is there free will?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.

Determinism would mean that whether or not the coin landed heads or tails would be determined before you flipped it, with 100% certainty. Random chance is a prerequisite for Free Will because wihtout it the universe has no room for divergence from it's ordained course.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Determinism would mean that whether or not the coin landed heads or tails would be determined before you flipped it, with 100% certainty. Random chance is a prerequisite for Free Will because wihtout it the universe has no room for divergence from it's ordained course.

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

[The Stranger]

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

it seems to me like one of you is talking about the present and the other one about the future. if not, ignore this comment. i follow interested!

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

I think what PVC means is that the random element is necessarily in order to make you able to pursue more than one course of action, and it is this ability that makes your will 'free'. With a random element, you have the ability to weigh up your options in any given scenario, and from this give each their own probablity for actually taking them. Without a random element, you will only ever choose the one path. You may 'will' to do it, but your will was not free - there was no random element, hence what you did was inevitable, hence your will was not 'free' in the sense that it could ever have done anything differently.

So say you can pick two flavours of ice cream, one vanilla, the other chocolate. Vanilla is your favourite. It was the first flavour you ever tried, it tastes nice and creamy, and it reminds you of your holidays. Chocolate has less going for it, but it does satisfy your sweet tooth.

Now, if your decision making has a random element, the above factors may lead you to lean 80% in favour of vanilla, and 20% in favour of chocolate. On average, 4 times out of 5 you will go for vanilla. But in each case, you were able to choose chocolate, and some times you did. Chocolate wasn't just a flavour that was taken into consideration and then overriden every time by vanilla - there was in each case a very real chance that you might go for chocolate.

But in a deterministic world where there isn't a random element to decision making, every single time you will take vanilla. Sure, you want to take vanilla. You 'will' to do it, and you get what you want. But you could never have chosen the chocolate, without first changing your own tastes. Therefore, you do not have 'free will' as the term is generally used, since there was only one course of action you could take, the one which you 'willed' to do.

I believe the latter scenario is the reality we live in, and that's why I said earlier why I believe we have a 'will', but not a 'free will'.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Now, if your decision making has a random element, the above factors may lead you to lean 80% in favour of vanilla, and 20% in favour of chocolate. On average, 4 times out of 5 you will go for vanilla. But in each case, you were able to choose chocolate, and some times you did. Chocolate wasn't just a flavour that was taken into consideration and then overriden every time by vanilla - there was in each case a very real chance that you might go for chocolate.

But that isn't at all implied by quantum randomness (as far as I understand it). If something is random, it isn't by choice, that's part of the definition.

But in a deterministic world where there isn't a random element to decision making, every single time you will take vanilla. Sure, you want to take vanilla. You 'will' to do it, and you get what you want. But you could never have chosen the chocolate, without first changing your own tastes. Therefore, you do not have 'free will' as the term is generally used, since there was only one course of action you could take, the one which you 'willed' to do.

That's not true though. Say that you like vanilla better, but chocolate reminds you of the holidays. The song in the ice cream shop might also remind you of the holidays and then you buy chocolate. You may feel that you have to much consistency in your life and go for something different. Just because it's deterministic doesn't mean it isn't complex.

[Reenk Roink]

wow reenk how very constructive of you haha... who the hell is being naive thinking he has knowledge. that he knows the truth of anything?

if everything is predestined, by what is it predestined?

I think you misunderstood what I mean and it's my bad for using naive as the adjective. It still fits, but the better word would be a simple non determinism (a la Lucretius). Human actions aren't caused or influenced by anything, including "rational" considerations. I was just answering your question.

Of course, one could then argue that this kind of model doesn't allow for free will either, as their is no choice anyway (it is 'random' for lack of a better term).

--

God.

As to the Universe being orderly, Quantum Theory tells us that a situation has a variety of possible outcomes with varrying probability, not one pre-determined outcome.

First thanks for the clarification with Catholic doctrine.

The QM argument against determinism is probably the (mildly) promising one, but it does run into some problems. First the interpretations of QM by many scientists I believe is one that embraces ontological randomness and denies determinism, but their are definitely others which don't answer the determinism question or answer positively and my view is firmly that there isn't any ontological randomness.

