I have Faith

[soon2bepro]

because even if your actions and results are predetermined, you still get to choose. You can't change your choices, but you get to make them. By telling people to look forward to something is to alter them in a way that will ultimately result in their benefit. Sure, that was already "predetermined" in the sense that it couldn't have been any other way. But that doesn't take any meaning out of your actions. Even if you do nothing, you can't escape this system of causality. So you might as well do what's best for you. It's difficult to understand, but the basic idea is that free will is only a feeling (you may call it an illusion) that is there so we can function as a lifeform, making our choices with a purpose in mind. It doesn't matter if consciously you know there is really no more than one choice to make, you just have to feel, subconsciously that there is.

A common mistake when dealing with determinism and the lack of true free will is that people mix this idea with their ideas on fate and destiny, which suggest a superior being has already planned out the way their life is going to be. In this sense they make the wrong assumption that no matter what they do, the result will be the same. That's utterly wrong. It's so wrong that it is an abomination to rational thinking, not to mention determinism itself.


A positive approach that I like (taken from the Matrix movie) is: "Because you're not here to make a choice, you're here to try to understand why you made that choice"

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that when I woke up on the morning of the meeting, the result was already determined as I now know it to be the day after the meeting?

[/ QUOTE ]

If quantum randomness exists on a macroscopic level, then the result couldn't have been determined -- because it is at least partially random. However, it was still "deterministic" in the sense that whatever those random particles end up being, there is no "free will" that can change them -- BECAUSE you too are included in those random particles.


[ QUOTE ]
In other words, when I woke up the day of the meeting, I had no choice whether or not I would attend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fine to think that you had a choice. But, ultimately, you and your choice were just a certain combination of particles.

[ QUOTE ]
How do I teach my kids the importance of study habits, work ethics, even having goals, or going to college, etc.? How do I convince them they can be whatever they want to be, if I can't convince myself of the same? Why should I make goals if it's already pre-determined whether or not I'll achieve them? Etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, making goals increases the probability that you'll achieve them. So, if you happen to make them, that'll probably be a good thing. But, you'll have to want to make them first, so if you happen to want to make them, that'll help. And, outside influences can increase the chance that you'll want to make them, so convincing your kid that it's worth his time, will help him want to make them which will make it much more likely that he'll achieve them.

You will end up doing whatever your strongest inclination happens to be -- which you have no "free will" over.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> If quantum randomness exists on a macroscopic level, then the result couldn't have been determined -- because it is at least partially random. However, it was still "deterministic" in the sense that whatever those random particles end up being, there is no "free will" that can change them -- BECAUSE you too are included in those random particles. </font>

If quantum mechanics indeed proves there is such a thing as true randomness, then this gets easier to accept. I'm much more comfortable with an event having a pre-determined probability of occuring than outright 100% determinism.



<font color="blue">Well, making goals increases the probability that you'll achieve them. </font>

This seems contradictory, since whether or not I SET the goals is pre-determined. That's my problem. Other than this, I'm perfectly fine with determinism. I think...

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">Well, making goals increases the probability that you'll achieve them. </font>

This seems contradictory, since whether or not I SET the goals is pre-determined. That's my problem. Other than this, I'm perfectly fine with determinism. I think...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not contradictory -- I didn't mean that you have free will to determine if you set the goals... that's determined by your inclinations, which is influenced by your desires, which are influenced by your brain chemistry, which is influenced by the environement, which is influenced by other people interacting with it and you...

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> If quantum randomness exists on a macroscopic level, then the result couldn't have been determined -- because it is at least partially random. However, it was still "deterministic" in the sense that whatever those random particles end up being, there is no "free will" that can change them -- BECAUSE you too are included in those random particles. </font>

If quantum mechanics indeed proves there is such a thing as true randomness, then this gets easier to accept. I'm much more comfortable with an event having a pre-determined probability of occuring than outright 100% determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The probabilities of all possibilities would still total 100% though.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The probabilities of all possibilities would still total 100% though. </font>

Hang with me, I have a real tough time with this stuff, but...

Wouldn't randomness mean that an agent acts according to some determined probability based on antecedent events? As I understand it, quantum mechanics says that if I run headlong towards the wall there is some chance I would go right through it. Granted, I'm not willing to take that chance, but ANY chance less than 100% when it comes to determinism is good enough for me. It means the causal effect of an agent is not tied to an antecedent event with 100% accuracy. That makes a world of difference to me.

[soon2bepro]

Lestat, you're only talking about what you want reality to be like. It doesn't make more sense to think true randomness exist, it's just easier for you to digest.

I think if you look at it more in-deph you'll see that there is no substantial difference; and that in fact, you're better off without randomness. (and I would suppose that since this is originally a forum about probability and gambling, you wouldn't have much of a problem there)

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The probabilities of all possibilities would still total 100% though. </font>

Hang with me, I have a real tough time with this stuff, but...

Wouldn't randomness mean that an agent acts according to some determined probability based on antecedent events? As I understand it, quantum mechanics says that if I run headlong towards the wall there is some chance I would go right through it. Granted, I'm not willing to take that chance, but ANY chance less than 100% when it comes to determinism is good enough for me. It means the causal effect of an agent is not tied to an antecedent event with 100% accuracy. That makes a world of difference to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are correct. I'm not sure it makes much difference to me, though. It just means it's not predictable, which, practically it wouldn't be even if randomness were not involved -- far too many variables.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that when I woke up on the morning of the meeting, the result was already determined as I now know it to be the day after the meeting?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Already" doesn't apply to determination in the deterministic sense. Think about this - reality exists. Time exists. Time is part of reality, not the other way around. Reality doesn't "depend" on time (it's the other way around). Reality doesn't exist "at a certain time" (reality is timeless). To say reality "already" exists assumes that reality depends on time. I don't think that assumption is justified. But even if it were...

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, when I woke up the day of the meeting, I had no choice whether or not I would attend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is incorrect. I have to go now. I can try to explain why I don't think this follows later tonight. But it would help me if I understood why you feel this is true. What is your definition of choice? And why do you feel that a deterministic sequence of events takes away that choice?

(Probabilistic determinism seems like the most likely scenario. In fact, if I'm not mistaken some scientists believe that when you have to make that choice in the morning, two "new realities" are created, one in which you choose option 1, the other in which you choose option 2. So there is a separate reality for each choice you make and which reality "you" exist in depends on your choice. Maybe that will help put your mind at ease.)

[Borodog]

This is pretty funny. I started a thread about free will, after I've already stated that I dislike threads about free will, when I intended to start a thread about faith, and the fact that I am not bothered in the slightest by holding a belief about the fundamental nature of mankind and the universe that I cannot prove or disprove.

Interesting.