NationStates Jolt Archive

You know what I find ironic? The fact that we have no free will in the sense of the word because having it would require random (causeless) outcomes, which are ruled out by causality (to the best of our knowledge). So, knowing this, would the best philosophy to life be "go with the flow" since we can't technically control what happens to us anyway, or do you tuck this idea in the back of your mind and live a life of "pseudo-free will" and understand the concept but don't act on it? Personally I prefer the second option.

That's kind of like saying that because you realise that you will eventually die to just commit suicide now. Which would be bad, because that is disadvantageous to your DNA.

We had to free Will , his family paid the ransom so we let him go.

I think someone on this board already said once, "I choose to belive in free will. If I'm wrong, I was always meant to be wrong! It all works out."

You know what I find ironic? The fact that we have no free will in the sense of the word because having it would require random (causeless) outcomes, which are ruled out by causality (to the best of our knowledge).

Stop right there. Free will only requires that the world is not determined, that it is underdetermined by causal relationships. This describes not only free will but quantum mechanics as well. No problem any more.

Stop right there. Free will only requires that the world is not determined, that it is underdetermined by causal relationships. This describes not only free will but quantum mechanics as well. No problem any more.
Quantum mechanics does not prove true randomness, merely that we don't know the laws that dictate the behavior of subatomic particles, which is very different from saying there are laws that by their definition are lawless.

Free will exists. Unless you act without using any thought, then those acts are on instinct alone.

Stop right there. Free will only requires that the world is not determined, that it is underdetermined by causal relationships. This describes not only free will but quantum mechanics as well. No problem any more.

That may be true, but i cant see the relationship you made; quantum mechanics is the theory that electrons can act as waves, as light or sound does (Einstein's photoelectric effect experiment). As far as i can tell, electrons don't have much to do with free will..

That may be true, but i cant see the relationship you made; quantum mechanics is the theory that electrons can act as waves, as light or sound does (Einstein's photoelectric effect experiment). As far as i can tell, electrons don't have much to do with free will..
hmm?
It's not just electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

In the string theory part of quantum physics, part of the concept is that time and space do not exist the same at the subatomic level as they do in our larger world where we can perceive things now. As for free will, I can't see the relationship with particles smaller than the parts of an atom. Free will is the conscious choice that is made when we decide to do something, do something else, or do nothing. We thinking individuals have free will.

Eh? What sense of which world? I'm free to will what I will, how is that not free will?

hmm?
It's not just electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

there IS a difference between quantum mechanics and quantum physics, and i think you may have them mixed up; wikipedia has nothing on quantum physics though.

You know what I find ironic? The fact that we have no free will in the sense of the word because having it would require random (causeless) outcomes, which are ruled out by causality (to the best of our knowledge). So, knowing this, would the best philosophy to life be "go with the flow" since we can't technically control what happens to us anyway, or do you tuck this idea in the back of your mind and live a life of "pseudo-free will" and understand the concept but don't act on it? Personally I prefer the second option.

How very ... deterministic of you. What about the Uncertainty Principle and Chaos Theory? Bone up on quatum theory and talk to me later. :)

As far as i can tell, electrons don't have much to do with free will..
Welcome to reductionism. I would lecture you on you ignorance of quantum physics as well, but others have already taken care of that.

You know what I find ironic? The fact that we have no free will in the sense of the word because having it would require random (causeless) outcomes, which are ruled out by causality (to the best of our knowledge). So, knowing this, would the best philosophy to life be "go with the flow" since we can't technically control what happens to us anyway, or do you tuck this idea in the back of your mind and live a life of "pseudo-free will" and understand the concept but don't act on it? Personally I prefer the second option.

If free will doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. It's not like we can choose to "go with the flow".

You know what I find ironic? The fact that we have no free will in the sense of the word because having it would require random (causeless) outcomes, which are ruled out by causality (to the best of our knowledge). So, knowing this, would the best philosophy to life be "go with the flow" since we can't technically control what happens to us anyway, or do you tuck this idea in the back of your mind and live a life of "pseudo-free will" and understand the concept but don't act on it? Personally I prefer the second option.
Randomness is not ruled out by causality. There is randomness, even if it is only the appearance of randomness. If it acts random, and looks random, and smells random ...then it's random!

