Does Freewill Exist?

[Cyrylek]

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Isn't it obvious? There's enough chaos and randomness to make any notion of predetermination ridiculous; but they are not absolute: we exist, and are demonstrably capable of imposing order locally and temporarily. We are doing it solely by instinct, like spiders making webs or beavers building dams. We possess volition.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Isn't it obvious? There's enough chaos and randomness to make any notion of predetermination ridiculous;

OK. I see what the typo was now.

Randomness on a large scale has almost no effect. Dice aren't truly random, for example, or I should say they are seldom random. There may be times when quantum fluctuations effect the roll of the dice but I suspect it's few and far between.

However, the longer the time period (between 'prediction' and event) and/or smaller physical size of the system, the less predetermined something can be.

but they are not absolute: we exist, and are demonstrably capable of imposing order locally and temporarily. We are doing it solely by instinct, like spiders making webs or beavers building dams. We possess volition.

That seems like a contraction to me. Instinct is almost the opposite of volition, IMO.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Because maybe the mechanics and the awareness were in real time .... There is nothing about that that hurts my argument.



No it doesn't, those decisions are 100% causaly explainable, its still all mechanics, even if it's real time.



Laws of nature don't create limits, for which objects can just do whatever they want in them, Laws of nature control EVERYTHING that matter does ... ever, the same with a brain.

I'ts not like a rock has some options within laws of nature, all of it's existance and movements are controlled 100% by it, the same with teh brain.

If you are saying laws of nature only make limits, and that the brain can do somethings within those limits but not caused by the laws of nature ... what causes those things?



I didn't use that study as proof ... Also it doesn't rely on the brain coming to a decision before the person is aware either ...

Simultaneous causation is not outside laws of nature at all, and doesn't argue against my point.



is decision making CAUSED by the laws of nature? If not what causes it?

Even if you have a random thought, casued by some quantum mess in your brain, that isn't a decision ... it's a random quantum fluxuation ....

Perhaps you do not understand the definition of the word limit? If I say something is limited by the laws of physics then the limits that the laws of physics in every aspect is implied.

But you are trying to assert that I am saying that there is a magical element that defies the limits of of the laws. Come on dude your trying way too hard to assign me to something that I am not saying.

I asked you to show the studies that support your claims. But you returned with misrepresentation of my argument instead. Am I to assume that you only have a opinion?

Show me where it has been proven that the actions of any human can be predicted through a specific methodology. In other words your conclusions need to have the backing for them to be valid in the way that you are presenting them as the final authority in this debate. You appear to be trying to shut down any discussion that doesnt agree with your position. The only way that you could end this debate in that way is through direct proof, but you know as well as i know that such proof does not exist. This is why position is being presented as a opinion and not the final word backed by direct proof. Though I do offer proofs and truths just not enough to produce undeniable proof. And again I am completely comfortable with my position on the myth of free will.

I call free will a myth because it describes a non issue, a misguided over simplified description of reality. As it turns out reality is much more complicated than claims of free conscious will. You can believe that no one really ever makes a decision if you wish, but the reality is that either way that pseudo-decision has consequences that directly effect our perceptions of reality. If you rape and kill someone or light a forest on fire whether your philosophical meanderings agree or not you are directly responsible for that action. Had you not engaged in that action reality would have been different for the area and living organisms that were directly affected.

Which brings us to the main problem of looking at the world around us through a lens that of the false dilemma of free will or no free will. I of course have no real clue what the real phenomena is that we mistakenly call free will is, but I can observe that whatever it is is much more complicated than the concept of free will and much more expansive. I would compare it too how once we didnt know that the Earth was in space. Or that we once believed that only gods could explain certain things.

 

[Republic Now!]

Because throughout most of human history, helping our tribe members did help the tribe as a whole. Whether that still holds true or not is a different question.

In the past those concerns were taken care of by our predators. The mentally ill (if it was bad enough) and the physically disabled simply didn't survive life long enough for it to become an issue.

Ancient Spartans left the apparently weak in exile to die.

In Ancient Rome, the male of the household had the authority to kill any of his offspring he saw fit, and disabled children were greatly looked down upon.

