My Basic Thought On Free Will

[limon]

new kind of science is a book i go back to again and again (on several topics). i tend to think wolframs ideas about free will have alot of merit. heres a snippet of an interview:

"I do think that the history of the universe--and everything in it--is completely determined. But the point about computational irreducibility is that it shows that that doesn't mean it has to be dull. Even though it's determined, it can still be unpredictable and surprising. And it's irreducible--so we actually have to live it in order to see what happens. I find that a bit ennobling: to know that our history can't just be compressed--that we can't predict its outcome without living it.

NKS brings science into quite a few issues that have only been addressable by philosophy--or theology--before. And one of the things that at first seems troubling is that it makes humans seem less special than we thought. But that's often the way science advances. The Copernican revolution showed us that we don't live at a special point in the physical universe. NKS is now telling us that we don't represent a special point in the computational universe either. Still, it tells us something ennobling too: it tells us that we are just as computationally sophisticated as the physical universe."

[athought]

This is a better articulation of my ignorance argument and seemingly makes the free will argument moot.

Does irreducibility imply free will in rational beings even under the assumption of determinism? If a rationale being cannot measure ("reduce") the factors that predetermine its own actions, then are its actions predetermined for it?

[Phanekim]

[ QUOTE ]
One reason why emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions between components of a system increases combinatorially with the number of components, thus potentially allowing for many new and subtle types of behaviour to emerge.[citation needed] For example, the possible interactions between groups of molecules grows enormously with the number of molecules such that it is impossible for a computer to even count the number of arrangements for a system as small as 20 molecules

[/ QUOTE ]

this is from emergence in wikipedia article.

[David Sklansky]

David,

"That's all that needs to be said about it, and were Russell alive, he wouldn't find it necessary to say any more than to say that he can conceive of unicorns."

I doubt you got my point. It was not that things exist because we CAN conceive of them. It was that free will specifically exists, be we DO wonder if we have it.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
How enlightening this conversation is.

I've always been exposed to theological free will as the freedom for a person to choose between doing something their god does or doesn't want them to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, which he does, does it make any sense to talk about what he wants you to do?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that I have the jist of a proof that free will exists. Intuitively I am almost certain of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, just scribble it in a margin somewhere.



[/ QUOTE ]And die.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

"That's all that needs to be said about it, and were Russell alive, he wouldn't find it necessary to say any more than to say that he can conceive of unicorns."

I doubt you got my point. It was not that things exist because we CAN conceive of them. It was that free will specifically exists, be we DO wonder if we have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just that your argument is so strongly reminiscent of the ontological argument that St Anselm used. It would have struck Russell that way. Are you familiar with that argument? It's not that one can conceive God. It's that God's nature is such that if one can conceive of him, he must exist. It seems to me you're saying the same thing about free will (for different reasons, which is why, I think, you don't think I'm getting your point, which I do). If you seem to exercise it, then you must have it.

I think that if you were shooting for a weaker argument, that if there is a God, he has given you free will, that would maybe be provable, because you could argue that a loving God would not torment you with the illusion of free will if you were bound. I once read a fantastic essay about that, in which a sinner pleads with God to remove his free will, but sadly I can't remember who wrote it. Perhaps someone else here will recall it because I think it might tickle you to read it.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that somewhere out there in logicland, a proof of free will can be constructed from the simple fact that PEOPLE WONDER (AND DISCUSS) WHETHER THEY HAVE FREE WILL.

[/ QUOTE ] I have a couple of computers, as we speak, communicating with each other about having computer offspring. They seem to be in love, as far as they are concerned.

Of course, I have programmed them that way.

But it's all good clean fun, and I'm kinda bored witt the state of the world anyway.

(BTW, this is the same ace of trumps used against Borodog's point made in the splendid post you pointed out.)

Mickey Brausch

[David Sklansky]

I agree that my argument fails if the reason we don't have free will is because God programmed us. Because he could also program us to wonder about free will. But not even religious people suggest that so I'm starting with the assumption that it isn't true.

[snakekilla88]

[ QUOTE ]
If you seem to exercise it, then you must have it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone hear read the last of omelas?