Thought experiment on free will

[FredBoots]

You are about to run the 100m dash at a track meet when a famous psychic walks up to you. He is world-renowned for have 100% accuracy in predicting the winner of sporting events. He tells you that inside an envelope, he has written the name of the winner of the race you are about to run. The question is that if you believe he has accurately predicted the winner, do you do anything differently?

[Green Kool Aid]

why would you?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is that if you believe he has accurately predicted the winner, do you do anything differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Different? compared to what? I'm a Yodarian. We don't 'try', we simply 'do'. We're only in one situation at a time, no other scenario that was a possibility up to this moment is comparable to this one. You can't step into the same river twice.

I don't see any differnce when comparing the case presented, the one where he shows us the answer and the one where he is hit by a truck on the way to show us the answer.

He shows me the answer, it's 'ME", wheeee, and I reach in my bag, get my gun and shoot myself. If it's george... sorry george.

You didn't say he was right, only that I believed he was.

luckyme, now where did I put that bag..

[FredBoots]

I guess I use this thought experiment when people say that a deterministic world leads to people not caring about anything, and not feeling responsible. The world might be (is?) deterministic, but it doesn't matter because no one can predict the future, so we all have to act as though we have free will. Knowing the world is deterministic doesn't change how you act.

Unfortunately, if you believe in God, you can't believe in free will:
1. If the world is deterministic, there is no free will.
2. If someone can predict your future, the world is deterministic.
3. God can predict your future.
Therefore, if God can predict your future, there is no free will.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, if you believe in God, you can't believe in free will:
1. If the world is deterministic, there is no free will.
2. If someone can predict your future, the world is deterministic.
3. God can predict your future.
Therefore, if God can predict your future, there is no free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif This is a really old argument. The physical world IS deterministic. If God is prescient of my choices, it is done by a means for which we have no scientific explanation. The only way that free will can be made logically possible is by the introduction of the "soul", that is, something non-physical that is sentient and makes choices independently of physical law. I can't prove that free will isn't an illusion, but I choose (:D) to believe that I have it, and thus I must also believe that I have a soul. From there, I take the non-logical step of following my religious "feelings", and thus a rational theist is made.

[Somekid]

This is absurd, a soul is not necessary for free will. Could you explain exactly what you mean by the physical world being deterministic?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
This is absurd, a soul is not necessary for free will. Could you explain exactly what you mean by the physical world being deterministic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been down this road before, and I don't feel like doing it again. Try the search function. This thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4624470&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1) will get you started. Also try reading this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) for an introduction to the philosophical meaning of "deterministic".

[Somekid]

I'm aware of the debate over free will. My point was that your statement is very ambiguous. I hope you're aware that the exact nature of the determinist argument has been debated extensively outside of forum threads...

I asked you what you meant not because I've never heard a determinist argument but because I want to know what you're talking about.

Are you talking about the claim that all events have causes, therefore the universe must be deterministic?

Are you talking about the idea that if every piece of information about the current state of the universe were known that we could know the entire future?

Or are you talking about some other conception of deterministic?

The determinist argument is really difficult to pin down, one of the reasons why its so appealling to people.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm aware of the debate over free will. My point was that your statement is very ambiguous. I hope you're aware that the exact nature of the determinist argument has been debated extensively outside of forum threads...

I asked you what you meant not because I've never heard a determinist argument but because I want to know what you're talking about.

Are you talking about the claim that all events have causes, therefore the universe must be deterministic?

Are you talking about the idea that if every piece of information about the current state of the universe were known that we could know the entire future?

Or are you talking about some other conception of deterministic?

The determinist argument is really difficult to pin down, one of the reasons why its so appealling to people.

[/ QUOTE ]
AS regards free-will the deterministic argument is pinned down, done and dusted (imho). Its prob' in that thread but:

All non-deterministic descriptions of the world are equivalent to a deterministic description of the world.

Therefore if free-will is possible in a deterministic world then its possible in a non-determistic world.

chez

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about the claim that all events have causes, therefore the universe must be deterministic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, obviously. I'm as simple as that.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about the idea that if every piece of information about the current state of the universe were known that we could know the entire future?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, The existence (if it does in fact exist) of quantum randomness refutes this, IMO.

