Does Free Will Exist? A Quantum Physics Debate

[AlanPartr]

Does free will exist?
according to Newton the universe is deterministic, and therefore free will does not fit into this. But since the advent of quantum physics, the universe is not said to be entirely deterministic, is there now room for free will? some physicists believe that the wave function of matter/light collapses when a living thing is conscious of it, could this be a sign of free will?

 

[loseyourname]

Doesn't the randomness of non-determined events rule out will? Free maybe, but I don't see how you can fit conscious volition into this.

I think you're better off looking to feedback loops and non-linear causality if you're trying to find free will. Ask Canute about this.

 

[honestrosewater]

I think you will have to look higher up (or is it lower down? bah) the food chain if you want to find scientific guidance on this problem; at least- biology, better- the cognitive sciences.

Of course, there is another way to attack the problem. If anywhere, where would freewill exist? Can this freewill be limited in any way?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

Or... if you would like a more direct answer- yes, it exists, and I have already told you this 73 times, now eat your pickles ;)

 

[mikesvenson]

just thought of this the other day also:

Controling the future = free will
Predicting the future doesn't nessecarily mean you can control the future(or have free will).
But controling the future (free will) means you can predict the future.
This is when A = B, but B doesn't always = A. Is this what they call duality?

example:
If i dream about a logically unforeseeable event in the future, it means that maybe i can avoid it, or maybe i cant. This has happened to me, and I didnt see it coming at all, but it came anyway. Could i have avoided it?, maybe, maybe not.
B = A?, yes AND no?

If i dream up a painting, and then choose to paint it, then that's my free will to control the future.
A = B YES!

 

[honestrosewater]

Where are all these Floridians coming from? Er, I mean, what is attracting so many of them to this forum? Strange.

Anyway, the point is that an apple may not have any choice about the path it takes from the branch to the ground. But people are more complex than apples. One has to consider the emergent properties of the different levels of complexity. Physics is not the place to look for answers about human or animal "free will". If you want to learn about animals, study animals.

mikesvenson makes the good point that people have the ability to look "before and after", remembering the past and imagining the future.
People may be bound by physical laws, but their role does not need to be passive, like the apple. People can adjust their will to the laws and the laws to their will.

I don't think a completely free will is desirable. For instance, I try to be reasonable and logical which adds more laws for me to follow. I am not completely free in my decisions or actions. But to say I am therefore a slave would be a jump, because I can recognize the difference between a slave and an employee. I remain here voluntarily and retain the option to quit.
Of course, things don't have to be so dramatic; I can also choose what to eat for dinner or to what occupation I will devote my energies.
Free will doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[mikesvenson]

your right,
of course, if i freely choose to jump off a biulding, i may not freely choose to not hit the ground, since i am bound by the physical laws of gravity, which is well beyond my everyday experience of free-will. The question that comes to mind for me is, is free-will just a comfortable idea?, is the future predetermined? I think that free-will is a real thing to some extent. I think free-will is the voice of the soul (hopefully), and not just a complex self-aware human computer. I wonder if free-will is strong enough to defy the physical laws.

 

[honestrosewater]

is free-will just a comfortable idea?, is the future predetermined? I think that free-will is a real thing to some extent. I think free-will is the voice of the soul (hopefully), and not just a complex self-aware human computer. I wonder if free-will is strong enough to defy the physical laws.

Do you mean that we could have Superhero abilities if we *really* wanted to? In our imagination, sure. But in reality, I think if it were possible, it would be happening.

Do you mean "real" as in a physical or supernatural?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Dissident Dan]

"Free will" is acausal and therefore impossible. Everything is equal-and-opposite cause-and-effect, or else you get something from nothing.

 

[honestrosewater]

"Free will" is acausal and therefore impossible. Everything is equal-and-opposite cause-and-effect, or else you get something from nothing.

Well, if you say so then it must be true Would you care to explain?

 

[THANOS]

I don't have "free will" and my death is predeterimed. But i am freely willing to reach my goals before that happens.

