CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I believe we are free to determine our own actions in whatever our circumstances happen to be. I do not believe we are free to organize our circumstances because that would negate, among other things, the free will of others (whose actions partially determine our circumstances.)
Moreover, I calculate that the only rational belief is to assume that we have free will.
This is because there are, generally, two possibilities:
1-Free will is in fact the case.
2-The universe is deterministic, and that belief in my own free will is an illusion which I am predetermined to have.
This leaves four possible outcomes.
A--If I behave as if #1 is correct, and I am right, then I get the advantages of free will and the sincere attempt to make decisions which can contribute to my happiness, well-being, and responsible behavior.
B--If I behave as if #1 is correct, and I am wrong, then it is because I was predetermined to do so, my actions were predetermined, and my delusion changes nothing.
C--If I behave as if #2 is correct and I am right, then it is because I was predetermined to do so, my actions were predetermined, and my belief in determinism changes nothing.
D--If I behave as if #2 is correct, and I am wrong, then I am likely to squandere my free will, might freely choose not to avail myself of the advantages of free will, abdicate my responsibilities, and refuse by choice to be held accountable for my actions. This belief in a deterministic universe is thereby likely to result in choices that will be detrimental to my happiness and well-being, as well as the happiness and well-being of others.
The only possible advantages (outcome A) result from belief in free will, and the only disadvantages (outcome D) result from belief in Determinism.
So, in the words of Rush, "I will choose the path that's clear. I will choose free will".
Reasons in this sense is synonymous with causes. When you act for reasons, you are simply aware of your causes. When you act on a whim, you are simply unaware of the whole cause.
For example, if I choose to stay up a little later than normal, I may be tired when the alarm clock rings, and "just decide" to forego the morning workout without really considering it consciously. It is a whim, but it has a cause. I am just not thinking about it at the time.
Free will seems to be self evident. At any given moment I can choose to raise my left hand in the air. Or I could leap up and yell Flying spaghetti monster! If there was no free will I would have no control over my actions and no ability to make a choice.
I found your distinction between causation and determinism useful.
If you are provided alternatives to which you attribute different values, then you would pick the alternative which holds, for you, the greatest value. If you are provided alternatives of equal value, what determines your choice if not random chance?
Reason provides predictability in choice. Lacking a strong reason, randomness eliminates predictability. It seems to me that predictable outcomes represents free will more than unpredictable outcomes.
I think that your intuition is partly correct. In order to be free will, there needs to be some control over the action. If it is random then there is no control. Also, you need some kind of rational grasp of understanding regarding your impulses, otherwise they control you not the other way around.
I think the concept of random can be a bit misleading. Nothing in life is really random in its truest sense. Every physical attribute serves a purpose and every mode of consciousness contains within its self its own directionality.
With regard to values, the choice would depend on which metric of values a person uses at a given moment. A person may have many, sometimes conflicting values and the ability to choose which ones to apply at a given moment. Of course this can take place unconsciously. But the point is that a person can choose to apply their attention and choose a different course of action.
Nothing in life is really random in its truest sense.
Are there no random events in QT?
A person may have many, sometimes conflicting values and the ability to choose which ones to apply at a given moment
Ones choice of values is determined by more fundamental values. Ones fundamental values are determined by the kind of person one has become given their environment and genes. If a person chooses to be a better person, that is because of the kind of person they fundamentally are, which is an aspect of identity that one may have no choice concerning. Is the choice to apply ones attention not dependent on whether one is an attentive person?
The would depend on how you interpret QT. When a measurement is taken the range of possible values is reduced to a single distinct observation. How this one value among many is 'chosen' is unknown and beyond the scope of the theory its self, although many ideas have been put forward.
If I understand your contention correctly, you say that because some core aspects of personality are fundamental they are therefor unchangeable and prevent us from having free will. Its true that we don't have absolute freedom, physically or experientially. I cannot for instance chose to levitate myself off the ground or rearrange my constituent atoms into the shape of a squid. This extreme conception of freedom would undermine the very structure which allows the content of freedom to propagate its self in the first place. However, core values can change throughout the course of a persons life and this is open the freedom provided by the way a person choses to apply themselves from moment to moment.
I think this problem can be reduced to the following question. Does conscious experience contain within its self causative power over physical events or is it merely an observation of those events?
How this one value among many is 'chosen' is unknown and beyond the scope of the theory its self
Thus, the resulting value is arrived at apparently randomly, or at least without a known cause.
you say that because some core aspects of personality are fundamental they are therefor unchangeable
Not unchangeable, un-choosable. If you change some fundamental aspect of yourself, it is because that it the kind of person you are. You are a the kind of person who chooses to change, while others are not. This is not the same as being unable to fly. This is an absence of freedom that is more fundamental and less extreme. You cannot choose your character because even that choice is an aspect of your character.
