Oversimplification, you have no choice but to read and correct.
Offline Alright.. quick point.. let's see where it goes. I will, for the purpose of this thread, make some strong assertions regarding concepts I may not be completely familiar with-- that is, however, what I'm trying to get at. One satisfactory response is all I need... so, here we go.
Here is the premise on which the discussion lies:
All things are material and all material things follow certain universal laws.
Discussion:
The application of this premise would be best represented by this analogy:
If I was in space and threw a quarter into the midst of a billion different quarters, what would happen? I would guess that one quarter would hit another, energy would be dispersed, those two quarters would hit other quarters, etc, until energy is dispersed to the point that it seems no movement is occuring at all.
My question is this.. is the path by which every quarter takes after my initial throw random? or predetermined?
By predetermined I do not mean that someone determined it.. merely that each quarter, based upon the angle it was hit, the speed at which the thing hit it, hit it, would only ever move that direction?
I would assume it was predetermined. As certain it is that if I let go of a rock from 1 foot it will fall to the ground, all things being equal, so one quarters effect is certain to have a certain effect on another, and by extension, all others.
In other words, the rock, nor the quarters, have what one might consider "free will" or "choice" in the matter.. they do exactly as they should do.. all the time.. and whether or not we perceive it as random or not.. on a very basic level, they are not, if the premise is true.
So.. here is my question.. what makes us different? I perceive I have freewill and choice in the matter.. but if my actions are merely a composite of energy and matter.. what makes it different than the quarter? One might contend that it is a "function" of a particular congregation of energy and matter..
This may, no doubt, be true.. but even this function (or, the perception of consciousness) was predetermined by the initial quarter. And, while we might perceive this "function" to have allowed for free will and choice after-the-fact, wouldn't this be an illusion as well? Since the function of atoms and matter can only act in ONE way with eachother.. the same way that a quarter can only act in ONE way when hit by another.
One may say.. that there are other "functions" (people) acting upon you.. but I would just apply the same logic to them.. no more than quarters bouncing off eachother in preordained fashion in accordance with whatever culmination of events occured before them.
So thus.. when I come to a point where I am given the "choice" whether or not to write this paragraph, I have two choices, yes or no-- but really.. the choice I make.. and all the thoughts that went into that choice.. was no choice at all, merely quarters bouncing off one another.
- Login to post comments
If the future has already happened, then you have no choice but to act in a predetermined way
If the future has not already happened, then you do have choice but these choices are limited
"My question is this.. is the path by which every quarter takes after my initial throw random? or predetermined"
In an perfectly isolated vacuum (which doesn't exist) predetermined, out in open space anything could happen, if a supernova exploded less than 300 light years from Earth, it would rip the atmosphere off this planet, and would undoubtedly play havoc with your quarters
Heh. I'm not saying the future has happened.. but rather asking if it must be predeteremined based upon the premise that everything is material and temporal.
If it must be.. then I have no choice.
The question would still remain.. was not that supernova predetermined to occur at that moment, in that place? Certainly no "free will" or "choice" had an effect on it.. so what else could it be?
Random? As I pointed out before.. can things be random? If you agree that the quarters, in a complete vacuum, would not act randomly because they would act in the exact same way based upon the initial hit... then the supernova is not random.. you just need to think farther back.. and expand the "vacuum" to infinite levels.
The concept of a vacuum is applied to make "all other things equal".. to limit the amount of variables acting on something in order that I may study it. But, whether or not I can study the entire universe at one time, on a purely theoretical level, if all things are material and temporal in this universe.. then all things are equal.
Why then should I believe I have any free will or choice.. the quarters certainly didn't.. the supernova certainly didn't..
Arrr With no future
Then random, ish, you are sentient
Yes.. I know I am sentient.
..but, I am still not satisfied with the answer-- perhaps its my fault in forming the question.
Here..
If sentience is nothing more than a function of material objects acting in temporal space, then what makes my sentience any different than a supernova, which is also merely a function of material objects acting in temporal space.
If we are the same on this very basic level.. then my sentience serves no purpose than to realize that I am acting in very way that I must.