 

[mikesvenson]

Do you mean that we could have Superhero abilities if we *really* wanted to? In our imagination, sure. But in reality, I think if it were possible, it would be happening.

Do you mean "real" as in a physical or supernatural?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

(superhuman powers)i think i might be possible for a more advanced thinking human which does not exist yet. and if not, then at least possible in an afterlife free will is more flexible.(maybe)

 

[mikesvenson]

I don't have "free will" and my death is predeterimed. But i am freely willing to reach my goals before that happens.

you are so right!
my personal motto is : "i have plenty of time, but none to waste"

 

[loseyourname]

Well, if you say so then it must be true Would you care to explain?

He's saying that all events have causes, and this includes mental events. With this being the case, a chain of cause and effect is traceable (at least in principle) for anything back to the interaction of atoms and molecules that are completely bounded by the laws of physics. If this is not the case for mental events, then at some point we must reach an event that had no cause. However, I've already demonstrated that a contracausal event, though free, is not willed.

 

[Rick Sobie]

People often believe that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and they also that the universe is made up of positive and negative, good and bad, black and white.

But of course it is not.

What is the opposite of a tree branch?

Is there an opposite of a cloud?

We assume that physics has taken us to the very edge of creation to a fraction of a second after the big bang. And we include inflation theory along with that.

Yet of course inflation theory is just something we made up, and which does not in any way shape or form conform to such things as the equivalence
principal. That is to say that the laws of physics were different then because we say so, and in saying so, it makes our theory work. We made it up.

If there was no free will, you could not move.

If you are extending the free will concept beyond such things as having sufficient free will to move your own arm, to being able to or having the capacity to make a choice, then you decide what you will have for dinner do you not?

Going backwards then, to the atomic level, do thoughts cause atoms to move? Move your hand.

Do atoms cause thoughts?

Many believe that consciousness arises out of the complex nueral network in your brain. Many are convinced of this. The same people who are convinced that inflationary theory is fact and not speculation.

So what was the latest proof for the big bang? Background radiation of the expected temperature? Since then, hasn't Hubble determined the universe is much older than previously thought?

Since then are not galaxies heading in all directions including towards us, as opposed to only away from some perceived center?

If you look for _any temperature in the background radiation do you think you will find it, when the scale is in fact infinite?

Does free will exist? Yes it does. Not completely, because we do not bring ourselves into existence. But once here, we get to choose what to have for dinner, and what to read.

 

[Evo]

I have free will. My thoughts and actions are not predetermined.

For example: I'm driving and a person cuts in front of me. I have choices.

1) I can run into them.

2) I can hit my brakes and avoid hitting them.

3) I can pull into another lane and avoid them.

It is free will that let's me choose.

Even if there is not enough time to avoid the collision, I had the free will to attempt to avoid it. Just because you can't always avoid something doesn't mean you don't have free will. Free will is the desire to change the outcome.

The future is not predetermied. We have free will to choose how to respond to previous actions.

We always have options. They may not always be the options we want, but it is up to us to decide what happens next.

 

[mikesvenson]

so then we don't really have 'free will', but certain options of 'will' dependant on preceding circumstances?

 

[honestrosewater]

Rick said almost the same thing I was going to say. You cannot explain the motions of the atoms in an organism without examining organisms. It isn't that life *breaks* the physical rules, but it adds more rules to them. Sure, people are bound by physical rules- so what? A rock and a person may be made of atoms, but if you look *only* at the atoms, you will be completely baffled by their behavior. People cannot be explained with only physics; I have already said this. You have to look at the higher levels and their emergent properties- properties which do not exist at a lower level. Supernatural things do not have to enter the picture.
There is still something which needs to be resolved; if every action has a cause, how can our actions be "free"?
A question could get this started in the right direction: If yesterday you thought you had freewill, but tonight you discovered that all of your actions are predetermined, what would be different tomorrow? How would you decide what to have for breakfast?

