|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: FREE WILL....... or is it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
How can you proove that you have free will?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: I think the problem is (as usual) definitional. I haven't seen a concise definition of free will (maybe someone can provide one?) but my own understanding is along the lines of "the ability to have acted differently", to plagiarise Hume. Obviously, if the oracle were 100%, you'd never have had the ability to have acted differently - it was ordained in the moment the oracle wrote her prediction - so no free will. Your notion of free will seems to me to be a common sense notion of "the ability to choose between options laid out in front of me". In this sense, it seems obvious that humans and animals have free will. But thats not the point. The point is whether we can have free will if something knows everything we're going to do with perfect accuracy. Consider the magician's trick of forcing you to choose a card - did you have free will in that choice? Or did the magician force you to choose that card? If you think you exercised choice and free will in selecting the card (it just so happened that it was always the one the magician wanted you to pick), then whats the difference between this and saying that a rock dropped from a cliff has free will in deciding whether it wants to fall or not (it just so happens to decide to fall every time)? For the 100% oracle, our actions are like that of the rock dropping, completely and utterly predictable(!) - only more so. PE PS Incidentally, this argument can be applied to (an interventionist) God himself - if God is truly ominscient He "knows" what He himself will do in advance. So does God have free will?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
Thanx for your reply Primordial, it did help to shed some light on your position for me.
If I could just say something about your magician analogy. The magician is trying to interfere with which card you pick, not simply holding the deck out for you to choose. It doesn't seem to me that God is trying to trick us or fool us into picking any one card. So we choose what we choose, even if he knows what card you will choose, it was still your choice. God lays out choice A and choice B, then he allows us to choose. What he knows, does not have an impact on what I choose. ------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chavalon Inactive Member |
What he knows, does not have an impact on what I choose.
Er... yes it does. If he *already* knows *infallibly*, then your impression of having free will is an illusion. As John said, either free will exists or infallible foreknowledge does, or neither, but *not* both. A formal proof of which can be found athttp://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php?s=591cd7c52ac8b95... Suppose God knows infallibly you will choose A not B. You step up to the plate - "Hmmm...shall I have A or B? How about B" Well, you just proved God wrong, didn't you? *If* that's impossible, then you have in reality only 1 choice, and any impression to the contrary is misleading. [This message has been edited by Chavalon, 01-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
If I observe a decision being made, then step back
in time and observe it again ... has the free will evaporated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Erm, quantum causality, maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Just trying to call into question the assumption that
perfect knowledge of the future means that the events had to unfold in the way that they did. ... where did I put that cat this time?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
If you perform some action-- say, flip a light switch-- then step back in time to observe it, you aren't observing the same event. There is an extra character in the play-- the future you who has traveled to the past. Unless, of course, you were there watching the first time you flipped the switch but then you will caught in an endless loop of watching-switch-flipping. Have fun
Did free will evaporate? In the first case you aren't observing the same event so assuming that free will was there to start with, it ought to still be there. In the second case, due to the loop of time that must be infinite free will neve could have been there. Hope this helps ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chavalon Inactive Member |
The proof in the link I referenced in my previous post shows that free will and infallible foreknowledge are logically incompatible, regardless of the mechanism by which the infallible foreknowledge occurs, be it magic, existence out of time, or whatever.
...the events had to unfold in the way that they did.
That's the definition of infallible. We can only define infallibility with respect to the time that we experience. There is no way to access or know about other timelines. [This message has been edited by Chavalon, 01-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Pardon my interjecting myself in your ongoing debate, but something doesn't smell right in all this.
