No free will,therefore no God.

[Mystic_Spike]

Hi there,
recently i have come to the conclusion that humans (or anything else) have no free will (no free choice).
if we take a snapshot in time at the moment of a decision, personality will be constant,ie fixed (like a snapshot of a moving bullet,it appears still). if personality is fixed and personality defines the choice we are about to make, then we will ,at that moment, reach one choice. and because personality defines choice then we will only ever make one decision. therefore our choice is defined by our personality at that point, and therefore we will always make the same 'choice' (at that moment).
so,personality defines our 'choice' and therefore our 'choice' is fixed or constant like our personality.

Thus, we are not special. we are like a comet shooting through a solar system set about a fixed path, which initially began with the big bang. and so, there can only be one future because there is no 'choice' in the entire universe, just a set of events which have followed from the big bang.

Therefore God cannot exist in a world with one future and no choice simply because He would have nothing to do.

note: i use 'personality' as a general term to describe everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice'.

well?wot do you think about my theory?

[Junko]

If you want to sound more official and more msart you should use capital letter...

In the case of God...I fi believed he exhisted he wouldnt do things for us... he give us a 'choice' so that he doesnt have to do things for us...ya know to make us stronger...

I dont belive your theory at all..if you made that statement based on your own 'choice' than you just contridicted yourself entirely

[Phelddagrif]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/spash/_it2.gif

[Erigion]

I think you read a theory of determinism and went hallelujah.

H2G2 has a much better argument as to why god doesn't exist.

[Mystic_Spike]

If you want to sound more official and more msart you should use capital letter...

In the case of God...I fi believed he exhisted he wouldnt do things for us... he give us a 'choice' so that he doesnt have to do things for us...ya know to make us stronger...

I dont belive your theory at all..if you made that statement based on your own 'choice' than you just contridicted yourself entirely


a) i don't 'sound' smart cause im not speaking,im typing
b) there isnt decent punctuation because im lazy

c) i dont think u get my argument. basically your personality defines what choice ure gonna make, therefore u will only ever make that choice (at one moment)

e.g i don't know whether to have a blue or red sweet, but i come to some conclusion and pick the blue one.- my personality defined that i picked the blue one, and because
my personality is constant (at one moment) then the choice will always be blue.
in fact, the fact that i picked blue proves that i would only ever coose blue (at that moment)

[Erigion]

Whoo Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

[Zirilan]

I've found several flaws with your theory. The main one being that personality alone doesn't determine our decisions, neither does your current mood. They both are factors which leed to your final decision, but neither one of them makes the decision on it's own. That's done by a combination of several ever changing factors.

if we take a snapshot in time at the moment of a decision, personality will be constant,ie fixed (like a snapshot of a moving bullet,it appears still).
Personality isn't constant, it changes from the time when we are born, up and until the day we die. My personality right now is different from what it was a year ago, and personalities go through drastic changes during extreme emotions. (i.e. unusually happy, sad, angry, etc...)



Thus, we are not special. we are like a comet shooting through a solar system set about a fixed path, which initially began with the big bang. and so, there can only be one future because there is no 'choice' in the entire universe, just a set of events which have followed from the big bang.

A comet's path is far from fixed. It can be easily shifted if/when it travels to close to a large mass, or comes in contact with a large enough mass. Depending on which it is, either gravity or inertia will change it's course.



Therefore God cannot exist in a world with one future and no choice simply because He would have nothing to do.

That depends on what God does in someone's mind. Since his existence (or lack there of) cannot be proven, neither can what he does/would do if he did exist.


note: i use 'personality' as a general term to describe everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice'.

None of what affects your decision is constant, so it can't be applied. Decisions can be affected by countless factors. From what your current mood is, your current outlook on life, who is with you, and that's just to name a few. Without consistency your theory falls apart just like your metaphor.

[ZalorD]

Until we can rigorously define and study how the mind works, and all the peripheral apsects of behaviorism, it's hard to debate that there is no free will. Macroscopic: Psychology tries to pattern seemingly spontaneous actions. Assume that all actions can be patterned and studied, thus predicted. Then free will might not be feasible (you can argye that you're consciously making the choice and what not, but if there is no probable alternative then there is no choice). Microscopic: If the decision making procedure of the brain is governed entirely by extremely small regional stimuli, and not as an overall mind state (or brain state whichever matters), then one can effectively use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and argue FOR free will. You can't pinpoint a particle to its exact position at one exact instance of time. It's a whole lot of probability in here.

[Zirilan]

Let's take a very minor decision for example. Say you're at your favorite restaurant and cannot decide between two dishes that you like equally. Why would you choose one over the other? You can't decide, you want both of them, and you know that you can't eat both of them, on top of it all it would be a waste of money. So what posesses you to choose one over the other? And after you choose one, what if you regret it and wish you had chosen the other dish? The human mind isn't logical all the time, much of the time it's emotional. Which is why emotions often have a large impact on our decisions.

[jiffyjimbothe3]

If you want to sound more official and more msart you should use capital letter...

Why not try proper spelling and grammar as well?

[ZalorD]

Zirilan, of course EVERYTHING has an impact upon the decision. Like any chaos theory mathematician will tell you, a butterly wings flapping in India can cause an earthquake in China (so cliche hehe). That's what determinism is.

Even with HUP, when you think about it. HUP is true with respect to the human experience. In terms of the universe itself, HUP isn't true. A particle will be in a certain place at a certain time according to the laws of the universe, it is WE who cannot comprehend the exact duality of space and time.

When you make a decision today, countless factors affect it, effectively MAKIING you make that decision. That is why it seems inevitable. It might sound ridiculous, but it would be inevitable that you would present to yourself a list of choices, and its inevitable that you will pick the choice forced onto you by the aforementioned factors. So what is left for anything called the "free will"?

Something oughta happen, that's why there's no free will. Jagan will call me an idiot if he reads this.

However, we know from all practical point of views, someone will show up and say that this depends on something we call the non-physical mind. But they won't be able to establish an explanation for how this non-physical entity can somehow cause a physical change in brain states. If everything is physically determined, as held by the physical laws of the universe, then the theory of free will x2 collapse.

[Mana]

There is a lot more in play when it comes to making a choice then our personality. Current culture, location, amount (or lack) of present company, the time of day, etc. One person could make 2 different decisions based mainly on the above factors.

What you're talking about isn't a matter of free will, it's a matter of influence. Obviously our personalities influence our decisions, as well as all the things I've stated above. But having influences does not mean one doesn't have free will. The fact that we ARE making a choice, no matter what the influence, shows that we maintain free will.

On the point of this disproving God, what does that say about the Christians who believe we don't have free will? Depending on the sect, some believe that God and/or the Devil dictate our every move and that humans have no free will.

[Junko]

ok I'm gonna give you my theory now...

If every human believes he knows how the human brain works they could never be right because they would have really only one to truly base it off of. Yes you can see how one reacts to a certain situation but since everyone has a different 'personality' and emotions are nigh you can never determin exactly what one will od. Thus you cannot say everyone's mind works the way yours does. Thus no one can without occupying more than one body at a time.

hmm... to that! :_insane:

[Moe]

i'm gonna take a quote from Futurama when bender was sent into space and a little civilization grew on his body and then nuked themselves and then he found god.....

God: sometimes doing nothing is what you really should do.....

(i'm not entirely sure but i think it goes something like that..)

[Shouryuu]

i'm gonna take a quote from Futurama when bender was sent into space and a little civilization grew on his body and then nuked themselves and then he found god.....

God: sometimes doing nothing is what you really should do.....

(i'm not entirely sure but i think it goes something like that..)
"Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket"?

[Kaikyaku]

I disagree with your theory. I don't believe that personaity is fixed. Personality is constantly changing and evolving, depending on different experiences and ideas. While your personality will obviously influence decicions there are so many external factors and random variables that also play a part. There are several things that have happened to me by pure accident or concidence. I suppose one could argue then that those instances were not coincidences, but pre-planned events that perhaps several individuals as well as nature has spent years working towards. However, entropy rules.

