so when she was making her last and final decision [about to pull the metaphorical trigger so to speak] what did she have to decide and why did she have to decide and not just do it as a reflex?
And your decision to destroy it is still done in accordance with that will, up to the point it ceases to exist. Not necessarily about predetermination - only about causation. Certainly strict determinism (predetermination) is a possible subset of the cause/effect relationship, if one thinks the universe operates on a "same input = same output" model. But not all cause/effect models are predeterministic. Some, for example, allow for randomness. How? Such predetermination would surely already have taken those internal/external influences into account. How can one "choose" to be predetermined? Surely predeterminism negates the very idea of choice? (Pre)determination is not something that can be with considered with regard just an individual but with regard the universe as a whole. And a person's suicide would not end predetermination - just be a part of it (if one held to the philosophy of predetermination). Apologies, but I can't see the point you're making... as your example, to me, still holds true if one considers free-will to be an illusion... i.e. the person's actions (e.g. the suicide) are all caused. The individual may think they have free-will... but this, ultimately, is irrelevant other than in defining what one considers "free-will" to actually be... is it the mirage of the water, or is it the water itself?
It is far to say I think that given the current scientific belief system the issue of freewill can never be solved. To me the mere fact that a person [the "I"] can make choices about predermination whether that be random or other wise indicates freewill is present. We have the ability to determine determination so to speak. ANd that is all freewill needs to be a justifiable concept IMO. As to proving this to be more than illusion, well the entire universe and everything in it is deemed to be such so the question is moot.
You seem to be presuming that our will (if it is to be any kind of a proper will) should be beyond our needs, interests and concerns; a kind of will for will's sake, a "disinterested will". If we agree that humans are essentially dependent beings (since we cannot create time and space to live in to begin with), then our will will necessarily be interested in one thing or person or another.
And also of many others. How satisfactory the discussion will be will depend on the context in which we discuss something. We can discuss vegetables from a biological perspective, but that hardly gives us any useful ideas on how to make palatable dishes of them.
Irrelevant. Of course not, if and only if the concern of your discussion is palatability. The point is, context is typically irrelevant to the subject in and of itself. Of course, nothing truly exists in a vacuum, so context is always an influence, but not a necessary one.
Have been thinking on it somewhat and I feel the debate is over complicated and am attemting to reduce it down to simplistic absolutes. A simple gedanken could hopefully clarify. I have three alternatives to choose from. 1] an orange. 2] an apple. 3] neither. The choice I make will be eventually be predetermined by the evolving process of deciding which choice to make. So the choice will be predetermined yet at what stage do I not have the freedom to reject all or any of that predetermination? How can one say I am not free to choose between all three options AT ANY TIME or change my mind even after deciding prior to actually acting on the decision made. So at the point of actually acting on that freedom to choose [time=0] I am totally free to choose between the three options. Once t=0 occurs the choice is made and acted on. So unless you can show how I have somehow lost my freedom to choose prior to t=0 then self determined freewill is evident. Edit: Ultimately though the notion of freewill is niether determined nor free but simply a paradox of both as time reduces to t=0 you have infinite regression of alternatives...and I would go on to suggest that it is the very paradoxical nature of the will to choose that affords us the freedom of choice. [btw : Gravity can be demonstrated to be a paradoxical force which allows mass the freedom to move as it needs to with in that force]
And by every other possible influence. Although I do disagree with "pre-determined"... as this does not allow for randomness in outcomes. But I'll put that aside for now. You never have the freedom to reject it. By thinking you reject the predetermination you are merely following the same pre-determination. E.g. you may think that pre-determination was going to lead you to pick A. And then you change your mind and pick B, believing you have rejected the predetermination. But you haven't. The pre-determined course of events had you picking A, and then changing to B. We all have ability to "choose". It is just how you define / understand "choice" as to whether you consider it illusory or not. Mirages exist, but they are illusions of what they might appear to be. It depends on how you view/define "free-will". If you define it as the pattern of activity that gives the appearance of self-determination then yes, you have "free-will" - your choosing is such a pattern. But the pattern itself - the movement and interaction of the fundamental molecules etc - has no self-determination - and thus the illusory nature. You can not lose what you never had Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! At t=0 the "choice" is made, but that "choice" is fully caused by the moment t=-1. The atoms / molecules / quarks etc that made up t=-1, together with any spontaneously / randomly created particles/energy, are the only influences for t=0. Those influences at t=-1 are the cause for t=0. The output at t=0 is fully driven (if not strictly determined) by that cause. At no point between t=-1 and t=0 is there the opportunity for a "choice" at the microscopic level. All we end up with is the macro-level pattern of activity that gives the appearance of "choice". Hence some say that this ability to "chose", this "free-will", is illusory - as it does not actually exist. Similarly one says that a mirage is an illusion. The mirage exists (as a pattern of activity that gives the optical appearance of, say, water) but what the mirage depicts is the illusion - e.g. the water is illusory.
we get to choose whether predeterminism exists and if it does, does that mean we are not responsible for our actions since we didn't have a choice? to me it seems the question is skirting the issue of responsibility..
