Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Free Will?

Religion and Philosophy
Forum rules
we are introducing this on a trial basis and that respect for other's views is important e.g. phrases like "your imaginary friend" or "you will go to hell" are not appropriate
Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#409342

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 4th, 2021, 6:38 pm

CliffEdge wrote:The universe is not a big place with things in it. The universe is a bit heterogeneous thing.



You can still say that an arbitrary unit of volume has things happening within it. A cubic parsec centred on the sun has the sun in it. If you define the universe as a volume of space-time then you can say that there are things in that volume.

We're back to definitions.

BoE

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Free Will?

#409399

Postby CliffEdge » May 4th, 2021, 8:59 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:
CliffEdge wrote:The universe is not a big place with things in it. The universe is a bit heterogeneous thing.



You can still say that an arbitrary unit of volume has things happening within it. A cubic parsec centred on the sun has the sun in it. If you define the universe as a volume of space-time then you can say that there are things in that volume.

We're back to definitions.

BoE


Sadly I have failed to make my point. Not that it matters. :D

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#409458

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 5th, 2021, 7:58 am

CliffEdge wrote:
Sadly I have failed to make my point. Not that it matters. :D


When trying to communicate something to other people a good tip is to imagine you are attempting to teach a 5 year old. It's too easy otherwise to assume that the person you are talking to either already has the same knowledge or understanding that you have or is able to make the same logical jumps that you have made. You may think that what you are saying is clever or profound but to others it could just come across as unintelligible or ambiguous.

So when you say;

'The universe is not a big place with things in it. The universe is a bit (big?) heterogeneous thing.'

This is open to many interpretations and looks like it has several logical (?) steps omitted. Imagine now you have that 5 year old in front of you and wanted to get your point across. How would you do it?

BoE

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Free Will?

#409480

Postby scrumpyjack » May 5th, 2021, 9:14 am

I think there is considerable confusion as to whether 'the Universe' means our observable universe, 13 billion or so years old, or whether the word includes the possibility of other universes beyond our observable one.

Many definitions define the word as meaning all of space and time, then go on to describe our observable universe as if that is the same thing, then mention the possibility of other universes including parallel universes etc. Contradictory!

So again we drift back to an argument about the meaning of words. If by universe you mean our observable universe, then it is reasonable to talk about objects being 'in' it, as there might well be an infinite number of other universes outside ours which we cannot yet observe. Though we might see their effect as their gravity might account for the expansion of our universe speeding up?

Now did I exercise free will writing that, or was it all inevitable

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#410106

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 7th, 2021, 4:54 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:Now did I exercise free will writing that, or was it all inevitable


Having thought about this 'free will' thing a bit more I'm reminded of something a philosopher (Popper?) wrote regarding the value of theories. Basically a theory is only of value (adds to our understanding of the universe) if it is testable. Defining free will as the ability to act without any inputs at all is not testable as there are always inputs. So if that is the definition, and we approach this idea of free will in the same way as a theory, then it's of no value, i.e. doesn't help with our understanding of anything.

BoE

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#410114

Postby jfgw » May 7th, 2021, 5:25 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:Defining free will as the ability to act without any inputs at all is not testable as there are always inputs. So if that is the definition, and we approach this idea of free will in the same way as a theory, then it's of no value, i.e. doesn't help with our understanding of anything.

That would not be the definition that I would use unless my purpose was to dishonestly argue that the idea of free will was of no value.


Julian F. G. W.

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#410155

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 7th, 2021, 9:11 pm

jfgw wrote:That would not be the definition that I would use unless my purpose was to dishonestly argue that the idea of free will was of no value.


Julian F. G. W.


What definition would you use?

BoE

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Free Will?

#410167

Postby vrdiver » May 7th, 2021, 10:14 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:
jfgw wrote:That would not be the definition that I would use unless my purpose was to dishonestly argue that the idea of free will was of no value.


Julian F. G. W.


What definition would you use?

BoE

I can't speak for Julian, but the Merriam-Webster definition* seems appropriate to me in the context of this discussion:
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

VRD

*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#410195

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 8th, 2021, 7:21 am

vrdiver wrote:I can't speak for Julian, but the Merriam-Webster definition* seems appropriate to me in the context of this discussion:
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

VRD

*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill


What constitutes a 'prior cause'? Are we back to any input or something else?