While at UT-Austin working on a BA in psychology, many years ago, I took a course within the philosophy department entitled "Logic: Classic Syllogism." This very topic was one of our discussion pieces and, as I recall, the Prof.'s conclussion was that it was all pointless because one of the major points was unproovable in the first place, i.e. inerrant foreknowledge, and the second was overly clouded by external influences to really be established, i.e. free will. I don't remember all of the presentation, but his conclusion I do: Just because I know my wife will select the BMW, given the option between that and CapitalMetro, does not mean she hasn't chosen for herself. (BTW, the study of Logic is often one of showing the invalidating error in an otherwise sound looking arguement. I'm not quite sure of the error in the cited refutation, but something seems faulty. I wonder if I have the old text lying around...) Thanks,-Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: There is a problem with the premises in that they are not verifiable. That doesn't mean that something is wrong with the argument. Logically, the truth or falsity of the premises is irrelevant, though practically, bad premises means the argument is inapplicable and so pretty much meaningless. Logic deals with a simple if/then equation-- If (whatever the premises are) then (does the conclusion follow). The debate over free-will and omniscience/infallibility is mostly theological. Christian theology, for the most part, claims all three-- omniscience of God, the infallibility of God, and the existence of free-will. Well, assuming those three premises, a contradiction emerges. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chavalon Inactive Member |
Hi shilohproject-
This very topic was one of our discussion pieces and, as I recall, the Prof.'s conclussion was that it was all pointless because one of the major points was unproovable in the first place, i.e. inerrant foreknowledge, and the second was overly clouded by external influences to really be established, i.e. free will. I'm sure your prof. knows better than me, but anyway I agree. The argument I'm using does not assume either free will or infallible foreknowledge. In fact its author (who is a logician) regards both as unprovable in priciple. Either *or neither* may be true - we don't have any known way to settle that point - but it can be said that it is logically impossible for both to be the case. [This message has been edited by Chavalon, 01-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Hey folks,
Logic is simply the mathematics of thought. It is an effort to quantify concepts so as to allow measurement of validity. I have now read over the cited piece several times, and it still fails for me. I am not sure where the failing is, but the fact that is appears well constructed is not compelling. I see no real relationship between knowing and influencing or requiring. Furthermore, we all know how to play with figures and concepts. I for one can provide any number of "impossible" proofs. See the following: a=ba*a=ab (a*a)-(b*b)=ab-(b*b) (a+b)(a-b)=b*(a-b) a+b=b 2a=a 2=1 We all ought to know that this is pure nonsense, in spite of how legitimate it looks. Same with this so-called proof for the impossibility of correct foreknowledge and free will. I simply miss how knowing what will happen causes that thing to happen. Okay, on to post 1's other major question. I don't think God creates anyone knowing that they will be a murderer or athiest or whatever, because I don't think God creates people. All living things reproduce. It's no big deal. Imagine a God who stands back and watches it all go down. Knowing how it will all turn out but staying out of it nonetheless. A lot like a dad watching his 132 lb. freshman son go out for the varsity football team, dreaming of playing offensive tackle. Oh well, you don't stop him, but you do keep the medical insurance current. (Please note that I am not your standard, orthodox Christian creationist. In fact the only of these that I am is a Christian. In this case, however, I do not see the problem with the normal position of the Christian faith.) -Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chavalon Inactive Member |
If a=b then a-b=0 thus dividing by a-b gives meaningless results. Neither mathematics nor logic are invalidated by tricks like this.
A lot like a dad watching his 132 lb. freshman son go out for the varsity football team, dreaming of playing offensive tackle. Oh well, you don't stop him, but you do keep the medical insurance current. But if the dad were an omniscient God he would know perfectly well whether that insurance was going to turn out to be necessary or not. Rather that influencing the outcome, it would constrain it. Where is the flaw in Delphi's proof? The argument from incredulity just isn't good enough. For those unable to follow the link, here is the proof:
