Free Will

Status
Not open for further replies.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[


“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
But acordin to those Muslim beleifs... sinse God does have knowedge of the future... then God does not have free will.??? ”


“Originally Posted by DiamondHeart"
God is the only one who has true 'free will,' because His will is independent of all creation. Ours is not.


“Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
O... so i guess these are you'r actual beleifs... i had asumed you was jus usin Muslim beleifs as a way to make clear you'r positon about free will.!!!

Well anyhow... beleifs are irrelevent as far as the truth of free-will... but it is interestin to see people use ther beleifs to argue a pont.!!!


“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Befor God created humans... God (if he has free-will) desided esactly how he woud design humans to behave... so humans can not behave any other way than they were designed to behave... an sinse God is all-knowin... the instent he desided on the creaton plan he woud put into acton... the fates of all humans was sealed... they can never do anythang diferent than what God has always known they wooud do... an that has nuthin to do wit whether God is outside of time an space (whatever that is) or not.!!! ”


“Originally Posted by DiamondHeart"
God does not have to define Himself to us, but we must explain ourselves to God. What God wishes, He does. There does not have to be a logic behind it.


“Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
Yeah... beleifs cant be questoned an therfor have no bidness in a logical discusson.!!!


“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
But anybody can make up any sort of beleifs they want... an as far as facts are concerned... unevidenced beleifs are irrelevent.!!! ”


“Originally Posted by DiamondHeart"
Hence truth is independent of us. It exists whether we accept it or not.


“Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
I coudnt agree mor:)


"Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
That dont necesarly jus aply to atheists... but it does seem fact-based/logical.!!! ”


“Originally Posted by DiamondHeart"
Yeah, its the athiest view which I have explained. Yet to athiests the question remains then, why do only humans have free will?


“Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
Huh.??? Im a agnostic/atheist type an i dont wonder that at all... i see zero evidence for "free-will"... much less that only humans have "it".!!!


“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
I see whare its deceptive as taut by the Muslim beleifs... but how is the atheist/fact-based ideas about free-will deceptive.??? ”


“Originally Posted by DiamondHeart"
According to the Atheist view, we are a product of our environment and biological evolution, thus people can't really control how they act as nature governs the choices they make in their life. Society being an extension of nature. Thus this idea negates free will. According to Athiests, no human has free will because that implies we are not governed by external forces like nature.


“Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
Yes... escellent... what is factually deceptive about that.???


“Originally Posted by DiamondHeart"
The religious view, Muslim in particular, accepts free will as the will of God, thus our will exists inside God's will and is limited by the limits set by God Himself. Thus we are given free will, to a degree, but we are still governed by the environment and other factors, which can effect our decision making, and also our future actions are all known by God before they occur. These factors are taken into account when we are judged by God. This is a bit complicated, but you will understand if you view God as outside creation and the limits of creation, thus time is of irrelevance to God.


“Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund"
Yes... thats mostly beleifs... not based on facts... beleifs differ from country to country person to peerson... facts are universal... so if you'r lookin for decepton look no further than beleifs.!!!
 
To help explain undeterminable determinism I have drawn this simple diagram:
fw.jpg


If every choice has an infinite causation [ due ot infinite variables] then every choice must be free willed.

If one assumes that the will is in a closed system [universe] and escape from that system is impossible except by one possible way [ unconsciousness or death] then the will is able to be deemed to be free will.

Because those infinite variables are acting on a solitary decision or choice which is made by the chooser. All possible alternatives are included in that choice. If all possible alternatives are included in that choice then that choice must be free. [We are ot talking about the conditioned freewill that we commonly have as conscious but the entire will including the subconscious etc etc.
And because the alternatives include unconsciousness and death the ability to escape the system provides the ultimate degree of freedom available from that system.
So if you extend your finite causality to the infinite [ which must surely be the case] you may see what I am getting at....[not that it is correct as it is only a line of enquiry]
Let me distil, for my own benefit, and let me know if this is what you are getting at:
You are saying that if there are an infinite possible outcomes (due to the infinite variables) the selection of outcome is necessarily "free" - i.e. no barriers to the selection of any of the outcomes?

If so then:
(1) I am not sure it relates to the concept of "free-will" at all until you can demonstrate the existence of this agent (selector) that sits outside the choice.
(2) While the outcome may be one of an infinite number of possibilities, these possibilities are governed by a probability function (i.e. some will be more likely than others) - and this in no way hinders determinism (if one allows for probabilistic outcomes) nor indicates the existence of a "will", let alone a "free will".

