Free Will

[Skwim]

Freewill is the ability to do what you want.
It's not being able to chose what you want.

So how does a person determine what one does if it isn't a matter of choosing to do so? (not that I believe choice is a coherent notion given that determinism rules our behavior, but just that your remark here could have been better thought out.)

 

[idav]

No it wouldn't. Electro-chemical actions occur at the atomic/molecular level, not at the quantum level.

Here, from a Wikipedia article on quantum mechanics.

"Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at nanoscopic scales where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. It departs from classical mechanics primarily at the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales"
source
​

And even if such actions influenced "super-atomic" events they would be completely random, and thus not helping the notion of freewill one iota.

Atomic molecular is or can be quantum.

It isnt random, my contention is multiple simultaneous influence which is enough room for an ought.

 

[Nakosis]

Skwim: So how does a person determine what one does if it isn't a matter of choosing to do so? (not that I believe choice is a coherent notion given that determinism rules our behavior, but just that your remark here could have been better thought out.)

You do choose. I choose, don't you make choices?

What I'm saying is you don't choose the desires that influence the choices you make.

Like maybe you prefer vanilla over chocolate. For whatever reason you desire vanilla. So when confronted with a choice between the two you chose vanilla.

You have your desires or wants that influence the choices you make. The origin of those want/desires are often sub-conscious. You just know you want vanilla more then chocolate. So you make a choice of vanilla.

You may want to at some point try chocolate. (maybe you heard someone claim it was better) So because of this other influence (Hearing someone else say chocolate was better), you now want to test that claim.

You are full of conflicting desires. You choose among them according the the strength of each desire. You don't actually decide the strength of each desire. That is just part of your make-up. Makes you unique from everyone else.

You making a choice is a process. You make a decision based on your want/desires influence. Maybe because of your wants/desires you could have made only one choice but you still made that choice.

I also think random is possible too. Sometimes you have no strong desire between choices so you may mentally flip a coin. Make a random decision. So your choices are a result of your will which is influenced by your desires or they are on occasion random.

 

[Skwim]

Atomic molecular is or can be quantum.

Atoms and molecules do not qualify as quanta.

"In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values.

A photon is a single quantum of light, and is referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom is quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and hence of matter in general.

As incorporated into the theory of quantum mechanics, this is regarded by physicists as part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature at the smallest length-scales."
Source: Wikipedia
​

And,

"QUANTUM THEORY, also quantum mechanics, in physics, a theory based on using the concept of the quantum unit to describe the dynamic properties of subatomic particles and the interactions of matter and radiation."
source
​

At the atomic level we have atoms interacting with atoms. At the molecular level we have molecules interacting with molecules. At the quantum level we have quanta events.

It isnt random, my contention is multiple simultaneous influence which is enough room for an ought.

You're right that atomic and molecular interactions aren't random; however, randomness can take place at subatomic levels.

"During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wavefunction into another, later wavefunction is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random)."
​

" . . . whereas a single particle exhibits a degree of randomness, in systems incorporating millions of particles averaging takes over and, at the high energy limit, the statistical probability of random behaviour approaches zero."
Source: Wikipedia.
​

 

[Skwim]

You do choose. I choose, don't you make choices?

When it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, no I don't. Everything I, we, do is determined by prior events. None of us can help what we do or even think. While there may be alternatives, there is no such a thing as choice or choosing. You go for option A rather than option B because you cannot do otherwise.

I also think random is possible too. Sometimes you have no strong desire between choices so you may mentally flip a coin. Make a random decision. So your choices are a result of your will which is influenced by your desires or they are on occasion random.

True randomness appears to only occur at the subatomic level. All other instances of "randomness" are simply cases in which we lack the proper data and/or the ability to process it so as to determine an outcome. Hence we say it's random; a fall-back excuse for our ignorance.

 

[Nakosis]

When it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, no I don't. Everything I, we, do is determined by prior events. None of us can help what we do or even think. While there may be alternatives, there is no such a thing as choice or choosing. You go for option A rather than option B because you cannot do otherwise.

Strange, for some reason I can't directly quote your post...

I disagree, just because you couldn't have chosen otherwise doesn't mean you didn't make a choice.

Here's a thought experiment - hopefully I word it right.

There's a man who has to make a decision to turn left or right. Now lets say there is another man who can tell the future. If the first man will choose to go left the second man will shoot the first before he can even make a decision. If the first man chooses to turn right then the second man will not take any action.

So the first man, for whatever reasons chooses to turn right. He still made a choice even though it would have been impossible for him to have chosen otherwise.

