NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

he would have no free will as the calculations that would determine all future events would include every choice he would make.

yes he has free will. the machine just knows what he will choose.

he would have no free will as the calculations that would determine all future events would include every choice he would make.

/thread.

Literally.

he would have no free will as the calculations that would determine all future events would include every choice he would make.

But the confusing thing is, he knows what choice he would make since the computer would tell him. Does this mean he is bound to follow this choice and there is nothing he can do to stop following this choice?

But the confusing thing is, he knows what choice he would make since the computer would tell him. Does this mean he is bound to follow this choice and there is nothing he can do to stop following this choice?

/thread.

Literally.

Explain this then.

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?
Both yes and no. For the computer to work as you've described it, it needs to be able to predict what its creator will actually do, not what he would have done if he hadn't built the computer. So, the system that allows the computer to be built prevents anyone from having free will.

However, your question presupposes that "the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event". Since the person has the ability to act differently from the computer's predictions, he clearly does have free will.

Except by having free will, he has demonstrated that his computer doesn't actually work. He he behaves differently from his computer's predictions even one time, he's proven that his computer does not function as intended.

Your scenario turns out to be nonsensical. The computer and its creator cannot both exist as you've described them at the same time.

But the confusing thing is, he knows what choice he would make since the computer would tell him. Does this mean he is bound to follow this choice and there is nothing he can do to stop following this choice?

If everything is pre-determined then by definition he doesn't get a say in it.

Laplace's demon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

Both yes and no. For the computer to work as you've described it, it needs to be able to predict what its creator will actually do, not what he would have done if he hadn't built the computer. So, the system that allows the computer to be built prevents anyone from having free will.

However, your question presupposes that "the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event". Since the person has the ability to act differently from the computer's predictions, he clearly does have free will.


Ok, assume that the person does not have the ability to change the future, since he is predetermined. Is this not nonsensical and possibly proof against the existence of determinism? How could you know exactly what you are going to do, but not be able to change it? What force would be keeping us from altering our path? Lets say the computer said: "you are going to push the red button", is there absolutely no way for the person to not push the red button now?

edit: changed "proof against free will to proof against determinism"

Aha this sounds like an example of Pierre-Simon Laplases Demon.
(I could also bring in ideas about how physics ideas don't really reveal the whole truth about the universe because we don't know enough about it yet, but i don't know enough of physics to say this with confidence)

Okay well there's a problem with what determines the computer and how it's made.
Also just because humans are made up from atoms does not mean they work consciously at an atomic level, for example just because a few molecules of oxygen enters your lungs doesn't mean you're pre-determined to take in those molecules.
If you look at humans from an atomic view and compare it with an overall view, there's a clear difference in how the two act.
E.g. You don't take in meaning of the Mona Lisa painting by looking at it's molecular structure, you look at what it looks like to you, this is human experience and in a sense your free will.
You have a consciousness to decide your long term actions at some point, as would some intelligent animals i suppose.

yes he has free will. the machine just knows what he will choose.

If one's course of action is inevitable, one does not possess "free-will".

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with.

Heisenberg forbids that ;)

If everything is pre-determined then by definition he doesn't get a say in it.

And this is where I have the problem with determinism, since this is nonsensical.

Heisenberg forbids that ;)

Yeah I know, but I didn't want to delve into quantum mechanics theory because it's just too confusing. So I want everyone to accept for the sake of argument that every type of particle can be predicted.

He has free will until he follows that which is supposedly pre-ordained through a series of calculations based on the most likely given current conditions, not factoring in the unpredictable.

If one's course of action is inevitable, one does not possess "free-will".

if one makes the choice it doesnt matter who knew it in advance.

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

Assuming this is possible (because I think it's not physically correct) I think this scenario contradicts itself. First you say anything is determined, then you say the person has the ability to change what he does. If it really is determined and the computer can "see" in the future it would have seen what this would do to the computer-builder and he would calculate what the builder would do.
Another contradiction is that you first say that everything is determined (so the building of the computer would be too, and the reaction of the builder too) So that excludes free will, unless you think that knowledge about the future somehow enables the particles in the brain of the builder to escape the laws of physics (which don't work in a way like this, there is randomness, although I don't think randomness is the same as free will).

