• 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!

Determinism/Free Will

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We cannot choose anything else if God knows what we will choose, but we can freely choose to do what God knows we will freely choose to do.
That's refuted by the impossibility of our choosing anything else. Our 'choice' is not a choice, and it's not free, even if we think it is.

It can only be what God intended it to be, when creating the universe 14 bn years ago. Nothing else is possible.

As you and I agree, an omnipotent omniscient perfect God can't be blindsided. If our will was actually free, we could indeed blindside [him], surprise [him], do what [he] never intended us to do and never foresaw despite being perfect.

Have I made the point clear? You can ONLY do what an omnipotent omniscient perfect God has always intended you'll do. You may think you're choosing but you're merely running down your pre-ordained groove with no hope of departure from your fixed destiny.

God is NOT watching what you freely choose. God has already decided what you'll 'freely' choose, back before [he] made the universe.

The only escape route is a God that's NOT omnipotent omniscient perfect.

Though we're still left with the problems of physical determinism, of course.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
As you and I agree, an omnipotent omniscient perfect God can't be blindsided. If our will was actually free, we could indeed blindside [him], surprise [him], do what [he] never intended us to do and never foresaw despite being perfect.

You cannot blindside God even if God did not know what we will do.

Have I made the point clear? You can ONLY do what an omnipotent omniscient perfect God has always intended you'll do. You may think you're choosing but you're merely running down your pre-ordained groove with no hope of departure from your fixed destiny.

God is NOT watching what you freely choose. God has already decided what you'll 'freely' choose, back before [he] made the universe.

The only escape route is a God that's NOT omnipotent omniscient perfect.

Though we're still left with the problems of physical determinism, of course.

You have made your point clear.
Have I made mine clear? That we have a million possible choices to choose from and we do not know what God knows so we can freely choose whatever we want even if God knows what that will be.
And yes God did know 14 bn years ago what we would freely choose and made the universe with that knowledge already known. In that sense everything is pre ordained because God has foreseen it, but what God has foreseen is us freely choosing our path.
If you do not think that God is able to foreknow what will happen without some way causing that to happen then that is your opinion of God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but your logic of just one possible path is not logical without that presumption about God's inability to have foreknowledge without forcing us in any way to choose anything except what we choose.
In that way your reasoning is circular.
The actual foreknowledge of something is not a mechanism to make it happen, even if it is the foreknowledge of how the universe will physically unfold.
When it comes to creatures with free will, if that is the way they were made then God knowing what they will choose is not a mechanism that forces them to do it.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
[
If you do not think that God is able to foreknow what will happen without some way causing that to happen then that is your opinion of God
No, it's not an opinion ─ it's a direct and inescapable consequence of God being omnipotent omniscient and perfect. [He] could have made the universe any way [he] pleased ─ since [he]'s omnipotent ─ and [he] made it THIS way in full and perfect knowledge what [he] was doing and what would happen as a consequence.

[He] chose to run over the dog.
When it comes to creatures with free will, if that is the way they were made then God knowing what they will choose is not a mechanism that forces them to do it.
One more time ─

IF God is omnipotent omniscient perfect
THEN everything including humans can only ever do think say exactly what God omnisciently and perfectly foresaw and intended 14 bn years ago.

From that perfect omniscience nothing can deviate even by the width of a quark.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
No it doesn't.
Knowledge of the future does not take away free will.
If knowledge is of events done and freely chosen from many possible choices and without the knowledge of the choice that will be made, why do you say that there is no free will just because the person was only able to choose one path from the many possibilities?
Can you freely chose a natural number between 2 and 4 (exclusively)?

By your own admission, you can't. Can you freely chose a number between 0 and 10, when I tell you that you are allowed to think about all possibilities but that only 3 will ever come out of your mouth?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
[ No, it's not an opinion ─ it's a direct and inescapable consequence of God being omnipotent omniscient and perfect. [He] could have made the universe any way [he] pleased ─ since [he]'s omnipotent ─ and [he] made it THIS way in full and perfect knowledge what [he] was doing and what would happen as a consequence.

[He] chose to run over the dog.

No, He chose to allow us to freely choose to run over the dog.

One more time ─

IF God is omnipotent omniscient perfect
THEN everything including humans can only ever do think say exactly what God omnisciently and perfectly foresaw and intended 14 bn years ago.

