Thomas Ash

I voted like that too. Shouldn't there be two options under the "we are in control of our actions" option - one for libertarian free will, and another for soft determinism? I'd be interested to see what the spread of opinions on these options is on the Philosophy forum.

excreationist

How did you do that? For me it has radio choices that give you only one choice.

****************

The theory about free will I favour the most (though aren't necessarily 100% absolutely certain about) is the Multiple Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum phenomena. In that theory, every time a quantum particle could have multiple possible futures, every single possible future happens - in alternate histories. And these near-infinite amounts of parallel universes (that diverged at some point) can interact with each other to a limited degree - like in quantum computers (which I think were pioneered by a MWI supporter, David Deutsch) and maybe the two-slit experiment is an example of that two. (Interference between alternate histories)

So anyway, if MWI is true, there would be many people that are virtually identical to me. (And some that diverged when I was a foetus, who have the same body but a very different mind). At some points in time, I would have to make very tough choices and the chaos of the quantum world would affect my decision. The universe would split into two sets of history - one where I made one choice - and the other set where I made the other choice. The universe I find myself in would be random really.

My brain is making the decisions though, so it is choosing, and as I said, sometimes both choices would be made (in different parallel universes)...

I guess I'll pick #2 - "Our actions are determined by physical effects beyond our control"

I'm not sure how well it matches what I've been saying though.

PotatoError

The human brain cannot literally make a "choice". If I asked you to choose a number between 1 and 10 your "choice" would be entirely due to the current state of your brain.

There are no imaginary particles in your brain which allow some superstitious function such as "choice" to be made.

Thomas Ash

excreationist, is there any evidence given for the multiple worlds interacting hypothesis? Also, could you explain how exactly it describes what is happening in the two slit experiments? Thanks!

crocodile deathroll

That is quite a contradiction isn't it?

crocodile deathroll

Very attractive theory, but I am also taken the twins paradox which implies the future is already out there waiting for us to get there and we do not in any way shape the future as we go along.

DRFseven

Yes, crocodile, it IS quite a contradiction. If I am the complicated network of physiological changes that occurred prior to hitting the "Post a Reply" button, am I also the "gleam in my father's eye" before I was conceived?

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I agree, the options in the poll are severely limited, which renders the poll ineffective.

I don't like the phrase 'free will', I prefer 'individual will'.

Keith.

crocodile deathroll

I just think people are a little more familiar with phrase "free will"

excreationist

If choice is taken to be a synonym for "decision" then we can make choices. A "choice" doesn't necessarily have to be a 100% truly "free" real choice. Even if we had a soul and this soul was responsible for our decisions, it would either work in the deterministic or a part random - part deterministic way. The randomness could be said to create some freeness, but I don't think the person should really be held accountable for it (as far as their eternal destiny goes). So truly free choices seem impossible in the material/physical world - and even in spiritual worlds, but I think the term "choice" can still used since a decision - or selection - is being made by our brains.