free will/determinism

[tris-]

do you believe in free will or determinism? is free will just an illusion? can determinism be applied on all scales of the universe? if free will was how the universe worked, how can we predict things on sub atomic scales?
or is free will just a 'concept' that applys to living organisms with the capacity to think?
maybe determinism and free will can work together. for example, genetics determin how a human will develop but what they do in life is determined by their own thoughts.

my stance
personally i am for determinism and against free will. i think free will is an illusion created by the fact that we have the capacity to think conciously. we believe if we do something, its because we decided at that moment that we will do it.

applying determinism
i dont believe in a creator and i dont think outside of before the universe existed - simply because it isnt possible to know anything. the laws we know only apply to our universe and cannot predict what happened before they came into existance.
i think determinism can apply on any scale from universal, to human, to atomic levels. all the while having the same effect. we can predict how a particle will behave in a future event if we put into a formula things about it. in other words they are governed by a law. there is no reason why our actions cannot be governed by a similar law.
im not saying mystic meg is an expert and tarrot cards work, i think they are bull shit. im talking scientifically, it may become possible in the future to work out the law that governs our actions. we could put into a formula information to give an accurate prediction of what will happen.

emotions, responsibility etc
surely if we can have an emotions about something, we can only believe in free will? how can we have responsibility if we say our actions are already determined?
these are common arguments for free will. we cant take responsibility for our actions if we dont control what we do. i can understand what people mean by this.

day to day life​

when i go about my business on a daily basis im taking actions. actions which i think are already determined. in my mind my own internal monologue is not saying "ive just decided to do this". its more a case of looking at my actions from a 3rd person perspective. it is quite difficult to explain, its more like two different states of mind at the same time. im conciously taking in information from the environment, im conciously making actions, at the same time im looking at it from a detached point of view. i believe because i can do this, for me personally ive seen through the illusion of free will.​

emotion​

just because you dont believe in free will it doesnt mean you cant have an emotion. it doesnt mean you think "oh well, it would of happened anyway so who cares". its a response to something thats happened in your life. it doesnt matter if it was going to happen anyway. the emotion i suppose is part of the 3rd person perspective. an action has happened to you, you see it from a 3rd person perspective and have an emotion in response. like watching a story unfold from the outside, you look into it and respond. this is how i see life.​

legal​

so what about the legal side then - we need to be responsible for an action for us to be guilty. to make it easier for me to explain you can look at it a bit like the matrix. theres a blip and something needs to be done about it. our morals and laws are there to control these blips. sadly for an individual their path in life means they are going to commit a crime and the law is there to put a stop to it.​

so there is my opinnions on why i think determinism is how the universe works and that free will is an illusion.

 

[Belgerath]

Its friday, my head is already turned to mash just through working all week.

I'll get back to you on Monday.

Is that me choosing to get back to you on monday or is that already predetermined?

If so why bother replying to the thread, because its already predetermined?

I dunno my head is mash

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm on the fence, really.

Karma, for example, is a valid advocate to pre-determination, in a twisted around kind of way ofcourse. Every action ahs a result that will bite you in the a**, or vice versa.

I believe in the existance of karma, faith, whatever word you wish to use. Though, it doesn't work as miraculously as one might think.

Now then, free will i believe is as possible.

Sure, we can argue that all actions you decide to do, even contemplated things, are pre-determined by previous events etc. But we can't say, that it's not a choice any more then we can say it IS a choice.

Ofcourse action/reaction thing can't be disbuted, but then we come to events that have no reaction.

For example; One single thought, during the day, which is then promptly forgotten.

One could argue that "it does have an effect! Just so miniscule that you don't notice.", but it would be splitting hairs really.

But the one thing,as mentioned on previous thread, that strikes a big pole into the arse of pre-determination theory is that if all is simple reaction to actions, there has to be a start for it all somewhere, and THAT single event, decision, happening, whatever...has to be non-pre-determined as it's the beginning.

 

[tris-]

the event for my view of determinism is the start of the universe. as its my opinnion the same rule applys from the universe right down to us.

belgereth, the way you are looking it is a common way for people to go wrong in trying to understand the concept of determinism.

 

[russell]

Ive been waiting for this thread

 

[Belgerath]

the event for my view of determinism is the start of the universe. as its my opinnion the same rule applys from the universe right down to us.

belgereth, the way you are looking it is a common way for people to go wrong in trying to understand the concept of determinism.

Truthfully i haven't put any though into it.

My head is so in the shit going on in work I doubt i would be able to contribute anything constructive today.

 

[tris-]

id say its not something that you can just suddenly think or understand over night to be fair.
its taken me about 4-5 years to fully understand and develop my own views on the subject.