From that perfect omniscience nothing can deviate even by the width of a quark.

Nothing can deviate from that perfect omniscience but it is a foreknowledge of what God allows us to do.
You use the word "intended" as if you are saying that God wanted us to do evil things.
I use the word "allows" in the sense that the good God tolerates the evil that we do and is bringing good from the whole messed us situation that We cause by actually choosing to do the evil that God knew we would choose to do.
The whole mess might actually seem hopeless but is something that God has foreseen and has it in control even if we cannot see that now.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Can you freely chose a natural number between 2 and 4 (exclusively)?

By your own admission, you can't. Can you freely chose a number between 0 and 10, when I tell you that you are allowed to think about all possibilities but that only 3 will ever come out of your mouth?

If I knew what God knows and if God is forcing me to choose only one of the many possibilities, then I cannot freely choose.
However neither of those 2 qualifications apply.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, He chose to allow us to freely choose to run over the dog.
Please explain to me step by step how that can be the case when God chose to create the universe in such a manner that exactly that would happen.

You're trying to blame the car instead of the driver for running over the dog.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Please explain to me step by step how that can be the case when God chose to create the universe in such a manner that exactly that would happen.

You're trying to blame the car instead of the driver for running over the dog.

I have been trying to explain it to you but you don't seem to be able to follow what I say.
This time you have made us into the car,,,,, as if God is forcing us to run over the dog.
What really happened is that God made the car and started it for us and then was going to teach us how to drive without having any accidents, but we decided that we would just drive without any instruction. So we ended up driving over dogs and anything in our way.
And God knew that we would do that without instruction and so already had a plan to bring the whole mess back in line.
God could have wiped us out and begun again, or just not have created the universe and us in the first place, but God wanted being like us with free wills and so created us and the universe because He wanted and loves us and could see past the mess we are in and could see the eternity of paradise that would eventuate.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have been trying to explain it to you but you don't seem to be able to follow what I say.
This time you have made us into the car,,,,, as if God is forcing us to run over the dog.
An emphatic YES. Of course [he] is. You're doing what you can ONLY EVER do, namely exactly what [he] intended you to do before [he] made the universe exactly like it is.
What really happened is that God made the car and started it for us and then was going to teach us how to drive without having any accidents, but we decided that we would just drive without any instruction. So we ended up driving over dogs and anything in our way.
That could happen with the rather bumbling, uncertain and defensive God figure in the Garden story.

But it couldn't happen with the modern omnipotent omniscient perfect God we're speaking of.

A perfect God doesn't make any mistakes ─ none, ever ─ and [his] omnipotence and omniscience see to that.

So we each and all roll down the perfect groove [he] intended for us, never deviating from what [he] always perfectly foresaw and intended, not even (as I said) by the width of a quark.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
If I knew what God knows and if God is forcing me to choose only one of the many possibilities, then I cannot freely choose.
However neither of those 2 qualifications apply.
We already had the discussion about "forcing to". You're regressing.
And even with the right place to place the blame, the first condition isn't relevant and the second has been answered to the positive.
I don't think I can be more clear or think up new examples to show you the irrationality of your position. Also, your refusal to see the matter philosophical, tells me that religion has clogged your brain. I give up. Maybe @blü 2 has more patience.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
An emphatic YES. Of course [he] is. You're doing what you can ONLY EVER do, namely exactly what [he] intended you to do before [he] made the universe exactly like it is.
That could happen with the rather bumbling, uncertain and defensive God figure in the Garden story.

But it couldn't happen with the modern omnipotent omniscient perfect God we're speaking of.

A perfect God doesn't make any mistakes ─ none, ever ─ and [his] omnipotence and omniscience see to that.

So we each and all roll down the perfect groove [he] intended for us, never deviating from what [he] always perfectly foresaw and intended, not even (as I said) by the width of a quark.

As you said, God does not make mistakes even though He was sorry He made humans at the time of the flood, considering all the evil they were doing. When God judges nations He also does not make a mistake. When God will judge the earth, that won't be a mistake and when God judges each of us individually that won't be a mistake either.
God does not change and so did not make a mistake when He made the universe and made us.
And of course God cannot judge anyone for anything if people are not responsible for what they do.
But God can forgive people.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
We already had the discussion about "forcing to". You're regressing.

