The deterministic view was probably most simply stated by Simon Pierre Laplace, early in the nineteenth century, who said that a sufficient intelligence, if given the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe, could compute the universe's entire future and past.
So, I'm wondering if the lack of the possibility of such a being necessarily implies that because we don't know what decisions we will make, we have "Free Will" because our future decisions can't be calculated; not because the aren't calculable, but because we don't possess a method to calculate them?
It may make a difference in that we would need to understand whether or not there is a difference between something being "unknowable," and something which cannot be known simply because of a lack of means of acquiring that knowledge.
But, then again, I may be just over-analyzing the situation.
@TheSkepticalAtheist It is my view, that everything is in theory knowable, given the means [ Laplace's "sufficient intelligence", super computer etc.] even though the means is not obtainable.
Not only is free will impossible, it is logically absurd.
It is also very important for people to begin to understand this lack of free will. We need to start removing personal blame as well as blame of others, understand the importance of memes, fixing things at base of causality, and removing the egocentricity of people for the betterment of all sentient creatures.
I have started writing a book on this important topic.
I'd be interested to read your work. But, then again, that's because I have no choice but to want to.
The question I'm currently pondering is the idea that, if we actually promote this idea that we aren't responsible for our actions, what are the social impacts of that?
If for some reason we're wrong, will this inspire borderline criminals to take actions they wouldn't otherwise engage in? But then, how would you know? It seems like a special pleading argument whichever way you look at it.
I agree we need to do so carefully and with clear explanation of the implications (part of what my book is about doing), but that is only due to our current poor "free will" psychology...and not any reasonable grounds. In the long run there are extreme and important benefits for humanity to understand this fact of life, and I am convinced that we are ready for that step (if done so carefully). (MORE)
Just as science is important, I don't think we can evolve for the betterment without removing the psychological "dogma" of free will.
Anyway...keep thinking about it. Ask yourself the reasons people might take the idea of not having free will to a "bad" level. Are they reasonable or rational reasons? Or are they entirely psychological based on a misunderstanding of what it may mean and their current psychology? :)
Right. I guess really the social fear would be that once people realize they aren't responsible for their own actions, like I said, those borderline-criminals would do things they wouldn't have normally done.
But, it's not like our justice system would just disappear. Realizing we don't have Free Will may modify how we deal with criminals, but there wouldn't be anarchy... I don't think.
The whole problem arises because we are a part of the whole giant mechanism, called the universe. The only thing that one can do, as far as I can see, is to live AS IF one has free will. Free or not, it's an interesting journey!!
Like the idea that a contained system doesn't have the capacity to understand itself, or something like that. There isn't enough information within a contained system to be able to understand everything about it.
Because we don't have access to the "outside" of the Universe, we can never fully understand what's inside of it.
6:00 If we had this hypothetical computer, we could intervene in some way to prevent the crime. Rest assured that this computer is purely hypothetical: no such computer will ever exist in this universe, apart from the entire universe itself, and that does not ever predict anything: it just IS.
Your point about the computer. Couldn't one easily say that this act of intervening was part of that determined future, just as the developing of that computer?
I don't know. I'm still trying to work this out. But it seems there may be some wiggle room if the computer could show that a crime was going to be committed, and there was a way to intervene. The only thing that would be left to see is if intervention was possible...
Well, i deliberately skipped over the total omniscience aspect (knowing exactly the entire future precludes intervention) because the whole idea is ridiculously unreal. Most predictions fall short of 100% certainty, but predicting the impossibility of this 100% omniscient computer IS 100% certain. It ain't gonna happen. Take my word for it, or think about it yourself.
In any case, doing what seems best and taking the consequences is the ONLY way, computer or no.
I wasn't implying that this computer was possible. I was only speaking theoretically. I realize that this is a 100% impossibility. I was only using it as a tool in the analogy.
Even our act of thinking about the idea of determinism, is predetermined. Also, if some kind of exception was found for humans, would it apply to the rest of the living universe? Certainly it is only the mass of atoms in the form of a human brain, that has the ability to consider the matter, on this planet anyway. Another thought is, that the whole idea of determinism only becomes uncomfortable, when we have to apply it to ourselves. When we are part of the mechanism.
The deterministic view was probably most simply stated by Simon Pierre Laplace, early in the nineteenth century, who said that a sufficient intelligence, if given the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe, could compute the universe's entire future and past.
