Free Will

[tman_ndsu08]

Two things that I think we can all agree on.

1) The future does not exist until it becomes the present.

The future describes the image of the universe including the position and momentum vector of every particle within at a time equal to the present time plus time.

Such an image does not co exist with the present image in the same space in the future.

That image isn't real until the future becomes the present.


2) It is impossible to predict the future.

If we knew position and momentum vector of every particle in the universe, we could predict where those particles would be in a future time.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, however, says that we change either the momentum vector or the position by determining the opposite. IE, we can't know both at the same time.


The inability to predict the future does not rule out the possibility that the future is predetermined, though.


This is something that I find weird. The universe is just a big billiard table and all matter is just billiard balls bouncing around and colliding with each other. To me, that suggests that the future is predetermined, even if we can't predict it.

So even if you think you have a million difference choices, whatever choice you pick was bound to be the way it was going to be since the beginning of time. Even if you think that you're going to do one thing and then do another thing that you think is random, that was still the way it was always going to be.

Of course, not all particles in the universe follow linear paths. Gravity bends the path of some particles. But that can still be predicted mathematically. It's not a random change.


The only hope for true free will is if there is something in the universe that can affect the path of a particle and can't be predicted mathematically. Something random.

We don't know that much about our universe, so that possibility is out there I suppose. Perhaps God allows free will by changing things in a way that we can't predict?


Anyone have thoughts on this?

[Master Debater]

“1) The future does not exist until it becomes the present

That image isn't real until the future becomes the present."

You have already contradicted yourself.

“The inability to predict the future does not rule out the possibility that the future is predetermined, though.”

If we can’t predict the future, then who can???

“To me, that suggests that the future is predetermined, even if we can't predict it.”

Again, who has predetermined the future if we can’t???

“So even if you think you have a million difference choices, whatever choice you pick was bound to be the way it was going to be since the beginning of time. Even if you think that you're going to do one thing and then do another thing that you think is random, that was still the way it was always going to be.”

Baseless…

“Of course, not all particles in the universe follow linear paths. Gravity bends the path of some particles. But that can still be predicted mathematically. It's not a random change.”

Why would we mathematically predicted something if we already know it’s on a predetermined path?

“The only hope for true free will is if there is something in the universe that can affect the path of a particle and can't be predicted mathematically. Something random.”

Your have half a thought there, what would be do if we were to come across this completely random “something”?

“We don't know that much about our universe, so that possibility is out there I suppose. Perhaps God allows free will by changing things in a way that we can't predict?”

Of course we cannot predict another “being’s” actions (if we agreed that the very existence of "god" was true). Much like you could not have predicted I was going to post in this thread.

"Anyone have thoughts on this?"

I am not seeing the point you are trying to argue. You seem to be speaking in incomplete thoughts and contradicting yourself. Could you please elaborate on this providing more information?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Master Debater ... I am not seeing the point you are trying to argue. You seem to be speaking in incomplete thoughts and contradicting yourself. Could you please elaborate on this providing more information?

I see you have encountered tman...
Why don't you engage someone reasonable in a conversation instead of the resident retard?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Master Debater You have already contradicted yourself.

Learn to use the quote tags.

I didn't make any contradictions.

If we can’t predict the future, then who can???

Who cares? We can't.

Again, who has predetermined the future if we can’t???

What?

Saying something is predetermined doesn't imply that anyone has made any decision.

Why would we mathematically predicted something if we already know it’s on a predetermined path?

What?

We can predict the non linear effect that gravity has on particles, for example.

You have half a thought there, what would be do if we were to come across this completely random “something”?

It wouldn't matter. We wouldn't be able to predict it mathematically.

Of course we cannot predict another “being’s” actions (if we agreed that the very existence of "god" was true). Much like you could not have predicted I was going to post in this thread.

If we knew the initial position and momentum vector of every particle in the universe at the start of time, then I would be able to predict exactly what you would've said in the post.

That assumes that all particle movement in the universe follows a pattern (linear or non linear).

If there is something that randomly affects the particle movement (something we'll never be able to predict with math), then I wouldn't be able to make any predictions.

[Master Debater]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I see you have encountered tman... Why don't you engage someone reasonable in a conversation instead of the resident retard?

I now see what you mean, thanks for the warning me. I now see why there were no posts before!

Tman, I do not wish to talk to a wall - BYE!

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Master Debater I now see what you mean, thanks for the warning me. I now see why there were no posts before! Tman, I do not wish to talk to a wall - BYE!

You seriously need to rethink your name--it's entirely misleading. Tman has a valid point that there lies a great disagreement between the prediction of the future and the existence of the universe itself.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Two things that I think we can all agree on. 1) The future does not exist until it becomes the present. The future describes the image of the universe including the position and momentum vector of every particle within at a time equal to the present time plus time. Such an image does not co exist with the present image in the same space in the future. That image isn't real until the future becomes the present.