I thought you said that God was not forcing anybody.
But in your example you have God forcing people to pick 3.

This is what you said, see how you want God to force people to say "3".
>>>Can you freely chose a natural number between 2 and 4 (exclusively)?
By your own admission, you can't. Can you freely chose a number between 0 and 10, when I tell you that you are allowed to think about all possibilities but that only 3 will ever come out of your mouth?<<<

But God does not force anyone to say anything, all God has ever done is to look at what people will freely do and know what they freely do.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As you said, God does not make mistakes
[He]'s perfect so [he] can't make a mistake. [He] looks at all the wars and plagues and famines and disasters of history and all the high spots and the ONLY thing [he] can say is, "That went exactly as I planned!"
[
God does not change
Oh come now! Of course [he] changes! How else can a God keep [his] congregation? If you're a God and you lose your congregation, you're dead. So you must evolve or die.

So God in archaeology begins as another tribal god in the Canaanite pantheon with a consort Asherah.

Then [he] appears in the early part of the Tanakh as one among the many Canaanite gods, thought now [he]'s divorced.

Later in the Tanakh, after the Babylonian captivity, [he] becomes the only God.

Then in the NT [he] ceases to the Jewish God, who continues to be Jewish, and becomes the Christian God.

Then in the 4th century CE [he] becomes triune, and Jesus and the Ghost are elevated to God status (notwithstanding that all five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly deny they're God).

And now [he]'s not only a God to the very many Christian sects around the world, but also to the Mormons and to the Rastafarians and goodness knows who else.
And of course God cannot judge anyone for anything if people are not responsible for what they do.
Ah. NOW you understand!
But God can forgive people.
But being omnipotent omniscient and perfect [he] never has occasion to do that.

Just as you never have occasion to forgive your car when you run over the dog.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
[He]'s perfect so [he] can't make a mistake. [He] looks at all the wars and plagues and famines and disasters of history and all the high spots and the ONLY thing [he] can say is, "That went exactly as I planned!"

He says "That went exactly as I knew it would and all the things I did in my plan of salvation worked out just as I knew they would.

[ Oh come now! Of course [he] changes! How else can a God keep [his] congregation? If you're a God and you lose your congregation, you're dead. So you must evolve or die.

So God in archaeology begins as another tribal god in the Canaanite pantheon with a consort Asherah.

Then [he] appears in the early part of the Tanakh as one among the many Canaanite gods, thought now [he]'s divorced.

Later in the Tanakh, after the Babylonian captivity, [he] becomes the only God.

Then in the NT [he] ceases to the Jewish God, who continues to be Jewish, and becomes the Christian God.

Then in the 4th century CE [he] becomes triune, and Jesus and the Ghost are elevated to God status (notwithstanding that all five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly deny they're God).

And now [he]'s not only a God to the very many Christian sects around the world, but also to the Mormons and to the Rastafarians and goodness knows who else.

God tells us that He is the only real God but that does not mean there are fake gods around.
God tells us about what happened when Israel came to Canaan and the Jews consorted with the Canaanite gods and worshipped YHWH as one of them, then naturalistic methodology came along and men decided that Bible was wrong because of that presumption and that YHWH did not come to Abraham and his descendants, that they must have got this God from the gods of other countries.
But God exiled the Jews for their idolatry and evils (just as He said He would in the Law) and said that when they return they would worship the one God and have no idols and that is what happened. But that is not what happened according to the scholarship that denies the existence of YHWH.
God continues to be the Jewish God in the NT and continues to be the real God of all people and reveals Himself more fully in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (It is as YHWH said to Moses. I am what I am, or I will be what I will be.)
It is as God told us, His word would go out from Jerusalem to the whole world and the Mountain of the house of the Lord would be the chief of the mountains and all nations will stream to it. (Isa 2:1-4)
But it is also told us that the nations would rage and not want YHWH to be their God and try to throw Him off.(Psalm 2)
The world keeps making up stories and reasoning to show that God is not real even when He has told us what would happen and it is happening.

Ah. NOW you understand!

I already know that you want to say that God has no right to judge you because He made you like you are.

But being omnipotent omniscient and perfect [he] never has occasion to do that.

Just as you never have occasion to forgive your car when you run over the dog.