But the confusing thing is, he knows what choice he would make since the computer would tell him. Does this mean he is bound to follow this choice and there is nothing he can do to stop following this choice?

of course, if the determination is real and the computer is right. Of course the determinations doesn't work like this in reality and such a computer can't exist, but in your scenario, then no, he can't change his choice as it would have been determined.

That all depends on how you wish to define free will.

I would say if he has the freedom to choose, then pre-determinism does not negate free will.

Ok, assume that the person does not have the ability to change the future, since he is predetermined. Is this not nonsensical and possibly proof against the existence of determinism? How could you know exactly what you are going to do, but not be able to change it? What force would be keeping us from altering our path? Lets say the computer said: "you are going to push the red button", is there absolutely no way for the person to not push the red button now?

edit: changed "proof against free will to proof against determinism"

ah but that is not real knowledge, even if you did press the button that could be you pressing it for a different motive.
In this example the motive of your actions is not clear, so the computer might be correct by chance than by design.
Another argument you might be able to use is, the apparent randomness of human actions, why do some people have mental illnesses? Why would this be predetermined if it were?

What i'm saying is Determinism gives the function behind human actions, but doesn't really give a good reason to accept the motives behind believing in it, it just doesn't fit in with our life experience as human beings, you don't wait around for things to determine you.
And this cause and effect that Determinism is based on can also be refuted.

For example:
The appeal to Quantum Mechanics. Briefly, at a sub-atomic level, one can either check for the location of a particle, or its waveform, but never both. Further, advocates of the 'strong' interpretation of wave/particle duality argue that the observations of the viewer effect the results of what they are looking at; for instance, if they are examining a photon, the particle in question will 'collapse' into one form or another depending on the gaze of the observer. This phenomena means that assumptions that the universe is a 'closed' causal system have to be replaced by one where the universe is fundamentally indeterminate and this indeterminacy might add a hint of randomness to our decision making.
Thus, Libertarians such as Robert Kane have argued that we have a hypothetical "quantum randomiser" in our brain, but such an approach seems fraught with difficulties: no such evidence of this randomiser exists, it seems to multiply explanations beyond necessity (as quantum fluctuations even themselves out above atomic level), and indeterminism is no friend to Libertarians. After all, a truely random, uncaused act would seem schizophrenic.

I have aforesaid computer.

It already told me that you would post this thread.

And you won't believe what is said at post number 157!

And this is where I have the problem with determinism, since this is nonsensical.

No, maybe you think you get a say in something, but actually it's just all guided by physics. If you choose anything could you have chosen to do anything else (if the given parameters are the same of course)?

Aha this sounds like an example of Pierre-Simon Laplases Demon.
(I could also bring in ideas about how physics ideas don't really reveal the whole truth about the universe because we don't know enough about it yet, but i don't know enough of physics to say this with confidence)

Okay well there's a problem with what determines the computer and how it's made.
Also just because humans are made up from atoms does not mean they work consciously at an atomic level, for example just because a few molecules of oxygen enters your lungs doesn't mean you're pre-determined to take in those molecules.
If you look at humans from an atomic view and compare it with an overall view, there's a clear difference in how the two act.
E.g. You don't take in meaning of the Mona Lisa painting by looking at it's molecular structure, you look at what it looks like to you, this is human experience and in a sense your free will.
You have a consciousness to decide your long term actions at some point, as would some intelligent animals i suppose.

Our you could say that our free will is just an illusion and that we are determined, but because our brain and behaviour is so complex and because of certain other physical barriers (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)) it's impossible to know our future and free will is a good way to describe the results of this randomness and molecular structure on a macroscopical level.

Assuming this is possible (because I think it's not physically correct) I think this scenario contradicts itself. First you say anything is determined, then you say the person has the ability to change what he does. If it really is determined and the computer can "see" in the future it would have seen what this would do to the computer-builder and he would calculate what the builder would do.

This is not a contradiction, it is simply stating he has no free will, this leaves us with other problems.


Another contradiction is that you first say that everything is determined (so the building of the computer would be too, and the reaction of the builder too) So that excludes free will, unless you think that knowledge about the future somehow enables the particles in the brain of the builder to escape the laws of physics (which don't work in a way like this, there is randomness, although I don't think randomness is the same as free will).


Again, not a contradiction, you're simply again saying that the builder has no free will.