 

[old.Tohtori]

the event for my view of determinism is the start of the universe. as its my opinnion the same rule applys from the universe right down to us.

And there comes the question; what started it?

If all things are simple continuations of the initial push, what was the initial push? Surely there has to be one for the theory to hold ground.

I think, not perfected the thought process so, bear(roar) with me;

That every action has a re-action, as stated by "pre-defined", but each action is initiated, pushed to motion if you will, by a choice to start the chain.

Same applies to stopping a chain without giving an action a re-action.

 

[tris-]

i dont know. as i said i dont think whats outside of the universe because our laws canont apply to it. its impossible to ever know what started the universe off for that same reason.
i dont think you need to know what started the universe to say that current events are determined. for example -

youre stood on your own in a room in complete darkness. at the same time; lights come on and a ball is bouncing around the room.
you dont need to know how the ball go into there to know that a)its there and b)the way it bounces is determined by what ever put it in there and the manner in which it was put there.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're missing the point.

If all is determined, there has to be an initial start to it all, and as such, all things can't be determined as a pre-determined action can't start the whole chain of pre-determination.

You could say that at current state, things have gone so far along the chain that things have become possible to pre-determine. But one can't say in ultimatum.

"youre stood on your own in a room in complete darkness. at the same time; lights come on and a ball is bouncing around the room.
you dont need to know how the ball go into there to know that a)its there and b)the way it bounces is determined by what ever put it in there and the manner in which it was put there."

But that doesn't prove at all that it's pre-determined. Ofcourse actions, such as "ball being set to motion", has a re-action "ball is in motion", but the reason why the ball was initially set to motion, isn't pre-determined.

To put it in simple terms; simply saying "because things are like this" isn't a valid argument for your theory.

 

[Belgerath]

One thing we can be sure off though!

If your all alone in a dark room chances are you should of stayed there if your thinking about this

 

[tris-]

i dont understand why the initial beginning of the universe needs to be determined, for subsequent events to be determined.
i believe in the big bang and i believe at that moment everything then on was determined by the laws it created.
how the big bang happend or what started it cant be taken into consideration when talking about the laws of the universe.
this is actually stephen hawking's views on it, i just agree with him.
as far as we are concerned, nothing existed untill the moment of the big bang. so our laws cannot apply to anything outside ofit.

To put it in simple terms; simply saying "because things are like this" isn't a valid argument for your theory.

i dont believe i said that.

maybe we are looking at this differently. im not just talking about a human level. im talking about applying theories of the universe to all scales.

 

[Overdriven]

For example; One single thought, during the day, which is then promptly forgotten.

Have you ever had that, then have that issue bite? Several times for me. Allways think something, forget it, then have it come up sooner or later and I end up remembering what it was.

Not exactly pre-determination, but is pretty bizzare.

 

[Chronictank]

i believe everything is pre-determined, but i also believe we have free will

It may already be decided what happens, but you are the one that made the decision in that instance along the time line. Surely if this is the case (as i believe it is) free will is not and illusion at all because in that instance of time you are making the decision regardless whether it was made already?

As such you are accountable for that decision, regardless if it has been pre-destined to happen that way, i have never really understood this argument that if it is pre-determined then you aren't accountable because when all is said and done it was still your decisions which lead to the event

edit: i may very well have read what you wrote wrong as i am reading it quickly, but are you suggesting we aren't presented with choices because the decision has already been made? as such you arent accountable?
But then who made the decision on your behalf?

 

[old.Tohtori]

i dont understand why the initial beginning of the universe needs to be determined,

i dont believe i said that.

maybe we are looking at this differently. im not just talking about a human level. im talking about applying theories of the universe to all scales.

You did actually, "who needs to know how the ball got there". For the theory to hold water or ground or stnd on a pegleg, you need to cover it.

And one aprt is the beginning.

I'm also talking about VERY universal scale of it all.

Two questions:

Does determination mean all things are pre-determined?

Doesn't this contradict with the fact that there is always a beginning?

And actually you're the one who IS talking about human level, i'm talking about bigger issues and questions. You have to accept these need to be answered, or simply admit that it's not a solid theory any more then free will.

OD; yes, there's those moments, but there's other moments that have absolutely no effect at all and are sparked by absolutely nothing also.

Too little proof, too much unanswered questions, for either side of the discussion to be proven anywhere near an accepted level.

Hell, there's more proof about god then determination.

 

[tris-]

on a related note there is something else i always wondered. only thing is my usual partner in these discussions refused to get into it. apparently it would make him question his whole existance. it is on the subject of memories.

for example when you were 5 years old you have a memory of eating an icecream in the garden. 20 years later you have no proof that ever happened. you talk to your mother and apparently she remembers it too. my problem here is if there is no proof it happened how can anyone be sure? perhaps when youve told someone, their mind has simply made them believe it was the case. i guess a lot of people dont want to doubt what they think theyve experienced though.