The idea of having everyone with a set personality, presumably determined by birth, either constant or changing on a set timeline is essentially destiny and fate. But is the universe coordinated enough to produce something so structured and linear? Most of what we are now has been the result of random events, from the collisions of the first molecules, to the evolution of mankind, we are the result of one of many million possible paths. Just as millions of paths lay before us now.

What the future holds will depend largely on completely random events. The people of future generations will be random combinations of the current gene pool. Even if, as you say, their personality was henceforth set (though I don't believe it is), the circumstances that led up to that would be largely out of our control. While humans do cause a certain amount of structure to be implemented, we can't escape the world we live in. What more are we than a set of well coordinated chemical reactions?

Well, one might argue, we can think, and therefore make the decicions of which you speak. But even if our personalities were set, how can that take into account all of the possible situations we might find ourselves in over the course of our lifetime? No two situations are the same, and there are too many factors to apply a broad solution. What if two characteristics of one's personality contridicted each other in a particular situation? We would find ourselves in a dillemma. I know I have been in a dillemma many times, and the choice I made has affected my life henceforth. But I believe, it is possible that I could have made a different decicion, and I wouldn't be exactly the same as I am today.

[Roark]

Hmm....

First, the issue of personality changing over time is irrelevant. In order for this theory to work, personality doesn't need to be constant at all. No one is going to argue that our personality is completely and utterly fixed for all time. The key is that personality/genetics/social structure/etc. are the ONLY things we have to base decisions on. Thus, although these factors change, we cannot escape them. Our decisions draw on these things; we cannot base our choices on anything else. So, if who we are informs all our choices, and who we are is something completely beyond our control, then our choices stem from things beyond our control. If something is beyond our control, we cannot be said to have an active part in it. So, we have no active role in our decisions, thus no free will:

1. All our choices are things informed by who we are. (assumption)
2. All of who we are is a thing beyond our control. (assumption)
3. If something is beyond our control, then we have no active part in it. (defintion)
4. Therefore, our choices are things beyond our control (1&2)
5. Therefore, our choices are are things we have no active part in. (4&5)
6. If we have no active part in something, it does not stem from our free will. (Definition)
7. Therefore, we have no free will. (5&6)

(loose proof, based on the original post).

There are flaws in this, though. A lot of them have been pointed out already. The choosing between two equally valid options for something is a good example (how do we make that choice? Roll dice?) Situations that our personality can't guide us on is another good example (know somoene brought this up). Then, you have the metaphysical question of "does our personality dictate our decisions necesarrily (look up the formal meaning of the word, it's a really strong one). Libertarians (in the metaphyscial sense, not political) are going to deny this claim. They'll gladly agree that our past experience, personality, etc. all INFORM our decisions. They don't control them, however. At the end of the train of processes, we're still forced to make a decision. We can act against nature, and often times do (it's my personlity to prefer twinkies over salad, but I have a desire to lose weight and choose the salad).

Now, I really don't get the thing about God. Determinism seems MORE likely in a theistic world to me (fatalists: God creates a universe, knows all our choices, and we can't act against his plan; determinists: God creates me, creates all the events in my life, and I can't act against the nature he instills in me). Neither of these is problematic to your theory. I, however, can't see a Judeo-Christian God being just under such circumstances, since he would be punishing people for things they have no control over.

[Angry John]

Every situation acted upon is a discrete event with an unknowable number of variables at play.

If we are doomed to act only one way in any given situation given all the variables involved, we can never know all the variables involved or exactly how they are involved in the outcome.

Obviously I don't have a final answer, but rather than saying "We have no free will.", I would be inclined to say, "There are no accidents."

[Moe]

"Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket"?

damn i wasn't even close.....

[Illjwamh]

Hi there,
recently i have come to the conclusion that humans (or anything else) have no free will (no free choice).
if we take a snapshot in time at the moment of a decision, personality will be constant,ie fixed (like a snapshot of a moving bullet,it appears still). if personality is fixed and personality defines the choice we are about to make, then we will ,at that moment, reach one choice. and because personality defines choice then we will only ever make one decision. therefore our choice is defined by our personality at that point, and therefore we will always make the same 'choice' (at that moment).
so,personality defines our 'choice' and therefore our 'choice' is fixed or constant like our personality.

Thus, we are not special. we are like a comet shooting through a solar system set about a fixed path, which initially began with the big bang. and so, there can only be one future because there is no 'choice' in the entire universe, just a set of events which have followed from the big bang.

Therefore God cannot exist in a world with one future and no choice simply because He would have nothing to do.

note: i use 'personality' as a general term to describe everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice'.

well?wot do you think about my theory?

You really need to talk to a friend of mine (ssj_leia@hotmail.com). She and I have been having this free will debate for over two years, and her stance is very similar to yours, though she's had much more time to develop it. You'll definately find it enlightening, I daresay. Afterwards, talk to me and I'll let you know my half.

Tell her I sent you. :D

[Mystic_Spike]

well, it seems there are two camps here:
one that understands what i'm trying to say.
and those who dont, and the ones that dont seem to thing im saying that personality doesnt change. did u not read my post? i keep on saying 'at any one moment', 'snapshot in time' ....'the moment of decision', for one choice at one moment personality is constant.
and as i said i use 'personality' as a general term to define everything that u are that influences ure decision. the only 2 other factors to take into consideration are other peoples choice (fixed as i have explained) and random,natural events which do not have chocie and therefore are fixed as well (whether they are predictable or unpredictable).

[PassiveObserver]

I myself was always certain of my free will because I do occasionally act out of character but God must simply exist for some reason. Some things, in my opinion, are just to funny to not have been planned by someone. Humor in general to me is proof of God. Just think about it, humor accomplishes absolutely nothing yet somehow it endures, and will continue to endore despite having no evolutionary advantage. For this reason there is a God which in turn nullifies your theory on free will. Now that I have ranted this seems almost off topic, but still I think my opinion stands.

[JOJO]

There"s some truth in that, if you know someone"s personality and situation it may be posible to predict there actions, but if you can predict people"s actions,Does that mean they have no free will?
Sounds to me like someone"s been watching a little to much of Berserk lately.

[Kawaii Lolita!~]

well?wot do you think about my theory?

I think this is just a bunch of **** that you decided to type because your bored... -.-

:complain: Leave us people with religions be. I've been believing it for so long, there ain't snowballs chance in Hell that I'd even take in consideration what your blabbing about~
:kissass:

[Neo-Hunter]

I think that god exist but we can't see it and that all of your theroy is A bunch of Bull shit, Indeed not to be mean though

[lompton x]

Ultimately I have too much to say and too little time so I'll make it simple
well?wot do you think about my theory?
darn I can't find the applause smily this :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: will have to do

[JaQuais J.]

I think its crap.

[Shouryuu]

well, it seems there are two camps here:
one that understands what i'm trying to say.
and those who dont, and the ones that dont seem to thing im saying that personality doesnt change.
Technically...isn't that 3 "camps"?

One more thing, grammar and spelling are very important, especially if you're trying to make an intellectual argument. So when you say things like "wot do you think about my theory?" people are probably not going to think much of your theory as a result.

[Mystic_Spike]

why does spelling matter if u can understand wot i mean? and its not an argument its an idea.
no it's two camps.
no1 was come up with an actual counter-argument (beyond mis-interpreting wot i was trying to say), all i get is 'that is bullshit' or 'i think its crap' , can you please say why its crap...lets be constructive here.

[Shouryuu]

Because it makes you look like you have the intellect of an infant, which isn't good when you are asking people for their opinions of your belief. So it's not really helping you to avoid the "it's crap" responses.

and its not an argument its an idea.
Then try refining this idea a little more first. It may help you get more quality reponses.

[ZalorD]

http://www.123.cl/publicidad/imgs_site/anti-nazi.jpg

Its just an opinion people.

[Ninja Realist]

Not if you believe the watchmaker theory(I don't, but just putting this on the table). It says that the Universe and the course of time are like a a finely tuned watch. G0d, the watchmaker, built the watch and wound it, but like any fine watch, once it is wound it can be left alone, just the like the universe.

