Does Free Will Exist? A Quantum Physics Debate

[selfAdjoint]

Nobody has to concede anything where no evidence is presented. Your "more" may be obvious to you, but not to tohers.

 

[dschouten]

Right then. I can't FORCE you to believe anything, but when you incredulously exclaim that you cannot accept free will, even though there are serious flaws in refusing to do so, then it is perfectly acceptable for one such as myself to point you towards a solution to your conundrum. Clearly, you are in state of limbo here, and adamantly refusing any intuition or advice from others on the grounds that you prefer not to discuss their implications is not a wise course of action.

Seriously man, think about it. Don't just talk - think. Ponder. Is there any alternative?

 

[hitssquad]

Retributive justice vs being adult

What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

Retributive justice might end, and all crime might end with it.

We do not hold our cars and computers responsible for their actions, so we manage their programming in such a way that their actions minimally harm us.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I actually believe in this, I just wonder if it could ever be implemented. I think the only reason to imprison anybody is because they have a "design defect" which makes them dangerous. And prison should not be a deliberately dismal, cruel, or dangerous place, since that obviously doesn't work, either in preventing or in reforming.

And there is absolutely no justification for capital punishment.

 

[kcballer21]

dschouten: 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).

I concede that a deterministic universe may be a clever fallacy. i don't 'know' the universe is determined, it is my opinion based on the information I have reviewed. The difference is I base my claim on something that is scientifically plausible (I'll borrow Dissident Dan's quote "Our thoughts are brain processes. These processes involve 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.") I once thought that free will was saved by the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, but then was convinced that the end result of any quantum occurrence could just be another variable in what ends up as determined.

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.

I said the consequences of a determined universe are not the loss of moral standards, how is that shying away?.. it is in direct contrast with what you said. For me the question is not whether the universe is determined, the question is how is it that we feel we have 'free will' if it doesn't exist?

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.

No, I said we do 'know' (given that all things are based in causality) that the universe is determined. What we don't know is how to calculate all interactions that ultimately lead to our brain making a 'choice'. Therefore free will is an illusion and a convincing one at that, you think you have it. Intuition may have the best of you. Also the fact that you ‘know’ something exist does not mean it is within your comprehension. Can you comprehend infinity? We can conceive of a universe with 11 space-time dimensions but can you comprehend it?

 

[dschouten]

I concede that a deterministic universe may be a clever fallacy. i don't 'know' the universe is determined, it is my opinion based on the information I have reviewed. The difference is I base my claim on something that is scientifically plausible (I'll borrow Dissident Dan's quote "Our thoughts are brain processes. These processes involve 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.") I once thought that free will was saved by the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, but then was convinced that the end result of any quantum occurrence could just be another variable in what ends up as determined.

This is an intrinsically classical picture, inherently modernist, and thus quite 'debunkable'. There is no modern physical law which asserts that, given some ensemble of particles with a given momentum and position, one can extrapolate forwards or backwards and determine the particles' positions and momenta for all time. To apply conservation laws in an argument favoring determinism, you would have to apply such a rule (which is known not to exist) and so I leave it to you (or Dissident Dan) to derive and proove one. A brief study in quantum statistical mechanics should illuminate your mind sufficiently in this regard.

I said the consequences of a determined universe are not the loss of moral standards, how is that shying away?.. it is in direct contrast with what you said. For me the question is not whether the universe is determined, the question is how is it that we feel we have 'free will' if it doesn't exist?

No. What you said was "as for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope". Either you misspoke, or upon reminder of some sound argument you shifted your original claims to avoid being caught spending time in a 'clever fallacy'.

No, I said we do 'know' (given that all things are based in causality) that the universe is determined. What we don't know is how to calculate all interactions that ultimately lead to our brain making a 'choice'. Therefore free will is an illusion and a convincing one at that, you think you have it. Intuition may have the best of you. Also the fact that you ‘know’ something exist does not mean it is within your comprehension. Can you comprehend infinity? We can conceive of a universe with 11 space-time dimensions but can you comprehend it?

You've missed my point. Neglecting our comprehension of determinism, there exists a simple dichotomy: either we know that what we are doing is predetermined or we don't.
Allow me to provide an (albeit lame) example: I don't need a PhD in physical chemistry to know that fire is hot when I touch it - I only need to burn my hand once. Similarly, I don't need to understand a completely predetermined universe (as if such a thing existed) to 'know' that everything I do is predetermined. Regardless of the clever ruses we invoke to convince ourselves of our own free will, if I 'knew' that it wasn't free will, then THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
Therefore, armed with this new 'knowledge' I can have the following conversation with myself, and anyone who would care to listen:
ME: "Is it immoral if you kill me?"
ME: "No."
ME: "Why not?"
ME: "Because on our level of limited perception choices are known not to be real, even if they seem to be real on a level which we can comprehend."

 

[dschouten]

And there is absolutely no justification for capital punishment.

Who needs to justify that which is predetermined?

 

[kcballer21]

dschouten,
Before I go any further with this I would like to know how you qualify your stance that there is such a thing as free will? (That is, before I spend the next 2 years studying quantum mechanics statistical analysis, what's your argument?) From what you said it seems like the only reason free-will must be true is because otherwise we would all for some reason start killing each other. Perhaps your 'simple dichotomy' isn't so simple.

Let me state that I am not biased toward a deterministic universe, in fact if there is any bias it is for free-will. That is part of my hesitation to accept free-will, it seems so fundamental on a human level that it makes me question the reality of it. It seems that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the distance between our intuition and reality grows greater.

(I brace for the onslaught)

 

[dschouten]

Before I go any further with this I would like to know how you qualify your stance that there is such a thing as free will? (That is, before I spend the next 2 years studying quantum mechanics statistical analysis, what's your argument?) From what you said it seems like the only reason free-will must be true is because otherwise we would all for some reason start killing each other. Perhaps your 'simple dichotomy' isn't so simple.

