It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Challenge Match: TheMythLives vs. jkrog08: There Is No Free Will
page: 112
share:
The topic for this debate is “There Is No Free Will"
TheMythLives will be arguing the "Pro" position and will open the debate.
jkrog08 will argue the "Con" position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post.
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and Audio Files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
TheMythLives will be arguing the "Pro" position and will open the debate.
jkrog08 will argue the "Con" position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post.
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and Audio Files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
Thank you Semper for setting this debate up And an extended thanks to jkrog08 who proposed this debate. I hope it will be interesting for all!
Please sit back and enjoy the wondrous world of this GREAT DEBATE!
_______________________________________________________
The topic for debate is: There Is No Free Will
Before we begin let us define free will according to Merriam-Webster:
The core of this entire debate that I will be debating upon will be following these 2 guidelines/rules:
1) I will back up what I state, through the use of science and logic.
2) What I say will fall under the Natural Law (Laws that cannot be broken)
To start I believe we need to question the basic questions of Free Will.
1) Does it exist?
- Free will cannot exist for a number of reasons. For instance, according to John Locke. The concept of Free Will is flawed due to the idea of a "will". The person has the freedom to move, to think, to dance, to not drink, to not eat, but it is the "WILL" that cannot have a choice. According to Locke:
In thus, we can conclude the following- If a man has a medical condition such as cancer and there is nothing that the doctors can do for him. The man is going to die. His will may be to stay alive, but that is not going to happen. Five days later the man dies due to the cancer. He had the Will, but the WILL is not free to act on its own accord.
Much like if the man was in a wheel chair and had to overcome a curb on the road. The curb is low to the ground, so he has the freedom to go over it safely; however, if the curb was higher off the ground the man could not get onto the curb no matter how much will he has to get onto the curb. It is impossible that he will ever get onto the curb. While he had the WILL, the will is not free to act on its own.
2) What is the Problem?
The "will" is nothing more than a wish. The ability to "want" something to happen. To imagine it happening. The will has no ability to act as a conduit for the human persona. It has the ability to retain hope and faith, but does not have the ability to act upon in the physical world, because if the "will" was able to act in the physical world it would go against the Natural Law of the world. Because if we were to "will" something, then we would have it. If a person willed that the cancer would disappear then it would. If the man in the wheelchair willed the curb to shrink or for him to have the ability to stand up then he would be able to. But the Will is nothing more than a fractal part of the human psyche. It is, at best, a wish.
3) How does it function?
It functions through wishful thinking. Or better yet, a person genetic structure and code. Because personality is built upon the genes and since everyone is their own unique structure there should be freedom and there is. But once again if genes decide how you will be, how you will act, how you will function, then how is that free will? It is a wish or a hope from the person. The will is that persons passion that cannot be acted upon, because the will has absolutely no choice in the matter; therefore the freedom of will cannot exist.
It functions as a mechanism for us to cope. To help us wish for something even though we may not get it.
And
4) Why?
Perhaps it is a bi-product of human evolution or a mechanism that we all made up. Because as a species we cannot stand to not be in control of our actions. We need to have some control; we cannot live in a world of pre-destiny because that would mean that we have NO CHOICES. The human species cannot stand this, we need to have choices in our lives to make us feel sane and to have an understanding of human actions. It is stated to us that we either have a destiny or that we all have choices to make. Choices can be accomplished through freedom, but cannot be willed into existence. Since Choice has limits, deductive logic can be used to narrow down and pinpoint specific actions. We see this everywhere, with cold readers, mathematicians, and science itself. The idea of free will is a fallacy, still in existence, because it helps us cope and makes us feel in control of our lives.
Whatever is perceived is procieved in the mind of the receiver. All humans are born with instinct and therefore, if free will did exist, it would be nothing more than the choice of our past experiences. Will in essence is the make-up of a reality, which we want to make.
_____________________________________________________
Socratic Questions:
1) If Our actions were not determined by what came before them, as causality states, they would have to be completely and utterly random (seeing as this is not possible), how can free will exist?
2/3) Do you believe that it is possible to program "choice"? And if so, how does free will exist then? By programmed choice I mean: A young kid is yelled out constantly and learns that he is inferior and becomes very shy. He gets a job at a restaurant, but he works behind the scenes. He feels that he is making all his choices on his own, but in reality he is only making a programmed choice, due to his younger experiences shaping him into who he is today.
4) If, by our own nature and nurture, we determine that a particular action would be detrimental to us like touching an open fire. We would "choose" not to do it, but this choice is not really a choice, because we know that the fire will hurt us. In this reasoning, we will not be able to have a choice to do it for the betterment of ourselves (Forget about psychological disorders). True or False and please explain why you believe that.
5) Is choice based on past experience? Explain.
_______________________________________________________
The topic for debate is: There Is No Free Will
Before we begin let us define free will according to Merriam-Webster:
1: voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
The core of this entire debate that I will be debating upon will be following these 2 guidelines/rules:
1) I will back up what I state, through the use of science and logic.
2) What I say will fall under the Natural Law (Laws that cannot be broken)
To start I believe we need to question the basic questions of Free Will.
1) Does it exist?
- Free will cannot exist for a number of reasons. For instance, according to John Locke. The concept of Free Will is flawed due to the idea of a "will". The person has the freedom to move, to think, to dance, to not drink, to not eat, but it is the "WILL" that cannot have a choice. According to Locke:
“there may be thought, there may be will, there may be volition, where there is no liberty.”
In thus, we can conclude the following- If a man has a medical condition such as cancer and there is nothing that the doctors can do for him. The man is going to die. His will may be to stay alive, but that is not going to happen. Five days later the man dies due to the cancer. He had the Will, but the WILL is not free to act on its own accord.
Much like if the man was in a wheel chair and had to overcome a curb on the road. The curb is low to the ground, so he has the freedom to go over it safely; however, if the curb was higher off the ground the man could not get onto the curb no matter how much will he has to get onto the curb. It is impossible that he will ever get onto the curb. While he had the WILL, the will is not free to act on its own.
2) What is the Problem?
The "will" is nothing more than a wish. The ability to "want" something to happen. To imagine it happening. The will has no ability to act as a conduit for the human persona. It has the ability to retain hope and faith, but does not have the ability to act upon in the physical world, because if the "will" was able to act in the physical world it would go against the Natural Law of the world. Because if we were to "will" something, then we would have it. If a person willed that the cancer would disappear then it would. If the man in the wheelchair willed the curb to shrink or for him to have the ability to stand up then he would be able to. But the Will is nothing more than a fractal part of the human psyche. It is, at best, a wish.
3) How does it function?
It functions through wishful thinking. Or better yet, a person genetic structure and code. Because personality is built upon the genes and since everyone is their own unique structure there should be freedom and there is. But once again if genes decide how you will be, how you will act, how you will function, then how is that free will? It is a wish or a hope from the person. The will is that persons passion that cannot be acted upon, because the will has absolutely no choice in the matter; therefore the freedom of will cannot exist.
It functions as a mechanism for us to cope. To help us wish for something even though we may not get it.
And
4) Why?
Perhaps it is a bi-product of human evolution or a mechanism that we all made up. Because as a species we cannot stand to not be in control of our actions. We need to have some control; we cannot live in a world of pre-destiny because that would mean that we have NO CHOICES. The human species cannot stand this, we need to have choices in our lives to make us feel sane and to have an understanding of human actions. It is stated to us that we either have a destiny or that we all have choices to make. Choices can be accomplished through freedom, but cannot be willed into existence. Since Choice has limits, deductive logic can be used to narrow down and pinpoint specific actions. We see this everywhere, with cold readers, mathematicians, and science itself. The idea of free will is a fallacy, still in existence, because it helps us cope and makes us feel in control of our lives.
Whatever is perceived is procieved in the mind of the receiver. All humans are born with instinct and therefore, if free will did exist, it would be nothing more than the choice of our past experiences. Will in essence is the make-up of a reality, which we want to make.
_____________________________________________________
Socratic Questions:
1) If Our actions were not determined by what came before them, as causality states, they would have to be completely and utterly random (seeing as this is not possible), how can free will exist?
2/3) Do you believe that it is possible to program "choice"? And if so, how does free will exist then? By programmed choice I mean: A young kid is yelled out constantly and learns that he is inferior and becomes very shy. He gets a job at a restaurant, but he works behind the scenes. He feels that he is making all his choices on his own, but in reality he is only making a programmed choice, due to his younger experiences shaping him into who he is today.
4) If, by our own nature and nurture, we determine that a particular action would be detrimental to us like touching an open fire. We would "choose" not to do it, but this choice is not really a choice, because we know that the fire will hurt us. In this reasoning, we will not be able to have a choice to do it for the betterment of ourselves (Forget about psychological disorders). True or False and please explain why you believe that.
5) Is choice based on past experience? Explain.
reply to post by TheMythLives
First off I want to once again congratulate Semperfortis on his new Supermod status, well deserved. I also want to thank him for setting up this debate, as well ATS for making the best website in the world. Secondly, I want to thank my good friend TheMythLives for partaking in this debate with me, he is a formidable opponent and this should be a good one, I look forward to yet another challenging debate my friend. So without further delay let us get started.
Free Will is not a shallow, easy, or lucid subject. It is one that has been debated for 4,000 years, and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Like almost all philosophy subject matter, Free Will is more metaphysical than anything, which is why it is so hard to come to an actual "winner" in a debate on the topic.
I do not intend, nor pretend to think I will satisfy this debate today, but I do believe I will show strong evidence in support of Free Will existing,
evidence which will refute my opponents determinism stance that "there is no Free Will." In this process I truly believe that I will make it clear that there is a much stronger argument available for Free Will, and thus it exists likely, more than not. I will be providing scientific evidence, philosophical debate, and more to prove my point.
First I feel it is necessary to look at the main competing views on the issue of Free Will, so let's take a look real quick:
Determinism- This is the stance my opponent is taking. This argument is a solid one, but is a
slippery slope in my humble opinion. This theory states that what you do is the only thing you could have done, given your past actions. So pretty much it means your future is set in stone, and you have no say in what happens. This will be the exact thing I am refuting.
Indeterminisim- This is my stance, and it is simple really. There are an infinite
possibilities of future outcomes to any causal antecedent, of course some things have higher probabilities than others of happening, but all
possibilities are still open none-the-less. In essence, your choices and interactions with your environment determine what happens, nothing is set in
stone, thus Free Will exists.
There are other theories, but the aforementioned two are the two competing ones today.
Answers to Socratic Questions
For this question I will refer you to the interesting world of quantum mechanics. There are two important functions of quantum theory that are relevant here, the first being the wave function:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ab535a21489.png[/atsimg]
en.wikipedia.org...