I think this problem can be reduced to the following question. Does conscious experience contain within its self causative power over physical events or is it merely an observation of those events?
This question concerning the mind body problem is a different issue than the one I am presenting.
Yes you are right in QT the chances of a particular outcome follow the probability distribution of the wave function. How each distinct measurement takes its particular value is outside the scope of the theory. Although of course that does not prove that the process is random and my intuition is that it is not.
Yes I see what you're saying, So change does happen but any change is predetermined by the core personality. But surely this implies that there is an element of the core personality which cannot change?, i.e.. the predetermined nature of the changes that are to take place.
Actually I think that the causality of consciousness is the question that is central to this issue. If consciousness has no causality then all outcomes are predetermined and consciousness makes no difference.
The consciousness question is why I found the causation/determinism distinction useful. Consciousness is the process by which we weigh reasons (causes) against possible outcomes in the light of our values to choose a course of action. When there is no time to consider possible outcomes, we seem to act automatically almost as observers of our own decision making. Many things we do are too minor to dedicate much thought too and again, we are observers rather than participants. Thus, consciousness is often along for the ride or busy daydreaming while choices are being made, but consciousness also takes an active part in the process which, for complex issues, could not happen without consciousnes. It just depends on if you are thinking fast or slow.
Determinism is an illusion arising from a past oriented perspective. A random QT event cannot be said to have a known cause, so we cannot say it has to be the way it will be. But after it has occurred, it cannot be any other way.
I think the counterargument is that your choices result from chemical and electrical events in your brain over which you have no control.
In his book Free Will, Sam Harris argues that we can choose whether to do what we want, but we are powerless to decide what we want--our desires come to us without our permission.
Sure they are... Certainly we are products of our environment.. As such, it's not unusual that we would seek to make our environment as comfortable and enjoyable as we can.. To be desirous of these things does NOT mean god is sending us messages.. If anybody is sending us messages, it's nature.. And, sometimes it's your wife..
Yes this opinion is all the rage at the minute with the cognitive neuroscience and new atheist crowd, but I don't buy it. Of course our bodies and our consciousness come to us as part of the structure of nature, this is the method of propagation and procreation, you cant have the content without the structure. However, free will still exists. The flexibility of the structure allows it, I would even say accommodates it. Conscious attention and will has within it the power of causation. Of course much comes instinctively but I can also summon up things on demand using my imagination.
I have long bought into the idea that we are stuck with whatever set of Legos the universe gives us, but we are free to build what we want with that set.
If I understand what you are saying, we are part of our own set of Legos.
Harris' point takes over at this juncture. He says that because the universe arranges our constituent parts, and because that arrangement determines how it occurs to us to direct our conscious attention, we are still not in charge of our own wills.
Honestly, I don't buy Determinism because I find it to be ugly and depressing to give up my belief in my free will and the personal power it implies.
Harris would say that I believe in free will because the universe has determined that I am built such that I want free will.
Its good to see that you've given consideration to both sides of the argument.
I think there can be some confusion here with regard to identity. Who am I and where does the I reside. This is a different question to the one about free will. Free will can still exist without there being a need for an independent separate entity that I can call me.
So maybe Harris is partly right, that there is not an I that's in charge of the will. But yet choices are still made. To say that there is no freedom of will means that all choices were set from the start. Our psychological makeup is strongly geared towards directing attention towards novel stimuli in order to learn and respond appropriately. If conscious attention makes no difference in terms of these choices then evolutionarily speaking it would be illogical that we would be this way.
Perhaps it can be comforting to believe in free will. Alternatively freedom can be scary. The responsibility of being in charge of ones life an actions is something that people often find a way to shy away from.
I think there can be some confusion here with regard to identity. Who am I and where does the I reside. This is a different question to the one about free will.
Actually, it is possible that this is exactly the question of free will.
Consider,
There is a voice in my head that speaks my thoughts.
Is that voice me?
Is the listener me?
The possible combinations have implications to free will.
Generally, if either the voice or the listener is not me, then I am not an independent entity, and may not have free will.
If they are both me, then which one (if either) is the part of me that makes choices?
Is there some part of me that my speaker does not speak for and my listener cannot hear? (My subconscious?)
Is this subconscious part of my mind the one who makes my choices?
If my subconscious is actually at the root of my choices, does that support or negate free will?
If my speaker and listener are unaware of this possibly hidden part of me, how would I know whether my subconscious is making my choices.