BoE

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#410268

Postby jfgw » May 8th, 2021, 1:48 pm

vrdiver wrote:I can't speak for Julian, but the Merriam-Webster definition* seems appropriate to me in the context of this discussion:
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

VRD

*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill

That definition seems reasonable but I wouldn't limit it to humans. It could be clarified by saying "freedom of humans (or other sentient beings) to make choices that are not entirely determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".

I used an example of a polarising filter earlier to argue against determinism. This example may be expanded to illustrate different degrees of determinism. The probability that a vertically polarised photon will pass through a polarising filter is dependant upon the angle of the filter; for example, if the filter is oriented at 15°, there is a 93.3% probability that the photon will pass through. The outcome is partly deterministic and partly (as far as we know) random. Free will may, similarly, be an input to a partly deterministic outcome.

Bubblesofearth wrote:What constitutes a 'prior cause'? Are we back to any input or something else?


"Any input" could include free will. I would consider "prior cause" to be sufficiently self-explanatory, although it would include prior experience so is not ideal in this context.

It is very difficult to write accurate definitions; dictionary compilers have a difficult job.


Julian F. G. W.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Free Will?

#410291

Postby ursaminortaur » May 8th, 2021, 3:28 pm

jfgw wrote:
vrdiver wrote:I can't speak for Julian, but the Merriam-Webster definition* seems appropriate to me in the context of this discussion:
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

VRD

*https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill

That definition seems reasonable but I wouldn't limit it to humans. It could be clarified by saying "freedom of humans (or other sentient beings) to make choices that are not entirely determined by prior causes or by divine intervention".

I used an example of a polarising filter earlier to argue against determinism. This example may be expanded to illustrate different degrees of determinism. The probability that a vertically polarised photon will pass through a polarising filter is dependant upon the angle of the filter; for example, if the filter is oriented at 15°, there is a 93.3% probability that the photon will pass through. The outcome is partly deterministic and partly (as far as we know) random. Free will may, similarly, be an input to a partly deterministic outcome.

Bubblesofearth wrote:What constitutes a 'prior cause'? Are we back to any input or something else?


"Any input" could include free will. I would consider "prior cause" to be sufficiently self-explanatory, although it would include prior experience so is not ideal in this context.

It is very difficult to write accurate definitions; dictionary compilers have a difficult job.


Julian F. G. W.


How is a choice which is fully deterministic, fully random or some mixture in any way you making a free willed choice ?

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#410352

Postby jfgw » May 8th, 2021, 7:53 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:How is a choice which is fully deterministic, fully random or some mixture in any way you making a free willed choice ?


It isn't, and I never claimed that it was. I am guessing that you are referring to the polarising filter analogy. Maybe I could have worded the last sentence of that paragraph more clearly. My intended meaning was,

"In a similar way that an outcome may be partly deterministic and partly (as far as we know) random (as is the case with the polarising filter example), it is also possible for an outcome to be partly deterministic and partly free choice."


Julian F. G. W.

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#410383

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 8th, 2021, 9:24 pm

jfgw wrote:

"Any input" could include free will. I would consider "prior cause" to be sufficiently self-explanatory, although it would include prior experience so is not ideal in this context.

It is very difficult to write accurate definitions; dictionary compilers have a difficult job.


Julian F. G. W.


I would submit that the term 'prior cause' is about as far away from self-explanatory as it is possible to get. Caused by what? Another person? Force? Reason? Any input, even random? A dizzying number of possibilities! As for 'any input could include free will' does that imply free will could cause free will? What does that even mean?

What is needed before discussion of a concept such as free will is an agreed definition. It doesn't matter whether this is a dictionary definition or not, what matters is that there is consensus before the debate. Indeed, if a clear definition is agreed upon at the outset then there is likely to be a lot less debate. Although not perhaps the length of the debate about the definition! Once agreed upon, the definition itself will most likely settle many arguments that could otherwise arise.

It always surprises me how many threads on this and other boards would be a lot shorter if everyone started from the same understanding of what was being discussed rather than assuming that others shared their own particular interpretation. Discussions about religion are especially prone to this as everyone has their own idea about what constitutes god.

BoE

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#410385

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 8th, 2021, 9:28 pm

jfgw wrote:
"In a similar way that an outcome may be partly deterministic and partly (as far as we know) random (as is the case with the polarising filter example), it is also possible for an outcome to be partly deterministic and partly free choice."


Julian F. G. W.


