My Basic Thought On Free Will

[unterfish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Is the answer no because there is true randomness in the states the human encounters? If so, does this mean there is an algorithm which takes as input the state of the universe and outputs the human's decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory it is possible, you just create an exact model of the universe and just watch it to see what is going to happen.

In practices I believe it is logically beyond humans to completely predict the future in this way, as the universe satisfies the conditions of Gödel’s theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is like saying "We have a free will because the universe is governed by the theory of relativity."
Gödels theorem does not say a word about the universe. It cannot be applied to non-mathematical problems. As well as the theory of relativity cannot be applied to psychology or philosophy or any discipline other than physics.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
This statement is like saying "We have a free will because the universe is governed by the theory of relativity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Gödels theorem does not say a word about the universe. It cannot be applied to non-mathematical problems. As well as the theory of relativity cannot be applied to psychology or philosophy or any discipline other than physics.


[/ QUOTE ]

The universe might not be a mathematical entity, but any model we are capable of making of it would be.

[LeadbellyDan]

Check this out. A physical proof for free will existing (not necessarily in humans).

Conway's Proof Of The Free Will Theorem

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/on...l-theorem.html

[Piers]

Conway's Free Will Theorem

[ QUOTE ]
"If there exist experimenters with (some) free will, then elementary particles also have (some) free will."

[/ QUOTE ]

Very amusing.

[DonkBluffer]

Read only like 2/3 of this thread, but I have a question.

Many asian philosophies and such say that there is no such thing as a seperate self. That this self that we believe we are is an illusion. Now, assuming they were right, can free will exist then? If the answer is no, maybe investigating the existence of seperate selves is easier. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[spyderracing]

Just came across this thread and found it interesting. I consider myself a proponant of Holbach's idea of hard determinism. I think the causality of all events makes it pretty much impossible for someone to have free will (don't get this confused with fatalism). Sure it seems we have freewill and can deliberate prior to making a decision but those are all events that are part of a causal chain immediately leading up to the decision. As far as basing a proof of free will based on discussion of free will goes; I don't think it would hold much water. Sure someone originally posed the question but I'm sure it was based on some event in their life that led to them pondering the question initially. This may still happen to individuals today but I think more often than not someone pondering their own freewill is doing so because they happend to stumble upon the argument with no prior interest in the subject. Does this mean I don't believe in punishing or rewarding people for their respective "rights" and "wrongs"? No, I believe this is done primarily to promote others to take heed to the outcomes of certain actions as part of a causal chain (probably present in the deliberation part) in their own lives. Why is it hard for a lot of people who are reared in poor living conditions to make it out of those conditions? I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in the ghetto most of my life and I'm not sure anyone would, but there is that idea of causality that I feel is leading most to stay there.

Sorry if I rambled a little and got off track, but I felt some examples would help.

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a proponant of Holbach's idea of hard determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it was as hard to wrap my head around the philosophy in high school as it is now, Determinism makes much more sense to me than any argument I've been presented proposing free will.

A determinist believes that there are two elements to a personality: one's unique genetic make-up and one's environment up to the current point in time. If this is the case, then every decision a person makes is based only on these parameters, despite people's capacity to "make" decisions.

Creating a proof that free will exists would simply translate into proving a third element in a personality. One would find it hard to prove this third seemingly intangible boundary that may be called a "will."