Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will: an illusion
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 106 of 309 (321985)
06-15-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by PurpleYouko
06-15-2006 4:19 PM


I was just threading water until you got here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-15-2006 4:19 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 107 of 309 (322001)
06-15-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Heathen
06-15-2006 2:28 PM


ride safe
Chicken strips on the Fazers back tyre down to about 8mm wide at this point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 2:28 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 6:02 PM iano has replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 108 of 309 (322002)
06-15-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by iano
06-15-2006 6:00 PM


8mm??? aren't you turning corners at all? :b

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 6:00 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 7:05 PM Heathen has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 109 of 309 (322012)
06-15-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by PurpleYouko
06-15-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Absolutely right
Now you are getting it. If we don't have free will (As implied by the existence of an omniscient God) then we are nothing more than characters in a great big book.
And the characters will arrive at whatever conclusions the story dictates. If they 'think', that is because the story says they think. They don't actually. No more that the characters in the novel you are reading at the moment 'think'. If they arrive at the 'conclusion' that the universe is indeterministic then that doesn't mean it is. They arrived there because the story says they would arrive there. If they 'suggest' that God could have made them possess virtual free-will by means of quantum indeterminism then that too is inevitable in the story. It doesn't mean that is the case. It would mean I am writing this because the story says I do and you will respond because the story says so too.
A very intricately woven story, but a story all the same.
Discussion is pointless because there is no such thing as discussion. And my halting the discussion with you now until such time as you figure a way out of this dilema is part of that story.
(Hint: free will!)
{ABE} have a read of the post below to Crevo. It shows one way out of this dilema. I don't suspect there are any others
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-15-2006 3:50 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-16-2006 8:42 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 110 of 309 (322024)
06-15-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Heathen
06-15-2006 6:02 PM


Suspending Disbelief
8mm??? aren't you turning corners at all? :b
The Fazer thou isn't like the 6. Its a heavy beast and holds its weight up high too. You get the sense that it stepping out will be a less-than-recoverable affair - not like the lightweight kid brother.
Not that it matters much. It pulls so strong everywhere in the rev range you don't have to hockey it around corners to keep up.
Any resolution of the dilema?
Although you might see all your points in the OP as of equal merit, this is not the case. Certain assumptions must be made to understand what free will is and the boundaries and contraints it is under. This involves the principle of 'suspending disbelief'
Say someone who was an unbeliever wanted to find out about what the Gospel of John was saying about Jesus. An unbelieving theologian for example. What he would do is 'suspend disbelief' and work through what was being said. What he wouldn't do is pause at Jesus' first miracle and say "miracles are impossible" and walk away. He would assume miracles are possible and would progress on to find out what purpose the miracle had in the jigsaw picture he was trying to build up. As soon as he finishes his study, he reverts to normal, turns off the "suspend disbelief" and goes and watches the footie
Similarily one must make certain assumptions in order to progress here. You easily accept that suspending disbelief for the duration of our 'study' involves accepting that a creator God exists. If you are discussing with a person of my persuasion and want to find out about my view then you need to suspend disbelief and accept that God to be all knowing - which you seem to have done.
And, as our current impasse indicates you must also accept that his all knowing doesn't mean your free will is an illusion. For if you don't accept that, but accept the other two then we hit an impasse where were God exists, is all knowing - but we are machines. No further discussion about free will is possible because 'we' don't exist at all to 'discuss'.
This prevents discussion about the boundaries in which free will operates and the influences free will is under - the issues which might have some relevance to your OP questions 2) and 3)
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

NB: I'm responding only to Crevo and PY in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 6:02 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Asgara, posted 06-15-2006 7:32 PM iano has replied
 Message 113 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 8:59 PM iano has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 111 of 309 (322032)
06-15-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
06-15-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Suspending Disbelief
So, one must accept that you are right in order to see if you are right?
The existance of freewill with your omniscient god IS the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 7:05 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 7:52 PM Asgara has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 112 of 309 (322037)
06-15-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Asgara
06-15-2006 7:32 PM


Re: Suspending Disbelief
Hi Asgara
Seeing as you birthed me here, I will break with the message in the signature of my last couple of posts (pre-arranged with Crevo and PY)
The dilema goes like this.
If an all knowing God means free will is an illusion then we are simply created biological machines. We don't have "thoughts" because machines don't think - they just follow the programee of their designer. They can't 'discuss' anymore that they can 'think' Discussion can't occur if Crevos first OP point is the case. It must cease
In order to a have any chance to deal with his second and third points, this first, like the assumption that God exists (for the purposes of discussion) must be...well..assumed.
That's all I'll write to you in this thread Asgara. Back to Crevo and PY who face the same dilema. But if you want to write something that will help them out then they are free to use your ideas

