Question regarding free will

[whirlingmerc]

It is said by scientific materialists that we have no free will and that we are biological machines. Our brains are machines that make us move and perform actions. But if we do have a soul, then does the soul itself have free will? Or is it also a machine? If you think about it, how can free will even exist? Wouldn't everything have to be machines? Wouldn't free will just be another way of saying we are machines?

I think Adam had a free will in the sense of freely being able to choose good or evil till he sinned
After that he had a handicap in that his fallen desires prevented him from desiring rightly, although he could freely choose according to his fallen desires.

I think in Christ the desires are redeemed or at least a process of sanctification of desires has begun
a new birth is shown in a new nature that has faith working in love.

 

[Skwim]

Do you even understand what causality is, I wonder?

Can you figure out this conundrum?

premise 1: gravity is curvature of space (general relativity)

So some think. According to Quantum Field Theory gravity isn't a distortion to space, but exists as waves, which were directly detected in 2015 by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatories.

2: a black-hole causes space to curve so much that nothing traveling at the velocity of light escapes from it

I go along with QFT, so I can't agree.

3: gravity itself travels at the velocity of light, (general relativity) and yet this gravity said to escape the black-hole

I'd question those who make the claim.

.

 

[Skwim]

I think Adam had a free will in the sense of freely being able to choose good or evil till he sinned
After that he had a handicap in that his fallen desires prevented him from desiring rightly, although he could freely choose according to his fallen desires.

I think in Christ the desires are redeemed or at least a process of sanctification of desires has begun
a new birth is shown in a new nature that has faith working in love.

The whole notion of sin and salvation demands that free will exist. It's the reason many Christians fight to retain it as a fact of reality. Trouble is, it's indefensible. Heck, most can't even reasonably define it, much less define the will.

.

 

[Nakosis]

Just to get this out of the way, there are several kinds of determinisms (different people have slightly different lists).

Predeterminism: the philosophical and theological view that combines God with determinism. On this doctrine events throughout eternity have been foreordained by some supernatural power in a causal sequence.

.​

​

Just to point out. Knowing you were frustrated with our prior discussion...
Looking over your prior posts. This definition for Predeterminism I don't agree with. With regard to freewill the argument against it is Predeterminism. Predeterminism being defined as

Predeterminism is closely related to determinism.The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain. Predeterminism - Wikipedia

The main point being that predeterminism need not include God. (footnote: depending on the type of free will we are discussing, I guess, obviously, religious free will being discussed... the counter argument would be of a theological nature)

I assumed, since the discussion was about free will, predeterminism is the type of determinism being discussed. Causal determinism is not relative to a discussion involving freewill. IMO of course. But then maybe neither is non-theological predeterminism um.. on a Religious Forum.

 

[Skwim]

​

Just to point out. Knowing you were frustrated with our prior discussion...
Looking over your prior posts. This definition for Predeterminism I don't agree with. With regard to freewill the argument against it is Predeterminism. Predeterminism being defined as

I don't agree with it either---it's kind of dumb. However, if "predeterminism" is what people want to call the theological view that combines God with determinism, so be it. I have no use for the word no matter what its definition.

I assumed, since the discussion was about free will, predeterminism is the type of determinism being discussed.

Certainly not a predeterminism that involves any kind of supernatural being or force. However, if one wants to use the term then I have no trouble with the description given in the Wikipedia article.

"Predeterminism is closely related to determinism. The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe."​

Causal determinism is not relative to a discussion involving freewill. IMO of course. But then maybe neither is non-theological predeterminism um.. on a Religious Forum.

Well, if determinism is excluded then I fail to see what there is to discuss.

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think Adam had a free will in the sense of freely being able to choose good or evil till he sinned
After that he had a handicap in that his fallen desires prevented him from desiring rightly, although he could freely choose according to his fallen desires.

I think in Christ the desires are redeemed or at least a process of sanctification of desires has begun

The whole notion of sin and salvation demands that free will exist. It's the reason many Christians fight to retain it as a fact of reality. Trouble is, it's indefensible. Heck, most can't even reasonably define it, much less define the will.

.

There is free will however it's a will handicapped by fallen desires, that's where grace breaks the cycle

 

[Falvlun]

I think it's more like "I didn't shoot him, the universe did". The falsifiablity of determinism is a tangent I suppose. It just means whether science would be able to evaluate determinism as a theory or not. Doesn't really prove or disprove it.