Now there is the probability distribution:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70c9b1125660.png[/atsimg]
en.wikipedia.org...
So we can see with the above two, very well founded aspects of quantum physics that indeed infinite possibilities are open. And since the quantum world is the foundation of all, I think it is quite obvious Free Will is quite real and occurring all the time.
Not true, the child still has a choice to make up his own mind, the only thing that has probabilistically caused him to be shy is his interactions with his environment, or causal antecedents. Thus, choice is still present.
Again, this action of "not touching the fire" is caused by past experiences with our environment, however we still have the choice to touch it or not.
Choice is a totality of past experience and current interactions, everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment. I like to look at the WHOLE picture, and when you do you see that at every point in our lives we have infinite choices open to us, some more probable than the other. This is best described, yet again by quantum mechanics and thewave function collapse, which is the point when all possibilities are eliminated except the one that happened.
Socratic Questions
1.Given that the very nature of physics that undoubtedly show there are infinite possibilities for everything, how can Free Will not exist?
2.Assume that a man is driving his car, he then proceeds to come to a 4-way stop sign. At this stop sign he becomes lost, not knowing which direction to go. So he thinks for himself, postulating upon the logical choices to what direction to take. He has four choices, to either go left, right, straight, or turn around and go back. He then decides to go right and makes it to his destination. Is that very act that I just described not Free Will? Explain your answer.
3.Let us again assume another scenario. A married man comes home early from work one day to tragically find his wife cheating on him with another man. The husbands mind starts to go crazy, at first he is flooded with emotions, but his logical side of his brain attempts to take over, but to no avail. At this point the man is debating on ether peacefully confronting the situation, or letting his emotions get the best of him and killing his cheating wife and husband. He unfortunately murders both people, is arrested, and taken to trial.
During the trial the mans defense attorney argues that the murders occurred in the "heat of passion", unfortunately the jury still finds him guilty and the man is sent to prison for life. WHY? Because the man had a choice, and he made the wrong choice. This is argued all the time in court, sometimes to no avail, but sometimes successfully. The question is, once we take into account emotion in the deterministic process (non Free Will) does not the very existence of emotion indicate Free Will, as shown in the aforementioned example. Explain your answer.
[edit on 2/21/2010 by semperfortis]
First off I want to once again congratulate Semperfortis on his new Supermod status, well deserved. I also want to thank him for setting up this debate, as well ATS for making the best website in the world. Secondly, I want to thank my good friend TheMythLives for partaking in this debate with me, he is a formidable opponent and this should be a good one, I look forward to yet another challenging debate my friend. So without further delay let us get started.
Free Will is not a shallow, easy, or lucid subject. It is one that has been debated for 4,000 years, and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Like almost all philosophy subject matter, Free Will is more metaphysical than anything, which is why it is so hard to come to an actual "winner" in a debate on the topic.
I do not intend, nor pretend to think I will satisfy this debate today, but I do believe I will show strong evidence in support of Free Will existing,
evidence which will refute my opponents determinism stance that "there is no Free Will." In this process I truly believe that I will make it clear that there is a much stronger argument available for Free Will, and thus it exists likely, more than not. I will be providing scientific evidence, philosophical debate, and more to prove my point.
First I feel it is necessary to look at the main competing views on the issue of Free Will, so let's take a look real quick:
slippery slope in my humble opinion. This theory states that what you do is the only thing you could have done, given your past actions. So pretty much it means your future is set in stone, and you have no say in what happens. This will be the exact thing I am refuting.
There are other theories, but the aforementioned two are the two competing ones today.
Answers to Socratic Questions
1) If Our actions were not determined by what came before them, as causality states, they would have to be completely and utterly random (seeing as this is not possible), how can free will exist?
For this question I will refer you to the interesting world of quantum mechanics. There are two important functions of quantum theory that are relevant here, the first being the wave function:
A wave function or wavefunction is a mathematical tool used in quantum mechanics to describe the momentary states of subatomic particles.
It is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into the complex numbers. The laws of quantum mechanics (i.e. the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes — complex numbers — the squares of the absolute values of which give the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ab535a21489.png[/atsimg]
en.wikipedia.org...
Now there is the probability distribution:
In probability theory and statistics, a probability distribution identifies either the probability of each value of an unidentified random variable (when the variable is discrete), or the probability of the value falling within a particular interval (when the variable is continuous).[1] The probability distribution describes the range of possible values that a random variable can attain and the probability that the value of the random variable is within any (measurable) subset of that range.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70c9b1125660.png[/atsimg]
en.wikipedia.org...
So we can see with the above two, very well founded aspects of quantum physics that indeed infinite possibilities are open. And since the quantum world is the foundation of all, I think it is quite obvious Free Will is quite real and occurring all the time.
2/3) Do you believe that it is possible to program "choice"? And if so, how does free will exist then? By programmed choice I mean: A young kid is yelled out constantly and learns that he is inferior and becomes very shy. He gets a job at a restaurant, but he works behind the scenes. He feels that he is making all his choices on his own, but in reality he is only making a programmed choice, due to his younger experiences shaping him into who he is today.
Not true, the child still has a choice to make up his own mind, the only thing that has probabilistically caused him to be shy is his interactions with his environment, or causal antecedents. Thus, choice is still present.
4) If, by our own nature and nurture, we determine that a particular action would be detrimental to us like touching an open fire. We would "choose" not to do it, but this choice is not really a choice, because we know that the fire will hurt us. In this reasoning, we will not be able to have a choice to do it for the betterment of ourselves (Forget about psychological disorders). True or False and please explain why you believe that.
Again, this action of "not touching the fire" is caused by past experiences with our environment, however we still have the choice to touch it or not.
5) Is choice based on past experience? Explain.
Choice is a totality of past experience and current interactions, everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment. I like to look at the WHOLE picture, and when you do you see that at every point in our lives we have infinite choices open to us, some more probable than the other. This is best described, yet again by quantum mechanics and thewave function collapse, which is the point when all possibilities are eliminated except the one that happened.
Socratic Questions
1.Given that the very nature of physics that undoubtedly show there are infinite possibilities for everything, how can Free Will not exist?
2.Assume that a man is driving his car, he then proceeds to come to a 4-way stop sign. At this stop sign he becomes lost, not knowing which direction to go. So he thinks for himself, postulating upon the logical choices to what direction to take. He has four choices, to either go left, right, straight, or turn around and go back. He then decides to go right and makes it to his destination. Is that very act that I just described not Free Will? Explain your answer.
3.Let us again assume another scenario. A married man comes home early from work one day to tragically find his wife cheating on him with another man. The husbands mind starts to go crazy, at first he is flooded with emotions, but his logical side of his brain attempts to take over, but to no avail. At this point the man is debating on ether peacefully confronting the situation, or letting his emotions get the best of him and killing his cheating wife and husband. He unfortunately murders both people, is arrested, and taken to trial.
During the trial the mans defense attorney argues that the murders occurred in the "heat of passion", unfortunately the jury still finds him guilty and the man is sent to prison for life. WHY? Because the man had a choice, and he made the wrong choice. This is argued all the time in court, sometimes to no avail, but sometimes successfully. The question is, once we take into account emotion in the deterministic process (non Free Will) does not the very existence of emotion indicate Free Will, as shown in the aforementioned example. Explain your answer.
[edit on 2/21/2010 by semperfortis]
My Response:
Well one thing we need to remember is that the Quantum Theory's probability is flawed. Mainly do to open interpretation, by this I mean it is not a set course. If infinite choices were POSSIBLE, which they are not, then I would agree with your statements, but since infinite choices are never possible; due to environment, due to emotion, due to physical attributions. We can see that the variables continue to build up eventually leading to predictability. And if the word is governed by predictable laws, then there can be no free will.
A person has the ability to make a free physical choice. But if the man had it his way, his WILL would have been able to tell him which path was the correct way to take. Sadly, since the WILL cannot make decisions or choices, the man used his physical freedom to make a decision. Physical freedom does not equate to free will. The will cannot be free, because if the WILL was free it would break Natural Law. Because whatever we WILL'ed **IF FREE WILL EXISTED**, would be WILL'ed into existence and that is NOT possible. That breaks the physical laws of nature, the psychological processes of the mind, the entire quantum physics principles, and everything would be, according to each person’s WILL.
Well again, if the man had it his way, his WILL would have avoided that and his WILL would have been able to prevent his wife from cheating. Again, since the WILL has no physical choice it could not do anything, this came down to Biological anger and primate ways. The decision was made, not by free will, because we have already established that is not possible, but rather through physical emotions derived from our innate instincts of our pasts DNA and genetic structure. Which by the way is the build-up of ourselves and our past. Free will had nothing to do with this.
_______________________________________________________
But if Probability can "predict" what we will do then how is that Free Will? If we have infinite choices, how can we narrow them down? Because choice is based, according to you, on "totality of past experience and current interactions, everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment." That is interesting; the individual determines what the probability is according to his environment. So, I will go out on a limb and assume that this means at anytime we can change our minds; therefore, free will exists and infinite possibilities also exist, BUT if you change your mind, it is only in light of new evidence which shows your original decision to be a bad one or an inadequate one for the purpose of what you were doing. The WILL once again has NOTHING to do with changing of the mind. Our past experiences, our nature vs. nurture, our environment, our genes everything can be explained by any of the latter; our freedom is nothing, but the collection of our genes, environment, nature vs. nurture, past experiences, physical attributes, etc.
Free Will is the idea that we have choice, BUT if we truly had free will we would be able to make more choices then the ones presented. The variables would not matter, because we would be able to WILL everything. Free Will is an illusion. A person actions or behavior is produced, by their personality, which in turn is produced by their genes, which in turn carry the make-up of every past ancestor. The idea of free will is heavy flawed, take for instance:
What I like to the Collective Event Theory:
Basically, Joe walks into a store. He buys a glass of Milk and walks of the store and as he does so he opens the door for Maggie, giving her a few extra seconds in her day. Maggie orders a cup of coffee thanks the waitress and gives her a tip, because Maggie was once a worker there and she knows the pay is not very good. Maggie walks out of the store, heads down the street to buy a newspaper, a man accidently bump into her and Maggie drops her change on the ground, Maggie has lost 3 minutes of her day after picking up the change and buying the newspaper. She begins to head across the street when a car suddenly hit her killing her instantly. Maggie is an organ donor and her organs are given to a child who has renal failure, amazingly the child would have died without the Kidney within two days. The kid grows up to be the President of the United States of America.
