• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Does free will exist?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Elus

  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 24 April 2010 - 12:03 AM


The nature of free will

I have been brooding over a deeply disturbing question as of late. I want to know, "Does free will exist?"

In order to answer this question, I have set two premises which I believe to be true:
  • Premise 1: The universe is composed of matter & forces that govern matter (Gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).
  • Premise 2: Our brain is composed of matter and works according to the laws of physics.
Every decision I make will be based on the atomic properties of my brain and how my brain is influenced by the external environment. In essence, everything I do from now to any point in the future is already determined.

It gets worse: The laws of the universe govern everything; past, present, and future can only play out one way! Is that not a disturbing thought? The future is already written in stone and is completely out of our control.


My refuge

I have only found one way to cope with these thoughts; only one single strand of hope that gives me continued reason for existence.

That saving grace is a branch of physics called Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with the forces and particles that exist at a very small scale. The inherent nature of physical properties at the small scale is based on probabilities. For instance, one cannot know where an electron will be at any one point in time, but one could estimate a probability that the electron is in a certain area.

Thus, one could argue that all events have a certain probability of happening.

By looking at Quantum mechanics, one could postulate that the world is composed of an infinite number of probabilities. If this is true, the future, based on the mechanics of the present, might not be set in stone.


Edited by Elus Efelier, 24 April 2010 - 12:04 AM.


#2 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 25 April 2010 - 11:48 PM

I'll read this later, but from the title I'm guessing that you just disinterred the concept of determinism (a position which all atheists must assume).

#3 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 26 April 2010 - 01:04 AM

If this is true, the future, based on the mechanics of the present, might not be set in stone.

Makes sense, but why is it a "refuge"? Why do you find it any more comforting to have all your actions determined by a few electrons bouncing into each other in a random way, than it is to have them determined by a few electrons bouncing into each other in a pre-determined way? It seems that your issue is that you don't want your actions determined by little unimportant things, period. Why bother if the little unimportant things are random or predetermined?

Edited by John Schloendorn, 26 April 2010 - 01:05 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 26 April 2010 - 01:57 AM

What does it matter if everything is already determined or not? No one could ever calculate what will happen in the future because the variables are too many. So what difference does it make?

#5 khakiman

  • Guest
  • 55 posts
  • -3

Posted 26 April 2010 - 03:44 AM

There is no such thing as free will, and there is no such thing as time. In fact, I do not even exist, because I am just part of the whole. Free will, time, and sense of self are illusions, but the simulated reality of them is as close to the "real thing" as possible. I'll remain blissfully ignorant, and know deep down that I am just the observer along for some strange ride.

Edited by khakiman, 26 April 2010 - 03:45 AM.

  • like x 1

#6 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 26 April 2010 - 03:52 AM

There is no such thing as free will, and there is no such thing as time. In fact, I do not even exist, because I am just part of the whole. Free will, time, and sense of self are illusions, but the simulated reality of them is as close to the "real thing" as possible. I'll remain blissfully ignorant, and know deep down that I am just the observer along for some strange ride.


Sounds twistedly solipsistic. =P

If this is true, the future, based on the mechanics of the present, might not be set in stone.

Makes sense, but why is it a "refuge"?


Because it instills a sense of freedom. Something beyond a mere construct.

#7 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 26 April 2010 - 05:12 AM

That question can only be answered through what I call "evolutionary pragmatism" - a society that assumes that free will exists does better than a society that does random things and blames absence of free will when they fail, therefore we should assume that it does.

#8 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 26 April 2010 - 11:13 AM

  • Premise 1: The universe is composed of matter & forces that govern matter (Gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).

Those laws can be nondeterministic or even explicitly allow for free will in a way we don't currently understand.

#9 hotamali

  • Guest
  • 49 posts
  • 2

Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:03 AM

I'll read this later, but from the title I'm guessing that you just disinterred the concept of determinism (a position which all atheists must assume).


I wouldn't agree here. There is some evidence that our world is epistemologically indeterminate, at least from our perspective. When observing quantum systems there is sometimes physically no way to view the exact state of a system, and the simple fact of observing a quantum system all too often changes the state of the system. You could very well be an atheist and hold this position, as it doesn't say anything about God existing (although theists would jump on this to say otherwise). Now the problem is that this indeterminism is epistemological, meaning it is only a product of our inability to view the world ontologically.

