Do all things occur according to logic?

[Imparcticle]

Do all things occur according to logic? If so, then there is freewill. Or is freewill an illusion? How is this to be determined?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Cause we don't always know what the causes that initiated the event's history, in their totallity, so separating it out, isn't easy...generally speaking, the Universe, and material, or the physical world, do follow 'cause and effect' rules, seemingly without failure, other then perhaps our oversight of just what was the 'cause and effect' history...that can be deteminately long in Physics, as the history of the Universe itself...

 

[Imparcticle]

Have you heard of Nikola Tesla's teleautomatic theory?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nope......

 

[Imparcticle]

Nikola Tesla found that every reaction has a cause and effect. Everything we do is because something caused us to want to do it. He pointed out that a ball and only one ball in a finite space, is at rest unless something acts on it, say another ball. That is the apparent case with living things. of course, for us it a much more complex series of cause and effect. For example, I am a memeber of pfs because I enjoy discussing philosophy and physics because something in my past caused me to etc.

do you understand my summary?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes, but I would distinguish between 'thoughts' and the physical reality with respect to cause and effect...

To many of those Worlds stupidist robbers on that television program to believe that it occurs with the same rigidity, in thought, as in physical reality, cause in thought every one of those people believed that they would get away with what they did...or tried to do, in thought they had had it completely planned out, and it worked!...well, in thought...

do you see my point?

 

[Imparcticle]

yes, I see your point.

But, because they were not conscious of the apperent flaw in their plans, they were deemed one of the stupidest robbers in the world. Cause and effect doesn't neccesarily mean we are conscious of the cause and effect; they are intrinsic properties. Thoughts can effect our physical reality, but not always the way we want them to.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well, it was a little bit more towards the 'Free Will' part, just because you "Willingly Choose" something, doesn't mean that cause and effect will get it for you, or that your thoughts, following the cause and effect, will result, as such...

But I would agree thoughts can affect physical reality, just that that one is really difficult to prove...to say the least...

 

[Imparcticle]

Thoughts can effect our physical reality in a simple way. A thought can provoke my hand to reach for the salt. That is not very hard to proove.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I say that freewill is an illusion. Sure, our thoughts decide our actions, but our thoughts are themselves results in mathematical causality.

However, we can never know what it is that we will think, only that it is inevitable. This has led me to make decisions as if I am the only person with free will, even though I am as lacking as the next guy or girl.

 

[Stevo]

Nikola Tesla found that every reaction has a cause and effect. Everything we do is because something caused us to want to do it. He pointed out that a ball and only one ball in a finite space, is at rest unless something acts on it, say another ball. That is the apparent case with living things. of course, for us it a much more complex series of cause and effect. For example, I am a memeber of pfs because I enjoy discussing philosophy and physics because something in my past caused me to etc.

do you understand my summary?

Hume said that our concept of causation is a matter of inference, not of deductive logic. We say that the moving ball which strikes the inertial ball causes the inertial ball to move because it regularly does so. But we do not see the actual cause. We just see one event follow another.

Consider the somewhat trivial, but pointed, example of two balls colliding on a table. You may say that one causes the other two move. But, unbeknownest to you, I am pressing a lever under the table just as the two balls come into immediate proximity so that the second ball begins to move.

Of course, the point here is that in every case we can conceive there being an unknown mechanism which also influences the way things behave. We don't see the causation. We just experience the regularity of the way things behave. Important distinction.

Also, I think it is a confusion to say that "things occur according to logic". Logic is not a natural law, it is a model of reasoning. There may be natural laws which dictate how things occur, but this is not logic. Logic may be able to model these natural laws, but it is not identical to these natural laws.

As far as determinism is concerned: Consider Aristotle's classic example of "Either there is going to be a sea battle tomorrow, or there isn't going to be a sea battle tomorrow." Seems pretty straightforward. After all, P or not-P is a tautology. Determinism says that there is only one possibility, only one future. So whether there is or isn't going to be a sea battle tomorrow has already been determined. Whatever happens tomorrow necessarily happens.

Consider this: The captain on one of the ships has a super-duper-quantum-indeterminacy computer. He pushes a button and the computer gives a completely random choice of 0 or 1. If the answer is 0, the captain remains on his present course. If the answer is 1, the captain changes direction. Let's suppose that if the captain remains on present course there will be a sea battle tomorrow. Now, because the computer is perfectly random, can we really say that whatever happens tomorrow necessarily happens? It seems that perhaps the best we can say is that there is a finite set of possibilities for what occurs in the future.