 

[honestrosewater]

Er, maybe that question is not enough. How about this: what would happen in a person's brain without the person's conscious participation?
If I believed that my life was out of my hands, and I just sat back, would a lower level kick into gear and move my body, drive me to work, fix my dinner, and write this post? Um, no. So even looking at the human brain- in however much detail- will not suffice, because the person's subjective thoughts must be considered.
Science has not advanced to the point of identifying a person's conscious thoughts by looking at their brain. Even if this does happen, it doesn't change freewill because it doesn't destroy the subjective experience. When I say that I choose to do something, I am perfectly correct. I am the thing that wants, thinks, and chooses. I am the thing that decides what to eat for dinner. I am the thing writing this post. And scientific knowledge cannot change that.
BTW I do want to know everything about myself, and I hope that science advances as far as it can. But the discovery of how something works doesn't change how it works.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Evo]

Free will to me means that I have a choice in how I respond to something, nothing more.

Obviously what others have done and what has already happened create the situation I need to respond to, but the outcome has not already been determined. I decide what happens next. But I cannot control what happens as a result of my decision.

The fact that we have free will means that every decision we make can cause another decision to be made. Life is dynamic, it is an ever changing scenario. Every time we make a decision it causes another decision to be made, but they are random.

Free will doesn't mean you can control anything, it just means that you decide (in your instance) what happens next. The outcome of your decision can be completely different from what you expected, it is all random. I choose option A, which presents you with options 1-5, you choose 2 which presents another person with options 1-3 ands so on and so on.

This is how life works. We make decisions that can affect others, who in turn have to make decisions that can affect others... But nothing is "predetermined", everything changes with every decision.

I know I have been redundant in my explanation, but I am hoping by doing so I have made myself clear.

 

[honestrosewater]

Evo, I think I understand, but I don't think the decisions are completely random, in fact they *could* be completely mechanistic and predetermined. I agree that it's *you* who decides, and this is exactly why it doesn't matter *how* you decide. The decision is still yours, and if you stop making decisions, then no decisions will be made.
(There is the sneaky caveat that even not making decisions is a decision- it's sneaky and wrong. Rocks do not make decisions therefore they make decisions? No. Only the initial decison to quit making decisons is a decision, and afterwards, you are like a rock in the decision department.)
Freewill is not a property of atoms, chemicals, or logic. Though it can have them as its basis, it is something more- an emergent property. Freewill is a property of decision-makers, of choosers. If a person chooses, they have freewill, by virtue of their choice. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about it. It is as natural as sex. Sex is not a property of atoms, chemicals, or logic either. It is a property of sex-havers, of love-makers. And despite what some men claim, there is nothing supernatural about it.

Evo, if I misunderstood how you meant random, sorry, please correct me if I need it.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rick Sobie]

I agree with you Evo, and you as well Rachel.

Depending on how you measure free will, you can look at the situation and say that people are free to choose.

At the same time you can say that perhaps free will is an illusion.
Occams razor would say that free will exists.

However, from the point of view "Does God play dice with the universe?"
Stephen Hawking would say that we will never know because of what goes on inside a black hole, which is hidden.

From a nuts and bolts perspective, cause and effect, does the fact that
there is a cause, remove the free will aspect of action? Animated free thinking organisms appear to have some control over their destiny.

If there are two choices, which are in all related respects equal, what then?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, if you say so then it must be true Would you care to explain?

Well, free will is acausal, because if an event is caused, then it is predetermined by other events. I take it that this contradicts what is meant by the term "free will."

All things that occur are contrained by equal and opposite, if conservation is to be intact. You take some here, but you give it there. There is net change int he quantity (such as momentum) of zero. If you take away equal and opposite, the net change in the quantity is no zero, and therefore you have something from nothing.