While it would seem that all events are nothing more than our choices. There is always a bigger picture and that is Destiny. While it may have been Maggie's destiny to die that day to preserve the life of a future leader. It was Joe's destiny to open the door; the other mans destiny to bump into Maggie spilling her change on the ground, the car's drivers destiny to kill her, and the little boys destiny to become president of the united states. Was there WILL involved? Not at all, because it is not necessary. The WILL has no purpose, because everything is predetermined. The WILL cannot possibly exist in this world because it would break Natural Law. Pre-determinance; however, prevents such blunders. We think we are free because we cannot predict our own or others actions.
The WILL, once again cannot make any physical actions, because it is not possible unless the WILL takes over "its" brain functions. Seems impossible though, in terms of physics, because it is an empty mass with no circuit board; whereas, the brain is the biological mass that gives the orders and controls thought process's. The WILL if it existed, would be this thought process; therefore, it would be biologically impossible and Physics I am sure agrees. For instance:
- Zygote. Any free will there? Of course not
- Fetus. Any free will there? Nope.
- Adult. Any Free Will? Nope, because we are what we are. A collection of past experiences and other factors wrapped up into one very nice burrito
1) In a world of infinite possibilities; how is it possible to come up with a finite number of possibilities?
2) The finite number of possibilities also have a finite number of REASONABLE possibilities, correct? Explain.
3) If the number of finite possibilities of a decision can be broken down to less choices; could probability accurately predict 100% of the time what a person will do.
4) If the Will is a mental process and the brain controls mental process's does this not conclude that the WILL cannot be free, because it is controlled?
5) Would you agree that destiny plays a part in the above Story with Maggie? Why or Why not.
jkrogs Socratic Questions
1.Given that the very nature of physics that undoubtedly show there are infinite possibilities for everything, how can Free Will not exist?
Well one thing we need to remember is that the Quantum Theory's probability is flawed. Mainly do to open interpretation, by this I mean it is not a set course. If infinite choices were POSSIBLE, which they are not, then I would agree with your statements, but since infinite choices are never possible; due to environment, due to emotion, due to physical attributions. We can see that the variables continue to build up eventually leading to predictability. And if the word is governed by predictable laws, then there can be no free will.
2. Assume that a man is driving his car, he then proceeds to come to a 4-way stop sign. At this stop sign he becomes lost, not knowing which direction to go. So he thinks for himself, postulating upon the logical choices to what direction to take. He has four choices, to either go left, right, straight, or turn around and go back. He then decides to go right and makes it to his destination. Is that very act that I just described not Free Will? Explain your answer.
A person has the ability to make a free physical choice. But if the man had it his way, his WILL would have been able to tell him which path was the correct way to take. Sadly, since the WILL cannot make decisions or choices, the man used his physical freedom to make a decision. Physical freedom does not equate to free will. The will cannot be free, because if the WILL was free it would break Natural Law. Because whatever we WILL'ed **IF FREE WILL EXISTED**, would be WILL'ed into existence and that is NOT possible. That breaks the physical laws of nature, the psychological processes of the mind, the entire quantum physics principles, and everything would be, according to each person’s WILL.
3. Let us again assume another scenario. A married man comes home early from work one day to tragically find his wife cheating on him with another man. The husbands mind starts to go crazy, at first he is flooded with emotions, but his logical side of his brain attempts to take over, but to no avail. At this point the man is debating on ether peacefully confronting the situation, or letting his emotions get the best of him and killing his cheating wife and husband. He unfortunately murders both people, is arrested, and taken to trial.
During the trial the man’s defense attorney argues that the murders occurred in the "heat of passion", unfortunately the jury still finds him guilty and the man is sent to prison for life. WHY? Because the man had a choice, and he made the wrong choice. This is argued all the time in court, sometimes to no avail, but sometimes successfully. The question is, once we take into account emotion in the deterministic process (non Free Will) does not the very existence of emotion indicate Free Will, as shown in the aforementioned example. Explain your answer.
Well again, if the man had it his way, his WILL would have avoided that and his WILL would have been able to prevent his wife from cheating. Again, since the WILL has no physical choice it could not do anything, this came down to Biological anger and primate ways. The decision was made, not by free will, because we have already established that is not possible, but rather through physical emotions derived from our innate instincts of our pasts DNA and genetic structure. Which by the way is the build-up of ourselves and our past. Free will had nothing to do with this.
_______________________________________________________
My response
Choice is a totality of past experience and current interactions; everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment. I like to look at the WHOLE picture, and when you do you see that at every point in our lives we have infinite choices open to us, some more probable than the other.
But if Probability can "predict" what we will do then how is that Free Will? If we have infinite choices, how can we narrow them down? Because choice is based, according to you, on "totality of past experience and current interactions, everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment." That is interesting; the individual determines what the probability is according to his environment. So, I will go out on a limb and assume that this means at anytime we can change our minds; therefore, free will exists and infinite possibilities also exist, BUT if you change your mind, it is only in light of new evidence which shows your original decision to be a bad one or an inadequate one for the purpose of what you were doing. The WILL once again has NOTHING to do with changing of the mind. Our past experiences, our nature vs. nurture, our environment, our genes everything can be explained by any of the latter; our freedom is nothing, but the collection of our genes, environment, nature vs. nurture, past experiences, physical attributes, etc.
Free Will is the idea that we have choice, BUT if we truly had free will we would be able to make more choices then the ones presented. The variables would not matter, because we would be able to WILL everything. Free Will is an illusion. A person actions or behavior is produced, by their personality, which in turn is produced by their genes, which in turn carry the make-up of every past ancestor. The idea of free will is heavy flawed, take for instance:
What I like to the Collective Event Theory:
Basically, Joe walks into a store. He buys a glass of Milk and walks of the store and as he does so he opens the door for Maggie, giving her a few extra seconds in her day. Maggie orders a cup of coffee thanks the waitress and gives her a tip, because Maggie was once a worker there and she knows the pay is not very good. Maggie walks out of the store, heads down the street to buy a newspaper, a man accidently bump into her and Maggie drops her change on the ground, Maggie has lost 3 minutes of her day after picking up the change and buying the newspaper. She begins to head across the street when a car suddenly hit her killing her instantly. Maggie is an organ donor and her organs are given to a child who has renal failure, amazingly the child would have died without the Kidney within two days. The kid grows up to be the President of the United States of America.
While it would seem that all events are nothing more than our choices. There is always a bigger picture and that is Destiny. While it may have been Maggie's destiny to die that day to preserve the life of a future leader. It was Joe's destiny to open the door; the other mans destiny to bump into Maggie spilling her change on the ground, the car's drivers destiny to kill her, and the little boys destiny to become president of the united states. Was there WILL involved? Not at all, because it is not necessary. The WILL has no purpose, because everything is predetermined. The WILL cannot possibly exist in this world because it would break Natural Law. Pre-determinance; however, prevents such blunders. We think we are free because we cannot predict our own or others actions.
The WILL, once again cannot make any physical actions, because it is not possible unless the WILL takes over "its" brain functions. Seems impossible though, in terms of physics, because it is an empty mass with no circuit board; whereas, the brain is the biological mass that gives the orders and controls thought process's. The WILL if it existed, would be this thought process; therefore, it would be biologically impossible and Physics I am sure agrees. For instance:
- Zygote. Any free will there? Of course not
- Fetus. Any free will there? Nope.
- Adult. Any Free Will? Nope, because we are what we are. A collection of past experiences and other factors wrapped up into one very nice burrito
Socratic Questions
1) In a world of infinite possibilities; how is it possible to come up with a finite number of possibilities?
2) The finite number of possibilities also have a finite number of REASONABLE possibilities, correct? Explain.
3) If the number of finite possibilities of a decision can be broken down to less choices; could probability accurately predict 100% of the time what a person will do.
4) If the Will is a mental process and the brain controls mental process's does this not conclude that the WILL cannot be free, because it is controlled?
5) Would you agree that destiny plays a part in the above Story with Maggie? Why or Why not.
reply to post by TheMythLives
Comments/Response
Simply put, your wrong and misunderstand the quantum mechanics. The effect of "infinity" is simply the realization of infinite possible choices. "Infinity" does not exist as some 'force' as you seem to interpret. It is simply a mathematical rationalization of probability distributions. Also, Quantum Theory is NOT "flawed", it has been proven over and over again, via mathematics and physical experimentation (refer to opening posts Hydrogen wave function). Here are some well sourced links that prove my statement:
www.oberlin.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
panda.unm.edu...
Now let us look at another interesting quantum aspect that further proves Free Will. This, of course, is the Superposition Law:
en.wikipedia.org...
So AGAIN, we see that it is innate in nature that Free Will exists.
As for your answers to my other two questions let me ask you this, and this is my first Socratic Question:
1. What is "will", you seem to describe it as some additional force of existence. But I disagree, all "will" implies in the nomenclature of "Free Will" is that you have choice, instead of a static path. In both examples I gave we saw that each scenario had a CHOICE, but you state that "if will existed then they would know the right choice", that is very erroneous. The entire principle of free will is that we have a choice in all matters. So given the true definition of "will" is it not obvious we have "Free Will"? Explain.
Furthermore let me present some mathematics that directly disprove your statement of "infinity does not exist". I will use some simple linear equation systems for examples. As we know the solution of parallel lines on a plane is INFINITE, this is mathematically proven beyond any doubt.
www.winpossible.com...
Thus it apparent that everywhere we see proof of the very definition of "Free Will" and a direct conflict of determinism.
Your arguing semantics and presenting a "slippery slope", the very fact of choice is what collapses the infinite probabilities. This is proven in many quantum laws already aforementioned.
As for your "Collective Event", Free Will still holds true in every aspect. No is destiny involved. As I stated, Free Will is nothing more than freedom of choice, choice which is affected by the environment and past interactions. So in your example each individual made the choice to end up at that spot, the "organ donor" made the CHOICE beforehand to donate her organs in the event of death. Her getting killed at the same time as someone needed a transplant was nothing more than odds, or probability distribution.
Nice example on the surface. But Free Will still is a factor, because the CHOICE involved that created the zygote, fetus, and all the way through adulthood. If the parents would not have made the CHOICE to have intercourse then there would be none of the above. Thus my stance is still solid and unrefuted adequately.
Answers
Simple, wave function, probability distribution, wave function collapse, and mathematcs.
No, when a possibility becomes finite it is 100% in probability.
This question makes no sense, as probability does not equate 100% except in totality.
No it does not conclude that. Because the mind is exposed to all possibilities(via environment and past) and thus considers all on some level.
No, I explained this above.
Remaining Socratic Questions
2. Can you refute any of the aforementioned comments I made, WITHOUT involving choice? Explain.
3.Assuming the cause-effect principle, each cause is itself caused by a choice, which in turn predicated the cause. If there was indeed only one solution to all things then why does physics and math prove this not so? Explain with adequate sources.