So, given the deterministic parts equate does this mean you are saying that random inputs are equivalent to free choice? I'm kind of reminded of the Diceman here. Or do you mean something else?

BoE

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Free Will?

#410405

Postby vrdiver » May 8th, 2021, 10:25 pm

jfgw wrote:"In a similar way that an outcome may be partly deterministic and partly (as far as we know) random (as is the case with the polarising filter example), it is also possible for an outcome to be partly deterministic and partly free choice."

(my emphasis)

As observers, I agree with you that the photon's behaviour, at an individual level, appears "random" to us, but I would argue that the conditions acting on that photon mean that its trajectory was, had we but had the relevant data, predetermined and knowable. By relevant data, I imply that we are missing information about that photon; if we had it (all of it) then the outcome would be determinable. The photon is an inanimate object and has no "free will", only being acted on by fields and forces (e.g. gravitational distortion of space-time etc.).

Being unable to calculate the outcome of a single photon's trajectory (let alone the combined and interacting trajectories of the combined matter and energies of the universe!) is not the same as that trajectory being random or indeterminate. As I've posted upthread, if the universe were to somehow be restarted from exactly the same point, in exactly the same state, with no differences between the first and second "runs", then the photon in question would behave the same way (and I would be typing this again).

I can see no requirement for "free will", nor any mechanism to host it. All actions, interactions and outcomes are a consequence of their inputs with nothing else involved. Free will, in this instance, is akin to the argument that the "spirit" or soul exists, yet there is no physical evidence for it. Ultimately it becomes a matter of faith, with science silent on the matter, having no evidence of its existence.

VRD

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Free Will?

#410433

Postby ursaminortaur » May 9th, 2021, 1:15 am

vrdiver wrote:
jfgw wrote:"In a similar way that an outcome may be partly deterministic and partly (as far as we know) random (as is the case with the polarising filter example), it is also possible for an outcome to be partly deterministic and partly free choice."

(my emphasis)

As observers, I agree with you that the photon's behaviour, at an individual level, appears "random" to us, but I would argue that the conditions acting on that photon mean that its trajectory was, had we but had the relevant data, predetermined and knowable. By relevant data, I imply that we are missing information about that photon; if we had it (all of it) then the outcome would be determinable. The photon is an inanimate object and has no "free will", only being acted on by fields and forces (e.g. gravitational distortion of space-time etc.).


The idea that the photon has hidden variables which would hold its exact position and momentum has been pretty comprehensively destroyed by the many tests of the Bell inequality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test

In 1935, Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen published a claim that quantum mechanics predicts that more information about a pair of entangled particles could be observed than Heisenberg's principle allowed, which would only be possible if information were travelling instantly between the two particles. This produces a paradox which came to be known as the "EPR paradox" after the three authors. It arises if any effect felt in one location is not the result of a cause that occurred in its past, relative to its location. This action at a distance would violate the theory of relativity, by allowing information between the two locations to travel faster than the speed of light.

Based on this, the authors concluded that the quantum wave function does not provide a complete description of reality. They suggested that there must be some local hidden variables at work in order to account for the behavior of entangled particles. In a theory of hidden variables, as Einstein envisaged it, the randomness and indeterminacy seen in the behavior of quantum particles would only be apparent. For example, if one knew the details of all the hidden variables associated with a particle, then one could predict both its position and momentum. The uncertainty that had been quantified by Heisenberg's principle would simply be an artifact of not having complete information about the hidden variables. Furthermore, Einstein argued that the hidden variables should obey the condition of locality: Whatever the hidden variables actually are, the behavior of the hidden variables for one particle should not be able to instantly affect the behavior of those for another particle far away. This idea, called the principle of locality, is rooted in intuition from classical physics that physical interactions do not propagate instantly across space. These ideas were the subject of ongoing debate between their proponents. (In particular, Einstein himself did not approve of the way Podolsky had stated the problem in the famous EPR paper.[3][4])

In 1964, John Stewart Bell proposed his now famous theorem, which states that no physical theory of hidden local variables can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. Implicit in the theorem is the proposition that the determinism of classical physics is fundamentally incapable of describing quantum mechanics. Bell expanded on the theorem to provide what would become the conceptual foundation of the Bell test experiments.

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#410588

Postby jfgw » May 9th, 2021, 5:49 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:I would submit that the term 'prior cause' is about as far away from self-explanatory as it is possible to get. Caused by what? Another person? Force? Reason? Any input, even random?