That God is forcing us to do what we do, just as we force our cars to go where we steer them, is your story and you are sticking to is.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
He says "That went exactly as I knew it would and all the things I did in my plan of salvation worked out just as I knew they would.
[He] added, 'Of course they only did what I made sure they'd do when I made the universe, including thinking I'm judging them. No, when the dog got run over, they were just the car, I was the driver.'
God continues to be the Jewish God in the NT and continues to be the real God of all people and reveals Himself more fully in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
No, the Jewish God never abandoned the covenant. Paul's Christian god did that because Paul found circumcision was bad for sales.
The world keeps making up stories and reasoning to show that God is not real even when He has told us what would happen and it is happening.
All exactly as [he] planned it 14 bn years ago.
I already know that you want to say that God has no right to judge you because He made you like you are.
No, I think Gods exist only as personal ideas. But once you stipulate a god who's omnipotent, omniscient and perfect, ALL the bucks stop at [his] desk.

You've resisted this very obvious point without offering any way around it, no reasoned case as to how freewill could co-exist with perfect omnipotence and omniscience. So you don't want to think about it, just assert it.

Okay, I'll leave it there. One day you may figure it out at last.
 

vulcanlogician

Well-Known Member
Let's be honest here. We still have only a rudimentary understanding of how our CNS does what it does. Even in your scenario above, you mention nerves (chunk of circuitry) and neurotransmitters, but what of the endocrine system and its effects on thought and behavior?

That is correct.

Neuroscience can not disseminate every aspect of volition as I might have implied in my example. I'm not trying to overstate the accomplishments of neuroscience. What I meant was: neuroscience could in principle describe these things.

What these exact things are don't matter. Neuroscientists understand the brain as a physical object and they base every one of their theories about how the brain works on the assumption that: x chemical reactions will happen under y conditions, and electricity behaves the way physics says it does. The only barrier to its understanding human will is the inadequacy of neuroscience to describe the deep complexity of what goes on in the human brain.

Nevertheless, a neuroscientist does not look for any explanation that doesn't involve physics and chemistry working the way it does. And, since that's their modus operandi, they will never disagree with what I am asserting; that the laws of nature are responsible for what happens in our brains and bodies; I fail to see where there is room for free will in this picture.

Yeah, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this. Yes, every event has causes, however, causes do constrain the future to a single course. The whole notion that I as an individual was destined to be formed from the Big Bang just does not fit, in my view, with how the cosmos appears to function, which we must both admit, we and humanity are still quite ignorant about on the whole.

I'm not saying that causes constrain the future to a single course.

I'm saying that everything that happens is caused solely by prior states and events. QM isn't a kind of "magic" version of physics where anything goes. There are rules. There are determinations about how matter must behave. These determinations are expressed as probabilities in QM, but this much is certain: matter will behave within this sphere of the probability according to the laws of nature. Every event creates a probability cone that extends onward into the future.

But all things that transpire in the universe will happen within this cone of probability. If we are talking about choosing a beer from the fridge, you can trace that probability cone all the way back to the big bang, There is no flash of causality that happens every time a human selects a beverage.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
There is human objectivity and subjectivity. The laws of physics are objective. If we add subjectivity to an otherwise objective observation, one will not get deterministic results based on objective rules.

If you go to the library, there is fiction and nonfiction. Nonfiction does not have to obey the laws of science; science fiction. It can make irrational connections that have no basis in reality, thereby breaking the hold of rational and objective determinism.

The human brain operates based on objective laws of bio-physical chemistry. But the frontal lobe can move its data in ways; imagination, that we would be considered fiction and subjective. I can image flying to sun with wings of wax. This is not possible in reality. This is where free will appears. It can use imagination to break free from the natural deterministic logic paths.

A truly intelligent computer will need to find a way to break away from the logic of its programming. This is easier to do if it had the capacity for subjectivity, so it no longer has to follow just deterministic logic. Creativity that is ahead of its time, takes free will, since the logic of the day does not naturally lead there. This require a step outside the box that is not yet part of the program.