 

[tris-]

You did actually, "who needs to know how the ball got there". For the theory to hold water or ground or stnd on a pegleg, you need to cover it.

stephen hawking is infinatley more intelligent than the both of us and more knowledgable to come to an opinnion. his opinnion is that anything we experience in this universe should not take into consideration anything before the instant of the big bang. the basis for this is that the laws of our universe cannot apply to anything BUT our universe. and its not possible to understand laws that do not exist in this universe.
you can probably find more information about his view on the internet. i dont understand it enough to try fully explain it someone else but i understand it enough to form opinnions for my self.
if its good enough for him to think then i reckon its acceptable that i can use it as a basis for my own thoughts.

by the way, this thread is not about trying to prove anything. simply a discussion for people to give their views and the basis for their views. there is no way any of us here can prove the existance of anything. but its acceptable to discuss why we think certain things.

 

[old.Tohtori]

About things happening or not; in your theory, ofcourse they did. If you believe it's a chain, then those events must come true before this moment does.

About mr Hawking, he's more intelligent in some sense, but it doesn't make him right. I can question it, and as a basis of discussion, i should. I question your theory as a whole, as it's an ultimatum. Not to mention, hawking isn't better, he' just learned more in a particular subject.

"Things happen as they would on a chain", is alright and dandy, unless we go to the very beginning of everything. Then it's blown right out of the sky.

You think i'm questioning if this should be applied to previous things, i'm not, i'm questioning the validation of the ultimatum you present.

Everything has a start, and an end. That's a fact.

You can argue that the end result is pre-determined, and that our actions lead to an end, but there's no proof at all that our actions in between are chosen or pre-determined.

Oh and i would question hawkings on the ultimatum of "the laws of our universe cannot apply to anything BUT our universe.", as it very well might be a possibility that our laws do effect other universes.

Also would like to say i'm not trying to disprove your theory, i'm asking for definitions as you surely should have some after 4-5 years. And if not, it should help you define think about it more and from different views.

 

[fettoken]

Maybe everything we see is just a simulation, for commercial purpouse.

Step up mister, and try out our all new Life Sim unit 5000! It will only take you an hour to experience a lifetime.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Maybe everything we see is just a simulation, for commercial purpouse.

Step up mister, and try out our all new Life Sim unit 5000! It will only take you an hour to experience a lifetime.

I've actually had a thought process in a similar manner:

We are ultimate beings, more so then humans atleast.

We still have crime.

When we do crime, we get sentenced to this "body". Limited, weak, useless.

Memory of our true self is hidden.

When our time is up, we die, and the sentence ends.

We then remember how horrible the life as a human was, compared to our superiority, and think twice before committing crime again

 

[tris-]

yes the start of the universe was the big bang and then end should be the the collapse of the universe.
i still canot understand how the the process of the universe starting has any affect.

on my own personal view of detrerminism, how the universe started has no impact on it.
maybe for yours it does, but i really dont understand how. not that i dont want to, i just odnt understand it.

i know there is no proof, there is no proof that free will exists and there is no proof the universe is determined. thats why its very plausible to make my own idea (read: beliefe) and decide what does or doesnt fit my idea, taking into account what experts in the field think about the same thing.

now if we were working with facts, it wouldnt be right to decide what does or does not fit. im working only on my own belief and for me, what was around before the big bang doesnt count into it. the universe as i know it started at the big bang and all the laws were created at that point. my ideas are not trying to extend to before the universe existed. im only interested in what is here now and thats all im willing to work with.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok, i guess it's just a hard thing to ask.

I'm not questioning the things before this universe, or the basic working of determination.

I'm questioning the logical contradiction of all things being pre-determined, when it must have started somewhere.

As in, how can all be pre-determined, if the beginning wasn't?


But, maybe if you don't want/need to talk about that, easier thing to ask is; that if all things have a start and an end, what makes the "big bang" and "big collapse" the definitive start and end of things?

Couldn't it be that we have smaller determined events in rapid succession?

And as such, couldn't it be that we have free will to start smaller determinations? Meaning that determination is real, just a smaller scale.

 

[Azurus]

yes the start of the universe was the big bang and then end should be the the collapse of the universe.
i still canot understand how the the process of the universe starting has any affect.

Time is not linear.

 

[tris-]

Time is not linear.

time is a concept created by man to catagorise when things happened.
im not sure what that has to do with anything though.

 

[tris-]

As in, how can all be pre-determined, if the beginning wasn't?

theres no way to know if that is the case or not. so to make it easier, you dont look at what was there before, just what is here now and work with it.
im still not entirely sure what youre trying to explain to me im afraid.

could you possibly put into an example i can relate to something thats everyday?