I think the future in its "future form" of nonexistence is like that of a concept, something that you could argue the existence of, actually. A concept can be thought, but it has no mass, no volume, no presence. The future, from what I've gathered, can be predicted, and therefore can be thought of, like a concept. Well, let's make that a yes and no answer for now.

The answer is "Yes" when the atoms are controlled, and the only unnatural presence is your own. I say "unnatural" because we have choices that alter nature, and if someone else were in the environment of the experiment, they could alter the atoms and thus make the future unpredictable. You, however, as the only manipulator of nature, can predict the future.

For example, if you were the only thinking creature on Earth, at least to the extent of surpassing natural status quo, you can predict what naturally will happen, even though we see the obvious task of mapping out the positions of every atom as impossible. Theoretically, I suppose it's possible.

Yet, realistically, I say no because they are many more "unnatural" minds out there who can manipulate the universe. And we can't leave out the fact that other supernatural minds have the same chances and we would need to rule out their existence.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I see you have encountered tman... Why don't you engage someone reasonable in a conversation instead of the resident retard?

I find tman to be far more intelligent than most on the forums, which I thought was the opposite of a retard. Childish sarcasm or not, this post is completely unreasonable, which now classifies you as the tuesday troll. Congrats.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Two things that I think we can all agree on.

Prepare to have some disagreements, especially if the only reason we can agree on them is because you accept them as true but refrence no postulated theorums or cited evidence from a credible source.

Quote by: tman 1) The future does not exist until it becomes the present. The future describes the image of the universe including the position and momentum vector of every particle within at a time equal to the present time plus time. Such an image does not co exist with the present image in the same space in the future. That image isn't real until the future becomes the present.

First of all, says who?

Who says the only thing the future is, is the way things will behave in relation to reletivity? So basically your idea only works with what? MATTER

Something wrong with saying things like that... you leave out the intangibles. There are things that do not consist of matter, but we know they exist. My thoughts are an example. They do not have matter, but rather a production of such, but if they themselves actually have no matter in them, then how will I know what my thoughts are? I think this is the point that master debater makes.

Your first point only recognizes what is tangible. Not all things are tangible.

Quote by: tman 2) It is impossible to predict the future. If we knew position and momentum vector of every particle in the universe, we could predict where those particles would be in a future time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, however, says that we change either the momentum vector or the position by determining the opposite. IE, we can't know both at the same time.

Change your wording NOW

We can make infrences about what will happen in the future, and guess what? THAT IS CALLED PREDICTING. making infrences and science even your evidence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle uses them.

So change the word to this: It is impossible to know exact time and space at which everything will occur past the present and you have my attention and my concent.

Quote by: tman This is something that I find weird. The universe is just a big billiard table and all matter is just billiard balls bouncing around and colliding with each other. To me, that suggests that the future is predetermined, even if we can't predict it.

Okay stop and think for a second. If this is true then there had to be some one to "Break" or get the pool balls, what you call matter, moving.

So if we were to "Break" we would obviously aim in a certain direction or a predetermined choice of which ball to start off in our little chain reaction. Then I have already predicted the future. I have said that when I aim the white billiard at this ball, it shall colide with something. Now I have made an infrence. And if my infrernce is true, then I can make another infrence at where this billiard that I have recently hit, will hit next, and I can be correct.

Now I have predicted the future through infrences and proven your second statement false.

Quote by: tman So even if you think you have a million difference choices, whatever choice you pick was bound to be the way it was going to be since the beginning of time. Even if you think that you're going to do one thing and then do another thing that you think is random, that was still the way it was always going to be.

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. So your saying that at the beginning of time, ther was an infinate # of choices? Okay, so who chose these things? Considering that man was not around, it could not be him. Considering that the only thing existing at the time was nature you must claim one of two things:
A: God exists and made the choice
B: Nature is living and breathing.

Quote by: tman The only hope for true free will is if there is something in the universe that can affect the path of a particle and can't be predicted mathematically. Something random.

Okay, your premise is that the Universe is ordered and structured and everything must fit.

Wrong, the universe is completely chaotic and random. If we look to science, we see that nature favors entropy, which is an increase in randomness, therefore as long as entropy exists you have completely contradicted you premise.

Quote by: tman We don't know that much about our universe

Perfect, then why should we accept this truth only based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle if we know so little?

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I find tman to be far more intelligent than most on the forums, which I thought was the opposite of a retard. Childish sarcasm or not, this post is completely unreasonable, which now classifies you as the tuesday troll. Congrats.

SoccerFreak I am glad you criticise Patrick for his comments and them judge him. :rolleyes:

Also, Patrick hits on the point that tman has a history of saying "NO" to people and giving no reasons why.