Ironically, faith allows for free will since one believes in things not seen, but only imagined. One cannot determine how this will end based on logic. If you do not have faith, but have to see to believe, you are more predictable and deterministic and may lack free will as many have reasoned.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Warning! Posts are long! Only proceed if you've nothing better to do. :)

@vulcanlogician
Since this is definitely an new line of conversation, I have started this new thread separate from our current conversation. Our touching upon Free Will has had me thinking about it. As a consequence, I have formed a rough outline concerning my thoughts regarding the deterministic status of the universe and the capacity for human beings to exercise Free Will. Here is my speculation based on my very limited understand of cosmology and human behavior. I may use terms considered technical in a non-technical or non-standard usage. Hopefully context will supply sufficient meaning of my intent. This is a two-part post.

I do not see the cosmos as being fully deterministic, that all events are caused by and are the result of all previous events such that, once started, this chain of events will continue unaltered into the future resulting in only one possible future, the causal chain essentially making all future events preordained and inevitable. I speculate that in large systems of particles, there is an element of randomness injected into this process of cause and effect. This property of randomness means that just prior to each present moment, there is a slight possibility of variation in what may occur when the moment becomes now. If there is very slight variable outcome in the future second, the farther one looks into the future, the variability becomes cumulative and stronger the farther we project into the future from the present. The result then is that the distant future is not fixed. The present is determined strictly by the sum of all past events, and the immediate future is so strongly influence or determined by present conditions that any variability will be, or seem imperceptible. However, I speculate that there is some very small component of randomness exerting its influence. This, to me, indicates that if we were able to reset the cosmos to some prior condition, each restart from those initial conditions would exhibit some amount of drift from the first observed course or chain of cause and effect such that no two courses of observed events from the same initial conditions would be exactly the same over time, the drift becoming more apparent the longer time elapses from initial conditions. If everything is exactly the same, quantum states (whatever that is, exactly, or electron spins, etc) and there is no randomness or probability involved, then perhaps the cosmos is fully deterministic and the future is set, I don't think this is the case.

Why do I imagine this? If one considers the Big Bang, or if you prefer, the expansion of cosmos from a uniform, dense, high energy state, as this energy began to cool during expansion, matter began to precipitate out of this energy in a non-uniform way, and resulting matter began to interact in a random series of collisions, which eventually lead to the random accumulation of matter into the celestial bodies of the cosmos. What would happen if we were able to restart the Big Bang from its initial conditions? I contend that during the cooling expansion and the resulting clumping together of matter, the cosmos would not clump in exactly the same way. The resulting pattern of galaxies, stars, planets, etc would be different each time we set off the Big Bang due to the randomness in how cooling would occur and particles would interact and accumulate.

All this matter/energy, in constant motion and random interaction leads me to believe that any future state of the cosmos is not set, just the present and past. What if we wind back to only half the estimated age of the expansion? How different might the the present of that reset cosmos be to our current present? Exactly the same? Very similar, only slightly different? Different enough that life never materialized?

Is there an element of randomness in the continual change of the cosmos? Perhaps it has already been established or proven, I have no idea. Love to hear your thoughts though. :)

I suppose the question is whether man can make a random choice. One not based on past causality.
There are choices and there are choice that are random. Also perhaps it is not as simple as an either or. Maybe the complexity of the choice allows a mixing of minor determined choices and minor random choices as we weigh dozens of factors. Some determined by past events, some not.

Like when choosing to buy a hose. Our choice is partially determined by what houses are available at the time, but what if we have to also choose between a house with a fence or a pool or not?
Either house fulfills the need. Part of the choice has no need determined by past events. Is there a point in the process that it was as equally likely that we could have made either choice?

Multiply that by a dozen other factors that go into making a choice.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
And, since that's their modus operandi, they will never disagree with what I am asserting; that the laws of nature are responsible for what happens in our brains and bodies; I fail to see where there is room for free will in this picture.

I'm uncertain as to whether we are talking past each other a little bit here. I am in full agreement that physical laws fully account for human cognition or mental function; that it is physical or supervenes upon the physical.

So if we are in agreement that our mind is strictly the product of physical processes, what does that mean in terms of volition? I am arguing that it is not strictly deterministic in the sense that each physical event or cause, internally and externally affecting the CNS, necessarily results in strict effects such that an individual is deterministically constrained to act and behave in one and only one way as a result of present causal events.