I know there are more examples that I can't think of off the top of my head. Protection of the weak was not a virtue shared in all of human's history.

Most humans are egocentric in one way or another. Our genes make us that way. Is it so very far to go to believe we could easily delude ourselves into thinking we actually have conscious control over our surroundings?

We have some control over our surroundings. That's the benefit of intelligence. We don't have complete control, however, and you're correct that people do tend to ignore their own limitations.

For me it didn't come up as a matter of philosophy. Recent and unexpected scientific discoveries have prompted the question. Only time and more research can answer your question. However, if it turns out to be true, wouldn't we have to be a little crazy to ignore that?

There's little reason at this point to believe science can answer these questions. The conclusions psychologists draw from their studies is their own, but simply observing activity in the brain prior to a decision being made does not disprove free will or even work against it.

Some people believe they require God to get by in their day-to-day lives. In fact, many religious people continue to tell us that we must listen to God and follow The Word or all will be lost! The fact is that atheists are just as moral and responsible as religious people - maybe even more so in many ways. How did that happen without God to guide them? IMO - you're trying to draw the same parallel. Are you a religious person?

You're the one that said everything we do is tied to an advantage because (I assume) you believe evolution informs everything we do. If so, you must acknowledge that a believe in free will marked a distinct advantage throughout history. The social advantages being religious has offered are obvious.

Then I'll back up. You said you believed animals had free will. Do you believe a sponge has free will?

I have no clue.

You misunderstood my response - and looking back at it I can see how. Let me add this to clear things up. I don't have to believe in "that thing that seems to hover behind my delusional eyes" because I take that as a given; I am.

What do you mean specifically by "I take that as a given?"

You think science is logically flawed?

Observing science as the absolute representation of reality is logically flawed. Science itself is not because it acknowledges its own limitations. The two most immediate ones being the limitations of empiricism and the fact that induction goes off of probability, not certainty (see the problem of induction).

You mean stories being easier to remember than unrelated facts? You know the moral of the story, don't you?

Our minds are categorical in nature?

You can look at it in whatever way makes you feel warm and comfortable inside.

Or I can look at it in whatever way makes me feel cold and uncomfortable (though I prefer cold to warmth). Now you're getting it.

 

[Cyrylek]

That seems like a contraction to me. Instinct is almost the opposite of volition, IMO.

Oh, for crying out loud. It was another typo, of course. It was supposed to be "not solely by instinct".

But you see what just happened? Chaos interfered (in the form of my hasty typing) and garbled our communication line in an instant. Predetermination cannot survive in a world like this one: signals deteriorate into noise almost immediately, without our volitional, questioning, skeptical, editing minds being on guard.

Free will, on the other hand, will be fine: It deals not with rigid programs, but with options and choices, wherever they come from.

 

[kingsbridge]

Isn't it obvious? There's enough chaos and randomness to make any notion of predetermination ridiculous; but they are not absolute: we exist, and are demonstrably capable of imposing order locally and temporarily. We are doing it solely by instinct, like spiders making webs or beavers building dams. We possess volition.

Cyrylek, where did we get this chaos and randomness from? Maybe I'm a little behind in my readings, but weren't we at a point where we don't yet know enough about QM to say that randomness and chaos is a FACT? I really don't know, but I thought we hadn't reached any conclusions yet...

Either way, I would agree that chaos and randomness would destroy pre-determinism.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I have no clue.

So which animals do you believe have free will besides humans?

 

[MoSurveyor]

Oh, for crying out loud. It was another typo, of course. It was supposed to be "not solely by instinct".

But you see what just happened? Chaos interfered (in the form of my hasty typing) and garbled our communication line in an instant. Predetermination cannot survive in a world like this one: signals deteriorate into noise almost immediately, without our volitional, questioning, skeptical, editing minds being on guard.

Free will, on the other hand, will be fine: It deals not with rigid programs, but with options and choices, wherever they come from.

That's not the Chaos I was referencing earlier. I was talking about Chaos Theory, where the further back in time changes are the more they will tend to influence the present. Given quantum fluctuations and Chaos theory, prediction becomes more difficult the longer time that passes and/or the smaller the objects being predicted.

