Thread: is everything pre-planned??or r u in control?

i am inersted to know what others think with regard to the future...do u belive that everything has been pre-planned, that we have a certain destiny and nothing we do can change that OR do u believe that we are in full control of our reality, every conscious and unconscious action - incl our method of thinking - results in a certain outcome, and thus a spontaneous string of events and an uncertain future?? by uncertain i mean a future dependant on our present actions?

what i am tryng to say is are we in charge or is something else in charge? and what makes u believe the wayu do?

for now i am in control, but science might show that it was determend by the initisial conditions of big bang one day, but i mostly think im in cnotrol becuase of that QM is not possible to predict

QM being quantum mechanics?

My belief is that the future is mapped out. you could look at our timeline is a string of "states"(from nanosecond to nanosecond) which we are moving though. there are an infinite amount of states in each direction, which are infinitely small, but we can only move in the future direction. the past states are just that, past. since all of the states are predetermined, i will end up in one and then the next, no matter what i do.

I may think i have free will, but the me of the future, and all other me's in other future states have done it. my present is past to them. So, every me, future/present/past have thought and will think the exact thing when they hit 12:00 october 29. at that point(when each state reaches it) for example, we all may decide we have free will and quit our job to prove it. really though, it was all planned out and i jsut thought i was being "special".

I whipped this up in grade 11 and liked it, so i still go by it.

In the words of paul attreides - you cannot control the future.

thats very similar to what i think! its a good belief system to go by...we make every choice willingly but tht willingness, our state of mind and the chemical reactions and sub atomic-level events all happen intentionally to make us "willingly" make a choice of some sort! i love it! how we think we are in control but we not! science is beautiful! dont u find this way of thinking also leaves litte/no room for religion - there's no need really! i guess we dont need a false sense of security when we know life has all ready been mapped out by many tiny quantum physical processes

wether freewill exist or not has yet to be determend by science

Yes, but it is not neccessary a question of science....its more of a spiritual/philosophical thing, although it would be nice to have solid proof as to whether freewill exists or not....then we would know for sure, but at the same time i dont think we are meant to know for sure, life is a mystery and i think that maybe it is supposed to be that way? i dont know, what do u think?

We control everything that can be controlled. If a metor hits us next year then we can't prevent this (until we develop the right technology), but that doesn't mean something else is controlling that meteor instead. The meteor is just in an overlapping orbit with the earth, not because 'god' or 'destiny' wants to see the earth destroyed but simply because that's it's location.

There's no such thing as destiny. We live with some physical constraints, but within this we are free to do whatever we want. A blind man can't become a pilot, so he can't decide to become a pilot. This is outside of his own control, but again this doesn't mean something else controls it instead.

a refreshing and logical view....thanks :-D

I agree with zelos, everything that we do is part of a chain reaction that started with the big bang. Its like the butterfly effect, how ever the big bang started maps out a series of events that everything goes through. The big bang occurs, all the galaxies form in an exact determined position, life begins to form, evolution takes place, - the position of every single animal and every evolutional event they go through can all be mapped back to the start of the big bang and the big bang has already mapped their future.

As with a reaction the result is definiatly going to happen - two snooker balls, if the white ball is hit at a certain position its definatly going to hit the other ball in a certain position and cause it to move at a certain angle. The same applys with the big bang, the big bang happend in a certain way that makes the path of your life certain dependant on the initial conditions.

I also agree with the view that we don't have free will- because we think " I have free will... im going to turn the light off, then you decide actualy i'm chosing not to turn the light off- but really however many times you change your mind is what destiny has put in place for you. Once you have made your final decision whether to turn the light on or off is what the big bang has already mapped out you to do.

Originally Posted by DrNeedles

thats very similar to what i think! its a good belief system to go by...we make every choice willingly but tht willingness, our state of mind and the chemical reactions and sub atomic-level events all happen intentionally to make us "willingly" make a choice of some sort! i love it! how we think we are in control but we not! science is beautiful! dont u find this way of thinking also leaves litte/no room for religion - there's no need really! i guess we dont need a false sense of security when we know life has all ready been mapped out by many tiny quantum physical processes

Interesting arguement, but how does it leave no room for religion? If we do not make our decisions "willingly" and they are a result of one defining moment (i.e. the big bang) that started a chain reaction leading to what happens now, how can it be that there is no room for religion?

If you can answer NO to these 2 questions and tell me why, then you will have your point :-D

Is it possible that a GOD could started the chain reaction leading to our decisions today? Is it possible that a Supreme being started the BIG BANG?

It seems to me that having control over yourself is a better argument for disregarding religion than not having control.

Perhaps I am understanding the arugment incorrectly?

Free will is a no-concept that goes back to the tale of Adam and Eve. God wanted to be able to blame them even though he "created" them! So, if we deal in scientific-like cause and effect thinking, God messed up and should have taken the blame!

