I had always been a staunch defender of the nonexistence of free will, but recently a friend linked determinism to consequence, and said that without time consequence wouldn't exist, and that I had to solidly back up my idea of the existence of time, or I couldn't talk about determinism without making it a faith based statement.
How do we all feel about sequential/subjective time?
Time and Determinism
Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith
-
Gadget nee Jemcheeta
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: Cleveland
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
This could be very interesting. However, I see a debate about free will versus determinism. I'm a staunch supporter of determinism, but I am not getting involved. 
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
And I'm a staunch supporter of free will. While recognising that environmental factors can pre-dispose you toward certain actions. 
It is your fate to be involved Loremaster. I on the other hand choose freely.
For me, determinism does seem to be a faith-based concept, because it begs the question of purpose and cause.
As for time, it's sequential in the universe, and subjective in your head. (Personally, I'm more interested in asking "where does it go when it's past?")
Why can't we have consequence without sequential time? Because it's a chronologically linear process?
--A
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
It's only faith if you include meaning or if some deity's plan is involved. I do not believe either are needed to understand or explain determinism. Mine simply involves processes that occur because of past and current processes (things get skewed once if you include a Transactional Interpretation). Quantum is included, taking into account Bohmian Mechanics.Avatar wrote: For me, determinism does seem to be a faith-based concept, because it begs the question of purpose and cause.
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
While I absolutely agree that past and current processes/events/environments inevitably have a profound effect the decision making process, I don't think that they control it. Or that whatever effect they have on it cannot be overcome by either reason or will.
And if the effect can be overcome, even once, by anybody, it means that there is no determinism.
Probabilities, yes, but not predetermination.
--A
And if the effect can be overcome, even once, by anybody, it means that there is no determinism.
Probabilities, yes, but not predetermination.
--A
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19644
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Put me on the free will side.
Of course, like any controversial, philosophical subject, our terms need to be defined. I'm feeling too lazy to qualify my terms rigorously, but I do agree with Avatar's distinctions about predisposition, etc. It's not 100% "free," but rather freedom to be me. Yes, the word "me" has certain limiting consequences. I'm not ever going to be a Christian Democrat, for instance. So I'm not entirely free in the sense that every single possibility exists for me equally. But I have *chosen* to be an atheist Libertarian. Even if that choice was "determined" by who I am, and by my perception of the world, it was still a choice.
So what I've never been able to understand about people who subscribe to determinism, is how they deal with choice. Is it an illusion? Do they think we actually make decisions? Or do they admit we make decision, but these decisions are determined? I'm not sure that a determined choice has any meaning. What is the difference between an action that was determined in which no choice was involved, and an action that was determined in which a choice was involved? If a choice was determined, doesn't that mean that a person couldn't have chosen otherwise? And if they couldn't have chosen otherwise, in what sense does choice have any meaning? Isn't that an illusion?
I believe that for macro objects, determinism is a pretty good approximation. Just like Newtonian mechanics vs relativistic mechanics. But let's assume for a moment that the case for determinism in physical objects is rock solid. No quantum randomness to worry us. The stark difference between the movements of, say, an asteroid and a person is so great that we need a completely different paradigm to understand it. People don't bob around due to gravity and collisions. We move by our own volition. And we do so for reasons that even transcend other animals . . . for instance, we go when the light is green and stop when its red (or willfully disregard this color scheme altogether). Or we move away to attend a college based upon a nebulous expectation of a career 5-10 years in the future. To say that the same processes which dictate the movement of a rock in space (i.e. physical forces) are the same processes which send a young man to college, is an extremely tenuous connection to make. The burden of proof rests with the person making this sweeping generalization. And that proof is far from available. It would necessitate a complete understanding of how the brain works, and solving the problem of mind/body dualism.
Clearly, something else is happening here. Perhaps consciousness will one day be completely explained in scientific terms, but we'll still have the situation where a feedback loop exists within a physical system--a feedback loop which takes into account knowledge and understand, even self-awareness. These things are not physical. The understanding of mathematics, for instance, isn't a physical phenomenon. Numbers themselves aren't physical, much less the understanding of them. So I don't believe it is clear at all that a physical system which contains a feedback loop of this kind (one which dips into the abstract and/or ideal realm of understanding) is determined. And certainly not in the strict sense of physical processes. A rock's movement isn't governed by its understanding of the consequences of its actions. And it seems counter-intuitive to me to think we could develop a deterministic physical theory to account for this understanding in a way that includes it in the chain of causes along with chemical reactions in the brain, etc.
I believe that consciousness is produced physically. But I believe it transcends matter. And its transcendental nature is unlike any other physical phenomenon in the universe. Even if the rest of the universe behaves deterministically (which it doesn't, btw), there is nothing about this that compels us to think that consciousness behaves the same way.
Of course, like any controversial, philosophical subject, our terms need to be defined. I'm feeling too lazy to qualify my terms rigorously, but I do agree with Avatar's distinctions about predisposition, etc. It's not 100% "free," but rather freedom to be me. Yes, the word "me" has certain limiting consequences. I'm not ever going to be a Christian Democrat, for instance. So I'm not entirely free in the sense that every single possibility exists for me equally. But I have *chosen* to be an atheist Libertarian. Even if that choice was "determined" by who I am, and by my perception of the world, it was still a choice.