For the rest, I believe - partly based on our misunderstanding with chaos - that we have some underlying flavor of words that are quite different. Volition, to me, is no different than exercising choice, free will. The rest, "questioning, skeptical, editing minds" are all consistent with self-programming machines, which is what we are.

Free will is an illusion because consciousness as we know it is not "real time", it's after-the-fact.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ancient Spartans left the apparently weak in exile to die.

In Ancient Rome, the male of the household had the authority to kill any of his offspring he saw fit, and disabled children were greatly looked down upon.

I know there are more examples that I can't think of off the top of my head. Protection of the weak was not a virtue shared in all of human's history.

All long, long after we came out of the jungle. How many tigers, lions, bears (whatever) were roaming around Sparta or Rome to weed out the weak and sick?

There's little reason at this point to believe science can answer these questions. The conclusions psychologists draw from their studies is their own, but simply observing activity in the brain prior to a decision being made does not disprove free will or even work against it.

Then let me re-phrase what I'm talking about here. Conscious free will does not exist. Obviously, if consciousness is an illusion, is an after-the-fact event, then free will as most people look at it, cannot exist. Most people do not consider those seemingly random thoughts from nowhere to be free will. They're often referred to as instinct, gut feelings, spur of the moment, or whatever and are very seldom considered as "free will". After all, where is the choice when you're not thinking about what you're doing?

You're the one that said everything we do is tied to an advantage because (I assume) you believe evolution informs everything we do. If so, you must acknowledge that a believe in free will marked a distinct advantage throughout history. The social advantages being religious has offered are obvious.

Does that make religion and/or God "real"? Or are those just illusions we've created?

What do you mean specifically by "I take that as a given?"

If I assume that thing behind my delusional eyes is not real then it seems to me nothing else can be real, either, making any further speculation a waste of time.

Observing science as the absolute representation of reality is logically flawed. Science itself is not because it acknowledges its own limitations. The two most immediate ones being the limitations of empiricism and the fact that induction goes off of probability, not certainty (see the problem of induction).

I'm not sure how you think science can represent reality. All science can do is help us discover facts about our environment and attempt to confirm the simulations we create to help predict outcomes of events.


You should read the last line of my sig. But maybe you haven't read enough about quantum mechanics to understand it. :shrug:
One of the basic laws of quantum mechanics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. You might also also read about the double-slit experiments.

Our minds are categorical in nature?

I don't know about "categorical" exactly but we certainly try to relate new facts to existing facts and seem to remember better when we do that.

Or I can look at it in whatever way makes me feel cold and uncomfortable (though I prefer cold to warmth). Now you're getting it.

Which still doesn't connect my everyday delusions of accountability, regardless of what they are, to this discussion.

 

[DashingAmerican]

It's so much easier to believe in freewill when you're not religious.

 

[RGacky3]

Perhaps you do not understand the definition of the word limit? If I say something is limited by the laws of physics then the limits that the laws of physics in every aspect is implied.

But you are trying to assert that I am saying that there is a magical element that defies the limits of of the laws. Come on dude your trying way too hard to assign me to something that I am not saying.

Ok ... When I hear limits I think like this "I can only wear pants ... thats a limit, within that limit I can choose the type of pants."

When someone says "You must were these specific pants" That isn't a limit that's a dictate.

The laws of nature act the second way, they don't make "limits," they control what things do, that's why we can make accurate scientific predictions, that are 100% accurate.

Show me where it has been proven that the actions of any human can be predicted through a specific methodology. In other words your conclusions need to have the backing for them to be valid in the way that you are presenting them as the final authority in this debate. You appear to be trying to shut down any discussion that doesnt agree with your position. The only way that you could end this debate in that way is through direct proof, but you know as well as i know that such proof does not exist. This is why position is being presented as a opinion and not the final word backed by direct proof. Though I do offer proofs and truths just not enough to produce undeniable proof. And again I am completely comfortable with my position on the myth of free will.