I would say that both the voice and the listener are you. But they do not constitute you as a fixed and unchanging independent entity.
The subconscious is also you. It makes choices that are beyond the realm of awareness. However the conscious can be applied to elucidate the unconscious and render the choices open to freedom of the will.
That makes sense, and my instinct is to accept it as true.
The subconscious is also you. It makes choices that are beyond the realm of awareness. However the conscious can be applied to elucidate the unconscious and render the choices open to freedom of the will.
The implication of how you phrased this is that (assuming that it is true that the subconscious makes our choices) unless/until we "elucidate the unconscious," we do not have free will. I see how the concept of will requires conscious effort.
This could make our initiation of an action deterministic, but it would give free will the option of "editing" ("ratifying"?) the action/decision as we become conscious of what we are doing.
I like this middle ground because it is so unsatisfying, but promises so much.
Actually I would go further than this implication. I would say that the unconscious as it stands is the product of all the previous acts of free will that took place to build it. So in a sense it is determined but it has been determined by the actions of our earlier selves, parents and ancestors which all contain varying degrees of free will.
In Nausia Albert Camus discusses the experience of an existential awakening, realizing that we are distinct and separate from all others. He writes that this realization boils down to knowing we are "condemned to freedom."
Camus said that his feeling upon reaching this conclusion was a feeling of nausia.
The old existential dread! I think this can be a problem of giving freedom of the will too much credence with regard to being an individual independent entity. One side breeds apathy and lack of responsibility, the other unrestrained individualism and existential dread. One of life's balancing acts.
No doubt there are a huge number of factors which determine who we are and how we live. Life is not all free will and it might even be overwhelmingly determined. However, if we ever conclude that free will simply does not exist in any form then we must also conclude there really is no individualism or individual accountability (for anything). I don't want to live in that kind of world. So I personally choose (whether it's an illusion or for real) to believe free will does exist.
Free will can only be an illusion to a contingent existence, which every reality is except One. This One Reality necessitates determinism. Super determinism even.
It's God's will for you to not follow God's will, therefore he created sin.
Too bad I'm going to burn in hell for the choices he made me make.
And it's also too bad that starving kid from the congo is going to hell because he chose to follow the religion of oogabooga-bongo spirits of the congo rather than Christianity which he's never heard of.
The notion that we either have free will, or we live in a causal world is a misunderstanding. There can be no free will unless we live in a causal world.
Free will is often taken to mean a person can act independent of causes, that their actions can be random or undetermined. But if a persons actions were random, and you asked them why they did something, they would literally have no answer for you. This would not be a person in control of their self or their life. This would not be free will. On the other hand, a person who is thoroughly aware the reasons behind all of their actions is considered a person thoroughly in command of their life.
People make choices; a process of a determined world. We weigh variables against other variables and come to conclusions. The existence of causal variables does not preclude the weighing process.
Amarel, I agree with your conclusions, but your reasoning is nonsensical. Let me give some examples:-
There can be no free will unless we live in a causal world.
We do live in a causal world.
Free will is often taken to mean a person can act independent of causes
This is just absolute gobbledegook. Free will means the person is the cause. If the effect is me turning left, then free will means it was caused by my decision to turn left.
But if a persons actions were random
If a person's actions were random they would have no free will.
People make choices; a process of a determined world
Choice and determinism are non-rectifiable opposites. If time is predetermined, then choice cannot therefore exist, since you only have one option.
You quite literally have written three paragraphs of senseless nonsense.
"Free will is often taken to mean a person can act independent of causes"
This is just absolute gobbledegook. Free will means the person is the cause. If the effect is me turning left, then free will means it was caused by my decision to turn left
Those familiar with the subject will understand that a person acting as first cause acts randomly. The individual taking action for reasons (causes) acts in a causal universe. The individual taking action as the first cause (without reason) acts randomly.
Choice and determinism are non-rectifiable opposites. If time is predetermined, then choice cannot therefore exist, since you only have one option.
Choice is simply the process of choosing, whether the outcome is determined or not. Consider, by analogy, a balance scale that is conscious of weighing items against weights. The fact that the outcome is determined does not eliminate the scales experience of weighing variables.
If all variables could be known, then the outcomes of choice would be known, but that would not eliminate the experience of choosing. Since, all variables cannot be known, and choice is still experienced in this causal universe, then choice and determinism are clearly not rectifiable opposites.
senseless nonsense
This is redundant. The way you lash out at simple concepts that you fail to understand is almost as amusing as the way you pretend to be tough over the internet.
The theory of general relativity gives a strong proof that free will is an illusion precipitated by humanity's incomplete perception of time.