 

[liloe]

I think what a lot of people here mean is the theory, that you can calculate life if you know all the formulas, like you can calculate the time it takes an object to drop, if you know all the parameters and all the formulas.

The theory itself sounds very nice and such, but no matter what, when you ask about determinism/free will, it comes down to "origin".

If you say determinism without any form of supreme being, then everything in life is nothing more than a chain of actions. You do X cause you've done Y cause you've done Z and so on, starting with your birth (which was ofc just a keypoint in your mother's chain of action). This brings us to the origin of everything. As we all know, you cannot create matter, so to get something, even if it's the Big Bang, you need at least something else first … but where did that come from?

Determinism with a supreme being takes that problem away, but due to the nature of determinism, that one supreme being is the cause of everything. In other words, it's quite a badass figure who loves so see people kill, rape, fight etc.

Free will without any form of supreme being is nearly the same as with determinism, just that you have the additional problem of needing something that explains the origins of every thought you have. If a thought is nothing more than the result of a formula with different parameters, then it's easier, but what if there is a free will. Then that free will must somehow stand above the laws of physics and it must even be able to influence the law of physics because one thing cannot be denied, our brain is an electro-chemical unit.

Free will with a supreme being is about the same as determinism with a supreme being, with the difference that this supreme being leaves everyone to their decisions, which means everyone is responsible for their own actions.

--------------------

Well, that's how I see it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

theres no way to know if that is the case or not. so to make it easier, you dont look at what was there before, just what is here now and work with it.
im still not entirely sure what youre trying to explain to me im afraid.

could you possibly put into an example i can relate to something thats everyday?

Yeah it's a really hard thing to explain something that's so clear to yourself, 'cause it's clear to you

I'll try though, but a real life variant isn't...easy...

We assume here that you are right, and all are pre-determined:

A ball is bouncing up and down. People know this. People say that the ball has been bouncing always because it's pre-determined that the ball is bouncing.

Ok.

Now, people also say that everything is pre-determined. Ball bouncing and all around it. All because the ball is bouncing.

Fair enough.

Now someone asks the difficult question; Did the ball just start bouncing, as pre-determined, or did someone, at the very beginning, drop the ball?

If it's pre-determined, ok. The ball just started bouncing.
If it's not, everything can't be pre-determined, but are the effects of the initial drop of the ball.

This would mean that yes, we are living in the after effects and just go with the flow, but it's simply such a massive chosen event(dropping the ball), that we simply can't wrap our minds around it.

This would mean, that there is both, pre-determined and choices, but the choices are in a much larger scale.

And, like i said in previous post, this would have to lead us to consider the fact that these kind of event chains are smaller too. If they are small, then pre-determination is true, but so is the free will to start them.

In conclusion, i think, things are pre-determined, but it's a free will choice to start the chains of pre-determination.

EDIT: Just realised i doubt i helped explaining it at all

 

[Belgerath]

Yeah it's a really hard thing to explain something that's so clear to yourself, 'cause it's clear to you

I'll try though, but a real life variant isn't...easy...

We assume here that you are right, and all are pre-determined:

A ball is bouncing up and down. People know this. People say that the ball has been bouncing always because it's pre-determined that the ball is bouncing.

Ok.

Now, people also say that everything is pre-determined. Ball bouncing and all around it. All because the ball is bouncing.

Fair enough.

Now someone asks the difficult question; Did the ball just start bouncing, as pre-determined, or did someone, at the very beginning, drop the ball?

If it's pre-determined, ok. The ball just started bouncing.
If it's not, everything can't be pre-determined, but are the effects of the initial drop of the ball.

This would mean that yes, we are living in the after effects and just go with the flow, but it's simply such a massive chosen event(dropping the ball), that we simply can't wrap our minds around it.

This would mean, that there is both, pre-determined and choices, but the choices are in a much larger scale.

And, like i said in previous post, this would have to lead us to consider the fact that these kind of event chains are smaller too. If they are small, then pre-determination is true, but so is the free will to start them.

In conclusion, i think, things are pre-determined, but it's a free will choice to start the chains of pre-determination.

EDIT: Just realised i doubt i helped explaining it at all

No but you helped confusing me lmao

 

[tris-]

i understand what you mean now and id say i dont agree. for my belief it doesnt matter what caused the universe to come into existance. whats matters for me is it now exists at all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

i understand what you mean now and id say i dont agree. for my belief it doesnt matter what caused the universe to come into existance. whats matters for me is it now exists at all.

That's fair enough, and i did just mean it as a "point worth considering", not as a "you blasphemer!" kind of thing

Might be 'cause i'm more interested i the origin and you're more interested in the current.