Free Will

[SSH]

That was established a long time ago on #ags

[ManicMatt]

You have no sense of humor.

That's wrong! He has a sense of humour, it's just rubbish.. (kidding)

[jetxl]

Gods are the creation of people's imagination. Some dutch docter said it, and it makes sense to me. No other animal that I know of worships gods, and create connections between imagination and reality (mitteneers will know he peels wrong side).

So whats so different about humans and animals. Human can imagine a problem and think up several solutions in their head without trying it out first, or even before that problem occurs. For me this proves that there is free will since we choose a solution that we like most, and not choose the first one that pops up.
I guess Helm would say that this means that there is NO free will since "like" is an subconscious emotion created by the cogs in the brain.

Good Omens was meh. It fell back on clechés over and over.

[SSH]

Helm's argument is based on the assumption that the world is deterministic and that determinism is incompatible with free will. I'd like to see him justify these assumptions, especially in the face of quantum indeterminacy and chaos theory, not to mention the whole basic assumption that there is no metaphysical influence on the material world.

[Mad-Hatter]

God's going to condemn me if I'm wrong, BUT.........



'Miracles'. I don't believe in those either.

I know this goes against what a lot of people (including myself) were taught, and I mean no offense to anyone, but I don't believe that there is any Divine Intervention.


If God is omnipotent, and knows and sees everything, then why would He wait until the last second to stop something bad from happening? Is He a procrastinator?


Perhaps He may prepare certain things (all working within His set of rules, with the 'Faith, not proof' philosophy) for that situation, but I don't think He actually intervenes.

[Helm]

@SSH

To attribute freewill to the quantum dice roll is even more depressing than to support the notion of a strict determinist world for most people. Even in this configuration that you seem to suggest trumps determinism, through the various 'random' universes and appropriate rule-sets governing them, the one we're in, operates on the level on which we experience it, under said set of it's own rules. Whether this set of rules initially is dependent on dice-rolls, or in fact whether the reliability of these rules at any future notice is uncertain, doesn't interest me as much as the certainty that right now, up to here, it has been and continues to be dependent. Do you understand? Chaos Theory doesn't mean Chaos period. A completely unfathomable (to humans) ruleset doesn't make the end result of the process any less deterministic.

Metaphysical/Material dualism is a concept I am not inclined to take seriously. The machines are the machines and everything interfaces with everything else in ever-complex connections that are beyond us fully. The mystical bent to these processes is not mandatory to agree that they [the processes] exist. Even if after death, some sort of spectral form, remnants of memories from the human electric system for example, lingers for a time, this isn't more metaphysical than as much as the one interpreting chooses it to be.

Gods (/spirits/whatever) are a demand. They are not necessary.

Finally, because you're being silly: my assumptions are inherently justified as such; they are not testable hypotheses and need no scientific backing to operate as they were intended: as grounds for conversation. Please carry on with the bad humor.

[veryweirdguy]

Anyone read Good Omens?

I have, but it was a long time ago and I can't remember it well thus cannot see what you're getting at. Care to elaborate?

[LGM]

I seem to agree with Alynn here. Though I still go to church, there is alot of hypocrisy.

Anyway, I believe we have free will. God and Satan can be influences, I guess, but the way Mad-Hatter described the group, they are boiling life down to yes or no, bad or good, and that is just silly.

I believe God has a plan for us.. In that we are born and we die. All that stuff in-between is up to us and the actions of people around us... Except for still-borns and stuff. I still don't quite understand that.

[SSH]

Helm, how do you tell the difference between an unfathomable ruleset and one where there are no rules? You're assuming that everything that can happen has a rule. That is true metaphysics: that there exists things that are not controlled by some set of rules, but by a will, be it human, divine or something else.

[LimpingFish]

God versus Satan is a no brainer. If Satan is the product of God, as an angel kicked out of heaven, then as such all that Satan creates is also of God, and therefore no real threat to God's domain.

Makes no difference to me. I follow the Church of the Straight Banana, found in a bunch of regular curved bananas, and obviously an outside source of divinity.

The holy banana knows all.

[Helm]

First of all, try to coherently explain what you're trying to say to me, as

between an unfathomable ruleset and one where there are no rules

This seems to differentiate between a ruleset that is unfath... let's say near-impossible to comprehent by human intellect, and a ruleset, which contains... no rules. Surely you don't mean that, do you? I'll take that as if you ment how do I differentiate between a near impossibly complicated ruleset, and the complete absense of a ruleset, to which I reply: The presence of a ruleset is a hypothesis based on epyrical founding. On the very barest of levels: not by saying why things happen, but by observing that they indeed do. The premise of causality is of course a theory, but a very safe and axiomatic one. Our understanding of the ruleset might be flawed, and we might endlessly try to better it, and it can be argued it will never completely cover the workings of what the ruleset governs (this is known as the process of scientific progress) but there is little epistemological discrepency in saying there is one. It is a direct byproduct of "things happen". The other option, is complete and total solipsism, and that's no fun, is it?

You're assuming that everything that can happen has a rule. That is true metaphysics: that there exists things that are not controlled by some set of rules, but by a will, be it human, divine or something else.

Please seperate what I said, and what you're saying from the above quote as it is not clear to me. You did not clearly state how there exists something not controlled by rules, but by will. I didn't say that. You didn't say that. Why is it being said?

[SSH]

OK, I can see I was unclear.

Let's start from scratch...

