Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Free Will has long been taken as a given. It makes a good deal of sense to assume it; it fits with the everyday model of the world we generate from simple experience. You can think. You can choose. You are self-aware. I am going to argue the case against Free Will. I apologise if I am misinformed on any particular point.

The universe has long been assumed to operate simply. But as science has progressed and our models of the universe have been revised, what has become clear is that things don't often work in ways you'd expect. For example, quantum theory, and the idea that particles do not have a fixed position, but merely a probable position. We don't know much about the workings of the brain - but we do know that it is incredibly complex. It is estimated to consist of 10^11 neurons, passing signals to each other via about 10^15 connections. That complexity is what allows us to think. But it does not mean that we choose our thoughts.

Take a pocket calculator. Given certain inputs, you can expect certain outputs. The calculator does not think. It operates in a logical manner, and produces a logical output.
Now make it more complex. Take a personal computer. It can take a lot more inputs, perform more complicated calculations. The computer does not think. It operates in a logical manner, and produces a logical output. But it might take a very long time for a person to understand that logic, and agree that the output was expected.

Take a water molecule. Given complete information about it, you might be able to infer some of the properties of water. But it would be a tall order indeed to use that to model the oceans. An ocean is a complex system, with billions of particles influencing each other, and being influenced by the result of other influences...et cetera. But at it's heart, given complete knowledge of the states of every molecule in the ocean, and enough processing power, it should be possible in theory to model the interactions of every molecule in the ocean. We would know the inputs, understand the calculation, and find the output logical, like the calculator.

The human brain is amazingly complex. It's like the ocean, with billions of cells and trillions of interactions. But it would be even harder to form a model of the brain than of the ocean. The brain forms connections based on the inputs from our senses, and each of us perceives the universe differently. No two people will have the same experience of the world, - even if they did, no two people's brains would process that input in the same way. Each of us forms a unique perception and understanding of the world. We can take the inputs to the brain - or at least, an approximation of what a person has experienced - and look at the outputs, their thoughts and actions, and find ourselves unable to form a model that would explain it. You can present an identical scenario to a million people and get a million different responses.

Enter the idea of Free Will.

I propose that, given complete knowledge of the inputs and interactions in a person's brain, and enough processing power, it would be possible to accurately predict that individual's response to any situation.
They would act in the way they chose. But given identical inputs and conditions, the cells in the brain would be interacting in the same way, and you'd get the same output. If this was not the case, then that would imply to me that the brain was functioning randomly - which is to me a far more troubling notion than the lack of free will.

This idea is of course impossible to test. You can't reset someone's brain to the state it was in before an event - that would require time travel. If you merely present someone with the same test twice, and measure the outcome, the two will not be the same. The state of the brain in the second test is altered with the knowledge of the first test, the events in between, and countless other interactions we couldn't even begin to speculate at.

The point I'm getting at is this: the brain is merely a system, and operates in a deterministic way. It is however an incredibly complex system, with incredibly complex inputs, that we could not even begin to wrap our heads around. Every event, from the moment the universe began, to this moment now as you read my words, has combined, influencing each other, to shape your brain and your thoughts at this very instant. You did not choose them. They have been determined.

People often wonder why the atheist does not get disheartened by their beliefs - that you're born into a life without purpose, die without consequence only to be swept away utterly by the tide of history, and in this case live out your life without choice, predestined. I would say this: The most beautiful universe I can image is the one I find myself in. Unimaginably huge, where a simple cloud of protons can be shaped only by the blind, uncaring force of nature into a staggeringly complex and diverse collection of self-replicating patterns, that one day stopped and wondered where they came from.

Ooooh, long post, very nice. I'll read it later.

As will I XD

Yikes. I went to wikipedia to look up free will and got slightly freaked out. I thought free will would have been obvious.

The point I'm getting at is this: the brain is merely a system, and operates in a deterministic way. It is however an incredibly complex system, with incredibly complex inputs, that we could not even begin to wrap our heads around. Every event, from the moment the universe began, to this moment now as you read my words, has combined, influencing each other, to shape your brain and your thoughts at this very instant. You did not choose them. They have been determined.

