1: voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
“there may be thought, there may be will, there may be volition, where there is no liberty.”
1) If Our actions were not determined by what came before them, as causality states, they would have to be completely and utterly random (seeing as this is not possible), how can free will exist?
A wave function or wavefunction is a mathematical tool used in quantum mechanics to describe the momentary states of subatomic particles.
It is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into the complex numbers. The laws of quantum mechanics (i.e. the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes — complex numbers — the squares of the absolute values of which give the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states
In probability theory and statistics, a probability distribution identifies either the probability of each value of an unidentified random variable (when the variable is discrete), or the probability of the value falling within a particular interval (when the variable is continuous). The probability distribution describes the range of possible values that a random variable can attain and the probability that the value of the random variable is within any (measurable) subset of that range.
2/3) Do you believe that it is possible to program "choice"? And if so, how does free will exist then? By programmed choice I mean: A young kid is yelled out constantly and learns that he is inferior and becomes very shy. He gets a job at a restaurant, but he works behind the scenes. He feels that he is making all his choices on his own, but in reality he is only making a programmed choice, due to his younger experiences shaping him into who he is today.
4) If, by our own nature and nurture, we determine that a particular action would be detrimental to us like touching an open fire. We would "choose" not to do it, but this choice is not really a choice, because we know that the fire will hurt us. In this reasoning, we will not be able to have a choice to do it for the betterment of ourselves (Forget about psychological disorders). True or False and please explain why you believe that.
5) Is choice based on past experience? Explain.
jkrogs Socratic Questions
1.Given that the very nature of physics that undoubtedly show there are infinite possibilities for everything, how can Free Will not exist?
2. Assume that a man is driving his car, he then proceeds to come to a 4-way stop sign. At this stop sign he becomes lost, not knowing which direction to go. So he thinks for himself, postulating upon the logical choices to what direction to take. He has four choices, to either go left, right, straight, or turn around and go back. He then decides to go right and makes it to his destination. Is that very act that I just described not Free Will? Explain your answer.
3. Let us again assume another scenario. A married man comes home early from work one day to tragically find his wife cheating on him with another man. The husbands mind starts to go crazy, at first he is flooded with emotions, but his logical side of his brain attempts to take over, but to no avail. At this point the man is debating on ether peacefully confronting the situation, or letting his emotions get the best of him and killing his cheating wife and husband. He unfortunately murders both people, is arrested, and taken to trial.
During the trial the man’s defense attorney argues that the murders occurred in the "heat of passion", unfortunately the jury still finds him guilty and the man is sent to prison for life. WHY? Because the man had a choice, and he made the wrong choice. This is argued all the time in court, sometimes to no avail, but sometimes successfully. The question is, once we take into account emotion in the deterministic process (non Free Will) does not the very existence of emotion indicate Free Will, as shown in the aforementioned example. Explain your answer.
Choice is a totality of past experience and current interactions; everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment. I like to look at the WHOLE picture, and when you do you see that at every point in our lives we have infinite choices open to us, some more probable than the other.
1.Given that the very nature of physics that undoubtedly show there are infinite possibilities for everything, how can Free Will not exist?
Well one thing we need to remember is that the Quantum Theory's probability is flawed. Mainly do to open interpretation, by this I mean it is not a set course. If infinite choices were POSSIBLE, which they are not, then I would agree with your statements, but since infinite choices are never possible; due to environment, due to emotion, due to physical attributions. We can see that the variables continue to build up eventually leading to predictability. And if the word is governed by predictable laws, then there can be no free will.
Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all possible states that an object can have.
In probability theory, every possible event has a real number between zero and one associated to it, the probability, which gives the chance that it happens. If you want to know the probability of two independent events both occurring, for example the probability that it will rain and also that the stock market will go up, you multiply the probability for each event. If there is a 0.3 chance that it will rain and a 0.6 chance that the market will go up, there is a 0.18 chance that both will happen.