Not really. What I said (or indeed, meant to say) was that the insolubility of free will within our generally accepted framework of morality is untenable. We have to drop one or the other. In my (limited) experience, whenever the most obvious truths such as the injustice of murder are juxtaposed against theories which implicate alternatives to these truths, proponents of the theories often make lousy excuses to prop them (that is, their theories) back up. I don't accept this escapism. If you are going to really assert that we have no free will than you must assert that there is no moral standard (or even a loose moral standard). That's NOT to say that if we had no free will then we would all kill each other. It IS to say that if we had no free will, we could never argue against killing each other.

Let me state that I am not biased toward a deterministic universe, in fact if there is any bias it is for free-will. That is part of my hesitation to accept free-will, it seems so fundamental on a human level that it makes me question the reality of it. It seems that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the distance between our intuition and reality grows greater.

Just take whatever empirical data is at your fingertips and decide (inductively) with what you have. If you are waiting for some physical proof for or against free will, I would offer the advice 'don't hold your breath'.

(I brace for the onslaught)

It wasn't that bad. I try to keep my virtual tongue on a short leash.

 

[dschouten]

Now for the proof of free will: I decided to write this.

The end.

 

[kcballer21]

Now for the proof of free will: I decided to write this.

How about everything that happened before this quote made its existence inevitable. Although you haven't changed my mind I admit that the proof for or against free will probably is beyond reach, we might as well be arguing about the existence of God.

 

[dschouten]

How about everything that happened before this quote made its existence inevitable.

And what about those happenings? This is recursion ad infinitum, forever a prior event without end (beginning)!

Although you haven't changed my mind I admit that the proof for or against free will probably is beyond reach, we might as well be arguing about the existence of God.

Yet, if we can find obvious contradictions with the one, we can de facto accept the other (since the decision is binary).

 

[Stephen Mooney]

Everything is determined, including our actions, however this does not mean that we are able to clearly identify all the determinants.

Choice is a product of ignorance. As we will never know everything, will we always have a degree of ignorance and hence choice.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Perfectly true. This is the basis of "compatibilism". Even though we may be predestined, we cannot know what we are predestined to decide or do, so we can treat the future as free to choose without contradicting ourselves.

 

[dschouten]

Perfectly true. This is the basis of "compatibilism". Even though we may be predestined, we cannot know what we are predestined to decide or do, so we can treat the future as free to choose without contradicting ourselves.

For crying out loud, read the whole forum - or the past few posts at least - before you start blathering on, repeating what has already been dealt with.

 

[kernelpenguin]

For crying out loud, read the whole forum - or the past few posts at least - before you start blathering on, repeating what has already been dealt with.

Now if you combined knowledge of different fields, you'd actually see that the point you are trying to argue is not the correct one. To really understand the emergent behaviour of neural networks, (which animals basically are) go read up on them.

A wide array of both laughable and nonsensical examples were presented in this thread that support the notion of free will, but it does not exist. Allow me to attempt to prove it.

You talk about choice. That presented with situation A, you can choose between reactions B1, B2, B3, etc. And that this choice is made consciously, so this proves that there is free will. It doesn't. The choice you end up making is predetermined by your past experiences or, lacking that, your 'gut instinct', which is all about taking the past experiences that you have in any related field and using them as the input in the decision making process.

Here's an example. You go to the store to buy the latest a CD. You notice just as you are handing off your cash that the CD case has a rather bad scratch on it. Do you buy it? Is this free will? It isn't. Should you decide to go ahead and buy it, there are various factors that have all contributed to this decision. And the following list is by no means complete:

+ The scratch on the case isn't that bad. (To this, your knowledge of the actual technology behind it contributes, since you know that a scratch on the case won't mess up the quality of the songs.)
+ You don't want to look like a fool complaining over a scratch. (Which itself is rooted in past social experiences.)
+ You don't want to trouble the lady at the checkout over something as small as that. (Quite possibly rooted in your sexual behaviour, feeling of smallness.)
+ The case holds no value to you since you'll just rip the songs and listen to them on your computer or portable mp3/ogg player. (You do not view the whole package as valuable, just the actual content.)
+ You have the exact same jewel CD case at home that you've found no use for and can easily replace the scratched one. (Practicality and convenience -- doing this would be less burdening for you than asking for another copy.)

And should you not buy it, here's another list of ideas and feelings which will have contributed to that decision:

+ You want the whole package to be perfect, no exceptions. (This could be rooted in upbringing or the feeling of always needing the best.)
+ You collect CDs like this and would like them to be in mint condition.
+ The scratch bothers you. (It might be that someone scratched a swastika on there.)
+ The scratch looks bad. In fact, it looks so bad that the case might actually break apart should moderate amounts of pressure be applied to it.

No, there is no free will. The whole world is a big domino effect in motion. The key to the whole thing is threshold. You see, our past experiences contribute to our decision-making process. The decisions we make are optimal based on different calculations and priorities. Complex algorithms are at work, which change dynamically all the time as they gather more input, more experiences.

For example, you buy a shiny ring from a gypsy, which turns out to be fake. Since the hit your wallet and your pride took, you feel pretty bad about the whole ordeal and you decide that you should not buy anything from a gypsy ever again. Was it free will? No, because the decision was based on negative first-hand experience. Now, if you think something along the lines of "well, but I'm not a racist because racists are bad, because the word 'racist' carries negative connotations and I'm going to buy things from gypsies just to show that there is free will and/or that I'm not a bad racist" then, well, that's just fooling yourself. That was not free will, that was a decision based on various input. The following factors most likely contributed to the whole thing:

+ Negative feedback from the gypsy. Negative first-hand experiences.
+ The possibility of not being cheated again as often.
+ Historical or second/third-hand experience. You might have heard that gypsies cheat people.
+ The implied racism of not wanting to buy anything from them again.
+ The possibility of being considered a racist within your community.
+ The negative effects of being considered a racist within your community.
+ The possibility of not telling anyone that you don't deal with gypsies should you decide not to, since being considered a racist is a negative thing and has negative effects on your well-being.

