Jump to content

Free Will vs Determinism


Knight of Cydonia

Recommended Posts

Knight of Cydonia

I recently took a philosophy class that's really opened my eyes about this topic. What is your stance? Do we have free will, are our futures already determined, or are free will and determinism in fact compatible? What about random chance and indeterminism in general?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought it weird that people think a deterministic line of thought negated free will. if through free will, we choose a certain path, why does the path and choices we make being in the future deny their existence? to get stuck up on free will being lost, is to deny that the future exists.

if our lives are already set in stone, it is still our experience that is free will. we are not feeling dragged along a train track and looking at the pebbles next to us wishing we could pick them up, we are walking down the road and going the way we want as best is offered to us, and whatever happens is still our choice to make. even if whatever happens is the only choice we'll ever make, it is still a choice we make, and that is why it is free will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

I'm on the side of free will. I would like to think that we have free will, and are not following some predetermined path over which we have no control. However, some arguments for compatibilism especially can be compelling so I'd like to keep an open mind.

It's also interesting to consider indeterminism as it pertains to free will. One argument is that random processes in our brain produce a variety of choices for our next action (consider that quantum processes are random and we can only know the probability of their occurrence, such as the position of particle versus its momentum). Our "wisdom" is our ability to produce more thoughtful, "better" options, but ultimately it is our free will that allows us to choose which action to perform next... it's quite fascinating!

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, but I am on the determinism side too. I think that they don't contradict eachother. I believe that the sense of "random" is just from unknowing, that if there was infinite measurement and infinite study, we could determine the outcome of any moment. but I just don't understand how free will is lost when a decision is predetermined, it is still a decision that is made by who we are. we still experience the process of choosing. the future eventually becomes the past, so thinking about the future as a determined thing is not any different than once the future becomes the past. our existence sees the future as an unknown and undetermined thing, but I'm sure there is a way some thing could exist to observe our future no differently than the past or present. but if that thing existed, it doesn't change our existence at all. therefore, a predetermined future is no different from an unknown future, and free will can exist in a predetermined state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a spiritualist who has just finished reading "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls" by Michael Newton I believe that certain events and milestones in our lives are pre-determined, by choices we made before we incarnated in this life, but we always have free will to choose our own path and how we react to events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take great comfort in determinism. Seeing my entire future as set in stone takes a lot of pressure off my back, and allows me to live in more peace with the state of my own life and the state of the world at large. Free will would be a cosmically horrifying concept, to me.

However, echoing what already was said - since I can never see that stone before reaching it, it really makes little to no practical difference whether I have free will or just the subjective illusion/delusion of it, and whether or not I'm destined to make the "choices" I end up going with. Basically, just believe whatever makes more sense to you and gives you more comfort. We can't ever know the truth about it, anyway.

(But hey, if I do happen to be right about this, you're destined to believe whatever you believe, free will or determinism... and you'll only be swayed to determinism by me if I was destined to convince you, not otherwise. ;))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

Very interesting perspectives, everyone! It sounds like a compatibilist approach is the most popular one here, which actually reflects the beliefs of most philosophers these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I don't really believe that everything is possible by free will. I do believe some people just have bad or good luck or they get more chances. Some people can lack skills or have other problems as well. I've had my fair share of bad experiences so I do believe some people are just more unfortunate. I've been paranoid about my life at times. Thinking positive usually doesn't matter if you don't get those chances.

I'm not sure if I've answered this correctly but that's just my opinion on life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to think that the free will/determinism dichotomy is really a theological argument to explain how responsible a person is for their own sin. Since I don't believe sin exists (specifcally sin as defined as a quality of the soul, and I don't believe souls exist), I think the free will/determinism argument is functionally nonsense.

Choice is a complex mix of biological, material, and mental constraints and freedoms. Both absolute free will and determinism seem absurd to me, better to look at choice and possiblity as an extremely complex system with boundries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like complex systems! but I don't like boundaries. boundaries hinder growth and change. I only like boundaries, that are gradient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea that some people are Fated to make stupid decisions is pretty amusing.

For me personally, this isn't something I know or expect to know so I don't balance my life around it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If time travel were possible, then I would lean more towards determinism, because of the many paradoxes that would surface if it was just free will. Otherwise I believe in free will. Though I can't provide any proof, I like to believe that we have the ability to change the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty strongly on the side of determinism, but it's of very little importance to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come to think that the free will/determinism dichotomy is really a theological argument to explain how responsible a person is for their own sin.