But you could argue that epistemological indeterminism is the same as ontological indeterminism. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, it does technically, as it vibrates the air around it, but the definition of sound is meaningless unless yo have someone to hear the sound in the first place. The question should be asked, what would the universe look like if we as conscious observers were taken out of the equation? Well for one time wouldn't exist anymore, as that is an illusion only known to conscious entities. Or maybe the universe would suddenly poof out of existence because we as observers provide some way for the universe to exist (Quantum mind–body problem). You could say nothing would change, but does that make consciousness an illusion too? It seems to accept determinism is to also accept that consciousness is an illusion, which I won't readily do.

Edited by hotamali, 27 April 2010 - 12:12 AM.


#10 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 27 April 2010 - 05:21 AM

I'll read this later, but from the title I'm guessing that you just disinterred the concept of determinism (a position which all atheists must assume).


I wouldn't agree here. There is some evidence that our world is epistemologically indeterminate, at least from our perspective. When observing quantum systems there is sometimes physically no way to view the exact state of a system, and the simple fact of observing a quantum system all too often changes the state of the system. You could very well be an atheist and hold this position, as it doesn't say anything about God existing (although theists would jump on this to say otherwise). Now the problem is that this indeterminism is epistemological, meaning it is only a product of our inability to view the world ontologically.

But you could argue that epistemological indeterminism is the same as ontological indeterminism. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, it does technically, as it vibrates the air around it, but the definition of sound is meaningless unless yo have someone to hear the sound in the first place. The question should be asked, what would the universe look like if we as conscious observers were taken out of the equation? Well for one time wouldn't exist anymore, as that is an illusion only known to conscious entities. Or maybe the universe would suddenly poof out of existence because we as observers provide some way for the universe to exist (Quantum mind–body problem). You could say nothing would change, but does that make consciousness an illusion too? It seems to accept determinism is to also accept that consciousness is an illusion, which I won't readily do.


I've heard the OP's argument bandied about many times before, but never have a seen a response like this. Very interesting. Really.

I just love speculating about this stuff. It's like a mind orgasm. =P

#11 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 27 April 2010 - 06:56 AM

I think free will doesn't exist, but I also think it doesn't matter if free will exists or doesn't. My life wouldn't change just because we found it existed or didn't existed, they will be just the same. They will change because of other things, unrelated.. like technology :)

So, do you enjoy your life now? does it matter if your choices are truly free or are, logically, dependant on other things like, your feelings, your chemistry? Will it make your life different knowing it's one or the other even though it won't have any impact about your life? they'll be just the same for you because you lived it your whole life.

#12 hotamali

  • Guest
  • 49 posts
  • 2

Posted 27 April 2010 - 11:52 PM

I've heard the OP's argument bandied about many times before, but never have a seen a response like this. Very interesting. Really.

I just love speculating about this stuff. It's like a mind orgasm. =P


I agree, it is probably the most intriguing subject to ponder by definition, as it lies outside the realm of science. Somewhere between Metaphysics and quantum philosophy. The weird thing is Consciousness can't be explained objectively, but we know somehow it exists. Either way I can buy that consciousness is an illusion, but it seems very strange as I still feel it subjectively.

Either way it seems when/if technologies like machine intelligence and uploaded humans come about we'll know finally the answers to these intriguing questions. But it could also lead to just as many more questions.

Edited by hotamali, 27 April 2010 - 11:59 PM.


#13 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 12:00 AM

Free Will -- read this paper and STFU on this subject because nothing else to say -- http://www.optimal.o...er/freewill.htm

#14 Elus

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:34 PM

Free Will -- read this paper and STFU on this subject because nothing else to say -- http://www.optimal.o...er/freewill.htm


I will take a look. Don't tell me to STFU though, because this is the internet and you don't have an inkling of control over what I choose to discuss :p.

#15 ultranaut

  • Guest
  • 130 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Here

Posted 04 May 2010 - 05:58 PM

Free Will -- read this paper and STFU on this subject because nothing else to say -- http://www.optimal.o...er/freewill.htm


Author seems to be making quite a few assumptions, I guess that is inevitable though. It seems like he is ignoring the possibility that freewill is an illusion generated ex post facto.