IF actions of the human brain CANNOT be predicted through a specific methodology, that would make the brain something that is fundementally different from EVERY piece of matter in the universe ... EVERY SINGLE ONE, this is a "god of the gaps" type argument.

if you believe that in theory the brain cannot be predicted scientifically 100%, then the brain is different than everything else in nature, and not subject to natural law ...

Why? Because natural law does not make limits ... natural law controls how everything in nature acts 100%, when I throw a ball, natural law does not make limits on where it can or cannot go, where it DOES go is DETERMINED by natural law.

I call free will a myth because it describes a non issue, a misguided over simplified description of reality. As it turns out reality is much more complicated than claims of free conscious will. You can believe that no one really ever makes a decision if you wish, but the reality is that either way that pseudo-decision has consequences that directly effect our perceptions of reality. If you rape and kill someone or light a forest on fire whether your philosophical meanderings agree or not you are directly responsible for that action. Had you not engaged in that action reality would have been different for the area and living organisms that were directly affected.

Which brings us to the main problem of looking at the world around us through a lens that of the false dilemma of free will or no free will. I of course have no real clue what the real phenomena is that we mistakenly call free will is, but I can observe that whatever it is is much more complicated than the concept of free will and much more expansive. I would compare it too how once we didnt know that the Earth was in space. Or that we once believed that only gods could explain certain things.

Well ... it may be a non issue to you, but that's what we're discussing here.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Ok ... When I hear limits I think like this "I can only wear pants ... thats a limit, within that limit I can choose the type of pants."

When someone says "You must were these specific pants" That isn't a limit that's a dictate.

The laws of nature act the second way, they don't make "limits," they control what things do, that's why we can make accurate scientific predictions, that are 100% accurate.

Speed of light is a limit. And there are countless other limits. One being that thought process is limited by the structure of the brain.

Nothing like spitting hairs.

IF actions of the human brain CANNOT be predicted through a specific methodology, that would make the brain something that is fundementally different from EVERY piece of matter in the universe ... EVERY SINGLE ONE, this is a "god of the gaps" type argument.

if you believe that in theory the brain cannot be predicted scientifically 100%, then the brain is different than everything else in nature, and not subject to natural law ...

Why? Because natural law does not make limits ... natural law controls how everything in nature acts 100%, when I throw a ball, natural law does not make limits on where it can or cannot go, where it DOES go is DETERMINED by natural law.

Heres the deal once we have figured out entirely how the brain works we can show exactly how it works. But then we know exactly how a random generator works but we cannot predict what number it will generate next. So then I must ask you if you believe that a random generator works outside of the laws of physics? You could give a good general prediction based on probable outcomes but 100% accuracy is whole different ball game.

And now I must point out to you that I am not in anyway arguing free will. But I am sure you think that I am. I am just pointing out that as of today we cannot predict human thoughts with any method that we currently have. I also am pointing that in reality physically there are things that exist that cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy. You are making the claim that everything in nature can be predicted scientifically isnt true actually. Some things can be predicted with a good percentage but not 100% of the time.

Well ... it may be a non issue to you, but that's what we're discussing here.

Some people discuss bigfoot but doing so doesnt make bigfoot real.


Free will as I have said isnt anything real. Its just a human construct to explain something that people have a hard time understanding. Mostly though any conversation about free will is riddled with misunderstandings. Its like someone thinking a god particle has something to do with a god. Just....never mind....

 

[RGacky3]

Speed of light is a limit. And there are countless other limits. One being that thought process is limited by the structure of the brain.

Nothing like spitting hairs.

yes, nothing can go faster than the speed of light, your missing my point, when something is moving, EVERYTHING ABOUT ITS MOVEMENT is determined by the laws of nature, the limit of the speed of light is a limit TO the laws of nature.

We're talking philosophy, we need to split hairs here. When you say limits are you implying that objects are free to do things WITHIN the laws of nature? IF so you're wrong, everything objects do are DETERMINED by laws of nature.

Heres the deal once we have figured out entirely how the brain works we can show exactly how it works. But then we know exactly how a random generator works but we cannot predict what number it will generate next. So then I must ask you if you believe that a random generator works outside of the laws of physics? You could give a good general prediction based on probable outcomes but 100% accuracy is whole different ball game.