All time is relative and hence terminologies like "past", "present" and "future" are also relative. These terminologies do not exist in any objective sense. They are purely subjective methods of communicating to each other where (i.e. when) something is. One of the most startling revelations of relativity is that time -- while entropy directional -- is not linear as we experience it. It is a sheet rather than a line, so to speak. Hence, if we observe the only part of time our brains are capable of perceiving (i.e. the past) we see that it is unequivocally set in stone and unchangeable. The same must be true of all time, since time does not make such divisions of "past", "present" and "future" in the first place.
Relativity accounts for variations in the forward progression of time. But not for reverse progress as nothing surpasses the speed of light. The past is not relative.
Conversely, quantum theory accounts for randomness. Even if all variables are known, quantum randomness cannot be predicted, thus the future is not set. A random quantum event is not determined, but as everything else it cannot be undone. The belief that the future is set is merely an illusion based on the fact that the past is set.
The theory of general relativity gives a strong proof that free will is an illusion precipitated by humanity's incomplete perception of time.
While I appreciate the contribution of the theory of relativity to the conversation, please bear in mind that a theory can be supported by proof, but because it is merely a theory, it cannot be proof.
Still, the model of time being relative does provide an interesting way to think about the problem of free will. Thank you for that.
Determinism is the apparent conclusion if we start at some event, and then track time backward from that event. At the point of the event, the preceding events and choices that led to that event have already happened, and are immutable and already determined. It is easy to use that to conclude a deterministic universe because we can clearly see that in order to come to that endpoint circumstance, the exact set of preceding circumstances, choices, and events would be required. Looking backward through time makes it look like the endpoint was "predetermined".
On the other hand, if we track time forward from some present circumstance, we only have indications of the beginning points as being immutable, and all later events, choices, and conditions as being undetermined. This is the result of not knowing the future. We cannot foresee the future events and then track backward from them, so we have no way to tell whether only the past is determined, or if the future is likewise static. We have no way to tell the difference between our ignorance and free will.
Unfortunately, we do not know if all points in space-time really are coexistant, or if that is only a useful model. In order to prove that the universe is actually deterministic, we would have to be able to know (predict with 100% reliability) the future.
While I appreciate the contribution of the theory of relativity to the conversation, please bear in mind that a theory can be supported by proof, but because it is merely a theory, it cannot be proof.
This is a moot argument, Marcus. I have no wish to debate the philosophy of proof with you. Relativity has never failed in all the years it has been tested. Einstein himself turned science on its head by writing it, and a great many of his contemporaries were extremely eager to disprove him. If you want to go down this road then there is no such thing as proof outside pure mathematics. It is a bullshit argument and a deflection of the fact that without relativity much of today's technology would not exist (for example satellite navigation systems, which must allow for time dilation).
Still, the model of time being relative does provide an interesting way to think about the problem of free will. Thank you for that.
Anytime. Thank you for your politeness. You are sincerely the most polite Conservative I have ever met.
Determinism is
I am aware of what determinism is. Thank you.
This is the result of not knowing the future. We cannot foresee the future events and then track backward from them, so we have no way to tell whether only the past is determined, or if the future is likewise static. We have no way to tell the difference between our ignorance and free will.
My friend, you are entirely ignoring the point I made in my previous post. Past and future do not exist. They do not exist any more than millimetres and inches exist. Time is the fourth dimension of space, and our references to past and future are merely methods the human race has devised to measure co-ordinates within it relative to ourselves. They do not exist outside of our own interpretation; not in the real physical world. They are abstract ideas.
Let me try to illustrate the point a little better.
Outside our own universe is a place where there is no time. Hence, an observer who were outside the universe looking in with some form of hypothetical viewing device would have to see all events within it simultaneously, regardless of when they occurred. This is what is meant by time being a "sheet" rather than a "line". Time has no bias for our age being the "present". The outside observer would not see various possibilities of future occurrences, but rather the complete history of time. Assuming you will have a great granddaughter, then to her you are already the past. Nothing you can do or say will affect the time she inhabits, which precludes that the (immediate, between you and her) future can be changed.
I have gone into greater depth here, but I believe the simplest explanations are often the best, which is why I cut the length of my previous post. The thing to remember is that past and future do not exist outside of our own imaginations (i.e. they do not exist as far as the universe is concerned), and so if we observe time from an exclusively scientific perspective we get the following results:-
A) We do not know whether the future can be changed because we are not there yet.
B) We do know that the past cannot be changed.
Thus, in the absence of senses capable of enabling a more direct (i.e. observational) answer to the hypothesis, reason must conclude that time cannot be changed.