To be clear, I am not saying that everything is completely determined, just that the Big Bang randomly determined where every atom would go. Once you realise where the atoms will go, I am asking if you have the ability to alter the course of the atoms. If we cannot, then this is problematic, since it's nonsensical to be unable to stop yourself from performing an action exactly.

And this is where I have the problem with determinism, since this is nonsensical.

It's certainly a paradox. But, like the granfather paradox, the problems are more to do with the fact that such a device can never exist.

if one makes the choice it doesnt matter who knew it in advance.

If your actions are already determined, how are they free?

For example:
The appeal to Quantum Mechanics. Briefly, at a sub-atomic level, one can either check for the location of a particle, or its waveform, but never both. Further, advocates of the 'strong' interpretation of wave/particle duality argue that the observations of the viewer effect the results of what they are looking at; for instance, if they are examining a photon, the particle in question will 'collapse' into one form or another depending on the gaze of the observer. This phenomena means that assumptions that the universe is a 'closed' causal system have to be replaced by one where the universe is fundamentally indeterminate and this indeterminacy might add a hint of randomness to our decision making.
Thus, Libertarians such as Robert Kane have argued that we have a hypothetical "quantum randomiser" in our brain, but such an approach seems fraught with difficulties: no such evidence of this randomiser exists, it seems to multiply explanations beyond necessity (as quantum fluctuations even themselves out above atomic level), and indeterminism is no friend to Libertarians. After all, a truely random, uncaused act would seem schizophrenic.

This is why I hate quantum mechanics. ;)

I have aforesaid computer.

It already told me that you would post this thread.

And you won't believe what is said at post number 157!

So.. if a mod would close and delete this topic now we will have proven free will exists and determinism can be broken ?

ah but that is not real knowledge, even if you did press the button that could be you pressing it for a different motive.
In this example the motive of your actions is not clear, so the computer might be correct by chance than by design.
Another argument you might be able to use is, the apparent randomness of human actions, why do some people have mental illnesses? Why would this be predetermined if it were?

What i'm saying is Determinism gives the function behind human actions, but doesn't really give a good reason to accept the motives behind believing in it, it just doesn't fit in with our life experience as human beings, you don't wait around for things to determine you.
And this cause and effect that Determinism is based on can also be refuted.

For example:
The appeal to Quantum Mechanics. Briefly, at a sub-atomic level, one can either check for the location of a particle, or its waveform, but never both. Further, advocates of the 'strong' interpretation of wave/particle duality argue that the observations of the viewer effect the results of what they are looking at; for instance, if they are examining a photon, the particle in question will 'collapse' into one form or another depending on the gaze of the observer. This phenomena means that assumptions that the universe is a 'closed' causal system have to be replaced by one where the universe is fundamentally indeterminate and this indeterminacy might add a hint of randomness to our decision making.
Thus, Libertarians such as Robert Kane have argued that we have a hypothetical "quantum randomiser" in our brain, but such an approach seems fraught with difficulties: no such evidence of this randomiser exists, it seems to multiply explanations beyond necessity (as quantum fluctuations even themselves out above atomic level), and indeterminism is no friend to Libertarians. After all, a truely random, uncaused act would seem schizophrenic.

Except that while individual particle-wave actions might be fundamentally random, when modeled as an aggregate they even out to predictably. It's the basis behind modern thermo, and statistical modeling methods like this are being applied to biological phenomena like hives and the brain, where the actions of an individual ant, bee, or neuron may be random, but the actions of the entire group are deterministic.

Except that while individual particle-wave actions might be fundamentally random, when modeled as an aggregate they even out to predictably. It's the basis behind modern thermo, and statistical modeling methods like this are being applied to biological phenomena like hives and the brain, where the actions of an individual ant, bee, or neuron may be random, but the actions of the entire group are deterministic.

(can you explain the bolded part for me? I Don't quite understand it)

Ah but bees aren't as complex as humans in the functioning of thier brains, if they had to look at a photon particle or anything else we humans take for granted they wouldn't understand what it was for.
So i could say Humans have a stronger sense of freewill than bees because humans have the cognitive ability to be self-aware.

If your actions are already determined, how are they free?

Actions = Will?

(can you explain the bolded part for me? I Don't quite understand it)

Ah but bees aren't as complex as humans in the functioning of thier brains, if they had to look at a photon particle or anything else we humans take for granted they wouldn't understand what it was for.
So i could say Humans have a stronger sense of freewill than bees because humans have the cognitive ability to be self-aware.