And to that you can probably add various less likely factors such as:

+ The free will issue. You decide to do the less likely thing, because you believe that it proves you have free will. I will try to touch upon this later.
+ If someone you know very well and admire is a gypsy, you are likely to think that the gypsy you admire is the rule and the gypsy that cheated you is the exception.
+ You might yourself be a gypsy.

Now, about free will. Doing what you consider less likely is not a sign of free will. It is purely a case of considering the abstract notion of free will and then trying to prove it, because you believe that doing something chaotic will prove that you do have free will and it is that belief which contributes to the decision-making process. That belief might be rooted in anything. Indeed, I might just close this browser window without hitting 'Submit Reply', because It might prove that I have free will. It is a decision that holds less weight, in my mind, but it is nonetheless a possible and plausible outcome of writing this reply. But I won't do it, because I value the peer review of my thought process. And in the way of the great Centauri freethinker Telis Elaris (Babylon 5 reference, sorry), I will reason why that is.

If I post everything I've written, it will be good. Why?
Because other people will be enlightened and because my thoughts will get peer review. Why?
Because I feel that the posts so far in this thread were made mostly by people who don't have the slightest idea of what free will is or isn't. And because I want my thoughts to be reviewed and criticized. Why?
Because I think most posts lack understanding. And because I feel that I will benefit from the peer review of my ideas and notions. Why?
Because the ideas presented in the previous posts can be proven to be wrong through reasoning based on facts. And because I have read Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and I once wrote a large essay on applying the Open Source model to human thought and the benefits that would yield.

The human mind is a neural network. Each cell, or node, taking input from various other nodes, doing some simplistic operation on the input and sending the output to other nodes. Unlike in the von Neumann machine under your table, the nodes in a neural network work in parallel. (Yes, I know that today's CPUs execute many instructions in parallel as well. Don't get semantical on me. I'm majoring in compsci.) This gives a neural network massive computing power. Neural networks can either be evolved or trained. Or both. The original setup of a human mind is the product of evolution. It is hardwired to act on certain impulses in a certain way, simply because it resulted in survival and the passing on of genes. Everything since then is training via input, which reshapes the nodes and makes them act differently based on the feedback received.

The illusion of free will is created because we do not and can not comprehend the whole system in the context of the input.

Everything might not be predetermined on the quantum level. Does it mean that human thoughts create some quantum effects and are not part of the universe? Most likely, the answer is no.

The brain is a machine that receives input and produces output based on rules which are shaped according to input and according to feedback created by previous output. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just an illusion.

 

[Wolf]

just thought this up

here is an argument about free will
Some one makes you so angry you want to hit them badly it is a burning desire in your soul even every part of your exsistence wants to hit this person.
But you don't hit them since you have control on your actions.
However you still WANT to hit then your enire being wants to but yet you do not.
There is no force stronger then emotion if there was ever a force that would conrtol your actions and limit your "free will" it would be emotion, look at some people in love .
They would do things that make no rational sense but to them in love it makes ense so ,love has completely destroyed there free will the same aplies to anger,rage any emotion really but yet even then you have will. note you must have a lot of will but yet it can be done.

Maybe there is as it was so posted "higher beings like gods" acting as a stimulis to control you, like emotion can but those are stimuli you can control your reaction to them but not the stimuli itself so there is free will to act but not control the urges that make you want to act.
Just a thought

 

[kernelpenguin]

Wolf, go back and read my post just above yours.

And here's an analysis of your example.

Someone did something bad to you. Suppose your brother fell in love with your girlfriend and then took off with her. You have just met your brother for the first time in years and your life has been awful since your girlfriend left with him. You desire to punish him in some way and the fastest way to do it would be to hit him.

This is where your brain steps in. You have a major choice to make: to hit him or not to hit him?

Your brain then, usually on a subconscious level weighs these choices.

The arguments for hitting your brother:

+ He stole something that was yours.
+ He did a bad thing to you.
+ The release of tension that the hit would give you would be most beneficial. (Justice, a kind of balance, even, would be served, in your mind.)

The arguments against hitting your brother:

+ Maybe she is happier? (Non-egoistical instinct, herding instinct, survival of the species, not of the individual.)
+ He is your brother, after all. (You grew up with him and have a special bond with him -- survival of the family, of genes that are similar to yours. The same instinct responsible for people hiring their relatives.)
+ Maybe you're a weak fighter and he would certainly overpower you in combat. (Self-doubt, self-awareness, self-analysis, analysis of your brother.)
+ The society/community would not approve of you hitting him. (Social consciousness, social thinking.)

Anger is your instinct. It is pretty much hardwired. Something of yours was taken and you want it back or you want an equal thing back. (Punching him would be "justice" for you.) Anger and the need for justice was hardwired into your ancestors via the process of natural selection -- a key factor to evolution.

Here's a simplistic example of how an emotion such as anger is rooted in cold reasoning. Suppose your ancestor was a caveman called Ogg. Suppose he had a few spears in his cave. If someone came and took one of the spears away, the loss wouldn't be that bad, since Ogg would still have a few spears left and he could still hunt. If someone were to take all spears away, Ogg wouldn't be able to hunt animals and would get hungry -- that's negative feedback. (And the loss of just one spear would also be negative feedback. More on that in another post, if you insist. In a hurry now.) Ogg would then reason that he is hungry, because he can't hunt animals. And he can't hunt animals because his spears are gone. And his spears are gone because someone took them, so someone is responsible for his hunger. That is basic logic.

If Ogg was hardwired in such a way that he wouldn't mind anyone taking his spears -- if he was hardwired to be without the need for justice or simply, anger -- then he would simply die. Quite possibly without passing on his genes.

In reality, the first laws were centered around the very same thing. If someone came and took your spears, you had the right to go and take his spears or lacking that, you could go and take something equivalent. Along with specialization and the need to trade, this contributed to the rise of the value system and eventually money.

These laws were enforced for the good of the community -- if the world is regulated through laws, it is more peaceful. Better chance of survival. Survival of the community.