What have we to go on but cause and effect thinking? The more we know, the more accurately we understand things, the better we can predict. Physics predict the course of the solar system generations into the future. We could do it with societies and the human race if we were not to hamstrung by creationist-like thinking.

It is the same with us individuals. The more we understand (cause and effect) about other individuals the better we can tell how they will react to something. Actually, we all do this all the time. Everyone of us treats every other person a little different because we are automatically processing what we have experienced with that person in the past and, hence, can treat them in better allignment with who they are.

Have you noticed how even children adapt this way. They treat a too lienient father very differently than the pershaps over strict mother.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

indeed, charles brough.

I believe the thread title offers a false dichotomy. It is quite possible for the universe to act out of necessity (in contrast to 'God's laws') which does not include free will either.

Free will in my view only serves as a method to make man responsible. It requires a unit - a soul - that is completely independent of outside influence. The existence of such a unit seems absurd, and the only explanation that can be given is that "we can't understand it", because God made it so complex. In this view, it is doubly unscientific, first because we don't need the concept of a soul to explain the universe in a naturalistic manner and second because it can not be falisified.

If man has no free will, he is not accountable, not responsible for his behaviour? No, not in a traditional sense methinks.
However, embracing this does not lead to apathy or detachment. Nietzsche preaches "Become what you are" in a deterministic, non-free will universe.

One does not change himself because he feels he is responsible for himself, but because he feels life is best served by it. To affirm life calls for such changes.

Mr U

I share your sentiments, but, personally, I don't recognize the words' "free-will" as having any valid meaning. It is an old-religion word, like "sin", "evil," "holy," etc. In a universe of cause and effect, everything we do and that occurs was caused. So it is with our behavior. We are free only to do what causes us to do what we do! Our secular belief system also adopted the word, so people use it as some sort of a doctrine."

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Hello!

I do think both is a bit true. On the one hand everything indeed was pre-planned. As you were born you
joined that action and became part of it. On the other hand things do happen obviously accidental which
but was rather due to the fact you hadn't all the facts that caused the situation and no one never will
have the facts. Full range of them. It's like you attending something happening and you are not sure if this
is the action going on, or the reaction on a certain issue already. Most of the time it does not matter
anyway.

To me was of a major point not to talk about reality cause no one will know about it. Everything relevant,
the history of the planet earth yet which is as for all the information you needed to have fully
unknown.

Thus you just will conceive a little tiny share of reality which but is so little you can no longer talk about
reality I mean, or better, you have to notice, you got no idea what reality means and no one can, could
have an idea about reality. So it was possible we all would wake up one day to notice it's the matrix we
do live in. As I said previously, be prepared. It could happen each single second.

Steve

Sorry, I had to edit the post.

ok, as some of you have said, i have already made my decision right?
so does that mean i have already died and im in heaven/hell right now?

Originally Posted by Darthskywalker699

ok, as some of you have said, i have already made my decision right?
so does that mean i have already died and im in heaven/hell right now?

-NO- No you have not already died and no you have not already made your decision. That is the problem with so many of our "deep thinkers". They think that philosophy outwieghs practicality. It doesn't.

Don't let them fool you Darth. Both fate and destiny are just delusions of mans ego. Neither you nor I nor anyone, for that matter, is that important in the grand scheme of things. Even if the entire path of your life has already been predertimed by some ethereal force, ask your self, what real difference does it make? Are you a god? can you actually perceive your life from that point of view? No, your just a man. So it's all relative.

It is good that a man has confidence. That he has the drive to face challenges and overcome them. But what is the point of concerning yourself with challenges that you have yet to face, choices that you have yet to make, but apparently, already have. How do these never-ending inquiries benefit your day-to-day life? The answer is simple, They don't.

Material things come and go. As does money and positions of power. Free will is all you really have. And if free will is only an illusion, then make it a reality. If one day the gods do come to you and say "No matter what you think or feel, we are in control" .....Do what any man should do, do what any Hero would do, defy them. Defy them with everything you've got.

Originally Posted by Darthskywalker699

ok, as some of you have said, i have already made my decision right?
so does that mean i have already died and im in heaven/hell right now?

Hello Darthskywalker699!

When you had made a desicion you obviousely wouldn't put posts to the forum,
would you?

Originally Posted by Kolt

It is good that a man has confidence. That he has the drive to face challenges and overcome them. But what is the point of concerning yourself with challenges that you have yet to face, choices that you have yet to make, but apparently, already have. How do these never-ending inquiries benefit your day-to-day life? The answer is simple, They don't.

Hi Kolt!

I will say there are benefits. The benefits are improving living conditions of human
mankind.