I see our behavior and the function of the CNS to be the result of a myriad of algorithmic processes. Some of these can be quite simplistic and essentially deterministic in their function. However, we are trying to characterize the output of the whole black box of processes acting in concert. How do we characterize human volition overall? That we exhibit creativity and can imagine processes or events that would not occur without having been imagined and then actively pursued to make a reality, means there is something more going on in the black box of the human mind than a few simplistic, deterministic algorithyms.

Our will is not free or unfetterred, nor is it wholely deterministic.

I'm not saying that causes constrain the future to a single course.
I'm saying that everything that happens is caused solely by prior states and events. QM isn't a kind of "magic" version of physics where anything goes. There are rules. There are determinations about how matter must behave. These determinations are expressed as probabilities in QM, but this much is certain: matter will behave within this sphere of the probability according to the laws of nature. Every event creates a probability cone that extends onward into the future.
But all things that transpire in the universe will happen within this cone of probability. If we are talking about choosing a beer from the fridge, you can trace that probability cone all the way back to the big bang, There is no flash of causality that happens every time a human selects a beverage.

It looks like you might be open to considering the cosmos as probabilistic as opposed to deterministic.

I have some concerns in the scenario you describe above. On the one hand you state that every event creates a probability cone that extends onward into the future. I agree with that, however, that means there are innumerable cones for all the innumerable events that are occurring throughout the cosmos.

On the other hand, you speak of a single, static cone of probability in which all things in the universe will transpire. For this abstract concept of a probability cone, yes, we can imagine a single cone at the beginning of the cosmic expansion such that it encompasses all future eventualities. I do not find this useful, especially when considering how we came to present conditions and what the future holds.

I prefer your notion of a cone for each causal circumstance. Once an event occurs, there is no longer a probability of what will occur, it now becomes part of the historical record, so to speak. In addition, once the event occurs, the probability cone that represented potential outcomes prior to event, will no longer exist at event occurrence. Instead, new probability cones arise to represent future events that this event may cause. So, in a way, you can look at it as probable causalities continually popping or flashing into existence with every event.

When viewed this way, we see that events such as you choosing a beer on a particular day or you even being born were in no way determined at the Big Bang, nor should they really be considered possible, in my view. The realistic window in which these events were even possible is on a much shorter timescale, and that timescale will be dependent on the system that gives rise to them. I think the useful size of a probability cone is related to the number of elements in a system and the frequency of interaction. The larger the system, with millions, billions, trillions of elements rapidly interacting, the probability cones for each potential cause will be quite small. An example of this might be the earths atmosphere and all its interacting molecules. On the other hand, elements that are more static, or in a steady state, might have larger cones of probable outcomes. Here an example might be our solar system and the relationship between the sun and orbiting planets. On this gross scale, there will not be a lot of significant change over a long period of time, such that the probability cone of their interaction would be quite long and narrow.

So, to sum up, I think that speculating how far back a current event became a possibility is highly dependent on the system in which it occurs, with the greater the number of interacting elements and the greater speed of interaction shortening the time into the past a which that event could have been considered possible. Each event is a chain of prerequisites, but none of those prerequisites were guaranteed until they occurred. My speculative surmise, anyway. :)
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I suppose the question is whether man can make a random choice. One not based on past causality.
There are choices and there are choice that are random. Also perhaps it is not as simple as an either or. Maybe the complexity of the choice allows a mixing of minor determined choices and minor random choices as we weigh dozens of factors. Some determined by past events, some not.

Like when choosing to buy a hose. Our choice is partially determined by what houses are available at the time, but what if we have to also choose between a house with a fence or a pool or not?
Either house fulfills the need. Part of the choice has no need determined by past events. Is there a point in the process that it was as equally likely that we could have made either choice?

Multiply that by a dozen other factors that go into making a choice.

I agree that there is a lot of complexity going on. I would also posit that not every choice carries the same weight or value. Some choices we hardly give much thought, perhaps even reflexive, others engender great deliberation.

As to whether we can make random or arbitrary choices, I suppose in certain circumstances in which we hold no interest we may be able to. Outside of that I think we can't help but make at least some small calculation as to possible outcomes of a choice and hence possible preference. In that sense, most choices are reasoned in some fashion, and that reasoning will be based on our unique circuitry and our experience.

Beyond thinking in terms of whether choice is deterministic or random, I would also ask whether we have the capacity be creative, to make a unique or novel choice. I think the answer to that is yes.
 
Last edited:
Top