This realization would be the only difference between me and the star that explodes.
I think that there is a pretty definitive distinction that we can draw here.
If you threw a quarter into a group of one billion other quarters in outer space, I would say that there is only one chain of events that could logically proceed - based on and limited to by two factors:
1. Quarters have set physical qualities which they cannot change themselves, and they cannot make up their minds or make choices once set into motion
2. The experiment would be limited by the fact that you would very likely only be able to throw the quarter the same way just once.
Theoretically, it would be possible to say that if you were able to throw the quarter the exact same way more than once (same angle, velocity, everything), and providing that the group of one billion quarters was in the exact same position, that the exact same chain of events would proceed. but in reality, this scenario would be virtually impossible to recreate, making "free will" the only seeming option based upon the limitations mentioned above, as well as linear time.
To draw a comparison between human beings and quarters is interesting, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate. Let me construct a scenario of my own:
Say that God "throws" us as humans into being (motion). We will automatically be limited by several factors out of our control:
1. Our parent's genetics (whether we will have any inherent birth defects)
2. The nature of our birth (whether there were any complications)
3. The environment in which we will be raised (potential health risks in the environment, abuse factors, etc)
4. The socioeconomic conditions in which we will be raised (poverty, race, political upheaval, etc)
And most definitely some which I am missing, and of course assuming that a large amount of sub categories will emerge from these basic ones (such as "opportunities available" based upon the socioeconomic conditions in which we will be raised).
Okay, so we're thrown into the world, towards a definite set of conditions. I think that there are only a certain amount of choices that one would be able to make based on these limitations. We're of course fundamentally different than quarters in that we grow physically, mentally and emotionally throughout the course of life; we are conscious, scentient beings who react to situations physically and emotionally; and we adapt and learn from mistakes. So while these things may seem to increase the likelihood of free will, I think that it is just a variable, nuanced factor that is impossible to observe on the predictive level. But it may be something that, in theory, one would be able to predict. Again, this is where the limiting factor of linear time comes into play, as an exact human situation can never be totally and completely recreated, so it could never be definitively said that given the exact same circumstances, the exact same person would live the exact same kind of life every time the person was put into the situation. There could very well be more limiting factors beyond the logical possibility of recreating an entire human situation.
So I believe that in essence, our lives are predetermined. Not necessarily even by God (God does not necessarily have to be an interactive God), and not that we, subjectively and inexorably tied to our own situations, would not be able to perceive an illusion of choice throughout the course of our lives.
To take it one further, I think that God set us into motion knowing the exact outcome of our lives, based on his foreknowledge of every nuance of our human situation. But we, limited in perceiving our situation, are presented with seeming choices. However, at each crossroads, only one decision is made, and that exact situation can never be recreated, so it's really impossible to definitively say, but my answer is:
From God's perspective, our lives are predetermined, but from our perspective, our lives are ours to create. And I don't think that one affects the other, either. We are free to create, but God knows what we will create.
Science works because the universe has an understandable and ordered structure. The most sophisticated way of showing this are through the laws of physics.
When you consider a deterministic universe you must appreciate that the laws of physics are not the crux of existence. Where did these laws come from? How did they get their form?
Are the laws themselves dependent on the universe? They seem to exist externally from it...and do not change whatever the circumstance.
Hmm,
If there were 1 billion quarters in an area of space you would not need to throw a quarter into them to get them to 'react'. Gravitation.
Also remember Isaac Newtons law of motion. Something like "An object will remain in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by a force."
It is not the natural condition of an object to be at rest. That is your misconception. Objects naturally have a uniform motion.
Now Lets develop some uncertainty:
Consider, You are an astronaut in space with no point of reference...ie all you can see is some very distant stars. Suddenly you see another spaceman float by, he waves at you and you wave back.
You are a spaceman in space with no point of reference. Suddenly you see another astronaut float by, you wave to him and he waves back.
Both describe the exact same event from each astronauts view...but which person was moving?
This uncertainty come from relativity I hope it helps you reconsider your view of the laws of physics.