I dont think every event in the universe has an impact on me (or anyone). Sure those events have shaped the universe into its current form, and the input i receive from my little section of it.
I think we do have free will. I dont get why been able to predict what someone is going to do would mean they have no free will. I dont get why the influences on me (physical, emotional, mental) would render free will false.
Could you explain a bit more about the deterministic point of view?

This biggest flaw with determinsim in my opinion is that if everything is predetermined and every event is caused by an event which came before it and so on and son on. The series of which is also an event. Then said event, and the series of events which make it ultimately, needs an initial cause.

In other words, If that's to be taken as objective fact and everything is a predetermined event culminating from this single creation event, you've just proved there is a god.

ChaosGalvatron wrote:I dont think every event in the universe has an impact on me (or anyone). Sure those events have shaped the universe into its current form, and the input i receive from my little section of it.
I think we do have free will. I dont get why been able to predict what someone is going to do would mean they have no free will. I dont get why the influences on me (physical, emotional, mental) would render free will false.
Could you explain a bit more about the deterministic point of view?

As I understand it, free will is about choice. The idea is that you can't be made to do things, that you have independent thoughts and act upon them. What I'm saying is that those those choices aren't really choices, they're just the logical outcome of your circumstances - and it couldn't be any other way. Given a set of circumstances, a certain response is inevitable - and those circumstances are themselves inevitable given the earlier state of the universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:In other words, If that's to be taken as objective fact and everything is a predetermined event culminating from this single creation event, you've just proved there is a god.

I have done no such thing. The ultimate nature of the universe still eludes us, and a "single creation event" is just one theory. Assuming the universe did spring into being from a singular point, that still does not prove the existence of a god - it merely shows us the limitations of our understanding. Throwing gods into the holes in our knowledge achieves nothing.

The Dreadnote wrote:

whatwhat wrote:In other words, If that's to be taken as objective fact and everything is a predetermined event culminating from this single creation event, you've just proved there is a god.

I have done no such thing. The ultimate nature of the universe still eludes us, and a "single creation event" is just one theory. Assuming the universe did spring into being from a singular point, that still does not prove the existence of a god - it merely shows us the limitations of our understanding. Throwing gods into the holes in our knowledge achieves nothing.

But if everything is predetermined there has to be an initial event which triggered the events which followed, by basic maths. Something has to flick the first domino. If everything is determined by what has come before it then there has to be one event at the start of it all prior to which there was no event. Which leaves us nowhere.

Bear in mind when I say god I'm talking about something we have no understanding of, a creator or creation event. i'm not talking about a guy with a big white beard and a son called jesus.

The only other way to fix the problem of an event without a cause besides a god/creation event is to say that time is looped and the first event is caused by the last event. But that again leaves us nowhere as to how and why there came to be a loop in the first place.

On the other hand if the universe isnot pre determined and has the ability to be make undetermined events and alter direction then these problems are less of an issue. And something can be born from nothing.

whatwhat wrote:But if everything is predetermined there has to be an initial event which triggered the events which followed, by basic maths. Something has to flick the first domino. If everything is determined by what has come before it then there has to be one event at the start of it all prior to which there was no event. Which leaves us nowhere.

Bear in mind when I say god I'm talking about something we have no understanding of, a creator or creation event. i'm not talking about a guy with a big white beard and a son called jesus.

I follow you. I don't see much of a way around it though. And to be honest a lot of Hawking's last book went over my head, so I'm not full of alternative scenarios right now.

And even if the very beginning of time wasn't predetermined, are you saying that following events were not? To go back to the ocean analogy, you don't need to know how the water molecules were formed to use them to predict future states of the ocean. You don't need to know the beginning of time to say that a persons brain architecture - determined by their life experience - determines their thoughts.

The Dreadnote wrote:

whatwhat wrote:But if everything is predetermined there has to be an initial event which triggered the events which followed, by basic maths. Something has to flick the first domino. If everything is determined by what has come before it then there has to be one event at the start of it all prior to which there was no event. Which leaves us nowhere.