4. If you assume our future is predetermined then isn't choice still involved, as it is that very action which would predicate the future no? Explain.
5. During the thought process in every day life we are constantly bombarded with choices. Yet we choose the path we will go, as that is what makes us function on a productive level. Refute and explain in detail.
[edit on 2/23/2010 by semperfortis]
Comments/Response
1.Given that the very nature of physics that undoubtedly show there are infinite possibilities for everything, how can Free Will not exist?
Well one thing we need to remember is that the Quantum Theory's probability is flawed. Mainly do to open interpretation, by this I mean it is not a set course. If infinite choices were POSSIBLE, which they are not, then I would agree with your statements, but since infinite choices are never possible; due to environment, due to emotion, due to physical attributions. We can see that the variables continue to build up eventually leading to predictability. And if the word is governed by predictable laws, then there can be no free will.
Simply put, your wrong and misunderstand the quantum mechanics. The effect of "infinity" is simply the realization of infinite possible choices. "Infinity" does not exist as some 'force' as you seem to interpret. It is simply a mathematical rationalization of probability distributions. Also, Quantum Theory is NOT "flawed", it has been proven over and over again, via mathematics and physical experimentation (refer to opening posts Hydrogen wave function). Here are some well sourced links that prove my statement:
www.oberlin.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
panda.unm.edu...
Now let us look at another interesting quantum aspect that further proves Free Will. This, of course, is the Superposition Law:
Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all possible states that an object can have.
In probability theory, every possible event has a real number between zero and one associated to it, the probability, which gives the chance that it happens. If you want to know the probability of two independent events both occurring, for example the probability that it will rain and also that the stock market will go up, you multiply the probability for each event. If there is a 0.3 chance that it will rain and a 0.6 chance that the market will go up, there is a 0.18 chance that both will happen.
en.wikipedia.org...
So AGAIN, we see that it is innate in nature that Free Will exists.
As for your answers to my other two questions let me ask you this, and this is my first Socratic Question:
1. What is "will", you seem to describe it as some additional force of existence. But I disagree, all "will" implies in the nomenclature of "Free Will" is that you have choice, instead of a static path. In both examples I gave we saw that each scenario had a CHOICE, but you state that "if will existed then they would know the right choice", that is very erroneous. The entire principle of free will is that we have a choice in all matters. So given the true definition of "will" is it not obvious we have "Free Will"? Explain.
Furthermore let me present some mathematics that directly disprove your statement of "infinity does not exist". I will use some simple linear equation systems for examples. As we know the solution of parallel lines on a plane is INFINITE, this is mathematically proven beyond any doubt.
A system of equations has infinite solutions when the lines are parallel, i.e. they have the same slope, and they have the same y-intercept. In fact one equation is a scalar multiple of the other and hence, in effect, the equations represent the same line! Let's look at system of two linear equations Ax + By + C = 0 and Dx + Ey + F = 0: these equations will have infinite solutions if the ratio of A/D, B/E and C/F are the same i.e. A/D = B/E = C/F. In such a case, these lines represent coincident lines, i.e. they overlap at every single point. For example, x + y = 2 and 3x + 3y = 6 have infinite solutions because A/D = B/E = C/F = 1/3. Another way to look at this is: if you multiply line 1 by three you get line 2, and thus these two lines are exactly the same line!
www.winpossible.com...
Thus it apparent that everywhere we see proof of the very definition of "Free Will" and a direct conflict of determinism.
But if Probability can "predict" what we will do then how is that Free Will? If we have infinite choices, how can we narrow them down? Because choice is based, according to you, on "totality of past experience and current interactions, everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment." That is interesting; the individual determines what the probability is according to his environment. So, I will go out on a limb and assume that this means at anytime we can change our minds; therefore, free will exists and infinite possibilities also exist, BUT if you change your mind, it is only in light of new evidence which shows your original decision to be a bad one or an inadequate one for the purpose of what you were doing. The WILL once again has NOTHING to do with changing of the mind. Our past experiences, our nature vs. nurture, our environment, our genes everything can be explained by any of the latter; our freedom is nothing, but the collection of our genes, environment, nature vs. nurture, past experiences, physical attributes, etc.
Free Will is the idea that we have choice, BUT if we truly had free will we would be able to make more choices then the ones presented.
Your arguing semantics and presenting a "slippery slope", the very fact of choice is what collapses the infinite probabilities. This is proven in many quantum laws already aforementioned.
As for your "Collective Event", Free Will still holds true in every aspect. No is destiny involved. As I stated, Free Will is nothing more than freedom of choice, choice which is affected by the environment and past interactions. So in your example each individual made the choice to end up at that spot, the "organ donor" made the CHOICE beforehand to donate her organs in the event of death. Her getting killed at the same time as someone needed a transplant was nothing more than odds, or probability distribution.
- Zygote. Any free will there? Of course not
- Fetus. Any free will there? Nope.
- Adult. Any Free Will? Nope, because we are what we are. A collection of past experiences and other factors wrapped up into one very nice burrito
Nice example on the surface. But Free Will still is a factor, because the CHOICE involved that created the zygote, fetus, and all the way through adulthood. If the parents would not have made the CHOICE to have intercourse then there would be none of the above. Thus my stance is still solid and unrefuted adequately.
Answers
1) In a world of infinite possibilities; how is it possible to come up with a finite number of possibilities?
Simple, wave function, probability distribution, wave function collapse, and mathematcs.
2) The finite number of possibilities also have a finite number of REASONABLE possibilities, correct? Explain.
No, when a possibility becomes finite it is 100% in probability.
3) If the number of finite possibilities of a decision can be broken down to less choices; could probability accurately predict 100% of the time what a person will do.
This question makes no sense, as probability does not equate 100% except in totality.
4) If the Will is a mental process and the brain controls mental process's does this not conclude that the WILL cannot be free, because it is controlled?
No it does not conclude that. Because the mind is exposed to all possibilities(via environment and past) and thus considers all on some level.
5) Would you agree that destiny plays a part in the above Story with Maggie? Why or Why not.
No, I explained this above.
Remaining Socratic Questions
2. Can you refute any of the aforementioned comments I made, WITHOUT involving choice? Explain.
3.Assuming the cause-effect principle, each cause is itself caused by a choice, which in turn predicated the cause. If there was indeed only one solution to all things then why does physics and math prove this not so? Explain with adequate sources.
4. If you assume our future is predetermined then isn't choice still involved, as it is that very action which would predicate the future no? Explain.
5. During the thought process in every day life we are constantly bombarded with choices. Yet we choose the path we will go, as that is what makes us function on a productive level. Refute and explain in detail.
[edit on 2/23/2010 by semperfortis]
reply to post by jkrog08
If we did indeed have "free" will, which once again is impossible, because the WILL cannot be free. Then I would have to ask you a very serious question:
How do you know that the WILL is free?
Is something good, because I say it is good? or is it good because its essence is good? Is the will free because you "feel" that you have it, therefore it exists? Or is the will free because it is? All of these questions cannot possibly be answered using traditional methods of science, simply because science in itself is finite. While a certain level of natural laws may remain constant forever, there are a few that will always be changing. This is especially true in Biology. While we were hunters and gatherers in the past when adopted and adapted agriculture not out of WILL, but out of necessity. When we evolved from primates our will had nothing to do with it, but rather complex chemical and biological changes. If we cannot even control our evolution or our environment? Then how can the WILL truly be free? If nothing has a path, then all our choices and actions have to be random- therefore, if all our actions are indeed random, there can be no purpose of life. No set laws and in fact no natural law. Why? Because if the WILL were truly free, then nothing would be CONSTANT, the laws of physics itself would not be attainable- they would be non-existent, because the WILL would be able to over ride the laws. Therefore, since the WILL cannot override the laws of science and is not of physical prowess, but rather a metaphysical or perhaps a psychological input/output left behind from evolution or perhaps made up in all of our minds for some purpose. If anything the WILL is just wishful thinking.
As far as choice goes. Yes, we do have a choice to a point. We can choose to move our left leg up and our right leg down or we can choose to move just the left. We have freedom of movement/choice, but our WILL cannot dictate what it wants us to do. But each choice is based upon logic and reason. We cannot go against such choices or impulses, because they are hard wired into us. Destiny, allows for meaning in our lives, it allows and flows with Natural Law allowing it to be ONE. Destiny does not call for a limit of choices, but rather calls for specific choices at certain course of events and perhaps entire lives. To better explain, choice runs in ACCORDANCE with science and natural law, therefore, we do have a free choice. I can choose between a cherry pie or an orange pie. (Free will, if applied to the latter, would be to suggest that you want a LEMON pie and if you want a lemon pie you could WILL one. However, choice is bound into the laws of science- therefore, free choice is possible, but free Will is not.
That would depend- are you stating that free will, which is not bound by the laws of physics or science, is the ability to choose? If so, yes, because free will has nothing to do with choice. I have a choice to choose the words that I use, but I cannot WILL them to be burned onto your arm. So yes, choice is free, but the will is not.
There is a solution to all things and that solution is death or destruction. A source would be the second law of thermodynamics or the entropy law. Everything has an end therefore; there is one solution to everything. Nothing can escape the end.
To a point yes. Choice is only choice if we consider that the choices that we are making are the right ones. We will always try to make the right choices for our benefit. A pre-determined future, does involve choice, and when Destiny calls: Events that seem random on the surface are amazingly and intrinsically woven to produce a desired effect. Much like the story with Maggie. While the events seemed built on choice on the surface, under the surface was an amazing puppet show with a desired effect. That effect was to save the boy with Kidney...
Here is the story with Maggie again:
Joe walks into a store. He buys a glass of Milk and walks of the store. He opens the door for Maggie, giving her a few extra seconds in her day. Maggie orders a cup of coffee, thanks the waitress, and gives her a tip, because Maggie was once a worker there and she knows the pay is not very good. Maggie walks out of the store, heads down the street to buy a newspaper. A man accidently bump into her and Maggie drops her change on the ground. Maggie has lost 3 minutes of her day after picking up the change and buying the newspaper. She begins to head across the street when a car suddenly hits her, killing her instantly. Maggie is an organ donor and her organs are given to a child who has renal failure, amazingly the child would have died without the Kidney within two days. The kid grows up to be the President of the United States of America.
Of course, choice is always up to the human, but not the WILL. I can choose to fly in an airplane, but I cannot WILL for my body to levitate and initiate flight. In essence, free will is the ability to make a RANDOM decision in any possible situation (like choosing a LEMON PIE, when the only options are cherry and orange); however, choice is the ability to make a decision where there are options (like choosing the cherry pie over the orange pie). Once again, the WILL is not bound by the laws of science or natural law- therefore, free will does NOT exist. However, since choice is bound by science and natural law and amazingly works well with Destiny- therefore, evidence is in favor of Destiny rather than free will.