Sarkus, do you see the point about how the rejection/acceptance of predetermination regresses infinitely to t=0? And how as I stated we will ultimately end up with a paradox of pre-determined freewill? As we fight for the freedom to choose and realise that we can't ultimately win the battle then zero is the outcome [ suicide ] due to depression. At t=0 you can either be chronically undecided, seek zero [ suicide ] or live with predermination. In psychiatry, I think it is referred to as "fear paralysis" where by a patient is in a virtual waken coma, trance-like and stupified. Cognizant yet immobilised due to intense fear/confusion associated with decisions. [ Chronic indecision ] So what role does indecision play in the predetermined scenario? I ask myself....hmmmm Can you be predetermined to be chronically undecided or does this itself defeat the notion of predetermination which requires action and not paralysis? Vexation, indecision, etc are all symptomatic of paradox and this debate on freewill vs determinism is loaded with paradox. If this were not the case then humanity would have solved the riddle ages ago. IMO
No, I do not see the point - as rejection/acceptance of predetermination does not regress. Here we go: I reject predetermination. I also reject free-will. Voila. Your point is moot. This is just you arguing from fear/emotion and consequence. There is no fight for the freedom to choose. As I have explained in another thread, there is zero impact to the way we live whether free-will exists or is an illusion. One would be predetermined to be indecisive. How else could it be in such a scenario? :shrug: Since when is such paralysis of an individual equating to absolute non-action (of the molecules in the body for example)? There is no paradox. And it is not so much a riddle as just a lack of understanding (of emergent properties such as consciousness etc). Vexation, indecision etc and even free-will are all states/acts of our CONSCIOUS. The consciousness, in a predetermined universe, would merely be obeying the predetermined nature of that universe. That an individual such as yourself and myself have consciousness is/was predetermined. That we are discussing this issue is/was predetermined. That you think free-will is real and I think it an illusion is/was predetermined. Your entire thought process is/was predetermined. But it would also be predetermined that your/my consciousness would act as though the illusion of free-will was real. In my opinion consciousness requires there to be a notion of free-will... and in a pre-determined universe (or one merely driven by cause/effect) consciousness, if it develeops, would generate an illusion of free-will in order to retain itself. While it can not be tested I am currently of the opinion that if you genuinely remove/break someone's (illusion of) free-will then they will cease to be conscious... that it is part of, if not the fundamental of, consciousness itself. In this way it could be said that the "I" is created only to be the "chooser", or that without the ability/illusion of "choice" the "I" is meaningless. Which is why I repeat my view that free-will, at the conscious level, exists. But I am of the opinion that it exists as an illusion due to the underlying mechanics of cause/effect.
Sarkus to me it is the same question as : Does Zero exist? For it to exist it must cease being zero ...yes? The notion of freewill falls into the same category for me... I am working on some diagrams that may explain the notion of a fully determined freewill using zero [ unconsciousness ] as our centre.
If I may, I would appreciate the opportunity to interject my own idea on this matter. I have read many posts with regard to this topic and understand I am stepping into a hot, long, on-going discussion and hope I may add something new here. I strongly believe that life IS predestined. Think of what I am saying as a a record or DVD. In other words, our lives are already written and any "free will" one may think they have is merely you, doing exactly what you are already destined to do. You think that it is a "decision" that YOU made. Mr. Quack, I would like to go back to what you said in post #347. You stated: "A simple gedanken could hopefully clarify. I have three alternatives to choose from. 1] an orange. 2] an apple. 3] neither. To begin with, your use of a word "gedanken" is not a common term and seems, to me anyway, as a way of trying to intimidate others with the use of vocabulary that not others are familiar with. In this attempt, you may be wishing to throw people off from further discussing this matter because you want them to feel you are of some higher intellect and they are no challenge to someone such as yourself and your "fancy" words. Here is the definition of your odd terminology. gedanken definition: /g*-dahn'kn/ Ungrounded; impractical; not well-thought-out; untried; untested. "Gedanken" is a German word for "thought". If disagree is not accurate, feel free to correct the Dictionary dictionary.reference .com/browse/gedanken but with this said, it seems that a German word for such a simple word as "thought", gives you some feeling of superiority. I mean anyone could have just said "A simple 'thought' could hopefully clarify." But not you, you went with gedanken. Interesting insight to your personality I believe. Getting back to your 'gedanken', you list your three alternatives and proceed to ask theoretical questions basically stating that you have the option to decide to make the choice you decide upon using your "free will". To carry that a little further, I am stating that although you think this is your free will, what I call it would be more along the line of "predestined". Whatever choice you make in your gedanken process, all you are doing is exactly what you are already destined to do. If you decide to select #1, I am telling you that this was what you were suppose to decide. Even if you change your mind, then THAT was what you were going to do anyway. Your life, my life, every life on the planet, is already written... If your life ends tomorrow or in 50 years, it was SUPPOSE to do just that. If you have any further questions on how I came to this theory, please let me know. I only ask that you leave German or any other foreign words out of the discussion as a courtesy to both the people in this forum as well as for our country. Take care should I not hear back from you!
