Do you Think we have Free Will

[shunyadragon]

That randomness is less than causal.

? Needs explanation. Yes, the randomness is of the timing of individual cause and effect event outcomes is not causal. The nature of our physical existence is not random.

The freedom or free will operator is focused on consciousness/conscious life.

. but dependent on the nature of our physical existence.

Qm is not a science, it is a theory a mathematical model. Questioning the implications is the choice and of free will of conscious minds wanting to know.

QM is indeed science, and yes there are theories, nath models and application in the real world.

The mind and consciousness is based on Natural Laws and processes,

Scary thought to address, ""perhaps the present can influence the past""

Reminds me of sci fi......... 'back to the future'. The random creation of a movie.

Speculation in fiction myth need not apply.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If, however, they are arranged in order,... cause and effect applies.
They are arranged in order.
Therefore, cause and effect applies.

If the future is indistinguishable from the past, then cause is indistinguishable from effect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If your god knows my future and knows that I will order a steak tonight at the restaurant, do I then still have the free will to choose chicken instead? Free will is, after all, the ability to freely choose between several options. If it is however known before hand what I will choose, then at best I only have the illusion of "freely" choosing that which I am already determined to choose.

Agreed, but I have never seen an Abrahamic theist arguing in defense of his two cherished principles - free will and divine omniscience - give any answer better than the following, which is essentially insisting that the two are compatible just because. Somes, they add that just because God knows all doesn't mean he causes all, which is irrelevant to the matter. Nor have I seen any other type of person make that argument or be convinced by it. Here's an example now.

if G-d knew that you would choose other than steak,
then He would know it. Your choice is not affected .. you might choose to eat fish .. it makes no difference.

That's not a choice. That's acting out a foreordained script in which there was never a choice, just the knowledge that there were other options not taken that a different agent or the same agent at a different time might have taken, which also would not be choices for them if free will is but an illusion.

Free will is a cognitive assessment, not a material state.

I couldn't disagree more. You're giving the subjective illusion of free will and the cognitive error of accepting that will is free because it feels free priority and declaring that how the universe actually works irrelevant.

Once you perceive a choice, you have free will. Determinism is irrelevant so long as we perceive a choice. And we do. Doesn't matter if the choice we make is 'determined' by some invisible force or not. It's still a choice to us, and we still get to make it.

And this then is a statement of the ILLUSION of free will. It doesn't matter to you whether the apparent choice was actually determined, just that it feels that way.

If the universe is fully deterministic, then the future is already decided. Which means there is no difference in principle between past and future, since both are determined from the very beginning - indeed, the beginning, if it can be identified at all, cannot be distinguished from the end. In this case the apparent order in the universe is not a product of the flow of time, which, past and present being undifferentiated in principle, is shown to be an illusion. Therefore there is no fundamental distinction between past and present. They are distinguishable only by virtue of our vantage point in the present; we remember the past, and anticipate the present, but in a fully determinist universe, they are both already decided.

Why should any of that matter to a conscious agent, who always experiences time, that is, simultaneously has a concept of was, is, and will be, who experiences change, and who has a memory?

 

[shunyadragon]

Therefore there is no fundamental distinction between past and present. They are distinguishable only by virtue of our vantage point in the present; we remember the past, and anticipate the present,

True

but in a fully determinist universe, they are both already decided.

I should point out that I am not a super-determinist btw. I don’t believe that the future is decided. I believe we have the capacity to influence it, albeit within definite limitations.

Fully determined? Future is decided? No. It may be said that the future is determined within a range of possible outcome.

 

[Bthoth]

? Needs explanation. Yes, the randomness is of the timing of individual cause and effect event outcomes is not causal. The nature of our physical existence is not random.

Agreed.

. but dependent on the nature of our physical existence.

We are natural and have the conscious experience of personal observation with the ability to represent the self as an 'aye'.

QM is indeed science, and yes there are theories, nath models and application in the real world.

Yes, Qm is a theory not created by nature itself. The math is just describing even if used to predict.

The mind and consciousness is based on Natural Laws and processes,

Exactly. Even if the model to describe nature and the processes are less than perfect. The mind does exist and consciousness does exist.

Speculation in fiction myth need not apply.

The idea of the future affecting the past is speculative. I pointed out that the idea reminded me of sci fi (back to the future, the movie)

 

[Koldo]

If the future is indistinguishable from the past, then cause is indistinguishable from effect.

But future is distinguishable from the past due to the time flow.

 

[Bthoth]

But future is distinguishable from the past due to the time flow.

Cute, From

and now

Huge difference.

 

[Koldo]

Cute, From View attachment 86740 and now

Huge difference.

Are you okay?

 

[shunyadragon]

What source and at what part does it mention hard determinism being restricted to linear math?

The Newtonian view of our universe,

If you go beyond linear math to fractal math with the possible internal conscious variables hard determinism no longer applies. In our ability to make limited free will decisions that hard determinism excludes the influence of possible influence of rational self motivation in the decision making process.