#16 ken_akiba

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • -1
  • Location:USA for now but a Japanese national

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:18 PM

My take on this:
Quantum Unpredictability only reflects the inferiority of our current science. A mysterious but 100% predictable phenomenon such as Quantum Coupling, in my opinion, conclusively nullifies the validity of Quantum Unpredictability. We do not know how and why but everything in our universe or multiverse is connected and operate in precise accord. And if so, our will appear to have no place in it but not necessarily so, since our free will may well be a part of the grand scheme of things in the first place.

Conclusion: I don't really know what I'm talking about :-)

Edited by ken_akiba, 04 May 2010 - 07:25 PM.


#17 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,080 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 May 2010 - 07:35 PM

Here is an interesting related thought experiment by Imminst member Kip Werking. He later somewhat rejected his own paper based on some perceived flaws, but I thought it was quite thought-provoking.

#18 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 08 May 2010 - 11:14 AM

Free Will -- read this paper and STFU on this subject because nothing else to say -- http://www.optimal.o...er/freewill.htm


Thanks for the article, RighteousReason.

I found the whole article of worth and am quoting one section below:

What kind of choices we are referring to? We choose to think or not, what to think about, how much and how long to concentrate on an issue, how many options to consider, which of the options to select, etc. We also make higher level choices of goals and values, such as desirable character traits, careers, friends and lovers, and of course, moral decisions such as when to lie or tell the truth. Freewill comprises conscious choices only. By definition, freewill pertains to choices that we can monitor and influence, and therefore must exclude subconscious and unconscious choices. This does not mean that such unaware choices are ultimately beyond our control - beyond freewill - but only that they must be controlled indirectly. We can control them through explicit change of values and beliefs, and through conscious modification of habits. The distinction between conscious and subconscious thought is of course a complex one; all conscious thought has subliminal inputs and components, and furthermore, awareness is also a matter of degree.

How does freewill differ from "normal" choice, the kind that machines and animals make? The advance of human choice over that of (current) machines and animals lies in our ability to think abstractly, and in our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking. This creates the control - and freedom of choice - that freewill represents. We understand. Machines and animals have knowledge, but they have little or no understanding. The difference between knowledge and understanding is crucial. I use the term "knowledge" here in a very broad sense: facts of reality - truths - that may be available to a robot or animal; such as an assembly robot's knowledge of where to place the finished product, or an animal's knowledge of where to find food. While we easily accept that animals know things (even ants know how to find their way home), knowledge in machines still seems somewhat foreign to us. I think that there is little difference in consciousness between simple animals and the more complex robots of today. However, neither have conceptual self-awareness - neither can understand.

We, too, sometimes have knowledge without understanding. For example someone may know the formula E=mc2 while understanding only that it has something to do with Einstein, or they may know a foreign phrase and even have a feel for when its use is appropriate, without actually knowing its meaning. Understanding, in contrast, implies the integration of knowledge with other existing knowledge and its relationship to ourselves and to our primary means of knowledge, our senses. Until we explicitly relate knowledge to our own existence and our perceptual knowledge of reality, it is not understood. All knowledge, including abstract concepts, has to be integrated with and related to fundamental experience. A thermostat has knowledge of a temperature change, but not understanding. A flower has knowledge of the rising sun, but no understanding. An animal has the knowledge to feed itself, but fails to grasp the meaning. It is only a human's understanding of food's significance that allows us to farm, and to select a particular diet.

For us to have control over our choices, and to be responsible for them, we must be able to make them with awareness and understanding.



#19 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 08 May 2010 - 02:25 PM

As for brain science it seems Benjamin Libet of University of California provided strong arguments that there in fact is no free will as traditionally understood. Basically the consciousness is merely informed ( a seventh fraction of second later I guess ) of the actions that the brain has initiated irrelevant of your desire, consciuss analysis is a side phenomenon. Your decision is meaningfull only in terms of wheter to act upon the unconsciouss "action potential" or not to act. Theoritically this should be somewhat horryfing but ( for me at least ) isn't for some reason. I'm with Luna on this issue - screw it, if you're happy it doesn't matter, if you're unhappy it doesn't matter either.