Then making one sentece statements with no backup provided or PROOF of such.

Hey by the way, where's the proof in his first 2 statements?

Why, I believe they are NOWHERE. :rolleyes: Example provided.

tman has not agreed with one person on any point against his as long as I have been here. Not willing to accept others thoughts is just plain ignorance. And that does not make a smart debater

[Jimmy the Pro]

Hahahaha look at tman's response to master debater

his longest reply was 5 lines.

Yes tman, you really do back up your scources well and give reason to support your claim :rolleyes:

Now what say you soccerfreak?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I find tman to be far more intelligent than most on the forums, which I thought was the opposite of a retard. Childish sarcasm or not, this post is completely unreasonable, which now classifies you as the tuesday troll. Congrats.

Actually, it's Thursday.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: ldmaniac SoccerFreak I am glad you criticise Patrick for his comments and them judge him. :rolleyes: Also, Patrick hits on the point that tman has a history of saying "NO" to people and giving no reasons why. Then making one sentece statements with no backup provided or PROOF of such. Hey by the way, where's the proof in his first 2 statements? Why, I believe they are NOWHERE. :rolleyes: Example provided. tman has not agreed with one person on any point against his as long as I have been here. Not willing to accept others thoughts is just plain ignorance. And that does not make a smart debater

Ignorance before or not, he provoked a completely new topic of debate while openly stating questions and possible answers. So maybe you should stop judging people after your own critique. Oh no, I guess we're all human. :rolleyes:

Patrick's post had nothing to do with the topic=trollish maneuver. If you want to keep doing the same, go ahead, it's up to you.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Actually, it's Thursday.

1. He wrote it on a tuesday.

2. It sounds much cooler.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Patrick's post had nothing to do with the topic=trollish maneuver. If you want to keep doing the same, go ahead, it's up to you.

Well, it looks like I have gone and argued his point quite thoroughly so i did have a relevant post.

Hey wanna stop play referee soccerfreak? :rolleyes:

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ldmaniac Who says the only thing the future is, is the way things will behave in relation to reletivity? So basically your idea only works with what? MATTER

Anything that has a location, a direction, and can affect matter works too.

There are things that do not consist of matter, but we know they exist. My thoughts are an example. They do not have matter, but rather a production of such, but if they themselves actually have no matter in them, then how will I know what my thoughts are? Your first point only recognizes what is tangible. Not all things are tangible.

Time is only related to tangible things.

Thoughts are caused by tangible things (particles in your brain).

There are other things that do not have matter, like tachyons, but as far as I know they have no affect on matter.

We can make infrences about what will happen in the future, and guess what? THAT IS CALLED PREDICTING. making infrences and science even your evidence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle uses them.

That's not called predicting, that's called guessing.

Nothing wrong with statistics and probability, but it's not an exact prediction.


Okay stop and think for a second. If this is true then there had to be some one to "Break" or get the pool balls, what you call matter, moving.

So if we were to "Break" we would obviously aim in a certain direction or a predetermined choice of which ball to start off in our little chain reaction. Then I have already predicted the future. I have said that when I aim the white billiard at this ball, it shall colide with something. Now I have made an infrence. And if my infrernce is true, then I can make another infrence at where this billiard that I have recently hit, will hit next, and I can be correct. Now I have predicted the future through infrences and proven your second statement false.

You're right about one thing.

If someone knew the direction and location of all particles after the big bang (which would be the "break"), one could predict the future image of those particles in the universe at any time he wanted assuming that one also knew all the ways that the universe could affect those particles in a non linear fashion.

I already pointed this out, I believe.


The reason we can't predict the future is that we don't have a starting point with all the information of locations and directions of particles.

If we could know the exact location and direction of every particle in the universe now, that would work too. But because of HUP, we can never get that information since we change the direction or location by determining the other.

Get it?

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. So your saying that at the beginning of time, ther was an infinate # of choices? Okay, so who chose these things? Considering that man was not around, it could not be him. Considering that the only thing existing at the time was nature you must claim one of two things: A: God exists and made the choice B: Nature is living and breathing.

I'm having a hard time understand your question.


I'm saying that if there is no free will, even if it appears that there are limitless possibilities, there is only one possibility for the future. That future image has already been determined. It just a matter of time before that image becomes the present.

Okay, your premise is that the Universe is ordered and structured and everything must fit. Wrong, the universe is completely chaotic and random. If we look to science, we see that nature favors entropy, which is an increase in randomness, therefore as long as entropy exists you have completely contradicted you premise.

If there are random things that affect the way that particles move, it should be impossible to determine the future image of particles. Which would mean that a limitless number of possibilities are therefore vaild. Ergo, free will.

If it is true that those random things happen.