Steve

Time is plain and simply, movement. If nothing moved at all, how could there be time? The very thought that events are pre determined is REDICULOUS. The universe is extremely complex, so many actions take place at hundred of levels the resultant amount of variables is enormous(trillions of trillions of trillions). Nothing, not even the most complex computer could map out all of the actions that would lead to an end result 10 billion years later. More importantly, nothing is in that position of control to even try to create "future goals". All actions of matter can be predicted, fortunately life cannot. Life makes a decision(action=reflection=action), matter does not(action=reaction). Life is chaotic. We cannot change the past, the past leads us to where we are. We can attempt to change the future only by making choices in the NOW that are constructive towards a goal we have set aside.

ps all that exists is NOW

time(now)= t(subscript 1)/t(subscript 2)

which ends up being t(now)=1 whole

which means that all that exists is now

Hi,

was live life not bound to matter and hence was predictable?

Steve

life is bound to energy, at the moment we are constantly bombarded with energy, and are in no short supply (the sun. earths core, etc). We are dependent on energy however that is not what we try to achieve(therefore altering our future). Now life has evolved so it has to do "less living" and non living energy takes its place (machines). Since humans wants are now created by ourselves, we chase what we already have, we only do this because of the concept of owning was given to us by our civilization. So even if life is dependent on energy, that is its most basic need, and is a miniscule portoin of your choices. Humans have reached a point where we dont need to "survive". Everything we need is given to us assuming we do our function in society. Humans have became one ever more connected "super being". Everyday i wake up and expect 3 meals, and have eaten whenever i have wanted. Therefore food is not that great of a concern of mine because i have been conditioned that way.
so if i dont even think about it any more, how does it affect my future actions?

Hello!

I don't even think about food much. I know I'm there the whole day in some way but don't think much
about food. If I think about a recipe I do think if I have all the ingredients at hand. After a while of
cooking and the sense of the variety given I put simply thinks altogether without much specific
preparation. I have it all right there.

Yesterday I made a non alcohol bowle as sample which was seldom but you know New Years Eve.

I had a can of

- mixed fruits
and
- multivitamin juice
- sparkling water
- very little salt
- little sweet chili sauce (put in very sparingly you can add more )
- lemon
- honey
- vanilla sugar
- raisin left from Christmas to pick out by hand

I found tasty and finished all yesterday already plus some cheese corn chips.

When you don't think about food you have got time to think of other stuff. This will effect your future.

I want to ask an other question. Was energy no matter? Not in part at least?

Steve

Originally Posted by Kolt

-NO- No you have not already died and no you have not already made your decision. That is the problem with so many of our "deep thinkers". They think that philosophy outwieghs practicality. It doesn't.

What I find amusing is that your own philosophy - to which I will respond next - is not a reaction to these deep philosophers of which you accuse being impractical. Indeed, you seem to have chosen one of the theories of one such a philosopher, called him practical and shed off the rest. This is, I believe, irrational.

Don't let them fool you Darth. Both fate and destiny are just delusions of mans ego. Neither you nor I nor anyone, for that matter, is that important in the grand scheme of things.

This is not an argument against either fate or destiny. You can not - without further investigation - be tolstoyan and reject the power of the individual in his world.

Even if the entire path of your life has already been predertimed by some ethereal force, ask your self, what real difference does it make?

The eternal lightness of being? You ask big questions, yet use them shallowly, which is unflattering. 'What real difference does it make?' Clearly there is no universal value, but that value is relative to the individual - value as expression of Nietzschean power.

Are you a god? can you actually perceive your life from that point of view? No, your just a man. So it's all relative.

There is a gap here. You want readers to believe that "So it's all relative" automatically leads to "nothing makes a difference". You are making an incomplete argument. You are not being very deep, philosopher.

It is good that a man has confidence. That he has the drive to face challenges and overcome them. But what is the point of concerning yourself with challenges that you have yet to face, choices that you have yet to make, but apparently, already have. How do these never-ending inquiries benefit your day-to-day life? The answer is simple, They don't.

Only when you reduce questions to an informative level is the answer that simple. Words are more than a couple of characters, they carry the means to meaning. A question about the future may be much more meaningful.
As for your praise of day-to-day life.. I do not see why things should be weighed in terms of their usage in day-to-day life.

Material things come and go. As does money and positions of power. Free will is all you really have.

Free will is an absurdity. It requires a realm of existence in which the individual can form a choice unaffected by external input. The very notion is absurd.

And if free will is only an illusion, then make it a reality. If one day the gods do come to you and say "No matter what you think or feel, we are in control" .....Do what any man should do, do what any Hero would do, defy them. Defy them with everything you've got.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Mr U

Originally Posted by DrNeedles

i am inersted to know what others think with regard to the future...do u belive that everything has been pre-planned, that we have a certain destiny and nothing we do can change that OR do u believe that we are in full control of our reality, every conscious and unconscious action - incl our method of thinking - results in a certain outcome, and thus a spontaneous string of events and an uncertain future?? by uncertain i mean a future dependant on our present actions?

what i am tryng to say is are we in charge or is something else in charge? and what makes u believe the wayu do?

