rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/84)
> What difference does it make if we have free will or not? We > certainly are unaware of anyone [AnyOne] pulling our strings, in > the sense that all our moves are planned beforehand, and we're > just acting out. It doesn't seem important, or possible to > resolve. How would we ever know that some Puppeteer was up there? > Presumably our dance steps would not included ever meeting Him. Lack of free will does not imply determinism or a determining/controlling agent. Our actions may be a result of biochemical/physical processes rather than something "willing" those actions, but that doesn't make them any more "pre-determined". -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
victorf@houca.UUCP (07/12/84)
You learn something new every day. I thought I was the only one who had come up with the idea that there is no such thing as free will and here I learn that it is an ongoing debate in net.philosophy. Some friends and I talked about this for many hours one night and here are some of the points we brought up. First of all if you believe in God you probably think all your actions are predetermined anyway by Him. Case closed if you're religious. If you don't believe in a creator the subject becomes much more difficult. According to Maxwell ( I think), if you know the location and motion of every particle in a system at one moment then you know the entire history and future of that system, if you're sophisticated enough. Now, if you're a believer in the big bang theory you believe that all the particles in the universe where in one place at one time. After the explosion, then, if you knew *everything* about those particles you could certainly predict where the galaxys would form, how long it would take, and what the galaxy would look like (ie. where the stars are). Taking it one step further you would be able to predict where the planets would form and their size, etc. This is where the problem occurs. Agreeing that you could figure all that out, why wouldn't you assume that you could also predict the possibility and form of the *life* that might arise on that planet? You must remember all through this that you knew *everything* about the particles at one moment and you know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, etc. If the universe follows the laws of physics, which we assume it does, we should know what is going to happen given this information. Taking it a step further, we will know everything about every organism, most importantly, the *exact* function of its brain. We would know more about that creature than it would know about itself. Continuing with the logic, we would know what it would do in any situation, where it would go, even when it would meet its mate and have children. The best argument against this theory is that there exists 'free will' in life forms. WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Did the physics of the universe form free will? I don't think so. Ya know, we never did come up with any answers... Scott Thompson (my *real* path is ...houca!hoqax!rst)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/14/84)
> First of all if you believe in God you probably think all your actions are > predetermined anyway by Him. Case closed if you're religious. Not really. Christians seem to believe that god is omniscient (knows what was/is/will be happening everywhere), yet they also make a claim for free will, stating that it is your "choice" based on the actions you "choose" whether you go to eternal bliss or eternal damnation. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for this apparent contradiction. > According to Maxwell ( I think), if you know the location and motion of > every particle in a system at one moment then you know the entire history > and future of that system, if you're sophisticated enough. According to Heisenberg, you don't. > Taking it a step further, we will know everything about every organism, most > importantly, the *exact* function of its brain. We would know more about > that creature than it would know about itself. Continuing with the logic, > we would know what it would do in any situation, where it would go, even > when it would meet its mate and have children. > The best argument against this theory is that there exists 'free will' in > life forms. WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Did the physics of the universe form > free will? I don't think so. But then, the theory that there exists 'free will' has a few holes in it as well. -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/17/84)
<> >From: victorf@houca.UUCP Thu Jul 12 10:25:35 1984 >According to Maxwell ( I think), if you know the location and motion of >every particle in a system at one moment then you know the entire history >and future of that system, if you're sophisticated enough. This is the view of strict determinism as embraced by 19th century physics. If it is true, then there obviously can be no free will. However... Modern physics embodies quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is rooted not in strict causality but in probabilities. Events on the "quantum level" (that determined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) are not deterministic. Events on a grosser level, e.g. the motions of the planets, are essentially deterministic, of course, because one probable motion so overwhelms in likelihood any other. In fairness I should note that some physicists have held that quantum mechanics is only seemingly nondeterministic, that there are "hidden variables" that would determine the outcome of events if we could perceive them. Einstein was the most famous exponent of this school. Unfortunately, experimental evidence seems to have virtually ruled out the "hidden variable" theory. You may have heard of the thought experiment about "Schroedinger's Cat" in which kitty is placed in a box with a radioisotope, a detector, and a poison gas vial. If a decay occurs (a truly random event) in a given time, the gas is released and the cat perishes (a cruel experiment, even as a gendankendingus). This illustrates how noncausal events on the quantum level can be leveraged up to the normally "deterministic" world. Another example would be the occurence of "soft" computer errors due to radioactive decay and cosmic rays (a problem for Shuttle flights - see Science, 13 July 1984). Yet another example (possibly) is the human brain. This does not "prove" the existence of free will, of course. Indeed, I have no idea how I might prove it. But it does suggest that in the long run there is more randomness than determinism in the cosmos. At least there is SOME randomness. If we have free will, it is conceivable that it operates by selecting among the various probabilities with which we are presented. One mechanism for that might be provided by the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has world lines branching off to all the possibilities at any moment. Maybe our "minds" or "souls" if they exist select a path to travel on. This "Gradian Dualism" (he said with not a trace of modesty or even common sense) has as an unpleasant consequence that we are each alone in our own cosmos, surrounded by automata. This solipsism is a prospect that would appeal to few of us, except perhaps some Libertarians... :-) I don't think that "many worlds" view is too likely; I'm just pointing it out. I repeat that this is no disproof of epiphenomenalism, simply a suggestion that things aren't as cut and dried as has been suggested. And I still hold by my principle that whether or not free will truly exists, it makes sense to pretend that it does. If it does not exist, we've lost nothing by our (evidently predetermined) assumption. If it does exist, if we have REAL choice, then we have chosen to believe in the truth. Ya can't lose! D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
brianp@shark.UUCP (07/21/84)
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
+ Not really. Christians seem to believe that god is omniscient (knows what
+ was/is/will be happening everywhere), yet they also make a claim for free
+ will, stating that it is your "choice" based on the actions you "choose"
+ whether you go to eternal bliss or eternal damnation. I have yet to hear
+ a satisfactory explanation for this apparent contradiction.
This isn't a contradiction. This means that god is just going to
sit there and let you fuck up, and then watch you burn in hell.
+ > Taking it a step further, we will know everything about every
+ > organism, most
+ > importantly, the *exact* function of its brain. We would know more about
+ > that creature than it would know about itself. Continuing with the logic,
+ > The best argument against this theory is that there exists 'free will' in
+ > life forms. WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Did the physics of the universe form
+ > free will? I don't think so.
What if this critter is you? You have to consider yourself
(part of the family... :-) in your picture of the world. Go talk to Godel.
Would a random number generator help in making free will?
Aren't there totally random events in physics? Nuclei splitting, electrons
jumping through tunnel diodes, the direction a newborn particle and its
anti go in (after subtracting motion of creator particles)?
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp