Free Will and Determinism

Carrie? Carrie??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We sure feel that we do have "free will", but I'm talking about reality and what it takes for that to actually be true, rather than just an illusion. Would you agree then "free will" can not exist because it would require ability to violate laws of physics and we know they are unchangeable and cannot be violated?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But I'm serious, it's inescapable logical conclusion. Isn't it? So not to make people screamingly run away from this topic, perhaps Star Wars and the "Force" would be more gentle comparison.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

humbleteleskop, what exactly are you trying to ask?

Here is where Fraggle Rocker's expertise would be nice right now, because my grammar skills are very weak.
However, even I can tell you that the question is somehow grammatically improper, or incomplete!

You premise the question by stating that the Laws of Physics are unchangeable.
Therefore, the basis of your reasoning when posing the question is that the Laws of Physics are unchangeable. Period.

You then ask, can "free will" make any difference?
humbleteleskop, that question seems to be incomplete - cause it just does not make sense -there should be something after "difference".

For some odd reason the terms "preposition" and "prepositional phrase", come to mind.
I believe in this case the words "between", or "in", or "without", or "to" would be possible prepositions to follow the word "difference".
The words would then be the beginning of a "prepositional phrase".

Look, I am not very adept at grammar, but I think you know that it is an improper question, so...
Until you complete the question by adding something like : between being honest or dishonest ; or, in deciding which College to attend ; or, without being given a choice ; or, to the laws of physics.
Then the question is just plain incomplete!!!

humbleteleskop, if the question actually is : "If the laws of physics are unchangeable, can "free will" make any difference to the laws of physics?
Then the answer would be : No, "free will" can not make any difference to the laws of physics.

 

But we may be able to use the same laws of physics to influence a future event. How long did it take us to convert the magnificent truth of E = Mc^2 to an instrument of destruction?

Perhaps we do have some 'wiggle room" between possible futures.

 

Write4U, the "dike" seems like a decent enough example of "free will" to me.
You have the ability to choose in deciding whether or not to build a dike to prevent future flooding.
Hence, your utilization of "free will" can make a difference in the future, relative to past persistent flooding.

Besides, you do not have to change any of the unchangeable Laws of Physics to build the dike to prevent future flooding.

Edit : I hit the Post button and saw that you replied to my previous Post while I was composing this one.
And, oddly enough, we both are kind of saying the same thing!

Should we page Rod Serling?

 

It's like you are blaming me for your own failure to clarify yourself. You keep making statements without any reason or explanation given. What is it you disagree with, do you even know?

It's a possible fact, just like your assumptions, only mine is far more plausible.

Are you trying to say there can not exist such enzyme capable of producing amino acids out of simple non-chiral molecules?

If the laws of physics are unchangeable, can "free will" make any difference?

 

You are supposed to agree or disagree, not to repeat back to me what I said myself.

If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make your body do anything else but what it was already going to do under strict guidance of the laws of physics anyway?

If the laws of physics are unchangeable, can "free will" make any difference in the material world?

 

I believe it is called "compatibilist free will".

 

An example of "incompatibilists free will"?

 

I'm saying the opposite, that compatibilism is impossible according to the laws of physics.

 

no. physical state is the platform. that platform runs on physics and sciences.

actually no,
because free will is limited by physics.
free will is in the physical state.
fee will is considered a choice.
that alone should speak volumes.
a choice of what ?
a choice from predestined inventories of potentials.

think about these statements,

Belief, like fear or love, is a force to be understood as we understand the theory of relativity, and principles of uncertainty. Phenomena that determine the course of our lives.These forces that often remake time and space, they can shape and alter who we imagine ourselves to be, begin long before we are born, and continue after we perish. Our lives and our choices, like quantum trajectories, are understood moment to moment, at each point of intersection, each encounter, suggest a new potential direction.[Cloud Atlas]

I understand now that boundaries between noise and sound are conventions. All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended. One may transcend any convention, if only one can first conceive of doing so.[Cloud Atlas]

Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.....
......Our lives are not our own, from womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.[Cloud Atlas]

 

Regarding "free will"

The philosophical question is
a) "could I have acted differently under the same circumstances"?
b) "if I could not have acted differently, why could someone else have acted differently"?

Aparently existing circumstances allow for a variety of behaviors which are deterministic but completely different from each and result in completely different outcomes. If the laws of nature are immutable, why do we have such a range of different "responses" available to us under certain cercumstances?

Reality becomes expressed (and fixed) only in the Present as perceived and processed by the individual brain, none of which produces the same result and emotional response (reaction), all leading to different outcomes for participants in the same event. (Something to do with Relativity I believe).

 

You did not address the question, it was yes or no type of question, and it is about relation between "free will" and physical body, not about relation between consciousness and "free will". QUESTION: - If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than it was already going to by itself anyway?

Practically demands? How did you arrive to that conclusion - what exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to some experiment, some observation, some logical truth, some physical consequence... what is it, do you even know?

 

Yes, but that is not specific enough to answer the question of - what it actually/physically takes for free will to be really possible. I want to talk about practical physics and logic, not about abstract philosophy.

Complexity. Imagine artificial neural network software inside a robot that can see, hear, walk and talk, and learn of course. Let's suppose this artificial neural network eventually, somehow, acquired "consciousness", a special kind of awareness at some higher level than what is directly implemented in its mathematical algorithms and electrical circuits, but since its hardware and software algorithms are deterministic and constant, can this robot ever have "free will"?

 

You don't get it, we are on the same side. You're just more naive. Let's please get back to the topic and stay out of personal remarks or arguments. It's unnecessary, it holds no any significant information. C'mon, substance!! -- If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than it was already going to do by itself anyway?

 

It's not skepticism if you refuse to even look at it, that's prejudice. -- Don't we have more interesting things to talk about than having this empty argument? Try to answer this question please: if your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than it was already going to do by itself anyway?

 

Then why are we even discussing Creationism as a possible cause for the emergence of life? Now there is your example of abstract philosophy.

Regardless of Free Will or Determinism, humans can only perform in accordance to their physical limitatons (just like a robot). If we want (have the will) to fly, we cannot flap our arms and have lift-off, we have to build a flying machine. But once it is built we can fly! Is that Determinism or Free Will?

Other than brainfunction, is there a difference between a human and a human robot? It's all Determined by our chemistry, no?

 

You never addressed the question properly. If you believe you have, still please just confirm so we don't have to guess. Yes or no will suffice. If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than what it was already going to do by itself anyway?

 

You and me are not discussing creationism, I was attempting to discuss it with leopold. Two of us are discussing free will.

At this point, since we haven't answered the question whether "free will" can even exist to begin with, it can be either. You are missing the point, it's about relation between free will and physical body, not about relation between physical body and the environment. Step back one step, it's about steering wheel *connections* free will could possibly use in order to "drive" your physical body around, rather than being just a passenger and passive observer.

That's the question. And if everything is indeed determined by chemistry and laws of physics, then "free will" can not exist, right?