Determinism? Free will?

Post Reply New Topic

Four years ago I did this little thought experiment. Let's suppose that, right now, a completely perfect copy of our universe, down to the last atom, was created in an alternate dimension or whatever. If we let 10 seconds pass, would the two universes be the same, or would there be differences between them? A thread around here recently sparked my attention on this issue, so taking it further, how much are we truly in charge of our actions, isn't what we decide to do or not to do ultimately a consequence of all the experiences we've had before, the genes we've been born with, and in general the way the universe has shaped us? I remember one book giving an example; if we'd been born like Steve, had been named Steve, with the body and brain of Steve, everything like him, we'd probably be in the same place Steve is now.

What's your opinion, and what do you make out of it?

IMO, it is best to assume that most events are a result of free will. That way, one might make more responsible choices. Objectively, however, there is a constellation of factors that impact everything we do.

I'm not sure "free will" is anything more than a normative social construct. It's normally invoked whenever we want to hold someone morally accountable for their actions. Seems fishy to me.

I'd also point out that you can have non-determinism without free will. There's no way to determine whether an apparently random action is "chosen" or "willed". Random action seems almost less free, as it could not have been taken deliberately based on prior information or experience. But to deliberate before making a choice is seen as an exercise of free-will, even though your thought processes based on prior information and genetic programming obviously influenced the decision.

You have a couple of different questions here. The first one is simple enough to answer:
We can't really tell. Even if we don't live in a perfectly deterministic universe, who knows how long it would take for any differences to accumulate. Sure looks close to deterministic though, with the exception of some very small particles that are hard to observe anyway, and tend to average out. But brains are not built like the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment-choices aren't random. I would strongly suspect that if you had ten copies of yourself in the same situation, they'd all make the same decision.
Second question is about nature vs nurture, and can probably be determined more easily. Look up "twin study."

Predetermination is hard to accept. If it existed merchants would be abusing it now to sell more than they could imagine.

It is determined I will have free will.

Brilliant.

There really is no scientific evidence in favor of this assumption. And furthermore, there is increasing evidence against total free will courtesy of modern neurobiology.

What are you talking about? Neuroscience has shown that the configurations of our brains are the major, if not entire determinants of our behavior. However, behaving as if everything is down to free will and choice is the best way to ensure that, given the opportunity, people make the best choice they could possibly make.

That later sentence is an opinion and not a fact, my friend. The facts are what concern me ITT, not anyone's opinions about how people should behave.

Well yes that is an opinion. It's there for discussion. As for the matter of free will, I'm fairly certain that it doesn't exist, the entire point of stating my opinion was to suggest that acting as if it did, however, would likely result in more favorable outcomes for people, but we'd have to conduct a pretty phenomenally-designed sociological or psychological experiment to know that for a fact, so that specific matter is likely to remain an affair of opinions and speculation for a long time until we get some really brilliant social scientists to sort that out.

Indeed, there isn't. There is absolutely no way to prove that free will exists scientifically, because it is beyond the physical reality; technically, neither can free will be disproved, but still, it is not necessary to explain human existence.

However, I agree with nominalist. What is or isn't true, or what is or isn't provable, is not relevant in day-to-day life. It is simply better to assume that human beings decide their behaviour consciously; otherwise, we hit an instant dead-end. (In any case, we most likely can't decide to assume; we just do.)

It is like life in general: human existence doesn't make sense, there is no reason for it, and there is no objectively valuable purpose in this existence; however, absurd though it is, the truth is that we are here, and will be until our death, so it is much better to create ourself some sense and purpose to pass the time.


From my (admittedly poor) understanding of quantum physics, they wouldn't. Even if the element of randomness argued for by modern physicists may have no observable consequence, I believe it would be enough for there to be a great difference in the long run, or even after 10 seconds.

No they couldn't. They're predetermined not to.
Then again, if you're sitting at a PC or Mac, maybe sipping a Coke or a Pepsi, you may want to ask whether they already do... big brand companies are so ubiquitous that our thinking warps around them.

If you're only going down to the atomic level, there probably would be differences very quickly (though ten seconds may not be long enough for differences on a macroscopic level to be obvious). If, on the other hand, you're being figurative and aiming for exact copies, the question becomes meaningless. Of course they'll be the same. If they aren't the same, they aren't exact copies.

Such are the perils of philosophical thought experiments!

Anyone thinking that quantum mechanics will play a part here is misunderstanding what "random" means. Random is a distribution, not a variable. If I roll a dice, the outcome is random - but it's entirely determined. The initial position and the movement of the dice, the interaction with other objects, these produce the outcome. It's random because it is unpredictable, but it was still determined. There is no reason to assume that quantum level events are undetermined. We can't predict them, and they form a random distribution. But undetermined? Not knowing the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause.

So, if we replicate the universe exactly down to the quantum level, odds are that they'll be identical. Unless, of course, there's an even lower level that affects the quantum level... but then we're left wondering what the turtle that the world rests on is standing on. Or is it turtles all the way down?

Here is a thought experiment. Suppose your grandmother acquired a pair of testicles. Would she be your grandfather?

All kidding aside, the underlying laws of physics are probablistic. So a copy of our cosmos would most likely evolved in a different way.

ruveyn

...You should really go over your physics notes again.