Now the real falling block of determinism is from quantum physics, explicitly quantization (that things come in discrete units). There is a minimum size to a reaction, a minimum amount of energy (a quantum). Thus when we try to understand the world there is an impact (we must react with the universe) that interaction can not be made arbitrarily small. If there were no limits to size we could do experiments without having to disturb nature at all.
We are part of what we observe. We can not observe the universe without effecting it.
If you would like to read more check out The Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
All true.
I mean only to speak theoretically. Practically.. we wouldn’t be able to recreate the same conditions everytime.. the question then is, why is the default presumption that the quarters do not have freewill? Obviously it seems ridiculous to consider quarters with freewill.. but, if we are speaking merely of observation (and a little bit of theory) then.. IF I did throw a quarter into a set of a billion different quarters, this whole series of events would play out at the end of which, what would you say? 1.) They acted in the only way they could based upon the conditions or 2.) They choose which way to move based upon the stimuli that was placed upon them.
You can see that the two options are very similar.. with only the “choice” being infused into the latter.
Um.. I’m not speaking of God at the moment. Being the theist I am I can easily, if I wanted to, state that God created “free will,” a function, itself, not fully dependent on the material. Therefore, of course, I wouldn’t be able to compare it to quarters.. something I consider to be fully dependent on the material and temporal.
Could our parent’s genetics come about any other way then they did? Thing of it this way.. in a purely materialistic world.. at what point does one consider “predetermination” to be absolute? Could the big bang have happened at a different point and time? Could our solar system come about in any other way then it did?
These things were merely acting upon material stimuli that came before it.. and that stimuli acting upon material stimuli before that..
Like the quarters.
Why, therefore, do we consider ourselves any different? I move my finger before I “will it.” But my will is only a function fully dependent upon the material.
From where do I get the initial “will” to release ions in order to move my finger? Stimuli? If that stimuli is a person, then where did he get his “will” to release ions in order to create the stimuli on me? If that stimuli is a natural, then so be it.
See the point? If I cannot “will” unless I have some sort of material stimuli.. then from where did that stimuli come from (X)? and was my reaction as certain as the reaction of a quarter? If not.. then why not?
X bumps into Y bumps into Z. The fact that there are a billion different “bumps” (in this case, stimuli causing ions to flows, decisions to be made) in each step does not change the implication that there is only ONE way that each thing can reaction one to another (and by extension, all things act).
All things which were “predetermined” by the initial, material, metaphorical, throw of a quarter.
I’m not saying one can “predict” what one will choose.. the amount of information that would need to be compiled would be.. in my mind.. impossible. This does not mean that one cannot theoretically conclude that it can be perfectly predicted since there is only one way it must and will be.
I think this might be where I’m getting at. Suppose the exact same singularity exploded in exactly the same way in the exact point in time (impossible as it may seem), would I be writing this post right now?
What if this singularity exploded an infinite amount of times? Is there an infinite amount of possibilities for this singularity exploded in the same place and time? Or is there only one possibility?
[I enjoyed the rest of your post but edited it out]
Okay. But I’m not sure those questions are all that important to the issue at hand. Where the laws come from and whether or not they are external does not change the fact that they seem to be applicable in this universe and did, in fact, “come.”
Granted. But, does this affect the theoretical? There is another variable acting on the quarters, gravity—do the quarters now have more choice or act more randomly now? Or is there motion all determined upon that singular throw?
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you.. but I will respond to what I think you are implying.
I realize all these things.. but to what affect does this have on the theoretical? Does the fact that one quarter perceive another quarter as moving even when he is in fact the one moving affect the hypotheticals conclusion? Does the fact that I might perceive these things to be moving when they might not be, affect the conclusion of the hypothetical?
Understood. We cannot practically observe the universe without affecting it. Does this mean that we cannot theoretically come to a conclusion (infer based upon our knowledge, if you would) about certain hypotheticals?
If you are making the argument that we derive our free will from God, then you also need to explain where God derives his free will from as well.