So for "free will" to exist, one must show that not only is there a "will" (i.e. an external selector) but that it is "free".
I think you have possibly alluded to the latter of these (regarding "free") but I fail to see how it proves / demonstrates the former.


Also, as an additional thought, if there are an infinite possibilities, does a skewed probability function mean that the outcome is not "free"? - i.e. if one outcome is more likely than another, does this detract from the "freedom of choice" that you allude to?
 
This is true, but this assumes matter as the source of consciousness rather than consciousness the source of matter (which QM seems to support).
You really think QM seems to support it? To me, QM suggests that observation merely crystallises the wave function... but that the wave is always there.

Well thats what meditation essentially does; reprogram your sub conscious. Like I was saying earlier in the horse analogy, our senses are constantly pulling us toward what we perceive as reality all the time, with the exceptions being deep meditation and sleeping. I suggest you try it for at least 30 min a day for two weeks and tell me you arent impressed. Use google for some helpful tips.
Heh. This doesn't tell me that we have any control over anything, which is necessary for free-will. It might help alter perception, but not objective reality. The moment will still have happened (e.g. determinism), it is just then a matter of how we observe that moment.

Well then here is an interesting read for you sir...

http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
a random quote...

This quote makes me think of what we perceive to be alternate dimensions. Different dimensions are merely different projections of the same fundamental reality. These realities cannot see each other because they are on different peaks of the wave function. However a sufficiently evolved being should have no trouble actualizing different potentials at will, thus navigating dimensions.
Hmmm - I'll give it a read at some point. But the quote seems to suggest reality being entirely subjective. And that is a whole other ball game! :)


edit:
Another interesting link I found, youve may know the double slit experiment with detectors already, but starting at the section titled The model experiment in classical conception about 1/3 the way down. It illustrates an important concept concerning free-will using a thought experiment utilizing QM principles.

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/consciousness/rosenblum_kuttner.htm
Again, I'll get round to reading it at a later date, but thanks. :D
 
You really think QM seems to support it? To me, QM suggests that observation merely crystallises the wave function... but that the wave is always there.

Exactly, listen to what you just said. Observation crystallizes the wave function, ie produce matter. It was not matter before observation, it was potential.

Heh. This doesn't tell me that we have any control over anything, which is necessary for free-will. It might help alter perception, but not objective reality. The moment will still have happened (e.g. determinism), it is just then a matter of how we observe that moment.

But most of physics, including relativity, tell us reality is dependent on the observer. Without an observer there can be no reference frame, and other observers can have their own reference frames which seem to contradict one another. Its not cause and effect ruling the reference frames, it is the initial observation which starts the cause/effect chain.

Hmmm - I'll give it a read at some point. But the quote seems to suggest reality being entirely subjective. And that is a whole other ball game! :)

Well partly yes, that is what it is saying. More importantly it stresses that the whole human experience is subjective. Individuality is an illusion.


Again, I'll get round to reading it at a later date, but thanks. :D

No problem.:)
 
...most of physics, including relativity, tell us reality is dependent on the observer. Without an observer there can be no reference frame, and other observers can have their own reference frames which seem to contradict one another.

Its not cause and effect ruling the reference frames,

Sure it is...

it is the initial observation which starts the cause/effect chain.

No... the cause an effect began befor the observaton... moldin the observers in individual ways which causes the contradictons in ther reference frames.!!!
 
Exactly, listen to what you just said. Observation crystallizes the wave function, ie produce matter. It was not matter before observation, it was potential.
I consider this to be just splitting hairs regarding the definition of matter. Once we have established exactly what the wave / field is, we will merely push our understanding of what matter is. I use the term "matter" as in the fundamental building blocks / wave / field of the universe, not necessarily limiting it to the "physical" matter of classical physics.

But most of physics, including relativity, tell us reality is dependent on the observer. Without an observer there can be no reference frame, and other observers can have their own reference frames which seem to contradict one another. Its not cause and effect ruling the reference frames, it is the initial observation which starts the cause/effect chain.
Subjective reality, sure, I don't disagree. But objective reality, whether it be a swirling mass/field of uncrystallised waveforms or physical/classical matter... that's something else entirely. And I'm not sure the observer can force the crystallisation of the waveform into a form of their choosing, which would surely be required for free-will? If we could all choose, then this would surely negate any wave-function that exists?