The human mind is a mixture of logic, (the understanding of causality) hardwired emotions and cold calculation based on various input. The whole notion of "free will" is absurd.

Indeed, I would argue that if there was a God in this world (and I'm not religious), then even he in his might would not have free will. He would also be a machine that takes input, processes it and gives output. His input would be the whole world and his output would be his decisions to do something about it.

If God existed and if he was to put some idea into your mind, that idea would be input received from God. It would be "guidance" for you and your brain, the machine that weighs different inputs, would then assign a value of importance to it. Based on that value and an analysis of different possible outcomes based on past experiences, your brain reaches a decision. Again, this would not be "free will" -- just the product of a neural network that takes different inputs, uses logic to determine the values of different outputs and then chooses the best course of action.

The thing that has given rise to the absurd notion of "free will" is just one simple fact: you can never be consciously aware of all the input.

 

[Philocrat]

Freedom = a state of non-relativity

Free will = beyond causal and relational laws

But no free acting agent, that neither deviates nor is intervened with on its causal pathway, can derive at nothingness.

 

[Wolf]

then

if you don't believe that there is any free will the one is the purpose to living?


"A mam with a life that cannot act in his own desire is a man who has nothing to live for"

 

[JD]

Is it possible that free will can exist and not exist simultaneously?

 

[Wolf]

besides

you proved my point better than i did let me explain.

Basing you current present actions off your past is a perfect example of free will because you are consiencly (spelled that wrong sorry) chosing to think.

If you had no free will than you would have just acted there would have been no thoght because free will is the ABILITY TO THINK AND ACT FOR YOURSELF THINKING ABOUT YOUR PAST BEFORE ACTING AND THEN ACTING IS FREE WILL.

Another example folowing your bases that still proves free will.

You said that when you thinkl about the past it is hardwired to your brain to do so true enough.

And because i is hardwired to your you have no free will because you had to think that is what i have gotten from your post hope i am right because here is my point.

Let's say your right on that ok well you can still have free will i have no clue if your a martial artist or not so i will explain this all.

Before fighting you meditate in martial arts and if done properly you stop thinking while sparing no thought reaches your mind so then how do you argue that that is NOT FREE WILL

 

[nevagil]

Is it possible that free will can exist and not exist simultaneously?

Sort of, sure. I have limited free will when I chose to affect certain things, but many things I cannot alter at all, like saturn's gravity two centuries from now.

 

[kernelpenguin]

Please, Wolf, arrange your thoughts into a coherent form before replying. Your post makes very little sense.

In any case, you're wrong.

Basing you current present actions off your past is a perfect example of free will because you are consiencly (spelled that wrong sorry) chosing to think.

Basing my actions off the past means that whatever decision making processes go on in my brain, they also draw on analogy and past experience. I'll assume you've never done much programming, so I'll give you a small example of this in action in a non-sentient system.

Suppose you had a firewall on your computer to protect you from intruders. Suppose the firewall had a rule where it, upon detecting a portscan, blocks all access for that IP for one minute. The decision making process of that program goes something like this:
(By IP I mean "Internet Protocol Address", a unique 32bit (IPv4) name given to every computer on the Internet.)

1. It has a system for detecting a portscan from some IP. (This usually consists of a simple "if more than n ports are accessed from the same IP in m minutes, then label that IP a portscanner" algorithm.)
2. When it detects a portscan, the IP is added to a list (memory) and a counter is assigned to it which starts off at, say, 60. Every second a timer fires and decreases the counter on each IP in the list. When a counter reaches 0, the IP is removed from that list.
3. When a packet is received from some IP, that IP is checked against the list (memory) to see if the IP is banned or not. (Is "memorized" or not -- is there past experience telling us that that IP is "bad" or not.)
4. If the IP is in the list, the packet is discarded. Optionally, the counter on that specific IP in the memory could be increased.

So there you have it. A non-sentient algorithm which draws on "past experience" without actually "thinking". Evolution has, no doubt, built something like this, but much more complex into us as well.

free will is the ABILITY TO THINK AND ACT FOR YOURSELF THINKING ABOUT YOUR PAST BEFORE ACTING AND THEN ACTING IS FREE WILL.

Well, first you have to define what you mean by "thinking". If logical reasoning that also draws upon the past and analyses possible futures and probabilities is what you call "thinking", then that process can also be hardwired into your brain. In fact, I'd say "thinking" is just a decision making process and nothing more. It is a "sentient algorithm", where sentience emerges because due to the nature of the medium, it can never be aware of all the inputs. Thus it will deduct that somehow it is in control and the notion of "I" is just a step away from that.

Let's say your right on that ok well you can still have free will i have no clue if your a martial artist or not so i will explain this all.

Before fighting you meditate in martial arts and if done properly you stop thinking while sparing no thought reaches your mind so then how do you argue that that is NOT FREE WILL

That is quite possibly the worst argument I've heard for free will.

Anyway, let me explain. The reason you meditate in martial arts is to kick your brain into "automatic mode" by separating the "conscious" (that might be a misleading term, so consider it a "biofeedback system" from where the notion of "I" arises due to the fact that it can't be aware of all the input in the context of output and feedback) part of your mind from the decision making process. It can be aware of the input, it can be aware of the output, but it does not have to be, because actions and reactions are determined by the decision making process.

Why do you think you have to perform the same move hundreds of times while in training? It is to make sure the "brain pattern" of that move is etched into your brain and can be easily used as input by your brain's decision making process without the consciousness having to analyse the aspects of your situation, the possible moves it can make and the steps needed to make those moves.

Suppose you learn a kick that is most effective if your opponent is blocking his face, but not his stomach. If you had not performed the same move in training hundreds of times, analysing it every step of the way, then when presented with a situation where you should use it, you're likely to start a logical process of "thoughts" that go something like this:
1. He is blocking his face, so hitting there would not yield much result.
2. Hitting him in the balls isn't nice.
3. His stomach, sides and legs are open to attack.
4. The stomach looks most promising due to his stance.
5. I'd have to crouch to punch him in the stomach and that could put my head in jeopardy.
6. The other parts of my body that I can hit him with are my feet.
7. I should hit him with my right foot while making sure that I don't fall over by keeping balance with my left one.
8. I should aim for the solar plexus.
9. I should bring my foot about and then extend it for the final kick.
10. I will now execute the kick while mentally tracking both the foot and my balance.
11. I will let out an intimidating scream.
12. "Ki-yaaai!"