_____________________________________________________
1) If we can predict one set of human actions, then how do we have free will? If free WILL has the ability to do anything in any given situation- in essence the WILL is random. So how is this possible?
2) If the WILL is free then why can I not make myself fly? If I WILL it I should be able to do it.
3) How can physics, science and math possibly exist if we have free WILL?
4/5) Do we truly have free will because you believe it? or because our will is truly free?
Answers to Socratic Questions- With Rebuttal- And Reply
1. What is "will", you seem to describe it as some additional force of existence. But I disagree; all "will" implies in the nomenclature of "Free Will" is that you have choice, instead of a static path. In both examples I gave we saw that each scenario had a CHOICE, but you state that "if will existed then they would know the right choice", that is very erroneous. The entire principle of free will is that we have a choice in all matters. So given the true definition of "will" is it not obvious we have "Free Will"? Explain.
If we did indeed have "free" will, which once again is impossible, because the WILL cannot be free. Then I would have to ask you a very serious question:
How do you know that the WILL is free?
Is something good, because I say it is good? or is it good because its essence is good? Is the will free because you "feel" that you have it, therefore it exists? Or is the will free because it is? All of these questions cannot possibly be answered using traditional methods of science, simply because science in itself is finite. While a certain level of natural laws may remain constant forever, there are a few that will always be changing. This is especially true in Biology. While we were hunters and gatherers in the past when adopted and adapted agriculture not out of WILL, but out of necessity. When we evolved from primates our will had nothing to do with it, but rather complex chemical and biological changes. If we cannot even control our evolution or our environment? Then how can the WILL truly be free? If nothing has a path, then all our choices and actions have to be random- therefore, if all our actions are indeed random, there can be no purpose of life. No set laws and in fact no natural law. Why? Because if the WILL were truly free, then nothing would be CONSTANT, the laws of physics itself would not be attainable- they would be non-existent, because the WILL would be able to over ride the laws. Therefore, since the WILL cannot override the laws of science and is not of physical prowess, but rather a metaphysical or perhaps a psychological input/output left behind from evolution or perhaps made up in all of our minds for some purpose. If anything the WILL is just wishful thinking.
As far as choice goes. Yes, we do have a choice to a point. We can choose to move our left leg up and our right leg down or we can choose to move just the left. We have freedom of movement/choice, but our WILL cannot dictate what it wants us to do. But each choice is based upon logic and reason. We cannot go against such choices or impulses, because they are hard wired into us. Destiny, allows for meaning in our lives, it allows and flows with Natural Law allowing it to be ONE. Destiny does not call for a limit of choices, but rather calls for specific choices at certain course of events and perhaps entire lives. To better explain, choice runs in ACCORDANCE with science and natural law, therefore, we do have a free choice. I can choose between a cherry pie or an orange pie. (Free will, if applied to the latter, would be to suggest that you want a LEMON pie and if you want a lemon pie you could WILL one. However, choice is bound into the laws of science- therefore, free choice is possible, but free Will is not.
2. Can you refute any of the aforementioned comments I made, WITHOUT involving choice? Explain.
That would depend- are you stating that free will, which is not bound by the laws of physics or science, is the ability to choose? If so, yes, because free will has nothing to do with choice. I have a choice to choose the words that I use, but I cannot WILL them to be burned onto your arm. So yes, choice is free, but the will is not.
3.Assuming the cause-effect principle, each cause is itself caused by a choice, which in turn predicated the cause. If there was indeed only one solution to all things then why does physics and math prove this not so? Explain with adequate sources.
There is a solution to all things and that solution is death or destruction. A source would be the second law of thermodynamics or the entropy law. Everything has an end therefore; there is one solution to everything. Nothing can escape the end.
4. If you assume our future is predetermined then isn't choice still involved, as it is that very action which would predicate the future no? Explain.
To a point yes. Choice is only choice if we consider that the choices that we are making are the right ones. We will always try to make the right choices for our benefit. A pre-determined future, does involve choice, and when Destiny calls: Events that seem random on the surface are amazingly and intrinsically woven to produce a desired effect. Much like the story with Maggie. While the events seemed built on choice on the surface, under the surface was an amazing puppet show with a desired effect. That effect was to save the boy with Kidney...
Here is the story with Maggie again:
Joe walks into a store. He buys a glass of Milk and walks of the store. He opens the door for Maggie, giving her a few extra seconds in her day. Maggie orders a cup of coffee, thanks the waitress, and gives her a tip, because Maggie was once a worker there and she knows the pay is not very good. Maggie walks out of the store, heads down the street to buy a newspaper. A man accidently bump into her and Maggie drops her change on the ground. Maggie has lost 3 minutes of her day after picking up the change and buying the newspaper. She begins to head across the street when a car suddenly hits her, killing her instantly. Maggie is an organ donor and her organs are given to a child who has renal failure, amazingly the child would have died without the Kidney within two days. The kid grows up to be the President of the United States of America.
5. During the thought process in everyday life we are constantly bombarded with choices. Yet we choose the path we will go, as that is what makes us function on a productive level. Refute and explain in detail.
Of course, choice is always up to the human, but not the WILL. I can choose to fly in an airplane, but I cannot WILL for my body to levitate and initiate flight. In essence, free will is the ability to make a RANDOM decision in any possible situation (like choosing a LEMON PIE, when the only options are cherry and orange); however, choice is the ability to make a decision where there are options (like choosing the cherry pie over the orange pie). Once again, the WILL is not bound by the laws of science or natural law- therefore, free will does NOT exist. However, since choice is bound by science and natural law and amazingly works well with Destiny- therefore, evidence is in favor of Destiny rather than free will.
_____________________________________________________
Socratic Questions
1) If we can predict one set of human actions, then how do we have free will? If free WILL has the ability to do anything in any given situation- in essence the WILL is random. So how is this possible?
2) If the WILL is free then why can I not make myself fly? If I WILL it I should be able to do it.
3) How can physics, science and math possibly exist if we have free WILL?
4/5) Do we truly have free will because you believe it? or because our will is truly free?
reply to post by TheMythLives
Answers to Socratic Questions
We can only see the PROBABILITY of actions, not the isolated result. And even if “will” was random then that would also support the theory as that would dictate that nothing is destined and is random.
Because you are skewing the definition of “Free Will” and only defining the “will”. In addition to that, you are confusing and obfustication the proper definition of Free Will with selected definitions of “to will”. They are completely different. Here is why:
*Parts highlighted by me
wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Now what is the REAL philosophical definition of FREE WILL?
*Parts highlighted by me
plato.stanford.edu...
So now we clearly see that my opponent has clearly misconstrued the very definition of FREE WILL, and instead chose to simply define “WILL”. When we look at the real philosophical definition of “Free Will” we can lucidly see that everything I have said in above responses is true and supportive of my thesis.
This makes no sense, but I will answer none-the-less. All those can and DO exist because they are the very thing that makes free will possible, and our existence DYNAMIC, and not STATIC. For sources please refer to my above replies. Also, you need to include the FREE in “Free Will”, not just the one as it totally changes the meaning.
We truly have free will because the very nature of the universe and its foundational building blocks (ie; quantum mechanics) dictate it. That much is known. Again, for sources please refer to my above replies, which you have still not adequately refuted to any extent.
Rebuttal
Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has thus far danced around my questions and scientific data and evidence, instead of choosing to adequately rebut them with anything he has chosen to rely on circular arguments that do not refute anything I have presented. We have WELL established scientific evidence that is over 80 years old that proves BEYOND a doubt that there is indeed infinite choices possible at all times. My opponent likes to talk about “finite possibilities”, well I ask you this: What makes them finite? The answer is simple and it is of course CHOICE, which causes the wave function collapse of probability to a singular reality.
In reality for my opponents thesis to be true one would assume that the past century or more of quantum physics and mathematics is wrong. Because if indeed we are in a static (destined) reality then ALL outcomes would HAVE to be linear, which we know they are NOT. Our current mainstream physics tell us that our universe is but one of an INFINITE number, which in itself implies that there is no destiny, only probability, which in turn equates to FREE WILL.
One great example that I would like to present is this:
According to the well proven and established wave function principle, it is stated that me, you, and anyone each have a probability distribution based on ALL possible CHOICES. In fact right now there is a chance, how ever slight, that I am standing on Mars, instead of typing this reply in my living room. Does this mean that I had the ability to go to Mars? Of course not, but what it does imply is that I had a POSSIBILITY to make a series of choices that would have led me to be on Mars.
My opponent would believe he was “destined” to be in this debate based on the past. This is not true, because if it was then my opponent would still have had to make a series of CHOICES (Free Will) to get to the point where he was available and willing to debate me. In any sense there is no escaping Free Will, and thus any argument against is simply circular.
Socratic Questions
1.Can you scientifically or mathematically disprove quantum mechanics that dictate infinite probabilities and thus choices? Explain in detail, with sources, why or why not.
2.Can you philosophically disprove the fact that choice is present, even in a theory of destiny?
3.How can destiny occur with out CHOICE? Even if one was some how magically forced into a effect, the cause must proceed it, and given that there are multiple interacting variables within our environment for destiny to be true one must say that there is NEVER any choice involved in ANYTHING. Your rebuttal?
4. If we assume your destiny theory is correct then we also must assume that some how it was destined the universe be created by nothing. Beings as this is currently not physically possible according to well established laws of physics how can your thesis support the creation of our universe better than a chance (probability) creation?
Answers to Socratic Questions
1) If we can predict one set of human actions, then how do we have free will? If free WILL has the ability to do anything in any given situation- in essence the WILL is random. So how is this possible?
We can only see the PROBABILITY of actions, not the isolated result. And even if “will” was random then that would also support the theory as that would dictate that nothing is destined and is random.
2) If the WILL is free then why can I not make myself fly? If I WILL it I should be able to do it.
Because you are skewing the definition of “Free Will” and only defining the “will”. In addition to that, you are confusing and obfustication the proper definition of Free Will with selected definitions of “to will”. They are completely different. Here is why:
1.decree or ordain; "God wills our existence"
2.volition: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention; "the exercise of their volition we construe as revolt"- George Meredith
3.determine by choice; "This action was willed and intended"
4.a fixed and persistent intent or purpose; "where there's a will there's a way"
5.bequeath: leave or give by will after one's death; "My aunt bequeathed me all her jewelry"; "My grandfather left me his entire estate"
6.a legal document declaring a person's wishes regarding the disposal of their property when they die *
*Parts highlighted by me
wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Now what is the REAL philosophical definition of FREE WILL?