I myself believe in free will and fate

It works like this

Imagine a road map,

You want to get to a particular destination, so you locate it on the map, you mark it 'Z'

You note your starting position as 'A'

Stretching before you in-between points A and Z are numerous roads, some long, some short, some you will encounter bumps, bridges, rivers etc. Some roads will have a crossroads.

'B' represents fate
This is where you are destined to finish up, but free will is your choice of which road to take. There will be clues as to which may be the shortest more comfortable route, but you may be carefree and not plan your journey so carefully. You may in fact hitch a ride and let someone else take you to 'B' and let them decide the route you take.

The choices are limited but numerous, and for each choice a different set of encounters, but regardless of the differences between these encounters, they are ALL marked on the map. The map already exists, how you navigate it though is up to you.

As to the question of who in charge, well we have the creator of the map and then we have 'you' the one who uses it to navigate through life.

Why do I believe as I do? I believe I have been 'influenced' at certain times to take a particular course and neglecting those 'influences' cost me dearly. Now I try to listen more carefully to what ' lady intuition' has to say, and then she and lady logic then have a chat about it.

Except, the problem here is that you have to explain how those choices come into being. If you say that these choices are a balance of an equation, say choice a seems more attractive than choice b - you are not really at all exercising free will, the choice was made for you by the properties that were made visible to you. In fact, the choice was never yours to begin with.

Does that mean she would be passive and lay back - of course not. I believe in a hands-on approach to life, but that says nothing about the presence of free will.

Mr U

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Except, the problem here is that you have to explain how those choices come into being. If you say that these choices are a balance of an equation, say choice a seems more attractive than choice b - you are not really at all exercising free will, the choice was made for you by the properties that were made visible to you. In fact, the choice was never yours to begin with.

Does that mean she would be passive and lay back - of course not. I believe in a hands-on approach to life, but that says nothing about the presence of free will.

Mr U

Well, when we get back to basics and the beginning of it all, quite simply none of it is possible. How can we comprehend something arising from nothing? What is nothing.......do we have sample of 'nothing' for us to really know? For us 'nothing' is the absence of 'anything'. There is thus 'no' nothing in existence, BUT can this ‘nothing’ exist outside of existence?

What is outside of existence............

We do not know what it is to not exist

Yet we are designed to fear and avoid it

Outside of this existence that we are familiar with is quite possibly something very different, very uncomprehendable to ourselves.

Just as a gold fish cannot comprehend our existence beyond the view of it's fish bowl, we cannot comprehend the existence of anything beyond the view of ours. So we deny it.

Fair enough...lack of evidence that anything is beyond our existence

Well there is a tiny point of concession, and that is that we may generally agree (non theists) we arose from 'nothing'. That nothing is no longer apparent to us, so where did it go?



Regarding choice and free will in that choice. If I have a choice to marry or not to marry, that is my choice to make. I am not programmed to make a particular choice, I reason it out msyelf.

Every choice and every resulting incidence that occurs as a result of that choice is fated based on that choice. All incidences are on that map. The choices are numerous but limited. So from this point of view, choice is restricted by the choices made available.

You can buy novels that work like this. You select yourself as the reader how the novel should proceed then turn to the page that deals with that choice. Thus you may read the book many times, each time making different selections for a 'new novel'.

You cannot prove the absence of free will. It is far easier to demonstrate its prescence.

Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

Well, when we get back to basics and the beginning of it all, quite simply none of it is possible. How can we comprehend something arising from nothing? What is nothing.......do we have sample of 'nothing' for us to really know? For us 'nothing' is the absence of 'anything'. There is thus 'no' nothing in existence, BUT can this ‘nothing’ exist outside of existence?


What is outside of existence............

We do not know what it is to not exist

Why do you think there is something like 'nothing'? In my view, there is only flux - everything is ever-changing.

Yet we are designed to fear and avoid it

Outside of this existence that we are familiar with is quite possibly something very different, very uncomprehendable to ourselves.

Just as a gold fish cannot comprehend our existence beyond the view of it's fish bowl, we cannot comprehend the existence of anything beyond the view of ours. So we deny it.

Fair enough...lack of evidence that anything is beyond our existence

Why do you believe that our understanding of the world is any different from the fish's understanding of its world?

Well there is a tiny point of concession, and that is that we may generally agree (non theists) we arose from 'nothing'. That nothing is no longer apparent to us, so where did it go?

I am not an atheist nor do I agree that we come from nothing, we are everchanging.

A head scratching off the top of my head reply

You did not answer my statement. I asked how it is possible for you to create a choice independent of factors, which is required for there to be a 'free' choice. You have not answered this other than hint at vagaries of human cognition.

Mr U

I am not in control of my own destiny. My choices are not my choices. They do not belong to me. My path in life has been predetermined by some alternate or higher force.

So if I choose to throw a stone over a creek and I throw the stone over the creek. How was this not my choice?