 

[honestrosewater]

That reminds me of some story (not a true story) about a donkey that found itself equidistant from two water troughs, equal in all respects, and stood there, unable to make a choice, until it died. So-and-so's donkey, it's called IIRC. If this ever actually happened, I'd be amazed.
The fact that people are faced with decisions to which they do not have an immediate solution casts doubt on the mechanistic, reductionist view. There is a definite decision-making process. I go through the process on a regular basis. And it is this process which must be examined before concluding whether or not people actually determine their future.
In my view, the subjective aspect of this process *is* freewill. Whether or not the outcome of the process is predetermined doesn't change the general way the process works. Nor does it obliterate the process. Freewill remains as long as it is used.
That said, knowledge of how the process works can have a specific effect, as follows. A person who believes their future is already determined may decide there's no point in taking the time and effort to make careful decisions and so may live willy-nilly. (I like that word )They may resent being held responsible for their actions. Someone else may feel an extreme amount of pressure in making decisons, believing they are wholly and soley responsible. They may feel pride or guilt over a decison. And so on.
Some decisions are mostly random, like which pair of socks to pull from the drawer. Some others depend mostly on moods, like what music you feel like listening to tonight. Because of their highly subjective aspect, they present a hairy problem to an objective observer, and it is very difficult to lay out a decision-making process for these two types. This problem has yet to be fully resolved.
But in cases where the decison depends almost exclusively on reason, the process can be easily communicated. And these decisions are usually predetermined, in the following way. Given a problem and set of options, there is a *best* option. The best option is determined as soon as the problem is fully set down. And, in this case, the decison-making process is really just discovery; figuring out which option is the best. For example, deciding on which college to attend.
However, the setting down of the problem includes determining a goal. The goal is what allows the ordering or prioritizing of the options. The goal (or goals) determines the worst, best, and every option in between. In the case of college, cost, location, instructor quality, and social life will assume a certain priority or value and become a set of goals. Granted, there can be restrictions on what kind of goals can be set; money and time are common restrictions. But that is only a part of the process.
For this type of decision to be taken as predetermined, the setting of goals and assigning of values must be shown to be predetermined. That is no simple task, and it has yet to be accomplished.
So anyone who says people's decisions are predetermined either has a big secret or a lot of gall.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, free will is acausal, because if an event is caused, then it is predetermined by other events. I take it that this contradicts what is meant by the term "free will."

Then we are using two different definitions of freewill. For my definition, see above.

All things that occur are contrained by equal and opposite, if conservation is to be intact. You take some here, but you give it there. There is net change int he quantity (such as momentum) of zero. If you take away equal and opposite, the net change in the quantity is no zero, and therefore you have something from nothing.

Yes, I understand the concept, but I have never heard of conservation laws being applied to consciousness. How do you assign a quantity to abstract thought or subjective experience? How do you measure them? How do they have opposites?
What is the justification for thinking that everything in the physical world can be fully described by physics? If that is true, someone should tell all the other scientists and philosophers they're wasting their time.

If I misunderstood and your intention is to show that subjective experiences are connected to physical phenomena in such a way that the rules governing the physical apply to the abstract in the same way, then great. The challenge is twofold. First, the connections must be found. That is, the connection between the subjective and objective aspects of, say, a person imagining their mother's face, smelling a rose, reading the word "rose", etc.
Second, the nature of the connections must be explained. That is, if they are the same for all people, if they change throughout one's life, if they are coincidental/opportunistic or if there is a stronger determination, etc.
Only after this has been done can you justly apply physics to thoughts. And it still does not nullify the role of the subjective experiencer, the thing that wants, reasons, remembers, expects, and chooses. The thing that has freewill may arise from and depend upon physical processes, but it is nonetheless a thing in its own right.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Dissident Dan]

Our thoughts are brain processses. These processes invovle the transfer of momentum. If these momenta transfers are not the predetermined result of prior states, then conservation is violated. Therefore, the momenta transfers must be the predetermined results of prior states, according to the laws of physics. If these momenta transfers are predetermined, then one's thoughts are predetermined.

 

[Rick Sobie]

I may be mistaken but the idea of cause and effect and the laws of conservation of momentum etc are a product of Newtonian thought and as such are somewhat outdated.