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1.)
Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or “willings.”*
*Parts highlighted by me
plato.stanford.edu...
So now we clearly see that my opponent has clearly misconstrued the very definition of FREE WILL, and instead chose to simply define “WILL”. When we look at the real philosophical definition of “Free Will” we can lucidly see that everything I have said in above responses is true and supportive of my thesis.
3) How can physics, science and math possibly exist if we have free WILL?
This makes no sense, but I will answer none-the-less. All those can and DO exist because they are the very thing that makes free will possible, and our existence DYNAMIC, and not STATIC. For sources please refer to my above replies. Also, you need to include the FREE in “Free Will”, not just the one as it totally changes the meaning.
4/5) Do we truly have free will because you believe it? or because our will is truly free?
We truly have free will because the very nature of the universe and its foundational building blocks (ie; quantum mechanics) dictate it. That much is known. Again, for sources please refer to my above replies, which you have still not adequately refuted to any extent.
Rebuttal
Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has thus far danced around my questions and scientific data and evidence, instead of choosing to adequately rebut them with anything he has chosen to rely on circular arguments that do not refute anything I have presented. We have WELL established scientific evidence that is over 80 years old that proves BEYOND a doubt that there is indeed infinite choices possible at all times. My opponent likes to talk about “finite possibilities”, well I ask you this: What makes them finite? The answer is simple and it is of course CHOICE, which causes the wave function collapse of probability to a singular reality.
In reality for my opponents thesis to be true one would assume that the past century or more of quantum physics and mathematics is wrong. Because if indeed we are in a static (destined) reality then ALL outcomes would HAVE to be linear, which we know they are NOT. Our current mainstream physics tell us that our universe is but one of an INFINITE number, which in itself implies that there is no destiny, only probability, which in turn equates to FREE WILL.
One great example that I would like to present is this:
According to the well proven and established wave function principle, it is stated that me, you, and anyone each have a probability distribution based on ALL possible CHOICES. In fact right now there is a chance, how ever slight, that I am standing on Mars, instead of typing this reply in my living room. Does this mean that I had the ability to go to Mars? Of course not, but what it does imply is that I had a POSSIBILITY to make a series of choices that would have led me to be on Mars.
My opponent would believe he was “destined” to be in this debate based on the past. This is not true, because if it was then my opponent would still have had to make a series of CHOICES (Free Will) to get to the point where he was available and willing to debate me. In any sense there is no escaping Free Will, and thus any argument against is simply circular.
Socratic Questions
1.Can you scientifically or mathematically disprove quantum mechanics that dictate infinite probabilities and thus choices? Explain in detail, with sources, why or why not.
2.Can you philosophically disprove the fact that choice is present, even in a theory of destiny?
3.How can destiny occur with out CHOICE? Even if one was some how magically forced into a effect, the cause must proceed it, and given that there are multiple interacting variables within our environment for destiny to be true one must say that there is NEVER any choice involved in ANYTHING. Your rebuttal?
4. If we assume your destiny theory is correct then we also must assume that some how it was destined the universe be created by nothing. Beings as this is currently not physically possible according to well established laws of physics how can your thesis support the creation of our universe better than a chance (probability) creation?
reply to post by jkrog08
I apologize for the delay in my post and since I was late, I will not post any Socratic Questions, since jkrog08 has given me more time to respond and out of respect I will forfeit my SQ's
_________________________________________________
I'm not sure I have too. Since choice is not the same as free will. I agree we have choices, but never infinite, because not every situation allows for such. Free will is a metaphysical concept and therefore is not of a physical process per say. If anything it is a way to retain hope. Since the brain controls all of life's functions, from the nervous system to logic, we must remember that our brain controls our mind and makes decisions based on calculated thinking, the environment, the situation, etc. Free will, allows us to think outside of the possibilities of the ONLY choices a situation offers; therefore, it is not a probable system since we can free will anything we want into our mind. Much like the man in the wheel chair who could not get on the curb. His WILL (Which is not free) wanted him to make it up the curb, he wanted it and willed it to happened. But it did not, because the WILL is not a physical process and limited by the situation, natural law and of course every law of science.
I cannot philosophically disprove anything. Since that is not the goal of philosophy. The goal of philosophy is to seldom affirm, always qualify/distinguish, and never deny. I can add evidence to a certain side, however. But in this case, I do not need to disprove anything. The facts are that choice is still in Destiny; however, in certain stages destiny calls for specific actions or events to take place.
Choice does exist with Destiny. Destiny only controls the larger picture, through seemingly random events. For instance: Back to the story with Maggie, which I will repost here:
Joe walks into a store. He buys a glass of Milk and walks of the store. He opens the door for Maggie, giving her a few extra seconds in her day. Maggie orders a cup of coffee, thanks the waitress, and gives her a tip, because Maggie was once a worker there and she knows the pay is not very good. Maggie walks out of the store, heads down the street to buy a newspaper. A man accidently bump into her and Maggie drops her change on the ground. Maggie has lost 3 minutes of her day after picking up the change and buying the newspaper. She begins to head across the street when a car suddenly hits her, killing her instantly. Maggie is an organ donor and her organs are given to a child who has renal failure, amazingly the child would have died without the Kidney within two days. The kid grows up to be the President of the United States of America.
Now there are multiple choices that could have been made here: For one the type of milk that Joe bought, he could have chosen from Strawberry milk to any sort of milk or any drink for that matter as long as the drink is in the store, he could have chosen to take it. This event does not change anything and has no affect on the larger picture of destiny which is Maggie dying and the child becoming President of the United States with her Kidney.
I think we are missing point. How do we know the Universe was created by nothing? What about God? What about matter not being able to be created nor destroyed. There is no such thing as nothing and as such there had to have something. If it was God, then we could not possibly argue with Destiny if you believe the Christian/Catholic God, the Jewish, the Hindu God or any other types of Gods, because everyone of them used Destiny. But these God's are not constrained by destiny, because they are above all rules of nature/ natural law, because they made everything (if you believe the world started this way of course).
Let us assume for a brief period in time that Free Will, does in fact exist. We must not put free will to the ultimate test:
A person is in a persistent vegetative state, much like how Terri Schiavo was. She could not eat on her own, could not sit up on her own, could not do anything on her own. She was barely responsive to stimuli, but had some degree's of awareness. She had very limited brain function. Of course we all know the controversy of this case and everything that surrounded it. It truly was a sad story. But let's assume that there is a person much like Schiavo, for all intensive purposes we will use the name of Jackie and Jackie's husband. Frank, has the power of attorney and chooses to have her feeding tube removed to end her life. There is NO will, no orders for a DNR, nothing that was signed or stated by Jackie. Jackie; however, while having limited brain function is still able to process a few things. She has hopes that she will somehow come out of this state, her WILL is living and she wants to stand up and leave. But she cannot, because she has no Free Will, her free will cannot make this choice for her, because it simply does not exist; therefore, if she cannot freely will herself from the bed free will cannot exist.
On the subject of awareness, I think it is important to remember and consider when you were aware of having made a decision and when you actually decided. This is highly important, since it applies to much of biology. Our eyes process what we see upside down, but it is our optic nerve and Brain that flip the image upright this means that while we are aware this happens we do not know when, because it happens so quickly. Much could be said with how we process decision making, what if we actually computed the decision before we knew?
Free will does not have the power to make choices.
Well if I have misconstrued the meaning then so did John Locke, one of the world's greatest philosophers:
Albert Einstein did:
and Voltaire must have as well:
The whole idea of free will is that the WILL needs to be free. If the WILL is not free, then there can be NO free will.
I apologize for the delay in my post and since I was late, I will not post any Socratic Questions, since jkrog08 has given me more time to respond and out of respect I will forfeit my SQ's
_________________________________________________
Answers to SQ
1.Can you scientifically or mathematically disprove quantum mechanics that dictate infinite probabilities and thus choices? Explain in detail, with sources, why or why not.
I'm not sure I have too. Since choice is not the same as free will. I agree we have choices, but never infinite, because not every situation allows for such. Free will is a metaphysical concept and therefore is not of a physical process per say. If anything it is a way to retain hope. Since the brain controls all of life's functions, from the nervous system to logic, we must remember that our brain controls our mind and makes decisions based on calculated thinking, the environment, the situation, etc. Free will, allows us to think outside of the possibilities of the ONLY choices a situation offers; therefore, it is not a probable system since we can free will anything we want into our mind. Much like the man in the wheel chair who could not get on the curb. His WILL (Which is not free) wanted him to make it up the curb, he wanted it and willed it to happened. But it did not, because the WILL is not a physical process and limited by the situation, natural law and of course every law of science.
2.Can you philosophically disprove the fact that choice is present, even in a theory of destiny?
I cannot philosophically disprove anything. Since that is not the goal of philosophy. The goal of philosophy is to seldom affirm, always qualify/distinguish, and never deny. I can add evidence to a certain side, however. But in this case, I do not need to disprove anything. The facts are that choice is still in Destiny; however, in certain stages destiny calls for specific actions or events to take place.
3.How can destiny occur with out CHOICE? Even if one was some how magically forced into a effect, the cause must proceed it, and given that there are multiple interacting variables within our environment for destiny to be true one must say that there is NEVER any choice involved in ANYTHING. Your rebuttal?
Choice does exist with Destiny. Destiny only controls the larger picture, through seemingly random events. For instance: Back to the story with Maggie, which I will repost here:
Joe walks into a store. He buys a glass of Milk and walks of the store. He opens the door for Maggie, giving her a few extra seconds in her day. Maggie orders a cup of coffee, thanks the waitress, and gives her a tip, because Maggie was once a worker there and she knows the pay is not very good. Maggie walks out of the store, heads down the street to buy a newspaper. A man accidently bump into her and Maggie drops her change on the ground. Maggie has lost 3 minutes of her day after picking up the change and buying the newspaper. She begins to head across the street when a car suddenly hits her, killing her instantly. Maggie is an organ donor and her organs are given to a child who has renal failure, amazingly the child would have died without the Kidney within two days. The kid grows up to be the President of the United States of America.
Now there are multiple choices that could have been made here: For one the type of milk that Joe bought, he could have chosen from Strawberry milk to any sort of milk or any drink for that matter as long as the drink is in the store, he could have chosen to take it. This event does not change anything and has no affect on the larger picture of destiny which is Maggie dying and the child becoming President of the United States with her Kidney.
4. If we assume your destiny theory is correct then we also must assume that somehow it was destined the universe be created by nothing. Beings as this is currently not physically possible according to well established laws of physics how can your thesis support the creation of our universe better than a chance (probability) creation?