So making a choice does not require being able to have actually chosen otherwise. It only requires that you make a decision based on whatever influenced your decision.

As far as randomness goes. I think I've made a purely random choice before. Taking a course of action without reason other then to take a random course of action without reason.
Still... tough to validate that.

So how about an actual flip of a coin? My current office location was based on a coin flip.

 

[Skwim]

Strange, for some reason I can't directly quote your post...

I disagree, just because you couldn't have chosen otherwise doesn't mean you didn't make a choice.

This is like saying "Just because I can't hold my breath for an hour doesn't mean I didn't." The import of choice is the supposed equal ability to do one of two or more things. If you couldn't choose then there was no real choice in the first place.

Here's a thought experiment - hopefully I word it right.

There's a man who has to make a decision to turn left or right. Now lets say there is another man who can tell the future. If the first man will choose to go left the second man will shoot the first before he can even make a decision. If the first man chooses to turn right then the second man will not take any action.

So the first man, for whatever reasons chooses to turn right. He still made a choice even though it would have been impossible for him to have chosen otherwise.

So making a choice does not require being able to have actually chosen otherwise. It only requires that you make a decision based on whatever influenced your decision.

But making a decision in favor of X---arriving at a conclusion to do it---is no different than choosing X---arriving at a conclusion to do it. When you say

"If the first man will choose to go left the second man will shoot the first before he can even make a decision"
​

the first man has already made the choice to go left. Deciding to do one of two alternatives is no different than choosing one of two alternatives.

BUT, OF COURSE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUE CHOOSING.

As far as randomness goes. I think I've made a purely random choice before. Taking a course of action without reason other then to take a random course of action without reason.
Still... tough to validate that.

So how about an actual flip of a coin? My current office location was based on a coin flip.

The result of the flip already had a forgone outcome, which was determined by the original position of the coin; the weight of the coin; the force of the flip; the distance of its travel, how it landed (could it bounce); and no doubt several other factors. Had you known the values of all these elements and knew how to factor them in to a certainty, you would have known the outcome of your flip--no randomness at all. The coin HAD to land as it did. It's a matter of pure physics.

 

[idav]

Atoms and molecules do not qualify as quanta.

"In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values.

A photon is a single quantum of light, and is referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom is quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and hence of matter in general.

As incorporated into the theory of quantum mechanics, this is regarded by physicists as part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature at the smallest length-scales."
Source: Wikipedia
​

And,

"QUANTUM THEORY, also quantum mechanics, in physics, a theory based on using the concept of the quantum unit to describe the dynamic properties of subatomic particles and the interactions of matter and radiation."
source
​

At the atomic level we have atoms interacting with atoms. At the molecular level we have molecules interacting with molecules. At the quantum level we have quanta events.

You're right that atomic and molecular interactions aren't random; however, randomness can take place at subatomic levels.

"During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wavefunction into another, later wavefunction is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random)."
​

" . . . whereas a single particle exhibits a degree of randomness, in systems incorporating millions of particles averaging takes over and, at the high energy limit, the statistical probability of random behaviour approaches zero."
Source: Wikipedia.
​

For one, there is no reconciliation between the micro and the macro.

The second part really gets to the heart but relates to my first sentence. What your saying entails hidden variables, there are no hidden variables. All possibilties are potential actualities. The actuality is what makes a choice happen. It is fuuny because the objection to why it is not hard determinism is the complete opposite, random, yet it is not random, could not be because choice is a determination, just not hard determinism because multiple potentials are possible, hard determinism has to argue hidden variables and science has ruled it out. I argue the between completely random and completely determined which is probably the only way the micro and macro can seem so opposite and still be fundamental to reality.

 

[roger1440]

Is God free of desire?
Apparently God has the desire to create. The desire to be obeyed.

Perhaps God can choose his will? But what would cause God to desire to create such desires?

I think it is important to control your desires not be controlled by desire. Yet with without any desires why is anything done?

Can will exist without desire? Such is difficult to fathom.

Creation is the unfolding of God’s will, but God’s creation does not come from desire. Creation is of God. If God had desires it would imply God lacks. One does not desire something one already has. The Bible does say God “wants”, “desires”, etc. Language has limitations. The Bible is written in such a manner to make it easily understood. There are many verses where God is given human attributes.

“They heard the sound of the LoRD God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the man and his wife hid from the LoRD God among the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8)

“…And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.”(Exodus 3:6)

“So I will stretch out My hand and smite Egypt with various wonders which I will work upon them; after that he shall let you go.” (Exodus 3:20)
​

 

[Skwim]

For one, there is no reconciliation between the micro and the macro.