So no, your theory doesn't disprove God's existence, it just shows that you have a very narrow idea of who and what God is.

[Illjwamh]

No, what he's saying goes more like this:

The universe can be looked at as one beig, enormous equation. Everything in existence must be factored into this equation. A person's experiences, personality, environment, etc. will influence their decisions, and therefore any "choice" they make will have been predetermined by the circumstances of the universe, and therefore they are not really making a choice at all, since they couldn't possibly have chosen anything else.

Everything that happens effects everything else that happens, like one giant butterfly effect. Nothing is ever random, and everything that ever happens could not have happened any other way. Thus, free will is a myth - a flight of fancy for mankind - and does not exist.

[Akuhei]

And the reason that you haven't recieved a TRUE counter-arguement is because there is no real way to prove whether or not god exists and what he does (if he exists). And your example does only take place in one moment of time, a "snapshot", but life doesn't. Life isn't still and nor is the universe, so why should we form theories as if it was?

[Illjwamh]

Are you saying that the watchmaker theory in some way fails to understand or account for some part(s) of the determistic universe, or do you only mean that realist is misunderstanding something else? In terms of accounting for the deterministic universe, I don't see how realist's last post is lacking.

The watchmaker theory accounts for the existence of (a) god. The one I posted does not.

[Erigion]

The watchmaker theory relies on a higher being to create and wind the "watch" and allows it to run its course.

Determinism, well a form of it, says that once science has come up with a complete understanding of how the universe works and if know everything about a point in time they can figure out what will happen from that point onward. A higher being has nothing to do with this theory, it relies solely on having a complete knowledge of the universe and how it works.

Realist's theory and the original poster have two similar yet different theories.

[Roark]

why does spelling matter if u can understand wot i mean? and its not an argument its an idea.
no it's two camps.
no1 was come up with an actual counter-argument (beyond mis-interpreting wot i was trying to say), all i get is 'that is bullshit' or 'i think its crap' , can you please say why its crap...lets be constructive here.
I take it you didn't even try to read my post...

All right, here's another example:
In our mental life, we seem to have control of our actions. Now, when faced with a given situation, we seem to have several options. Now, we have options that we normally follow (lets say, preference for coke over pepsi). Yet, when Igo to a store, this part of my personality doesn't dictate my action in any way. I don't necesarrily choose coke (in the strong sense of the term). I generally think of myself as having the ability to say "I want pepsi today" and grab that. How would your theory explain this ability?

[Illjwamh]

It seems like realist would be aware of that as well, so I'm still confused. As soon as you said, "No, what he's saying goes more like this:" I thought you were correcting a misconception on the part of realist. But his words seem to already take into account what you've said about the pre-determined universe.

And I'm pretty sure I understand the theory you're presenting, but I don't understand your intent in explaining it at that point in the discussion. Am I missing something here?

(This reminds me of a situation way back when you and I were talking about Buddhism. You say something simple, and I can't make sense of it. Heh. Must be some karma of miscommunication between us.)


Could be. I've realized over the years that sometimes in a deeply philosophical discussion, I can get so involved with what I'm talking about that sometimes I completely misinterpret what other people are talking about. Sometimes we discover later that we were saying the exact same thing in different ways. This is not a particularly uncommon occurance, as miscommunications are as natural as human language, but it does get frustrating after a while. A friend of mine had the same problem, and while we always had thoroughly interesting and stimulating discussions, we tended to confuse each other a lot. ^^

[ZalorD]

In our mental life, we seem to have control of our actions. Now, when faced with a given situation, we seem to have several options. Now, we have options that we normally follow (lets say, preference for coke over pepsi). Yet, when Igo to a store, this part of my personality doesn't dictate my action in any way. I don't necesarrily choose coke (in the strong sense of the term). I generally think of myself as having the ability to say "I want pepsi today" and grab that. How would your theory explain this ability?
I think because your preference is not necessarily represented by a monic relationship. Say you consider a pseudo version of the reason why you pick a certain drink at a certain time:

Drink(you, Coke, Pepsi, Variable Set K) = Pick(you, Coke)*Probability(Variable Set K) + Pick(you, Pepsi)*(1 - Probability(Variable Set K))

or a more general and more complicated one (let me denote the word Probability as P ans Variable Set as VarSet):

Drink(you, Drink 1, Drink 2, Drink 3, ..., Drink N, VarSet 1, VarSet 2, VarSet 3, ..., VarSet N) =
Pick(you, Drink 1)* max(P(VarSet 1), min(P(VarSet 2), P(VarSet 3), ..., P(VarSet N))) +
Pick(you, Drink 2)* max(P(VarSet 2), min(P(VarSet 1), P(VarSet 3), ..., P(VarSet N))) +
Pick(you, Drink 3)* max(P(VarSet 3), min(P(VarSet 1), P(VarSet 2), ..., P(VarSet N))) +
... +
Pick(you, Drink N)* max(P(VarSet N), min(P(VarSet 1), P(VarSet 2), ..., P(VarSet N-1)))

This would determine which drink you pick out given the availability of each variable set, or that you will sometimes be likely to pick MORE than just one drink. This pseudo-model is by all means inexact, but you know what I mean.

[Mystic_Spike]

why does spelling matter if u can understand wot i mean? and its not an argument its an idea.
no it's two camps.
no1 was come up with an actual counter-argument (beyond mis-interpreting wot i was trying to say), all i get is 'that is bullshit' or 'i think its crap' , can you please say why its crap...lets be constructive here.
I take it you didn't even try to read my post...

All right, here's another example:
In our mental life, we seem to have control of our actions. Now, when faced with a given situation, we seem to have several options. Now, we have options that we normally follow (lets say, preference for coke over pepsi). Yet, when Igo to a store, this part of my personality doesn't dictate my action in any way. I don't necesarrily choose coke (in the strong sense of the term). I generally think of myself as having the ability to say "I want pepsi today" and grab that. How would your theory explain this ability?

again,someone misunderstanding wot i mean by 'personality', i use 'personality' as a general term to describe everything about yourself which influences a decision.
and it is in a lot of people's character to occassionally do something out of character (like buy pepsi).

[Ninja Realist]

Your also totally ruling out the idea of different realities created by different decisions people make.

[ZalorD]

Your also totally ruling out the idea of different realities created by different decisions people make.
That's an oxymoron. There is only one reality, and one probable reality. When you talk about possible alternatives, you are assuming incomplete knowledge about the preceding incident(s).

[Ninja Realist]

Im saying that other parallel realities may exist.

[ZalorD]

Ah, the term "exist" played against you. Parallel "realites" so to speak, can only be conjectured from the current state of the contemporary reality. As I've said, like any sane man, we must assume that all the laws in the universe are static, then there can only be one probable outcome of any chain of events. Possibile outcomes are merely derived from our perspective, since we lack a complete understanding of every single variable that had come into play in producing the one true outcome. In fact, every single variable in the universe must be bounded. No free variable truly exists.

Even if God did exist, he wouldn't be able to intervene in any sense, because in order to change anything he needs a superset of static laws that allows him to twitch our set of law, and he himself must obey this newly founded set of laws. Then by implication, there is a certain type of transformation that will permit the transformation all equations in this current set of law into that particularly set of law. The static and deterministic nature of this universe is retained.

And thus the watchmaker theory.

[Astribulus]

well?wot do you think about my theory?

It seems to me that you've been watching the Matrix triology too much. "Because you didn't come here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to understand why you made it." - the Oracle

That aside, your arguement hinges on the assumption that the human mind is a deterministic machine, that a certain state there can be only one output. Unfortunately, this assumption is impossible to test as no human being can be given the exact same inputs twice. By making a choice, either deterministically or by free will, additional information regarding the results of that choice are added to the system.

Thus by default we are in a sense deterministic machines. A given person can only have a given set of inputs exactly once, thus by default return one result per input set. However, this evidence is not enough to conclude the actual inner workings of the mind.

What truly baffles me, though, is your assumption that God cannot exist in a predetermined world. The "God would be bored" argument would only hold if one assumed that God's mind was comparable to that of a humans. Given the assumption that a human mind is deterministic, this would not fit the Judeo-Christian definition of God. This contradiction negates the assumption God's mind is like ours. It says nothing either way about whether God exists.

[Junko]

As if God would exhist for some unknown reason than there would also be a reason anime could be used productivly...

I stick by my own personal theory in every day life because to me it is true and your opinion does not need to be accepted by everyone else.

[Roark]

again,someone misunderstanding wot i mean by 'personality', i use 'personality' as a general term to describe everything about yourself which influences a decision.
and it is in a lot of people's character to occassionally do something out of character (like buy pepsi).
Then use a different word than personality. Or explain it better than "everything that influences a decision", as that's not precise at all. My concept of of an autonomous agent as part of our minds influences our decisions by choosing them freely, yet falls under your definition. If there's a fault here in understanding what you're saying, it lies with you not saying it clear at all.

Zarlor:
First off, define monic for me; I'm not familiar with the term and can't find it in a dictionary anywhere. Also, are we using "necesarrily" in the same sense? That said, maybe I stated the case too weak in the above version. Lets state it that the probability that my natural inclinations/"personality"/etc. are such that I loathe the taste of pepsi and ONLY drink coke. So, the probability is 1 that I drink quote according to that loose mental program. Yet, I retain the ability to at any time grab a pepsi, and there is a part of my consciousness (autonomous agent) that isn't ruled by that program. This agent is fully free AND capable of shunting/bypassing that program to grab the pepsi (not from masochistic or other desires, but just through sheer will).

EDIT: Noticed stuff about one reality.

This gets into the ontological question of counter-positives, which is a fancy way of saying "If such and such were the case, what would've happened, and does this alternate situation exist, and what's the truth value of the alternate situation". I don't understand why you talk in terms of "Laws of the Universe", I thought that notion went out with Newtonian physics. Also, what reason do you have to believe in only one reality - or a reality at all for that matter, as I'm not entirely convinced on that. Please explain what you mean by unbound variables.

[ZalorD]

What a freaking annoying browser. Three times today it has quit on me while I was making a post (and I was about to post this one too). Once more and IE will officially have a new follower.

Well, by monic I meant a single relation such as:

Drink(you, Coke, VarSet C) = Pick(you, Coke)*P(VarSet C)

which seems inept because of its simplicity. This is just another way for me to mention the "Big Equation of Everything." I think looking from a first person's perspective you will always believe in your so-called agent to make a conscious "choice," while from a third person's perspective your agent is no more free than how the chain of events has dictated. Whether it be that you're making a certain "choice" to demonstrate your ability to make a choice out of character. Thus, free will as we define it, as the ability to make choices, isn't really a free entity, but an inevitable process within the scope of a deterministic universe. It does sound strange, and I had a hard time convincing myself at first.

I don't deny that we can THINK about alternate solutions. But I believe that if we could take into account every single related factor we would see that all other solutions except the one we had could not have happened. What it is like, to say, we could have painted the fences around our house PINK, but the fact that my Dad was there with a certain color in his mind that was not pink, would render that alternative improbable. If we push this image of reality further by saying that, what if my Dad had had PINK in his mind, then we would have to also go back and readjust some other constants, so on and so forth. It's possible to consider the alternative PINK if we neglect every single details, or make the assumption that my Dad could have thought of PINK without any other constants being manipulated, but we know this cannot be true. And that's what I meant by saying all variables are bounded, or have been instantiated to certain constants when we actually analyze the situation. If we neglect some factors, we have allowed free variables to enter the equation. But in reality, there is not thing such as the value f(x), but f(1), f(2.43), f(pi) etc.

[Junko]

ya know for an anime forum you guys are some of more brilliant side of the population out there...

[Roark]

The only problem with this is that we don't live in a deterministic universe at all. It doesn't sound strange, it just seems an unnecessary throwback to the 17th century when physical laws were laws and people thought things worked liked clockwork. Then the 20th century came along and we figured out that the universe is a hell of lot weirder than anyone ever expected.

Also, what colour your dad has in mind renders the selection of pink improbable. This is not the same as impossible. I don't see how any of these factors contrain you (physically or mentally) from walking down to the nearest hardware store, getting pink mixed up for you, and painting it pink. You retain that ability. And if you will it, it could be so. Yes, I realize that I'm introducing a black box into human concsiouness and decision. Then again, I see no evidence that the mind isn't a black box.

EDIT: One last thing: wouldn't really small particles be considered unbound variables due to the unpredictability of their movement/existence?

[Ninja Realist]

ya know for an anime forum...

Stop right there, generalizations aren't good.

Ok look ZalorD. Heres my theory about the alternate realities.It's like this. The universe is made up of a bunch of realities stacked upon each other(I know im going back to the 4-dimensional shit, but I believe in it ok?). Just like a bunch of planes are stacked on top of each other. So there are a bunch of three dimensional realities stacked upon each other to make one 4-dimensional figure, lets say its a hypercube. Every time someone makes a choice, that choice causes a the three dimensional reality to create a reflection of itself. The reflection(or reflections if the choice had more than two options) is the exact same reality, except in this reality that person made a different choice. Thusly, the universe is one ever growing hypercube that contains a reality with every single possible out come.

So therefore:(Since ZalorD likes math so much)

U=([cos(theta) · e - sin(theta) · B(sub 1)] L [cos(theta) · e + sin(theta) · B(sub 1)] / [cos(theta) · e - sin(theta) · B(sub 2)] L [cos(theta) · e + sin(theta) · B(sub 2)]........./ [cos(theta) · e - sin(theta) · B(sub n)] L [cos(theta) · e + sin(theta) · B(sub n)])^3

(Im sure I messed something up there)

by the way the / is a division sine and im using ^ to convey exponents.

And the (sub) in parentheses is cause you can't do supertext on here.

I had to type theta as well because i dont know the character for it.

Also U=Universe in that equation.

Ok, I know none of this is based off of fact, and doesn't hold up as well as ZalorD's theory, but it was just a thought I felt like sharing. Also that equation isn't entirely my invention, alot of it is derived from other peoples work on reflections.

But ya, Just felt like sharing.

[Roark]

Actually realist, you pretty much summed up the theory of counterpositives... where "If P had not been the case, Q would have happened". The truth value of these is really questionable *points up to Zarlor*, as is the ontological status of them (do they exist), but you have some fairly good grounding for this line of thought.

[ZalorD]

Ok look ZalorD. Heres my theory about the alternate realities.It's like this. The universe is made up of a bunch of realities stacked upon each other(I know im going back to the 4-dimensional shit, but I believe in it ok?). Just like a bunch of planes are stacked on top of each other. So there are a bunch of three dimensional realities stacked upon each other to make one 4-dimensional figure, lets say its a hypercube. Every time someone makes a choice, that choice causes a the three dimensional reality to create a reflection of itself. The reflection(or reflections if the choice had more than two options) is the exact same reality, except in this reality that person made a different choice. Thusly, the universe is one ever growing hypercube that contains a reality with every single possible out come.
Actually, if you are compelled to study a bit about the history of black holes, you will find that Karl Schwarzschild did solve Einstein's equation to produce several results concerning parallel universes. His solution involves the definition of a "point of no return" lying on the Schwarzschild radius, which dictates that any object which comes within this radius will be sucked into the black hole, and once falling inside it will be aware of a mirror universe on the other side of space-time. According to Eisntein, people in these two universes cannot communicate with their respective self because of an infinite gravitational field ripping off every single atom attempting to penetrate the Einstein-Rosen bridge. Of course there are also different versions that account for this cross-universe travelling, such as Roy Kerr's black holes, but these remain mere mathematical solutions that are based upon various individual assumptions.

Let me make a note for you here. In your theory, you will have a hard time explaining how things take different routes, in different universes, because their respective sets of universal law would have to differ, violating the mirroring principle. Read what I said before about painting in pink.