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Free will is an absurdity. It requires a realm of existence in which the individual can form a choice unaffected by external input. The very notion is absurd.

Mr U

What sort of cake would you like me to send you?

Surely with that as an open question you have the 'free will' to decide based only on your 'internal preferences' ? SInce I have not shown you the choice avalable, you can and must indeed rely on 'internal factors'.

So Mr U on this occasion your statement is 'Busted'!

Surely with that as an open question you have the 'free will' to decide based only on your 'internal preferences' ? SInce I have not shown you the choice avalable, you can and must indeed rely on 'internal factors'.

So Mr U on this occasion your statement is 'Busted'!

So because a choice is determined by internal factors it is a free choice? Let me point out that the origin of those internal factors lie in the external. Whether it was your upbringing, or because it is in your blood to like lemon pie - something will drive you to say lemon pie, or some other pie.

"Introduction of question -> cognition -> reaction"

For free will to exist, there must be some gap in human cognition, where there a choice is weighed completely independent of upbringing or genetics. This is - by definition - a metaphysical entity, which makes free will, as I have stated, absurd.

Question: Let's say that I am "Not" actually in control of my life. That the choices I make have no real significance because they've already been predetermined by some higher or alternate force. My story has already been written. Written by time, fate, destiny, God, Jesus, Ala, Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Halebop and the celestial space monkeys, Dr. Phil, Tom Cruise or who ever or what ever.

Okay, so.....now what? What do I do? what choices should I make or, better yet, why should I even bother making choices at all?

Imagine the cosmos. Imagine how insignificant your life and what you will do with your life is. An unbearable lightness of being, one might call it, as life is so insignificant it is hard to cope.
However, consider this.. a 'test' of some sorts. Imagine that you had to live your life countless times over. Would you consider this a 'good' or a 'bad' thing? Following the idea of this test - would you not seek to 'maximise' the experience?

Free will makes us responsible for our actions. If you look at existentialism, you see the full implication of this effect - suddenly individuals become wholly responsible for the state of the world.

However, what Nietzsche would propose, and which I propose is a much more gentle view. Namely, that we can change and become better not because we are responsible for ourselves or because we are responsible for the world, but because we wish to become the best individuals to facilitate the best life we can get.

One's attitude towards life can become life-affirming, not because one is responsible, but because it is in one's interest to do so.

what choices should I make or, better yet, why should I even bother making choices at all?

Here too I follow Nietzsche - there are no answers to such questions. You will have to make up your own damn mind. Who you are and what you want to do. Suddenly it is not about being incredibly 'successful' in terms of wealth and fame, but in terms of 'personal fulfilment'.

Wooo! Hot damn -HomoUniversalis-! Those are some bad ass moves you got there. You're like some intellectual-ninja master of the philosophical lexicon.

Hehe. Silly rabbit.

Mr U

THe 'origin' is in the past tense, your original assertion was in the present tense, as was my reply - you seem to be moving the goal posts.

IF however in philosophy 'free will' has a precise defined meaning other than the lay definition as pointed out then please enlighten us.

In summary I submit your assertion is wrong by the definition I quoted.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

THe 'origin' is in the past tense, your original assertion was in the present tense, as was my reply - you seem to be moving the goal posts.

What I said:

Free will is an absurdity. It requires a realm of existence in which the individual can form a choice unaffected by external input. The very notion is absurd.

I said unaffected by external input, not 'right now unaffected by external input'.

IF however in philosophy 'free will' has a precise defined meaning other than the lay definition as pointed out then please enlighten us.

Err... From wikipedia?:

The problem of free will is the problem of whether rational agents exercise control over their own actions and decisions. Addressing this problem requires understanding the relation between freedom and causation, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

In summary I submit your assertion is wrong by the definition I quoted.

Bit premature, don't you think?

Mr U

The New Oxford Shorter Dictionary P1024 Col 2:-

1) Spontaneous will, inclination to act without suggestion from others,
2) The power of directing one's own actions unconstrained by neccessity or fate.

The Oxford English dictionary is widely recognised as the authority on the English Language.

Wikipaedia may be edited, composed by anybody it neither is, nor claims to be, an authority on any subject.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

The New Oxford Shorter Dictionary P1024 Col 2:-

1) Spontaneous will, inclination to act without suggestion from others,
2) The power of directing one's own actions unconstrained by neccessity or fate.

The Oxford English dictionary is widely recognised as the authority on the English Language.

Wikipaedia may be edited, composed by anybody it neither is, nor claims to be, an authority on any subject.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Knock yourself out. When you are done dancing around the issue and come to rectifying this:

So Mr U on this occasion your statement is 'Busted'!

and

In summary I submit your assertion is wrong by the definition I quoted.

Let me know.

Mr U

Then it's as I suspected, in philosophy free will is not defined in the same way as it's 'lay' definition. In the same way in [English] law there are many words which have a precise definition which differs to the lay.