I'm saying that statistical modeling methods are used to model the behavior of bee hives, ant colonies, and the brain.

You're misunderstanding. The actions of an individual bee and the actions of an individual neuron are both functionally random. When modeled however, as a whole, the actions of the entire colony/hive/brain are deterministic.

And while a single bee may be fairly simple compared to a human brain, the functioning of a hive of bees is actually fairly complex.

This is not a contradiction, it is simply stating he has no free will, this leaves us with other problems.

Again, not a contradiction, you're simply again saying that the builder has no free will.

Ok, I see what you mean and I agree. The builder has no free will.

To be clear, I am not saying that everything is completely determined, just that the Big Bang randomly determined where every atom would go. Once you realise where the atoms will go, I am asking if you have the ability to alter the course of the atoms. If we cannot, then this is problematic, since it's nonsensical to be unable to stop yourself from performing an action exactly.

I actually believe we don't have a free will in the sense of "we can choose to do whatever is possible".
One 'guide' of our actions is by chemical and physical processes in our brains. Actions guided by this rely on the laws of nature.
Another guide is the actions of people around us or the other things that happen around us, over which we don't have direct control.
All actions are in one or more ways guided like this.
This whole system is very complex, that's why it seems like we can actually choose to do things. I don't believe there is some kind of mind which has control over the body and which isn't subject to the laws of nature.

So our behavior is lead by very complex chemical, biological and physical processes in our brain which posses some kind of randomness. On a larger scale this looks like we have free will, but this isn't entirely true.

Actions = Will?

If something is determining your actions before yourself, and you must obey those determinations, then you do not have free will.

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says this is impossible. Your question is moot.

/thread.

RhynoDD;13534362']The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says this is impossible. Your question is moot.

/thread.

Well if he's not certain about it, it's not really applicable, is it?

The uncertainty principle says its impossible with today's technology, who knows what the future will bring.

Ok, this gets a little tricky: (Assuming Machine is part of Universe being calculated for)

1. Machine creates data set that does not include its own effect on Universe. Goto step 2.

2. Machine calculates what its effect on Universe given data from previous step. Goto step 3.

3. Machine realizes that this new data will have different effects on Universe than previous data, goto step 2.

Machine enters an ad-infium loop and will never give out final data. Unless of course time frames were used that would render the Machine's effect on Universe moot, trillionths of nanoseconds light-years away for instance.

The uncertainty principle says its impossible with today's technology, who knows what the future will bring.

No, it says it is impossible, period. Not even God can know.
But the OP has already indicated we should ignore that.

No, it says it is impossible, period. Not even God can know.

And we all know that Herr Heisenberg was totally infallible.

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Then the computer is irrelevant. He doesn't have free will.

And we all know that Herr Heisenberg was totally infallible.

Oh far from it. But it is what the principle says - the uncertainty is not due to limits in our ability to measure, but a fundamental property.

Sofar he seems to have been right, though not entirely for the reasons he himself thought.

Ok, assume that the person does not have the ability to change the future, since he is predetermined. Is this not nonsensical and possibly proof against the existence of determinism? How could you know exactly what you are going to do, but not be able to change it? What force would be keeping us from altering our path? Lets say the computer said: "you are going to push the red button", is there absolutely no way for the person to not push the red button now?
If the computer does what you've said it does, then there is no way to avoid pressing the red button, yes.

You've established a thought experiment wherein all events are pre-determined, but then when judging whether the experiment makes sense you're asking questions about what actions can take place. Clearly they're all pre-determined - that's a condition of the question.

This would only work as a refutation of determinism if, by assuming determinism, you revealed a constradiction. but you haven't done that, because the only contradiction you've found is that you don't think people would do what they were pre-determined to do. But since that violates the terms of the experiment, what you're really doing is ignoring the question.

If it is possible to construct such a computer as you've described, then the construction of such a computer (or lack thereof) is pre-determined. Everything that happens as a result of that construction is pre-determined. Whether you think subsequent behaviour would be pre-determined isn't relevant, because it's a condition of your question.

Given your question, free will clearly cannot exist.