Bear in mind when I say god I'm talking about something we have no understanding of, a creator or creation event. i'm not talking about a guy with a big white beard and a son called jesus.

I follow you. I don't see much of a way around it though. And to be honest a lot of Hawking's last book went over my head, so I'm not full of alternative scenarios right now.

And even if the very beginning of time wasn't predetermined, are you saying that following events were not?

The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.

Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is not pre-determined then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.

Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways, and our mind is made up of atoms and particles. How can free will exist?

Sorry, i still dont get how our actions been influenced by our lives, our genetics and external input/influences, renders free will null and void.
Even if this is true:

If ($external_input = "Cleavage"{
$look = TRUE;
elseif ($external_input = "Cleavage && $girlfriend_proximity < 2){
$look = FALSE;
}

Just because our actions could be considered predictable doesnt make them pre-determined.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways, and our mind is made up of atoms and particles. How can free will exist?

You know it took me about an hour to type up that post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.

If the universe is deterministic then our actions, by extension, will be deterministic. If the nature of the universe is chaos, would our actions too not be chaotic? That also seems to me to preclude choice.

The Dreadnote wrote:To go back to the ocean analogy, you don't need to know how the water molecules were formed to use them to predict future states of the ocean. You don't need to know the beginning of time to say that a persons brain architecture - determined by their life experience - determines their thoughts.

Think about what you are actually saying there though. If ever thought in your brain is determined by its intitial set up then it's intitial set up is also determined, lets say by genetics, which again are determined by something else...and so on...you end up going all the way back through evolution, past the formation of the solar system etc etc. Your basically saying it's all one big series of events determined by their previous event.

The Dreadnote wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.

If the universe is deterministic then our actions, by extension, will be deterministic. If the nature of the universe is chaos, would our actions too not be chaotic?

Exactly, hence if that is the case we do have free will.

Took me two seconds to type the first keyword to get that from google

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Took me two seconds to type the first keyword to get that from google

It's not a very substantial argument if that's what you're thinking. It denies a lot of what we know about science.

whatwhat wrote:
Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random

Chaos and randomness are only valid in deterministic systems. Look into chaos theory.

whatwhat wrote:
then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.

Why?

Even in a deterministic universe it makes no sense to say that the action of one electron governs the action of one atom. Rather, the actions of the electrons, protons, and neutrons govern the action of the molecule. That may seem to remove the capacity for unique atomic behavior, but since the atom is a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons we're merely considering the atom as the sum of the actions of those parts. Parts that would act differently under alternate conditions; thsu establishing uniqueness for atomic behavior.

By the same token human beings are the sum of their various parts, behaving according to a will that is "free" in the sense that we can behave in accordance with what we are: a collection of various parts that would not act in the same manner were it not for the sequence in which they were arranged.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Now if you are prepared to accept that the universe is chaotic and random

Chaos and randomness are only valid in deterministic systems. Look into chaos theory.

Chaos theory does not equal chaos neither does it equal randomness. A better term for what I am saying I may require but chaos theory is nowhere near what I am getting at.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
then this would solve said problem but it would also ruin your theory that we on a basic level are living out predetermined lives and don't truely make our own decisions.

Why?

Even in a deterministic universe it makes no sense to say that the action of one electron governs the action of one atom. Rather, the actions of the electrons, protons, and neutrons govern the action of the molecule. That may seem to remove the capacity for unique atomic behavior, but since the atom is a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons we're merely considering the atom as the sum of the actions of those parts. Parts that would act differently under alternate conditions; thsu establishing uniqueness for atomic behavior.

Free Willy exists
but I haven't seen it.

How do I know it exists?

This thread will end badly
How do I know.
Experience of seeing many a Dakka metaphysical discussion go awol.

Bloody determinists.
I thought quantum mechanics went against certainty, hence Eistein's quip about God not playing dice?
(He was again the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics so I have been fish)

whatwhat wrote:Think about what you are actually saying there though. If ever thought in your brain is determined by its intitial set up then it's intitial set up is also determined, lets say by genetics, which again are determined by something else...and so on...you end up going all the way back through evolution, past the formation of the solar system etc etc. Your basically saying it's all one big series of events determined by their previous event.