In terms of the philosopher's definition of free-will I am not qualified to determine whether you are correct. In terms of the lay definition I maintain you are incorrect, but that is based upon my interpretation of the dictionary definition.

Upon the two points, I see no need to alter my stance in regard the statements when considering my judgement is based upon the dictionary definitions.

If I were a philosopher: according to the definitions provided by yourself from a philosopher's point of view, you are correct to challenge me, and may be correct, I say 'may' as I am unqualified in philosophy.

Now may I retreat back to Physics?

You may. For clarity, the 'philosophical' definition comes from the writings of Augustine and Aquinas and various philosophers who written about such things.. It's not a modern contraption.

Free will as described by the dictionary is more of a socio-political definition where the rational individual should have space to make his own decisions.

The latter is not of interest to me :P

Mr U

This is something I wrote back in tenth grade, before reading the past three pages.


As technology becomes more and more capable of explaining the questions asked by science and philosophy, we find that more and more previously inexplicable phenomena can be viewed as machines. Machines are understood, they're logical, and therefore, they're predictable.
Most of the "big things" in our universe can now be understood as machines, such as the revolution of planets. This is called the Newtonian World Machine, a universe governed by laws of logic. This machine allows us to easily predict where any planet will be at any given time. That means we can predict the future of our solar system. Now, if we take a sunflower seed and plant it in the ground, there's no saying what the end result will be. We don't know if the sunflower will be tall or short or if the sunflower has a large flower or small flower; we can't even be sure if the seed will sprout at all!
If physicists can predict the course of the entire Solar System, why is it that modern science cannot determine the outcome of a planted seed? As things change size, they are affected by different factors. The course of the planets is determined primarily by one constant, highly predictable factor: gravity. All other factors have negligible effects on the revolution of a planet. An object the size of a sunflower, though, is affected by far more than just gravity on Earth. On Earth, there is wind, rain, heat, erosion, tectonic activity, life, all sorts of factors in determining the fate of a small object, such as a sunflower. Those factors alone would make it unimaginably difficult to predict the future for that object, because the factors themselves are not predictable (unlike gravity, which can be determined with a simple formula).
The fate of a sunflower would be even more difficult to predict, because it's alive. Life is a concept that still hasn't been clearly defined by scientists, today, and a full understanding of it doesn't seem to be very near in the future. Organisms are still machines, though, however complex. That means the functions, movements, actions (including thinking, because the brain is also a machine following physical laws), and ultimately, the fate of any organism can be predicted, given enough information and computing power.
With enough information and computing power, probability ceases to exist. Anything can be predicted. In this universe, everything follows physical law, the so-called Laws of Nature. Probability comes into play only when there are certain unknown variables that make it impossible to predict the outcome. If you roll a die, no one knows just how you roll the die, what kind of spin you give it, how it hits the surface, and so on. When no variables are left unknown, though, the outcome is certain. The only probability is 100%; chance does not exist.
Of course, this kind of information and computing power is unlikely to ever come into existence. It's too bad that we probably won't be able to predict the future as some would like. Our inability to calculate it does not mean that a set outcome is not there, though. With a universe viewed as a machine, there is no probability. There is one set outcome that's already been determined, but not yet realized. This leads to the conclusion of predestination. The choices we make, the paths we take were all set since the beginning of time.

Your future has already been decided.

Maybe.

Quantum physics may provide a hope for chance and uncertainty in the universe. Radioactive decay, for example, is known to be a completely random process, introducing probability into the otherwise rigid system. Although, this process may seem negligible in comparison to the going-ons of the universe, it has the potential to increase in magnitude through the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect can allow any insignificant occurence to blossom into substantial results, results great enough to affect our lives.
This possibility, of course, depends entirely on whether or not probability truly exists in this universe. To know whether any sequence is truly random, though, is impossible, because it implies nonrepitition forever, making it impossible to observe and assert. The only thing we can be sure of is that there are things not random.
This means that predesitination is a notion that can only be proven and never disproved.




After reading the past three pages, my opinion of predestination remains the same.

I think the problem we're encountering here is lack of knowledge. For the system of cause and effect to have only once possible course, it requires that nothing is left up to chance. Everything must be a reaction to some past action; everything is interconnected. The key word there is "everything." We don't have a full understanding of "everything," making it impossible for us to determine if predestination really exists.

The focus of that past several posts has been on free will. That depends entirely on whether or not the brain really is a "machine" as I described it above. Current science has not been able to prove whether or not that assumption is correct.

The question we're asking cannot be resolved with the information we have at our disposal today.

Hello!

If the course of the planet was caused by gravity, how does weightlessness match up to the perception you have of it all.

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Hello!

If the course of the planet was caused by gravity, how does weightlessness match up to the perception you have of it all.

