Free Will Poll

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison Are we talking about free will in the sense that your desires are free of legal regulation or in the sense that the future state of the universe is impossible to determine from the current state?

Honestly, I don't like to go further than saying that free will is the power that allows things such as people to make choices for which they can be held morally accountable. People can be held morally accountable for their choices because they have control of them through free will (the choices are not determined and are not entirely randomly).

I don't like trying to define free will because I don't think I can, as I believe it is an incoherent concept. I'd rather talk about it in terms of what it supposedly accomplishes, the justified attribution of moral responsibility to subjects.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Merge People can be held morally accountable for their choices because they have control of them through free will (the choices are not determined and are not entirely randomly).

The future state of the universe is not determinable.


The paths that particles follow can not be determined. Only the probability that they will be within a certain region can be determined.


So certainly, choices that people make are actually being made by those people.


We're not just following a track that is already determined.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison The future state of the universe is not determinable. The paths that particles follow can not be determined. Only the probability that they will be within a certain region can be determined. So certainly, choices that people make are actually being made by those people. We're not just following a track that is already determined.

Determinism doesn't have to do with whether we can empirically determine the future as much as it has to do with the future being set. Think about it this way: if I were God and knew everything, could I predict the path of particles? If so, then the path of the particles is determined. If not, this lack of predictability doesn't necessarily imply free will because it can just as easily imply randomness (which is why I brought up randomness earlier).

Even if you can come up with convincing empirical evidence that we have free will, you still have to reject my argument that free will is an incoherent concept. No amount of empirical evidence can convince me that free will exists if I believe it to be logically impossible.

[MplsBison]

Randomness proves that the future is not set.

[freefallife]

Quote by: MplsBison Randomness proves that the future is not set.

I agree with the idea that the future is not set. However, just for the sake of agrument, randomness does not prove it. If the future WAS set, then choices that seemed random would atually had already been made for you and you would still have the illusion of randomness.

[Morality Games]

Either the future is set (eternalism) or it doesn't exist all (presentism).

I tend to support the former notion -- past, present, and future are all well-established.

But to be frank, I wouldn't care if this view is correct or not, since it is based just on something I find likely, not something that ties into ideas I am emotionally attatched to.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: freefallife If the future WAS set, then choices that seemed random would atually had already been made for you and you would still have the illusion of randomness.

Even if you have perfect information about the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, you still can't determine where it will be in the future.

Not even God can.


Undoubtedly, the future is not set.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Morality Games Either the future is set (eternalism) or it doesn't exist all (presentism).

Growing block universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison Even if you have perfect information about the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, you still can't determine where it will be in the future. Not even God can. Undoubtedly, the future is not set.

"Not even God can."

First, how could you make this claim unless you were God?

And second, even if we assume that there are random events, how does that provide us with free will? Randomness only provides us with randomness, not free will. The assumption that random events occur does not imply the following statement:

"So certainly, choices that people make are actually being made by those people."

Disproving determinism does not prove free will.

[Merge]

Quote by: Morality Games Either the future is set (eternalism) or it doesn't exist all (presentism). I tend to support the former notion -- past, present, and future are all well-established. But to be frank, I wouldn't care if this view is correct or not, since it is based just on something I find likely, not something that ties into ideas I am emotionally attatched to.

Is this a more ellegant way of saying that even if you find eternalism to be true, as far as living your life goes, such a truth doesn't really effect you? If it is I think we're in the same boat, or at least on the same lake (I think I believe in presentism, though the term is a few minutes new to me).

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Merge First, how could you make this claim unless you were God?

It was probably a poor choice of words. I'll retract if need be. I don't want to get into an argument about the nature of God.

Disproving determinism does not prove free will.

Then let me ask, what is your definition of free will?



My definition of free will is that my future is not set. IE, I'm not following a track that has been already laid for me since the beginning of time.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison It was probably a poor choice of words. I'll retract if need be. I don't want to get into an argument about the nature of God. Then let me ask, what is your definition of free will? My definition of free will is that my future is not set. IE, I'm not following a track that has been already laid for me since the beginning of time.