For instance Newton would have been surprised to hear about 0 point energy, or the Kassimir Effect or any of the totally off the wall effects included in the http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html

In fact, if the moon goes around the earth, why doesn't it spin if momentum is conserved? The drag on the moon due to Earth's gravitation should cause it to spin on its center of mass/gravity. (Silly comments regarding the moon having a berry center aside.)

Tidal Locking is a nice name for an observed phenomena, but like so many other terms, it is just a science term with no underlying basis which could be seen to agree with the Law of conservation of Momentum or the Equivalence Principal. Perhaps it has free will and chooses not to spin?

If it had 'legs' it might up and walk away.

 

[Nicomachus]

Well I haven't read much of this thread Rick Sobie, but as far as "causality" you are correct it is poppycock, but a habit.
*Nico

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, we should expect the physical laws, whatever they are, to not be violated. Of course, if they are, then the laws will be changed accordingly. Anyway, this is not the problem. The problem is that the conservation argument is looking at the nervous system as a system of particles. It is a system of particles, but a neuron has properties which particles lack. And a system of neurons has properties which a system of particles lack. Furthermore, a functioning system of neurons has properties which a nonfunctioning one lacks. Ignoring these additional properties is like treating an open system as an isolated system or ignoring the magnetic properties of a magnet and treating it as a mere rock. Classical Mechanics is inadequate when examining electromagnetic phenomena. And physics is inadequate when examining nervous systems.
There is more going on than physics can explain. That doesn't mean physical laws are violated. It means that you must expand your view and consider the causes and effects contributed by these additional properties. Otherwise, physical laws can seem to be violated or seem to hold, when such is not the case.
I am not arguing that cause and effect connections do not apply to thoughts. In fact, I have already admitted some such connections. I am arguing that no one yet knows how all the cause and effect connections tie together. If you have new information, then share. If not, then one of our arguments is flawed.
BTW just to be clear, the before and after connection is not the same as the cause and effect connection.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[mikesvenson]

the before and after connection is not the same as the cause and effect connection.

What is the difference?

 

[Wolf]

Good to be back

Now that i have said that i can continue.

Some religion and people have the believe that your whole life is planed out before you even came to be.(destiny which is your life or a path that must be followed and in fate you end to your path)

In the example evo said before with the car cutting in front of her they woulf say that that was destiny and that whatever actions she took was planed out for her to take and that she had no free will.

A very very strange believe system really i have encontered monks that believe in this system and i had a long conversation with them.

When i asked them "what if i was ofered white or brown bread and i chose white was that destiny" and i was told yes i then asked well"What if i took the brown bread and not the white" i was then told "then to take the brown bread was you destiny"

You see there believe works on that no matter what you do and any action you take was part of your destiny and the end of that destiny is your fate.

I then after a while of pondering asked them "I f everything you do i planned out before you then what is the point to living?" to which they replied"To live your destiny"

 

[Wolf]

On a personal level

I believe in the modified cause and efect theory.

It works like this.

Everyone has a purpose for doing something if there was no purpose than why whould you do it??

So cause=purpose and the efect is what you do as a reaction to the cause(or purpose).

An example of this could be a young boy wishes to become the best foot ball player he can be.So he begins training everyday to become the best football player.

The purpose of his training is to meet his wish and the purpose causes him to train and the training is the efect of the cause /purpose

Cause and efect modified.

Please if anyone see's any problems or flaw in this logic please bring it up i would apreciate the discusion about it.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't think that you can equate cause with purpose. The word "purpose" indicates that some conscious being, whether oneself or another, has and intention. An epileptic person does not have the intention of having a seizure, but has a seizure nonetheless.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is the difference?

1) You are sitting in your livingroom. 2) A plane flies over your house and 3) drops a bomb. As the bomb is falling, 4) you sneeze. 5) The bomb hits and 6) you're incinerated.
If you don't make a distinction between before-after and cause-effect, then you must conclude that the bomb caused you to sneeze, and your sneeze caused the bomb to explode.