Edited by chris w, 08 May 2010 - 03:02 PM.


#20 Kolos

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Warszawa

Posted 08 May 2010 - 04:51 PM

Everything we do is either a result of accident or our social conditioning and biology which means that in a way everything is just an accident. I never planned to be born in this country, city, family, times etc. or at least I have no memoriesof making such choice and most probably if we just changed one of this factors I would be a complitelly different person. I can think about changing myself both character and appearance, it's possible but why would I think about it in the first place? So at least from religious point of view there is no free will or at least it's quite pointless for God to punish someone just because he had bad luck with his conditioning and become a bad person, for us humans it's practical because we have to promote good conditioning in order to survive and live happily but even we today at least in theory punish people to resocialize them not out of vengance.

#21 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 08 May 2010 - 06:28 PM

I feel we still have so much unknown left in consciousness and the true nature of the universe that it is too early to try answer such grandiose questions like this such as free will... The hard question of consciousness is proving impenetrably hard, and our best understanding of the ultimate view of the universe is quantum mechanics which as the famous physicist said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.". In fact we know so little about both quantum mechanics and consciousness it is becoming quite credible to suggest the two may be related. But even if they are what does that tell us? Primates are proving to show some remarkably 'high-level' consciousness behaviour, so if quantum mechanics is operating in the brain then it would not be solely confined to humans. Can we even say with any certainty that quantum mechanics exists outside of human consciousness? And then the cliché of what is consciousness, how do we even debate something without a clear definition?

I think these foundations are so shaky that it is premature to think this question can be confidently answered for now. These big questions are so fundamental and all-encompassing, and the pace of discovery accelerating so rapidly, I think it is likely we will have some revolutionary or game changing, 'black swan' events which will completely transform everything and possibly even the very nature of this question. Maybe it will change the target, or just make it completely irrelevant. This might be a little left field but free will is still an abstract concept in consciousness embedded in language. Maybe the ultimate answer lies outside the area that the tools we have are able to probe in. Who is to say if there is intelligent non-human life out there that they would even have a concept akin to free will. Somehow that just strikes me as a little too anthropomorphic to assume something like that. So then we are back to the question of is free will just a human concept; square one! And thus I think there is just too much uncertainty right now-I sort of think of it akin to the futurists fifty odd years ago who were making predictions of the future but before the Internet was created. Imagine predicting the future not taking into account the invention internet lol, the vast array of possibilities that would have been completely unimaginable.

I do however firmly believe in the OP's two founding premises, and in addition that science (rather than philosophy) will ultimately give us the best shot at getting an answer... and im an optimist I think we will get it!

Edited by icantgoforthat, 08 May 2010 - 06:37 PM.


#22 PYER

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 09:29 PM

I feel we still have so much unknown left in consciousness and the true nature of the universe that it is too early to try answer such grandiose questions like this such as free will... The hard question of consciousness is proving impenetrably hard, and our best understanding of the ultimate view of the universe is quantum mechanics which as the famous physicist said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.". In fact we know so little about both quantum mechanics and consciousness it is becoming quite credible to suggest the two may be related. But even if they are what does that tell us? Primates are proving to show some remarkably 'high-level' consciousness behaviour, so if quantum mechanics is operating in the brain then it would not be solely confined to humans. Can we even say with any certainty that quantum mechanics exists outside of human consciousness? And then the cliché of what is consciousness, how do we even debate something without a clear definition?

I think these foundations are so shaky that it is premature to think this question can be confidently answered for now. These big questions are so fundamental and all-encompassing, and the pace of discovery accelerating so rapidly, I think it is likely we will have some revolutionary or game changing, 'black swan' events which will completely transform everything and possibly even the very nature of this question. Maybe it will change the target, or just make it completely irrelevant. This might be a little left field but free will is still an abstract concept in consciousness embedded in language. Maybe the ultimate answer lies outside the area that the tools we have are able to probe in. Who is to say if there is intelligent non-human life out there that they would even have a concept akin to free will. Somehow that just strikes me as a little too anthropomorphic to assume something like that. So then we are back to the question of is free will just a human concept; square one! And thus I think there is just too much uncertainty right now-I sort of think of it akin to the futurists fifty odd years ago who were making predictions of the future but before the Internet was created. Imagine predicting the future not taking into account the invention internet lol, the vast array of possibilities that would have been completely unimaginable.