I think we are missing point. How do we know the Universe was created by nothing? What about God? What about matter not being able to be created nor destroyed. There is no such thing as nothing and as such there had to have something. If it was God, then we could not possibly argue with Destiny if you believe the Christian/Catholic God, the Jewish, the Hindu God or any other types of Gods, because everyone of them used Destiny. But these God's are not constrained by destiny, because they are above all rules of nature/ natural law, because they made everything (if you believe the world started this way of course).
Rebuttal
Let us assume for a brief period in time that Free Will, does in fact exist. We must not put free will to the ultimate test:
A person is in a persistent vegetative state, much like how Terri Schiavo was. She could not eat on her own, could not sit up on her own, could not do anything on her own. She was barely responsive to stimuli, but had some degree's of awareness. She had very limited brain function. Of course we all know the controversy of this case and everything that surrounded it. It truly was a sad story. But let's assume that there is a person much like Schiavo, for all intensive purposes we will use the name of Jackie and Jackie's husband. Frank, has the power of attorney and chooses to have her feeding tube removed to end her life. There is NO will, no orders for a DNR, nothing that was signed or stated by Jackie. Jackie; however, while having limited brain function is still able to process a few things. She has hopes that she will somehow come out of this state, her WILL is living and she wants to stand up and leave. But she cannot, because she has no Free Will, her free will cannot make this choice for her, because it simply does not exist; therefore, if she cannot freely will herself from the bed free will cannot exist.
On the subject of awareness, I think it is important to remember and consider when you were aware of having made a decision and when you actually decided. This is highly important, since it applies to much of biology. Our eyes process what we see upside down, but it is our optic nerve and Brain that flip the image upright this means that while we are aware this happens we do not know when, because it happens so quickly. Much could be said with how we process decision making, what if we actually computed the decision before we knew?
Free will does not have the power to make choices.
JKROG08 STATED:
So now we clearly see that my opponent has clearly misconstrued the very definition of FREE WILL, and instead chose to simply define “WILL”. When we look at the real philosophical definition of “Free Will” we can lucidly see that everything I have said in above responses is true and supportive of my thesis.
Well if I have misconstrued the meaning then so did John Locke, one of the world's greatest philosophers:
John Locke
Concerning a man's liberty, there yet, therefore, is raised this further question, Whether a man be free to will? which I think is what is meant, when it is disputed whether the will be free. (s.22)
...to make a man free after this manner, by making the action of willing to depend on his will, there must be another antecedent will, to determine the acts of this will, and another to determine that, and so in infinitum: for wherever one stops, the actions of the last will cannot be free. (s.23)
This, then, is evident, That a man is not at liberty to will, or not to will, anything in his power...: liberty consisting in a power to act or to forbear acting, and in that only. (s.24)
Albert Einstein did:
Quotes
"I do not believe in freedom of will. Schopenhauer's words, 'Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants', accompany me in all life situations and console me in my dealings with people, even those that are really painful to me. This recognition of the unfreedom of the will protects me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and judging individuals and losing good humour."
and Voltaire must have as well:
Voltaire
The will, therefore, is not a faculty that one can call free. A free will is an expression absolutely void of sense, and what the scholastics have called will of indifference, that is to say willing without cause, is a chimera unworthy of being combated.
Where will be liberty then? in the power to do what one wills. I wish to leave my study, the door is open, I am free to leave it.
But, say you, if the door is closed, and I wish to stay at home, I stay there freely. Let us be explicit You exercise then the power that you have of staying; you have this power, but you have not that of going out.
The whole idea of free will is that the WILL needs to be free. If the WILL is not free, then there can be NO free will.
reply to post by TheMythLives
Unless you can adequately answer my quantum mechanical questions with actual science I have no further questions at this time.....
I will leave you with this however:
I made the CHOICE to debate in this thread, as I made the CHOICE to give you an additional day to respond considering your circumstances (ps:hope you are well). I have argues all I can, but yet you have not even attempted to refute it with anything other than cryptic philosophical questions. Thus I still await your rebuttal to disprove my original thesis.
Unless you can adequately answer my quantum mechanical questions with actual science I have no further questions at this time.....
I will leave you with this however:
I made the CHOICE to debate in this thread, as I made the CHOICE to give you an additional day to respond considering your circumstances (ps:hope you are well). I have argues all I can, but yet you have not even attempted to refute it with anything other than cryptic philosophical questions. Thus I still await your rebuttal to disprove my original thesis.
Closing Statements
JKROG08 stated:
Unless you can adequately answer my quantum mechanical questions with actual science I have no further questions at this time
Quantum mechanics is still a very young science and upon further inspection of the actual quantum processes. We find that quantum mechanics does not disprove Destiny, rather it shows and states that we cannot measure things at the quantum level in a constant manner because our technology would produce forces that would change the position or velocity of the quantum particles we are trying to measure; therefore, producing inadequate and false results.
Also, Quantum Mechanics supports determinism in the following:
1) Bohmian quantum mechanics
New Scientist
Bohm found buried within those equations a close link to the mathematics of classical physics, which is based on Newton's laws of motion. Bohmian mechanics asserts that the outcome of an experiment isn't truly random, but is determined by the values of certain "hidden variables"; for instance, in quantum theory two electrons may be "entangled" such that their states appear to have a kind of spooky link; measuring the spin of one determines the spin of the other, say. Bohm's theory suggests that they share a hidden variable governing spin.
As we can see Destiny still survives and is supported in Quantum Mechanics.
Bohm
As much as any classical theory of point particles moving under force fields, then, Bohm's theory is deterministic. Amazingly, he was also able to show that, as long as the statistical distribution of initial positions and velocities of particles are chosen so as to meet a “quantum equilibrium” condition, his theory is empirically equivalent to standard Copenhagen QM. In one sense this is a philosopher's nightmare: with genuine empirical equivalence as strong as Bohm obtained, it seems experimental evidence can never tell us which description of reality is correct. In other senses, the Bohm theory is a philosopher's dream come true, eliminating much (but not all) of the weirdness of standard QM and restoring determinism to the physics of atoms and photons.
2) Einstein's Special Relativity
Wiki
While clearly contributing to the field, he did not accept the more philosophical consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time. He also was the first to notice some of the apparently exotic consequences of entanglement and used them to formulate the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, in the hope of showing that quantum mechanics had unacceptable implications. This was 1935, but in 1964 it was shown by John Bell (see Bell inequality) that Einstein's assumption was correct, but had to be completed by hidden variables and thus based on wrong philosophical assumptions.
Not to mention many other Quantum theories in favor of destiny such as; Newtonian mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, John Bell's theorem, and many others.
We must continue with some more important questions:
- What is self?
The self is the embodiment and total of our genes, environment, nature and nurture, chemical, biological, psychological processes, and the soul. The self is our rationale and ability to reason in any given situation.
- What is choice?
Choice is the ability to make a decision based on the make-up of the "self". Choice is a physical computation processed by the brain and brought into action.
- What is will?
The will, if it exists, is a process to retain the ability of hope and wishful thinking. It is in essence what we wish to happen or what we wish we had.
All in all the process and the whole idea of free will, is that the WILL has to be free and I have clearly demonstrated otherwise. The WILL cannot be free for some major reasons:
-It would destroy natural law
-It would destroy physics, chemistry, biology and all of science
-It would destroy meaning of life
-It would destroy purpose
-It would destroy all of mathematics
-It would destroy everything...
Destiny on the other hand can be applied to all and follows all of the following:
-Follows Natural Law
-Follows physics, chemistry, biology, and all of science
-Gives life meaning
-Gives each person a purpose
-Follows all of mathematics
-Everything would still exist
Another huge argument is the question of choice. Choice is not the same thing as free will. Choice is the ability to make a decision based on the "self" (remember the "self" is composed of: genes, environment, nature and nurture, chemical, biological, psychological processes, and the soul). Choices are limited by the processes of the self and of course the outer processes of the self, such as the environment. Free will; however, is not limited by such ideas. The whole idea of free will is that the will is free. If the will were free; a man would be able to cure himself of cancer, a man in a wheel chair would be able to change the height of a curb that is too high, a man would be able to will himself to fly in the sky, etc. Seeing that such things are NOT possible, because we are ruled by natural law and laws of science. We can clearly come to the conclusion that the WILL is NOT free and as such the will does not exist.
As stated in the opening post:
1) I will back up what I state, through the use of science and logic.
2) What I say will fall under the Natural Law (Laws that cannot be broken)
I have successful done so on all accounts. I have backed up my thoughts with appropriate evidence and rationale. I have followed the guidelines of natural law. In essence:
The topic for debate was: There is No Free Will and I have proven my case that free will is NOT free; therefore, there is NO free will
___________________________________________________
Final Words
I want to thank my good friend, jkrog08 for debating this very interesting topic with me. I have NOTHING but the HIGHEST respect and admiration for such a quality member of ATS. I can assure you that we will have many more debates in the future I truly thank you for your friendship and your continued support and help on ATS, as well as, real life. I am glad to call you a friend.
I also want to thank Semperfortis for setting this debate up. I want to thank the judges who will judge this debate. And most importantly I want to thank to the readers who followed along and I honestly hope all of you have enjoyed this debate, because I had fun debating the topic
~TheMythLives
reply to post by TheMythLives
Closing Remarks
Free will has been an often debated aspect of philosophy for the last 4,000 years. Philosophers have continuously argued over two main stances on the topic, which are determinism, which states that there is only one possible outcome for ones future, which is based on their given past. The other stance is that of indeterminism, which states that we have multiple futures open to us based on our own free choice. It is my thesis that free will does indeed exist, and can be proven via the well known science of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is the study of particles such as electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, mesons, gluons, and strings. In this well founded and over 80 year old field it has been repeatedly seen that the very foundation of reality, the building blocks of atoms and thus larger matter constantly display properties of free will in the clearest sense. The first major aspect of quantum mechanics that supports free will is the wave function.
The quantum wave function is the proven fact that all particles, and really anything, even macro level objects have at least some probability of being anywhere in the universe at any given time. The only thing that separates the possible states is the probability distribution, which is simply the mathematical realization of the wave function. To give an example of this you can imagine your own wave function as this; you are sitting in your living room watching TV right now, you are because that is the highest probability, and thus occurred in this reality. However, there is a chance, however improbable that you are standing on the surface of Mars right now! This has been mathematically proven and is beyond a doubt.
This clearly shows that there is an innate nature of “choice” built within the very universe itself. The only thing that effects what choice you make is your interaction with the environment and other causal antecedents. If the deterministic theory was true then we would not be observing this phenomena on any level, which since we are it is my postulate that determinism can not be true in any sense of its definition.
