- #1
- 3,099
- 4
How must we overcome the laws of physics as independent actors? Can there be a science that explains this personal divergence from mechanical description? Is free will the rule of the universe rather than the exception?
How must we overcome the laws of physics as independent actors? Can there be a science that explains this personal divergence from mechanical description? Is free will the rule of the universe rather than the exception?
What I get from Conway is that if a free agent can interact with neutral matter, then all mechanics is susceptable to free will.
In what ways do we act independently of the laws of physics? The choices we make seem to be reflections of who we are, does this allow for freedom? When you say free will, do you mean freedom from our personal constraints - our simian heritage, our imprinting, conditioning, programming - do you mean freedom from the "I", the Self. For any decisions or choices made within the Self surely cannot be free. And even if we do reach that kind of level of personal freedom, surely the laws of physics will dictate the kinds of choices we make as they reflect the kind of universe we exist in. By which I mean the laws of physics will determine the range of options we have to choose from.
Conversely, freedom means to be without external constraint, which can certainly be said about the universe. The universe is free and if we consider its "components" in a holographic sense rather than a mechanical sense we see that everything contains this freedom rather than being a "slave component" of the Great Machine. Reality is free, existence is free. It may be that we are only enslaved by the concept of freedom.
Can a choice, free from external constraint, be expressed in a mathematical way?
Your replies have a zen koan quality about them. They seem to contain deep information but I'm kind of missing how they relate to my own post. More contemplation on my behalf may be required.I heard one physicist say that we don't have the free-will to disobey the law of gravity.
Beyond that- consciousness only emerges in vastly complex systems (i.e. our brains). It must be pretty complicated.
Don't forget that airplanes obey the same laws of physics as rocks. However one flies and the other drops to the ground
I do not believe there is a free will.How must we overcome the laws of physics as independent actors? Can there be a science that explains this personal divergence from mechanical description? Is free will the rule of the universe rather than the exception?
I do not believe there is a free will.
Free will implies that the universe is not completely governed by physical laws but also up to a certain extend by the imagination of the mind.
That does not logically follow at all.We certainly have the illusion of free will.
Let me invent the term 'meta-free will' to describe the illusion of free will.
You must then admit that 'meta-free will' does exist and is governed by the laws of the universe.
It is a term you just invented.If you don't accept that- then I'll just ask you to explain meta-meta free will.
It most certainly won't impress me, and logically speaking, it does not make any sense whatsoever.Of course, you could disprove all of the meta^n free-wills, but then I'd resort to using Cantor's notation for different levels of infinity. You don't want me to do that do you?
I do not believe there is a free will.
Free will implies that the universe is not completely governed by physical laws but also up to a certain extend by the imagination of the mind.
That does not logically follow at all.
It is a term you just invented.
It most certainly won't impress me, and logically speaking, it does not make any sense whatsoever.
You can claim whatever you want but what is the relevance of such claims?If you don't admit that- then I will claim that we have the illusion of the illusion of free will... and so on.
Conway's theorem does not pertain to the existence of free will but to a consequence of free will.Who knows?
Perhaps mathematician John Conway.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/freewill-theorem.html
You can claim whatever you want but what is the relevance of such claims?![]()
So what that someone has the illusion of free will? How does that prove anything relating to free will? There are people who have the illusion they are Napoleon, how in any way does such an illusion relate to the real thing?
See what I mean?
By the way:
Conway's theorem does not pertain to the existence of free will but to a consequence of free will.
The theorem could be paraphrased by: "experiments are not coincidences!"
In this regard, I agree with the notion that humans are not free (as in free will) to perform scientific experiments.
"I imagine I am Napoleon therefore I am Napoleon".It pretty much comes down to Turing's argument for AI from thereon. If my meta-free will is indistinguishable from actual free-will to the outside observer- then you probably should grant me free-will, or at least reserve judgment.