It may be that they only appear random because they are so complex and we just haven't found an equation for them yet.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Two things that I think we can all agree on. 1) The future does not exist until it becomes the present...

In this connection, I framed a sentence long back but in my own laguage. I would try to translate it in english (though meaning is not exact) as follows:

What ever happens at various times, it happens that way because it was to happen that way only.

I differ with the statement "The future does not exist until it becomes the present." The future exists even before it becomes present but is not predictable in majority of cases. I would say "Future exists as real as present but remains unknown till it becomes Present".

2) It is impossible to predict the future..

"It is impossible to predict the future."Not exactly so! Sometimes based on our past experiences future can be certainly guessed or predicted. Examples can be many!!!

The inability to predict the future does not rule out the possibility that the future is predetermined, though. This is something that I find weird. The universe is just a big billiard table and all matter is just billiard balls bouncing around and colliding with each other. To me, that suggests that the future is predetermined, even if we can't predict it.

Definitely so! I want to only add that there is no initiation of action. It is not time dependant. There is no begining or end. To my mind, all goes on in cyclic fashion. Action / Reaction of various infinte particles goes on and on eternally.

Yeha! It is good that we can not predict future. Imagine! If everybody starts knowing his future what a catastropy would be created. World would seize to exist then, that I certainly predict as the ultimate FUTURE. Just think about it!!!! So Nature, God or Dog, whatever you like to call it; who has kept "Future Unknown", has done the wisest thing ever.

So even if you think you have a million difference choices, whatever choice you pick was bound to be the way it was going to be since the beginning of time. Even if you think that you're going to do one thing and then do another thing that you think is random, that was still the way it was always going to be.

Million different choices exist as the property of Nature so that future remains unpredicable for the good of world. Just keep on of guessing about the future, then when future becomes present, bear with it sportingly, if you are bold enough!!!!! :eek:

The only hope for true free will is if there is something in the universe that can affect the path of a particle and can't be predicted mathematically. Something random. We don't know that much about our universe, so that possibility is out there I suppose. Perhaps God allows free will by changing things in a way that we can't predict? Anyone have thoughts on this?

Yes, there is a free will in the universe and that is YOU. ":You" means your confidence i.e. power of mind. Your cent percent devotion to alter the pre-determined future. No physical scientific laws govern the action/reaction of such intense will power. It is meta-physical, which cannot be debated but only felt or experienced. :rolleyes:

Quote by: ldmaniac Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. So your saying that at the beginning of time, ther was an infinate # of choices? Okay, so who chose these things? Considering that man was not around, it could not be him. Considering that the only thing existing at the time was nature you must claim one of two things: A: God exists and made the choice B: Nature is living and breathing.

See, above part of the post, there is no initiation or first choice. Everything is cyclic and exists, changes as the infinite properties of supreme SOMETHING (You can call it anything you like!!!)
If I have to choose between A & B, I would go for B, The Nature is not doing anything. To my mind Nature acts according to eternal existing nature (properties) :confused: ???

Okay, your premise is that the Universe is ordered and structured and everything must fit. Wrong, the universe is completely chaotic and random. If we look to science, we see that nature favors entropy, which is an increase in randomness, therefore as long as entropy exists you have completely contradicted you premise.

Right! the properties of universe are so much ordered and structured that everything not only must fit but ACTUALLY FITS IN WELL!!!! Give just one example in nature which is illogical or irrational. Your science only is continually finding reasons behind what you observe around in the universe.

Your looking at science is again wrong. Science says due to entropy only actions take place in nature. If there is no entropy, nothing would exist. To be more scientific, actions take place in such a fashion so that entropy is reduced. Probably. it is because of this only, they felt earlier that a time would come the universe would become a black hole.
I have my own reservations about such a possibility. This theory also has been recently contradicted. Now they feel, universe is expanding with certain positive acceleration, which rules out their original view about turning universe to a black hole .

Frankly speaking, I attribute this infinite randomness to cyclic phenomina with no begining or end. But then action reaction do exist as the base.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Kuldeep In this connection, I framed a sentence long back but in my own laguage. I would try to translate it in english (though meaning is not exact) as follows: What ever happens at various times, it happens that way because it was to happen that way only. I differ with the statement "The future does not exist until it becomes the present." The future exists even before it becomes present but is not predictable in majority of cases. I would say "Future exists as real as present but remains unknown till it becomes Present".

My point was that the future and the present aren't co existing.

Even if the future is already determined, it doesn't exist yet.

IE, you couldn't travel back and forth between the present and the future with a time machine.

"It is impossible to predict the future."Not exactly so! Sometimes based on our past experiences future can be certainly guessed or predicted. Examples can be many!!!

You can guess, for certain. Everything has a probability.

[phoenix_fire]

You guys think so...three-dimensionally.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: phoenix_fire You guys think so...three-dimensionally.

Marty! You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!