Edit: I agree about dropping the God subject. It isn't really important for the discussion. Good call on that one, I think you just helped us dodge a tangent.

Well, as I said in an earlier post, I don't like to try to define "free will" because I think it's an incoherent concept (you can go back and read it for a more in depth explanation of my position if you want). I feel more comfortable talking about free will in terms of moral responsibility and all that fun stuff.

As for your definition, I think it encompasses too many things. It is true that humans would have free will on this account of it, but so would all the particles you mentioned that have paths that cannot be predicted. I think your definition includes both randomness and free will. Under your definition of free will any random acting object can be said to have free will.

[MplsBison]

I am still struggling to see how there's anything more to the subject than determining whether the future is set or not.


If it's set, you're just traveling along the track that has been laid down for you since the beginning of time. Every single action you take is nothing more than an exact chain of cause and effect of particles bouncing into each other in a completely determinable way.


If it's not set, there is no track. You're making it up as you go along.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison I am still struggling to see how there's anything more to the subject than determining whether the future is set or not. If it's set, you're just traveling along the track that has been laid down for you since the beginning of time. Every single action you take is nothing more than an exact chain of cause and effect of particles bouncing into each other in a completely determinable way. If it's not set, there is no track. You're making it up as you go along.

The difference has to do with why free will is significant. We are supposed to be justified in holding people morally accountable for their actions because they have control over their lives through free will. This control is very important when blaming or awarding someone.

Basically, without free will there is no "should have done otherwise." If Jonny's actions are all random and he has no free will, we wouldn’t ever say Jonny should have acted differently because Jonny never had control over his actions. Jonny is not determined, yet we still wouldn’t consider him to be acting on free will.

[WakeTFU]

What difference does whether or not we have free will when it's obvious that we SEEM to have free will.

[Merge]

Quote by: WakeTFU What difference does whether or not we have free will when it's obvious that we SEEM to have free will.

Well, for a quick answer, one difference is we can no longer consider any punitive actions to be morally justified. Another is we can no longer consider rewards to be morally justified. Pragmatically justified, yes. Morally justified, no.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Merge We are supposed to be justified in holding people morally accountable for their actions because they have control over their lives through free will.

Yes, of course.


But how could you possibly say that someone has control over their lives if the future is set?

Or, how could you possibly say that someone has no control over their lives if the future is not set?


It makes no sense.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison Yes, of course. But how could you possibly say that someone has control over their lives if the future is set?

I don't think you can.

Quote by: MplsBison Or, how could you possibly say that someone has no control over their lives if the future is not set? It makes no sense.

If something (including a human being) is acting randomly, there is no control involved.

[MplsBison]

You're conflating the colloquial and mathematical sense of random.


If some guy does something weird, some other people might look at it and say "that was random".

But that guy still had control over his actions.



It's impossible for a human to not have control over his own actions if the future is not set.

[Merge]

Quote by: MplsBison You're conflating the colloquial and mathematical sense of random. If some guy does something weird, some other people might look at it and say "that was random".

I am using the term "random" as a physicist would use it. I mean random, without a cause, not determined.

Quote by: MplsBison But that guy still had control over his actions. It's impossible for a human to not have control over his own actions if the future is not set.

Unless the human is acting randomly. If it is impossible for a human to act randomly (not in a seemingly random way, but actually random), then I would argue that humans are determined. But you didn't give any arguments as to why people can't act randomly, so I have no reason to believe thye can't.

My earlier post talks about the origins of events and states. If an event or state has a cause, it is determined. If it does not have a cause, it is random (because to not have a cause is to be random). If you can fit free will (the power that grants humans control through choice) into what I have said, then I will grant that it is possible that humans have control. Even if I grant that free will is possible and that humans don't act randomly, you would still have to argue against determinism.

You can claim that people aren't determined and they have free will and control all you want, but without an argument I have no reason to believe you or agree with you.