• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I don’t see how traditional ‘determinism’ survives things like quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena. We are in a universe in which we barely understand the surface.
Agreed. This is why I have issues with the claim of absolute knowledge. Reminding other people that issues with something does not signify a rejection of that something. Only that I do not consider I have enough understanding to make a valid determination for myself.

The Titanic was absolutely unsinkable, then some new information floated alongside and unsinkable was no longer an absolute.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I used to make a joke about it being my destiny to refute fate. So you do not see the will of some cause determining our actions or the direction of the universe?

Pantheists seem to believe more in a real-time nature in which God to some extent is in all of us. For example, the goodness in you may be the God aspect, but you still have free will.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding the beliefs. I'm still pretty new to them.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You risk having your post split into different topics by the mods.
That may be my least risky risk of the day.

The best argument for freedom of will is that we, as part of our surroundings have claim to a portion of its sum power. This is reinforced by empirically noting the brain and a need to ascribe some function to the intelligence it permits- thus free will.
This strikes a bell and I was recently reading something similar. I believe it was an argument for the existence of God, but I will have to go back. Obviously, I need to re-read it anyway, if this is the best I can muster.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Pantheists seem to believe more in a real-time nature in which God to some extent is in all of us. For example, the goodness in you may be the God aspect, but you still have free will.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding the beliefs. I'm still pretty new to them.
The bulk of my knowledge of these philosophies was learned a lifetime ago, so I am now having to revive and re-learn many details and even core information that has eroded over time.

Though rough, that definition of pantheism is pretty good. Information is in everything in real time.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Where is the Free in free will? (from an Opening Post I made Feb 28, 2016)


Philosophically, free will is a term for a particular capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. In essence, freewill is commonly taken to mean, "I could have done differently had I desired." But just how does this work? How does the mental operation that makes the choice to go left rather than right, work?

So far, the only operative agents in the universe that have been found to bring events into being are utter randomness and causation. Utter randomness is a total lack of causation. Events simply pop into being for absolutely no reason whatsoever. While seemingly preposterous, this reportedly does occur in quantum mechanics; some subatomic particles do simply pop in and out of existence for absolutely no reason at all. While this is the prevailing notion in quantum physics, there are those who do question it, but assuming utter randomness does exist could it contribute to free will? Hardly. Any effect it had on the mental operation of "choosing" would immediately render the "choosing" itself random. So utter randomness can be eliminated as the agent of choosing. This leaves us with causation as the explanation for our actions.

What we "choose" to do is caused.

Causation is a "because of this, then that" sort of operation---notice the "cause" in the word "because," it's kind of telling. So, looking at a "choice" to go left rather than right, we have to ask ourselves what caused this "choice"? The common and immediate answer is, "our free will." Nice, but what is the will and what is it free of?

"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its ......own actions"
source Dictionary.com
The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action. It determined (coerced) the will to make the "choice," say, to go left rather than right. If there wasn't then why would the will "choose" what it did? So, where does this causal agent get its instructions that determine the action of the will? Well, we've ruled out randomness as a possibility, so it too must have had a causal agent that determined its action. And where does this casual agent get it's instructions? As is probably evident, it's turtles all the way down. What we "choose" to do is because of a successive series of antecedent cause/effect operations that ultimately led to one "choosing" to go left rather than right. But, could we have "chosen" differently? "Chose" to go right instead? Not unless there was something different in the chain of cause/effect events that led up to the moment of going one way or the other. Think of the antecedent cause/effect events as a series of numbers. Say its the series of six numbers of 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, which equals 26. For the series to equal some other number one or more of the numbers would have to be different. But they weren't, they were 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, so the final outcome has to be 26 and no other number. Same is true of the series of events leading up to moment of going one way or the other. They were what they were and not something else, and because of this it was inevitable that one "chose" to go left rather than right. One simply couldn't have gone right. One HAD to go left.

So where is the meat in the notion of "choosing"? There isn't any. "Choosing," and all of its cognates, are really empty notions and terms that don't mean a thing---other than in their most simplistic usage. We no more "choose," (decide) to go left than a rock chooses to sit where it does. While the will does control the mind as to its actions, what it does is not free, but controlled (determined) by all the causal effects that lead up to any doing.


.
.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You risk having your post split into different topics by the mods.

The best argument for freedom of will is that we, as part of our surroundings have claim to a portion of its sum power. This is reinforced by empirically noting the brain and a need to ascribe some valid function to the intelligence it permits- thus free will.
Since I think I may have overdone expressing my interest in rational determinism and a desire to have you expound upon your knowledge of the subject, perhaps we can focus the discussion on that. If you would be so kind as to provide your take on the subject, I would be most grateful.

One word--several words actually--of advice. How people react does not reflect on the value of what you have to say to those that are interested and there is not reason to withhold useful information just, because there is no guarantee it will be widely received or produce a desired outcome.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Where is the Free in free will? (from an opening post in evidence for god from science web site)

Philosophically, free will is a term for a particular capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. In essence, freewill is commonly taken to mean, "I could have done differently had I desired." But just how does this work? How does the mental operation that makes the choice to go left rather than right, work?

So far, the only operative agents in the universe that have been found to bring events into being are utter randomness and causation. Utter randomness is a total lack of causation. Events simply pop into being for absolutely no reason whatsoever. While seemingly preposterous, this reportedly does occur in quantum mechanics; some subatomic particles do simply pop in and out of existence for absolutely no reason at all. While this is the prevailing notion in quantum physics, there are those who do question it, but assuming utter randomness does exist could it contribute to free will? Hardly. Any effect it had on the mental operation of "choosing" would immediately render the "choosing" itself random. So utter randomness can be eliminated as the agent of choosing. This leaves us with causation as the explanation for our actions.

What we "choose" to do is caused.

Causation is a "because of this, then that" sort of operation---notice the "cause" in the word "because," it's kind of telling. So, looking at our "choice" to go left rather than right, we have to ask ourselves what caused this "choice"? The common and immediate answer is, "our free will." Nice, but what is the will and what is it free of?

......"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its ......own actions"
......source

The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action. It determined (coerced) the will to make the "choice," say, to go left rather than right. If there wasn't then why would the will "choose" what it did? So, where does this causal agent get its instructions that determine the action of the will? Well, we've ruled out randomness as a possibility, so it too must have had a causal agent that determined its action. And where does this casual agent get it's instructions? As is probably evident, it's turtles all the way down. What we "choose" to do is because of a successive series of cause/effect operations that ultimately led to one "choosing" to go left rather than right. But, could we have "chosen" differently? "Chose" to go right instead? Not unless there was something different in the chain of cause/effect events that led up to the moment of going one way or the other. Think of the cause/effect events as a series of numbers. Say its the series of six numbers of 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, which equals 26. For the series to equal some other number one or more of the numbers would have to be different. But they weren't, they were 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, so the final outcome has to be 26 and no other number. Same is true of the series of events leading up to moment of going one way or the other. They were what they were and not something else, and because of this it was inevitable that one "chose" to go left rather than right. One simply couldn't have gone right. One HAD to go left.

So where is the meat in the notion of "choosing"? There isn't any. "Choosing," and all of its cognates, are really empty notions and terms that don't mean a thing---other than in their most simplistic usage. We no more "choose," (decide) to go left than a rock chooses to sit where it does. While the will does control the mind as to its actions, what it does is not free, but controlled (determined) by all the causal effects that lead up to any doing.


.
.
Causation is necessity here. Under a rejection of free will, the universe is seen to operate on chance and necessity.

I am still reading through, but I wanted to recognize those particular points.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You risk having your post split into different topics by the mods.

The best argument for freedom of will is that we, as part of our surroundings have claim to a portion of its sum power. This is reinforced by empirically noting the brain and a need to ascribe some valid function to the intelligence it permits- thus free will.
Too late. Free will has taken over for the moment.

What is your training in?
 

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
I would not think so... most atheist who base all reality in a physics would not believe in predestination or determinism, unless ... forward/backward time traveling is possible, that would be a game changer! Free will would be an illusion. Isn't determinism something like forcing a change to achieve a goal? It's not exactly predestination right? If that's true then unless we are preprogramed biological robots determinism doesn't necessarily prevent free will.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Where is the Free in free will? (from an opening post in evidence for god from science web site)

Philosophically, free will is a term for a particular capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. In essence, freewill is commonly taken to mean, "I could have done differently had I desired." But just how does this work? How does the mental operation that makes the choice to go left rather than right, work?

So far, the only operative agents in the universe that have been found to bring events into being are utter randomness and causation. Utter randomness is a total lack of causation. Events simply pop into being for absolutely no reason whatsoever. While seemingly preposterous, this reportedly does occur in quantum mechanics; some subatomic particles do simply pop in and out of existence for absolutely no reason at all. While this is the prevailing notion in quantum physics, there are those who do question it, but assuming utter randomness does exist could it contribute to free will? Hardly. Any effect it had on the mental operation of "choosing" would immediately render the "choosing" itself random. So utter randomness can be eliminated as the agent of choosing. This leaves us with causation as the explanation for our actions.

What we "choose" to do is caused.

Causation is a "because of this, then that" sort of operation---notice the "cause" in the word "because," it's kind of telling. So, looking at a "choice" to go left rather than right, we have to ask ourselves what caused this "choice"? The common and immediate answer is, "our free will." Nice, but what is the will and what is it free of?

