacuum energy, or negative energy(to cause negative curvature of spacetime, a apple go up in a gravitational field), one can possibly oscillate time back and forth, like a time machine.

To create a Closed Timelike Curve (CTC).

By way of this field equation Guv=8GpiTuv/c^4

or this field equation Ruv-1/2guvR+Aguv=8piGTuv/c^4 from General Relativity.

Where Guv is the geometry of spacetime; Ruv is the Ricci curvature tensor of a spacetime geometrical configuration metric; G is Newton's gravitational constant, c is the speed of light or as Einstein called it the speed of time; R is the the Ricci curvature scalar or average curvature of the spacetime geometrical configuration, Tuv is

Stress matter and energy or the Stress-Energy Tensor, A is the cosmological constant or energy density of the vacuum, guv is the general metric tensor.

 

And seen from the now, past events are unchangeable and result inevitably and unalterable in everything that is happening right now, what again will cause future results.

Of course seen from now, unless somebody construct a CTC(time machine).

And since the present and unalterable now is the unchangeable past of the future (inevitably and unalterable) now, future results can't be influenced in any way from within our three dimensions.

If a Time Machine(CTC) is created, then the present now, future later, and past then, can be alter.

 

It looks like, but is impossible. We just happen to perceive in fragments what the past "currently" causes in the now within our 3D reality.

Nothing is impossible, Ray!

If the, past then, present now and future later, is already linked, I'm of the opinion we possibly can.

I suspect, since today is yesterday's future, I believe there is a possible way to perceive in complete fragments what the past "currently" causes in the now.

 

Tensor: pressure and stress vector matrix.

Metric:A function of a topological space that gives, for any two points in the space, a value equal to the distance between them.

Stress: force that produces strain on a physical body.

Strain: deformation of a physical body under the action of applied forces.

Scalar: A variable quantity that cannot be resolved into vector components in n-dimensional space(or 3-D space).

or relating to a directionless magnitude (such as mass or speed etc.).