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

Two problems with this hypothesis:
1: a computer strong enough to calculate the movement of every atom in the universe would necessarily have to encompass the entire universe. The computational power necessary to build such a computer would not fit in our universe. The largest of our super computers can study, say, the movement of stars within a galaxy, or two galaxies, or studies the reactions caused by the collision of two atoms, never mind the fact that it doesn't go down to the atomic level nor encompass the rest of the 100 billion galaxies in the universe
2: Quantum mechanics is unherintly chaotic (see: schroedinger's cat) so until we unlock the secrets of quantum mechanics, we are never going to be completely sure of what will happen at the subatomic level.

Source: "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

I suppose it all comes down to - "Does it still count as a choice if something, somewhere has the knowledge of all your possible choices and their subsequent consequences?"

Then the computer is irrelevant. He doesn't have free will.

Given your question, free will clearly cannot exist.

awww, poor compatibilist free will

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

I have presented this argument to myself over and over for the past two years, and my conclusion is that if what you describe (as I do) is the case, there is no free will since all we are composed of are purely chemical reactions.

For your scenario specifically, this is a result of his knowledge and future actions being already pre-determined by everything else following up to that point, even leading to his knowledge of future actions which won't change anything since such discovery was inevitable.

Then the computer is irrelevant. He doesn't have free will.

So what are your thoughts on the problems then with being completely determined and knowing what you will do?

If the computer does what you've said it does, then there is no way to avoid pressing the red button, yes.


And you don't view that as nonsensical and against human nature?


You've established a thought experiment wherein all events are pre-determined, but then when judging whether the experiment makes sense you're asking questions about what actions can take place. Clearly they're all pre-determined - that's a condition of the question.


Not necessarily, the course of each particle is predetermined, not that it is completely impossible to alter the course of the particles to your liking or have an entity transcendent of the predetermined course of the particles, such as yourself when you are made self aware of your determined path.


This would only work as a refutation of determinism if, by assuming determinism, you revealed a constradiction. but you haven't done that, because the only contradiction you've found is that you don't think people would do what they were pre-determined to do. But since that violates the terms of the experiment, what you're really doing is ignoring the question.


But I am asking, in a way, if you can escape from the determined universe once you have become aware of what you are determined to do?


If it is possible to construct such a computer as you've described, then the construction of such a computer (or lack thereof) is pre-determined. Everything that happens as a result of that construction is pre-determined. Whether you think subsequent behaviour would be pre-determined isn't relevant, because it's a condition of your question.


I think this assumption is not necessarily true, you are again asserting that it is impossible, once you are determined, to become undetermined.

If one's course of action is inevitable, one does not possess "free-will".

But it's not the computer that tells him to push the button, but the computer predicts this because he decided to do so. He could just as well press the blue one, only we know he won't, because if he was going to do that, the computer would have predicted it.

Now, if you're convinced that knowledge in advance means that there is no free will, then I must say you have none. If you're given the task to move your arm up at intervals of your choice, then a computer with a few sensors can learn to predict your movement seconds (or just tenths of seconds? I forgot.) before you know it.

But it's not the computer that tells him to push the button, but the computer predicts this because he decided to do so.

And there is nothing he can do about it.

He could just as well press the blue one, only we know he won't, because if he was going to do that, the computer would have predicted it.

So he is limited to a single course of action. Nothing can change that.

Now, if you're convinced that knowledge in advance means that there is no free will, then I must say you have none.

I never said that I did.

If you're given the task to move your arm up at intervals of your choice, then a computer with a few sensors can learn to predict your movement seconds (or just tenths of seconds? I forgot.) before you know it.

Your point being...?

And there is nothing he can do about it.

Well, yes. Push another one.



I never said that I did.

This was more directed at people who voted for the no free will option in general, not you.


Your point being...?

Whoever believes that in this hypothetical, most probably impossible, scenario there would be no free will, should be aware that he doesn't have free will in the actual world either, because that's what experiments in the real world show.

So what are your thoughts on the problems then with being completely determined and knowing what you will do?

All human beings necessarily act on the impression of free will: we cannot make decisions otherwise.

If somehow the example you gave came to be, he would decide with the computer every time, but his mind would be deluding him into thinking that he was choosing freely.

(Of course, a person cannot actually attain knowledge of their future actions. The moment they gain such knowledge, their future actions might change--even under deterministic assumptions.)

And you don't view that as nonsensical and against human nature?
Human nature wasn't a condition of your question.