......"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its ......own actions"
......source

The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action. It determined (coerced) the will to make the "choice," say, to go left rather than right. If there wasn't then why would the will "choose" what it did? So, where does this causal agent get its instructions that determine the action of the will? Well, we've ruled out randomness as a possibility, so it too must have had a causal agent that determined its action. And where does this casual agent get it's instructions? As is probably evident, it's turtles all the way down. What we "choose" to do is because of a successive series of cause/effect operations that ultimately led to one "choosing" to go left rather than right. But, could we have "chosen" differently? "Chose" to go right instead? Not unless there was something different in the chain of cause/effect events that led up to the moment of going one way or the other. Think of the cause/effect events as a series of numbers. Say its the series of six numbers of 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, which equals 26. For the series to equal some other number one or more of the numbers would have to be different. But they weren't, they were 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, so the final outcome has to be 26 and no other number. Same is true of the series of events leading up to moment of going one way or the other. They were what they were and not something else, and because of this it was inevitable that one "chose" to go left rather than right. One simply couldn't have gone right. One HAD to go left.

So where is the meat in the notion of "choosing"? There isn't any. "Choosing," and all of its cognates, are really empty notions and terms that don't mean a thing---other than in their most simplistic usage. We no more "choose," (decide) to go left than a rock chooses to sit where it does. While the will does control the mind as to its actions, what it does is not free, but controlled (determined) by all the causal effects that lead up to any doing.


.
.
So you believe our actions are perfectly predictable and do not arise uncaused from our own minds. Any action not predictable is the result of random chance that is not attributed to causation or necessity as you see it.

Religious arguments for free will attribute it to the supernatural as the basis for morality. We are free to follow good or evil, but the true exercise of free will is to reject temptation. The problem here is that it dies of its own success, since efforts to achieve high moral alignment make a person very predictable. Free will, if it exists, would be very unpredictable.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I would not think so... most atheist who base all reality in a physics would not believe in predestination or determinism, unless ... forward/backward time traveling is possible, that would be a game changer!
I have sat in observation of a few discussions on the subject. The unfortunate take away from those has been that there is a glaring gap in my knowledge of quantum physics.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
H*** no. Atheism implies nature and nurture working together.
Interesting. That idea form the basis of my views on human biology. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology set the stage for us, but experience ultimately determines the significance of how those laws end up being expressed.

Is there a rule against language?
I do not have any specific rules on the subject, but the forum does.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Does anyone know of a prominent neuroscientist today who believes in free will? I can't think of one. People outside the field of course, but no one inside it. There's got to be at least one though.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So you believe our actions are perfectly predictable and do not arise uncaused from our own minds.
Perfectly predictable? Absolutely not. Perfect predictability requires far, far, far more information than we'll ever have or be able to process.

Any action not predictable is the result of random chance that is not attributed to causation or necessity as you see it.
More accurately: Any action not determined would be the result of random chance, which, by definition, is not attributed to causation or necessity as I see it.

Religious arguments for free will attribute it to the supernatural as the basis for morality.
Sometimes, yes it has. However, far more importantly, religious arguments for free will are often driven by the overarching need to hold onto the notion of freedom of choice so as to retain the virtue of sin and salvation.

We are free to follow good or evil, but the true exercise of free will is to reject temptation.
Indeed, that is the reasoning, and ofttimes the assertion.

The problem here is that it dies of its own success, since efforts to achieve high moral alignment make a person very predictable. Free will, if it exists, would be very unpredictable.
Sorry, but I fail to see why efforts to achieve high moral alignment would make predictability or unpredictability problematic. As I implied above, in a determinism world perfect predictability requires far, far, far more information than we'll ever have or be able to process.

.
 
Last edited:

Astosolece

Member
H*** no. Atheism implies nature and nurture working together.

Is there a rule against language?
My father speaks frequently about nature and nurture, claiming that is all there is and there is no such thing as free will. I disagree. It it were true, then it would mean that we have no control over our thoughts or actions, thereby absolving us of any responsibility for them.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
My father speaks frequently about nature and nurture, claiming that is all there is and there is no such thing as free will. I disagree. It it were true, then it would mean that we have no control over our thoughts or actions, thereby absolving us of any responsibility for them.
In a very real sense this is true; however, this is not how we've developed. From everyone I've talked with about the issue it appears we can't help but buy into the illusion of responsibility---a result of our deterministic personal universe---and act accordingly.

.
 

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
Free will is the fundamental principle of things in the universe, anything conscious has free will. Whatever ways humans or animals etc choose to use that free will in accordance to social structures and personal habits is besides the point. You can't not have free will, it is contrary to the most fundamental state of existence.
 
Top