Yes but we are talking about facts right? Whether free will is a fact or not, not if we can "fool" people to believe it right?If someone thinks they are Napoleon in a wide variety of ways and manners- then to some extent they are Napoleon. That extent is determined by how easily they can fool other people.
"I imagine I am Napoleon therefore I am Napoleon".
Completely false reasoning.
Yes but we are talking about facts right? Whether free will is a fact or not, not if we can "fool" people to believe it right?
Free will exists in so far as we do have the ability to make choices and decisions. However, whether these choices are free from external constraints (constraints external to the choices themselves) is another matter. Choices are made by the Self, the Self seems to be an amalgum of various processess such as imprinting, conditioning, programming etc. directed by various environmental factors such as family, society and a multitude of life experiences. In this light the Self cannot be seen as being free from external constraints, so it is difficult to see how the choices it makes can be free. The Self can certainly imagine free will exists (the illusion of free will) and can construct a logical framework to demonstrate its existence, but as long as these things are generated by the Self I cannot see how they can be deemed to be free.I do not believe there is a free will.
Is the physical universe like Western religion's God in that one is allowed "free will" as long as (s)he respects certain constraints, or is free will absolute in these situations?
To answer the title of the OP,--what is the seat of free will ?--for me the answer goes--"the seat of free will is the human mind" (at least for life on earth). Therefore, free will is very much the exception in the universe as now known by humans. By free will I mean the fact that the human animal is a material being with volitional consciousness--e.g., each individual human has free will choice to "think or not to think". The science that explains divergence from the mechanical is called "reason". Humans with free will to think or not to think via reason can overcome at least one of the laws of physics--gravity--the only one that operates at the macroscopic scale of the human body as a material being. Thus we overcome laws of physics by using free will choice to think or not on the question of how to overcome. Now we read that quarks have property of absymtopic freedom--but this is not a type of free will since quarks do not gain this property by volition.How must we overcome the laws of physics as independent actors? Can there be a science that explains this personal divergence from mechanical description? Is free will the rule of the universe rather than the exception?
To answer the title of the OP,--what is the seat of free will ?--for me the answer goes--"the seat of free will is the human mind" (at least for life on earth). Therefore, free will is very much the exception in the universe as now known by humans. By free will I mean the fact that the human animal is a material being with volitional consciousness--e.g., each individual human has free will choice to "think or not to think". The science that explains divergence from the mechanical is called "reason". Humans with free will to think or not to think via reason can overcome at least one of the laws of physics--gravity--the only one that operates at the macroscopic scale of the human body as a material being. Thus we overcome laws of physics by using free will choice to think or not on the question of how to overcome. Now we read that quarks have property of absymtopic freedom--but this is not a type of free will since quarks do not gain this property by volition.
Is the physical universe like Western religion's God in that one is allowed "free will" as long as (s)he respects certain constraints, or is free will absolute in these situations?
From what I understand, many Christians believe that God allows us self-determination until Judgment Day: the promise of heaven or threat of damnation.
Does it not hold true that there is a continuum of awareness for the human mind, from unconsciousness (or nearly so) to what can be called "focused awareness" ? And do we not find different states of focused awareness, from meditation, relaxation, daydreaming,...etc....to the most "focused" state...that with clarity of focus, with abstract property, what is called thinking ? And are we not "free" to initiate and sustain each process volitionally ? I have no idea "why" folks choose to focus in different ways at different times at different places--why some choose to mediate while others choose to focus their minds to "think". But what does seem clear to me is that we are all "free" to focus in such a such way or not to focus, thus we are free to "not think", to not ask such a question as asked by Einstein at age 14--"what would the world look like if I rode on a beam of light". You see, Einstein was "free" to "not think" this thought, or any thought, on that day many years ago, when he informs us that he did so think. Clearly no human (outside one unconscious in hospital) has free will to "never think"--but this is not what I was trying to explain when I stated that humans have free will to think or not think--I hope this clarifies my comment....For Rade - how are we free to "not think"?...