Free Will Redux: A Question

[TJParticipant]

Perhaps the focus upon the made up context of “free will” causes us to miss what we are actually valuing in our evaluations of reality.

For example, it seems we all have ideas about how things work, but when trying to find ways to tie that to the free will question, it becomes a tangled mess, because it is a made up concept… a construct.

That construct was erected by some sects of the Abrahamic religions to explain why an omnipotent and omniscient supernatural entity has a plan for everyone, but, fails to have it be germane to reality.

So, we run in circles trying to explain how that is possible or not possible, when it is not germane if there is no omnipotent omniscient supernatural entity with a plan for every atom, etc.

We do know the laws of physics allows randomness, hence radioactive materials decaying into isotopes at predictable rates, but, individual atoms potentially lasting for a tiny fractions of a second or longer than the known universe, and so forth.

So, knowing the physics does NOT tell us what will happen, to one atom.   It tells us what will happen to the atoms as a group, statistically.

So, there is zero expectation that starting at T Zero ~ 13.8 or so billion years ago, we would all be posting every character here as we have ~ 13.8 billion years later.

😀

We could predict that there would be stars and planets and galaxies, but, not THESE stars planets and galaxies.

And so forth.

Wasting time trying to prove that a made up concept is not relevant to reality, is not productive though.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

TJ wrote:

So, knowing the physics does NOT tell us what will happen, to one atom. It tells us what will happen to the atoms as a group, statistically.

Knowing physics is knowing how things work. Everything that works, works somehow. And willing stuff figures in…not at all.

So, there is zero expectation that starting at T Zero ~ 13.8 or so billion years ago, we would all be posting every character here as we have ~ 13.8 billion years later.

😀

We could predict that there would be stars and planets and galaxies, but, not THESE stars planets and galaxies.

Why the universe turned out to be clumpy was a mystery UNTIL we learned that empty space (empty of “things”) is never really empty. It’s a sea of particles jumping into existence and out of existence, constantly. This is why the universe didn’t turn out to a a smooth sphere. The universe sprang out of nothing. It did not spring out of nothingness.

Wasting time trying to prove that a made up concept is not relevant to reality, is not productive though.

Well, true, knowing the truth is not always relevant, but it is productive if satisfying curiosity and quenching doubts is a valid undertaking. Is it not?

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Unseen.

[DavisModerator]

In any event there is no evidence for “thoughts” without matter and energy so our will…will always be bounded.

Indeed this is quite similar to what Reg is saying. We are bound by the choices available and the structures that allow certain choices and only those choices (whether we actually get a say in that choice or not). Our choice is bound by the choices available and we actually have no choice but to choose one of the choices (whether it is an automatic process or not). If there is no free will we have absolutely ZERO choice in any matter.

This is why it’s curious when we discuss things like: should our legal system take into account the fact that we have no free will? Should all punishment be thrown out the window? I don’t see how “should” and “ought” or any imperative of any kind makes any sense if we don’t have free will. We don’t have any choice at all…neither to change our legal system or how we view things. We will view them however the clock work of the universe determines us to…and we cannot do anything about it either way. Discussing it…in that sense…is just part of the absurd ballet. That’s fine if we truly don’t have free will…just recognise how silly it is to talk about any repercussion of not having free will if you don’t have the choice to think about it or not nor implement any change in attitude or not or do anything or not.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

TJ wrote:

Wasting time trying to prove that a made up concept is not relevant to reality, is not productive though.

LOL, I conclude the same! Except I still consider that difficulty in itself to conduct productive discussions is, in itself, an interesting problem to try to solve, with hundreds if not thousands of years of rather unhelpful legacy. In the simplest of terms, this construct fails at the level of the most basic terms and their definitions, e.g. I still have not seen a satisfactory definition of free will, and it’s not just because free will is only a construct.

Promising to keep this as simple as possible… free will is merely the feeling that we have completely autonomous agency, immune from the constraints of a deterministic universe. Period! (I think. But can others agree this is a good place to start from?)

