So far so good. Yet, there is the caveat concerning "choice". What does "choice" necessarily imply? First, the macro level is illusory (which is to say, at our level of observation, we do not (cannot) observe all that there is to see..). Second, and more importantly, at the macro level (ours) deterministic causality is not exhaustive. Which is to say, although causality still obtains, the direction it takes is not strictly determined. As active agents, we have the power of election. Yes. I agree with you on the continuity of applicability. However, see my first comment above regarding the term "choice". Also, again, as agents, we affect the macro level system (which is to say, although the 'rules of the game' haven't changed, the players have..). Not at all; but there's more to the situation than the rules. I don't agree with your definition of "choice" meaning uncaused and non-random. In any case, at the macro level, we're talking about agents that have a special kind of comprehension of the system within which they operate. Though the system is causal, it doesn't necessarily follow that the behaviour of an agent is strictly such.
I disagree - as this cannot follow if you hold there is no choice at the micro level. I agree that the direction the macro takes is not strictly determined - QM and randomness seem to indicate that - but I see no room for this "power of election" that you seem to hold on to. But we can only affect the macro level system in accordance with the same drivers. Every move made by these new players is in accordance to the moves made at the micro level. Then feel free to share your definition so I might gain an insight into where your points stem from? Surely it must?? How can you have an unbroken causal chain at the micro level but allow a break of those same chains when you look at the macro? Perhaps you see breaks in the macro-chain (for want of a better term) but those chains are still bound by the unbroken micro-level chains. Perhaps if you can explain your thoughts further?
As I noted, "choice" doesn't apply. "Choice", conceptually, only applies to specific entities: agents. See above. Not at all. As we know, different scales are regulated by different iterations of the rules. Newtonian mechanics, for example, work fine on the 'human observational scale', whilst on much smaller, and much larger scales, they do not. Again, see above. "Choice" implies an agent. There is a difference between "choice" and "possibility". Because you're assuming that there is a smooth gradation of application, which, we already know, is not the case. Well, this would be going slightly offtopic, but, suffice it to say that, as agents, we enjoy a special place within our deterministic environment. The environment is determined, to be sure, but only insofar as this means that restrictions are placed on possibilities within the environment. This does not mean that 'everything that happens had to happen'. What it does mean is that 'what happened, happened for a reason". On any scale outside of the human observational scope, I would completely agree with you. But, as with the Observer Effect (for example), the simple fact of an agent being involved alters the causal chain. This all stems from the fact that we have the power of imagination: we can hypothesize, we can predict. It is this ability to consider alternativity that enables us to interfere with a strict deterministic outcome. Note: we can affect the outcome, but not the precedent possibilities available to us. Try the following two questions out: If you chose not to choose, have you chosen? Can you choose to draw a four sided triangle? I'm also reminded here of Game Theory in general, and the Prisoner's Dilemma in particular... p.s.: I mentioned that this is verging on going offtopic because, to a great extent, we're moving on to talking about the nature of agency. Of course, this is closely related to the topic at hand, but clearly once we move specifically into the human realm, we've moved beyond the (implicit) scope of the OP. Admittedly, this movement is mostly my fault, but, in my defense, the OP was dangerously vague and/or devoid of lucid definitions and parameters. In any case, I have no problem dropping this particular line of thought if that would leave the thread to stay right on topic.,...
But these iterations of rules all still obey causality / randomness. It is not that causality stops working at a certain level. Certainly we can see that the micro gives rise to patterns of behaviour that are not visible at the micro... a molecule of water in isolation can not tell you about a pattern of ripples. But causality/randomness surely applies across the board. And as such, there is no "choice" - just an illusion of it - a post-event realisation and justification. But the agent still acts causally (or randomly) Only because you cherry-picked an application that is not Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I am assuming smooth gradation of application of causality/randomness... are you saying that this aspect is not applicable to all things? And the reason can be broken down and down and down... all the while causality still holding... until you end up at the micro-level. Patterns seen at the macro are driven by the micro, not No! I can not agree with this. This seems to applying some "immaterial soul"-like attribute to the agent. The agent being involved does NOT alter the causal chain. It is PART of the causal chain. There is only the chain. The chain began before the agent and will continue after the agent. The Observer Effect does NOT alter the causal chain... observation merely crystallises the probability function into a specific case (or "collapses the wave-function)... but either way the observation itself is part of the causal chain... the specific case was the effect of the observation, which was caused by X which was caused by Y... etc. Nothing "changes" as a result. To suggest change as a result of the agent is to suggest that the agent has the ability to alter the causal chain... and therefore that the actions of the agent are necessarily uncaused and non-random. I can not see how this can be the case if you accept causality/randomness. Which are all still part of the causal chain. I'm not arguing out of a strict-deterministic position... I disagree (as previously posted) with strict determinism. But I still don't think we can interfere with the causal chain. To do so requires an uncaused and non-random event. My arguments here have stemmed from causality/randomness i.e. everything is either caused or is the result of randomness - such as radioactive decay - with the conclusion I am putting forth (for your scrutiny) that there is no "free-will" (or "choice"). At best I would say that "choice / free-will" is a pattern of activity of an agent that gives the appearance of self-determination (within the confines of the environment). I'm happy to have you move it to a new thread... or even to PM... seems to be just you and me here anyway. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If glacuon determines that a new thred is necessary to discuss the issues necessary for the discussion of free will :bugeye: ... fine wit me... but it ant jus you an glacuon whos interested in an follerin this fasinatin thred/topic about free will (a thang that mos people clame "we" have)... an you'r las post shoud be helpful in re-focusin the discusson on what this thang called "free-will" is/how it operates... so im mos interested in glacuons answrs.!!!
