Free Will

[Polymath257]

That is all very true .. but that depends on the external agent causing the person to "want"
i.e. the person is coerced by another.

Does it? if the desire is determined by a non-conscious series of events, does that make it any more free?

And, just to be clear, in my scenario, you *want* to eat the tuna sandwich, but the choice is still not free. So simply wanting the choice is not enough to guarantee freedom of the choice.

That is not the case in the scenario that I describe.
One is NOT coerced .. it is just that an external agent knows what they will choose,
as for that agent the future has "already happened" .. i.e. we have already made our choices, as far as that agent is concerned

Yes, I get that. And this is another aspect. If the future is 'known', it is determined, which means the choice cannot be free: there is no way to have chosen a different path if the future is known. To be able to make a free choice requires that the future NOT be determined and so it cannot be known (even by an entity outside of the universe).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Suppose an evil scientist learns how to do mind control. This scientists can *make* you want things and you won't know that this is happening.

So, this scientist makes you *want* to eat a tuna sandwich instead of a hamburger. You then eat that tuna sandwich. Was it a free decision?

I would say no, it was not. And this is the case even though you *wanted* to eat that tuna sandwich. The problem is that your desire was dictated by an outside agent.

Also, if the scientist had dictated that you would *want* to eat a hamburger, and you then ate a hamburger, that would also NOT be a free choice, even though *if you had wanted otherwise* (as dictated by the evil scientist), you would have chosen otherwise.

And this is the essential aspect of this discussion from my viewpoint: are the desires determined by past events? if they are, then the choices are not free. But if they are not, then what determines them? Are all free choices then uncaused causes?

Isn't that a restatement of the difference between the illusion of free will absent the ability to have chosen otherwise, and the actual ability to have freely chosen otherwise?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, I get that. And this is another aspect. If the future is 'known', it is determined, which means the choice cannot be free: there is no way to have chosen a different path if the future is known.

No. You are doing it again.

"An agent is free to do otherwise, if he could do otherwise, if he wants to do otherwise"

There is no coercion in my scenario. Knowing is not coercing.
It's much like the chicken and egg problem .. you intuitively think that if it is known, that is what determines the future.
..but that is not so .. it is our choices that determine it, and they are known due to an agent being in a different time frame.
I know. You struggle with it .. a lot of people do.
Think of it, as if the universe is in some kind of time-warp.

To be able to make a free choice requires that the future NOT be determined and so it cannot be known (even by an entity outside of the universe).

..but the past is determined, and many people feel tt was our choices that determined it, amongst other things.
The future is no different .. you just think it is, due to human perception of time.

The future will be what it will be .. and it 'becomes' the past.
Human perception views time as a moving 'now'.

 

[Polymath257]

No. You are doing it again.

"An agent is free to do otherwise, if he could do otherwise, if he wants to do otherwise"

And I just showed that this is NOT the case. Wanting to do something is NOT enough to make the choice free. If it were, then the evil scientist making you want something would mean your choice was still free.

There is no coercion in my scenario. Knowing is not coercing.,

Well, there is no conscious being that is doing the coercion. But if the future *can* be known, then no other future is *possible*. And that is enough to negate the freedom of the choice.

It's much like the chicken and egg problem .. you intuitively think that if it is known, that is what determines the future.

No, if the fute *can be known*, then it is fixed. And if it is fixed, I cannot make a different decision. And that means the choice is not free.

..but that is not so .. it is our choices that determine it, and they are known due to an agent being in a different time frame.
I know. You struggle with it .. a lot of people do.

If our choices determine it, then it cannot be known (in any reference frame) until the choice is made.

Think of it, as if the universe is in some kind of time-warp.

I'm not strugging with it. I simply disagree. If the future is fixed, then the choice is not free because it could not be other than that of the fixed future. Yes, even if I *wanted* to make that choice. It's just that my desire is *also* fixed by the knowledge (even potential) of the future.

..but the past is determined, and many people feel tt was our choices that determined it, amongst other things.
The future is no different .. you just think it is, due to human perception of time.

If it can be known outside of the future light cone, then it is fixed and the choice is not free.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And I just showed that this is NOT the case. Wanting to do something is NOT enough to make the choice free. If it were, then the evil scientist making you want something would mean your choice was still free.

That is just one scenario that you suggest.
Basically, what you are suggesting is that a person driving a car down the road is not really driving it,
but it is being driven by an evil scientist.
Yeah .. right.

..if the future *can* be known, then no other future is *possible*.

Of course it isn't.
That is like saying what the future will be cannot be something else .. or what the past is cannot be changed.
What is the future?
Do you assume time cannot be violated?
..because that is what you are implying over and over.

No, if the fute *can be known*, then it is fixed. And if it is fixed, I cannot make a different decision. And that means the choice is not free.

Totally wrong.
What I can't understand, is how you can have such a good grasp of infinity,but get confused so easily
in this case of logic.
You say that the future is 'fixed' .. yes .. but it is our choices that fix it.
It does NOT mean our choices aren't free.
NB. there is no evil scientist

If our choices determine it, then it cannot be known (in any reference frame) until the choice is made.

..says you .. how do you know that?

If it can be known outside of the future light cone, then it is fixed and the choice is not free.

No .. I haven't discussed the exact mechanism .. light cones etc. are all about our observations in this universe.
My scenario is hypothetical, but not outside the realms of possibility.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I simply disagree. If the future is fixed, then the choice is not free because it could not be other than that of the fixed future. Yes, even if I *wanted* to make that choice. It's just that my desire is *also* fixed by the knowledge (even potential) of the future.

How is your desire fixed?
Why is it that the past can be fixed by our choices but the future can't be?
The past is fixed, but we didn't know what it would be before "it happened" .. that's all.

What you really don't like, it appears, is that it might be possible to know what happens before we make a choice.
Your human perception of time is, as far as you're concerned, the only possible reality.

 

[Polymath257]

How is your desire fixed?

Because, if the future is *known*, it cannot be different than what it is known to be. That means it is fixed.

Why is it that the past can be fixed by our choices but the future can't be?
The past is fixed, but we didn't know what it would be before "it happened" .. that's all.

And if what will happen had already been determined (or is determined by something outside, independent of time), then those past choices were not free either.

And if it was *possible* to know what those past choices were *before* they happened (or to know independently of time), then those choices were not free either.

What you really don't like, it appears, is that it might be possible to know what happens before we make a choice.

I'm not sure I don't like it. If anything, it is what all of our models of the universe imply. It's just that if you can know what choice will be made before it is made, then the choice is not free. it may *feel* free, you may have *wanted* the choice, but it is not, in fact, free.


Yes, if you can *know* what someone will choose before (or by anything not causally dependent on that choice), then the choice was not free, as I see it.

Your human perception of time is, as far as you're concerned, the only possible reality.

And no, I am very comfortable with regarding time in its entirely as something that can be studied, modeled etc. I just think that being able to do so negates freedom of choice. In fact, I regularly think about spacetime as a whole as a single four dimensional manifold. And, if our actions are decorations on that manifold, then there is no way we *could have chosen* differently than we did, in fact, choose. That follows *because* we can see the whole of spacetime as a completed entity that can be known. But that means the choice was not free: we had no option but to decide the way that we did given the nature of that four dimensional manifold.

You seem to think I am not familiar with looking at time from a large scale perspective. But it is actually how I do things on a daily basis. If that manifold is fixed (in any sense), then the 'choices' we determined and are not free (I could not have made a different one, because if I could, that aspect of the manifold could not be known).

 

[osgart]

The thing I found wrong with his argument is this.
He first creates a strawman, defining free will as simply, the ability to have acted differently, and then goes for the jugular - attacking that strawman.

No. Free will is not simply the ability to have acted differently to how one acted.
Free will involves making decisions freely, that is, based on your own choice... Regardless of the multiplicity of choices out there, which I may, or may not possess. You have options.

For example, I am an ignorant youth who is naive, and does not know that some men... the world, can be very deceitful, in plotting to get what they want. So, in my ignorance, my lack of knowledge, I make a foolish decision, which causes me heartache.

Did I exercise free will? Yes, but it was with limited knowledge. Free will is not negated, because I did not act differently. I acted based on the knowledge, I had, or did not have.
Either way, I acted freely, in making a choice.

So, the guy started wrong. Perhaps not deliberately, but he needs to get the definition right, in the first place.

I'm not so sure that the ability to do otherwise means that you have free will. I could have not typed this post but I'd rather exercise my will to post. I felt more free to post than to go against my will and not post. My desire to post outweighed my restraint of my desire to post.

There are times I've restrained my desire to do something. Sometimes I took great pains to restrain my desire to do something. In my mind I did otherwise.

im not so sure physics matters so much as what are my desires, capabilities and potentials at the time of deciding what my will will be. Sometimes I have no desires whatsoever and the choices I have don't affect my will whatsoever. In that case I'm free will not bound to any choice.