So the feeling defies reality. Why? Because a belief that we’re not in control of our own destiny is detrimental to a psychological commitment to actually assume control, and that would even be detrimental to our evolution as a species. We must act as though we have enough control to accomplish goals.

Planning happens to be a function that’s newly complex, in humans, made possible by our frontal lobes, and in addition to other uniquely human capabilities.

Long before we invented the construct, we had already evolved enhanced abilities to envision goals, and go about communicating and accomplishing them, meanwhile with the idea of free will never ever even being a topic of discussion (e.g. before complex language and civilization were invented). The feeling of free will is completely necessary for survival, regardless of whether or not we can think about and discuss the construct intellectually.

Keeping our intellectual discussion about this as simple as possible, I’m saying, along with TJ, that the question itself of whether or not we have so-called “free will” will probably never lead to any “constructive” conclusion, other than it’s likely a novel feeling we can likely study with science and tech with brain scanning. Although we can likely also compare our brain scans with brain scans of other animals, for comparison, to learn even more of the hidden details of this particular feeling.

Whoops, was on the road there to think more deeply and complicate the discussion even more, but I must stick to my promise. Simplicity was my goal.

Well ok, one more thought: The reason why the discussion of free will is such a hot topic and likely will be for decades or centuries to come is simple; the feeling of free will is very, very strong, and it even feels uniquely personal… or as some people feel, it must even originate from an external source, like a spirit that can influence oneself very personally.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Robert: In any event there is no evidence for “thoughts” without matter and energy so our will…will always be bounded.

We are bound by the choices available and the structures that allow certain choices and only those choices (whether we actually get a say in that choice or not). Our choice is bound by the choices available and we actually have no choice but to choose one of the choices (whether it is an automatic process or not). If there is no free will we have absolutely ZERO choice in any matter.

Hence, all the special pleading. We don’t like the conclusion and so the quest for how to manufacture an exception is off and running. The determinist never claims that we can’t choose. He just asserts that we can’t actually freely choose which choice we choose, because in every other circumstance other than the issue of free will, we assume that thing happen due to sufficient conditions.

This is why it’s curious when we discuss things like: should our legal system take into account the fact that we have no free will? Should all punishment be thrown out the window? I don’t see how “should” and “ought” or any imperative of any kind makes any sense if we don’t have free will.

Right, and we don’t like that, so, in a fashion that the religious person doesn’t like the notion of a world without God, we head on out to cast manufactured doubt on well-justified doubt.

We don’t have any choice at all…neither to change our legal system or how we view things. We will view them however the clock work of the universe determines us to…and we cannot do anything about it either way. Discussing it…in that sense…is just part of the absurd ballet. That’s fine if we truly don’t have free will…just recognise how silly it is to talk about any repercussion of not having free will if you don’t have the choice to think about it or not nor implement any change in attitude or not or do anything or not.

That’s a good explanation of why we balk at determinism and feel a need to deny it in JUST THIS ONE INSTANCE. Everywhere else above the subatomic level, Newton and Einstein’s versions of determinism reign supreme, except in just this one place. The justification we use: We feel we have free will so let’s find out how. (Good, give us the how.) We also experience deja vu, so that must exist as well, right?

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

Hard determinism is immune to randomness. Randomness operates way down where it doesn’t concern us in our daily lives, at the subatomic level. On the everyday life level, things happen due to antecedents.

Sure an outcome has a cause but each cause can have many outcomes and they occur according to a probability curve. And this comes from the subatomic level. This is why your everyday life seems like cause and effect yet is also incredibly unpredictable. At a totally concrete simple example, you wonder why your PC crashed. You don’t know it was a neutron flipping a memory bit. Other particles are ripping through your flesh messing up your cell’s DNA, possibly causing cancer. Determinism implies you can determine outcomes. You don’t even know if complete and total knowledge is possible or finite even.