This, of course, will result in a slow fight and you're likely to get your ass kicked while you're considering what to do.

Martial arts is about pattern recognition. Every kick, punch, block, throw, whatever is a pattern. Each pattern has an anti-pattern used for countering that particular kick, punch, block, throw, whatever. When you train, these patterns are etched into your mind. This is where "meditation" comes into play.

Prior to fighting your opponent, you focus. The point is to suppress your "consciousness" and to let the decision making process be largely replaced by a pattern recognition process. So what the process comes down to is something like this:
1. Your opponent is doing pattern x.
2. That pattern has anti-patterns y and z.
3. Y is more useful, so execute that.

It might be that your opponent wanted you to believe that y was more useful when his variation of x would have been best countered by z. (Deception can also be built into a pattern, so that didn't have to be conscious deception.) When you're a martial arts expert, you start recognising such patterns as well and you create more definitions for them in your brain. So the same fight would come down to:
1. Your opponent is doing pattern x3.
2. That pattern has an anti-pattern z4, execute.

So, martial arts is basically pattern recognition. Which is ironic, because this is pretty much the only field where neural networks are used in mainstreamish programming -- the most primitive use for a neural network. Experimental character recognition systems, for example, use trained neural networks. The other more common use is for playing games like chess or tic-tac-toe, although they're more useful for games that have infinite possible moves like go, whereas, for example, in tic-tac-toe, all possible moves can be drawn as a small tree of 9! (362880) nodes with values for all possible states.

So there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. There is no free will. The "I" you feel so strongly about is just a product of a mind that is only partially aware of all the input, output and feedback. In order for it to logically (causally) get the output and feedback from input, it has to go through several "leaps of faith", which make it seem as if there was some "magic" going on -- namely "free will".

 

[phoenixthoth]

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?

If we did not have free will, it would be impossible to predict ANY future events*. This is absurd. Therefore, we have free will.


*The argument for this is posted under the thread "destiny." Say there are two doors and I will either pick one or neither, giving me three choices. Suppose that I don't have free will. I can't even predict my own choice because if I could predict my own supposed choice, then I could just make a different choice, violating the no free will assumption. I can't know in advance which door I will pick; this is absurd.

Science has nothing to do with whether we have free will. The unproven assumption in science is that everything we have observed thus far is what we will always observe. So even if we have observed a deterministic universe, and we don't seem to anyway in all cases, that doesn't prove that we will always observe a deterministic universe.

 

[kcballer21]

If we did not have free will, it would be impossible to predict ANY future events*. This is absurd. Therefore, we have free will.

I think the problem most people have with determinism is the scale on which it is played out. Yes, you can 'choose' between door one and door two. But take a step back and look at what led to that decision. Now take another step back, and another, and another, etc...

The events that you speak of are future events only because we haven't conciously experienced them yet. In classical physics everything is determined. That has been improved upon,... in special relativity for anything moving at the speed of light time is non-existent, everything just is. Then comes quantum mechanics. In QM you can substitute classic particle trajectories with wavefunctions, and the same deterministic principle holds. The one hope that free will has (as far as physics is concerned) is whether or not human observation has something to do with a quantum wavefunction collapsing into an observable state. I suppose this is possible but I am not going to leap at it just because I want free will to exist (which I do).

Anyway if you are going to talk about events and our influence over them, you might want to look at the bigger picture. It may seem that you have control over the outcomes of certain events, but the only event that matters (the universe) seems to be indifferent to what you or I think.

 

[phoenixthoth]

In classical physics everything is determined.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --A. Einstein.

How does the mathematical model of something being deterministic prove that what we are observing is deterministic?

My major problem with science is the assumption that what has been observed up to this point is what we would observe anywhere in the universe at any time. In short, the use of inductive reasoning. What constitutes proof is vastly different for you and me and I have yet to see what to me would constitute a proof of no free will. As you may know, under the thread "destiny", I believe that we have limited free will; not no free will and not total free will.

 

[kcballer21]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --A. Einstein.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."--A. Einstein

"For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent."--A. Einstein

Fortunately the greatest genius ever still has his faults as with this statement, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." and the refutation of the EPR paradox by John Bell.

I did not know that was you stance (limited freewill) but I still believe the limited aspect of freewill is a left over of some human yearning for control. Do you believe this because it pains you to think we have no control. Intuition won't allow many of us to even consider this idea. My distrust of intuition is one of the reasons my opinion is what it is.

 

[phoenixthoth]

The reason why I believe what I believe is irrelevant. My arguments stand on their own. I secretly believe that we don't have free will but shh don't tell anyone. It's just not for the reasons a scientist might suggest. My brain tells me that we have limited free will but my intuiton tells me that we don't have free will.

 

[kernelpenguin]

Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.

I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.

Imagine that the brain functions this way:
[input: sensory input, past experiences, instincts] -> [decision making process] -> [output: decisions, actions]

This is a greatly simplified view of the brain and it leaves out two essential components. One is the "logic" department, which calculates causality based on what it knows. (I have an urge to write a really big rant with examples here, but it seems that no one has even bothered reading my last 3 huge posts in this thread, which show that there is no free will, so I'll keep this short)

The logic department is used by the decision making process to choose the most valuable outcome.

The other is the "I" department. The thing that makes it unique is that it's like a tiny copy of the decision making part and acts as a sort of fail-safe. It is aware of some of the input, some of the output and it has its own logic unit, which is used to see if the output was caused by the decisions made or how the input could have caused the output. It basically sits there and analyses the work of the decision making process without being fully aware of all the input and while taking into account the feedback that decisions have generated. (Thus optimizing the decision making process for the future.)