Unfortunately, we do not know if all points in space-time really are coexistant, or if that is only a useful model.
I am afraid we do know this. It is proven by the Einsteinian phenomena of time dilation, which has been measured and proven to occur. As I alluded to earlier in my reply, certain modern technologies depend upon it.
Thank you for taking the time to give your views. It's nice when we can throw politics aside and have a conversation about things equally -- if not more -- important.
The politeness is largely because I want friends, acquaintances, and conversation partners with whom I can exchange differing viewpoints. It is a pity that so many people take disagreement as offense instead of opportunity and entertainment. I could engage in mental masturbation and play with my own ideas without logging on to a website. I need people like you to want to interact with me in order get the benefit of having my ideas challenged. Were I to choose to be rude or dismissive, I would not get the opportunity to improve my thinking and my ability to articulate my thoughts. To get that result, I have to be a polite and engaging conversation partner. This requires me to choose to be polite. (Did you see what I did there to bring it back around to free will? I bet you were even right there with me for a while. :) )
Past and future do not exist. They do not exist any more than millimetres and inches exist.
While I agree that it is reasonable to think it is the case that concepts of past, present, and future are nothing more than a model, this is not an artificially constructed model, but rather is intrinsic to our experience. You may be correct that these concepts are like inches and millimeters in that they are mental constructs, but like inches and millimeters, they are consistent. We can apply empirical principles to it, and have our expectations regarding cause and effect supported by direct experience. We experience them the same way each time. An inch is always an inch long, and the past always precedes the future in our experience.
Outside our own universe is a place where there is no time.
First, I have wrestled with the concept "without time" before, and I truly do not think I understand what people mean by it. I can use the analog of a sphere to conceive of all points in time existing simultaneously, but that is very different. An 'environment' without past or present is conceivable enough. That just makes everything static-no motion, no energy. Without the present, however, I get lost. I would have to observe/experience a place without time to know what that means and to verify that it exists.
The model you suggest, requires us to leave the universe and be in "a place without time" to empirically observe it. Obviously, this is problematic to anyone who wants to make any sort of scientific observation. One could not possibly enter or leave, since action/change requires time.
In fact, I have also heard the phrase "a place without time" to describe heaven, for which there is also no evidence.
On the other hand, I directly experience linear past-to-future time.
Until there is empirical evidence that contradicts the empirical evidence of of my daily experience, it is just another religious claim, complete with all the same problems. While the model is internally consistent (like many religions) it fails to be consistent with my direct experience. It is a claim that is immune to scientific testing because we cannot leave the universe.
I'm still not sure where I stand on this matter, but I understand the point you argue about general relativity etc. The question I have is this: What is the cause of the results of the apparent decisions that we make? To clarify the question, here is an example: If I 'choose' to buy a burger over a hot-dog, what is the cause of my choosing the burger?
I'm thinking that, although determinism (I think the general relativity thing is basically determinism?) may mean the results of the decisions are set, the processes / causes of the results of those decisions can at least count for free will? I mean, if I did have true free will (the definition of which is perhaps a whole new debate) wouldn't the decisions I make be the same as if determinism is valid? If that's true, then determinism wouldn't truly replace free will right? Our fate would be set, but if it's the fate we would choose anyway, what's the difference? I think it might only remove free will if you knew in advance what you would choose, and couldn't choose otherwise.
There might still be some good arguments against free will (I still like Galen Strawson's one, but I think we got into a big fight about that before :)), but let's focus on determinism here.
I think there's some confusion in some of the comments above about determinism. Its useful to distinguish between causality and determinism as being two different things. Or more accurately, determinism is a specific type of causality. If there is a causal relationship between 2 events then we can say that one caused the other (or was part of a larger context of causes that lead to the other). However, if one event was determined by the other then event 1 MUST lead to event 2, there is no other option, no event 2b or event banana split. This would preclude any kind of free will and is not a description of our universe as our most fundamental theories indicate by virtue of their probabilistic nature.
Are those probabilistic theories in conflict with the theory of general relativity? (I understand that you're probably not a quantum physicist or anything, so don't feel like you have to give an answer to that) I tried looking this question up, but the first paper I looked said this in the abstract:
"The conserved probability densities (attributed to the conserved currents derived
from relativistic wave equations) should be non-negative and the integral of them
over an entire hypersurface should be equal to one. To satisfy these requirements in
a covariant manner, the foliation of spacetime must be such that each integral curve
of the current crosses each hypersurface of the foliation once and only once. In some
cases, it is necessary to use hypersurfaces that are not spacelike everywhere. The
generalization to the many-particle case is also possible."