Found this on a website:
"Another system in which sensitive dependence on initial conditions is evident is the flip of a coin. There are two variables in a flipping coin: how soon it hits the ground, and how fast it is flipping. Theoretically, it should be possible to control these variables entirely and control how the coin will end up. In practice, it is impossible to control exactly how fast the coin flips and how high it flips. It is possible to put the variables into a certain range, but it is impossible to control it enough to know the final results of the coin toss."
Whether or not randomness is determined by cause-and-effect series, if it can be utilized as randomness, that's all that matters. As long as the flip of a coin gives us a result we humans could not predict, there is randomness.

It doesn't matter if quantum particles behave randomly or not. Everything we do still depends on what those quantum particles do. Unless you believe that your essence is actually some immaterial entity that can manipulate the outcome of those random events, you still don't have free will.

You know what I find ironic? The fact that we have no free will in the sense of the word because having it would require random (causeless) outcomes, which are ruled out by causality (to the best of our knowledge). So, knowing this, would the best philosophy to life be "go with the flow" since we can't technically control what happens to us anyway, or do you tuck this idea in the back of your mind and live a life of "pseudo-free will" and understand the concept but don't act on it? Personally I prefer the second option.
Well, I believe that one can always look back on life and see the causes for things, but not that one can look forward and determine what will happen.

In other words, in a practical way (for us non-omniscent humans), there's a difference between causality and determinism. And I live my life freely knowing that I cannot pre-determine it - nor can anyone else. (At least not anyone I know!!)

The only way humans, according to the philosophers that have studied the subject for hundreds of years, to have free will is if both determinism and indeterminism are both false and there is another theory that we can not fathom at this time.

This does not mean that we should think that life is wothless. Instead, it is best for humanity to believe that free will exists in some other form. Otherwise they will either give up or they will live in an unsuitable way.

The only way humans, according to the philosophers that have studied the subject for hundreds of years, to have free will is if both determinism and indeterminism are both false and there is another theory that we can not fathom at this time.

This does not mean that we should think that life is wothless. Instead, it is best for humanity to believe that free will exists in some other form. Otherwise they will either give up or they will live in an unsuitable way.
Well, I think the problem is, metaphysically free-will doesn't seem to work out, but in a pragmatic, day-to-day, sense it does. But it seems that most people try to look at it metaphysically.

Free will is the ability to choose without external interference. But then the question is can we really choose independently of the external world? I would argue no because we will always be restricted by a limited number of choice at a set moment in time, therefore our 'free' will is restricted by the choices we are given.

Also, are we really able to formulate completely independent ideas? I would again argue no as we base our ideas on those of others by agreeing or disagreeing. So really, 'free' will is always restricted.

Also, on the issue of 'chaos', I think chaos is basically changes or motion which people cannot interpret based on the currently available evidence, therefore it is given the category 'chaos' to show not complete randomness, but inorder in relation to our evidence. Therefore, free will, if characterized as chaos, will still be constrained to limits but they will be numeruous so that they will seem indefinite. I mean, in the end, free will is situational.

Well, I think the problem is, metaphysically free-will doesn't seem to work out, but in a pragmatic, day-to-day, sense it does. But it seems that most people try to look at it metaphysically.
That is a very good point. You may have given me a new angle. Too bad this this two months late. Still, i think philosophy class may have ruined some of my pragmatic thoughts.:)

That is a very good point. You may have given me a new angle. Too bad this this two months late. Still, i think philosophy class may have ruined some of my pragmatic thoughts.:)
You know, I think that's how I was when I first started taking philosophy classes, but after 3+ years of them, I simply HAD to turn to pragmatism.

Otherwise, I realized that I'd go completely crazy!

(And I'd rather stay just somewhat crazy, like i am now. :D)