The "I" department offers "second guesses" -- thoughts like "what if I had instead chosen action X -- would it have been more beneficial to me?" and "the current input is Y and logic would dictate that Y is usually followed by Z, so the future must hold Z." And, of course, the "I" department can synthesize input to the decision making process -- things like "Z should come in the future, do THIS to prepare for it."

Whether the world is fully deterministic or not is VERY irrelevant when it comes to "free will". The truth is that your brain is simply an organic machine. The notion of "free will" is absurd, since it only emerges from a set of logical processes that are tied to each other and that are trying to predict the future by reflecting on past events and experiences.

The key to understanding it all is to "dissect" your brain -- a simple neural network wired in complicated ways -- and to step back and to look at all the input that might have caused some decision to be made. Step on the metalevel and look down.

Coming back to "non-deterministic free will"... So what if it was proven that the universe is not deterministic and that there are "random" quantum effects? What then? How the hell do you suppose that proves you have free will? The ONLY thing it does is offer a random element to the decision making process. It does not wire your mind to some "cosmic pool of free will for sentient beings". Hell, "randomized algorithms" are used in computing, even. Mostly for NP-* problems like the traveling salesman one. They can be very effective.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.

I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.

The human brain (note, brain, not mind) is comparable to a computer. A computer has no free will. Therefore, we don't have free will. Is that your argument?

Whether the world is fully deterministic or not is VERY irrelevant when it comes to "free will". The truth is that your brain is simply an organic machine. The notion of "free will" is absurd, since it only emerges from a set of logical processes that are tied to each other and that are trying to predict the future by reflecting on past events and experiences.

I'm not sure I understand this: Free will emerges from a set of logical processes or thought emerges from a set of logical processes? If this is the case, can you write down what those logical processes are?

The key to understanding it all is to "dissect" your brain -- a simple neural network wired in complicated ways -- and to step back and to look at all the input that might have caused some decision to be made. Step on the metalevel and look down.

That the brain operates like neural networks seems plausible but has not been proven. The brain is not fully understood so when you step on the metalevel and look down, you see a dense fog.

Coming back to "non-deterministic free will"... So what if it was proven that the universe is not deterministic and that there are "random" quantum effects? What then? How the hell do you suppose that proves you have free will? The ONLY thing it does is offer a random element to the decision making process. It does not wire your mind to some "cosmic pool of free will for sentient beings". Hell, "randomized algorithms" are used in computing, even. Mostly for NP-* problems like the traveling salesman one. They can be very effective.

I don't think random behavior at the quantum level suggests that we have free will; so I agree with that. I don't think science can decide either way whether we have free will. By the way, no computer on Earth thus far has ever used a random algorithm; they are just using chaotic but 100% deterministic functions that upon iteration simulate randomness. That's neither here nor there though as as you said, it has nothing to do with free will.

 

[Dovekie]

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?

I'm not sure I exactly understand your meaning in that sentence, do you care to explain? how does the collapse of matter/light determine the presence of free will?

I don't think free will is something that can be studied or captured by observation and experimentation. It's effects cannot be identified by the means of something else. Free will is what we believe to be "choice". People have "free will" as long as they believe and recognise that what they are doing, and what happens in their life is determined only by the choices that they make, rather than depending on some higher spiritual/universal force. Free will is more a conceptual idea within a person rather than a thing that possibly may/or not exist. How are we to determine whether free will actually exists or not? It cannot be tested, or calculated with formulae. I think Fate and Free Will exist in a state of harmony, where our ability to choose what we want to do determines the outcome of our fate. That is, Fate is actually dependent of Free Will.

 

[kernelpenguin]

The human brain (note, brain, not mind) is comparable to a computer. A computer has no free will. Therefore, we don't have free will. Is that your argument?

That's pretty much my argument.

I'm not sure I understand this: Free will emerges from a set of logical processes or thought emerges from a set of logical processes? If this is the case, can you write down what those logical processes are?

Thought emerges from these logical processes. "Free will" is a notion which arises because a logical process cannot be aware of the inputs of any other logical process.

Consider the following model of the brain. There is one central logic process, which takes input from the senses and from instincts, then processes these and looks for the most beneficial solution and then reaches a "decision", which manifests itself as output. Meanwhile there are other similar logic processes, that have access to some of the input (not all) and can see some of the output (decisions). These also look at feedback to previous decisions in the input and then try to optimize the decision making process accordingly. (Learning from your past.)

(Um, yes, that sounds a bit incoherent... I'm rather tired right now and my previous posts in this thread have explained this idea already.)

That the brain operates like neural networks seems plausible but has not been proven. The brain is not fully understood so when you step on the metalevel and look down, you see a dense fog.

Well, I have a challenge for you. Can you define free will and come up with an example of free will, that could not be explained as several logic processes working in your brain?

Something original besides the lame old "I am faced with two doors, I choose to open the left one, but then go and open the right one, thus I have free will" crap would be nice. Things like that are just mind-numbingly boring.

I don't think random behavior at the quantum level suggests that we have free will; so I agree with that. I don't think science can decide either way whether we have free will. By the way, no computer on Earth thus far has ever used a random algorithm; they are just using chaotic but 100% deterministic functions that upon iteration simulate randomness. That's neither here nor there though as as you said, it has nothing to do with free will.

Good point. Although, I'd like to point out that the level at which these "random" numbers are generated is outside the scope of the program which needs them. What I mean is that an "intelligent" program could do all kinds of analysis on the "random" numbers, but if these "random" numbers are generated properly (hardware interrupts, electric noise, keypresses, some algorithms, scrambled disk I/O, etc) then they will be truly random to the program and it would take an outside observer operating on a "higher level" to know that these numbers really are not random.

In the same sense that we could observe "random" quantum effects and consider them to be completely random, while in reality they could be created by some deterministic mechanism that follows laws we cannot comprehend.

 

[kcballer21]

kernelpenguin

Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.

I think I understand your reasoning, but wouldn't the human mind and computer be subject to fundamental physical laws?