That takes care of the ambiguity, I think. I am humbly looking forward (really) to your refutation of my previous statement, but simply stating "that is absurd" is not a valid refutation.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
2. If someone can predict your future, the world is deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain the reasoning behind that conclusion.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
No, The existence (if it does in fact exist) of quantum randomness refutes this, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted about this a few months back, and was told that quantum randomness does not actually exist.

Particles go from state A to state B in a determined manner. Its just when we bring measuring into the equation that randomness enters.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I use this thought experiment when people say that a deterministic world leads to people not caring about anything, and not feeling responsible. The world might be (is?) deterministic, but it doesn't matter because no one can predict the future, so we all have to act as though we have free will. Knowing the world is deterministic doesn't change how you act.

Unfortunately, if you believe in God, you can't believe in free will:
1. If the world is deterministic, there is no free will.
2. If someone can predict your future, the world is deterministic.
3. God can predict your future.
Therefore, if God can predict your future, there is no free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the theistic claim is not that God can predict the future but that he knows it without predicting. This is due to him seeing all of history "all at once". This is where I find the argument uncompelling - I think God knows the future directly, not through inducing what future state is likely from some current state of affairs.

[Somekid]

The statement "all events have causes" is an analytic statement. It reports nothing about the universe, it's merely definitional.

Think of the statement "all events have causes" as being similar to the statement "a square has four sides"

Therefore, I don't see how this proves that the physical world is deterministic.

edit: Maybe I still need clarification, are you saying the physical world is deterministic IF god is all-knowing, or are you just saying that the physical world is deterministic, period.

[purnell]

It has nothing to do with the existence of God(s). My faith in Christ is intuitive, not logical.

IMO the physical world is deterministic because all events follow from (are caused by) previous events.

edit: Of course, the current state of quantum theory adds an element of randomness, but it remains correct that all physical things are constrained to follow physical law, making free will impossible for a purely physical being.

[Somekid]

How exactly does one prove that everything that has ever happened had some prior cause?

the statement "all events have causes," if synthetic, is not provable.

Hume made this point first, i think...

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly does one prove that everything that has ever happened had some prior cause?

the statement "all events have causes," if synthetic, is not provable.

Hume made this point first, i think...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough - I certainly can't prove it. But assuming that some events are uncaused opens another can of worms, doesn't it?

[MidGe]

Since every single event that I have/has been seen, has been caused (ie. has, in fact, more than a single cause) till I observe something different or a credible scientist does, I'll keep on accepting that every thing/event has causes. I don't see the usefulness of assuming/thinking any differently. Why should I invent, but worse, "rely" on something that has never been observed?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Since every single event that I have/has been seen, has been caused (ie. has, in fact, more than a single cause) till I observe something different or a credible scientist does, I'll keep on accepting that every thing/event has causes. I don't see the usefulness of assuming/thinking any differently. Why should I invent, but worse, "rely" on something that has never been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have found common ground. Praise the Lord! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
We have found common ground. Praise the Lord!

[/ QUOTE ]

Uuuh, that includes the lord or god or whatever you name it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

That excludes in fact a prime cause!

But I am glad we agree.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]

Search Dictionary:


Houghton Mifflin


i·ro·ny

NOUN:
pl. i·ro·nies

1.
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit 1.
2.
1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.


[/ QUOTE ]

My sense of humor is a bit odd, I suppose.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Since every single event that I have/has been seen, has been caused (ie. has, in fact, more than a single cause) till I observe something different or a credible scientist does, I'll keep on accepting that every thing/event has causes. I don't see the usefulness of assuming/thinking any differently. Why should I invent, but worse, "rely" on something that has never been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that (at least one interpretation of) quantum mechanics claims there is no cause of a quantum event. For example in the decay of a single atom of a radioactive isotope it will sit there for a while, then decay - nothing causes the event it just happens.

Another example (although not technically an event I guess) that I think we would agree on is that there is no cause for the laws of logic "working". They just do - and they have to.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My sense of humor is a bit odd, I suppose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Irony like in my post.

[ QUOTE ]
But I am glad we agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

I still respect your faith, attitude to life. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
... every single event that I have/has been seen, has been caused ...