I think your revised question makes perfect sense, because you've constructed an intenally consistent logical system and then asked a question about it. But since it's internally consistent, there is no question you can ask such that the answer is nonsensical.
Not necessarily, the course of each particle is predetermined, not that it is completely impossible to alter the course of the particles to your liking or have an entity transcendent of the predetermined course of the particles, such as yourself when you are made self aware of your determined path.
If the path of each particle is pre-determined, then whether you affect their course in any way is also pre-determined, since you and your brain consist of particles. The only way your position makes sense is if your consciousness somehow exists beyond these pre-determined particles with their pre-determined courses, but that also isn't discussed in your premises.
[quoet]But I am asking, in a way, if you can escape from the determined universe once you have become aware of what you are determined to do?[/quote]
And I'm saying that if the universe is pre-determined then the answer in necessarily and obviously no. If the answer is even possibly yes, then the universe can't have been deterministic in the first place.
I think this assumption is not necessarily true, you are again asserting that it is impossible, once you are determined, to become undetermined.
That's what pre-determined means. Every action stems from prior action in a pre-determined fashion.

The answers is that he or she would try to change the events but end up causing them in the first place.

Because knowledge is gained from the computer in the first place, the computer and it's predictions are part of the predictions the computer would have to make in order to predict where every atom of matter would be.

For example, lets say that, you go the computer and ask it how you will die, and it says you'll die from a car accident after exiting the dry cleaners after a full day of activity.

So, logically, you stay away from all possible need to go to a dry cleaners, until, one day, you're running on a hill, slip, roll down through a dry cleaner's window, realize where you are, and panic and run outside into an incoming car.

Now, you say, well the computer wasn't giving a complete story, and, in away it's not, but the computer is also part of the same universe that's it was built in, so itself becomes part of the dominoe effect that leads up to any event.

Well, yes. Push another one.

If he could do that, then he would naturally have free-will. Yet I was under the impression that the computer could never be wrong.

This was more directed at people who voted for the no free will option in general, not you.


....

Whoever believes that in this hypothetical, most probably impossible, scenario there would be no free will, should be aware that he doesn't have free will in the actual world either, because that's what experiments in the real world show.

Irrelevant.

If he could do that, then he would naturally have free-will. Yet I was under the impression that the computer could never be wrong.


It can't, that's the premise. If he did choose another action, then that would just change the computer's output as to what he was going to do. Of course the computer's presence will influence his decisions, as all experiences do. Probably he's pressing a red button now, but we don't know what he would have done if he hadn't be told that. Probably press another one, probably not do anything at all; that doesn't change the fact he decided to do so on his own.



Irrelevant.

So are most threads and posts, including this one. We still post about things that seem interesting to us, so what's your point? As with all thread or posts, if it isn't directed at you and you don't think it bears any interest for you, ignore it and/or post in another thread.

edit: Speaking of interesting, it's interesting for me to see while you find a thread about a hypothetical situation interesting enough to post in, the informationthat this is not really hypothetical at all seems irrelevant to you.

If one's course of action is inevitable, one does not possess "free-will".

It all comes down to how you would define "free-will".

I could propose that right now, everyone's actions are inevitable. This is because once an action is committed it is, and always will have been committed. Seeing into the future theoretically would allow one to see an action committed before it is actually done.

How does this then, determine that the action was not a free action at all?

Technically, no action is ever a free action, since we base all our decisions on stimuli of some sort. Which raises the question again of "what is free-will".

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?

I'll give the link (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html) I give in all such discussions, and sometimes even in unrelated ones.

I like it because: a) It is fun to read, b) it does provoke thought about free will and the like and c) it requires no effort on my part.

He has free will until he follows that which is supposedly pre-ordained through a series of calculations based on the most likely given current conditions, not factoring in the unpredictable.
Under what conditions exist "the unpredictable" other than lack of faculty/ignorance?

But the confusing thing is, he knows what choice he would make since the computer would tell him. Does this mean he is bound to follow this choice and there is nothing he can do to stop following this choice?

But how would the computer factor the effects of telling the man his future into telling his future? Could it predict his reaction and then give him diferent future? Would the computer then tell the man that future? Would the computer have to recalibrate its calculations for the effects of telling the man his new future? Wouldn't that be "turtles all the way down," in effect, and therefore render the computer inoperable in a never ending calculation, or simply cause it to give a wrong answer because it could not give the exactly correct answer about the man's future AND factor in the effect of telling him his future in telling him his future?