So therefore:(Since ZalorD likes math so much)

U=([cos(theta) · e - sin(theta) · B(sub 1)] L [cos(theta) · e + sin(theta) · B(sub 1)] / [cos(theta) · e - sin(theta) · B(sub 2)] L [cos(theta) · e + sin(theta) · B(sub 2)]........./ [cos(theta) · e - sin(theta) · B(sub n)] L [cos(theta) · e + sin(theta) · B(sub n)])^3

(Im sure I messed something up there)
Amusing. I just hope you're not mocking me.

[Rqgnqrok]

///regarding statistics : it's not because my name isn't P that it has to be Q , as there are 26 letters in the english alphabet :p, not everything has a complementary counterpart. And if you're calculating in continuous variables
meaning there are an infinite amount of possibilies : the chance on having one such an event is 0 , then how come there is such a universe as ours, does this mean there aren't an infinite amount of rule-sets (sets of physics laws)??///end statistical stuff.

one can easily see that if it can happen once, it can happen twice, and so on...so it's more unlikely to have only one universe than to have billions.
But even if there are alternate universes, i don't think we'll be able to find them. I think we're like goldfish in a fish bowl, we can't see anything outside the bowl and if we jump out, we die.

*god vs science :
it's nearly impossible to prove that something isn't true. so God always 'wins'

*the thought of living in a determnistic( forgive me the engrish) world frightens me. You could kill someone and say you weren't responsible because it was meant to happen. I have no free will so how could i choose to do something else. We're all the product of time, community, parents, etc, etc. But same ingredients do not necessarilly make the same dish.

EDIT : yarr, didn't read ZalorD s stuff, so plz ignore the repetitive stuff that may be in this post

[Junko]

I'm so lost in this conversation...

Take note, all fo these are just theorys so any of them can be right, right. That being said, none of us can really argue because none of us have been proven right, right...I'm just confusing myself now.

[ZalorD]

The only problem with this is that we don't live in a deterministic universe at all. It doesn't sound strange, it just seems an unnecessary throwback to the 17th century when physical laws were laws and people thought things worked liked clockwork. Then the 20th century came along and we figured out that the universe is a hell of lot weirder than anyone ever expected.
I beg to differ. The actual set of law of the universe is not necessarily the set of law we've conjectured. It all traces back to science as man's tool to understand the universe, and that science in itself is not yet (if ever) complete. What we know is a close (however close) approximation of what's out there, and what we don't know, well, is completely out of our control. The universe has got to be totally deterministic, because one spark of chaos in its fundamental laws would render the entire universe chaotic (a classic experiment in chaos theory: put a camera in front of a monitor which broadcasts the image captured by said camera. For one very brief moment, spark a lighter/candle in between the monitor and the camera. Voila, welcome to the world of chaos).

Also, what colour your dad has in mind renders the selection of pink improbable. This is not the same as impossible. I don't see how any of these factors contrain you (physically or mentally) from walking down to the nearest hardware store, getting pink mixed up for you, and painting it pink. You retain that ability. And if you will it, it could be so. Yes, I realize that I'm introducing a black box into human concsiouness and decision. Then again, I see no evidence that the mind isn't a black box.
Thats why I made a clear distinction between what's (im)probable and what's (im)possible. In a hypothetical scenario, many variables are free variables, thus giving you the possibility that a certain projected outcome could occur. However, in an actual scenario, all free variables are instantiated, and thus only one single outcome is probable. I guess it's the same thing how the brain works to make a decision.
EDIT: One last thing: wouldn't really small particles be considered unbound variables due to the unpredictability of their movement/existence?
Actually I've mentioned this in my second post in this thread. Their exact space-time duality is unpredictable TO US, but not to the universe. With respect to the universe (i.e. to the particle itself) its location at a certain time is definite.

[ZalorD]

*the thought of living in a determnistic( forgive me the engrish) world frightens me. You could kill someone and say you weren't responsible because it was meant to happen. I have no free will so how could i choose to do something else. We're all the product of time, community, parents, etc, etc. But same ingredients do not necessarilly make the same dish.
I actually have thought of this too.
Criminal: I had no choice.
Judge: I understand, son. I also have no choice but to send you to X years in jail.

(Pardon the double posting)

Roark, I couldnt really recall the exact experiment where they projected particles/electrons to a receiving screen and declared the pattern to be completely random (physics isn't my strong point), but I wonder if this randomness is actually due to external, hidden factors that we are not able to account for. Because this is randomness by observation (in other words, empirical randomness) it can only say so much, that is, it allows an open possibility for a truely undeterministic process, but it cannot verify or validate such a process in anyway. Until we can prove otherwise.

I think I had to accept this possibility. So I'll take back what I said about the universe being totally deterministic. I would rather say that I believe it to be deterministic, but nothing more.

[Ninja Realist]

Amusing. I just hope you're not mocking me.

Im not mocking you, you like to see the math explaining things, so I thought showing you an equation would allow you to better evaluate my theory.

[Hunter]

I believe that destiney (or fate) is set thousands of years ago befire you are burn by God. That is, everything you will do is already being written. However, humans still have their free will to choose among different paths and decisions although fate is already being set for them.

It's just that God already knows what you will choose, which is called fate...

[Rqgnqrok]

the thing is if you believe in fate how do you motivate yourself?

*regarding electrons (small particles) movement, i am not sure but i thought it was Shrodinger who told us that the moment you know the place of an electron , you can't tell anything bout it's speed and vice versa so, the movements are erratic, you can only tell something about the chance of finding electrons in a certain area, thus giving birth to the so called "orbitalen" (this is dutch , don't know the english word here)



@ZalorD : when you say the location of this small particle to the universe is definite, what do you mean? Are ou suggesting then that there's some major plan/ guiding entity in this universe? The laws of nature? Also noteworthy is our physics laws stop working when you're travelling at near light speeds or when you're super small... I think physics laws are guidelines, not exact computations.

I think we do live in a chaotic universe, for more extreme examples look at the black holes aforementioned in this topic, matter soo dence it sucks everything in, comets on a kamikaze flight through solar systems, crashing galaxies that rip eachother apart, quasars, supernova's, strange blobs of organic matter destroying their own habitat......

[ZalorD]

Schrodinger, thats a familiar name. Like what you said, we can only talk about the chance of finding a particle in a certain region at a certain time, because the mathematics would imply an infinite (or zero) momentum if we try to pinpoint the exact spatial and temporal location of the particle simultaneously. That's also why we divide the energy level in an atom into different orbits.

I also remarked that this is an emperical observation, so I don't know for sure if the randomness is a natural randomness, or if we're still missing some important links. By definite, I mean, one certain particle, with respect itself, knows its own position at any instant of time. By chaotic, I mean, there is no law driving anything. The macroscopic reference frame might appear chaotic, but I think microscopically everything is driven by strict universal laws.

[Mystic_Spike]

btw, thanx ZalorD for articulating the argument in a way i couldn't (bear in mind i have not researched determinism and first heard of it in this thread), it was interesting seeing a more developed explanation.
and since no1 has come up with a completely logical and coherent argument against us,then......I WIN!
jk :D
nice debate,good hussle.

[lola]

to answer this i would like to reference to the ACDC song title, "Who Made Who". Understandable. we fear death so much that we "make up" ideas of the after life. to fear the unknow is natural. i respect your thoughts and such. this is pretty deep. we have to consider that there is no one waiting for us in the light at the end of the tunnel. so if we made up "God" then freedom is in the same catagorie. a false anilligie that made us (the people) think we had power in this life (fate/destiny). it's all one big goof, someone in history scared the hell out him self about death that he made it all up. but then again this is a religion-lost teenagers point of view. :knd:

[Ninja Realist]

Because ACDC is the expert on Theological philosophy?

[Jagan eye]

Something oughta happen, that's why there's no free will. Jagan will call me an idiot if he reads this.I didn't get any further than this yet, but:

Idiot. :)

Now, back to reading.