Exactly!

As I mentioned before, I'm not convinced that determinism is falsifiable since it would require the exact same conditions. Might be able to do that with a carefully controlled chemical reaction but that wouldn't really tell us about determinism on the scale of human behavior.

Regarding the "I didn't shoot him, the universe did.", my criticism of determinism is that "I" am part of the universe, too. If I am one of the causes in my actions, how is that part I play not considered free will?

 

[Nakosis]

Exactly!

As I mentioned before, I'm not convinced that determinism is falsifiable since it would require the exact same conditions. Might be able to do that with a carefully controlled chemical reaction but that wouldn't really tell us about determinism on the scale of human behavior.

Regarding the "I didn't shoot him, the universe did.", my criticism of determinism is that "I" am part of the universe, too. If I am one of the causes in my actions, how is that part I play not considered free will?

Are you aware of Karl Popper's 3 worlds view? The same person who developed he concept of falsifiability as a demarcation for scientific theory.

It is a type of compatibilism but I suspect he was not aware of the term.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, if determinism is excluded then I fail to see what there is to discuss.

.

Only causal determinism.

This is philosophy but:

Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case. Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Since it's relationship is unknown, any proposed relationship between causal determinism and freewill is unscientific conjecture.

I don't see much difference between hard determinism and predeterminism. Neither position is IMO logically supportable since they basically say that human actions can not alter the outcome.

That leaves soft determinism which I think is basically a part of campatibilism. Which I see as my position.

 

[Skwim]

Only causal determinism.

Are you making some distinction between "determinism" and causal determinism"?

I don't see much difference between hard determinism and predeterminism.

If you're taking "predeterminism" in the sense I agreed with, then predeterminism would be an implication of determinism.

Neither position is IMO logically supportable since they basically say that human actions can not alter the outcome.

No. Determinism says this is what human actions ARE:

.

 

[viole]

For one, that the universe had a beginning could be a false premise.



Not if it is true. The only way it could be falsified is if it were untrue. It you take the position that determinism is true you also have to take the position that it can't be falsified.

That is absurd. Being falsifiable does not entail been falsified. Or that it will ever be fasified. So, something can be true and falsifiable.

For instance, do you think evolution is true?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So some think. According to Quantum Field Theory gravity isn't a distortion to space, but exists as waves, which were directly detected in 2015 by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatories.

I go along with QFT, so I can't agree.

I'd question those who make the claim.

.

Now wait a second.
You claim that the LIGO gravitational-wave experiments are what they claim to be,
but you also disagree that gravity is curved space?

The LIGO results, claimed to verify General Relativity and thus they are said to agree with curved space.
Its good that you refute gravity as curved space.
I agree, as that example proves a black-hole with gravity as curved space
would give off zero gravity due to gravity travelling at velocity being unable to escape.

The problem then is that if gravity is not curved space and we then also accept
Einstein's idea of a limit at the velocity of light, we end up with a serious problem
that photons then should have infinite mass. (Which is ridiculous).

Moreover there is a very easy geometrical reason to disprove that gravity moves at velocity:

BOGVOS: binary-orbit, gravity-velocity out-spiral

It looks like this:

Hopefully you can see that if gravity pulls to a point that is behind the opposite body, then
binary orbits should spiral outwards.

Wth parameters similar to the LIGO pair including a delay in gravity caused by the velocity of gravity
being the same as the velocity of light; the pair out-spirals so quickly that it is easy to observe.

Here is the full analysis behind BOGVOS:
Computational analysis of LIGO gravitational-wave experiment GW150914
(Thats why I have been a bit scarce at RF lately.)

*big grin*

 

[Nakosis]

That is absurd. Being falsifiable does not entail been falsified. Or that it will ever be fasified. So, something can be true and falsifiable.

For instance, do you think evolution is true?
Ciao
- viole

I think change and natural selection can explain the diversity of species.

With regards to hard determinism, isn't the premise that for everything that happens, given these exact same conditions, nothing else could happen?

With a human being, how can this be tested, observed, falsified?

It will never be the case that the exact same conditions will exist for the same human being. Let alone completely different human beings.