Can impedance and unimpedance of will be measured? There really are more definitions of free will than just one. Unimpeded will is a free will. I know very well when I exercise my will that it's my will I'm exercising and that's free will. Living in full accordance with one's will is a free will. Living in harmony with one's will is also free will. Contentment with one's will is a free will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because, if the future is *known*, it cannot be different than what it is known to be. That means it is fixed..

You are still missing the point.
The past is fixed, but that doesn't bother you.

It is not the fact that it is fixed that is the problem, it is what fixes it.
You assume that if the future can be known, what is known actually fixes it.
That is because you assume that time is somehow absolute.

Let's assume that the future cannot be known .. then you presumably have no problem with the future being fixed by our choices.. is that correct?
In such a case, it then becomes a simple case of disbelieving in an agent being able to predict the future.
Are you with me?

..It's just that if you can know what choice will be made before it is made, then the choice is not free. it may *feel* free, you may have *wanted* the choice, but it is not, in fact, free.

..again, you feel that chronological order cannot be violated, so an agent cannot know what we will choose unless that agent determines it.

That follows *because* we can see the whole of spacetime as a completed entity that can be known. But that means the choice was not free: we had no option but to decide the way that we did given the nature of that four dimensional manifold.

..but all that follows from scientific observation of the universe. That has nothing to do with an agent that is not part of the universe.

You seem to think I am not familiar with looking at time from a large scale perspective. But it is actually how I do things on a daily basis. If that manifold is fixed (in any sense), then the 'choices' we determined and are not free (I could not have made a different one, because if I could, that aspect of the manifold could not be known).

I do not think that you have no scientific understanding of time.
I just see that you are basing your opinion on "a feeling", and not logic.
The past is a fixed manifold, and you have no problem with it being fixed by our choices..
but as soon as we consider the future, you cannot imagine it being fixed, although you know it WILL be fixed..
..as it becomes the past .. it is just a case of what fixes it.

 

[Polymath257]

You are still missing the point.
The past is fixed, but that doesn't bother you.

Well, truthfully, I am not convinced that the past *is* fixed. But that is a separate discussion.

It is not the fact that it is fixed that is the problem, it is what fixes it.
You assume that if the future can be known, what is known actually fixes it.

No, that it *can* be known means it is fixed.

That is because you assume that time is somehow absolute.

I make no such assumption.

Let's assume that the future cannot be known .. then you presumably have no problem with the future being fixed by our choices.. is that correct?

If there are several possible futures at some points, then it at least becomes *possible* that which future happens is a result of our choices. I'd still need to understand in detail how that happens before I am completely comfortable with it, though.

In such a case, it then becomes a simple case of disbelieving in an agent being able to predict the future.
Are you with me?

Well, that such an agent exists would imply the future is fixed, yes. The non-existence doesn't imply that the future is not fixed.

..again, you feel that chronological order cannot be violated, so an agent cannot know what we will choose unless that agent determines it.

..but all that follows from scientific observation of the universe. That has nothing to do with an agent that is not part of the universe.


I do not think that you have no scientific understanding of time.
I just see that you are basing your opinion on "a feeling", and not logic.
The past is a fixed manifold, and you have no problem with it being fixed by our choices..

Well, actually, I do. But again, that is a separate issue.

Again, I have not found a *definition* of the concept of free choice that I feel comfortable with.

but as soon as we consider the future, you cannot imagine it being fixed, although you know it WILL be fixed..
..as it becomes the past .. it is just a case of what fixes it.

And again, this only makes the problem of freedom of the choice even worse (from what I can see). If ALL of spacetime exists as a single entity, then NO choices have been or ever will be free. There is not even a possibility of a free choice, because everything is fixed.

The only way out that I can see is having spacetime be probabilistic and each choice determines *for the chooser* which of several available options become reality. But, each available choice is *actually made* in some time line. It's just that the specific place we find ourselves is determined by all the choices of all agents up to that point.

But, in that case, the future cannot be known, because there is more than one possible future for everyone. Also, every choice is made in the sense that for each choice there is a time line in which that choice is made.

Now, this might allow a certain amount of knowledge of the future if there are 'fixed points' where no choice made can swerve whether or not that event happens. Those fixed points could be known, but not details of individual choices: ALL possible choices would be made somewhere in the multiple time streams.

Also, in this scenario, the past is fixed *for each individual*, but not in general. If other choices had been made, the past would have been different as well. It's just that we don't have access to other time lines in the specific location we find ourselves. Or, perhaps the past *isn't* fixed and some aspects cannot ever be known because more than one past might exist at some points.

For example, I don't think the question of whether 'a T Rex was standing in my location exactly 70 million years ago and was looking at a tree' necessarily has a definite answer. If it doesn't, that might allow for more than one past depending on what a T Rex was or was not doing 70 million years ago.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, truthfully, I am not convinced that the past *is* fixed. But that is a separate discussion.