[Jagan eye]

Ok.

and since no1 has come up with a completely logical and coherent argument against us,then......I WIN!
jk :D
nice debate,good hussle.No, this is incorrect. In argumentation, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and it is not up to anybody else to refute him.

Oh, I missed the jk there. Well, it's still something the readership could benefit from knowing.

well?wot do you think about my theory?I think it is a mess. Let us try to parse this thing and see what to make of it.

NB: Personality = "everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice'."

1) At time t, the personality of a given person does not change.
Tautology; change is defined in terms of the passage of time, so nothing can ever change with respect to a given moment.
2) Personality determines the choice a given person makes at time t.
This is true by definition, in other words, a tautology. You cannot deduce anything new from it.
3) Personality, as defined above, exists.
In other words, there are factors about ourselves which determine our actions necessarily. You've assumed this, but I'd like a demonstration.

Ok. Here is the logical extension:

4a) At time t, the choice a given person makes does not change.
Well, this further assumes 3.5) There is one unique choice associated with each personality "configuration" at each time.

Why does this conclusion impugn free will? Please state any missing premises that would lead to that deduction. I still see room for an internally consistent notion that humans simply possess volition, as a brute fact, using that and not "personality" as the means to choose among courses of action.

Note that:
4b) Therefore God cannot exist in a world with one future and no choice simply because He would have nothing to do.

is a blatant non sequitur. It is logically possible, as others have noted, for some God to exist, create the universe, and have that universe behave deterministically. Please note that I'm an atheist, and therefore have no axe to grind with such a conclusion.


Zalor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
The "hidden variables" thing isn't a novel debate. I think it's safe to say that science hasn't determined the way the universe works with absolute precision, but this doesn't mean it doesn't actually work based on fundamental randomness/probabilities or something similar.

Also noteworthy is our physics laws stop working when you're travelling at near light speeds or when you're super small... I think physics laws are guidelines, not exact computations. This is false. Classical mechanics breaks down under such conditions, which is simply a demonstration that classical mechanics was an incomplete theory. Einstein's general relativity accounts for behavior at near-light speeds and everything explained by classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics accounts for things at the subatomic level, but there has yet to be a unification with general relativity (physicists are, of course, working on a quantum theory of gravity to solve this problem).

Physics doesn't stop working, our understanding is simply deficient.

P.S. It was Heisenberg, as in, Werner "Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle" Heisenberg, that you're thinking of, not Schrödinger.

[Mystic_Spike]

i was joking when i said "I WIN" , because nobody can 'win' this sort of debate.

you have no 'free will' because you will only ever make one choice. your 'will' is never free because it is limited by personality (everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice').
ok?

and i know beginning with an insult is fun, but let's keep this a polite debate

[lola]

Because ACDC is the expert on Theological philosophy?
All rock singers/bands are. :sly: their songs/lyrics are more intesting. they don't talk about people leaving them and all the shi*. (hurting songs)

true, mistic-spike, that we or our personallity makes our dissions. but then what of the "higher-beings" and all that stuff of fate? are our dissions ours or are we the people of the other dimention? :smash:

[Mystic_Spike]

Because ACDC is the expert on Theological philosophy?
All rock singers/bands are. :sly: their songs/lyrics are more intesting. they don't talk about people leaving them and all the shi*. (hurting songs)

true, mistic-spike, that we or our personallity makes our dissions. but then what of the "higher-beings" and all that stuff of fate? are our dissions ours or are we the people of the other dimention? :smash:


riiiiite *smiles and nods*

[Zirilan]

you have no 'free will' because you will only ever make one choice. your 'will' is never free because it is limited by personality (everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice').
ok?

:rant:
Technically, nothing is free, not literally anyways. Everything is bound by certain aspects and/or laws.

Example: A "free man" (one who isn't in jail) isn't truly "free", he is free with limitations if he wants to stay "free" he has to obey all of the laws of the country he is in. So there is no true freedom.

Point: (everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice')

As has been stated numerous times, there are many conditions that affect a final decision, but there is always a factor of chance involed in decisions.

Like in the example I gave before, if you want two things equally, but can only have/choose one, what makes you take one over the other? Or you're taking a multiple choice test and you have no clue what the answer to one question is. You have four possible answers, one of which is obviously the correct one. Why choose one over the other four when all four seem viable answers?

I keep coming back to examples like these because they don't have defined factors which come to a final decision. Here is a better example. Why for instance, did I choose earlier to check my email, and now to post? I could have done several other things. Such as read, do some studying, play a video game, etc...

The way I see it, there are just too many unknowns and undefinable factors that lead to decisions. Let's take it a step further and ask why I see things the way do I do? Why is my perception opposite to yours?

The answer, the same reason everyone else in the world is unique. Everyone, no matter how similar or different in appearance, region, religion, etc... has the same experiences. They are a major part in who we are. Now this may sound like it's agreeing with you more so than contradicting you, but look at it this way. You can't explain the reasons and/or causes that brought about everything that happens in our lives. Why at one moment when you're crossing a street is it barren as opposed to another time when you don't get a chance to cross it? The uknown is more than just something that has to be determined in algebra. Many times it can't be determined at all, hence it being unknown.

Since you believe in the Big Bang Theory, why do you also believe in a lack of free will? Sure, Newton says that "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction", but what makes something opposite to something else? Very few things are Black and White (absence of colors and presence of them all). That being the case, this argument just like many others, can't have an end. Do we choose to disagree? Or do we just disagree? And if it's the latter, why do we disagree? :rant:

[Jagan eye]

i was joking when i said "I WIN" , because nobody can 'win' this sort of debate.I noticed... after I typed the reply, and acknowledged this fact.

you have no 'free will' because you will only ever make one choice. your 'will' is never free because it is limited by personality (everything that is you and therefore have an effect on your 'choice').
ok? Argumentum ad nauseum.

But please carefully define:
"will only ever make one choice"
(If you mean something other than "At time t, the choice a given person makes does not change", then say so.)

"limited by personality"
(In what way is it meaningful/useful to state, "That which has an effect on our choices, limits our choices"?)

and i know beginning with an insult is fun, but let's keep this a polite debateThe spirit in which it was said wasn't impolite.

riiiiite *smiles and nods*Now there's something on which we can agree.

[ZalorD]

Even if HUP is true in a non-human, objective way, I still do not think that our decision making procedure would involve so much randomness. You have to throw a tennis ball against a wall continuously in a quasi-infinite amount of time in order for it to go through that wall. With such a small probability it's vexing to consider that everytime we make a "choice" we're falling into that region of unknowability. Any thought Jagan?
The way I see it, there are just too many unknowns and undefinable factors that lead to decisions. Let's take it a step further and ask why I see things the way do I do? Why is my perception opposite to yours?

The answer, the same reason everyone else in the world is unique. Everyone, no matter how similar or different in appearance, region, religion, etc... has the same experiences. They are a major part in who we are. Now this may sound like it's agreeing with you more so than contradicting you, but look at it this way. You can't explain the reasons and/or causes that brought about everything that happens in our lives. Why at one moment when you're crossing a street is it barren as opposed to another time when you don't get a chance to cross it? The uknown is more than just something that has to be determined in algebra. Many times it can't be determined at all, hence it being unknown.

Since you believe in the Big Bang Theory, why do you also believe in a lack of free will? Sure, Newton says that "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction", but what makes something opposite to something else? Very few things are Black and White (absence of colors and presence of them all). That being the case, this argument just like many others, can't have an end. Do we choose to disagree? Or do we just disagree? And if it's the latter, why do we disagree?
I think you're describing relativeness, and not randomness. I once thought that differing opinions can be represented as some nonlinear combinations derived from a set of fundamental fact vectors. Turned out it wasn't a novel thought, since neural network researchers have been working with nonlinearity for some time (albeit still a young field). Simply put, I think relativeness is a second-order property of absoluteness.