You might want to read about modal logic, which involves the notions of necessity and possibility. The relevant part here are the interpretations of modal logic. Is every possible situation a real existent thing? Or is the only occurring situation of those possible situations a real existent thing?

 

[Imparcticle]

Hume said that our concept of causation is a matter of inference, not of deductive logic. We say that the moving ball which strikes the inertial ball causes the inertial ball to move because it regularly does so. But we do not see the actual cause. We just see one event follow another.

Who's Hume?
Yes, we only see the effect of the force. This applies to all things we observe and study. We can make equations of force vectors and the sort to deduce the presence of a force. Causation can be a matter of inference and deductive logic. We could create a situation where a ball does hit another ball mathematically. that is deductive logic.
Also, we don't need to see the cause; the cause may be deduced from the fact that there is an effect.

Consider the somewhat trivial, but pointed, example of two balls colliding on a table. You may say that one causes the other two move. But, unbeknownest to you, I am pressing a lever under the table just as the two balls come into immediate proximity so that the second ball begins to move.

Of course, the point here is that in every case we can conceive there being an unknown mechanism which also influences the way things behave. We don't see the causation. We just experience the regularity of the way things behave. Important distinction.

Whether or not we see the causation, we instinctively realize that there is something causing it to move. The is a very simple logical deduction. It can also be called an inference, because the observer (from past experience) would have noted a pattern, where when a force is applied to an object, it moves in the direction of the force. And the observer may deduce, from his accumelation of examples from past experience, that there is indeed such a pattern (as was aforementioned).

Also, I think it is a confusion to say that "things occur according to logic". Logic is not a natural law, it is a model of reasoning. There may be natural laws which dictate how things occur, but this is not logic. Logic may be able to model these natural laws, but it is not identical to these natural laws.

ah, but logic was an infered conception. The idea of logic must have been concieved from an observer who infered a certain pattern of behaviour. A ball will move in the direction of the force that was applied. This is a logical law which specifies the basic, natural order (of course, in the example, "ball" is a variable) of motion.
Natural law is superimposed with logic; there will be a reaction when such and such make some sort of contact in a variable method.

Now, because the computer is perfectly random, can we really say that whatever happens tomorrow necessarily happens? It seems that perhaps the best we can say is that there is a finite set of possibilities for what occurs in the future.

Whatever happens tomorrow [to us individually] is random then? There is no cause and effect sequence in our brains that induce us to feel a certain way so that we do or say something which then causes to do something else...? But, of course, such cause and effect sequences in the brain would occur at a microscopic level, which would indicate the prominent presence of quantum effects, which would make the whole ordeal even more random, for the observer calculating the approximate cause/effect sequences.
Even then, if you recall Albert Einstein's argument against Heisengberg's Undeterminancy Principle, Einstein points out that though we will never know the exact position and velocity of a particle at a given time simoltaneously, (but only one or the other) there will always be a definite answer that would be impossible for us to know. After all, the reason why an electron gets excited as we increase resolution on it is because we are shooting more photons at a higher frequency. If we could view the electron without doing bombarding it with anything, would we in fact defy the undeterminancy principle and know both the position and velocity at a given time simoltaneously?

You might want to read about modal logic, which involves the notions of necessity and possibility. The relevant part here are the interpretations of modal logic. Is every possible situation a real existent thing? Or is the only occurring situation of those possible situations a real existent thing?

I will read on those topics. they seem very interesting.
In answer to your final question, only what is naturally possible in this universe can happen.

 

[Kerrie]

Do all things occur according to logic? If so, then there is freewill. Or is freewill an illusion? How is this to be determined?

when i see the word determination, i think of human or animal will. something drives us to desire certain things (not limited to our instinct of food, sex, sleep, etc). some of us are determined to win, some of us are determined to express creativity and so forth. why do we have these desires? is the need to be creative hardwired into our biology? why are some determined to be their best, but others are content sitting on the couch? when i think of these questions, i wonder how there can be any sort of rhyme and reason to how humans think and behave, thus leading me to believe we ultimately do have free will, just many of us don't know how to use it.

 

[Stevo]

Who's Hume?

Scottish philosopher of the 18th century.

Yes, we only see the effect of the force. This applies to all things we observe and study. We can make equations of force vectors and the sort to deduce the presence of a force. Causation can be a matter of inference and deductive logic. We could create a situation where a ball does hit another ball mathematically. that is deductive logic.