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you possibly know that?

[Somekid]

I'm not relying on something that hasn't been observed. I'm not even saying that the statement is false.

All I'm saying is that the synthetic statement "all events have causes" can NOT be used to make the argument that the physical world is deterministic, because the statement "all events have causes" has not been proven.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since every single event that I have/has been seen, has been caused (ie. has, in fact, more than a single cause) till I observe something different or a credible scientist does, I'll keep on accepting that every thing/event has causes. I don't see the usefulness of assuming/thinking any differently. Why should I invent, but worse, "rely" on something that has never been observed?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that (at least one interpretation of) quantum mechanics claims there is no cause of a quantum event. For example in the decay of a single atom of a radioactive isotope it will sit there for a while, then decay - nothing causes the event it just happens.

Another example (although not technically an event I guess) that I think we would agree on is that there is no cause for the laws of logic "working". They just do - and they have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on the correct track here. Another famous example is the Davisson-Germer experiment where they fire an electron gun at the equivalent of two slits. If you fire one electron at a time, exactly the same, every time, you will get a different result every time. There is no way to predict the result, the best you can do is describe the probability of any given outcome.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Another famous example is the Davisson-Germer experiment where they fire an electron gun at the equivalent of two slits. If you fire one electron at a time, exactly the same, every time, you will get a different result every time. There is no way to predict the result, the best you can do is describe the probability of any given outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not disputing that at all. I am not talking about predictability or probability at all, but about causality. Anyway, I think my statement was too far off topic. I'll stop hijacking. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that the synthetic statement "all events have causes" can NOT be used to make the argument that the physical world is deterministic, because the statement "all events have causes" has not been proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can, if it is taken as axiomatic, but I'm not sure that I can justify doing that.

edit: BTW, it appears we have a new bull in the pen. It is clear to me that yours is a formidable intellect, and I look forward to your future posts.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't step into the same river twice.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't step into the same river twice.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I vote no, shall we have a poll?

chez

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't step into the same river twice.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can.

[/ QUOTE ]
I vote no, shall we have a poll?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very difficult to solve philosophical problems by polling.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't step into the same river twice.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[siegfriedandroy]

Demonstrate that #2 is correct

[siegfriedandroy]

wow, i just read this w/o seeing what you were responding to. cant wait to find out!

[siegfriedandroy]

If it's my name, I simply jog the 100m, come in last, and go up and laugh in his face b/c I just proved him a fraud

[siegfriedandroy]

Yeah, I think the above type of argument is way oversimplified, and fails to take into account the real tough issues such as defining time, etc

[siegfriedandroy]

Hey Sharkey, you wrote the same thing I just did! You wanta grab lunch?

[siegfriedandroy]

At what point does a scientist become 'credible'?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
At what point does a scientist become 'credible'?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are more/others, but lets talk about those certainly credible, those are where the results or derivations of their work is of benefit to humanity.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't step into the same river twice.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've done it. What's the problem?

Yes you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done it. What's the problem?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I use this thought experiment when people say that a deterministic world leads to people not caring about anything, and not feeling responsible. The world might be (is?) deterministic, but it doesn't matter because no one can predict the future, so we all have to act as though we have free will. Knowing the world is deterministic doesn't change how you act.

Unfortunately, if you believe in God, you can't believe in free will:
1. If the world is deterministic, there is no free will.
2. If someone can predict your future, the world is deterministic.
3. God can predict your future.
Therefore, if God can predict your future, there is no free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the theistic claim is not that God can predict the future but that he knows it without predicting. This is due to him seeing all of history "all at once". This is where I find the argument uncompelling - I think God knows the future directly, not through inducing what future state is likely from some current state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does He know when He will need to perform a miracle in order to help people out?

Don't you find that to be a bit of a paradox?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Does He know when He will need to perform a miracle in order to help people out?

Don't you find that to be a bit of a paradox?

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think he knows what he needs to do, what he chooses to do and what changes that makes to the world all at once. This doesnt seem paradoxical to me. I think it's hard to imagine what it would be like to "see" history from start to finish all at once - but that is how I imagine God viewing the universe.