A system of equations has infinite solutions when the lines are parallel, i.e. they have the same slope, and they have the same y-intercept. In fact one equation is a scalar multiple of the other and hence, in effect, the equations represent the same line! Let's look at system of two linear equations Ax + By + C = 0 and Dx + Ey + F = 0: these equations will have infinite solutions if the ratio of A/D, B/E and C/F are the same i.e. A/D = B/E = C/F. In such a case, these lines represent coincident lines, i.e. they overlap at every single point. For example, x + y = 2 and 3x + 3y = 6 have infinite solutions because A/D = B/E = C/F = 1/3. Another way to look at this is: if you multiply line 1 by three you get line 2, and thus these two lines are exactly the same line!
But if Probability can "predict" what we will do then how is that Free Will? If we have infinite choices, how can we narrow them down? Because choice is based, according to you, on "totality of past experience and current interactions, everything has a probability, what determines that is the individual and the environment." That is interesting; the individual determines what the probability is according to his environment. So, I will go out on a limb and assume that this means at anytime we can change our minds; therefore, free will exists and infinite possibilities also exist, BUT if you change your mind, it is only in light of new evidence which shows your original decision to be a bad one or an inadequate one for the purpose of what you were doing. The WILL once again has NOTHING to do with changing of the mind. Our past experiences, our nature vs. nurture, our environment, our genes everything can be explained by any of the latter; our freedom is nothing, but the collection of our genes, environment, nature vs. nurture, past experiences, physical attributes, etc.
Free Will is the idea that we have choice, BUT if we truly had free will we would be able to make more choices then the ones presented.
- Zygote. Any free will there? Of course not
- Fetus. Any free will there? Nope.
- Adult. Any Free Will? Nope, because we are what we are. A collection of past experiences and other factors wrapped up into one very nice burrito
1) In a world of infinite possibilities; how is it possible to come up with a finite number of possibilities?
2) The finite number of possibilities also have a finite number of REASONABLE possibilities, correct? Explain.
3) If the number of finite possibilities of a decision can be broken down to less choices; could probability accurately predict 100% of the time what a person will do.
4) If the Will is a mental process and the brain controls mental process's does this not conclude that the WILL cannot be free, because it is controlled?
5) Would you agree that destiny plays a part in the above Story with Maggie? Why or Why not.
Answers to Socratic Questions- With Rebuttal- And Reply
1. What is "will", you seem to describe it as some additional force of existence. But I disagree; all "will" implies in the nomenclature of "Free Will" is that you have choice, instead of a static path. In both examples I gave we saw that each scenario had a CHOICE, but you state that "if will existed then they would know the right choice", that is very erroneous. The entire principle of free will is that we have a choice in all matters. So given the true definition of "will" is it not obvious we have "Free Will"? Explain.
2. Can you refute any of the aforementioned comments I made, WITHOUT involving choice? Explain.
3.Assuming the cause-effect principle, each cause is itself caused by a choice, which in turn predicated the cause. If there was indeed only one solution to all things then why does physics and math prove this not so? Explain with adequate sources.
4. If you assume our future is predetermined then isn't choice still involved, as it is that very action which would predicate the future no? Explain.
5. During the thought process in everyday life we are constantly bombarded with choices. Yet we choose the path we will go, as that is what makes us function on a productive level. Refute and explain in detail.
1) If we can predict one set of human actions, then how do we have free will? If free WILL has the ability to do anything in any given situation- in essence the WILL is random. So how is this possible?
2) If the WILL is free then why can I not make myself fly? If I WILL it I should be able to do it.
1.decree or ordain; "God wills our existence"
2.volition: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention; "the exercise of their volition we construe as revolt"- George Meredith
3.determine by choice; "This action was willed and intended"
4.a fixed and persistent intent or purpose; "where there's a will there's a way"
5.bequeath: leave or give by will after one's death; "My aunt bequeathed me all her jewelry"; "My grandfather left me his entire estate"
6.a legal document declaring a person's wishes regarding the disposal of their property when they die *
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware—or failing that, being culpably unaware—of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1.)
Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or “willings.”*
3) How can physics, science and math possibly exist if we have free WILL?
4/5) Do we truly have free will because you believe it? or because our will is truly free?
Answers to SQ
1.Can you scientifically or mathematically disprove quantum mechanics that dictate infinite probabilities and thus choices? Explain in detail, with sources, why or why not.
2.Can you philosophically disprove the fact that choice is present, even in a theory of destiny?
3.How can destiny occur with out CHOICE? Even if one was some how magically forced into a effect, the cause must proceed it, and given that there are multiple interacting variables within our environment for destiny to be true one must say that there is NEVER any choice involved in ANYTHING. Your rebuttal?
4. If we assume your destiny theory is correct then we also must assume that somehow it was destined the universe be created by nothing. Beings as this is currently not physically possible according to well established laws of physics how can your thesis support the creation of our universe better than a chance (probability) creation?
So now we clearly see that my opponent has clearly misconstrued the very definition of FREE WILL, and instead chose to simply define “WILL”. When we look at the real philosophical definition of “Free Will” we can lucidly see that everything I have said in above responses is true and supportive of my thesis.
Concerning a man's liberty, there yet, therefore, is raised this further question, Whether a man be free to will? which I think is what is meant, when it is disputed whether the will be free. (s.22)
...to make a man free after this manner, by making the action of willing to depend on his will, there must be another antecedent will, to determine the acts of this will, and another to determine that, and so in infinitum: for wherever one stops, the actions of the last will cannot be free. (s.23)
This, then, is evident, That a man is not at liberty to will, or not to will, anything in his power...: liberty consisting in a power to act or to forbear acting, and in that only. (s.24)
"I do not believe in freedom of will. Schopenhauer's words, 'Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants', accompany me in all life situations and console me in my dealings with people, even those that are really painful to me. This recognition of the unfreedom of the will protects me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and judging individuals and losing good humour."
The will, therefore, is not a faculty that one can call free. A free will is an expression absolutely void of sense, and what the scholastics have called will of indifference, that is to say willing without cause, is a chimera unworthy of being combated.
Where will be liberty then? in the power to do what one wills. I wish to leave my study, the door is open, I am free to leave it.
But, say you, if the door is closed, and I wish to stay at home, I stay there freely. Let us be explicit You exercise then the power that you have of staying; you have this power, but you have not that of going out.
Unless you can adequately answer my quantum mechanical questions with actual science I have no further questions at this time
Bohm found buried within those equations a close link to the mathematics of classical physics, which is based on Newton's laws of motion. Bohmian mechanics asserts that the outcome of an experiment isn't truly random, but is determined by the values of certain "hidden variables"; for instance, in quantum theory two electrons may be "entangled" such that their states appear to have a kind of spooky link; measuring the spin of one determines the spin of the other, say. Bohm's theory suggests that they share a hidden variable governing spin.
As much as any classical theory of point particles moving under force fields, then, Bohm's theory is deterministic. Amazingly, he was also able to show that, as long as the statistical distribution of initial positions and velocities of particles are chosen so as to meet a “quantum equilibrium” condition, his theory is empirically equivalent to standard Copenhagen QM. In one sense this is a philosopher's nightmare: with genuine empirical equivalence as strong as Bohm obtained, it seems experimental evidence can never tell us which description of reality is correct. In other senses, the Bohm theory is a philosopher's dream come true, eliminating much (but not all) of the weirdness of standard QM and restoring determinism to the physics of atoms and photons.
While clearly contributing to the field, he did not accept the more philosophical consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time. He also was the first to notice some of the apparently exotic consequences of entanglement and used them to formulate the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, in the hope of showing that quantum mechanics had unacceptable implications. This was 1935, but in 1964 it was shown by John Bell (see Bell inequality) that Einstein's assumption was correct, but had to be completed by hidden variables and thus based on wrong philosophical assumptions.