God is a non-answer.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
I see, Why am I more than the sum of my parts, why am I sentient, good question, the answer is unknown at the present time, this question may be answered with the realization of quantum computers
Jmm may I say how impressed I am by your answer
But your final, conclusion is in error, if some deity or what-ever, knows the future, then the future has already happened, and we lose choice
Actually because of the heisenberg uncertainty principle, your model would only be deterministic in the macroscopic scale. Since quantum fluctions are more or less random, if you ran the quarter throwing simulation, each time the final outcome would be (slightly) different. This alone shows that the universe is not entirely deterministic, nor is it entirely random.
Hi Cernunnos, to use the word law in association with classical/quantum physics in this way is inaccurate, they should be considered more like guides as they are subject to change and alteration, and these "laws" are not external form are universe, they are an integral part of
You may also wish to read, about quantum entanglement and the implications with Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
It depends on how we are looking at the world.
When we are looking at the world from a third person perspective, we just see predetermined causes like the quarters and the rocks. When we look at people in this way, they are just biological machines that follow the rules of nature.
However, that is not the only kind of perspective we have the world. It's not the only perspective that's important to us. It's a different context of speaking to the one where we make decisions. Desires and beliefs aren't material objects that 'cause' material actions, they are concepts within our practice of making sense of our actions. They are concepts we use to explain our actions.
Have you ever come across the Wittgensteinian concept of a language game? You could say that the language that we describe the world in, (the the coins and their mechanical law following) and the language that we use to talk about decision making (like beliefs and will) are two different forms of language for different purpose.
It's quite abstract and complex philosophy here...
Did any of what I say make sense at all?
If God can create a non-material function.. or, perhaps, transplant a non-material function from one place to another.. then he either x, has no "free will" as we would understand it.. or, has just had it before and gave it to us as it was originally with him.
The problem I am presenting is merely a problem for a total materialistic perspective.
In anycase.. I am not taking a stance on a particular viewpoint as to where free will comes from.. if it exists.. what I think God is.. what I don't think he is..
anything inference one can make from the words I have already spoken, I will neither confirm nor deny, and for an intents and purposes I am merely speaking nonsense at the moment.
So signed,
RtG
Whether or not a computer can become sentient or not.. does not change the original question. Is the "sentience" of that computer destined to come about at that particular point and time and is its "sentience" as theoretically predictable as the movement of the 999,999,999 quarter that was hit as an effect of the first?
This is a weird conversation to have..... beh.. I feel weird talking about it.. but I'm really interested as to whether there is any other inference one can make based upon a completely materialistic worldview.
I am tying the laws of physics to our universe. You are taking the laws of physics as absolutes outside of the universe and applying them to a hypothetical situation (a simplified tiny universe). Then extrapolating this to the entire universe.
I tried to get you to understand the importance of relativity. Even if you can predict the results with total accuracy this only applies to your viewpoint. You can not view our universe as an outside entity. The same event can and does occur quite differently depending on the observer.
The effect of the spaceman example shows the complexity of the situation:
Consider a third invisible spaceman. He sees 2 spacemen BOTH moving closer together, one waves and the other waves back. Remember NONE of the spacemen thinks they are moving.
So you see for you to predict what will happen in your hypothetical situation you need the position, mass and velocity of all the coins. In fact you need to simulate the entire universe to make a precise determination of events.
Now say you know the event that kicked everything off precisely. Your throwing of the coin (I made you consider gravity to counter that)
This is where tying in the laws of physics is key. It is quite possible that the laws of physics we know were in fact determined after the 'big bang' by interactions. I hope you see the problem.
BUT ignoring all of that my last point about the effects of observing clearly shows how the interactions of matter can not be determined. To put it better:
the product of how uncertain you are about position with how uncertain you are about momentum (mass x velocity) can not be zero.
This means that neither position or momentum can ever be measured completely accurately. Your hypothetical example requires it to be.
Thus material has it's own randomness or if you like free will.
Thus your question "What makes us different?" The answer is not free will.
Moreover it is impossible to be all-knowing, omnipresent and omnipotent.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
You may have to enlighten my on the specific implications of HUP.. does it state that IT cannot be known? Or that WE cannot know it? In other words.. is it truly random.. or merely perceived to be by us because of speed and size?