I do understand this, you know. You don't need to repeat it for me.

whatwhat wrote:Exactly, hence if that is the case we do have free will.

I don't follow this, though. I don't see how chaos equates to choice of actions.

See told you so
it's started already.

Some things are predictable, though am not sure that is the same as pre-determined.

whatwhat wrote:The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.

Why? An initial cause isn't a prerequisite to causality still functioning. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

whatwhat wrote:
Chaos theory does not equal chaos neither does it equal randomness. It's another issue.

Chaos theory is literally the study of chaotic behavior. This implicitly involves distinguishing chaos from randomness, and determining how, and why, either only applies given a deterministic state; because only deterministic states can be studied.

Its not a separate issue so much as the study of the issues we're talking about.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I thought quantum mechanics went against certainty, hence Eistein's quip about God not playing dice?
(He was again the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics so I have been fish)

Of course if neurons don't actually act deterministically then my idea doesn't work. It is entirely possible for the brain to spontaneously disappear and reappear on neptune...it's just very unlikely. I was under the impression that things operate on a large enough scale in the brain that they behave mostly in the expected manner.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Chaos theory does not equal chaos neither does it equal randomness. It's another issue.

Chaos theory is literally the study of chaotic behavior.

A better term than chaos I may not ahve but chaos theory is well off what I am getting at.

Laughing Man wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.

Why? An initial cause isn't a prerequisite to causality still functioning. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

Yeah, this is what I'm getting at whatwhat.

The Dreadnote wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:

whatwhat wrote:The following events were determined by the event which preceded it. It's like a line of dominoes, one hits the next, which hits the next, which hits the next and so on. But that line of dominoes has to start somewhere. So the problem is that initial event, with no prceding event, with therefore no cause.

Why? An initial cause isn't a prerequisite to causality still functioning. As the saying goes, it's turtles all the way down.

Yeah, this is what I'm getting at whatwhat.

Well then now you require an explanation as to how this came to be, something which exists as far back to infinity. If no explanation can be given than you prove yourself wrong again. As what you have is just one big long infinate event with no cause. Your in quite a conundrum.

Why? Who's to say reality isn' an infinite chain of events? As I said, the universe doesn't require either a beginning or an end. It's just there.

I know two things.

1) I can't explain the beginning of the universe.

2) I believe, and perceive, that causality works.

I require nothing else, and I am fully prepared to be wrong on the internet if it'll get you to stop pointing out that causality implies an infinite chain of events.

Laughing Man wrote:Why? Who's to say reality isn' an infinite chain of events? As I said, the universe doesn't require either a beginning or an end. It's just there.

The law of 'it's just there' undermines your whole argument though as it suggests something exists which wasn't pre-determined.

The Dreadnote wrote:I know two things.

1) I can't explain the beginning of the universe.

2) I believe, and perceive, that causality works.

I require nothing else, and I am fully prepared to be wrong on the internet if it'll get you to stop pointing out that causality implies an infinite chain of events.

I'm not saying your wrong. The fact is, no known science knows the answer to this question. All I am doing is playing devils advocate with your theories, I welcome you to chalenge what I say to. This is how scientists form theories, throwing stuff back and forth to each other. One disproving something, the other then finding a way for it to still work and putting it back to them.

whatwhat wrote:
A better term than chaos I may not ahve but chaos theory is well off what I am getting at.

I know, but the point I'm making is that what you're talking about, randomness or noise, is only possible in a deterministic universe where bits of information are determined by themselves. The lesser form of this argument, that randomness is not incompatible with determinism, still refutes your argument that the acceptance of randomness eliminates the possibility of deterministic universe.

If you're talking about the sort of randomness that does refute a deterministic universe, one in which bits of information do not determine themselves, then you're basically positing two things:

1) An indeterministic universe that is indeterministic because its indeterministic.

2) A universe in which people lack any sort of will, free or otherwise, because they lack the ability to determine their own actions.