Whispers softly so no-one hears.... Fully determined free will.... "If your choices are determined by absolutely everything then those choices must therefore be free of limitations unless you consider being "determined by absolutely everything" as a limitation" Therefore free will and determinism can quite happilly co-exist but only when your choices are determined by absolutely everything So Freewill exists as an ideal that we Humans may never acheive despite our constant quest to do so. [rel: to the human God Complex.]
Well i will ask along the line of what Sarkus ask glacuon... is ther some "immaterial soul"-like attribute... or an inteligence seperate from humans which is involved wit you'r idea of "Fully determined free will.???
regarding my solution the question of "immaterial Soul-like attribute" is irrelevant as "absolutely everything" is a global "all inclusive statement" "If your choices are determined by absolutely everything then those choices must therefore be free of limitations unless you consider being "determined by absolutely everything" as a limitation"
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund Well i will ask along the line of what Sarkus ask glacuon... is ther some "immaterial soul"-like attribute... or an inteligence seperate from humans which is involved wit you'r idea of "Fully determined free will.??? Im mor interested in discussin the issue wit people who will give direct answrs to direct questons.!!! Yeah the poll coud be highly miss-leadin.!!!
So you believe an all-inclusive statement is not sufficient for your question? a bit like asking... Does your statement include an apple in Geneva or a speck of cosmic dust floating in the Orion Nebula... absolutely everything is ..uhm well just that... So getting bogged down in "immaterial soul like atributes" is not relevant as the statement already includes anything you can imagine or real. example "Flying Pigs" are also part of "absolutely everything" It is not the purpose of this thread to validate, confirm or qualify the existance of flying pigs.
Lots of people make the clame that we have free will... im specificaly interested in hearin the process which suposedly allows free will to occur... an if that process includs flyin-pigs (or the equlivent) i wont get bogged down in it... i will nip it in the bud by skippin that persons posts.!!!
Its simple. 1.Determinism:No (true)free will,only the illusion 2.Randomness: No free will at all. 1.Everything is determined like it is now. 2.Chaotic,no structure at all,no will of ANY kind,random is not "will". Free will = the illusion that we have choice(most atheists) True free will= that its not an illusion,we have the actual choice that cannot be predicted (most theists) Unpredictable will=oxymoron. edit:Just to clarify: Any kind of (True) Free Will(either in deterministic world or a random world) is U-N-R-E-A-L.
You do realize that we are all assuming,right? Now you're mixing up some words there. True randomness doesnt exist ,yes. Randomness(unpredictability) in the form that we can't predict cause there are many variables,it exists obviously. Maybe i misrepresented my ideas. Also. Chaos is a more loose word,in this case i used it to represent true randomness ,to add a dramatic effect. Chaos is usually used to show unpredictability or extreme conditions etc. As i said, Nondeterministic Free Will is an oxymoron,since the Will has a structure. Unless someone agrees that a person decides totally in (true)random,that means our brain doesn't obey the laws of physics. Then there would be no will,and because there is no randomness any case of Free-Will being nondeterministic is imaginary. You can't have a deterministic universe with nondeterministic "Will". Its either all deterministic or its all nondeterministic (which is unreal).
Unpredictablity isn't randomness sure there are many variables but is it absolutely impossible that the universe is deterministic non-causally or pre-determined? The truth is no it's not. The more I think about it seems that the universe can't exist without being pre-determined, our existence is sequential i.e. in time which makes it seem deterministic to me. Perhaps true randomness requires 100% efficiency, or absence of sequences or change like time which the universe certainly isn't.