A cause would be anything that influenced the decision. A prior cause would be a cause that existed before the decision was made (otherwise it wouldn't be "prior"). Maybe "deterministic factor" would be a better term.

A random event may be a cause but it would not be a prior cause, so the Merriam-Webster definition is not perfect. Maybe it should be, "freedom of humans (or other sentient beings) to make choices that are not entirely determined by prior causes, random events or by divine intervention".

Bubblesofearth wrote:So, given the deterministic parts equate does this mean you are saying that random inputs are equivalent to free choice? I'm kind of reminded of the Diceman here. Or do you mean something else?


I used the polariser example to demonstrate that things can have both deterministic and non-deterministic factors, that is all; I did not intend to imply that true randomness and free choice are the same thing. I thought that there was a risk that, if I simply suggested that decisions could be partly deterministic and partly free will without providing some sort of explanation or analogy, it would be met with resistance. If you find the analogy confusing, please ignore it.

vrdiver wrote:I can see no requirement for "free will", nor any mechanism to host it.


I can see no point to our lives if free will does not exist.


I can see no mechanism to host quarks and leptons (or the bits of string or whatever they are made of). I see no requirement for them either (Why is the physical world here? and how did it get here?);

I can see no mechanism to host consciousness.

I do, however, believe that these exist.

ursaminortaur wrote:The idea that the photon has hidden variables which would hold its exact position and momentum has been pretty comprehensively destroyed by the many tests of the Bell inequality.


Where's the rec button?


Julian F. G. W.

Bubblesofearth
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1080
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:32 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 432 times

Re: Free Will?

#410679

Postby Bubblesofearth » May 10th, 2021, 8:40 am

jfgw wrote:
A cause would be anything that influenced the decision. A prior cause would be a cause that existed before the decision was made (otherwise it wouldn't be "prior"). Maybe "deterministic factor" would be a better term.

A random event may be a cause but it would not be a prior cause, so the Merriam-Webster definition is not perfect. Maybe it should be, "freedom of humans (or other sentient beings) to make choices that are not entirely determined by prior causes, random events or by divine intervention".


OK, but are we not back to defining something that is impossible and therefore meaningless? If free will is being defined in that way then maybe it is the definition that needs to be changed rather than assuming we cannot possess it (free will).

This all smacks of religion to me. The belief in the existence of something that there is no evidence for, cannot be tested and without which there is apparently no point.


BoE

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Free Will?

#410737

Postby XFool » May 10th, 2021, 11:42 am

I can't see how this matter of free will can be separated from consciousness.

One thing that hasn't been defined is the meaning of "we". Who/What exactly is the "we" that has, or has not got free will?

What if our physical brains (for the sake of simplicity) had free will, but "we", our conscious selves, are simply passengers going along for the ride? That is, our brains make the decisions, while "we" - our conscious selves - falsely believe "we" are in charge, making the decisions.

Would this change anything? Possibly not...

jfgw
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2539
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1097 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Free Will?

#410891

Postby jfgw » May 10th, 2021, 9:55 pm

Bubblesofearth wrote:OK, but are we not back to defining something that is impossible and therefore meaningless?


Why do you think that it is impossible? Do you know how consciousness works? Do you know how the physical world works? Unless you know how these work, you cannot know whether or not free will is possible.

Bubblesofearth wrote:This all smacks of religion to me. The belief in the existence of something that there is no evidence for, cannot be tested and without which there is apparently no point.


Do you exist (other than in my imagination)? It seems that you do, but to no greater extent that it seems that I can make conscious, free-will decisions. Your existence cannot be tested (by me); metaphysical solipsism may reflect reality. I will not say that there is apparently no point to your existence any more that I will claim that there is apparently no point to free will. Without knowing why I am here, I cannot judge whether or not there is a point to free will.

If you prove to me that you exist outside of my imagination, I will prove to you that there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

XFool wrote:I can't see how this matter of free will can be separated from consciousness.


I don't think it can. I think that a fair definition of free will is "the ability to make a conscious, non-deterministic decision".

XFool wrote:One thing that hasn't been defined is the meaning of "we". Who/What exactly is the "we" that has, or has not got free will?


Lemons? Humans in general? While "We" may refer to, say, the human race, such a discussion would not preclude free will in other beings such as cats.


Julian F. G. W.


Return to “The Meaning of Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests