Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Determinism and free will .
- Thread starter Emil
- Start date
K
keith1
Guest
Your confusing spatial expansion with thermal expansion.
In the early universe, the plasma cools as the universe expands. As time passes.
There is a link with my statement. From that link:
"...causes interactions between particles to become arbitrarily weak at energy scales that become arbitrarily large, or, equivalently, at length scales that become arbitrarily small (at the shortest distances)..."
The higher energy plasma state for quark interactions is equal to confining these interactions to a smaller space.
That doesn't seem logically intuitive, but that is the case. You have to greatly energize them, or greatly push them together, in order to free them from their interactive bindings.
To return to the OP, with these thoughts in mind...one could say in this instance, that determinism is just an aspect of the combining several opposing free will alternatives.
Determinism is a space-time illusion.
In the early universe, the plasma cools as the universe expands. As time passes.
There is a link with my statement. From that link:
"...causes interactions between particles to become arbitrarily weak at energy scales that become arbitrarily large, or, equivalently, at length scales that become arbitrarily small (at the shortest distances)..."
The higher energy plasma state for quark interactions is equal to confining these interactions to a smaller space.
That doesn't seem logically intuitive, but that is the case. You have to greatly energize them, or greatly push them together, in order to free them from their interactive bindings.
To return to the OP, with these thoughts in mind...one could say in this instance, that determinism is just an aspect of the combining several opposing free will alternatives.
Determinism is a space-time illusion.
On the contrary. Thermal expansion at an atomic level is relative to an atoms absolute volume. For instance think of the nucleus as a point the size of a period and the absolute volume would be approximately the size of a football field wrapped around it. If the volume of the nuclei were to expand due to heat it would only register a slight difference in the absolute volume and therefore approximately zero change in the amount of "space". I.e. the period gets bigger but remains approximately the same distance apart from other atoms. This causes more forces present within nature to have a draw toward gravitational objects present within the atoms. This is just to say that radiation follows the spinning clock work inside an atom with a large gravitational pull to the nucleus. It could be said that the space designated between all nature is spiraling subatomic matter. Also that the matter is "determined" to become tangent to the neucleus. The level of free will matter has to how close it comes to touching the absolute nucleus is determined by its frequency and quanta. The higher frequency the further away in terms of distance. The more quanta, the closer a particle will become. Now we can see why some particles that hold sufficiently large values stay further away from the nucleus because of their high frequency. but larger quanta is still determined toward the nucleus.
Posted by Clueless:
Question:
If a "will" is random can it be claimed to be a "will"?
For a will to be random it can only be so if deliberate which means it can not be random.
A random "will" is nothing more than a reflex beyond the control of will.
The definition of any "will" regardless of it being free or not is to be able to be self determined by the owner. [ an act of volition ]
So Clueless you are chasing an impossible notion as you are defining freewill as needing to be random which defeats the notion of any "will" being present.
And I'll repeat an absolute statement made earlier.
"If the will is determined by the influence of "everything" such as it would be for this God, then that will is free to act as it wishes upon everything. Therefore free will and determinism can co-exist quite readilly. But only in absolute terms. [ hence the God example] Because even this God can commit suicide and say no to any influence thus he has ultimate power of choice."
and here is the key to the problem of this discussion with you.
Question:
If a "will" is random can it be claimed to be a "will"?
For a will to be random it can only be so if deliberate which means it can not be random.
A random "will" is nothing more than a reflex beyond the control of will.
The definition of any "will" regardless of it being free or not is to be able to be self determined by the owner. [ an act of volition ]
So Clueless you are chasing an impossible notion as you are defining freewill as needing to be random which defeats the notion of any "will" being present.
And I'll repeat an absolute statement made earlier.
"If the will is determined by the influence of "everything" such as it would be for this God, then that will is free to act as it wishes upon everything. Therefore free will and determinism can co-exist quite readilly. But only in absolute terms. [ hence the God example] Because even this God can commit suicide and say no to any influence thus he has ultimate power of choice."
Last edited:
...im suggestin that not even a God can escape influence an make choises which are not random... unless you can give such an esample.??? ”
---------------------
Edit:::
In other words... im suggestin that not even a God can make uninfluenced choises... an if God makes a choise that isnt influenced it woud be a random choise (which is not free will).!!!