Furthermore, you can find many arguments that while granting the particular interpretation of QM with micro-indeterminism, do not grant that it amplifies to the macro level (read neurons) thus making the discussion of QM irrelevant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

You misunderstand, I merely meant that random chance is a pre-requisite, i.e. that without a random element in the universe that Free Will would be impossible, the idea can't even get off the ground.

I think what PVC means is that the random element is necessarily in order to make you able to pursue more than one course of action, and it is this ability that makes your will 'free'. With a random element, you have the ability to weigh up your options in any given scenario, and from this give each their own probablity for actually taking them. Without a random element, you will only ever choose the one path. You may 'will' to do it, but your will was not free - there was no random element, hence what you did was inevitable, hence your will was not 'free' in the sense that it could ever have done anything differently.

So say you can pick two flavours of ice cream, one vanilla, the other chocolate. Vanilla is your favourite. It was the first flavour you ever tried, it tastes nice and creamy, and it reminds you of your holidays. Chocolate has less going for it, but it does satisfy your sweet tooth.

Now, if your decision making has a random element, the above factors may lead you to lean 80% in favour of vanilla, and 20% in favour of chocolate. On average, 4 times out of 5 you will go for vanilla. But in each case, you were able to choose chocolate, and some times you did. Chocolate wasn't just a flavour that was taken into consideration and then overriden every time by vanilla - there was in each case a very real chance that you might go for chocolate.

But in a deterministic world where there isn't a random element to decision making, every single time you will take vanilla. Sure, you want to take vanilla. You 'will' to do it, and you get what you want. But you could never have chosen the chocolate, without first changing your own tastes. Therefore, you do not have 'free will' as the term is generally used, since there was only one course of action you could take, the one which you 'willed' to do.

I believe the latter scenario is the reality we live in, and that's why I said earlier why I believe we have a 'will', but not a 'free will'.

Clearly you and I have been arguing for too long.

The QM argument against determinism is probably the (mildly) promising one, but it does run into some problems. First the interpretations of QM by many scientists I believe is one that embraces ontological randomness and denies determinism, but their are definitely others which don't answer the determinism question or answer positively and my view is firmly that there isn't any ontological randomness.

Ok, so the weight of Scientific opinion is against determinism. Why do you dissagree.

Furthermore, you can find many arguments that while granting the particular interpretation of QM with micro-indeterminism, do not grant that it amplifies to the macro level (read neurons) thus making the discussion of QM irrelevant.

The point about Quantom Theory is that it demonstrates that Physics generally does not actually support a deterministic worldview, as was previously claimed. Ultimately we know very little about how the universe works, we just have a lot of theories that fit the (very limited) data.

[Reenk Roink]

Ok, so the weight of Scientific opinion is against determinism. Why do you dissagree.

Non-deterministic interpretations of QM don't feel right at all. As I mentioned in that post, there are other interpretations that do support determinism. (Furthermore it has yet to be shown that any kind of indeterminism is distinguishable from determinism at anything above the Quantum level).

TS: yes

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You misunderstand, I merely meant that random chance is a pre-requisite, i.e. that without a random element in the universe that Free Will would be impossible, the idea can't even get off the ground.

Yes, but I don't see the point in saying that because

1) The are conceptions of free will compatible with determinism
2) randomness is not control

The point about Quantom Theory is that it demonstrates that Physics generally does not actually support a deterministic worldview, as was previously claimed. Ultimately we know very little about how the universe works, we just have a lot of theories that fit the (very limited) data.

Generally, newtonian physics works on the large scale, but not on the micro scale. It seems reasonable to say that determinism is accurate on the large scale.

[The Stranger]

I think you misunderstood what I mean and it's my bad for using naive as the adjective. It still fits, but the better word would be a simple non determinism (a la Lucretius). Human actions aren't caused or influenced by anything, including "rational" considerations. I was just answering your question.

Of course, one could then argue that this kind of model doesn't allow for free will either, as their is no choice anyway (it is 'random' for lack of a better term).

--

God.
.

i already though so. no worries.

anyhow, if god determined everything, than he is the cause of human actions right?