Sounds awfully similar to the fact that we cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron at the same time:p

Heisenberg forbids that ;)

Dammit. Beaten.

:mad:

But the confusing thing is, he knows what choice he would make since the computer would tell him. Does this mean he is bound to follow this choice and there is nothing he can do to stop following this choice?

The computer would know the results of the choice he makes once he knows what the choice he would make without knowing the results of his pre-knowledge choice, thereby giving him information that leads to a choice that will result in the original choice.

Thereby, no choice.

Yeah I know, but I didn't want to delve into quantum mechanics theory because it's just too confusing. So I want everyone to accept for the sake of argument that every type of particle can be predicted.

Then any answer you get is going to be a nonsense. It's unavoidable - the question is sufficiently flawed it can never give a 'real' answer.

The question assumes that sub-atomic particles are discrete packets of information that exist in real-terms, in some physically mappable model. We can suppose that atoms are made of cheese, if you like, and we still won't be able to get an answer to your question that matters.

Here's a better question to mull over because yours is absurd in the original meaning, it's not a stupid question to ask per se, it's just absurd in its nature.

So anyway, given 10 horses running a race you have odds on each horse from the favorite to the least.

At the finish of the race, the horse that wins always had 1:1 odds of winning - as soon as it wins, it was always going to win, it was set in stone since the dawn of time simply because of the fact that it did win. Everything in history prior to the instant it won that occurred had to occur in the way that it did for that horse to win.

The problem here is that time only occurs once, so if you win, history becomes predetermined and, to some extent, the future is also predetermined - although it's impossible to predict, what's going to happen is still going to happen and there's nothing we can do to change that.

In this sense, our lives ARE predetermined - we're going to make the decisions we're going to make.

They're both predetermined and open to free will at one and the same time.

Determining the future exactly is a logical impossibility - you can refute it a priori, and the whole question is thus meaningless- it can have no coherent answer.

for the prediction to reach us, it must be determined within this continuum;

therefore, to determine what will occur exactly requires that an exact simulation of this continuum is contained within this continuum;

therefore, the continuum given as the necessary quantity of data to be simulated (X) must, at any given time, be equal to (X+Y) where both X and Y are positive real numbers (Y is the portion of the continuum which contains, simulates, and observes X).

While I haven't done much higher order maths recently, I'm pretty sure that this is still regarded as contradictory... don't really see how X could equal more than itself, except over time (i.e. X1, X2, etc. at different points).

In other words, the debate about the speed of light, quantum physics, and so forth are irrelevant - the computer must exist in contact with and thus part of our reality, and there can thus be no absolute logical proof/disproof of free will. It comes down to subjectivity - there is no absolute answer.

I'm pretty sure both Godel and Wittgenstein prove this point in different ways.

If something is determining your actions before yourself, and you must obey those determinations, then you do not have free will.

So something that knows what action you will take before you take it, is the same as forceing you to take that action?

Then any answer you get is going to be a nonsense. It's unavoidable - the question is sufficiently flawed it can never give a 'real' answer.


But this is just pedantic, I never intended the situation to be realistic. I was just using the computer as an example of how you could predict the future, I didn't want to use God (which is normally done) because I didn't want the thread to be hijacked into the problem of evil or some other philosophical issue.


The question assumes that sub-atomic particles are discrete packets of information that exist in real-terms, in some physically mappable model. We can suppose that atoms are made of cheese, if you like, and we still won't be able to get an answer to your question that matters.

I never disputed that it wasn't an assumption, nor that it was realistic, it's a hypothetical, they don't have to be able to occur in our universe. The answer could matter, since it could have implications to do with God and determinism.

But this is just pedantic, I never intended the situation to be realistic. I was just using the computer as an example of how you could predict the future, I didn't want to use God (which is normally done) because I didn't want the thread to be hijacked into the problem of evil or some other philosophical issue.


I don't know if pedantic is really the right word, to be honest. You construct a model that requires we base our reasoning on a certain set of factors - most specifically - the idea that you could predict the future if you could map the present closely enough, and work the math that calculated the next few seconds of evolution of the whole model, extending into infinity.