And now I must point out to you that I am not in anyway arguing free will. But I am sure you think that I am. I am just pointing out that as of today we cannot predict human thoughts with any method that we currently have. I also am pointing that in reality physically there are things that exist that cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy. You are making the claim that everything in nature can be predicted scientifically isnt true actually. Some things can be predicted with a good percentage but not 100% of the time.

Ok then, lets deal with that, lets say that the brain works like a random generator (and thus is different than ANYTHING on the larger than atomic scale in physics which would be incredible), that doesn't give you decision making ability, or ability to make a choice, anymore than a unweighted die has more decision making ability than a weighted die.

You're not arguing free will, are you arguing the ability to make decisions?

Some people discuss bigfoot but doing so doesnt make bigfoot real.

Free will as I have said isnt anything real. Its just a human construct to explain something that people have a hard time understanding. Mostly though any conversation about free will is riddled with misunderstandings. Its like someone thinking a god particle has something to do with a god. Just....never mind....

I don't know what that bigfoot comment has to do with anything.

Ok you're not talking about free will ... are you claiming humans have the ability to make decision?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

yes, nothing can go faster than the speed of light, your missing my point, when something is moving, EVERYTHING ABOUT ITS MOVEMENT is determined by the laws of nature, the limit of the speed of light is a limit TO the laws of nature.

We're talking philosophy, we need to split hairs here. When you say limits are you implying that objects are free to do things WITHIN the laws of nature? IF so you're wrong, everything objects do are DETERMINED by laws of nature.

Were you asking what my assertion was or trying to tell me?

"IF so you're wrong" Actually you are wrong since I never even implied what you think I am saying. In other words you came up with that all on your own. Hell I never even really thought about someone treating the laws of nature as if they were limits and up to that supposed limit its limitless. lol How the hell would that work it doesnt make any logical sense? DO you have any other silly notions that you want to share?

Ok then, lets deal with that, lets say that the brain works like a random generator (and thus is different than ANYTHING on the larger than atomic scale in physics which would be incredible), that doesn't give you decision making ability, or ability to make a choice, anymore than a unweighted die has more decision making ability than a weighted die.

You're not arguing free will, are you arguing the ability to make decisions?

I didnt say that the brain works like a random generator. See I knew you would assume that I was arguing free will. That is why I made a point to say that I am not arguing free will.

I don't know what that bigfoot comment has to do with anything.

Ok you're not talking about free will ... are you claiming humans have the ability to make decision?

The bigfoot analogy was ultra simple, but I guess not enough.


Do humans have the ability to make decisions? Interesting question what made you decide to ask that question? I suspect that you concept of making a decison is a bit more than meets the eye, perhaps you could explain it a bit more?

Do you not believe that decision making is a cognitive process? The brain processes information and because of that process we can decide on what course of action to take. It matters not if every choice is in a chain of events, in the end we will choose one of them or none at all. You dont need a undetermined universe to decide on determined actions.

I pretty much know how you are going to respond, so please spell it out so I can honestly respond.

 

[RGacky3]

Were you asking what my assertion was or trying to tell me?

"IF so you're wrong" Actually you are wrong since I never even implied what you think I am saying. In other words you came up with that all on your own. Hell I never even really thought about someone treating the laws of nature as if they were limits and up to that supposed limit its limitless. lol How the hell would that work it doesnt make any logical sense? DO you have any other silly notions that you want to share?

Well excuse me for taking what you wrote to be what you meant.

You said "I clearly argued that the brain is bound by the laws of nature and cannot act outside of those limits." - Which is a strange way to put it, it seams to imply it can act within the laws of nature, i.e. not all of it's actions are determined by such.

I didnt say that the brain works like a random generator. See I knew you would assume that I was arguing free will. That is why I made a point to say that I am not arguing free will.

I didn't assume that at all.

You said "Heres the deal once we have figured out entirely how the brain works we can show exactly how it works. But then we know exactly how a random generator works but we cannot predict what number it will generate next. " - Which implies that you think the brain is like a random generator ...