I propose Potential limited Free Will, which is more limited than soft determinism or compatibilism.

https://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/96class4.html

Class Four: Soft Determinism and Indeterminism
According to hard determinism, environment, heredity, unconscious impulses, defense mechanisms, and other influences determine people to act the way they do; and because of that, they are not responsible for their actions. But if people are not free and thus responsible for their actions, then how can we be justified in holding people responsible? Perhaps, as the hard determinist suggests, we are justified in holding people responsible only in order to influence future behavior.

However, there are a number of theories that support the claim that human beings are free and can thus be justifiably held responsible for their actions. We will consider four of them (soft determinism, pragmatism/indeterminism, existentialism, and rational-agent theory).

Soft Determinism (also called Compatibilism and Self-determinism):

Though determinism is true, that does not rule out freedom and responsibility. In contrast to hard determinism (which claims that determinism is incompatible with freedom), soft determinism says that we are determined and are nonetheless still free. According to the soft determinist, when the individual is the cause of his or her actions, he or she is said to act freely.

There are two versions of this view: passive self-determinism and active self-determinism. Augustine, Spinoza, and Hume are proponents of the first version; Aristotle is a proponent of the second.

(I) According to passive self-determinism, freedom means being able to do what one wants to do, without (external) coercion or interference from anyone else. What one wants (as expressed by one's personality or character) is determined by external events (e.g., genetics, culture, upbringing), but as long as one is able to act consistent with the choices he/she makes, he/she is free. This position is called Compatibilism or soft determinism because it (like hard determinism) acknowledges that all events, including human actions, have causes; but it allows for free actions when the actions are caused by one's choices rather than external forces.

 

[Bthoth]

Are you okay?

Sure............. the current and past are very different.

I offered evidence

 

[Koldo]

Sure............. the current and past are very different.

I offered evidence

Thanks... I guess? Since I have never said otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

Cute, From View attachment 86740 and now

Huge difference.

Not so huge even the bathing suit and hair style are not all that different.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But future is distinguishable from the past due to the time flow.

Not in a fully deterministic universe it isn’t, since past, present and future are only features of perspective. If everything is already decided, the flow of time is of no consequence.

But if the past is materially different from the future, in the sense that’s it’s already determined while the future isn’t, then cause and effect apply, and so does the meaningful application of the will by conscious agents capable of influencing their own future in some way.

 

[Koldo]

The Newtonian view of our universe,

If you go beyond linear math to fractal math with the possible internal conscious variables hard determinism no longer applies.

It is this part that I want you to provide a source for, but I don't see it anywhere.

 

[Bthoth]

Not so huge even the bathing suit and hair style are not all that different.

Try a labido test with any teenager using that image.

 

[shunyadragon]

If the future is indistinguishable from the past, then cause is indistinguishable from effect.

The bold is true, but the then . . . does not follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is this part that I want you to provide a source for, but I don't see it anywhere.

I believe I have adequately explained it as well as an earlier source.

Note: If Hard Determinism were true, people would make too uniform of their choices entirely controlled by exterior factors that determine our choices. Change over time is due to new information where people make choices contrary to outside influences,
yes it is a limited potential free will, but humans are not automatons entirely governed by outside influences.

 

[Koldo]

Not in a fully deterministic universe it isn’t, since past, present and future are only features of perspective. If everything is already decided, the flow of time is of no consequence.

But if the past is materially different from the future, in the sense that’s it’s already determined while the future isn’t, then cause and effect apply, and so does the meaningful application of the will by conscious agents capable of influencing their own future in some way.

I have absolutely no idea how you are going from 'everything is already decided' to 'therefore, the flow of time is of no consequence'.

I am under the impression that you are mistaking 'the future has already been determined' for 'the future has already happened'.

The future has already been determined because cause and effect apply, but this doesn't mean the future has already happened.

 

[Koldo]

I believe I have adequately explained it as well as an earlier source.

I genuinely see no source for your claim that hard determinism deals strictly with linear math. Can you specify?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't you have a sense of deja-vous here?
This has already been explained in another thread.

And I disagreed there also.

You are putting the cart before the horse

Nope.

.. if G-d knew that you would choose other than steak,
then He would know it. Your choice is not affected .. you might choose to eat fish .. it makes no difference.

It makes much difference.
If my choice is known before I make it, it was never a free choice.

The reason for all this confusion, is that you see the future as having different properties than the past..
..when in the grand scheme of things, it does not .. i.e. 'now' is only a perception, that appears to separate the past and future. Einstein knew this.

Einstein knew nothing of the sort. Time flows in the direction of the future.
If the future is already set before it occurs, no choice is "free".

It is no illusion. Your choice is really free .. it is our perception of time that is the 'illusion'.

No amount of weasling about about the counter-intuitive nature of relativity is going to change this simple thing.
If the future is set, no choice is free.