No, that it *can* be known means it is fixed.

I make no such assumption.

If there are several possible futures at some points, then it at least becomes *possible* that which future happens is a result of our choices. I'd still need to understand in detail how that happens before I am completely comfortable with it, though.

Well, that such an agent exists would imply the future is fixed, yes. The non-existence doesn't imply that the future is not fixed.

Well, actually, I do. But again, that is a separate issue.

Again, I have not found a *definition* of the concept of free choice that I feel comfortable with.

And again, this only makes the problem of freedom of the choice even worse (from what I can see). If ALL of spacetime exists as a single entity, then NO choices have been or ever will be free. There is not even a possibility of a free choice, because everything is fixed.

The only way out that I can see is having spacetime be probabilistic and each choice determines *for the chooser* which of several available options become reality. But, each available choice is *actually made* in some time line. It's just that the specific place we find ourselves is determined by all the choices of all agents up to that point.

But, in that case, the future cannot be known, because there is more than one possible future for everyone. Also, every choice is made in the sense that for each choice there is a time line in which that choice is made.

Now, this might allow a certain amount of knowledge of the future if there are 'fixed points' where no choice made can swerve whether or not that event happens. Those fixed points could be known, but not details of individual choices: ALL possible choices would be made somewhere in the multiple time streams.

"Well, truthfully, I am not convinced that the past *is* fixed. But that is a separate discussion."

Start a thread about that. I would be interested in your thoughts about that.

 

[Polymath257]

"Well, truthfully, I am not convinced that the past *is* fixed. But that is a separate discussion."

Start a thread about that. I would be interested in your thoughts about that.

I modified post #330 with some ideas about this. If I have time I might start a thread.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, truthfully, I am not convinced that the past *is* fixed. But that is a separate discussion.

No, that it *can* be known means it is fixed.

I make no such assumption.

If there are several possible futures at some points, then it at least becomes *possible* that which future happens is a result of our choices. I'd still need to understand in detail how that happens before I am completely comfortable with it, though.

Well, that such an agent exists would imply the future is fixed, yes. The non-existence doesn't imply that the future is not fixed.

Well, actually, I do. But again, that is a separate issue.

Again, I have not found a *definition* of the concept of free choice that I feel comfortable with.

And again, this only makes the problem of freedom of the choice even worse (from what I can see). If ALL of spacetime exists as a single entity, then NO choices have been or ever will be free. There is not even a possibility of a free choice, because everything is fixed.

The only way out that I can see is having spacetime be probabilistic and each choice determines *for the chooser* which of several available options become reality. But, each available choice is *actually made* in some time line. It's just that the specific place we find ourselves is determined by all the choices of all agents up to that point.

But, in that case, the future cannot be known, because there is more than one possible future for everyone. Also, every choice is made in the sense that for each choice there is a time line in which that choice is made.

Now, this might allow a certain amount of knowledge of the future if there are 'fixed points' where no choice made can swerve whether or not that event happens. Those fixed points could be known, but not details of individual choices: ALL possible choices would be made somewhere in the multiple time streams.

Also, in this scenario, the past is fixed *for each individual*, but not in general. If other choices had been made, the past would have been different as well. It's just that we don't have access to other time lines in the specific location we find ourselves. Or, perhaps the past *isn't* fixed and some aspects cannot ever be known because more than one past might exist at some points.

For example, I don't think the question of whether 'a T Rex was standing in my location exactly 70 million years ago and was looking at a tree' necessarily has a definite answer. If it doesn't, that might allow for more than one past depending on what a T Rex was or was not doing 70 million years ago.

What about the possibility that all eventualities do exist, or do come to pass, in some dimension or other? I'm guessing you will have at least considered that. And that the particular narratives in which we find ourselves featuring, have no unique or special status, except to the version of us navigating them at any given point?

 

[bobhikes]

Free Will is one of those concepts that seems stranger and stranger the more I think about it.

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

Because I haven't tackled this in a while, being that my knowledge and understanding has grown I can state. Determinism is impossible because everything is random. Although humans are made to see and follow patterns for ease of survival those patterns do not exist. We just either refuse to see pattern breaks or broaden our outlook to include the exceptions. Everything in this experience has exceptions, even what we consider fact like math uses imaginary features such as j (for the square root of negative numbers) or using infinity in problems. Broadening your outlook to exclude all exceptions first will make the pattern less useful and finally defeat the pattern all together. This is why faith is such a big part of Human existence. We all need to have faith in the patterns we use to function. Contrarily we need to have faith in Determinism or limit Free Will to benefit our survival as a species; hence, we created religion and science. God's plan or Science's facts both enforce our faith in our personal patterns to aid our survival.