You are correct. I meant to question the origin of these laws. Thank you
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
I think you misunderstanding the question I am presenting.. but perhaps not.. so tell me.. is this how you are understanding my logical progression:
If a group of a billion quarters and their collective moment is known as a tripent, and a billion quarters act in a completely predictable way based upon stimuli which is equally as dependent on other stimuli, perhaps of other tripents, then the tripent itself is completely predictable.
Just change the tripent to human brain.
I think I understand this. Whether or not freewill and choice are actual things.. doesn’t change the fact that we have defined them and named them as concepts.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
No.
Hmm.. not sure. May have to try again based upon my response I’ve given you.
Beautiful essay Cernunnos
How am I doing that? I am only generally applying “laws of physics”—not even , necessarily, specific laws. Now matter what laws you want to make.. as long as they are universal among all material objects.. then my problem will still remain.
And as for a “simplified tiny universe”.. my hypothetical applies to any universe which has “laws of physics” which people assume to be absolute.
We assume our universe to have universal laws of physics. If it did not.. then why bother with science? The mere prediction of a system which had no consistency would be ridiculous.
Granted.. relativity may posit that our perspective of the universe is unique.. and perhaps what we view as occurring is not what others view as occurring.. this does not affect that we still assume there are universal physical laws.
I may be completely missing your point.. so please.. reiterate if I am.
The importance of my hypothetical is not concluding that I will be able to predict something.. but rather that IT can be predicted.
I think I may have understood a new point at this time. So yes, my hypothetical does require that you consider the system from the outside. I am asking that one hypothesize that from a perspective outside of our universe, is atoms movement predictable, and by extension, everything which is a function of the atom and it’s energy?
Obviously we cannot view from outside the entire universe.. and even if we could.. we wouldn’t’ be able to perfectly replicate the universe in order to run experiments on it..
But, merely applying a simple logic. Me, viewing small system which abides by certain laws is predictable. Me, viewing large system which abides by certain laws is predictable.
Hmm.. I’m not sure I do. Whether or not the laws were determined after the big bang plays no bearing on whether or not they are in fact applying now on a universal scale.. and whether.. if it were possible to view the entire system from the outside.. everything could be thereotically predicated.
This provides a practical impossibility.. not a theoretical one for the quarter does have position and does have momentum.
Whether or not I can actually objectively determine it however.. is another matter.
It would if the purpose of my hypothetical was, in fact, to predict everything.. as opposed to just positing that it is all predictable (or, if it fares better, non—random).
I think you are making an incorrect inference here.. or.. a shady use of language.
You are using the argument that because one (or all of humanity, or anything within this universe) cannot predict something that this something is not, in fact, predictable.
To give an analogy:
Because one cannot find the end of the universe that there is, in fact, no end of the universe.
Perhaps.. but once again.. I believe you are mixing up my abstract hypothetical with one which rests upon its practical application.
Theoretically predictable
in theory yes, but you would need a quantum computer significantly larger than this universe, to make such a calculation
Heh. So... that would support my original thought. I don't have free will or choice in any matter!
I'm still hoping someone might be able to undercut this view..
Not necessarily, they are theoretical hypotheses, one would need to build a quantum computer larger than this universe to determine the truth of this theoretical hypotheses
Soz
Aw.. that's not nearly as fun. It took what you were saying as this:
Yes, we would be able to predict it but you would need a quantum computer larger than the universe in order to do so.
Now it seems you are saying:
Perhaps, but we would need a quantum computer larger than the universe in order to see whether or not the universe can be predicted.
It's the difference between saying we can travel to mars as opposed to saying we need to build a rocket in order to see whether or not we can travel to mars.
Well theoretically we can travel to mars, but until we actually do it, it remains a theoretical possibility, we know we can send rockets to mars, but until this was actually done there was a degree of uncertainty, it was theoretically possible, until accomplished
Theoretically possible, however plausible remains a theory until proven
Thus
"Not necessarily, they are theoretical hypotheses, one would need to build a quantum computer larger than this universe to determine the truth of this theoretical hypotheses"
RhadTheGizmo, I will try and be clearer.