Ok, I will reply for him, which is quite unusual as I seldom agree with him and think in the vast majority of cases he is 100% WRONG. Not only that, but he refuses to pay up on his offer and when present with the initially required proof (that something, normally called photons, is passing thru the space between source at "a" and detection at "b") he changes the contest rules. I have in four or five different ways shown what he initially required by modify the space or path between "a" and "b." In one, two path interferometer case, only by increasing the length of one path by half a wave length of light! None-the less, I must in this case defend him. He is not trying to impress anyone by use of "gedanken." It is quite commonly used but usually as an adjective instead of as his noun, as in "gedanken experiment." "Gedanken" does, as your dictionary states, translate quite accurate from the German as "thought." Namely a "gedanken experiment" is a conceptual experiment, done only with thought, not a physical experiment.
My apologies for the use of a word that I discovered here at sciforums when thashing out issues regarding special relativity. I found it to be a better word to use than "thought experiment" or scenario, or idea. Being offended by the notion of someone else having greater insight into a subject is in itself a rather interesting reaction, as the world is full of persons who specialise in many and various things. You no doubt have you rown speciality but am I intimidated by that prospect. No I am not. I shall take your advice on board and extend my appeciation for your intention to help improve my communication skills. The issue at hand as you rightly put it has a long history of discussion, certainly by persons that use more sophisicated language than my self. Persons of incedible intellect and yet as we know the issue remains unresolved. So I ask do you expect such an issue to be resolved easilly and if so do you expect others to simply presume you have the intellect and nouse to perform such a miracle? Are we to presume that your opinion which has been submitted with out supporting reasoning and logic sufficient to end this debate? Afterall I could believe that flying pigs have freewill and everything else doesn't and submit that with out supporting ration-al. Opinion with out support is utterly useless in a philosophical discussion and you should know that. So support your position and we can debate it other wise you render your position impotent. Again I apologise if I have upset you with the use of the word gedanken and possibly your racisim/bigotry as indicated by your commentary could be better placed elsewhere.
Thanks Billy T! The comments about your inability to differentiate between a Photon and Matter thus missing out on the $500 usd on offer is off topic so I shall leave a rebuttal for someother thread and time.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now Boston Pete, Unless you want to claim quantum mechanics is wrong (despite bein the most accurately verifired theory of all physic – agreement with experiment in the few case where results can be measure to 14 decimal places. It is easy to show the universe is not predestined, like playing a DVD. Here is a gedanken experiment for that: A weak radioactive source is placed between to detectors A & B. If A fires first then you get the $1000 dollars that induced you to have your hand strapped to the table. If B fires first, then I hit that hand hard as I can with the heel of my shoe. If you don’t like that gedanken experiment, then replace that source with a very weak light source in a totally dark room which can occasionally emits a photon that travels thru a lens and then thru a polarizer and finally to a second polarizer at 45 degrees to the first, which either passes the photon on to detector A or reflects it to detector B. We know quantum mechanics theory governs this photon case. I.e. that the results are determined by the equally probably two alternatives. We are not so sure of that with the radioactive case. As the sun puts out an enormous number of photons in a million years, it is not credible that the fate of each is recorded somewhere , like in a DVD to be followed as they are created. There simply is not storage for that much information.
I guess we can clearly state that the photon can be described in any manner you choose to describe it [as long as it fits the returned data] thus indicating freewill as well. Afterall we we don't even know how big it is or whether to consider it as a zero, 2 or even 3 dimensional object Yes ....freewill is alive and well!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [in this case the freedom to be irrational]
The universe forgets nothing as the laws of Thermo dynamics requires...conservation of energy is also the conservation of information...as nothing is lost to the universe. The problem though is accessing this historical information as it has been transformed as time evolves. Make a great thread Billy T....
and where is this memory stored, for every photon or particle that has moved from a to b (zillions of different a & b in past 14 billion years)? They are an evolving dynamic - nothing to store nor any possiblity of doing so as their history (or future) is zillions of times more than there are particles in the universe. I.e. each particle is making zillions of facts as it follows the law as of physic with every collison or other interactions changing it state and or location ans or speed. In fact if you think entropy is increasing as most do, then that can only happen via irreversible processes - By definition of "irreversible" the process cannot be reverse or back up to learn its prior history.