This is true, but you are talking mathematics, not empirical science. Empirical science is a matter of inductive inference not of deductive logic.

Also, we don't need to see the cause; the cause may be deduced from the fact that there is an effect.

The exact cause may be only inductively inferred. We can never be certain, beyond any doubt at all, that what we believe to be the cause actually is the cause.

The claim that an effect must necessarily have a cause is very contentious. In fact, many things occur not because they have been caused, but because of some statistical inhomogeneity.

Whether or not we see the causation, we instinctively realize that there is something causing it to move. The is a very simple logical deduction. It can also be called an inference, because the observer (from past experience) would have noted a pattern, where when a force is applied to an object, it moves in the direction of the force. And the observer may deduce, from his accumelation of examples from past experience, that there is indeed such a pattern (as was aforementioned).

Again, the claim that there must necessarily be a cause is contentious.

If an observer concludes there to be a pattern based on a significant accumulation of examples from past experience, then he is making an inductive inference, not a deductive inference. For instance, it is reasonable to claim that there is a chance that an example will occur which does not conform to the pattern. This is one of the important lessons of Husserl's phenomenology (early 20th century philosopher).

ah, but logic was an infered conception. The idea of logic must have been concieved from an observer who infered a certain pattern of behaviour. A ball will move in the direction of the force that was applied. This is a logical law which specifies the basic, natural order (of course, in the example, "ball" is a variable) of motion.

Logic is a model of reasoning, not of natural science.

 

[jammieg]

That reminds me that it appears that at any given point in history people generally believe that all causes and effects have been explored and explained, but much more likely is that these are the most obvious explanations like this ball hits that one and causes it to move, there may always be something more to things than anyone knows.

 

[Imparcticle]

Stevo,
Would do you do the honors of describing just what the difference is between inductive logic and deductive logic?

 

[Stevo]

Well, one difference I'm making the point of using in this discussion is that a conclusion reached by an inductive argument is always, in principle, falsifiable. On the other hand, a sound conclusion reached by a deductive argument is never false.

The problem for science is that it assumes that a certain "natural law" is valid for infinitely many instances. However, it has only finitely many instances to use for evidence that the law is true.

A bit more technically, for a valid deductive argument, if its premises are true, then it's conclusion must necessarily be true. On the other hand, for a cogent inductive argument, if its premises are true then its conclusion is probably - but not necessarily - true.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A bit more technically, for a valid deductive argument, if its premises are true, then it's conclusion must necessarily be true. On the other hand, for a cogent inductive argument, if its premises are true then its conclusion is probably - but not necessarily - true.

But how do you show the premises are true? Either you have to have a transcendent source for them, like Kant's a priori, or else an infinite regress.

And I don't see the force of your "infinite cases" argument in the case of science. You can have a function with an uncountable number of cases (arguments and values), but completely determined by a finite set of parameters. Say a circle, determined by three points.

 

[loseyourname]

The thing with the quantum computer example is exactly what particle said, that the event is not truly random. The computer spits out 1's and 0's according to laws of cause and effect, we just can't observe the cause or the effect. The result is only random in that we can't predict it. Perhaps an example as to what I'm talking about now.

Let's say you blindfold and disorient yourself, then swing a bat, hoping to hit a pinata that is in your vicinity. You have no way of knowing whether or not you will, and so the event is random in the sense that you can't predict the outcome, but it is not truly random in that you could predict the outcome if only you could see what was happening. In the same way, if we could see quantum interactions without disturbing them, we would be able to predict the actions of the quantum computer.

The same thing goes with thought, if thought is entirely a phenomenon of the brain, which is a topic being discussed in a ton of threads right now. If thought if entirely an emergent property of many neurochemical interactions taking place at the same time, then simply knowing the positions and velocities of all the pertinent molecules would allow us to predict thought, and thus conscious action. Of course, no one will claim to begin with that unconscious, or reflexive, action is free, so by being able to predict the outcome of conscious action, we will have effectively done away with free will. Of course, given that the human brain is not a closed system, the molecular interactions taking place within it are affected by sensory perception, which is in turn affected by molecular interactions taking place outside of the body. To accurately predict future action, you would have to know the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe as well as the expressions, in thoughts and actions, of every interaction taking place in the brain. This is obviously an impossible amount of knowledge to have, but still, it is at least theoretically possible to to predict all future actions, if thinking is entirely a physical phenomenon taking place in the brain.