[Mystic_Spike]

Now that ZalorD has abandoned me,i will have to defend my own argument:(

Zirilan:
Your forgetting something called the sub-conscience. Thus there will be a reason which is part of ure 'personality' but unknown to yourself that you choose A over B,C or D.
because we can never know anyone's 'personality' completely (including our own) then we cannot predict or explain certain choices a person makes.
Why does human ignorance prove my theory to be incorrect?...

Jagan eye:
What i am saying by 'only ever make one choice' is that it is impossible to make two choices at once (two options of the same choice,please dont go and try and say my argument is wrong because my choice of words tends to be messy....lol,choice). and so, because you can only make one choice then...that means it is only possible to make that choice.
and yes that isnt dissimilar from "At time t, the choice a given person makes does not change".

'limited by personality' means exaclty "That which has an effect on our choices, limits our choices" to the extent that it only allows us to make one choice.

i love scrubs(u know funny medical series-just watched it):P

[Rqgnqrok]

@Yagan
didn't mean science fails us there, just that the stuff gets really icky complicated there.....
jop, heisenberg,i knew i should've looked up the name XD. shrodinger's the guy with the "famous"shrodinger-equations and the "wave-model", damn it why don't these guys have simple names like Hans or John, nooo they have to be Markovnikov and what not... :rant: //

RANDOM THOUGHT :
Not sure, who said it and to lazy to look it up, but here's the quote anyway : "people are free to choose what they want but not free to determine what they want" I think this is true to some extent, I think there are variables influencing what choices we have, but still it's Me/You,... picking one of them.

[Zirilan]

Zirilan:
Your forgetting something called the sub-conscience. Thus there will be a reason which is part of ure 'personality' but unknown to yourself that you choose A over B,C or D.
because we can never know anyone's 'personality' completely (including our own) then we cannot predict or explain certain choices a person makes.
Why does human ignorance prove my theory to be incorrect?...


I think a better question is "how does human ignorance prove your theory to be correct?"

The sub-conscience is a complete mystery and there might not be a reason for picking A over B,C, or D. It might just be a random occurence. Since we have no way of knowing, this part of the argument becomes nullified.

I think I just realized how long this argument will truly last.

Till one side gives up.

[Mystic_Spike]

this will end once you go away for a while,think in detail about what i've(or ZalorD) said and then realise that it is the most logical and simple way to explain the universe and the nature of our existance (although rather pessimistic).

i didnt really want to admit this but my argument relies on the assumption that NOTHING is completely random (without cause), that rules are what holds the universe together and what limits it.
yet humans are incapable of producing a single random thought and so if a decision had a chance of exactly 50:50 then there's no way we could possibly make that choice.

[Jagan eye]

Even if HUP is true in a non-human, objective way, I still do not think that our decision making procedure would involve so much randomness. You have to throw a tennis ball against a wall continuously in a quasi-infinite amount of time in order for it to go through that wall. With such a small probability it's vexing to consider that everytime we make a "choice" we're falling into that region of unknowability. Any thought Jagan?Although I don't think any principle of fundamental randomness is predicated upon the HUP per se, that is a point I'd have to chew on. It's not so much that our decisions are that .000...0001%-probable event, it's just that its existence disproves the notion that a certain decision necessarily results from a certain configuration of "personality".

However, I'm thinking more in terms (and keep in mind here that I am just practicing stringent exception handling, not necessarily advocating one claim or another) of some "factor of personality" that is directly controlled by us, and is not just a property. In other words, there might be some part of our mind (or the whole thing, as it were) that is actually free to choose anything it wants and is merely, as Roark said, informed by other considerations while not being controlled by them.

I know of no facts which preclude this possibility. Mystic_Spike's argument seems to assume a priori that this is not so, and I've asked him once before to demonstrate it.

What i am saying by 'only ever make one choice' is that it is impossible to make two choices at once (two options of the same choice,please dont go and try and say my argument is wrong because my choice of words tends to be messy....lol,choice). and so, because you can only make one choice then...that means it is only possible to make that choice.
and yes that isnt dissimilar from "At time t, the choice a given person makes does not change".

'limited by personality' means exaclty "That which has an effect on our choices, limits our choices" to the extent that it only allows us to make one choice.In any argument it's important to be sure exactly what one's opponent means, obviously. I'm just trying to remove ambiguity by asking these things, not to refute your argument based on word choice (that is exactly what I'm trying not to do).

I see that my first post wasn't in error in its analysis of what you meant. Therefore, the same criticisms apply:

The fact that at a given moment no change occurs is trivially true. Change is by definition the difference between two moments, and is meaningless in terms of a single one. How can you base any conclusions off of trivial statements?

I think, on second thought, what you really intended to say has nothing to do with change, even though you consistently explain it in such a way. What you mean is that in all possible worlds, personality P at time t always results in choice C, that this is some sort of function that would always pop out the same results if given the same input.

Then there's the further premise that "That which has an effect on our choices, limits our choices". I suppose I was lax since "have an effect on" is vague, but I'll survive.

Our choices are certainly influenced by our personality, tastes, etc., as well as the events around us. For example, If I like burgers, and if I want to eat and not die, and if I'm hungry, and if there's a burger in front of me, I just may eat it.

Your argument is that we could lengthen the list of "ifs" until it approaches infinity and this would completely account for the choice we make. So even if I end up not eating the burger this would be explained by "hidden variables", which could in this case include e.g. altruism. In essence, if we knew enough then we could actually write out the equation with P and t and predict absolutely anything that a person would do in a hypothetical situation.

But, this is basically an assertion which I see no reason to accept. At the very least, your argument does not establish that it is true, and this is a serious weakness in it.

Since free will is prima facie evident, even if illusory it's a sensible working hypothesis, not in contradiction to any known facts. Until given strong reason to believe otherwise, I think we should operate as if it's real.

[Zirilan]

this will end once you go away for a while,think in detail about what i've(or ZalorD) said and then realise that it is the most logical and simple way to explain the universe and the nature of our existance (although rather pessimistic).

I don't see it as the most logical and I am rather stubborn so I wont be giving up. I might get tired of the argument and stop partisipating, but I highly doubt that my outlook will change much, if at all.

[Mystic_Spike]

I see that my first post wasn't in error in its analysis of what you meant. Therefore, the same criticisms apply:

The fact that at a given moment no change occurs is trivially true. Change is by definition the difference between two moments, and is meaningless in terms of a single one. How can you base any conclusions off of trivial statements?

They are not trivial. Because the fact that one thing happens proves that it was going to happen.

I think, on second thought, what you really intended to say has nothing to do with change, even though you consistently explain it in such a way. What you mean is that in all possible worlds, personality P at time t always results in choice C, that this is some sort of function that would always pop out the same results if given the same input.

Then there's the further premise that "That which has an effect on our choices, limits our choices". I suppose I was lax since "have an effect on" is vague, but I'll survive.

Our choices are certainly influenced by our personality, tastes, etc., as well as the events around us. For example, If I like burgers, and if I want to eat and not die, and if I'm hungry, and if there's a burger in front of me, I just may eat it.

Your argument is that we could lengthen the list of "ifs" until it approaches infinity and this would completely account for the choice we make. So even if I end up not eating the burger this would be explained by "hidden variables", which could in this case include e.g. altruism. In essence, if we knew enough then we could actually write out the equation with P and t and predict absolutely anything that a person would do in a hypothetical situation.

But, this is basically an assertion which I see no reason to accept. At the very least, your argument does not establish that it is true, and this is a serious weakness in it.

Since free will is prima facie evident, even if illusory it's a sensible working hypothesis, not in contradiction to any known facts. Until given strong reason to believe otherwise, I think we should operate as if it's real.

yep, all that is true, but you haven't given me a reason why you "see no reason to accept". can i have a reason why you shouldn't accept this?
so do you believe free will as an illusion then? because that's exactly what ive been trying to say.


I don't see it as the most logical and I am rather stubborn so I wont be giving up. I might get tired of the argument and stop partisipating, but I highly doubt that my outlook will change much, if at all.

stubborn?... or close-minded on this particular topic? (i know im being a hypocrit [sp?])