Yeeeaaahh... I gave up. This stuff ain't simple. I think I'm going to stop pretending to have any understanding of it.
Don't be put off! That quote is based on abstract mathematical descriptions, really designed for specialist. I have a degree in Physics but would need to research into the paper at length to get a better understanding. Have you read anything on quantum theory? Yes relativity is inconsistent with QM because relativity is deterministic. You plug in the numbers and get a specific answer. In QM you get the wave function which is a whole range of possible answers.
I'm still in high school, but intend on studying physics at university, so don't worry, I'm not put off. I enjoy it when things screw with my head. I thought both theories were widely accepted, no? Is there an ongoing debate between the two? Forgive my ignorance.
No problem, I'm by no means an expert and I'm sure some of the others here can shed some further light on the subject, which is one of the reasons I came on here. Yes both theories are highly successful in their own domains. Relativity, on macroscopic and cosmic scales being a theory that largely models the gravitational and matter/energy interactions via space-time topology transformations. QM in microscopic scales, predicting the probabilistic outcomes of particle and molecular interactions. However, the two theories cannot (yet) be combined into a single theory. The debates about this extend beyond the realm of physics, into philosophy and metaphysics. Both theories seem to imply different things about the nature of space/time, causality, locality and matter/energy as well as having differing observer, measurement/participant perspectives.
By the way, as an aside, you probably wont go over all the philosophical implications in a physics degree (unless your professor is that way inclined). For the most part you will just be taught the equations and how to use them.
For an interesting read check out Brian Greene, Fabric of the cosmos. It discuses relativity and quantum mechanics in a really engaging way.
Sounds like a wise choice. After all, each time a new theory was struck upon, it was done by those who could step outside of the confines of established thought and this requires more than just number crunching.
I read through it a few times, and realized that I knew all the words, but that did not help much.
There are passages where I got the gist, but that failed to help me understand the whole in sufficient detail.
I can tell that what is being described is the relationship between probability (of some unnamed event or condition) and the shape of a multi-dimensional model of the universe, but after that I am lost.
It really depends on where you frame this from. In a universal sense, there is no free will: what has happened can't have happened any other way, because it didn't, and "in the end" everything that exist(s)(ed) will have done so in a manner unchangeable.
But, from a temporal, present perspective, we are arbiters of our own decisions to the extent of our power to carry them out, constrained only by time and momentary circumstance. I say "only", but those are both huge constraints, and truly "free" will has no constraints. If the will is constrained by the degree of ability and opportunity, then the will isn't really free.
We don't choose our birthplace, our skin colour, our parents, our infant diet, our country, our genetics, our illnesses, our relatives, our planet, our species, which foods we like and don't like, what we find attractive, what we need to survive. There's a lot that is entirely out of our hands. If we get right down to it, everything we do is a result of a stimulus entered and a chemical reaction taken place in response.
We can direct ourselves to an extent in terms of our momentary decisions, but the material conditions those decisions are predicated upon (the physical nature of the universe) are out of our hands.
Look back across the entirety of time and ask yourself what past events would be like if they weren't like they were. Then pinch yourself for asking a silly question.
The first part of your post can be summarized by saying the past is determined, the future is not determined, and eventually everything is in the past, thus determined. Brilliant. The second part of your post states that free will is constrained, by definition, and then rambles across the various things we do not choose in life. The conclusion indicates you belief that the determined past could have been no other way.
If this summary is inaccurate, correct me. My question is; if our definition of free will is not free in the constraints of this universe, what should free will look like, in order to actually be free?
Well, I suppose it should be unlimited, unrestrained, boundless, endless. Simultaneously present, past, and future, and entirely malleable in all ways and forms, completely enlightened, totally knowledgeable, entirely and singularly powerful. It should be what people imagine "God" to be.
Complete free-will is, I think, dependent upon having infinite power and possibility to enact it.
I can will mysef all day long to grow a million miles tall and sprout planets from my armpits -- closes eyes and concentrates REALLY hard -- , but I have zero power to make that a material reality.
Even if you had the power of God, it would not eliminate your apparent issue with free will. Your belief that the past could have been no other way and that this will all eventually be the past.
Not really. Even if you have "limitless" powers to act, those actions would still be in a timeline. Even if you could take "limitless" action in the past, present, and future, your own timeline will be linear from your own perspective. Which means the past will be set for you from your own perspective.
I don't struggle with the word "limitless", but you couldn't know one way or the other since you didn't use that word. I think you might be struggling with "quotations".
Being unbound by momentary consciousness isn't the same thing as having no concept of time. Being unrestrained by temporality is not the same thing as temporality being non-existent.
Subjective experience of objective reality.