 

[olde drunk]

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."--A. Einstein

"For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent."--A. Einstein

Fortunately the greatest genius ever still has his faults as with this statement, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." and the refutation of the EPR paradox by John Bell.

I did not know that was you stance (limited freewill) but I still believe the limited aspect of freewill is a left over of some human yearning for control. Do you believe this because it pains you to think we have no control. Intuition won't allow many of us to even consider this idea. My distrust of intuition is one of the reasons my opinion is what it is.

now, what if both ideas are correct??

i submit that ALL probable futures exist as potential and are valid. from that perspective you can argue that an event or future is predetermined.

i am saying that we have the freedom of choice to select that probable future or event that we wish to 'experience'. yes, they are all out there, but which do you want to physicalize?

again, the present is a product of a selected past and an expected future.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[phoenixthoth]

That's pretty much my argument.

I understand that reasoning but I just disagree. We have on one hand observables and on the other a mathematical model. In this case, the brain and neural networks. I just don't buy into the idea that every single property that mathematical model has must also be possessed by the observable.

Thought emerges from these logical processes. "Free will" is a notion which arises because a logical process cannot be aware of the inputs of any other logical process.

I suspect that you might be right but I think that's an unproven hypothesis. Just my opinion.

Consider the following model of the brain. There is one central logic process, which takes input from the senses and from instincts, then processes these and looks for the most beneficial solution and then reaches a "decision", which manifests itself as output. Meanwhile there are other similar logic processes, that have access to some of the input (not all) and can see some of the output (decisions). These also look at feedback to previous decisions in the input and then try to optimize the decision making process accordingly. (Learning from your past.)

Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.

Well, I have a challenge for you. Can you define free will and come up with an example of free will, that could not be explained as several logic processes working in your brain?

There is strong determinism, in which everything is predetermined, weak predeterminsim, in which some things are predetermined, and no determinsim, in which no things are predetermined. I would define free will as either of the cases besides strong predeterminsim. I think that we can't be in strong predetermination (ie no free will) because of the following. If everything is predetermined, then I can't predict any act that I'm about to do for if I could, then I could change what I'm about to do, going against predetermination. I phrase it better under my thread "destiny," which has a similar theme. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense--I'm drunk right now :surprise: )

Something original besides the lame old "I am faced with two doors, I choose to open the left one, but then go and open the right one, thus I have free will" crap would be nice. Things like that are just mind-numbingly boring.

The idea is that if I have no free will, then I CANNOT know what door I'm going to choose which is absurd. Boring or not, lame or not, you cannot refute it by calling it lame and boring.

In the same sense that we could observe "random" quantum effects and consider them to be completely random, while in reality they could be created by some deterministic mechanism that follows laws we cannot comprehend.

I totally agree.

 

[kernelpenguin]

I understand that reasoning but I just disagree. We have on one hand observables and on the other a mathematical model. In this case, the brain and neural networks. I just don't buy into the idea that every single property that mathematical model has must also be possessed by the observable.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the brain, whether it's an exact copy of a mathematical neural network or not (I'd say it's not), acts like a machine, or to be more exact, like a network of machines all debugging each other. If you have a single machine like this with a simple 'neural network' (if you will), you end up with simple behaviour. For example, primitive creatures that swim towards light and don't do much more. But if the brain acts as a self-balancing network of processes where each process mirrors, in a sense, others and tries to optimize others for the survival of the person, intelligent behaviour emerges.

I postulate that intelligent behaviour can emerge from any self-modifying system that is sophisticated enough.

And my model of the brain is just one such possible model of a system from where intelligent behaviour will emerge.

Now, if you look at the brain from outside, you see 'intelligence' and 'free will'. If you look at different neurons, you see them getting input, processing that and putting out output. My model of the brain just shows one possible (and highly likely) model of how 'intelligent behaviour' and the notion of 'free will' can emerge from such a deterministic system.

I suspect that you might be right but I think that's an unproven hypothesis. Just my opinion.

It is, at best, a good model that could be applied to AI research, but Hofstadter already proposed a similar system in his book "Godel, Escher, Bach -- An Eternal Golden Braid" which he described as consciousness, which mirrors itself and the world around it. My theory of the brain derives largely from that.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.

I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? That consciousness is located outside the brain?

There is strong determinism, in which everything is predetermined, weak predeterminsim, in which some things are predetermined, and no determinsim, in which no things are predetermined. I would define free will as either of the cases besides strong predeterminsim. I think that we can't be in strong predetermination (ie no free will) because of the following. If everything is predetermined, then I can't predict any act that I'm about to do for if I could, then I could change what I'm about to do, going against predetermination. I phrase it better under my thread "destiny," which has a similar theme. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense--I'm drunk right now :surprise: )

I think I have, in this very same thread, debunked a version of the above 'proof' at least three times. Let this be the fourth, then :P

You have two doors.
You have three choices: open left, open right, don't open either.
You choose to open the left one.
You consciously choose to ignore the left one and go for the right one.
You open the right one.
Hence, free will.

That last step is a leap of faith. What exactly is a 'conscious choice' anyway? There was a thought in your head saying 'I must prove that I have free will and I will do this by choosing the one the door that I don't want to enter'. Indeed, we have two inputs.

One input to your decision making process is a past decision saying 'I will open the left one' and the other input is 'if I have free will, I should be able to open the right one instead.' In your mind, the second input would hold more weight, so you go for the right one instead.

Now, how did you come to choose the right one eventually? Simple. Something affected you. Something in your past contributed to you choosing the right one. You might have chosen the left one at first because of the human instinct to feel that 'left is safer' (there are studies on this) or because you liked the door more, but you ended up going for the right one, because the thing that made you choose the right one had more weight in your mind.

Choices are reached based on input. Input does not have to be context-sensitive. Hell, even your childhood could contribute to which door you choose.

The idea is that if I have no free will, then I CANNOT know what door I'm going to choose which is absurd. Boring or not, lame or not, you cannot refute it by calling it lame and boring.

I've refuted such examples in three... wait... four posts already. And those have been point-by-point refutations based on logical reasoning.