[Jagan eye]

They are not trivial. Because the fact that one thing happens proves that it was going to happen.I mean trivial in the sense of tautologous. "X happened, therefore in the past X was going to happen" is trivially true, or a truism, or a tautology. I could say "X is happening, therefore in the future X will have happened". This is like arguing off of "A->~~A" or some such. Sure, it is a fact, but it doesn't tell us anything.

Putting aside semantics, your enthymeme consists of the proposition that "because X happened, X necessarily had to happen." Again, support this bald assertion.

yep, all that is true, but you haven't given me a reason why you "see no reason to accept". can i have a reason why you shouldn't accept this?I don't need a reason not to accept one of your premises. You need to corroborate it. That is your job. If it were self-evident or obvious then I'd need to justify skepticism. In other words, my reason for not accepting it is because I see no evidence that it is the case.

so do you believe free will as an illusion then? because that's exactly what ive been trying to say.No--I meant that it's conceivable for it to be an illusion. If I meant it like you interpreted I would have said "...even though illusory...". It might be; that possibility is logically coherent. But so is the opposite. When faced with any dilemma where each side is possible, we need to act on the assumption that one or the other is true, and then reject it if the evidence warrants such a course of action.

My personal criterion is, simply put, to go initially with whichever one is more obvious (That is, whichever one seems more likely to have produced the data available, even if the other could have done so); then, if some discovery calls it into question, I may change my position, depending on how damning the objection is. This is why I think there's an external world, for instance. It makes perfect sense of the consistency of our perceptions to assume there is one, and there's no problem I can see that refutes the notion. All this despite the fact that maybe Descartes' demon is just fooling with me 24/7.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I feel that the explanatory hypothesis that we actually have free will accounts well for the evidence of our sensation of "free will". I also feel that this explanatory hypothesis is not contradicted by any known discomfirming evidence. Maybe it is; maybe everything that happens happens necessarily; prove it if you think so. That's what your argument is supposed to do. I think I've asked you to support it in every post thus far. If you have no intention of doing so, I'll just have to give up asking for it.

By the way, was the main purpose of this thread to dispel the notion of free will or the notion that God exists? The latter seems to have been an afterthought, in retrospect.

[Smitty]

Since I am an individual person with my own thoughts, ideas, personality, and choices I will use the free will that God gave me to not get involved in this argument :) (Just as I chose to highlight words that set myself as a walking example of free will and choice in order to contradict your theory.)

[Roark]

They are not trivial. Because the fact that one thing happens proves that it was going to happen.I mean trivial in the sense of tautologous. "X happened, therefore in the past X was going to happen" is trivially true, or a truism, or a tautology. I could say "X is happening, therefore in the future X will have happened". This is like arguing off of "A->~~A" or some such. Sure, it is a fact, but it doesn't tell us anything.

Putting aside semantics, your enthymeme consists of the proposition that "because X happened, X necessarily had to happen." Again, support this bald assertion.


This is a KEY point that you're missing mystic, one that I was making myself and you just completely ignored. If something had to happen necessarily, then there is no possiblity for it NOT to have happened in any conceivable universe. This is what you need for determinism, and you have not produced any reason why we should believe THIS argument. This is where all the stuff about changing personality, randomness, &c. comes into play. My personality, according to your view, is completely and utterly contingent. I can imagine a universe where I have blond hair, where I enjoy beer and NASCAR, where I didn't grow up in Bay View, WI, &c. None of these are logically impossible. Thus, if we accept your premise that all our actions are a function of personality (which I still don't), and our personality is variable (which it most definately is), then our actions are variable. Unless you can show that all our actions happen from necessity, i.e. had to happen in all possible universes, then I can't accept your argument at all.

Jagan, I don't quite accept that what Spike is saying is tautologous. And your two examples aren't equivalent. Saying "X is happening, therefore in the future X will have happened" is a mere change in tense. Saying "X happened, therefore in the past X was going to happen" is a speculative claim, one that isn't epistemically justifiable. I can't assign a truth value to future contingents, and neither can you. In fact, I don't think future contingents have a truth value until they reach the cusp of occurring. The statement "tomorrow Roark will drink mt. dew" has no truth value, because there no referrent exists to lend truth or falsehood to the statement. "Roark" refers to me, "Mt. Dew" refers to a beverage, but "tomorrow" and "drink" refer to actions that have not yet occurred. Thus, they have no refferent for them, and without reference you can't have truth.

[Jagan eye]

Jagan, I don't quite accept that what Spike is saying is tautologous. And your two examples aren't equivalent. Saying "X is happening, therefore in the future X will have happened" is a mere change in tense. Saying "X happened, therefore in the past X was going to happen" is a speculative claim, one that isn't epistemically justifiable.I'm looking at it in hindsight, not trying to predict the future. If you can see what I mean. Since X, in fact, happened, there was a point in time before which it hadn't happened but it was going to, eventually. Again, I'm viewing it from the vantage point of the future. The way I'm thinking may have been phrased unclearly, and may still be, but it's just a change in tense. None of this alters the fact that back at the time before X had occurred, its occurrance was not definite and certainly not known.

If you think of it this way it's a tautology. Maybe that's not how he intended it (actually, I acknowledged that in the blurb you quoted...) You see, when I read his arguments I try to interpret them in such a way that I can salvage all of his premises. The only way to make his statements true/supportable is to interpret them in such a way that they are vacuous, like the above. From there I point out the disparity between this rendering and that which would be required to support his ultimate conclusion. In this case, that alternate rendering would be that "If X happened, X necessarily had to happen".

I get the impression that there's some (presumably unintentional) equivocation going on, where he's not properly differentiating between the two interpretations. Then by stating the former as some obvious fact, the latter sneaks in on its coattails. I'm just pointing out the illegitimacy of this tactic.

I can't assign a truth value to future contingents, and neither can you. In fact, I don't think future contingents have a truth value until they reach the cusp of occurring. The statement "tomorrow Roark will drink mt. dew" has no truth value, because there no referrent exists to lend truth or falsehood to the statement. "Roark" refers to me, "Mt. Dew" refers to a beverage, but "tomorrow" and "drink" refer to actions that have not yet occurred. Thus, they have no refferent for them, and without reference you can't have truth. Nothin' I said goes against this. However, I wonder: is the sentence "In 24 hours it will be tomorrow" true or does it have no truth value?

[Roark]

I'm looking at it in hindsight, not trying to predict the future. If you can see what I mean. Since X, in fact, happened, there was a point in time before which it hadn't happened but it was going to, eventually. Again, I'm viewing it from the vantage point of the future. The way I'm thinking may have been phrased unclearly, and may still be, but it's just a change in tense. None of this alters the fact that back at the time before X had occurred, its occurrance was not definite and certainly not known.

It was definately unclear in the case of "X happened, therefore in the past X was going to happen". This seems more than a tense change to me because of the "was going to happen" part. You start out with a fact "X happened", then try to assert that in the past event X was going to happen. This seems a really strong link to me. The wording suggests event X happening necessarily, which neither you nor I want.


*snip, Jagan explains his process*


I understand this, but I think you're right in saying there's equivocation going on. It's just hard to follow the true thread of the argument.

Nothin' I said goes against this. However, I wonder: is the sentence "In 24 hours it will be tomorrow" true or does it have no truth value?

That I'd grant as a true statement, since it's true a priori. By definition, 24 hours from now is tomorrow.

[Shahar]

I know that I might be new here, but while I don't agree with your arguement, I do beleive in the sentiment that the arguement was stated. My conundrum is merely this. How can prayer affect anything, while free will exists? I.E.
I am out of money, and I really want to buy a slinky dress at Hot Topic. I pray for it, and there is the possibility of someone giving me money to buy it. Just out of the blue. Now, they are out the (The dress costs $68, I bought it yesterday) $68 dollars, and why. Did God MAKE them give it to me? This isn't coming out right, but I hope that someone understands me.

[Mana]

We have a new God thread RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM. There is no need to ressurect an old one.

http://www.animeacademy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23562