[Belle RoseParticipant]

@Reg

Having to make the best choice for yourself at a given time is to be forced to make a decision because of events you had no control over. The “choices” on offer are the only choices available because they have be predetermined for you by past events.

Reg, what you are describing there is something called natural consequences. And natural consequences do have a cascade effect that can absolutely affect our choices later on. But I think you have to really distinguish the two.

@unseen

And yet, we swim in an ocean of cause and effect where causes have effects, and effects happen inevitably when a certain causal sufficiency is achieved

See my response to Reg, above. Yes there are some things that are outside of our control, but there are things that are within our control. The question of free will in my mind is, do we have a choice? And I would say that people do have the ability to choose.

 

 

[TJParticipant]

Knowing how things work, includes knowing that they can work in random fashions, such as in the radiation example.

The universe did not spring from nothing, or nothingness, it simply always existed.

Matter and energy, as two forms of the same thing, cannot be created or destroyed.   We know it was in a hot dense state about 13.8 or so billion years ago, and, has been getting less hot and less dense, overall, ever since that.

Everything existed before the Big Bang, but, not in the form we see (These stars etc), but as a hot dense plasma.

As it cooled and became less dense, going from very low entropy, to higher and higher states of entropy, overall, what we see today formed…from what already existed.

The reason the universe was not a sphere, smooth or not, is because the VISIBLE universe is the part that IS spherical, as it is DEFINED by our radius of sight, where light can still reach us from.

The hot dense state was EVERYWHERE, there was no explosion of stuff out from one point or single location.

That is why it is so homogeneous, according to the data.

So, to differentiate, the universe itself is infinite in size and age, but the stuff in it was in a hot dense state about 13.8 billion years ago.

“Stuff” in this case, includes space time.

😀

 

 

 

[DavisModerator]

I still have not seen a satisfactory definition of free will

Yeah but you have to actually read works on free will (beyond something of encyclopedic, youtube or magazine article nature to get to a working definition). Plenty of philosophers have given more than reasonable definitions.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Davis wrote:

Yeah but you have to actually read works on free will (beyond something of encyclopedic, youtube or magazine article nature to get to a working definition). Plenty of philosophers have given more than reasonable definitions.

OK, so have you landed on one reasonable definition?

You don’t need to answer that. I’m mainly interested in how one may enlighten people about the concept and the underlying reasons for the feeling of free will. I’ve taken a stab at making a simple and reasonable enough response for the average Joe. I’ll reexamine that best guess later, or sooner if anyone can critique it.

[jakelafortParticipant]

TJ, i appreciate your free will take.

On the other hand free will is more than another religious construct. It is not like the soul, virgin birth, original sin or other imbecilic religious constructs. We all have a sense of self, of autonomy, of agency that seems to be innate. We want praise or feel proud when we accomplish difficult goals and we accept responsibility when we err. It seems to be the case that free will is an assumption that arises without religious or cultural influences. Free will is an issue that gets to the heart of what it means to be human.

To deny free will is to see us as paramecium, version 1011. However we decide the issue (or is it decided externally?) it feels like we are free in our thoughts and I doubt many of us change anything fundamentally about ourselves based on a change of position. Perhaps denial of free will makes it easier in the aftermath of another somebody done somebody wrong song, to utilize absence of freewill as a salve so that it is easier to let go of the resentment.

[DavisModerator]

Yeah Pope there have been quite a few that are worthwhile. The only one I think that is reducible to something easily discussed without delving rather deeply into it is:

free will infers conditions in which an agent is morally responsible for their decisions

 

 

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Davis.

[UnseenParticipant]

Scientists explaining why they don’t believe in free will:

Physicist Brian Greene:

Neuroscientist Heather Berlin:

[DavisModerator]

A youtube video yet again. And with Tyson discussing something outside of his field of expertise. Great.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Unseen i enjoyed the Heather Berlin vid. I doubt many in her field credit free will.

[Author]

Posts