Steve

There is no true weightlessness. Gravity is a fundamental force that is not bounded by distance. The sensation of weightlessness astronauts experience is due to the fact that they are falling toward the earth at the same rate everything around them. The only reason they do not fall straight toward the earth is their extremely high tangential velocity.

Humans make choices. God knows the choices we will make.

I myself believe in free will and fate

It works like this

Imagine a road map,

You want to get to a particular destination, so you locate it on the map, you mark it 'Z'

You note your starting position as 'A'

Stretching before you in-between points A and Z are numerous roads, some long, some short, some you will encounter bumps, bridges, rivers etc. Some roads will have a crossroads.

'B' represents fate
This is where you are destined to finish up, but free will is your choice of which road to take. There will be clues as to which may be the shortest more comfortable route, but you may be carefree and not plan your journey so carefully. You may in fact hitch a ride and let someone else take you to 'B' and let them decide the route you take.

The choices are limited but numerous, and for each choice a different set of encounters, but regardless of the differences between these encounters, they are ALL marked on the map. The map already exists, how you navigate it though is up to you.

As to the question of who in charge, well we have the creator of the map and then we have 'you' the one who uses it to navigate through life.

Why do I believe as I do? I believe I have been 'influenced' at certain times to take a particular course and neglecting those 'influences' cost me dearly. Now I try to listen more carefully to what ' lady intuition' has to say, and then she and lady logic then have a chat about it.

good analogy! im wondering however are the routes we "choose" to take taken by freewill or are the routes also pre-etermind. is perhaps ";ady intuition" our own little navigator telling us which path is the one determined for us - and we can choose to take it or not? a person who makes decisions by their gut feeling usually make the right decisions - i find - however this brings up a different perspective on my original argument - one of whetehr we should listen to our head or our heart and freewill vs destiny. however my main concern is more scientific by nature. if u can imagine everything- u,me,all matter, the entire universe, everything - on a sub-atomic level - are those processes governed by SPONTANEOUS quantum physical laws OR the predictable laws of nature where one can draw a definate conclusion from a string of events????

I am not a believer in free will. I am a believer in the illusion of free will. Lets take a snooker table. You hit the balls at a certain angle and at a certain speed and the path's and trajectories / speeds / spins of all of the other balls can be determined. I believe that the universe is no difference. We may THINK we have choices to make but in reality what ever "choice" we choose was pre-determined, by yes, as Zelos has said the initial conditions set up by the big bang.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I am not a believer in free will. I am a believer in the illusion of free will. Lets take a snooker table. You hit the balls at a certain angle and at a certain speed and the path's and trajectories / speeds / spins of all of the other balls can be determined. I believe that the universe is no difference. We may THINK we have choices to make but in reality what ever "choice" we choose was pre-determined, by yes, as Zelos has said the initial conditions set up by the big bang.

One can only hope we have no suicidal members...

um, well now that you mention it... *jumps out of 10 story building* actually i'm a budhist, so i believ in free will and that actions have consequences

Originally Posted by Nevyn

um, well now that you mention it... *jumps out of 10 story building* actually i'm a budhist, so i believ in free will and that actions have consequences

As I was reading this part " i'm a budhist, so i believ in free " - I expected the next word to be 'flight'! - but only cos of the ten storey reamrk...

lol, i am not that witty, and after my miraculous leap i survived and went and made a cup of tea, just to let you know

Originally Posted by Nevyn

lol, i am not that witty, and after my miraculous leap i survived and went and made a cup of tea, just to let you know

Yeah well just make sure you stay in the trance till all the bones have mended!

Originally Posted by slippy88

I agree with zelos, everything that we do is part of a chain reaction that started with the big bang. Its like the butterfly effect, how ever the big bang started maps out a series of events that everything goes through. The big bang occurs, all the galaxies form in an exact determined position, life begins to form, evolution takes place, - the position of every single animal and every evolutional event they go through can all be mapped back to the start of the big bang and the big bang has already mapped their future.

As with a reaction the result is definiatly going to happen - two snooker balls, if the white ball is hit at a certain position its definatly going to hit the other ball in a certain position and cause it to move at a certain angle. The same applys with the big bang, the big bang happend in a certain way that makes the path of your life certain dependant on the initial conditions.

I also agree with the view that we don't have free will- because we think " I have free will... im going to turn the light off, then you decide actualy i'm chosing not to turn the light off- but really however many times you change your mind is what destiny has put in place for you. Once you have made your final decision whether to turn the light on or off is what the big bang has already mapped out you to do.

You haven't taken into account quantum fluctuations inside the brain. Scientists believe that virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time for no reason at all. If these particles pop into existance inside a neuron while you're making a decision it could introduce a random factor into your thoughts. So that if you were to face the same question again with the same starting point, you might not come to the same decision the next time around.
Quantum randomness might mean we can't map out our futures so mechanically.

