williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (06/07/85)
This free will discussion has gotten slightly out of hand.
Free will is or is not an illusion. Most likely, the universal
absolute truths are constant, meaning that the flow of time is a
phenomenon that exists only in our minds. This is the best
evolution has to offer us.
Most likely the problem that has to be addressed is the
definition of these words, and the protocols of discussion. It
appears as if the participants have chosen fairly rigid
definitions that describe extremes and ideals. A more practical
approach ( Ayn Rand hates the word practical, but then again, I
hate Ayn Rand ) (( No, I don't *HATE* Ayn Rand, just the concept
that the fate of mankind rests on a purely individual basis.
Unfortunately, she did not understand as much as she thought. ))
would be to consider the variables that the words describe, that
is, with free will you may state that a variable exists that
describes an entity's freedom from outside influence. It can
then be shown that humans do contain a high degree of this
variable free will.
What rlr has done is to state that free will is a state, and
furthermore, that the threshold between determinism and free will
is at the point of extreme free will. Given this problem, the
answer is determinism.
But this has complications perhaps you hadn't thought about.
If one were to classify all aspects of human perception in this
manner, the vocabulary would dwindle into nothing. I could very
easily state that the universe was all one thing ( which it is ),
and furthermore state that any other words were unsuitable due to
incompleteness. This is how I construct my one word vocabulary.
The real problem you face is that you must somehow describe
with discrete terms something which is continuous. ( OR at least
with too many states to practically define ) (( I threw that in
for all you religious nuts who believe in divine intervention ))
I hope I'm not going too fast.
What you need to do is to recognize that the definitions you
have chosen ( through free will :-) ) will never contain enough
accuracy to be correct in all contexts. Furthermore, there is no
probability shown that the popular definitions should change,
meaning that you are participating in an exercise in futility.
And now for the clincher! By defining words very rigidly,
words and phrases like free will, you are restricting the degree
of freedom of thought and communicatable concepts, thereby
further setting your destiny.
So, in an absolute sense, I guess you could say that nothing
in this universe contains ideal free will, ( As long as
probability is understood ) and that our destinies are fixed. In
a relative sense, however, and in the sense that we are not able
to perceive through time with absolute resolution, we do get the
feeling that we are able to change the course of our lives.
The point of argument under scrutiny was a paradox, that
determinism and free will are mutually exclusive, but this is not
the case. They are, in fact, opposite extremes of the same
thing. Even if the ultimate authoritative set of equations
describing the laws of physics are produced, we will still know
nothing of the origin beyond a limited resolution, and will be
unable to practically predict anything beyond a certain
resolution.
So the universe will chug away on it's laws of physics in a
very meticulous and rigorous manner, but we will never know the
initial state. This is where the " if you knew enough " argument
falls headlong into the dirt.
Thus, free will can be attributed as an artifact of the
unknown origin. This is also why we use probability, so that
this artifact becomes negligible in our calculations.
Now, I can't decide if you're all wrong, or if you're all
right.
John Williams
< Have you listened to your imaginary friends, lately? >