The only out for a believer of free will is dualism. Given that we have no idea how a non-physical entity would behave, and whether or not it is subject to the rules of cause and effect, postulating a non-physical origin of thought might free human action from the constraints placed on it by the nature of the physical universe.

 

[KingNothing]

Instincts, thoughts, and whatever makes up the human mind will always puzzle me. I believe it will remain the last thing to ever be exposed, discovered, and explored, and I believe we will never reach the end of things before it.

 

[Stevo]

But how do you show the premises are true? Either you have to have a transcendent source for them, like Kant's a priori, or else an infinite regress.

And I don't see the force of your "infinite cases" argument in the case of science. You can have a function with an uncountable number of cases (arguments and values), but completely determined by a finite set of parameters. Say a circle, determined by three points.

Firstly, we don't need to have a transcendent source for logic to be a valid formal system. In other words, we need only have a theory of propositional forms. Transcendent sources enter the picture if we want to talk about the relationship between propositions and reality, but this is not strictly necessary for a useful logic system.

As for the infinite regress, I don't think that's correct either. There's the old paradox of modus ponens. Suppose we grant that A, and A->B implies B. The paradox is that not only do we need A, and A->B to prove that B follows, but we need A, A->B and (A&(A->B))->B to prove that B follows. And so on, ad infinitum. The problem here is not recognising the role form plays here. There is nothing in A, and A->B that says that B follows. But those two premises show that B follows, due their formal properties. The confusion arises from assuming that everything we need to prove a valid argument must be said.

As for your second point: Your example is of mathematics, not of empirical science. What I mean is this. Suppose that every kangaroo I've seen has been in Australia. So, I conclude that every kangaroo is in Australia. But suppose that I've never been outside of Australia, or that I've only seen two kangaroos in my entire life?

Science takes a finite set of cases and extrapolates to an infinite set of cases. But, this is in principle falsifiable because of these cases we haven't yet observed - they may yet contradict the theory we have postulated.

 

[Stevo]

The thing with the quantum computer example is exactly what particle said, that the event is not truly random. The computer spits out 1's and 0's according to laws of cause and effect, we just can't observe the cause or the effect. The result is only random in that we can't predict it. Perhaps an example as to what I'm talking about now.

How do you know that the computer spits out a number according to cause and effect? If we observe the result to be entirely random, then we are observing no cause. So why do you assume that a cause exists?

 

[Imparcticle]

We do not observe many things and yet we are aware of their existence. We do not directly observe force, but we are aware of its existence because of its effects. This I have quoted from a previous physics teacher.
The random numbers from a quantum computer are random from our perspective. If we minus the observer, and view the phenomena with multiple eyes (figurative comparison here), what will we then see? Will we see random numbers (which we have deemed random on some basis, according to our rules) or nonarbitrary numbers?
Stevo, you say science has sets of finite rules derived from a finite number of situations to describe an infinite set of situations. How do we know this apperently random procession of numbers is one of the infinite set of situations (which are possible) that do not coincide with the finite rules of science? Are not these rules subject to change? In essence, my inquiries embody the meaning of random events. Aren't they those occurances we believe to have no pattern, no dictating rules? Do rules neccesarily cause patterns to occur?

 

[Stevo]

We do not observe many things and yet we are aware of their existence. We do not directly observe force, but we are aware of its existence because of its effects. This I have quoted from a previous physics teacher.

I'm pointing out that because we don't observe causality there remains the possibility that we are incorrect in what we postulate to be the cause. Consider my above example of the two balls colliding. So, in the case of force, because we don't observe the cause, only the effects, we may be incorrect in the way we "think of" force.

You may ask, why don't these other entities which have a causal influence show themselves in the effects? I don't know, that's an empirical matter, not a philosophical matter. However, the verificationist position that we should not postulate the existence of unnecessary causal entities seems to be a psychological desire, not a logically necessary principle.

The random numbers from a quantum computer are random from our perspective. If we minus the observer, and view the phenomena with multiple eyes (figurative comparison here), what will we then see? Will we see random numbers (which we have deemed random on some basis, according to our rules) or nonarbitrary numbers?

Quantum theory is dependent on a classical-observer, so I don't think we can sensibly comment on a non-observed quantum system.

I don't really want to discuss my example anymore, it seems like a bad one. I just wanted to point out that we can conceive of events happening absolutely randomly, and so it seems that not all events must have a cause.

Stevo, you say science has sets of finite rules derived from a finite number of situations to describe an infinite set of situations. How do we know this apperently random procession of numbers is one of the infinite set of situations (which are possible) that do not coincide with the finite rules of science? Are not these rules subject to change? In essence, my inquiries embody the meaning of random events. Aren't they those occurances we believe to have no pattern, no dictating rules? Do rules neccesarily cause patterns to occur?

I think you raise a very good point here... I don't really have any worthwhile comment at this stage, but I'll have to think about it. I think one of the things that will have some bearing on your comment is a good definition of randomness and a question of how it can actually exist.

 

[Imparcticle]

However, the verificationist position that we should not postulate the existence of unnecessary causal entities seems to be a psychological desire, not a logically necessary principle.

So it is not neccesary to know precisely what the cause (say a force) is. Its effects let us know there is a force acting. Scientists (more specifically engineers) have obviously been able to accomplish many things without the knowledge of exactly what a force is in contrast to its effects. Therefore it is, as you say, uneccesary to know this. Is my understanding of this pragmatic?

I don't really want to discuss my example anymore, it seems like a bad one. I just wanted to point out that we can conceive of events happening absolutely randomly, and so it seems that not all events must have a cause.

Shouldn't there be a cause for random effects to nascent?

I think one of the things that will have some bearing on your comment is a good definition of randomness and a question of how it can actually exist.

Here are the definitons I have obtained from dictionary.com:

ran·dom
adj.
Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

And here is an example of a random number generator, called "Araneus". This page specifies a brief discription of how it works.

http://www.araneus.fi/products-alea-eng.html

 

[Stevo]

So it is not neccesary to know precisely what the cause (say a force) is. Its effects let us know there is a force acting. Scientists (more specifically engineers) have obviously been able to accomplish many things without the knowledge of exactly what a force is in contrast to its effects. Therefore it is, as you say, uneccesary to know this. Is my understanding of this pragmatic?

Pragmatism refers to the doctrine of thought that we must attend to the consequences of a hypothesis. In other words, a hypothesis should describe two states of a system: one where the hypothesis is true, one where the hypothesis is false. If both states are indistinguishable, then our hypothesis is simply not worth investigating. So yes, I would characterise your comments as pragmatic. I don't think it's logically necessary, but I do regard it as an important principle from a scientific and methodological point of view. Verificationism is a stronger position, instead of saying "We don't care about hypothesis we can't test", they say "Entities we can not empirically verify do not exist". The problem is that the argument which purports to move from the epistemological statement to the ontological is a psychological argument, it's an appeal to our human desire for simplicity and elegance.

I haven't come up with a good comment on randomness... My "instincts" tell me that what it is truly random does not have a cause, for if it did then there would be an element of determinism which conflicts with what we want to mean by randomness. I also don't trust dictionary definitions.

 

[honestrosewater]

Do all things occur according to logic?

I think this is asking two different questions.

1a) Are all physical phenomena predictable?
1b) Am I a physical phenomenon?

Logic alone cannot answer this question.

2) If I make decisions logically, am I depriving myself of freewill?

Yes. If freewill is the ability to make random decisions, random, unpredictable choices, then yes. And that's the whole point of using logic and reason to make decisions. If you want to achieve some goal, logic can help you figure out how to achieve that goal. And, in this sense, logic makes your decisions for you; as when you say, "I can't go out, I have to study because I want to ace my exam tomorrow." Of course, the truth of your premises still comes into play, as others have said.
However, logic cannot provide the initial want, the initial desire to achieve some goal. Perhaps this is what you mean by freewill. If so, logic alone cannot answer the question.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
P.S. If there is some logical reason to be happy rather than sad, or alive rather than dead, I'd sure like to hear it :)
P.P.S. If someone already gave this answer, sorry. I glanced through the other posts and didn't see it.

 

[Imparcticle]

2) If I make decisions logically, am I depriving myself of freewill?

I refer to what causes you to pick something over another. I am more likely to take a science class than a P.E. class (which I am being forced to do by my mother.hmph.) over the summer. Why? Because I enjoy studying science, because something in my past influenced the passion...So it is somewhat predictable; it is mostly a certain method of predicting the probability of a choice. The probability is based on a logical assessement of neural chemical behavior (sorry, I am afraid I am inexperienced in the field of neurology, so correct me if I have made an error) under certain conditons, and of course this coolates to psychology.

If you want to achieve some goal, logic can help you figure out how to achieve that goal. And, in this sense, logic makes your decisions for you; as when you say, "I can't go out, I have to study because I want to ace my exam tomorrow."

this is an example of a social role based decision. Logic does not make decisions. It is a set of laws, that are applied to certain situations. In this case, the logical thing to do in western society is most likely attempt to ace your exam tomorrow in the hope that you will feel good about yourself, and earn a good grade for the class, which in the end will make you feel good about yourself.

 

[honestrosewater]

I refer to what causes you to pick something over another. I am more likely to take a science class than a P.E. class (which I am being forced to do by my mother.hmph.) over the summer. Why? Because I enjoy studying science, because something in my past influenced the passion...So it is somewhat predictable; it is mostly a certain method of predicting the probability of a choice. The probability is based on a logical assessement of neural chemical behavior (sorry, I am afraid I am inexperienced in the field of neurology, so correct me if I have made an error) under certain conditons, and of course this coolates to psychology.

You will choose to take the class that you want to take.
You will want to take the class that you would most enjoy.
You would enjoy taking the science class more than you would enjoy taking the P.E. class.

If someone assumes the above is true, then your choice is not "somewhat predictable", it is completely predictable. (unless I have left something out, which is entirely possible, or shouldn't have said "will", etc. but you get the point :) You will choose to take the science class. Logic will dictate your choice, and it is in this sense that I mean logic makes your choice for you.
Physical sciences do not enter into the picture.

this is an example of a social role based decision. Logic does not make decisions. It is a set of laws, that are applied to certain situations. In this case, the logical thing to do in western society is most likely attempt to ace your exam tomorrow in the hope that you will feel good about yourself, and earn a good grade for the class, which in the end will make you feel good about yourself.

"I can't go out, I have to study because I want to ace my exam tomorrow.", is an example of a personal, logical decision. Why they want to ace their exam is irrelevant. They reasoned that they must study in order to ace their exam, and they can't both study and go out. Since they want to ace their exam, or at least think they want to- another question, they must study and not go out.

I am certainly no expert, and even experts can make mistakes, but I still think what I said is correct. Though apparently I could have said it better :)
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Imparcticle]

If someone assumes the above is true, then your choice is not "somewhat predictable", it is completely predictable.

It is still somewhat predictable. Because I'm not choosing to take that evil class, but I am doing it anyway because my mom says so (and there is no arguing with her). So I am not choosing to take the class. I am not. I am instead choosing to to obey my mom and take it. It is not by my own freewill. I choose to obey my mom, not take the evil class. But if I choose to obey, then I must take the class. It is a must, not a freewill. (If freewill has nothing to do with our discussion, I apologize. I just posted a few posts in the freedom thread down in metaphysics.)

You will choose to take the science class. Logic will dictate your choice, and it is in this sense that I mean logic makes your choice for you.
Physical sciences do not enter into the picture.

Logic is not a conscious being. It cannot, therefore, choose for you. Anyway if it did, there would be no freewill because it would be choosen for you. I know that doesn't neccesarily mean that you didn't agree with the choice "logic made for you", but there is a definite chance that you eventually will.
Physical science always is in the picture. Psychology is an important aspect of freewill.

"I can't go out, I have to study because I want to ace my exam tomorrow.", is an example of a personal, logical decision.

Ah, logical decision. A logical decision is what?(<-rhetorical) A decision made by applying the laws of logic. Therefore, logic does not make the decision for you. You use it when you wish (not all decisions are neccesarily logical).

Why they want to ace their exam is irrelevant. They reasoned that they must study in order to ace their exam, and they can't both study and go out. Since they want to ace their exam, or at least think they want to- another question, they must study and not go out.

The reason why is supremely relavant. Let's go step by step:
why do they want to study for the test?
To ace the exam.
why do they want to ace the exam?
Because it will make themselves feel good.
why will it make them feel good?
Because it is good to ace the exam.
why is it good to ace the exam?
western/~eastern reason (i.e., industrialized community):Because they will be successful. It is important to get to good schools, and earn good grades to be able to go into industry and make a good living. This of course, is the logical course to take if one wants a legally devised educational/industrial life.
agricultural community reason: it is not neccesarily good to be good in acedemics. it is not needed. What is needed though, is someone who is a good physical worker. Supposing this test is one of P.E., a physical test, then it is prominent to our society to have a student do well in such a field.

I am certainly no expert,

Niether I.