-----------------
I aparently wasnt clear... but what you jus stated is my position.!!!
If God comited suicide... woud ther have been an influence which led him to do it... or woud he have done it for no reason... ie... a random "choise" (which is not free will).???
---------------------
Edit:::
In other words... im suggestin that not even a God can make uninfluenced choises... an if God makes a choise that isnt influenced it woud be a random choise (which is not free will).!!!
-----------------
I aparently wasnt clear... but what you jus stated is my position.!!!
If God comited suicide... woud ther have been an influence which led him to do it... or woud he have done it for no reason... ie... a random "choise" (which is not free will).???
Last edited:
The thing you seem to be missing is that to have a "will" of any type free or otherwise it CAN'T be randomly applied with out volition [ therefore un-random]. So to me your question makes no sense.
and if everything IS THE influence then that will must be free with in that "Everything"
If God comited suicide... woud ther have been an influence which led him to do it... or woud he have done it for no reason... ie... a random "choise" (which is not free will).???
oK... jus answr this... If God comited suicide... woud ther have been an influence which led him to do it.???
oK... jus answr this... If God comited suicide... woud ther have been an influence which led him to do it.???
of course there would be infleunces he freely chooses from. Other wise it wouldn't be suicide.
Yep... nether humans or God can escape cause an effect... ie... no free will.!!!
Edit:::
However... i supose God coud give up som of his powers so he wont know whether a coin will land heads or tales... an base his choise on the toss of a coin an call that choise free will... but that woud jus be random... not free will... huh.!!!
Last edited:
It is now up to you to explain why you believe what you do... I have explained my position and wait to be refutted.
Why does the fact that to do something by self determination is somehow lacking in freewill especially when you have the choice to do nothign at all [ eg. suicide ]?
"Influence" is not the same as "Cause" by the way...
My positon is... i see no evidence which suports you'r clame that such a thang as free will esists... ie... i see no evidence that the causal chane of events can be broken in such a way that allows for uninfluenced choises.!!!
Whats the diference you'r talkin about.???
Look...wiki is available to any one to use... there is a very big difference between "influence " and "Causality" in the way that you are using those words.
"Caused" implies NO choice where as "influence" implies choice.
If you don't believe me then look it up and do some research.
No prollem... i will take you'r word for it an substitute the word cause for influence.!!!
My positon is... i see no evidence which suports you'r clame that such a thang as free will esists... ie... i see no evidence that the causal chane of events can be broken in such a way that allows for uncaused choises.!!!
If God comited suicide... woud ther have been causes that led him to do it.???
Edit:::
Meerly usin the term "self determination" does not demonstrate a brake in the causal chane... an to "do nuthin" is meerly anuther part of the causal chane.!!!
Last edited:
nope! but there would have been "influences" that affected what ever choices he made.
Because he has to ability to reject all influences he therefore has the ability to accept any of them. Thus freewilled.
^ QQ - the rejection of all influences is itself a cause. There would have been a reason for his rejection of all influences... i.e. a cause behind his decision to reject the other influences.
This cause would itself have been caused... etc
To have "free-will" (as Clueluss is understanding the term) requires a "choice" to be both uncaused and non-random.
To reject all influences is a choice - and unless you can demonstrate otherwise he is saying that such a choice is itself caused - and thus no free-will.
And just by saying "there would have been no causes" but not expanding or explaining why this would be so does not really satisfy.
Why would there have been no causes?
By what mechanism is the "choice" reached if it is, as you claim, uncaused?
This cause would itself have been caused... etc
To have "free-will" (as Clueluss is understanding the term) requires a "choice" to be both uncaused and non-random.
To reject all influences is a choice - and unless you can demonstrate otherwise he is saying that such a choice is itself caused - and thus no free-will.
And just by saying "there would have been no causes" but not expanding or explaining why this would be so does not really satisfy.
Why would there have been no causes?
By what mechanism is the "choice" reached if it is, as you claim, uncaused?
Sarkus,
Fair point!