Obviously there are some physical phenomena for which there are rules. There are some physical phenomena for which there are rules that mankind has not yet discovered. Beyond that there may be physical phenomena for which we will never begin to understand the rules for. And one step beyond that, there may be physical phenomena for which there are no rules, or at least none other than something like "they are not predictable or mesaurable, etc." The boundary between these areas is of course hazy, but I'm suggesting that our universe, or multiverse, or whatever it is may be affected by this.

So who can say that the last area does not exist, when we have no real undertsanding of the areas between t and where we are now?

[Radiant]

Anyone read Good Omens?

I have, but it was a long time ago and I can't remember it well thus cannot see what you're getting at. Care to elaborate?

Despite being a humoristic and tongue-in-cheek book, it has some wise words about free will and the idea that the whole point of Creation must be that humans can make their choice between good and evil.

The holy banana knows all.

If you're going to worship food... FSM rules!



...In Bill Watterson's words (paraphrased from memory)...

Calvin: I've decided to believe in predestination. Everything we do is foreordained, and therefore nothing I do wrong is really my fault.

(Hobbes trips Calvin, who falls in the mud)

Hobbes: Too bad you were fated to do that.
Calvin: THAT WASN'T FATE!!!



I mean no disrespect to the topic in using humor to discuss it. Rather, this kind of humor holds a mirror to reality, and potentially holds a mirror to the poor souls that Just Don't Get It. Even if, when the blind lead the blind, they will find it hard to spot a mirror. Ramen.

[Vince Twelve]

@SSH:  Of course, there are objects or processes in the universe that follow rules which we will never understand.  But suggesting that there are things that don't follow any rules, whose activities over time are not governed by some sort of laws seems counter intuitive to me.  However, there is no way to disprove that such things exist.

But, for us to have free will, and to actually have the ability to act independently of the chemical and electrical processes (which are strictly governed by rules) in our brains and bodies,lI contend that we would have to have some sort of process in our bodies that was not governed by laws. 

We've studied the human body and the brain quite thoroughly and of course there's a lot of things we don't understand.  But I don't think we've found anything about which it would be appropriate to assume that it doesn't follow any rules.

I believe that if everything in our bodies follow a strict set of rules, then our body is reacting to stimuli in a calculated and mechanical manner... without free will.

In other words, I'm with Helm on this one.

[Dr. Scary]

As I see it there are three possible answers to this question; yes, no and both.

Let's start with Both:
In this case the universe has an infinite number of parallel universes where every possible permutation of every option causes another universe to be born.
In other words: Anything can happen in all the universes together, but not in just one of them.
How to prove this model:
Maybe one would be able to detect one or more of the other universes, but it's a 50/50 chance that you live in one of the universes where the attempt to do so would result in failure.

Then there's Yes:
The mind can affect matter, and humans have control over their own actions. Maybe it happens within the known world, or maybe thought is a separate dimension yet undiscovered. Who knows, right?
How to prove this model:
If the rules guiding the motion of the particles is correct unless a mind interferes with them you can prove free will with using math to calculate the future and when the future is present point out that it is different than predicted. The calculation of the future would of course, since everything influences everything else, require a computer built out of the entire universe and thusly would have no point. One could even say that the universe right now IS a computer calculating it's own future. MOAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Lastly; No
Let's face it. This is by far the most boring option. *yawn* Proving it's validity causes you to run into a lot of the same problems as when attempting to prove Yes. (The all encompassing computer trying to predict the future, etc) *yawn*

Closing thoughts
This is a question that can only be answered when you know the true nature of the universe. But then again, how can you know you know? Even if what you know explains everything you observe, how can you know that's not just the way you percieve it? In other words: If you sit in a room with no door or windows, does that mean that there is no room next to it?
Maybe one should rather ask if the universe is made for us to comprehend?

[m0ds]

This is a great topic because I can be lary in it!

Let religious people be religious, let them beleive and follow what they want. They aint bad people. I know a lot and I still respect them, despite what they beleive. Afterall, its more normal than what I beleive.

AND **** MY F**KING **** COS THIS IS FREE F**KING WILL!!!!!

Sorry I couldn't produce an academic answer.

THATS FREE WILL!!

ps stop looking at gods and focus on godesses! ffs!

[Vince Twelve]

Dr. Scary, the "problem" you brought up about the universe being a computer computing its own future is, in a way, an argument against free will.  So... yeah...

[2ma2]

The inconsistencies of religion starts whenever someone fail to comprehend the symbolic values of said mythos and read it letter by letter as truths. Religion is our pre-Freudian psychology - ways to understand ourselfs and eachother. It helps us through individual crisis and lets us fathom the ways of our mind. As said example of grief, where our mind struggles and beats said crisis with help from "the holy ghost". Now, the holy spectre is not an actual entity but rather a part of our own (commune?) psyche. All scriptures works as symbolic tales that speaks about plain philosophy - how to live our daily lives as swell as possible. It is not what you believe in, it is that you believe that matters.

Sadly, I am an agnostic and believe in nothing.

[Dr. Scary]

Dr. Scary, the "problem" you brought up about the universe being a computer computing its own future is, in a way, an argument against free will.  So... yeah...

You are correct, it is. It was in no way connected to the argument FOR free will, it was just a funny thought I decided to share with people in context.

On a side note: It is a nonsensical discussion. One can't HOPE to find an answer to the question of free will, so this entire thread is just a practice ground for the noble arts of polemics and semantics. But what else is new...

[Helm]

If you're looking for startling new discoveries in an internet discussion about free will, well...