Or a man wins the lottery. His mom tries to claim the prize for herself because if she hadn't given birth to the son, he never could have won. The store clerk tries to claim the prize for selling him the ticket. The lottery ball machine operator tries to claim the prize for pushing the buttons, etc.

 

[mikesvenson]

Or a man wins the lottery. His mom tries to claim the prize for herself because if she hadn't given birth to the son, he never could have won. The store clerk tries to claim the prize for selling him the ticket. The lottery ball machine operator tries to claim the prize for pushing the buttons, etc.

Oh man, this is were those sticky American lawsuits come from.

 

[Wolf]

man

that sounds like my mom...... the sad part is she wold argue that has she has done it before...

 

[Wolf]

again

i fail to see why you could not have cause = to purpose a cause creates reaction as thus does purpose read thease 2 statements "what was the cause for that?" and "what was the purpose of that?" in both phrases the question you are asking why did you do that

 

[honestrosewater]

Wolf,
But not *all* causes are purposeful. I don't think anyone was denying that *some* causes are purposeful.
And "all purposes are causes" doesn't mean "all causes are purposes". The two are related, but not equal :)

 

[Wolf]

i see

now that you put it in those words i understand you are saying that a majority may very well be the same thiong just nopt all non?

 

[sciart]

Please read the book << The Emporer's New Mind >>

Freewill is Relative Concept.
Anything is be Determined or Randomness(Quantium Field).

 

[kcballer21]

Freewill is a fairytale concept. I remember how dissapointed I was when I came to the conclusion that the universe must be determined. They way I see it, the only instance in which there can be free will is if there is a higher power such as a god that can interfere with the determined universe. (yet that god may just be part of a broader causality net) Otherwise dissident dan's explanation seems to be the most logical. That being said, free will as an illusion can be just as satisfying as if it were true in nature. The fact is this; we will never be able to calculate all the interactions that make up our determined universe, so it will appear that we are making choices. Good enough for me.

 

[merak]

Freewill is a fairytale concept. I remember how dissapointed I was when I came to the conclusion that the universe must be determined. They way I see it, the only instance in which there can be free will is if there is a higher power such as a god that can interfere with the determined universe. (yet that god may just be part of a broader causality net) Otherwise dissident dan's explanation seems to be the most logical. That being said, free will as an illusion can be just as satisfying as if it were true in nature. The fact is this; we will never be able to calculate all the interactions that make up our determined universe, so it will appear that we are making choices. Good enough for me.

well said..good enough for me to!

 

[bola]

And also, how would a non deterministic universe actually work?
If one thing didnt lead to another, wouldn't there be chaos?
Would some parts be non deterministic while others not? I don't see how that would work..
I think in some ways all universe HAVE to be deterministic, or else it would be completely different and chaotic.
So in that regard it may appear that the no determinism is actually happening on high levels. With low levels being quantum mechanics for example.
In the high levels, where our consciousness is, we're not able to see all the interactions that make up the determined results, like kcballer said, so it is kind of non deterministic from that view.

Maybe if we disregard the size of objects in the universe, like the difference between a quark and a tree, determinism and non determinism can co exist together, because we will never know what level is the lowest, and which is the highest, and which of these control each other.

That was just a random thought though, didn't think it through.

 

[mikesvenson]

but a good thought at that, free flowing input. We may never really know the truth, since we are imperfect.

If we can know the truth, then we can know the future, even of our own thoughts.

That would certainly upset a lot of people. It would crush many ideas about the purpose of life.

 

[olde drunk]

i believe that the physical universe is only deterministic in that it must obey the rules of physicality. freewill, however, allows us to decide which events we wish to activate within these rules.

on the spritual (non-physica) level we probably have more freedom, but it too has rules or guidelines. within these rules we can expand what seems like chaos into meaningful adventures.

it seems that all levels of the universe operate within certian parameters. perhaps what happens in the non-physical is as different as what happens at the quantum level compared to 3D reality.

why must we impose all rules across all levels of reality?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[selfAdjoint]

i believe that the physical universe is only deterministic in that it must obey the rules of physicality. freewill, however, allows us to decide which events we wish to activate within these rules.