Regards
Robert
( http://www.priority1design.com.au )

Instead of everyone philosiphying on the subject of the brain, and how choices are made either by non-free-will or true-free-will. Let us study neurology instead. So firmly I say, let philosiphy fight the possible pointless fight of the destiny debate. And, let science, true science by it's method, study the brain to figure out it functions. It is much too early in our knowledge level as humans to decide philisophically how the brain works.

Philosiphy of the brain does not compare to neurology of the brain. Might as well focus your attention there instead of wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Nanobrain

Instead of everyone philosiphying on the subject of the brain, and how choices are made either by non-free-will or true-free-will. Let us study neurology instead. So firmly I say, let philosiphy fight the possible pointless fight of the destiny debate. And, let science, true science by it's method, study the brain to figure out it functions. It is much too early in our knowledge level as humans to decide philisophically how the brain works.

Philosiphy of the brain does not compare to neurology of the brain. Might as well focus your attention there instead of wasting your time.

On this subject, as with others relating to life forms, the scientific process is quite limiting. Sometimes an intuitive leap is required and provides far greater discoveries than would be acheived by someone who takes one methodical step after another.
Your study of neurology is not likely to provide you with the required answers unless you allow yourself to stray outside the scientifically accepted guidelines, every now and then.

Regards
Robert
( http://www.priority1design.com.au )

If free will existed, then I'd have a pet dinosaur.

i'd say that even with a universe subject to natural (and if you feel so inclined, supernatural) laws, there is such a diversity of options available within the constraints of such a universe that for all intents and purposes you may as well pretend you have free will

attempts to disprove the existence of free will have so far failed to convince me

e.g. the fixation some people have with genes and how they rule our lives, such as the recent discovery of the "fat" gene - imo the fact that you have the fat gene does not necessarily imply that you have to be a porker, it just means that you're more likely to gain weight with the wrong lifestyle than someone without the gene

Our inability to calculate it does not mean that a set outcome is not there, though. With a universe viewed as a machine, there is no probability.

tofubeast i like what you said there - i think we are all limited by our own imaginations (and intellect) and therefore put limits on possibilities and tend to reject that whic we dont understand.

if probability ceases to exist and life, evebts etc is predictable and mechanical like you say - then surley there needs to be a creater of this mechanism so to speak. how would one explain this? more importanly how would one explain this whilst disproving the existence of god?

"if i choose to throw a stone over a creek, will do it, how was it my choice?"

i think there are a few issues here. when you say "my" choice, what are you talking about here. your concept of "my" seems to have metaphysical implications, where as your concept of how the choice is made doesnt, its just a few atoms (for simplicity) bouncing around your head, following the chain of bouncing all the way back to ................

well yeh, but then when did you become 'you'. arent you really just made up of those bouncing atoms anyway. and didnt those bouncing atoms cause the stone to be thrown. so in a since, its not even a question of choice, rather responsibility given to a block of atoms bouncing around causing those other atoms to go over the river.

suerly those atoms interacted with everything else, but by describing them as "I" you already severe that connection (perhaps artificially).

another thing, someone said that this is a pholosphical spiritual, rather than a scientific question. thats so off the mark. when you talk about destinty and predermination, you seem to completely ignore modern physics (some one mention QM). nothing can be predicted, not only that, nothing is in any sense predictable. it is random in the most essential way (not merely random cause we dont know how to predict the outcome).

and how about the "arrow of time", what causes our perception of the flow of time. Is that even real, or a mere result of evolutionary natural selection interaction with the law of thermo dynamics.

I see it as half-random half-choise

I can choose to do certain things. Other people can choose to do certain other things. The choises I am presented with may be limited but I can always take an inappropriate or random choise. For instance, I am at university and I have an assignment due on Friday. I can choose not to do any more writing on it and hand it in half done. I can decide to finish it and get good marks. I can even decide to finish it and not hand it in and fail. I could even decide to buy a one way ticket to Tajikistan and just dissapear never to be seen by my family again. There are no limits to these decisions and I could just as easily choose any one and then experience the concequences of these actions. However I could not decide to change the universe so that the earth goes around Jupiter backwards because I do not have the means to do that.

Someone could decide to go on a shooting rampage at University tomorow and decide to shoot me. I do not have the power to unshoot myself and cannot decide for the other person to not shoot me.

I might decide to drive to the City tomorow to go shopping. Then I might decide to change into the Right lane after I pass Huntingdale Road just because I think it's a good idea to be in that lane to go to the city. I might hit a truck as I change lanes and flip my car on it's roof. I didn't choose to do that, i only chose to change lanes - but something random happened and effected me in a random way which I did not intend.

Choises arn't set in stone before they happen, and they don't directly change your life in the way you always expect. I see life as a mixture of non-predestined thought, interrupted by external events such as other people's decisions, random chance, and the complicated interactions of all 3 factors.

My Free choise
Other People's Free choise
Random happenings that wern't chosen by anyone.