NB: I'M RESPONDING TO ONLY CREVO AND PY IN THIS THREAD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Asgara, posted 06-15-2006 7:32 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Asgara, posted 06-15-2006 9:00 PM iano has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 113 of 309 (322046)
06-15-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by iano
06-15-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Suspending Disbelief
Iano writes:
Similarily one must make certain assumptions in order to progress here. You easily accept that suspending disbelief for the duration of our 'study' involves accepting that a creator God exists. If you are discussing with a person of my persuasion and want to find out about my view then you need to suspend disbelief and accept that God to be all knowing - which you seem to have done.
Yes, I am trying to point out that an all knowing God, as per your belief, negates the possibility of free will in any real sense.
iano writes:
And, as our current impasse indicates you must also accept that his all knowing doesn't mean your free will is an illusion. For if you don't accept that, but accept the other two then we hit an impasse where were God exists, is all knowing - but we are machines. No further discussion about free will is possible because 'we' don't exist at all to 'discuss'.
The first issue (free will being an illusion) makes the other two moot points. but the points can be treated seperately and in isolation, by making the correct assumptions for the purpose of that discussion.
for instance
Creavolution writes:
2) Without the relevant information to make an informed choice our 'Free will' is not free at all.
the point here is what choice do we really have if we do not know what we are really choosing between? This can be treated separately from point 1.
and
Creavolution writes:
3) Without the ability to even discern what information is correct (due to our 'fallen state'), free will is irrelevant, pointless, wasted. and point 2 doesn't even come into play.
the point here is that according to your world view we simply do not even have the ability to choose what is right and what is wrong, what to believe and not what to believe.
the three points combine to present a situation where:
a)any free will is an illusion, although decisions are made the outcome is fixed and foreknown. there is no other option
b)The information is insufficient to make an informed decision.
c)Further We do not even have the ability to make such a decision, regardless of the information presented.
you can treat the points as interdependant (each being necessary but not suffiecient) if you like, but this is not necessary. nor intended to be so.
It would be better if you addressed each of the points indvidually, they are standalone points in themselves and should be treated as such.
I will concede that point 2 has weakened. I think sour said
Sour writes:
We make choices based on incomplete information all the time.
and I can't disagree with that.
However is seems unfair for God to require us to make a decision (whether to reject him or not) based on incomplete information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 7:05 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 9:34 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 122 by iano, posted 06-16-2006 7:57 AM Heathen has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 114 of 309 (322047)
06-15-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by iano
06-15-2006 7:52 PM


Re: Suspending Disbelief
For the purpose of this thread I am assuming god's existance. The other two assumptions that you want everyone to accept are the basis for the thread.
You are assuming an all knowing god. I am the first to say that if your god is not omniscient then I have no real problem with you postulating freewill.
We are saying the two assumptions are mutually exclusive, you are saying you need to accept both assumptions to see that they are correct. No one is going to accept that you are correct so we can see that you are correct LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 7:52 PM iano has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 115 of 309 (322056)
06-15-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
06-15-2006 9:49 AM


Re: Topic = Freewill
So you would also conclude that a universe that allows closed-timelike-curves (backwards time-travel) also removes the possibility of free-will, as it would obviously introduce foreknowledge?
I'm not even sure such kind of universe is even possible (I know you are the specialist here, but if feels like there might be to many boundary conditions to meet and not enought freedom to meet them) But the point here is that god is supposed to be our creator, and a creator with foresight leaves no room for free will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2006 9:49 AM cavediver has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 116 of 309 (322060)
06-15-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Heathen
06-15-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Suspending Disbelief
I'll come back to this tomorrow Crevo. Its late here. But there will be a way to progress I think. Nice post on first reading

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 8:59 PM Heathen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by rgb, posted 06-15-2006 10:34 PM iano has not replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 117 of 309 (322066)
06-15-2006 10:10 PM


