Starboy

Zadok001, I have heard this argument before. I have one problem with it. IMO “free will” is the ability to make a choice even if it is not the rational choice. An all-knowing completely rational being in a completely deterministic universe would have no “free choice” and therefor no “free will”. This is another reason why I think that for “free will” to exist reason would have nothing to do with it. The existence of randomness in the universe makes free choice possible and thus “free will”.

The problem with this thread is that no one took the time to make his or her definition of free will clear. We appear to be arguing from our own concepts of “free will”.

Starboy

Starboy

Tronvillian, in some sense we do this every day. Almost everything we do has a chance that our choosing it will lead to our death. Yet we flip the coin. Your example would be a choice if that were what the person wanted to do. It would be the freest choice of all.

Starboy

Zadok001

Starboy, you're missing the point. You cannot, by definition, choose the outcome of a random event. Therefore, you clearly cannot choose the outcome freely. Therefore, you have no free choice, and thus no free will. You can't claim "It could have gone either way, therefore I freely chose which way it went." That's absurd.

The only definition your counter argument works for is this one:

"Free will is the possibility of multiple distinguishable outcomes for any given situation."

If that's your definition, have fun. But you'll note that definition contains NOTHING regarding choice, will, or freedom. That makes it a rather strange choice for defining free will.

Theli

Starboy...
But there's a difference. Free will doesn't imply that the person must know the outcome of his own choice/action. This is where intelligence comes in.

There's another thing regarding the deterministic universe that I find strange.
If all events/states can be traced back to the birth of the universe, then the amount of diversity (detail, of you wish) must be equal in it's whole history. Yet, the most accepted models of the universe's birth suggests something very simplistic. Doesn't this mean that there must be an element of chaos?

Zadok001

Theli:

It seems so, yes. That would imply that some events are probabilistic or random, but the argument already covers them as not related to free will.

Starboy

Until we can decide what free will means I am not sure this discussion will lead anywhere.

As I see it:

Free will == to make a choice with no constraints or external interference.

Note the complete absence of reason or thought in the definition. It is not excluded but it is not required. Choosing based on the outcome of the mindless roll of the die would qualify. IMO if you require reason as part of the definition of free will then the existence of “free will” becomes problematic. How free is a choice that is dictated by logic. How free is a choice that is constrained by other desires such as the desire to keep on living. It seems to me that reason doesn’t create choice it destroys it. Perfect reason with perfect knowledge will result in free will only for choices that result in the same outcome. Before continuing with this discussion I think we should arrive at a definition for the term “free will”.

Starboy

Theli

I know, it's off topic.
Makes you think though...

Theli

Starboy...
I would say that a choice is by definition based on logic.

Starboy

Theli, I don't appear to be doing a very good job of getting my point across. A choice indicates an alternate path, the real ability to select one path from several. If all choices are dictated by logic and reason is there a choice? In that case isn't there only one path, the path of best choice? A single path is not a choice.

If you could create an ensemble of people and were able to replay the same life with the same choices over and over, the people who always picked the "best" choice would for the most part re-live the same path each time. Only in the cases where they didn't pick the same path would they really have a choice. Choosing randomly gives you the greatest choice of all. An ensemble of people that chose is such a manner will exhibit a rich tree of different lives. From an experimental point of view these are the people that exhibited "free will", not those that chose rationally.

Starboy

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Starboy

So a creature that is incapable of logic cannot make a choice? A bacterium cannot choose between moving or staying put? Or is a bacterium a logical creature, where chemicals compute decisions? This same example can be made using a computer where a choice is a matter of pure logic. Do computers choose? Are bacteria and computers rational?

I think you confuse will with reason. Any creature can have the will to live and thus the will to make choices, but reason need not be involved. In this context the idea of “free will” means is the universe constructed in such a way so that it is possible to make a choice. Based on current scientific knowledge the answer is yes.

Starboy