In your head you imagine a scenario about some coins in space. From what you know of physics you think that their movements can be predicted.
This is your 'simple tiny universe'.
Your notion about predicting their movement comes from your understanding of physics.
In your head you take this 'simple tiny universe' with the property of being entirely predictable and apply it to our universe.
You understand that to predict how something will move you need to know some things.
Now can you read my post again bearing in mind that:
The first part deals with the application of your idea to our universe. That to predict everything you need to know everything.
The second deals with why you can not predict anything with certainty. The act of observing destroys information.
Rev_Dev Thanks for the compliment!
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
You would be correct in assuming that it would be predetermined, as it could be tested loads and loads of times.
What makes us different? A brain. The ability to do something that a rock or quarter or anything without a brain will be able to do: Think.
The reason this analogy does not work is because we live in a world that we believe (and experience) has free will. The major difference between a quarter and us is a very important one. A brain. If the brain worked in such a simple manner then, the assumption would be, that everyone would react the same way to situations. This is not the case.
I'm confused about why free will and predetermination are mutually exclusive. I define free will as the ability to make choices. Decisions aren't random. You make them for reasons, no matter how complex or simple. The only thing that could change your decisions would be a knowlege of what would happen, which opens up a whole world of paradoxes and confusion. The exact nature of time is certainly up for debate...
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
A couple of months ago I would have agreed that the brain is completely predictable. However, someone showed me some research that showed that some cells in the brain had quantum behaviour, breaking the determinism. However, it's still all down to the laws of physics.
That's pretty much spot on.
I did another topic on this in the Philosophy Forum.
Basically, Wittgenstein talked about what language is, how it is a tool/game and meaning of a word depends on how we use it. Many people get caught up in the assumption that words are meant to describe things, that they refer to objects. However, that is obviously wrong as we have language uses that are completely irrelevent like telling jokes or giving orders. There are less obvious examples as well. For instance, many philosophers believed that all knowledge worth knowing was scientific, but that assumes that all knowledge is about the natural/material world.
I admit ignorance on this topic, however wish to voice my thoughts.
I too have never been able to see how the ability to make choices via free will excludes the ability to predict natural results in a system with rules and variables well defined. To me fate and choice seem as two faces of the same coin.
Another way I have tried to describe predetermination is that we only could have done what we did. There are causes for the decisions we have made. Because of this, it is easy to look upon the past as predetermined.
Similarly, looking to the future, you can take any action you can concieve. There are many possibilities, and it is your thoughts and sentience that determine what actions you take going forward.
Even though it is easier to see how these concepts apply to linear time one way versus the other, both apply both directions. In the past, it was your choices that determined what action you took. In the future, you will make one choice out of all the possibilities, based on who and where you are at that moment.
We do not understand all the rules that make this universe, nor all the variables (and what I understand of HUP means we may never), so our ability to accurately predict every part the future remains outside of our grasp. Nor is free will a purely random system that acts outside of the natural world.
As a mental excercise, I have tried to think what the universe would be like from alternate perspective. One of these perspectives is where time is not linear. If time is not as linear as we percieve it, that is a clear argument in favor of determinism (even in an all possibilities multiverse). Clearly, from my linear perspective, I choose.
Ok that last bit probably wasn't very rational, as I have no evidence that time is not linear, but sometimes its fun to get a little crazy and out there.
I welcome additional discussion and criticism of my thoughts.
I also admit my ignorance, it is quite portable that my ignorance maybe slightly greater than yours
the more you learn the less you know
just to get your head spinning
http://lisa.nasa.gov/SCIENCE/science-goals.html
Gravity and time are linked
Alright.. so let's see if I can summarize the basic counter-argument.
Although the human brain is completely dependent on matter and energy acting in perfect accordance with physical law, it cannot be perfectly predicted because of quantum attributes or because of the limitations of perfect predictability in general.
That about it? Not sure.. try to summarize better if you can. Some people might want to infuse the word "sentience" into the summary.. but isn't "sentience" merely a function of the brain? So, in such a case, I could replace "human brain" with "sentience." The use of the word "sentience" however, suggests "conscious will"-- which sort of begs the question.