Taking a step back, theologians got sucked into this tar-pit because they insist on omniscience.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Waitaminitwaitaminitwaitaminit...

Let's break these questions:

What is your stance? Do we have free will, are our futures already determined, or are free will and determinism in fact compatible?

To what extent are they compatible?

In case they overlap, they sum themselves, and we are pretty much tossed into an indetermined universe reigned by the chaos theory.

What about random chance and indeterminism in general?

So, before we venture into "random chance" answer me this:

What is the difference between random, chaotic and indetermined?

We shouldn't mash all these things together otherwise they will convolute into a transcendentalism beyond comprehension.

Let's do one thing after the other and go slow, because they are different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

Waitaminitwaitaminitwaitaminit...

Let's break these questions:

What is your stance? Do we have free will, are our futures already determined, or are free will and determinism in fact compatible?

To what extent are they compatible?

In case they overlap, they sum themselves, and we are pretty much tossed into an indetermined universe reigned by the chaos theory.

Not necessarily. Free Will and Determinism being compatible is known as compatibilism (probably the most popular of the various followings among philosophers today), and does not lead to an indetermined universe.

Take Frankfurt's compatibilist theory, for example. He believed that we have different kinds of desires and volitions, and the extent to which we can act on them determines whether or not we have free will. First order desires are things like "I want to eat cake", and a first order volition is when that desire is satisfied. Second order desires are things like "I want to eat cake... but I should eat broccoli because it is healthier", and likewise a second order volition is when that desire is satisfied.

He believed that animals and small children (for example) act on first order desires, but can't act on second order desires. Here, determinism rules over their actions because they don't have the ability to consider/satisfy second order desires. Alternatively, exercising second order volitions means that you are exercising your free will, since you had the choice between following your first order or second order desires.

This is just one example of a theory for compatibilism. Of course it's not perfect (for one thing, compatibilists are often accused of "changing" the definition of free will to enable it to work with determinism) and there are SO many other theories that I won't cover here (this was the first that came to mind), but nonetheless it argues my point: free will and determinism could be found to overlap surprisingly well, without leading to an indetermined universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

also indeterminism IS related to random chance, as it is the belief that events are not caused, and instead happen by chance (the opposite of determinism, but can be shown to work with free will)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm a compatibilist too (and was one long before I knew that word for it). See the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy for a lot of information.

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

As a terminological point, free will of the type that's incompatible with determinism is sometimes labelled "libertarian free will". I believe in free will but not necessarily libertarian free will.

To throw one more thing out there: the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is technically deterministic (a system's quantum state evolves by deterministic unitary evolution governed by the Schroedinger equation) but all "possible outcomes" of quantum experiments (which may include free will decisions) exist simultaneously, and no single outcome is determined in advance. This might be another discussion though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

also indeterminism IS related to random chance, as it is the belief that events are not caused, and instead happen by chance (the opposite of determinism, but can be shown to work with free will)

Cool, but what is the difference between indeterminism and random chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

also indeterminism IS related to random chance, as it is the belief that events are not caused, and instead happen by chance (the opposite of determinism, but can be shown to work with free will)

Cool, but what is the difference between indeterminism and random chance?

I never said they were the same thing, just that they are related (in the way that I stated above).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

Although I should clarify that some definitions of indeterminism say it is just where events happen "without a cause"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waitaminitwaitaminitwaitaminit...

Let's break these questions:

What is your stance? Do we have free will, are our futures already determined, or are free will and determinism in fact compatible?

To what extent are they compatible?

In case they overlap, they sum themselves, and we are pretty much tossed into an indetermined universe reigned by the chaos theory.

Not necessarily. Free Will and Determinism being compatible is known as compatibilism (probably the most popular of the various followings among philosophers today), and does not lead to an indetermined universe.

I never regarded Compatibilism to a high degree.. But I must admit that I know little of it (Basically only what I've read from Hume).

It seems to me that they are putting being able to choose next free will when being able to choose is a byproduct of free will...

But I don't know a lot about it so I'll leave it at that.

it argues my point: free will and determinism could be found to overlap surprisingly well, without leading to an indetermined universe.