An act of completely "free will" is an act where will is unrestrained by anything. Free.
We aren't free in any larger sense than that we orient ourselves within a predefined material chronology. At any given moment we are only as able to dictate our will as the material constraints on us allow. A lion isn't free to change its spots and nor are we free to make unrestrained decisions.
We live in a universe that has very specific material realities; if one could manipulate those realities to his will in any way he so chooses -- that's what true free will looks like.
Being unbound by momentary consciousness isn't the same thing as having no concept of time.
Being unbound by consciousness necessarily means having no concept of anything. Unless you mean to imply being bound to some other form of consciousness then that which you would have at any given moment.
Being unrestrained by temporality is not the same thing as temporality being non-existent
First, you can call it time. “Temporality” doesn’t sound smarter. Second, among other things, time is linear causation. Being unrestrained by linear causation does not imply a new found freedom to cause, as you suppose. Rather it constrains you to the only alternative to linear causation, randomness.
We live in a universe that has very specific material realities; if one could manipulate those realities to his will in any way he so chooses -- that's what true free will looks like.
Even if one could choose to manipulate reality in any given way, the manipulation would necessarily follow the choice, otherwise it would not have been chosen. That being the case, time would always be a constraint.
But none of this is particularly relevant, because it all ignores what is commonly meant by “free will” in favor of your own impossible interpretation. When people say that humans have free will, you and I both know they mean that people make choices. That they have agency. No one has ever meant to claim that humans have free will and are thus beyond all conceivable notions of reality and capable of omnipotence in ways that are utterly absurd from a reality based human perspective.
So lets get some things clear. When you say In a universal sense, there is no free will: what has happened can't have happened any other way, what you mean is that from the perspective of the end of all time, all things have already happened and cannot happen any other way. But since this is a non-existent perspective, your other statement, that from a temporal, present perspective, we are arbiters of our own decisions is more accurate. When discussing free will in the terms commonly meant by people engaging in this kind of debate, you fall on the side of “free will” rather than “determinism”. The only form of free will you have rejected is your own narrow interpretation thereof.
I would just like to point out what side of this argument the burden of proof is currently on.
We do have proof that the universe is deterministic. The universe operates on cause and effect. Some simple examples of proof for this claim would be the predictability of tides, solar eclipses, the acceleration of objects and the path a beam of light will take.
We do not have proof for free will. A reason to believe that the matter we are made out of can somehow be separate from cause and effect has not been shown.
We don't have proof for either free-will or determinism, we have evidence on both sides but neither has been conclusively proved.
If we are assuming that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive ideas then how can there be evidence on both sides? Clearly, that is impossible.
In my opinion, successfully answering the question is dependent upon understanding the way that time works. More specifically, it is about understanding the illusion of the present moment. In Einsteinian physics, there is no absolute universal clock and hence there is no unequivocal present moment. The reason we find this so challenging to grasp is because it is not the experience of anything observing time from a fixed perspective.
Once one understands that there is no absolute, universal present moment, the most obvious ramification is that there are no absolute, universal past or future either. This is interesting because it teaches us that time does not follow the same logic that we do. It is not organised on either side of one special moment where the universe permits choice/free will. Hence, a relativistic perspective of time is one which has no bias for any particular moment, and instead simply views time as another dimension of space.
Getting back to the point, if our arbitrary division of time down both sides of a special marker is false, then it has significant implications for the question of free will, since the idea of free will necessitates that the future has not been written yet. But when past and future are both non-existent in a real sense, then to learn whether the time we experience to be ahead of us can be changed, one only needs to look at the time we experience to be behind us.
"In Einsteinian physics, there is no absolute universal clock and hence there is no unequivocal present moment."
"Once one understands that there is no absolute, universal present moment, the most obvious ramification is that there are no absolute, universal past or future either."
I think you're stretching the implications of relativity here. First of all, by measuring time dilation using atomic clocks all that we can actually know for sure is that atomic clocks are affected by gravity and velocity. Atomic clocks are not time itself.
"then it has significant implications for the question of free will, since the idea of free will necessitates that the future has not been written yet. But when past and future are both non-existent in a real sense, then to learn whether the time we experience to be ahead of us can be changed, one only needs to look at the time we experience to be behind us."
How are past and future non-existent? The past is that which has already happened, the future is that which is yet to happen. How does time dilation, if true, dispute a sequential order of events?
all that we can actually know for sure is that atomic clocks are affected by gravity and velocity
The only reason atomic clocks were ever used in the first place was to test Einstein's theory that there is no present moment. If this experiment is good enough to satisfy world class astrophysicists then why is it not good enough to satisfy you?