I do however firmly believe in the OP's two founding premises, and in addition that science (rather than philosophy) will ultimately give us the best shot at getting an answer... and im an optimist I think we will get it!



It doesn't exist exactly because free will gets exercised due to how one stands in the first place, therefore it's relative but an interesting point, a phase of human nature that is other than molecular can be exercise to what seems like another reality more awake in the human spirit thus seemingly absolute, but not really, it's relative to what and where one stands in the first place.
You cannot help but relate to the very nature that composites you in the first and last place, your history and its bearing in the real world.

#23 John2009

  • Guest
  • 110 posts
  • 22

Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:46 AM

There is a book titled "The illusion of conscious will" authored by Harvard Ph D. Psychologist Daniel M. Wegner that may be of some interest regarding this subject.

It at least *seems* that our genetics and our interaction with our environment are the major determining factors that govern who & even what we are. Tinker with the genetic code enough, and you won't even be human anymore, at least not what we presently consider human. If you are born into a primitive tribe in the jungle, then your choices are limited and regardless of what choices you make, you would be a completely different person than if you had lived your life in the modern world. Our choices are limited by our environment, therefore our environment governs over our choices. You can make the best of what you have, and this seems the most sensible way to live, but making lemons from lemonade is only going to get you so far, depending on what environment you're living in.

At perhaps the most basic level, we make most of the decisions and choices that we do, in order to either acquire pleasure or avoid pain. Even if we do (or don't do) something that seems to bring us pain, it's generally because we perceive the alternative course of action (or inaction)as bringing us more pain.

What we feel or think is most desirable or best, what we find pleasurable or painful, what we like and don't like, is governed by who we are. Who we are, is determined by our genetics and our experiences interacting with our environment. One could argue that we at least in part, choose to be who we are or that we can at least make a choice to strive to be who we want to be, however, who we choose to be or "who we want to be" is due to "who we are", which is due to our genetics and our past interaction with our environment. We have the tastes, desires, and motivations we have, because of who we are.

When confronted with the need or desire to make choices, we have the ability to make a choice, and to make whatever choice that we wish to make, based on what we feel or think is most desirable or best. It seems we do indeed have the ability to choose, but the choices we make are determined by who we are. Who we are is determined by our genetics, our environment, and our will. Indeed, it seems our will is determined *by* who we are, but at the same time has a hand *in determining* who we are, and/or who we strive to be. If our will & what we are going to choose is determined by who we are, did we ever really have a choice ?

As far as we know, all matter in the universe is governed by the laws of physics and nature, and we are made of the same matter (atoms & sub-atomic particles) as everything else in the universe. We are not separate from the universe but a part of it. In a sense, we are the universe & the universe is us. When we interact with each other and/or our environment, it is merely the universe interacting with itself. We are an assemblage of atoms (matter) which has become self aware. We are a part of the universe that has become aware of itself.

Could it be that everything that we are, our desires, motives, tastes, choices, decisions, everything that we think and do, is governed by a set of events that can be traced back to the big bang ? I'm not even sure I buy into the big bang theory, I'm just posing the question. There may be randomness in the universe in the same way that there is randomness in games of chance, but are the odds in our favor? How much control over our lives do we really have ? How much control over ourselves do we really have ? All the self-help gurus and TV psychologists will tell you that you can at the very least control how you perceive and react to the world, events, and people in your life, but considering some of the points above, how true is this ? I would like it to be true, but is it ?

The arguments regarding ethics and punishments as they relate to a lack of free will never really interested me that much. People have posed the question, how can people be punished for a crime if their lives are determined by fate ? The fact is, we have to hold ourselves and each other accountable for our actions or else we will have total anarchy in society. I also think that holding ourselves accountable and responsible for our lives just produces better results. From a practical standpoint, taking responsibility for your life will produce better results than blaming your problems on fate, regardless of which philosophy is actually true.

We actually know very little about the Universe in the grand scheme of things. In an infinite universe, what you don't know is always going to be infinitely more vast than what you do know. There could be many things that exist that we simply do not have the senses to perceive. Bats have a kind of radar so they can perceive things on a level we cannot. There could be many more types of senses we do not posses.