To further show how quantum mechanics shows scientifically that free will and choice exists I would like to mention the wave function collapse. The collapse of a wave function is simply the point at which the probability of a given particle or object being at a certain point in spacetime becomes 100 percent. This is what we could describe as the very act of choice itself being seen and described mathematically.
Yet another principle of quantum mechanics that, again shows free will to be true is the famous Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. This is a proven law of quantum mechanics that states you can never observe both the position and momentum of a particle, because the very act of observing and measuring it affects the outcome of the experiment. This is probably the strongest evidence for free will and most damning for determinism in my opinion. This very law clearly shows that the future is not predetermined or static, but rather open and dynamic. Interactions with ones environment affect the end effect, but the end effect is not singular.
Some may still ask “how does this prove free will?” It, in my opinion does because the very fact that we know there is no linear future for the foundation of reality(particles) directly refutes the deterministic stance of a linear future. This is because these very micro particles make up the macro, from us to the largest star in the Universe, to even the fabric of spacetime itself. Although quantum mechanics seem to prove free will some hard determinists may still ask “but if we have free will then why can’t we will ourselves to any possibility we desire?” However that is a fallacious argument, because even with free will we still are bound by the laws of nature and interactions within our local and global environments. Thus, the argument in favor of indeterministic free will is still valid in every relevant sense.
In closing, the argument of free will or determinism may never be solved however. This is because the very nature of philosophy is metaphysical in most senses, and what science there is may be able to never satisfy some of the hardest determinists due to the inherent nature of the science itself.
In addition to this we all live our lives by the very strict principle of cause and effect, but my opponent, and other determinists simply ignore this by saying “there is no cause proceeding the effect” because the effect is destined. Of course they don’t actually say that, but it is what their stance maintains when you break down the theory and simplify it. Thus, can we ignore this major fallacy in the argument? Can we ignore the overwhelming evidence that quantum mechanics shows us in regards to the natural nature of free will? That, is an awful lot to ignore ladies and gentlemen.
In his closing, my opponent quoted two or three THEORIES and POSTULATES on quantum theory and reality that he thinks disproves the quantum mechanical evidence. It does NOT, all evidence I provided is actual facts, not theories. It is fallacious for my opponent to quote Einsteins thoughts on quantum mechanics just because “Einstein said it”, when in fact we all should know Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics, mainly due to his belief in God. There were a series of arguments, called the “EPR Arguments”, in which Niels Bohr argued with Einstein successfully, in which Einstein finally regressed. In fact Einstein had such a vendetta against quantum mechanics he made the “biggest blunder of his life” when he forced his “cosmological constant” into physics, which was later found to be false, even admitted by him. Here is a link to the arguments.
We all have choices, we make them everyday, nothing is destined because we control our own destiny. Just how someone chooses to rob a bank or not. It is as simple as that. There is no need to cloud things further with circular philosophical arguments like most determinists (and my opponent) do. In this debate I clearly made three things clear:
Quantum mechanics shows beyond a doubt choice exists.
At any level of any argument choice exists, thus free will does.
Effect can not proceed cause, as my opponents stance would require.
In the start of this debate I said I could not prove free will, but I would show it more likely than determinisim. I clearly did that, providing far more empirical evidence than my opponent, who in actuality provided none. Thus I have accomplished my goal in this debate, showing it FAR more likely that free will exists, as shown by above replies by myself, and the lack of sufficient rebuttals by my opponent. My opponent made it clear in our last debate that he is a proponent of randomness, so that said, even my opponent does not believe in “destiny”. So I ask you all, what else is there to prove?
In closing I would like to again thank Semper, ATS, and especially my opponent, TheMythLives, who is a great opponent and more importantly a GREAT FRIEND. It was an honor to again debate with you my friend. I hope all who watched enjoyed this debate and found it educational. Take care everyone.
Closing Remarks
Free will has been an often debated aspect of philosophy for the last 4,000 years. Philosophers have continuously argued over two main stances on the topic, which are determinism, which states that there is only one possible outcome for ones future, which is based on their given past. The other stance is that of indeterminism, which states that we have multiple futures open to us based on our own free choice. It is my thesis that free will does indeed exist, and can be proven via the well known science of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is the study of particles such as electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, mesons, gluons, and strings. In this well founded and over 80 year old field it has been repeatedly seen that the very foundation of reality, the building blocks of atoms and thus larger matter constantly display properties of free will in the clearest sense. The first major aspect of quantum mechanics that supports free will is the wave function.
The quantum wave function is the proven fact that all particles, and really anything, even macro level objects have at least some probability of being anywhere in the universe at any given time. The only thing that separates the possible states is the probability distribution, which is simply the mathematical realization of the wave function. To give an example of this you can imagine your own wave function as this; you are sitting in your living room watching TV right now, you are because that is the highest probability, and thus occurred in this reality. However, there is a chance, however improbable that you are standing on the surface of Mars right now! This has been mathematically proven and is beyond a doubt.
This clearly shows that there is an innate nature of “choice” built within the very universe itself. The only thing that effects what choice you make is your interaction with the environment and other causal antecedents. If the deterministic theory was true then we would not be observing this phenomena on any level, which since we are it is my postulate that determinism can not be true in any sense of its definition.
To further show how quantum mechanics shows scientifically that free will and choice exists I would like to mention the wave function collapse. The collapse of a wave function is simply the point at which the probability of a given particle or object being at a certain point in spacetime becomes 100 percent. This is what we could describe as the very act of choice itself being seen and described mathematically.
Yet another principle of quantum mechanics that, again shows free will to be true is the famous Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. This is a proven law of quantum mechanics that states you can never observe both the position and momentum of a particle, because the very act of observing and measuring it affects the outcome of the experiment. This is probably the strongest evidence for free will and most damning for determinism in my opinion. This very law clearly shows that the future is not predetermined or static, but rather open and dynamic. Interactions with ones environment affect the end effect, but the end effect is not singular.
Some may still ask “how does this prove free will?” It, in my opinion does because the very fact that we know there is no linear future for the foundation of reality(particles) directly refutes the deterministic stance of a linear future. This is because these very micro particles make up the macro, from us to the largest star in the Universe, to even the fabric of spacetime itself. Although quantum mechanics seem to prove free will some hard determinists may still ask “but if we have free will then why can’t we will ourselves to any possibility we desire?” However that is a fallacious argument, because even with free will we still are bound by the laws of nature and interactions within our local and global environments. Thus, the argument in favor of indeterministic free will is still valid in every relevant sense.
In closing, the argument of free will or determinism may never be solved however. This is because the very nature of philosophy is metaphysical in most senses, and what science there is may be able to never satisfy some of the hardest determinists due to the inherent nature of the science itself.
In addition to this we all live our lives by the very strict principle of cause and effect, but my opponent, and other determinists simply ignore this by saying “there is no cause proceeding the effect” because the effect is destined. Of course they don’t actually say that, but it is what their stance maintains when you break down the theory and simplify it. Thus, can we ignore this major fallacy in the argument? Can we ignore the overwhelming evidence that quantum mechanics shows us in regards to the natural nature of free will? That, is an awful lot to ignore ladies and gentlemen.
In his closing, my opponent quoted two or three THEORIES and POSTULATES on quantum theory and reality that he thinks disproves the quantum mechanical evidence. It does NOT, all evidence I provided is actual facts, not theories. It is fallacious for my opponent to quote Einsteins thoughts on quantum mechanics just because “Einstein said it”, when in fact we all should know Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics, mainly due to his belief in God. There were a series of arguments, called the “EPR Arguments”, in which Niels Bohr argued with Einstein successfully, in which Einstein finally regressed. In fact Einstein had such a vendetta against quantum mechanics he made the “biggest blunder of his life” when he forced his “cosmological constant” into physics, which was later found to be false, even admitted by him. Here is a link to the arguments.
We all have choices, we make them everyday, nothing is destined because we control our own destiny. Just how someone chooses to rob a bank or not. It is as simple as that. There is no need to cloud things further with circular philosophical arguments like most determinists (and my opponent) do. In this debate I clearly made three things clear:
In the start of this debate I said I could not prove free will, but I would show it more likely than determinisim. I clearly did that, providing far more empirical evidence than my opponent, who in actuality provided none. Thus I have accomplished my goal in this debate, showing it FAR more likely that free will exists, as shown by above replies by myself, and the lack of sufficient rebuttals by my opponent. My opponent made it clear in our last debate that he is a proponent of randomness, so that said, even my opponent does not believe in “destiny”. So I ask you all, what else is there to prove?
In closing I would like to again thank Semper, ATS, and especially my opponent, TheMythLives, who is a great opponent and more importantly a GREAT FRIEND. It was an honor to again debate with you my friend. I hope all who watched enjoyed this debate and found it educational. Take care everyone.
Due to some most unfortunate and tragic circumstances, this debate will remain unjudged.
I invite each and everyone of you reading this to simply enjoy the quality of debate exhibited here and take a moment to reflect.
RIP jkrog08
Semper
I invite each and everyone of you reading this to simply enjoy the quality of debate exhibited here and take a moment to reflect.
RIP jkrog08
Semper
new topics
-
Satanic ‘Little Season’ of Deception.. Awaken to the Handiwork of the Creator.
ATS Skunk Works: 19 minutes ago -
USA-BIDEN and CHINA-Xi Agree Not To Let Artificial Intelligence Decide Nuclear Weapons Use.
World War Three: 41 minutes ago -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 3 hours ago -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 7 hours ago -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 11 hours ago, 12 flags -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 9 flags -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 3 hours ago, 6 flags -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 7 hours ago, 1 flags -
USA-BIDEN and CHINA-Xi Agree Not To Let Artificial Intelligence Decide Nuclear Weapons Use.
World War Three: 41 minutes ago, 1 flags -
Satanic ‘Little Season’ of Deception.. Awaken to the Handiwork of the Creator.
ATS Skunk Works: 19 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
USA-BIDEN and CHINA-Xi Agree Not To Let Artificial Intelligence Decide Nuclear Weapons Use.
World War Three • 1 • : Dandandat3 -
Tariffs all around, Except for ...
Dreams & Predictions • 30 • : rickymouse -
Satanic ‘Little Season’ of Deception.. Awaken to the Handiwork of the Creator.
ATS Skunk Works • 3 • : FlyInTheOintment -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections • 87 • : fringeofthefringe -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 8 • : rickymouse -
The Trump effect 6 days after 2024 election
2024 Elections • 146 • : fringeofthefringe -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat • 7 • : tarantulabite1 -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 6814 • : Xtrozero -
Trump sues media outlets -- 10 Billion Dollar lawsuit
US Political Madness • 55 • : Xtrozero -
President-Elect DONALD TRUMP's 2nd-Term Administration Takes Shape.
Political Ideology • 211 • : WeMustCare
12