The bigfoot analogy was ultra simple, but I guess not enough.

Do humans have the ability to make decisions? Interesting question what made you decide to ask that question? I suspect that you concept of making a decison is a bit more than meets the eye, perhaps you could explain it a bit more?

Do you not believe that decision making is a cognitive process? The brain processes information and because of that process we can decide on what course of action to take. It matters not if every choice is in a chain of events, in the end we will choose one of them or none at all. You dont need a undetermined universe to decide on determined actions.

I pretty much know how you are going to respond, so please spell it out so I can honestly respond.

Of coarse I believe it's a cognative process, but that process is a mechanical and chemical one.

But the important part is the blue part ... see the decision is part of the cognitive process that is physically and chemically determined, so you can't choose between predetermined coarses of action, because your choice is also part of that predetermined action.

 

[sookster]

I think that if I had the genes of the person across the street and the exact same environment, I would turn out to be the same person. We all make choices based upon our brain circuitry which is determined by genes and environment. So if a problem or choice is presented in front of me, I will make the decision based upon my previous experience and my biological tendencies. So in a sense, there is no free will, everything is determined. However, from our perspective, it feels like free will because consciously we predominantly think of socially acceptable acts assuming the strength of the ego is sufficient. But the id houses urges that must be suppressed, and the eventual expression of these unconscious urges which includes guilt will determine one's choice.

I know I brought psychoanalytics into the discussion, but the strong theory supports the notion that everything is determined.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Well excuse me for taking what you wrote to be what you meant.

You said "I clearly argued that the brain is bound by the laws of nature and cannot act outside of those limits." - Which is a strange way to put it, it seams to imply it can act within the laws of nature, i.e. not all of it's actions are determined by such.

You are grasping at straws now if by that simple sentence you cam away with what you are trying to say that I meant.

I didn't assume that at all.

You said "Heres the deal once we have figured out entirely how the brain works we can show exactly how it works. But then we know exactly how a random generator works but we cannot predict what number it will generate next. " - Which implies that you think the brain is like a random generator ...

That doesnt at all imply that the brain is like a random generator. I was giving an example that defies your logic. You are trying to say that the nature of reality is entirely predictable if you had all the information needed. But actually there are things that cannot be predicted. The existence of the unpredictable shoots a big hole in your argument.

Of coarse I believe it's a cognative process, but that process is a mechanical and chemical one.

Never said that matter didnt act like matter.

But the important part is the blue part ... see the decision is part of the cognitive process that is physically and chemically determined, so you can't choose between predetermined coarses of action, because your choice is also part of that predetermined action.

Is it all predetermined?

For your argument to be believable you need to show that the universe is 100% predetermined.

The fact is that modern physics is moving away from determinism. Yet you act as if determinism as been completely proven and that indeterminism has been disproved.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Heres the deal once we have figured out entirely how the brain works we can show exactly how it works. But then we know exactly how a random generator works but we cannot predict what number it will generate next. So then I must ask you if you believe that a random generator works outside of the laws of physics? You could give a good general prediction based on probable outcomes but 100% accuracy is whole different ball game.

Just an FYI here ...

Actually, if you're given all the information about the random number generator is it not really random. That was part of the problem the first game programmers had, to find a way where the supposed random pattern would not repeat itself in predictable ways to the uninformed. The programmers can still predict the pattern given the inputs to the routine but they have figured out ways to make the pattern so large that the uniformed can't make a pattern of it from observation - at least, not without a lot of help from another program.

 

[Ontologuy]

I've always considered myself a determinist, and believe that actions are usually determined by an extraneous factor, or through the actions of others. Many religionist believe that "God gave humanity freewill," yet in the same instance punishes mankind for something he gave. I personally believe that in some way, my actions or the actions of others from a microcosmic level affect me. Although we live in a society that contains options, it would appear that the development of options was determined by an other. If freewill does exist, what objective element can we attribute that is independent of influence?

Freewill exists .. but only God has it for certain.

Thus, nevertheless, nothing is predetermined.