Free Will vs. Predestination In fairness, however, I will provide a formal presentation of the argument I am making here. I fear this shall be rather lengthy of necessity, as such formal argumentation normally is. (The reasons for the numbering and for the repetitions will become clear in the second half of this post.) 1 1.1 It is possible to know infalliblybeforehand that person A will do X and free will exists. (Hypothesis) 1.21.2.1 It is possible to know infallibly beforehand that Person A will do X and free will exists. (Repetition of hypothesis 1.1) 1.2.2 It is possible to know infalliblybeforehand that person A will do X. (Extraction of first half of hypothesis. If the hypothesis 1.2.1 is true, then this also must be true.) 1.2.3 That which is known infalliblyis true. (Hypothesis, already granted as being true by you.) 1.2.4 It is possible to know infalliblybeforehand that person A will do X and that which is known infallibly is true. (Conjunction of 1.2.2 and 1.2.3) 1.2.5 If it is possible to knowinfallible beforehand that person A will do X and that which is known infallibly is true, then person A will do X. (Logical consequence of 1.2.4.) 1.2.6 Person A will do X.(1.2.4 is true, therefore 1.2.5 must be true, therefore this must be true.) 1.3 Therefore, If it is possible toknow infallibly beforehand that person A will do X and free will exists, then person A will do X. (Conclusion starting with hypothesis 1.1 and proceeding with argument 1.2.) 1.4 Person A will do X.(Given hypothesis 1.1 and conclusion 1.3, this must follow.) 1.5 Free will exists.(Extraction of second half of hypothesis. If the hypothesis 1.2.1 is true, then this also must be true.) 1.61.6.1 Free will exists. (Repetition of 1.5.) 1.6.2 If free will exists thenperson A will do X or it is false that person A will do X. (Definition of free will, law of excluded middle.) 1.6.3 Person A will do X or it isfalse that person A will do X. (1.6.1 specifies the premiss of 1.6.2, therefore the consequence of 1.6.2 must be true.) 1.6.41.6.4.1 Person A will do X or it is false that person A will do X. (Repetition of 1.6.3) 1.6.4.2 It is false that personA will do X. (Hypothesis) 1.6.4.3 Person A will do X(Repetition of 1.4) 1.6.4.4 Person A will do X and it isfalse that person A will do X. (Combination of 1.6.4.3 and 1.6.4.2) This is a contradiction, andso cannot be true. 1.6.5 Therefore, it is false that person Awill do X or it is false that person A will do X. (Since the statement in 1.6.4.1 leads to a contradiction at 1.6.4.4, the statement at 1.6.4.1 must be false.) 1.6.6 Person A will do X or it is false thatperson A will do X and it is false that person A will do X or it is false that person A will do X. (This is the logical combination of 1.6.3 and 1.6.5) This is a contradiction, andso cannot be true. 1.7 Therefore it is false that free will exists.(The hypothesis that free will exists stated in 1.6.1 leads to a contradiction at 1.6.6, and so the hypothesis must be false.) 1.8 Therefore free will exists and it is falsethat free will exists. (Combination of statements at 1.5 and 1.7) This is a contradiction, and so cannot be true.) 2. Therefore, it is false that it is possible toknow infallibly beforehand that person A will do X and free will exists. Under a de Morgan law, this can be shown to be equivalent to stating that, It is false that it is possible to knowinfallibly beforehand that person A will do X or it is false that free will exists. [This message has been edited by Chavalon, 01-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: I agree, and there were several other obvious problems in the "proof" I provided, incl. line 4 where 0=0 if you solve it out. My point is simply this, there are many proofs and rebuttals out there for any position, and logicians make a living refuting one another. It's like someone saying, "Well, my lawyer told me so." The other side has a lawyer, too. So no singular proof does much for me. I mentioned erlier that I could not put my finger on the problem with Delphi's proof, and I am not suggesting otherwise now, but it may have to do with trying to prove an abstract in the same way you would have to prove a concrete. He begins to lose me around 1.6.4.1 and 1.6.4.4. It has been a while since I've worked with this material, so I am admittedly rusty. But something doesn't seem right. (You obviously don't need to accept my input on this.) In the normal/physical world there is only one way for there to be infalible foreknowledge: there can only be one outcome, hence no free will. So I'm not suprised that a basic position like his would work out; I just feel that something is missing.
quote: The question is not whether the dad-god figure is constrained by the knowledge, it's whether the son would be. The son is the one with free will (maybe) that says he should try-out. The dad-god's infallible foreknowledge (maybe/maybe not) leads him to have the insurance. BTW I will try to forward this proof of Delphi's to a prof I know to see what he has to say. He may confirm my suspicians that there's a fault; he may confirm your suggestion that infalibility w/foreknowledge means freewill is illogical. Wouldn't suprise me, really, a lot of what we believe and feel doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems very real though. Try generating a solid proof for thw preference for chocolate ice cream. Thanks,-Shiloh
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024