My counter argument is slightly different.
Determinism is based on how physical concepts are empirical objects that behave in accordance to natural laws and are therefore predictable once we know these laws. If we know the entire physical state of the world and how physical objects behave, we can accurately predict the events of the future.
Our concept of 'free will' [i]isn't[/] a physical concept.
Mental objects like 'beliefs', 'desires' and 'decisions' aren't labelling physical states that follow physical behaviour. They are defined in a different way that doesn't have such clear cut laws of determinism. Such precise predictions are an impossibility as desires don't always have a direct 'cause' - they can sometimes be absolutely spontaneous. In a sense, this is why will is free.
The path of a particle cannot be exactley known, not because we lack the ability to know it, but because it is inherentley unknowable. All particles exist as "waves" of probability, and can be anywhere inside this wave. The act of observing merely reveals to us one possible position of the particle, yet the particle can exist at all positions of the probability at one time, the fact is, its exact position is entirely random, and at any given moment in time it could be anywhere within the probability wave, so in essence its dissapearing and reapearring infinitely fast along the probability wave.
This is how electron tunnelling works. The probability wave of an electron is large enough that it can "tunnel" through atoms, as in, it exists at one moment on one side of a membrane and then exists on the other side. By moving the probability wave closer to the membrane, you can garuntee with accuracy that the electron will end up somewhere on the other side of it.
However, it is possible that these random fluctuations aren't random at all, but are determined by some other force, in which case a deterministic model would work. But as we have it now, your quarter experiment would be minutely different at each trial, simply because a quarter might tunnel off a few electrons in one trial and not the other, which would alter its mass or electric charge, and would slightly alter the path of the next quarter in the collision, etc. etc.
I'll answer this last question. I haven't finished reading the thread, so apologies if someone else mentioned it.
One perspective that I haven't seen explicitly represented to you yet is the idea that predeterminism and 'randomism' (for lack of imagination) are not the only two options. There is a deterministic option which I'll call non-predeterminism, again, for lack of a better word, in which the progression of the universe is determined, but not pre-determined. Here's how it works.
The universe starts with a 'seed' of information. This may simply be a fixed set of laws by which it operates, or it may include some initial 'form' from which all other forms derive. In any case, the question of where this seed of information came from is unknown. From this initial state, the universe progresses through time, step by step, following its fixed laws. At each moment, each change to the universe is determined by these laws and only these laws. Therefore this scenario is a form of determinism.
However, in this case, the future has not 'happened already'. No, in fact, the future cannot be predicted perfectly because the FASTEST way to perfectly predict the future is simply to let the future unfold from the present.
In other words, it is a deterministic universe, but the future can never be known to 100% certainty in any fact. In such a universe, while it is true that if you 'started it all over' you would end up with the same universe at the end of it, we can't ACTUALLY restart the universe, since there's no time travel, since the future unfolds from the present according to fixed laws.
Now, in contrast, I would say that a non-predetermined universe would be different than a predetermined universe in this way: In a predetermined universe, the 'plan' of the universe must exist BEFORE the time at which the events of the plan unfold, and this plan must be 100% reliable. For if it is not 100% reliable, then it does not constitute pre-determination. So, the complete plan of the universe must exist basically at the very beginning. This is a common view held by many Christians, that there is a 100% reliable plan before the universe is even created. (Sidenote: If this plan is 100% reliable, what's the point of creating the universe? Everything has already been established.)
Here's where they differ on a practical level: In a predetermined universe, even if you KNOW the plan, even a tiny fraction of the plan, even if you genuinely know a specific event is going to happen, there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it. Whereas, in a non-predeterministic universe, if you make some prediction about the future, then you are able (often) to take action to prevent it. What's more, in a predeterministic universe, the more accurate your prediction, the LESS likely you are going to be able to prevent it. Whereas, in a non-predeterministic universe, the more accurate your predictions, this often INCREASES your chances of affecting or changing the outcome. Consider that if you predict your car is going to run into a tree, you can change that prediction by turning the steering wheel. If there's fog blocking your vision, your prediction is less accurate, you might not see the tree clearly enough in time, and you end up hitting the tree anyway. In a pre-deterministic universe, the more accurately you read the plan, i.e. the less fog blocking your vision, the LESS able you will be to avoid the tree.