Considering that we really do not know very much about the universe and considering that things are not always what the seem, perhaps we may never really know whether or not our lives are ruled by determinism, fate, freewill, or a combination thereof. We just don't know enough to be totally sure of anything.

I often think faith is a good coping mechanism in such cases. Faith is a kind of power to create your own reality, to believe in something even if the facts *seem* to indicate otherwise. Science is a good tool to gain understanding, but our understanding is always evolving and changing. Sometimes this is a process filled with loops and eddy's.

How would your life be different if it turns out it is ruled by determinism ? It would probably not be different but would it be manageable & bearable knowing that every aspect of your life is determined by fate and that free will is an illusion ?

If we found out for sure that determinism is our reality, then all we could do is try to enjoy the ride as best as we can, and meet our destiny with as much honor and dignity as we can. In any event, it certainly seems the more aware you are and the more educated you are, the more control you have over your life. If we found out for sure that fate rules our lives all we could do is try to make the best decisions and choices possible in order to try to have the lives we desire, while hoping that someday we can somehow attain true freedom. On the other hand, in a universe this vast and without knowing how much we are not perceiving and can never perceive since we do not have the senses for such perception, how can we ever be really sure of anything ? The universe is so vast and our mental capacity and ability to perceive may be so limited that we can never really understand the true nature of the universe or our place in it.

Personally, I have faith that we have a hand in our own destiny, and that there is also an element of chance in our lives.

Who knows for sure ? :)

John

#24 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 25 July 2010 - 04:18 PM

In order to answer this question, I have set two premises which I believe to be true:

  • Premise 1: The universe is composed of matter & forces that govern matter (Gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).
  • Premise 2: Our brain is composed of matter and works according to the laws of physics.
Every decision I make will be based on the atomic properties of my brain and how my brain is influenced by the external environment. In essence, everything I do from now to any point in the future is already determined.

It gets worse: The laws of the universe govern everything; past, present, and future can only play out one way! Is that not a disturbing thought? The future is already written in stone and is completely out of our control.


There are several different perspectives a person could take when looking at the question of free will.

There is the perspective of you've taken here by looking at the physical laws of nature. If I understand you right, you're making the statement that all the laws of the universe are already set, and therefore because they are set we as a function of those laws are limited by the physical reality of that universe. That's the equivalent of saying that since there are laws governing the road that a person has no freewill to determined the path for which they may choose to drive.

If you look at free will from a social perspective, which is far more ambiguous, you can see how more definable variables ranging from government to popular culture can play a role in limiting your choice. Each one of them can influence your decisions to such a degree that every decision you make on some level has been lobbied for by one party or another.

Edited by Reno, 25 July 2010 - 04:22 PM.


#25 Kolos

  • Guest
  • 209 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Warszawa

Posted 25 July 2010 - 06:39 PM

If you look at free will from a social perspective, which is far more ambiguous, you can see how more definable variables ranging from government to popular culture can play a role in limiting your choice. Each one of them can influence your decisions to such a degree that every decision you make on some level has been lobbied for by one party or another.

Well your environment in general influence what you do or even think, does it really matter if it's popular culture, religion or the laws of physics? Not everything that influence your way of thinking is sentient or is a product of some sentient being but does it really change that much? Some people seem to associate accident with free will for some reason.

#26 Elus

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 793 posts
  • 723
  • Location:Interdimensional Space

Posted 25 July 2010 - 11:07 PM

In order to answer this question, I have set two premises which I believe to be true:

  • Premise 1: The universe is composed of matter & forces that govern matter (Gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).
  • Premise 2: Our brain is composed of matter and works according to the laws of physics.
Every decision I make will be based on the atomic properties of my brain and how my brain is influenced by the external environment. In essence, everything I do from now to any point in the future is already determined.

It gets worse: The laws of the universe govern everything; past, present, and future can only play out one way! Is that not a disturbing thought? The future is already written in stone and is completely out of our control.


There are several different perspectives a person could take when looking at the question of free will.

There is the perspective of you've taken here by looking at the physical laws of nature. If I understand you right, you're making the statement that all the laws of the universe are already set, and therefore because they are set we as a function of those laws are limited by the physical reality of that universe. That's the equivalent of saying that since there are laws governing the road that a person has no freewill to determined the path for which they may choose to drive.