Don't know what this means.

The second part really gets to the heart but relates to my first sentence. What your saying entails hidden variables, there are no hidden variables.

What entails hidden variables?

All possibilties are potential actualities. The actuality is what makes a choice happen.

And I would say that actuality is what happens.

It is fuuny because the objection to why it is not hard determinism is the complete opposite, random, yet it is not random, could not be because choice is a determination, just not hard determinism because multiple potentials are possible, hard determinism has to argue hidden variables and science has ruled it out.

Whaaaa????

I argue the between completely random and completely determined which is probably the only way the micro and macro can seem so opposite and still be fundamental to reality.

Sorry, but I'm not making any sense of what you're saying here.

 

[idav]

Don't know what this means.

What entails hidden variables?


And I would say that actuality is what happens.

Whaaaa????

Sorry, but I'm not making any sense of what you're saying here.

The issue is you cant apply newtonian physics to quantum or vice versa. Hidden variables is spin and velocity, like determinism would like it, only it isnt the problem. Spacetime is a problem because of its velocity of energy and light.

Macro can and does do the same thing given enough energy, thats how energy works cause it vibrates at the speed of light. Gravity is the relative difference of matter from energy so high gravity does the same like in a black hole. This spacetime warping exists within everything as nothing is truely static, everything being the relative difference of the other.

So back to random, it isnt, it is everything and everywhere without deterministic things like velocity and spin being an issue anymore.

 

[Thief]

Is God free of desire?
Apparently God has the desire to create. The desire to be obeyed.

Perhaps God can choose his will? But what would cause God to desire to create such desires?

I think it is important to control your desires not be controlled by desire. Yet with without any desires why is anything done?

Can will exist without desire? Such is difficult to fathom.

There will be ONE desire waiting for you at the hour of your passing.

You will desire to stand up.

We take it for granted...now.
But when the chemistry fails and we fall....we will desire to stand.
The body will not respond.

I say....go with it.
Stand from the flesh.

If you don't you will follow it into the box and into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

 

[idav]

There will be ONE desire waiting for you at the hour of your passing.

You will desire to stand up.

We take it for granted...now.
But when the chemistry fails and we fall....we will desire to stand.
The body will not respond.

I say....go with it.
Stand from the flesh.

If you don't you will follow it into the box and into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

Everyone ends different. When I was a baby kid I thought we died when we know or did what we are supposed to, Could be a great many things still.

 

[Thief]

Everyone ends different. When I was a baby kid I thought we died when we know or did what we are supposed to, Could be a great many things still.

Different as it may be for each one....
Leaving the flesh will still be there.

I consider the possibilities.

Basically we die by one of two means.....accident or disease.

We go quick and by surprise.....or something eats at us til we can stand it no more.

I would prefer a good old fashion heart attack.

And in that hour, heaven will appear to see what stands from the dust.

 

[God Is Here]

Free Will actually was there at the beginning of creation (that is if you believe in the book of Genesis). When God created the Angels and Mankind they knew the rules that he laid out and they had the choice to either follow them or disobey. And we all know where that went from there ie here we are now.

 

[Skwim]

Free Will actually was there at the beginning of creation (that is if you believe in the book of Genesis).

Got a chapter and verse for this?

 

[Willamena]

The issue is you cant apply newtonian physics to quantum or vice versa. Hidden variables is spin and velocity, like determinism would like it, only it isnt the problem. Spacetime is a problem because of its velocity of energy and light.

Macro can and does do the same thing given enough energy, thats how energy works cause it vibrates at the speed of light. Gravity is the relative difference of matter from energy so high gravity does the same like in a black hole. This spacetime warping exists within everything as nothing is truely static, everything being the relative difference of the other.

So back to random, it isnt, it is everything and everywhere without deterministic things like velocity and spin being an issue anymore.

The problem is that free will isn't an ontological question.

 

[Thief]

Got a chapter and verse for this?

That would be toward the end of Chapter One....
No names, no garden, no law......Man as species.

Chapter Two is a separate event.
NOT a retelling of Chapter One.

 

[Skwim]

That would be toward the end of Chapter One....
No names, no garden, no law......Man as species.

Chapter Two is a separate event.
NOT a retelling of Chapter One.

Took a look, but didn't see anything to suggest "free Will actually was there at the beginning of creation." What verse do you see as supporting this?

 

[idav]

Took a look, but didn't see anything to suggest "free Will actually was there at the beginning of creation." What verse do you see as supporting this?

Its implied since god acts as if we have a choice in the matter. Other verses suggest god could take choice away by hardening hearts.