We may or may not have freewill, not that we would ever know whether we do or not.

But whether or not we have freewill, either wholly or partially, or don't have it at all, our lives, our actions, are simply not predetermined, as even God doesn't know the future, because the future is a non-existent fantasy, not a reality.

Whether or not we make the choices at decision points or God makes them for us, choices still happen in the reality of the here and now.

And though the very nature of our construction and the universe's construction places limits on our options, these limits do not a predetermination make.

So the dualism of freewill v. predeterminism is simply an invalid construct.

 

[grip]

Freewill exists .. but only God has it for certain.

Thus, nevertheless, nothing is predetermined.

We may or may not have freewill, not that we would ever know whether we do or not.

But whether or not we have freewill, either wholly or partially, or don't have it at all, our lives, our actions, are simply not predetermined, as even God doesn't know the future, because the future is a non-existent fantasy, not a reality.

Whether or not we make the choices at decision points or God makes them for us, choices still happen in the reality of the here and now.

And though the very nature of our construction and the universe's construction places limits on our options, these limits do not a predetermination make.

So the dualism of freewill v. predeterminism is simply an invalid construct.

I agree that "freewill exists" and "only God has it for certain" but there's no way of substantiating these statements other than with philosophical reasoning.

Not sure if foreknowledge has any bearing on predetermination or how much even God is bound by His own laws and word. Though it seems that nature is a system of cause and effect bound by natural laws there might be a sort of OZ behind the curtain effect, where we're unaware of God nudging His system slightly into a certain direction. For example when JFK had his finger on the button during the Cuban Missile crisis, maybe God whispered in his brain "not today".

If there is a supreme being of pure energy with infinite potential it would seem that even though some events appear wrong, bad, destructive or evil temporarily that eventually somehow everything would have to work towards the greater good. If for no other reason than nothing but perfection could come out of perfection. If a God created what appears to be a flaw from out of free will it would have to be limited in nature, since no force could perpetuate itself against an infinite force. Our freewill to whatever extent that is allows us to make errors in judgement and choice but it is also critical in our maturing and development as unique individuals.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Just an FYI here ...

Actually, if you're given all the information about the random number generator is it not really random. That was part of the problem the first game programmers had, to find a way where the supposed random pattern would not repeat itself in predictable ways to the uninformed. The programmers can still predict the pattern given the inputs to the routine but they have figured out ways to make the pattern so large that the uniformed can't make a pattern of it from observation - at least, not without a lot of help from another program.

I purposely did not say pseudo random generator which is what you are talking about. RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service True random number generators

This pdf goes into good detail http://olmschenk.info/papers/arxiv0911-3427_2009_random_numbers_Pironio.pdf


"It has been shown that entangled particles can be used to generate numbers whose privacy and randomness are guaranteed by the violation of a Bell inequality"


My point is that true randomness has been proven to exist in nature. So at best we can say that universe is mostly determined.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I purposely did not say pseudo random generator which is what you are talking about. RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service True random number generators

This pdf goes into good detail http://olmschenk.info/papers/arxiv0911-3427_2009_random_numbers_Pironio.pdf


"It has been shown that entangled particles can be used to generate numbers whose privacy and randomness are guaranteed by the violation of a Bell inequality"

My point is that true randomness has been proven to exist in nature. So at best we can say that universe is mostly determined.

I agree with that. I thought you were talking about digital random number generators.

Quantum physics demands true randomness. The further ahead and the smaller the object we attempt to predict, the more random error creeps into our predictions.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I agree with that. I thought you were talking about digital random number generators.

Quantum physics demands true randomness. The further ahead and the smaller the object we attempt to predict, the more random error creeps into our predictions.

Sorry my fault I wasnt explanatory enough.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Sorry my fault I wasnt explanatory enough.

It was partly my fault, too. I dabble in programming, even more so in the past when random number generators were a big issue.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It was partly my fault, too. I dabble in programming, even more so in the past when random number generators were a big issue.

01101100011011110110110000100000010010010010000001100010011001010111010000100000011110010110111101110101001000000110010001110010011001010110000101101101001000000110001101101111011001000110010100111111