I just felt that Clueless presumed that influenced [ inspired ] and causality were the same thing which of course they are not.
The will itself is the cause IMO however the ability to reject your own will is what makes the choices you make free.
But all influences taken together are the cause. A single influence, however, is not in and of itself a cause.
You can not reject your own will. It is like making the choice not to choose... which is itself a choice. I.e. it is a logical impossibility.
One can certainly choose not to select from specific options (e.g. A, B, or C) but those options are not the full universe of options available.
It is like asking someone not to do anything.... they can't. They must always do something, as existence requires it - even if it is just staying stationary.
Such it is with the idea of rejecting your own will: what enables you to reject your will? It is your will... so by supposedly rejecting your will you are actually abiding by your will.
You can reject your own will by destroying it.
The freewill debate is about predetermination of someones choices. That predetermination can be totally defeated whether it be by internal influences or external influences or causations.
In doing so this to me means that predetermination is a choice we can make there fore one can say we have the freedom to choose, to be predetermined or not.
If predetermination can be rejected then what has one to say about determinism when one talks of our will?
Even if suicide was predetermined the end result is "no more predetermination" as the will is dead.
And because you can not be forced to commit suicide and it must be a voluntary act, this act of last resort is one only you can make and if it is only you that can make it then how would that defeat notions of freewill as it is after all your will that you are using? [ regardless of influences ]
example:
A guy carries on with his ordinary life with 500gms of C4 strapped to his chest.
So he is a bit of a morbid type and likes to prove to himself always that he has the freedom to reject predetermination.
He has no depression, nor psychotic inclinations and for all intents and purposes is on a quest to prove that living is a voluntary act.
By having the ability to destroy any predetermination any time he chooses to regardless of mood empowers him to live because he chooses to, and not because he is forced to.
Seppuku was and is still utilised in the Japanese Bushido culture and martial arts training which enables the "warrior" the greatest empowerment over his opponents. The ability for soldiers in a war environment to surrender their lives for the sake of others and so on. The reason why "terrorism" is indefeatable by conventional means etc.
Last edited:
which you have the freedom to use as you wish... [ you can't take the YOU out of the equation]
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I am not really sure in what sense having the ability to kill yourself disproves predestination. If you believe in a deterministic universe, then some people are, surely, predestined to kill themselves. The choice is still an illusion and the "decision" is no more than the inevitable outcome of the movement of certain particles and molecules within the brain of the suicidal individual. When the molecules and electrical charges are in a certain configuration within his or her brain, you set off the explosive.
Perhaps one way to think of it is this, we all know that Sylvia Plath chose to kill herself in 1963. Suppose you had a time machine and traveled back to late 1962— two months before she killed herself—and you lived a quiet life there for the next couple of months. You had no interaction with her, but you chose to go back to that date and wait and see if the news announced that she had done the deed.
Is there any chance that she would (or could) "choose" to live, or is she going to kill herself again. If you repeated the experiment 100 times, would she live in any of those timelines, or would she choose to kill herself each and every time?
If the universe is deterministic, then the tape would rerun the same way each time, without deviation (unless you in fact interfered with the "original" events, which we assume you did not). In that view, she had no more of an opportunity to "choose," than does someone seen on a video tape...the outcome and her death were predetermined.
If she truly has free will, then presumably she can choose not to end her life on one or more of your trips back to that time.
Perhaps one way to think of it is this, we all know that Sylvia Plath chose to kill herself in 1963. Suppose you had a time machine and traveled back to late 1962— two months before she killed herself—and you lived a quiet life there for the next couple of months. You had no interaction with her, but you chose to go back to that date and wait and see if the news announced that she had done the deed.
Is there any chance that she would (or could) "choose" to live, or is she going to kill herself again. If you repeated the experiment 100 times, would she live in any of those timelines, or would she choose to kill herself each and every time?
If the universe is deterministic, then the tape would rerun the same way each time, without deviation (unless you in fact interfered with the "original" events, which we assume you did not). In that view, she had no more of an opportunity to "choose," than does someone seen on a video tape...the outcome and her death were predetermined.
If she truly has free will, then presumably she can choose not to end her life on one or more of your trips back to that time.