The problem with that is - even if we had reason to assume that the calculations COULD be made (even if we HAD a perfect model of the present, right down to the smallest sub-atomic), there's just no way to collect the data that your situation requires... or even to believe that it COULD be possible to do so.

And I didn't even get started on the possibility of interactions that the model simply couldn't tabulate. The simple fact is - no matter how advanced the technology, how clever the predictive programming, how precise the monitoring - the nature of the materials ensure that ALL the data (you say) we require just can't be assembled.

It's not 'pedantic' any more than pointing out the flaw in trying to 'postulate whether the world would end if circles were squares' is pedantic. The model is (intrinsically) fundamentally inconsistent and illogical. The only way to get a result out of the machine is to accept garbage outputs.


I never disputed that it wasn't an assumption, nor that it was realistic, it's a hypothetical, they don't have to be able to occur in our universe. The answer could matter, since it could have implications to do with God and determinism.

But not within our universe?

So something that knows what action you will take before you take it, is the same as forceing you to take that action?

Well, if it knows with great certainty that you are going to take a certain action that action must have been determined, which means you couldn't have taken an other option, so you don't have free will. I think ;).
But I find this interesting, if someone makes a decision, does an action etc, could they have done otherwise? Everything else being the same of course.

I don't know if pedantic is really the right word, to be honest. You construct a model that requires we base our reasoning on a certain set of factors - most specifically - the idea that you could predict the future if you could map the present closely enough, and work the math that calculated the next few seconds of evolution of the whole model, extending into infinity.


Then you are attacking the wrong premise, the premise is basically that you can predict the future, how it is done is unimportant, I just added that crap about mapping particles for fun and to avoid mentioning God.


The problem with that is - even if we had reason to assume that the calculations COULD be made (even if we HAD a perfect model of the present, right down to the smallest sub-atomic), there's just no way to collect the data that your situation requires... or even to believe that it COULD be possible to do so.

And I didn't even get started on the possibility of interactions that the model simply couldn't tabulate. The simple fact is - no matter how advanced the technology, how clever the predictive programming, how precise the monitoring - the nature of the materials ensure that ALL the data (you say) we require just can't be assembled.


Again, irrelevant, it is a hypothetical, it is not discussing whether this technology is possible, but the implications of knowing your own future.


It's not 'pedantic' any more than pointing out the flaw in trying to 'postulate whether the world would end if circles were squares' is pedantic. The model is (intrinsically) fundamentally inconsistent and illogical. The only way to get a result out of the machine is to accept garbage outputs.


It's a no more an impossible premise than paradoxes like "can god lift a rock so heavy.." and many other common philosophical allegories commonly discussed, in which would not happen in reality, but are used to demonstrate a point.


But not within our universe?

If you are a theist who believes in predestination, it may have problems. I also think the hypothetical raises problems for predestination itself, whether it is possible to predict the future or not, but I can't articulate them right now, it's kind of a bit complex.

Ahhh why must I log in with lolwutland all the time! I even checked the box not to!

This is why I hate quantum mechanics. ;)

It's actually even more complicated than that.

My understanding is that not only can you not know both because it changes the other, but rather both qualities do not exist at the same time.

IE: If it's going somewhere, it isn't anywhere. And if it is somewhere, it's not going anywhere.

Even though it is.

Well, if it knows with great certainty that you are going to take a certain action that action must have been determined, which means you couldn't have taken an other option, so you don't have free will. I think ;).
But I find this interesting, if someone makes a decision, does an action etc, could they have done otherwise? Everything else being the same of course.

No I totaly disagree. I have two sons, the oldest of which failed to finish a certian history homework on Sunday evening.

Knowing this and knowing my child I knew that he would attempt to get the Monday off school, and probably by feigning illness.

Monday morning rolls around and I was proved correct.

How has my knowledge of his thought patterns determined his actions?

Lets assume that the universe is completely determined, not by God, but just by the laws of physics and how every atom in the universe had its course randomly determined by the Big Bang and all that.

Say someone managed to build a giant, humongous super computer that was able to calculate the position of every atom in the universe and calculate where each atom will move to and what it will interact with. Lets say that from these mega calculations, the computer would be able to know what the future is determined to be from the position of the atoms. Since the person now knows what the future is going to be, and has the ability to change what he does to prevent or change a future event, does he have free will?If everything has been determined, he has no free will. Even him building the machine and finding out the right or wrong answers will not change anything.