straw man has no clothes
Hi again. I'm not sure I should be posting here, the special affectations being displayed made me think at first that this was in the new (to me) "showcase" forum.
But, I am intimately familiar with the theological answer to this quandary and I would like to see the bright minds here arguing that rather than the oatmeal passing for divinity studies that I have read so far. So I'm going to try to explain it, that doesn't mean that I am asserting it myself or will make any effort to defend it.
The main problem with reconciling free will and omniscience is the time aspect. So let's just drop that dimension altogether for a moment and see if any of our logic holds up. Let's assume that we can create entities that have something like "free will" or indeterminacy here in normal space and then observe their activities. This is a terribly oversimplified version of what particle physicists seem to be doing every day.
But rather than starting a reaction that may or may not wipe out new mexico or kill some poor animal in a box, let's just make little robots with a bit of radium in them and a computer dealie that uses the random radio noise it produces to "decide" how they move about. They walk a bit, turn left or right, walk a bit more, turn again. We aren't going to interfere with them either, we are going to just sit back and watch. Because we have made the decision process indeterminate, we cannot predict from the first conditions where they will be at when the radium runs out. Good so far?
We can, however, observe their actions. We can eventually SEE what the outcome is. Our ability to know the final outcome, as it happens, does not in any way prevent them from making whichever turns they make and certainly does not mean we somehow are forcing them to end up where they are. Their "free will" or more properly indeterminacy is not interfered with by our observation, and it is NOT our fault if some of them end up on one side of the room rather than the other.
Too much science still? Ok fine. Let's say you have free will, and jump off a building. I see you do it, and I don't interfere. My interference would mess up your free will, my observation doesn't. Is this quite clear?
Now, let's postulate a being that can see not just the present, but the future, the entirety of the spacetime continuum at once, or something like that. This being values free will and doesn't interfere with people's decisions. The outcome of those decisions are "already" known, but there is no reason that that knowing would constitute interference just because it includes one more dimension than the previous examples. The reason we tend to think it somehow does make a difference is because we don't really value free will (in others) and we WOULD interfere.
Too much theology? Fine, let's throw Nostradamus in there. Not the real guy either, who is debunkable, just a theoretical someone who does know the future and is careful not to (or unable to) interfere in its process. This psychic or prophetic person, let's say they see visions that show what the outcome of everyone's perfectly free decisions will have turned out to be. They don't talk about them though, at least not clearly, it is only after the fact that we can see that they "knew" or "were right" about the future. These visions they see, don't prevent us from having free will. Anyone still here?
Now let's add omnipotence, this is the actual real kicker, not omniscience at all. When I'm watching you jump off a building, from down below, I can't really do crap about it. If I'm right behind you, I might be able to grab you and stop you, I might not. But if I'm your omnipotent creator and already know you are going to make the plunge, and could reach out and make you fly instead, or change the past or create you differently or make sure you take your meds or whatever intervention might be suitable, and I don't, then I either a) value free will more than your safety for some reason or else b) don't really exist.
Credit to C S Lewis for pushing "a" over "b".

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Heathen, posted 06-16-2006 12:17 AM Iblis has replied
 Message 125 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-16-2006 9:33 AM Iblis has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 309 (322069)
06-15-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by iano
06-15-2006 9:34 PM


Re: Suspending Disbelief
Iano, do you practice being vague? Most of your posts at best give hints of what you want us to think your stance is, but as soon as someone tries to reiterate what he thinks you want us to think what you think, you simply say that that's not what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 9:34 PM iano has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 119 of 309 (322082)
06-16-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Iblis
06-15-2006 10:10 PM


Re: straw man has no clothes
iblis writes:
Our ability to know the final outcome, as it happens, does not in any way prevent them from making whichever turns they make and certainly does not mean we somehow are forcing them to end up where they are
No.. but how is it free will if you already know hwere they will end up?
sure.. they have the feeling of free will.. they are making choices, but their choices are a result of how you (their creator) has made them. You know where they will end up, there will be only one outcome. there is no free will.
I am not saying that foreknowledge = interference, I am saying that foreknowledge means free will does not exist in any real sense.
Iblis writes:
The outcome of those decisions are "already" known, but there is no reason that that knowing would constitute interference
again I am not saying that foreknowledge = interference, merely that it negates free will. Free will cannot exist when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Iblis writes:
But if I'm your omnipotent creator and already know you are going to make the plunge, and could reach out and make you fly instead, or change the past or create you differently or make sure you take your meds or whatever intervention might be suitable, and I don't, then I either a) value free will more than your safety for some reason or else b) don't really exist.
If you are the omnipotent creator, you created me knowing that at some point I would commit suicide, thereby damning my self to hell.
from the moment I was born you knew I would commit suicide. you knew I would not make the decision not to commit suicide. the only outcome from this sorry affair is that I would commit suicide.
In what sense did I have free will in this situation. I could not have chosen to live, because that was not the outcome foreknown by you.. my omnipotent creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Iblis, posted 06-15-2006 10:10 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Iblis, posted 06-16-2006 12:44 AM Heathen has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 120 of 309 (322089)
06-16-2006 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Heathen
06-16-2006 12:17 AM


Re: straw man has no clothes
If I don't know what you are going to do until you do it, then I watch you do it, then I know, free will is still a perfectly viable concept. Right?
My seeing you do it doesn't negate your free will in real time, is that not correct? Me closing my eyes and not watching you do it, doesn't make your will any more free, and my observation of your actions in real time doesn't make you any less free. If we can't agree on this part then I'm not sure I've understood your argument correctly.
Perhaps you just quoted the wrong part of my argument for your first point? I do NOT know what my little robots are going to do until they do it, that's the whole point of using the radioactive material as a randomizer. I do NOT know you are going to jump out the window until you jump, then I watch you do it. My observation in these cases does not negate your free will or the little bots' indeterminacy.
Or are you saying that simply being able to watch something happen, as it happens, is in fact proof that free will does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Heathen, posted 06-16-2006 12:17 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Heathen, posted 06-16-2006 10:37 AM Iblis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024