This free will within determinism seems to me as a super-determinism where your free will is limited to what has already been determined.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In case they overlap, they sum themselves, and we are pretty much tossed into an indetermined universe reigned by the chaos theory.

Chaos theory occurs in a completely classical (i.e. deterministic) system. It is about the extreme sensitivity of a complex system's state to its initial conditions (beyond the point where they can be reasonably measured). In other words it has nothing to do with indeterminism per se.

It seems to me that they are putting being able to choose next free will when being able to choose is a byproduct of free will...

But I don't know a lot about it so I'll leave it at that.

A better one sentence summary would be that one's choice really is chosen by you rather than an external body. The fact your decision could in principle be calculated prior (with enough observations and computational power) doesn't negate the fact it was a decision you made.

This free will within determinism seems to me as a super-determinism where your free will is limited to what has already been determined.

Super-determinism is a far stronger concept (and one that basically no-one really believes in, afaik).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I should clarify that some definitions of indeterminism say it is just where events happen "without a cause"

Seems impossible but the most true to their terminology.

They are still reigned by probablity and possibility. And both have a cause.

There is a chance of a meteor falling on my head at random, but that would be caused, thus determined. Althought, the possibility and probability of it happening at random is present.

I guess my philosophical leaning is showing itself :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos theory occurs in a completely classical

(i.e. deterministic) system. It is about the

extreme sensitivity of a complex system's state to

its initial conditions (beyond the point where

they can be reasonably measured). In other

words it has nothing to do with indeterminism

per se.

Are you 100% sure of that?

A better one sentence summary would be that

one's choice really is chosen by you rather than

an external body. The fact your decision could in

principle be calculated prior (with enough

observations and computational power) doesn't

negate the fact it was a decision you made.

It doesn't indeed. But you didn't come up with the options.

They were already there.

Super-determinism is a far stronger concept

But that is what it seems when you limit your free will to choosing between events that have a given cause.

It seems that even your ability to choose, or better "the options" have already been determined beforehand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos theory occurs in a completely classical

(i.e. deterministic) system. It is about the

extreme sensitivity of a complex system's state to

its initial conditions (beyond the point where

they can be reasonably measured). In other

words it has nothing to do with indeterminism

per se.

Are you 100% sure of that?

100% to 2 decimal places, yeah. Also you linked wikipedia: it says the same thing, quoting Edward Lorenz as saying

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

"When the present determines the future" is determinism.

It doesn't indeed. But you didn't come up with the options.

They were already there.

Of course. If I choose apples over oranges, is my choice not free and my own because someone else gave me those two options?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey. I give you that. But before anything "but the approximate present does not

approximately determine the future."

The pathways are given, which pathway will be followed is not.

If I choose apples over oranges, is my

choice not free and my own because someone

else gave me those two options?

Granted. You have chosen. By means of entropy.

But if you say "I prefer peaches between apples and oranges" and there is no peaches your free will is limited, or not free.

I ask you this: Do you really believe that free will is just the ability to choose between A and B?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey. I give you that. But before anything "but the approximate present does not

approximately determine the future."

The pathways are given, which pathway will be followed is not.

The pathway that will be followed is in fact determined; it's just that to calculate it you need to measure the initial conditions with an impractical amount of accuracy.

I ask you this: Do you really believe that free will is just the ability to choose between A and B?

If those are the two options then yeah. It might be a limited (free) choice but it's still a free choice between those...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pathways are given, which pathway will be followed is not.

A "pathway" is a construct of human thought. There are innumerable variations around any given pathway. Labeling something as a pathway is implicitly a statement that those variations are unimportant.

The pathway that will be followed is in fact determined; it's just that to calculate it you need to measure the initial conditions with an impractical amount of accuracy.

The result is not predetermined, and the required accuracy is not obtainable in the first place. Arguing for determinism presupposes the existence of a supreme being who can ignore the laws of quantum mechanics.

OTOH, saying that free will is a consequence of quantum randomness is simplistic and unsatisfying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pathway that will be followed is in fact determined; it's just that to calculate it you need to measure the initial conditions with an impractical amount of accuracy.

The result is not predetermined, and the required accuracy is not obtainable in the first place.
I was addressing chaos theory not quantum theory. Chaos theory, in its traditional form, is classical and therefore deterministic. Quantum theory (in its traditional interpretation, i.e. not many-worlds) is indeterministic.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...