PS Thanks for the downvote. I really appreciate it.
"The only reason atomic clocks were ever used in the first place was to test Einstein's theory that there is no present moment."
Einsteins theory of relativity you mean, which makes no such assertion (a lack of a present moment) as far as I am aware. Atomic clocks are necessary to measure such small differences, other clocks are simply not accurate enough to measure a thousandth of a second difference over a year. This is not to mention that other clocks are always inaccurate and running slower or faster than they should.
"If this experiment is good enough to satisfy world class astrophysicists then why is it not good enough to satisfy you?"
Probably because psychological research requires a more critical evaluation than astrophysics research. We are always acutely aware that what we are studying is not always what we think it is. Also, I doubt I am the first to make such criticisms.
"PS Thanks for the downvote. I really appreciate it."
Not me, I've only down-voted a post once on this site (Source 1).
Einsteins theory of relativity you mean, which makes no such assertion
You yourself referred to time dilation in your first reply, so the false claim I have quoted from you here proves that you do not understand what you are talking about. If time runs at different rates dependant upon where you are, then there cannot be one time which represents the present moment for everybody.
Since you are arguing with me without understanding what you are talking about, then I will be brief.
Probably because psychological research
Ah, now I see the problem. I'm talking about physics and you're talking about psychology. Jolly good.
"If time runs at different rates dependant upon where you are, then there cannot be one time which represents the present moment for everybody."
Time dilation means that things occur slower than they otherwise would when under a greater velocity and gravitational field. Please quote to me Einstein's assertion that there is no present moment.
"Ah, now I see the problem. I'm talking about physics and you're talking about psychology. Jolly good."
We're actually talking about evaluation of research and whether something measures that which it claims to measure.
I think you're stretching the implications of relativity here.
Then with respect, I'm not sure you understand relativity.
First of all, by measuring time dilation using atomic clocks all that we can actually know for sure is that atomic clocks are affected by gravity and velocity.
Whose argument is this intended to refute? Firstly, it is time which is affected by gravity and not atomic clocks. Clocks only measure time, they don't create it.
Atomic clocks are not time itself.
Wtf? I'm sorry, but I'm not sitting here listening to you refute a random series of straw man arguments with absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. You have written absolutely nothing in your first paragraph which refutes the idea that there is no universal present moment. In fact, your example of two atomic clocks reading different times proves that what I said is correct.
I don't know what you feel you actually gain from me being here given that you are attacking your own arguments rather than mine.
"Firstly, it is time which is affected by gravity and not atomic clocks."
The research that suggests time dilation occurs as a result of gravity and velocity is based on the observation that atomic clocks can appear to show different lengths of time passing when their velocity or the strength of the gravitational field they are in varies. As such, one can only truly say that atomic clocks are affected by gravity and velocity, not time itself. I don't explicitly reject time dilation but I do feel it is important to be correct about that the studies actually show.
"Clocks only measure time, they don't create it."
Clocks don't actually measure time, even though we do use them to measure time. They simply take a fixed amount of time to do an action (in terms of atomic clocks the decay of isotopes). We then use this fixed amount of time to measure the passage of time relative to the action. For example, we use the Earth's rotation to measure days, but a day is merely the time a rotation of the Earth takes.
"In fact, your example of two atomic clocks reading different times proves that what I said is correct."
No it doesn't, even if time dilation holds true it simply means that the same events happen at different rates when moving at different velocities and/or in differing gravitational fields. In other words, I may be able to run 100.0001m in 10 seconds on a vehicle moving 1000Km/Hr while a perfect clone on a stationary vehicle would only run 100m in the same 10 seconds.
The research that suggests time dilation occurs as a result of gravity and velocity is based on the observation that atomic clocks can appear to show different lengths of time passing when their velocity or the strength of the gravitational field they are in varies.
No it isn't you upside down nitwit. Einstein theorised time dilation and the phenomena was then later tested by synchronising two atomic clocks, putting one in a place where it should, according to Einstein, slow down, and then measuring whether it actually did. You are trying to put the cart before the horse in a manner which is nothing shy of absurd. Contrary to what you seem to believe, time dilation was not discovered by accidentally conducting an experiment involving two atomic clocks.
I never said anything about the discovery being accidental, I've simply put forth the research method used and the criticism that must accompany it. I also dismantled any assertion that "there is no present" without rejecting time dilation.
Free will can only be an illusion to a contingent existence, which every reality is except One. This One Reality necessitates determinism. Super determinism even.
An organism is not truly distinct from their environment. Human beings don't really have free will. Their will is largely determined by the weight of an entire universe of causal forces pressing down to make anything possible at all.