If you look at free will from a social perspective, which is far more ambiguous, you can see how more definable variables ranging from government to popular culture can play a role in limiting your choice. Each one of them can influence your decisions to such a degree that every decision you make on some level has been lobbied for by one party or another.



Well, we're subject to the laws of physics. You do not have a say over what the laws of physics are. Thus, if they influence our every atom, we do not really have free will. This is the argument I intended to make.


And yes, I agree. The world around us has complete control over us (You mentioned the variables' influence). Our experiences come from our environment, and we make decisions based on our experiences. Thus, since the day we were born, every future decision we make is already predetermined by the sum total of our experiences.

Edited by Elus Efelier, 25 July 2010 - 11:12 PM.


#27 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 27 July 2010 - 01:15 AM

Well, we're subject to the laws of physics. You do not have a say over what the laws of physics are. Thus, if they influence our every atom, we do not really have free will. This is the argument I intended to make.


I think you missed my point on this one.


And yes, I agree. The world around us has complete control over us (You mentioned the variables' influence). Our experiences come from our environment, and we make decisions based on our experiences. Thus, since the day we were born, every future decision we make is already predetermined by the sum total of our experiences.


I didn't say that was my opinion. I said it is one of many perspectives which suggest that there is no free will.

Personally, I don't think we are anywhere near the sum total of our experiences. I tend to think that experience, faulty memory, random physical changes, and emotion all combine to create an opinion which is for the most part highly subjective and rather unpredictable. That's one of the main causes of people making mistakes. We're made to be fallible. Therefore, there most definitely is such a thing as free will. As a species we were designed to make our own decisions and completely live to regret them.

Edited by Reno, 27 July 2010 - 01:16 AM.


#28 chrwe

  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 27 July 2010 - 03:22 AM

It is impossible to resolve this question due to the fact that the answer is pre-determined by your opinion. If you believe you have free will, you will argue that you have free will and this argument will be made, in your opinion, out of free will. If you believe we are pre-determined by whatever, you will say so and anything anybody says is also pre-determined in your eyes. There is no way to prove either. The Libet experiments are no help here because the brain experiements are, to this date, mostly correlation experiments which (imo) do not prove anything.

Personally, from the fact that my body rarely suprises my by suddenly moving a leg - and if it does, I note it and am concerned - I believe we have free will as in being able to make random decisions. That does not contradict that we are, of course, the sum of our experiences, memory, current physical and emotional state and social surroundings.
  • like x 1

#29 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 27 July 2010 - 12:20 PM

Kinda like chrwe said but I don't believe in free will, but that our actions are decided by the chain of the events, memories, habits, stuff we learnt .. so it's an action-reaction kinda thing, just on the scale of your whole life for every one decision.

#30 OpaqueMind

  • Guest
  • 471 posts
  • 144
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 21 September 2010 - 10:35 PM

I do believe quantum mechanics sows the seeds of free will. It at least destroys determinism which is a major obstacle of free-will. As the Newtonian thought experiment goes, if there was a being of infinite complexity and understanding, and this being knew the properties of every atom in the universe, then he could infer the entire systems past and predict its future. This was thought to be the case, and this view was championed by most religions until the 20th century - no doubt because it enforces a sense of hopelessness and so of servility - until quantum experiments proved the inherent randomness of nature.
It is now known that the only law that natural mechanics of the quantum scale follow is of one of probability. This is not a testament to the failure of our equipment to analyse fully, this is a property that lies at the heart of every particle in the universe. For example we can predict percentage-wise the spin of an emitted photon, or the frequency with which it is emitted, but as with all probabilities (like the chance of a certain die-face coming up is 1/6) this is only at outline of the general case.
I believe the uncertainty of the quantum state to be a necessary condition of consciousness; for if all thought (and thus action) were a pre-determined cascade of neurotransmission, reflection upon that transmission (i.e. self-awareness) would bring no evolutionary advantage -for what use is reflection if you cannot act upon it- and given the (what I imagine to be substantial) amount of energy subverted by the body for this process, it is unlikely to have emerged through random genetic fluctuation.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users