Answer to question
1) Free ability to choose based on self-analysis.

2) If you could go back in time to the same setting there would be no guaranty the choice would be the same. You would still be making the decision on self-analysis but some of the variables would have changed due to random effects.

3) No Free will is as the definition states based on your will or analysis at the time; however, the decision will be grey not black/white and you will make random assessments on the grey values and random choices for what values to include. The example I can give you is an LED sensor in a system for tracking (real world). An Off determination is made from 0v to .200 volts and an on determination is made from 3.5 volts to 5 volts. From .200 volts to 3.5 volts, the system may determine OFF or ON, the system may lock up or the system may keep fluctuating between Off and On. We (Humans) as a system never lock up, which is only possible if we can arbitrarily determine a state.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, that such an agent exists would imply the future is fixed, yes. The non-existence doesn't imply that the future is not fixed.

Fixed by what, exactly?

There is not even a possibility of a free choice, because everything is fixed.

Fixed by what? Does the future magically fix itself?

..in that case, the future cannot be known..

That is merely your opinion, and not fact.

 

[Polymath257]

Fixed by what, exactly?


Fixed by what? Does the future magically fix itself?


That is merely your opinion, and not fact.

Why does it need something to fix it? If spacetime is a single manifold in its entirety, then the past, the future, and all space and time is fixed because we can talk about that manifold.

I don't know why that manifold is the way it is or even if it makes sense to ask why in this case (I suspect not).

If there is more than one possible future, then by definition of 'possible' it cannot be known which is the actual future. that seems trivially true to me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why does it need something to fix it?

I would have thought that obvious .. events usually have a cause.

If there is more than one possible future, then by definition of 'possible' it cannot be known which is the actual future. that seems trivially true to me.

You are only looking at it from a human perspective.
As far as we are concerned, the past is known, but the future is hidden i.e. unknown

There is not more than one future, no more than there is more than one past.
It is just unknown.

 

[Willamena]

He is saying that for the choice to be free, there had to be more than one option available. Or, conversely, if there was only one option possible, the choice was not free, but rather it was forced.

So, it is *one* requirement for there to be free will at all.

This is ostensibly false, since there is always an option to either do or do not. I would pose that when we are forced into a situation where we consider that we "have no other option," it is more often a case where any other option would go against our moral or ethical code. As it should be.

Another requirement is that *you* actually can decide which of the possible futures comes to pass. In other words, it isn't something external that is determining what will happen.

Both of those seem to be necessary for there to be a free choice, don't you think?

It would be foolish to assume that "you" are the only precursor of possible futures. The more sensible approach is to recognize that there are forces that dictate your future as much as you do.

 

[Willamena]

If it is *known*, then it cannot be different than what it will be, so it is determined. That is part of what it means to *know* something: that it is true.

OK, I have thought about it and I disagree. Here's why:

Suppose an evil scientist learns how to do mind control. This scientists can *make* you want things and you won't know that this is happening.

So, this scientist makes you *want* to eat a tuna sandwich instead of a hamburger. You then eat that tuna sandwich. Was it a free decision?

I would say no, it was not. And this is the case even though you *wanted* to eat that tuna sandwich. The problem is that your desire was dictated by an outside agent.

How would an objective observer be able to tell which was the case: that the scientist caused it or that you caused it? It would seem to be an impossible decision, apart from the fanciful story.

And this is the essential aspect of this discussion from my viewpoint: are the desires determined by past events? if they are, then the choices are not free. But if they are not, then what determines them? Are all free choices then uncaused causes?

I haven't read back through the discussion, but the answer to this apparent dilemma is simple. We make choices based on experience--we cannot make them based on anything else. The determinant of free will is not information but assignment, i.e. magic. We magically assign the thing "me" to be the determinant of actions and choices. As it should be.

Edit: I love the future scientists (big hugs!).

 

[Polymath257]

I would have thought that obvious .. events usually have a cause.

Events *in the universe* usually have causes *in the universe*. We are talking about the universe as a whole, including time. That eliminates the applicability of causality (since natural laws are also only within the universe).

You are only looking at it from a human perspective.
As far as we are concerned, the past is known, but the future is hidden i.e. unknown

But if the future *can be known*, then it is determined: it is fixed.

There is not more than one future, no more than there is more than one past.
It is just unknown.

OK. And if there is only one future, there is no real choice. To have a choice means you get to select from more than one available future.