 

[phoenixthoth]

So are you then saying that the brain is like a complicated machine, machines don't have free will, and therefore the brain does not have free will?

Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.

I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? That consciousness is located outside the brain?

That's not what I'm saying although it may be true anyway. I can see that you're armed with Occam's Razor, ready to cut away at any 'consciousness is located outside the brain' statements. And of course Occam's Razor is a perfect tool that is always correct. Irrelevant because I'm not asserting at this time that consciousness is outside the brain. Just saying that the brain need not possesses every property of a model for the brain, whether the model be a neural network or a complicated machine. The principle property that I doubt transfers from the model back to the observable [brain] is lack of free will.

I think I have, in this very same thread, debunked a version of the above 'proof' at least three times. Let this be the fourth, then :P

You have two doors.
You have three choices: open left, open right, don't open either.
You choose to open the left one.
You consciously choose to ignore the left one and go for the right one.
You open the right one.
Hence, free will.

No that's not the argument; this is a straw man characterization of my proof. The kernel of the proof lies in one's flat out inability to know which door one is about to choose for if one did know what was going to happen in 3 seconds, one would have no reason not to change the supposed future. The argument is based on the absurdity of not being able to know which door one is about to choose.

 

[kernelpenguin]

So are you then saying that the brain is like a complicated machine, machines don't have free will, and therefore the brain does not have free will?

Yes, I'm saying that the brain is a complicated, self-modifying, but deterministic machine.

No that's not the argument; this is a straw man characterization of my proof. The kernel of the proof lies in one's flat out inability to know which door one is about to choose for if one did know what was going to happen in 3 seconds, one would have no reason not to change the supposed future. The argument is based on the absurdity of not being able to know which door one is about to choose.

Do you consciously know everything that goes on inside your head? No.
Do you consciously know everything that affects your decision making? No.

If you do "change your decision", then how do you know it wasn't "meant to be"? In the sense that, how do you know that your brain was not working up to this moment, this new choice on an unconscious level? Once you become consciously aware of your decision, you can also do the opposite, but choosing that very same opposite is STILL something that is decided in your brain.

But since we don't know exactly what is going on in our brains and everything might just be predetermined with no randomness in the universe, we might just as well go around telling ourselves that there is free will even though the notion of 'free will' itself is pretty absurd.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Yes, I'm saying that the brain is a complicated, self-modifying, but deterministic machine.

How do you know that one essential property of the model, a complicated deterministic machine, namely that it is deterministic, transfers over to the brain? IOW, since the model is deterministic therefore the brain is deterministic?

Do you consciously know everything that goes on inside your head? No.
Do you consciously know everything that affects your decision making? No.

If you do "change your decision", then how do you know it wasn't "meant to be"? In the sense that, how do you know that your brain was not working up to this moment, this new choice on an unconscious level? Once you become consciously aware of your decision, you can also do the opposite, but choosing that very same opposite is STILL something that is decided in your brain.

How do you know it was "meant to be?" That's right, it's because what we use to model the brain is deterministic; still doesn't convince me that the brain itself is necessarily deterministic.

All I'm saying is that if we have no free will then that entails that we can not know what door we're about to pick. If you can accept that, then there's no problem with no free will. I myself cannot accept that and I view it as absurd.

But since we don't know exactly what is going on in our brains and everything might just be predetermined with no randomness in the universe, we might just as well go around telling ourselves that there is free will even though the notion of 'free will' itself is pretty absurd.

If we don't know what's going on in our brains, how can you possibly claim it must be a deterministic process?

 

[Wolf]

....

Does A machine have emotion or something other that it's normal programing afecting it's ations?This force is NOT CAUSED BY ANY EXTERNAL FORCE WHATESOEVER as in the force in question must be completely inside the machine the anwser is no a machine does NOT have anything like emotion therefore you arguing the "Brain is like a machine" is invalid A MACHINE DOES NOT HAVE EMOTION OR ANYTHING SIMILAR THE BRAIN DOES, LARGE DIFERENCE

 

[michelle s]

What if fate exists and everything that has been made on this Earth (be it trees, humans, birds, wasps) has a set purpose in life, and everything anyone or anything does or takes part in is premeditated?
Imagine sitting in the middle of the field. You pick one blade of grass. That was the blade of grass' destiny to be picked by you. Why? because that's how they want it.
What if we are all just like characters in a play, following the script, the stage directions, everything the director tells you to do.
What if you have no choice in the matter?
What if you can not be in control of your own life?
Everthing anyone or anything does however large or small sets off a domino effect.
If fate exists then it may not be concentrating on running your life, but the greater meaning to the world.
What is the greater meaning?
Why are we here if we have no control over what we do?
Why are we here if it is already done?
If fate exists does this mean we are in a loop?
could we be living the same destiny over and over?
Or do they update the program make a few changes to get the outcome they want?
What is it they want?
Who are they?
God?

 

[InfPerf000]

"fate" is simply a matter of geometry, speed and forces.
It does not exist

 

[bola]

michelle, i believe we are here because nature is figuring things out.
once again i divide into objective and subjective..

the scientific world is nothing but a means to an end, and the end being giving us the illusion of free will.

the solution to free will lies in quantum mechanics i believe.
if it so happens to be that the quantum world is truly undeterministic, it owuld have huge impact on how chemistry and biology would work.
so if it was undeterministic, we couldn't foresee who would do what.

 

[michelle s]

Yes, we only have the illusion of choice. it keeps us happy and makes us think that we have a chance to change our future.

 

[Zantra]

ahhh yes.. another one of THOSE posts. Doesn't anyone ever get tired of these?

It's a stalemate, as it's been proven time and time again. For every point that can be presented to support the case, a counterpoint can be made for the other side. If determinism is true, then free will is a carefully constructed illusion. If free will is true, you cannot prove that you would have made a different choice, given that all events are known. Blah blah blah...

sorry, this is like the 20th thread I've seen in 2 years.

However, if free will were true, I'd will there not to be another one of these threads again