Predestination or Freewill?

“ Originally Posted by Baron Max
If you know anything at all about "right n' wrong" or "good n' bad", then you don't have free will. Those very teachings control most of what we do and say. The only way you can have free will is if you don't know anything! ”

"Originally posted by one raven
So, in other words, if you know something is wrong, then it is impossible for you to do it?"

Kendall-lots of people know something is wrong and they still do it because they think they can get away with it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is certainly their choice.

If any single thing is pre-determined, then every single thing must be pre-determined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is a tough question, I know that our choices can be altered, we can have many things happen to us and cause us to do things that we would never do normally and alter the choice we would have made.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are varying degrees of freewill and predestination. A locus of energy transfer (such as yourself, or the sun) has a certain degree of free-will depending on its power in relation to all things. The more powerful that locus becomes, the less free-will it has.

 

How can it have free will if it can't act upon it?

 

Of course. But just being influenced is enough to take away the ideals of "free" will. If it were "free" will, one would do it if they wanted to ...without thought to the consequences. See? It ain't "free" will ...it's "influenced will".

Huh? Geez, Raven, now ye're starting to sound like Baron Max, for god's sake!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Does "free will" mean that you have to act? Or can the infant have "free will" but still do nothing if it chooses?

I don't think the term "free will" is indicative of action, only the "will" to act if it so chooses.

Baron Max

 

To argue against "free will" does not mean that one acknowledges "pre-determination". I think that's just a way for folks to try to argue their way out of the argument! ...throw in the god-issue. Which is sorta' like people throwing out the racism issue ...it attempts to sway people from the actual argument or discussion.

Our acts, even out thoughts, are influenced by everything that has every happened to us and everything that we've ever learned. That alone should be enough to convince y'all that there's no such thing as "free will" (except perhaps a one-minute old infant?).

Baron Max

 

obviously we have free will,
however IF ALL KNOWING god existed your free will would just be ilusion as everything would be predestined

www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/vindicate.html

 

On what do you base that assertion?

Baron Max

 

Move this to the philosophy section or religion ssection, moderators.

 

Ive been busy all day so i havent had a chance to put my 100 billion cents into the respones but im working on it, working for 6am to 9pm ends up being a very very long day.

 

For the most part I agree with you. But there is that certain bit of indeterminancy that remains in human actions that is just enough to make you wonder if we really do have free-will. That certain unknown action that a person might take in the face of extreme circumstances. I like to think that it ties into the whole quantum state of things--that at some level or in some situations the actions brought about by the human mind are directly dependant upon a single quantum wave collapse; the straw that breaks the camel's back, though if it were any other straw it wouldn't have.

This also explains why there is no (in the practical sense) predetermination. It seems likely, though that any force as powerful (or knowledgable) as the universe itself would be able to predict any events within the universe. So perhaps predetermination is simply another subjective aspect of our universe.

 

How can you have will to act if you cannot will it.

 

You can "will" it, but every single "will" is influenced by what we've learned or been taught in out lives.

Few, if any, of us act without thinking about the consequences ...even in dire, extreme conditions. That thinking process is made possible by what we've been taught/learned ...it's like a process of "IF:THEN". Without the "then" part, deciding what to do would be almost impossible for us ...even if the "then" part was made up of interpolations based on past experiences.

The reason we don't just walk down the street shitting in our pants whenever the urge strikes us is because we've been taught differently. And even if not directly taught, the shit running down our legs and drying and stinking is enough to teach us that such "free will" is not free afterall.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't believe that any action is free of consideration of the consequences of that act. And those consequences, even if only estimated, make the decisions dependent on our knowledge ...ie., not free!

Baron Max

 

A man's gotta aspire to something.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree.
You have one or the other.
Either you have the ability to make decisions that will affect you, or you do not.
Of course you are influenced.
You are influenced from all directions in all moments, but that does not mean you do not have the ability to choose.

 

What? Because Joe does something differnt to Mike in the same extreme sitution is proof that there's free will???? All it means is that the two learned different things over their lives. Joe learned to quickly get the fuck out of the way ...while Mike learned to first stop and gather up all the available info, process it all, THEN act. Don't prove shit about free will.

Quantum wave? Is that a new kind of Tex-Mex food or something?? What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you just using those high-sounding terms to make someone think that you know something? Or you just watched too much Star Trek?

Baron Max

 

No, that's a silly way to view it, Raven. If someone simply stops deciding anything, someone or something else willl decide it for them. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with pre-determination. It's just one person nudging another into action of some kind, that's all. Even if the person stood there until he died, someone else would not like the stink of his rotting corpse and would haul it off. But that ain't go nothin' to do with pre-determination.

Of course we choose actions. But in being influenced as we are, and as you admit, means that someone or something else HELPED us choose ....and thus our will is NOT "free". It's influenced ...like "control" of sorts.

Baron Max

 

I think you'll find in the Archives of the Philosophy forum is countless threads that already discuss this topic, I suppose you could suggest it was... "predestined to reoccur".

As for the subject... originally I theorised into the universe being ruled by Causality where only an outside observer would have a feeling of what freewill would actually be like, however further investigation concluded that perhaps every outside observer would themselves be observed from the outside to, making any move they make just as predestined as the one the viewed.

I think there are some depictions within a religion/philosophy over how people are trapped with one or other iteration of circle/cycle.

A further theory I looked at was that if the universe plays out with no deviation, that could only be true for those things with no intelligence that are inanimate, i.e. a Rock.

The atoms that make that rock exist obviously exist there and not somewhere else in the universe. So a Rock is a Rock.

However when you apply a Living entity with the capacity to think logically and be dictated to emotionally, it can be suggested a cause for paradoxes within the universe.

The living entity might "Feel" or "Decide" to pick that rock up and hurl it a distance. Okay there is physics applied to the rocks trajectory, but what physics decided the rocks fate?

You could suggest perhaps that entity was just a puppet playing out the universes staged event for displacing that rock from where it once rested, however I don't believe that to be completely accurate.

The probability waveform matrix of sub-atomics suggests the capacity for paradoxes to be "Compensated" for, since a rock makes no decision it would suggest that it's probability matrix will be different to that of a rock that was thrown by someone that made a decision to throw it. I guess you could suggest that there is potential alterations sub-atomically from "Freewill" existing. However all of this is merely theory, although testable under the right conditions.

 

Baron,
I think we agree on the concepts, but disagree on the terms.