Do we have free will?

Post Reply New Topic

Do human beings have free will? Are we merely little ants to be swept away by the impersonal hand of fate? Is our destiny very personal? Or are we free to decide what will and will not happen according to our own ability to choose? If we don't have free will, then can we be held responsible for our actions?

My response to this question is that we don't have free will but can still be held responsible.

How about that we are free to choose, but that our choices are on the timeline.

Curiously, I had some of what could be considered free will or part of it, I had two cd albums to choose to listen, a soundtrack cd or an electronic music cd, well I have chosen the soundtrack for now. Now some could argue that was free will, because I did that on my own, now, the term does apply here, but first, we need to come up with a definition of free will, what really is? and what are the cases the term is used, and how is its validity? or does it have different definitions, depending on the situation and field?

I could say that that would be free will, but as our choices are written in the timeline, was that really destined to be, because we cannot change it? if we tape our choices, we seem to not being able to change what is about to happen, then it will rise the question of it really was free will or an illusion or something else? as it could be seen to someone that that was destined to be, because it is already written.

Can quantum physics explain free will?

Umm..... the issue with that is logical fatalism. If it is going to happen, then an individual cannot choose otherwise. From a theological perspective, which I think you have, if we have a creator who creates this timeline, then the conclusion that he ordained all acts is hard, if not impossible to avoid.

I think some argue it could, others would argue that it would still be a physical process and not do so very much, and some argue that brain functioning is so macro in terms of the physics used that neurons fall under classical physics and thus are deterministic.

That's a common fallacy.
That something is going to happen does not necessarily mean that it is going to happen on its own.
It may be going to happen because the person chose / will choose (depending on your perspective) it to happen. That person making that choice in the present, for instance, would be altering the future with that choice, even though the choice was freely made.

The fallacy comes in when people, when philosophizing about free will, visualize the future as being concrete (which it is once it's happened, but not before), then think, "See? I HAVE to make that choice!"
But they are merely confusing cause with effect. The actions in the present and past are the causes, and their outcomes in the future are the effects -- no matter from what confusing angle they are viewed. I explained this in great detail about a year ago on the PPR area, but we're free to go through it again.
The fallacy is one of human perspective. Free will is counterintuitive when you view the timeline backwards, from its conclusion.

Creates the timeline? NO. Created the universe and knows the timeline, yes.

if I interpret correctly your position, that would be my position as well, kinda, that is being a matter of cause and effect, as you said, looking at the timeline backwards, then some may come to the conclusion of free will being an illusion, but from this point forward there is no future, there is nothing written and it is just a matter of probability in my view, until the effect takes place from the cause, whatever it was.

My position is that of the Chaos theory, which it seems to make room for free will, although that could be debated I think.

Last edited by greenblue on 22 May 2008, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How about both yes and no? The universe is a big swirl ... sometimes we can see the wave building and move out of the way (should we choose). Other times, the wave is a juggernaut that is going to hit us and sweep us away, no matter what we will into action.

Not a fallacy at all, that is actually a philosophical argument on this matter. If somebody WILL choose something, then there is no room for them to choose otherwise. The fact of the matter is that if all choices could be known from a past date, then the future could be known from the past, and thus the notion "changing the future" would be false as if S is true about the future, then nothing can change S.

Well, the future IS concrete if all facts can be known about it. If S is a certain set comprising all data about the future, and S is true, then nothing can make S false, and then the future is closed. Really though, some people don't even hold to that view of the future anyway, as what you are presenting is a type A view of the future, as opposed to the type B view which says that both future and past are closed, and the latter is both a valid position, and some would even argue a more valid position.

This isn't a confusion at all, and frankly, I am not likely going to look through all of these old posts to find your specific post. I either read it and dismissed it, or it is in a thread where I would not know where to look, or I argued with you already on this.

Nope, not a fallacy at all. Valid logical argument. Had a friend who saw this argument presented in logical terms by a TA in his philosophy class and the prof could not refute it.


There is no difference though. If he created the universe, and the timeline flows causally or effectively causally from creation, then he essentially created the timeline too. If he knows the results of the timeline, which is a result of his creating the universe, then essentially he caused the timeline to come about, and thus created it.

That's mine too.

But I don't know which is the right answer ( representing this) on the poll! So haven't voted for now.

I am not sure that Chaos theory really does that, as it is actually deterministic and is just a form of math where describing situations where small changes can cause big effects.

Let's say we roll a pair of six-sided dice? We can know that you'll never get 1 because you use two dice and the minimum number is 2. It can't be 13 because the maximum number is 12. You have a range of 2 to 12 of natural numbers.

Tell me what the sum is of each roll. If you record it and memorize it, you will know what it was. But can you know, or rather is it determined, what each roll is?

For God, He knows the end from the beginning, but that is like watching the record. Sure He may interfere occasionally, but He doesn't force us to commit sin against Him.

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 22 May 2008, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, sorry, I divided the poll up on whether or not you believe in free will, and whether or not you believe in personal forces involved in determinism. I should have included issues of justice, but I didn't.

I really do not follow this argument. To start off, even though dice are that simple, physical realities are complex to the point where small variations can lead to radically different results, as noted by chaos theory. Not only that, but if there are records, then there is a past, which means that the future is set, like the past, which is partially what you are arguing against.... so, I really just don't follow how this is meant to be a rebuttal.

The confidence that some people have in knowing what God does or does not do or does or does not think never ceases to amaze me.