Well partly yes, that is what it is saying. More importantly it stresses that the whole human experience is subjective. Individuality is an illusion.
I wouldn't disagree regarding human experience being subjective, but I think we're possibly moving off topic, into realms of subjective v objective reality rather than the issue of free-will? :)
 
Let me distil, for my own benefit, and let me know if this is what you are getting at:
You are saying that if there are an infinite possible outcomes (due to the infinite variables) the selection of outcome is necessarily "free" - i.e. no barriers to the selection of any of the outcomes?

If so then:
(1) I am not sure it relates to the concept of "free-will" at all until you can demonstrate the existence of this agent (selector) that sits outside the choice.
(2) While the outcome may be one of an infinite number of possibilities, these possibilities are governed by a probability function (i.e. some will be more likely than others) - and this in no way hinders determinism (if one allows for probabilistic outcomes) nor indicates the existence of a "will", let alone a "free will".

So for "free will" to exist, one must show that not only is there a "will" (i.e. an external selector) but that it is "free".
I think you have possibly alluded to the latter of these (regarding "free") but I fail to see how it proves / demonstrates the former.


Also, as an additional thought, if there are an infinite possibilities, does a skewed probability function mean that the outcome is not "free"? - i.e. if one outcome is more likely than another, does this detract from the "freedom of choice" that you allude to?

Excuse for pointing out the obvious but where have I mentioned infinite possible outcomes?

I have only referred to infinite causality not effect, thus the infinite becomes the finite and the finite remains a part of the infinite.

It could be said that one takes the infinite causality and produces a finite outcome in other words the wills function could be said to generate a finite result from an infinite causality. anyways thats the idea...for what it's worth.

I ran a thread ages ago teat discussed the suggestion that free will is an act of improvisation, taking the infinite casualities and producing afinite result.

In fact if one listens to a Jaz Muso playing ad-lib or improvisation you can actually sense how free he is in his expression.
 
Last edited:
Then my error - as I said, I tried to distil but clearly picked up the wrong stick. :)
If you're merely referring to there being an infinite number of causation variables, then this is certainly no grounds for requiring free will: for there needing to be a will, that there is a "choice" or that anything is free.
If each variable provides input to the cause/effect event, they do so at the same moment, with the output being the next moment. I fail to see how it makes a difference if there is one or an infinite number of causation variables.

First you need to demonstrate that there is a "will" - or at least define it such that it gets past the arguments of determinism etc.
Surely only then can you move onto that will being "free"?
I am not sure you have gone past the first stage. ;)
 
Then my error - as I said, I tried to distil but clearly picked up the wrong stick. :)
If you're merely referring to there being an infinite number of causation variables, then this is certainly no grounds for requiring free will: for there needing to be a will, that there is a "choice" or that anything is free.
If each variable provides input to the cause/effect event, they do so at the same moment, with the output being the next moment. I fail to see how it makes a difference if there is one or an infinite number of causation variables.

First you need to demonstrate that there is a "will" - or at least define it such that it gets past the arguments of determinism etc.
Surely only then can you move onto that will being "free"?
I am not sure you have gone past the first stage. ;)
true:)
 
regardless

my reponse is relevent

You believe that a will that exists is a will to survive? If that is relevant, I may as well fall over dead, because there is no will that exists that is a will to survive.

The thread is not concerned with such bullshit. It is concerned with the truth, that millions have fought for, for ages, centuries, trying to destroy such a thing by calling it a will to survive, kind of attempts to debunk this thread, which is bullshit, falacious, and totally aganist nature.
 
You believe that a will that exists is a will to survive? If that is relevant, I may as well fall over dead, because there is no will that exists that is a will to survive.

really

you could will yourself to die

if so you choose

lets hope not

The thread is not concerned with such bullshit. It is concerned with the truth

the truth is apparent


that millions have fought for, for ages, centuries, trying to destroy such a thing by calling it a will to survive, kind of attempts to debunk this thread, which is bullshit, falacious, and totally aganist nature.

your wrong
 
really

you could will yourself to die

if so you choose

lets hope not
I wonder who agrees with your post? You are the one assuming I said there is a will that exists. You still haven't shown me one, not one.


the truth is apparent
The truth that a will doesn't exist?
What is apparent?


your wrong
I hate to tell you this, but justice always wins:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thread is not concerned with such bullshit. It is concerned with the truth, that millions have fought for, for ages, centuries, trying to destroy such a thing by calling it a will to survive, kind of attempts to debunk this thread, which is bullshit, falacious, and totally aganist nature.

Who's wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top