Since we are in the universe and a part of it, if we are free to decide which events to activate, then right there, the universe is not only deterministic.

Of course you have a get-out in the word physical. If you think human choice is not physical, then you have a loophole. But I think human everything is physical, there's no objective evidence otherwise.

 

[dschouten]

if(no free will) then ...

A thought just occurred to me...

Lack of free will implies a lack of personal responsibility.

Pay attention. If we can argue against free will, then in the same breath we must condemn any concepts of morality, since any and all action is simply determined. If action is only determined (and not chosen) then condemning the choices (stating their 'wrongness') is moot.

So I should be able to kill all of you and you'd have nothing to say about it (that is, whether I am wrong in doing so). After all, the longevity of your life and the conditions of its passing are already determined. Or are they? Reply.

 

[kcballer21]

A thought just occurred to me...

Lack of free will implies a lack of personal responsibility.

Pay attention. If we can argue against free will, then in the same breath we must condemn any concepts of morality, since any and all action is simply determined. If action is only determined (and not chosen) then condemning the choices (stating their 'wrongness') is moot.

So I should be able to kill all of you and you'd have nothing to say about it (that is, whether I am wrong in doing so). After all, the longevity of your life and the conditions of its passing are already determined. Or are they? Reply.

That's the question. Let's just clear up the notion that 'determined' refers to the physical nature of the universe and not to some higher power who planned all this out for us. As for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope.
I say that the universe is determined but I 'feel' like I am making choices, and for all intensive purposes that 'feeling' is real. That is why ethics continues to be important. Is it immoral if you kill me? Yes. Why? Because on our level of limited perception choices are still real, even if they are not real on a level which we could (probably) never comprehend.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We have a legal system that is built around the concept of personal responsibility. I think it is important not to push too far in seeking to justify this system with abstract philosophy. If literal free will is abandoned, and the legal system is not somehow insulated from that result, chaos could result. What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

I personally have a lot of trouble with literal free will. I could see a deterministic universe where everything is predictable, or a random universe where nothing is predictable, but not a universe that makes a big exception for human free will, being deterministic EXCEPT when we excercise our wills.

 

[dschouten]

That's the question. Let's just clear up the notion that 'determined' refers to the physical nature of the universe and not to some higher power who planned all this out for us.

Who cares what factors play the determining role. Everything is determined and that's all we need to 'know' (although I would argue that this isn't knowledge, but a clever fallacy).

As for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope.

Who cares how slippery the slope is? If its the only slope we have - taking that we have no free will, of course - then you have to take what you get and ski down it. To simply shy away from the consequences of a statement without renegging the statement is capricious and shilly-shally.

This is precisely why the argument that we have no free will is so absurd.

I say that the universe is determined but I 'feel' like I am making choices, and for all intensive purposes that 'feeling' is real. That is why ethics continues to be important. Is it immoral if you kill me? Yes. Why? Because on our level of limited perception choices are still real, even if they are not real on a level which we could (probably) never comprehend.

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that our choices are determined, but we'll never know that they are, hence our 'limited perception'.

But wait! You've just said they are determined! So now I know that they are determined, when in fact this knowledge is beyond my comprehension. I'm dying in a recursive logical loop! Woe is me.

 

[dschouten]

We have a legal system that is built around the concept of personal responsibility. I think it is important not to push too far in seeking to justify this system with abstract philosophy. If literal free will is abandoned, and the legal system is not somehow insulated from that result, chaos could result. What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

I personally have a lot of trouble with literal free will. I could see a deterministic universe where everything is predictable, or a random universe where nothing is predictable, but not a universe that makes a big exception for human free will, being deterministic EXCEPT when we excercise our wills.

Maybe we'll just have to accept that the universe is comprised of more than chance stellar explosions. Once this (obvious) notion is granted, free will is suddenly less strange.