KenChamberlain 1 year ago
@KenChamberlain
So, I'm wondering if the lack of the possibility of such a being necessarily implies that because we don't know what decisions we will make, we have "Free Will" because our future decisions can't be calculated; not because the aren't calculable, but because we don't possess a method to calculate them?
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I can't see how that really makes a difference.
KenChamberlain 1 year ago
@KenChamberlain
It may make a difference in that we would need to understand whether or not there is a difference between something being "unknowable," and something which cannot be known simply because of a lack of means of acquiring that knowledge.
But, then again, I may be just over-analyzing the situation.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist It is my view, that everything is in theory knowable, given the means [ Laplace's "sufficient intelligence", super computer etc.] even though the means is not obtainable.
KenChamberlain 1 year ago
Not only is free will impossible, it is logically absurd.
It is also very important for people to begin to understand this lack of free will. We need to start removing personal blame as well as blame of others, understand the importance of memes, fixing things at base of causality, and removing the egocentricity of people for the betterment of all sentient creatures.
I have started writing a book on this important topic.
trick0171 2 years ago
I'd be interested to read your work. But, then again, that's because I have no choice but to want to.
The question I'm currently pondering is the idea that, if we actually promote this idea that we aren't responsible for our actions, what are the social impacts of that?
If for some reason we're wrong, will this inspire borderline criminals to take actions they wouldn't otherwise engage in? But then, how would you know? It seems like a special pleading argument whichever way you look at it.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
I agree we need to do so carefully and with clear explanation of the implications (part of what my book is about doing), but that is only due to our current poor "free will" psychology...and not any reasonable grounds. In the long run there are extreme and important benefits for humanity to understand this fact of life, and I am convinced that we are ready for that step (if done so carefully). (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
Just as science is important, I don't think we can evolve for the betterment without removing the psychological "dogma" of free will.
Anyway...keep thinking about it. Ask yourself the reasons people might take the idea of not having free will to a "bad" level. Are they reasonable or rational reasons? Or are they entirely psychological based on a misunderstanding of what it may mean and their current psychology? :)
trick0171 2 years ago
Right. I guess really the social fear would be that once people realize they aren't responsible for their own actions, like I said, those borderline-criminals would do things they wouldn't have normally done.
But, it's not like our justice system would just disappear. Realizing we don't have Free Will may modify how we deal with criminals, but there wouldn't be anarchy... I don't think.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
The whole problem arises because we are a part of the whole giant mechanism, called the universe. The only thing that one can do, as far as I can see, is to live AS IF one has free will. Free or not, it's an interesting journey!!
Bornatnight1 2 years ago
Like the idea that a contained system doesn't have the capacity to understand itself, or something like that. There isn't enough information within a contained system to be able to understand everything about it.
Because we don't have access to the "outside" of the Universe, we can never fully understand what's inside of it.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
6:00 If we had this hypothetical computer, we could intervene in some way to prevent the crime. Rest assured that this computer is purely hypothetical: no such computer will ever exist in this universe, apart from the entire universe itself, and that does not ever predict anything: it just IS.
8:00 It IS crazy to think about it.
Third request: read Daniel C. Dennett's "freedom evolves".
The real questions are:
What is "I"?
Why does "I" want to think of itself as "free"?
prhughes0 2 years ago
Your point about the computer. Couldn't one easily say that this act of intervening was part of that determined future, just as the developing of that computer?
I don't know. I'm still trying to work this out. But it seems there may be some wiggle room if the computer could show that a crime was going to be committed, and there was a way to intervene. The only thing that would be left to see is if intervention was possible...
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
@TSA
Well, i deliberately skipped over the total omniscience aspect (knowing exactly the entire future precludes intervention) because the whole idea is ridiculously unreal. Most predictions fall short of 100% certainty, but predicting the impossibility of this 100% omniscient computer IS 100% certain. It ain't gonna happen. Take my word for it, or think about it yourself.
In any case, doing what seems best and taking the consequences is the ONLY way, computer or no.
That's real life.
best,
p
prhughes0 2 years ago
I wasn't implying that this computer was possible. I was only speaking theoretically. I realize that this is a 100% impossibility. I was only using it as a tool in the analogy.
TheSkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
Even our act of thinking about the idea of determinism, is predetermined. Also, if some kind of exception was found for humans, would it apply to the rest of the living universe? Certainly it is only the mass of atoms in the form of a human brain, that has the ability to consider the matter, on this planet anyway. Another thought is, that the whole idea of determinism only becomes uncomfortable, when we have to apply it to ourselves. When we are part of the mechanism.
Bornatnight1 2 years ago