For example, if I received a 'true' vision from god that a bomb will go off in a shopping mall, then this is a pretty vague prediction, and I may be able to find the bomb and disable it, replacing it with a harmless stink bomb, so that the plan comes true, but in a different form. However, if the vision was that a high-explosive bomb will go off at exactly 5:30pm on Monday, at this exact location, killing exactly 32 people, then no matter what I do, that bomb will go off at 5:30 on Monday, at that exact location, killing exactly 32 people. However, if this was only a deterministic universe, then the increased accuracy of the prediction (including time and place) will help me to prevent the actual explosion and actual deaths.
The significance of non-predeterminism is that it allows us to see that 'free will' is actually just a concern of morality and ethics, and has absolutely nothing to do with quarters, because quarters do not have minds that can predict the future and try to change it. A person can imagine multiple futures, choose the best one and seek to cause it, while seeking to avoid the negative predicted futures. But these futures don't actually exist, except in our imaginations. They are REPRESENTATIONS of the future, not the future itself, for the future is only determined when it finally unfolds from the present.
Finally, I'll conclude by saying that whether the universe is ULTIMATELY random, or ultimately determined, or perhaps some chaotic in-between, is not currently known, and might never be known. Even quantum uncertainty could be deterministic in a currently-undiscovered fashion. We know that it is possible for deterministic processes, such as computer programs, to create unpredictability in a non-predeterministic way. And there is a genuine difficulty in distinguishing between unpredictable and random.
A deterministic universe may appear random, and a random/chaotic universe may appear deterministic. If quantum uncertainty is truly random, our daily experience still appears deterministic. Therefore, even IF we discover a deterministic basis for quantum uncertainty, we may LATER discover that there is an even-deeper random/unpredictable basis below that. The ultimate truth to it is not currently known by anyone on the planet, and because there may always be a deeper level, we may simply never know.
[edited for better examples.]
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
But wouldn’t this just be begging the question?
It MUST have a direct cause in a materialistic worldview, must it not?
The problem I’m seeing with a lot of responses is that people are viewing this argument to small. Of course it appears as if we have freewill… I can’t control you, you can’t control me, and I am affected by you, yet “choose” how I respond to you.
This would seem to suggest some sort of self-determination.
However, if you were acting as was necessitated by the culmination of all causes that came before you and me as well, do either of us have the power self determination?
The other mistake is mistaking the “human ability” to predict and the “ability” to predict. I would give an analogy.. the speed of light. Just because we cannot travel the speed of light does not mean that things do not travel the speed of light.
With regards to the quantum argument regarding predictability in general, read on:
IF it can be predicted, then everything is predictable, if everything is predictable, then we have no freewill, even as a quarter does not have “freewill” with regards to which way it will bounce.
Some people will make the mistake and say.. “well, if we did predict, and we knew it, then we could change our behavior and thus create a paradox!”.. and while this might prove a problem if in practicality.. not in the theoretical.
In order to compute the answer to an equation of variables as numerous as the amount of atoms in the universe.. (which is what is required for this little hypothetical we’re doing).. one would need a computer bigger than the universe, also existing outside of it. Since this is impossible, it would seem, can’t be done, it would seem.
Still theoretically.. it’s interesting. J
IF, however, it’s not predictable.. HUP, and, would this be an acceptable answer to those that argue that an omnimax God is perfectly responsible for the outcome of every being?
Not that I believe God is an omnimax God.. but still.. I’m interested if this is an acceptable explanation.
If something can be TRULY random, then it cannot be predicted, even thought it can be KNOWN to be truly random.
So, God, create a truly random system which messes with perfect predictability and yet avoids pre-determination.
Hmm.. I don’t know. It seems it might lead down that whole “If God is omniscient then he knows even those things that CANNOT be known.”
..always seemed rather foolish to me—perhaps someone can explain the position better.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]