Inanimate object ok. You can take two inanimate object of similar properties and make such observations.

However you can't take two human beings or even the same human being and have the same conditions since human beings are constantly changing. Billions of cells, thoughts, consciousness, memories, all constantly changing.

This being the case, it is impossible to test the theory in the first place and if you can't create an observable experiment, how can it be falsified?

Or how would you propose an experiment with a human being to verify determinism applies to humans knowing you could never satisfy the requirements necessary to test the theory?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Free will is somewhat semantical... if you are free to follow the desires of a fallen nature are you in bondage to your fallen will or are you free?

And if salvation is freely offered to all by grace through faith but only those who God sovereignly draws to take it are you free to receive it?

Free yes? Autonomous and independent no?
Depending on what you mean

 

[Skwim]

Free will is somewhat semantical... i

Not when used as commonly defined.

"The capacity to act decisively on one's desires undirected by controlling influences."
​

Any other notion of free will is almost always presented so as to conform to special interests. It's like deciding that killing in a war qualifies to be called murder.

 

[viole]

I think change and natural selection can explain the diversity of species.

With regards to hard determinism, isn't the premise that for everything that happens, given these exact same conditions, nothing else could happen?

With a human being, how can this be tested, observed, falsified?

It will never be the case that the exact same conditions will exist for the same human being. Let alone completely different human beings.

Inanimate object ok. You can take two inanimate object of similar properties and make such observations.

However you can't take two human beings or even the same human being and have the same conditions since human beings are constantly changing. Billions of cells, thoughts, consciousness, memories, all constantly changing.

This being the case, it is impossible to test the theory in the first place and if you can't create an observable experiment, how can it be falsified?

Or how would you propose an experiment with a human being to verify determinism applies to humans knowing you could never satisfy the requirements necessary to test the theory?

Oh, you are talking of human beings. So, you are addressing unfalsifiability in case of human beings, and not falsifiability in general.

In that special case I agree that it might be challenging. But it would be equally challenging with things like cats. At least with today's technology.

However, it is maybe possible to make some thought experiments.

Ciao

- viole

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not when used as commonly defined.

"The capacity to act decisively on one's desires undirected by controlling influences."
​

Any other notion of free will is almost always presented so as to conform to special interests. It's like deciding that killing in a war qualifies to be called murder.

But as 'Lawrence of Arabia said'

Ali: A man can do whatever he wants, you said.
Lawrence: He can, but he can't want what he wants.

And that's the problem, what we want, our desires, are fallen and in need of redemption.

 

[Skwim]

But as 'Lawrence of Arabia said'

Ali: A man can do whatever he wants, you said.
Lawrence: He can, but he can't want what he wants.

And that's the problem, what we want, our desires, are fallen and in need of redemption.

Thing is, there is no choice in wanting, so there's nothing to have fallen from or redeemed to.

.

.

 

[Falvlun]

Are you aware of Karl Popper's 3 worlds view? The same person who developed he concept of falsifiability as a demarcation for scientific theory.

It is a type of compatibilism but I suspect he was not aware of the term.

I hadn't heard of Popper's 3 worlds. I read the Wiki and a couple other sites.

Not sure if I agree with his separation of worlds 2&3, or at least it doesn't make sense to me.

What is the relationship to combatibilism?

 

[Nakosis]

I hadn't heard of Popper's 3 worlds. I read the Wiki and a couple other sites.

Not sure if I agree with his separation of worlds 2&3, or at least it doesn't make sense to me.

What is the relationship to combatibilism?

I don't think Popper was aware of the concept. He considered himself a indeterminist. I think he might have agreed with compatibilism though.

I do feel there is a sort of flexibility to reality when it comes to humans. I believe human can stretch the boundaries of reality. I don't think anyone knows how far yet.

World 1 is the physical world. This would function according to the deterministic model.

World 2 is the mental world. Anything that can be imagined by man. Monsters, ghosts, gods. Where concepts exist.

World 3 is the world of objective knowledge. Engineering, math, mechanics, physics etc.

World 3 is what allows man to alter world 1 the physical world.

World 2 influences world 3, world 1 influences world 2.

Spirituality is the belief that world 2 can influence world 1. Seems fairly obvious to me that it can't. Not directly.

Knowledge, world 3, allows us to alter reality.