So what I've never been able to understand about people who subscribe to determinism, is how they deal with choice. Is it an illusion? Do they think we actually make decisions? Or do they admit we make decision, but these decisions are determined? I'm not sure that a determined choice has any meaning. What is the difference between an action that was determined in which no choice was involved, and an action that was determined in which a choice was involved? If a choice was determined, doesn't that mean that a person couldn't have chosen otherwise? And if they couldn't have chosen otherwise, in what sense does choice have any meaning? Isn't that an illusion?
I believe that for macro objects, determinism is a pretty good approximation. Just like Newtonian mechanics vs relativistic mechanics. But let's assume for a moment that the case for determinism in physical objects is rock solid. No quantum randomness to worry us. The stark difference between the movements of, say, an asteroid and a person is so great that we need a completely different paradigm to understand it. People don't bob around due to gravity and collisions. We move by our own volition. And we do so for reasons that even transcend other animals . . . for instance, we go when the light is green and stop when its red (or willfully disregard this color scheme altogether). Or we move away to attend a college based upon a nebulous expectation of a career 5-10 years in the future. To say that the same processes which dictate the movement of a rock in space (i.e. physical forces) are the same processes which send a young man to college, is an extremely tenuous connection to make. The burden of proof rests with the person making this sweeping generalization. And that proof is far from available. It would necessitate a complete understanding of how the brain works, and solving the problem of mind/body dualism.
Clearly, something else is happening here. Perhaps consciousness will one day be completely explained in scientific terms, but we'll still have the situation where a feedback loop exists within a physical system--a feedback loop which takes into account knowledge and understand, even self-awareness. These things are not physical. The understanding of mathematics, for instance, isn't a physical phenomenon. Numbers themselves aren't physical, much less the understanding of them. So I don't believe it is clear at all that a physical system which contains a feedback loop of this kind (one which dips into the abstract and/or ideal realm of understanding) is determined. And certainly not in the strict sense of physical processes. A rock's movement isn't governed by its understanding of the consequences of its actions. And it seems counter-intuitive to me to think we could develop a deterministic physical theory to account for this understanding in a way that includes it in the chain of causes along with chemical reactions in the brain, etc.
I believe that consciousness is produced physically. But I believe it transcends matter. And its transcendental nature is unlike any other physical phenomenon in the universe. Even if the rest of the universe behaves deterministically (which it doesn't, btw), there is nothing about this that compels us to think that consciousness behaves the same way.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Consciousness and perception of reality are side-effects of the biochemical computers in our skulls that we call a brain. "Reality", of course is defined as "that which continues to exist even when you stop believing in it".
Because we have consciousness we have Free Will--the ability to determine our own actions and make choices for ourselves. This includes the choice to believe that we do not have Free Will--the people who believe thusly have made a conscious choice to do so and have thus exercised the Free Will in which they do not believe.
Things that do not have consiousness are subject only to causality based on the laws of physics. They cannot make choices for themselves; they are passive participants in the universe around them.
We can avoid certain outcomes by using our Free Will, but even then we are subject to causality only--we made choice A and so consequence A will occur; we did not choose choice B so consequence B will not occur. However, neither consequence A nor consequence B could occur until the choice was made, at which point the statistical probability of any other result happening was immediately reduced to zero.
Time is linear and proceeds in one direction only. This is a consequence of how the laws of physics work--it just "is". The reasons we cannot go backwards into time is because 1) time simply doesn't work that way and 2) the set of circumstances that existed at the point in time one minute ago no longer exist--things have changed since then.
Because we have consciousness we have Free Will--the ability to determine our own actions and make choices for ourselves. This includes the choice to believe that we do not have Free Will--the people who believe thusly have made a conscious choice to do so and have thus exercised the Free Will in which they do not believe.
Things that do not have consiousness are subject only to causality based on the laws of physics. They cannot make choices for themselves; they are passive participants in the universe around them.
We can avoid certain outcomes by using our Free Will, but even then we are subject to causality only--we made choice A and so consequence A will occur; we did not choose choice B so consequence B will not occur. However, neither consequence A nor consequence B could occur until the choice was made, at which point the statistical probability of any other result happening was immediately reduced to zero.
Time is linear and proceeds in one direction only. This is a consequence of how the laws of physics work--it just "is". The reasons we cannot go backwards into time is because 1) time simply doesn't work that way and 2) the set of circumstances that existed at the point in time one minute ago no longer exist--things have changed since then.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19644
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
HL, interesting post. I agree with much of it, so don't take my nit-picking as serious disagreement. Just a few points:
While it is tempting to use the metaphor "computer" to talk about our brains, we must be careful not to confuse this symbol for reality. The brain is NOT a biochemical computer, even though computers can approximate one single function which brains are capable of understanding (though not very good at performing). That function is the processing of algorithms. We are good at writing algorithms, talking about them, theorizing about them--otherwise we couldn't even build computers. But as far as actually running the algorithm ("crunching the numbers") our brains are extremely limited in this regard.
So to assume that processing algorithms is what our brains *do* when we're thinking, feeling, understanding, guessing, judging, etc., is misleading. Our brains are not Turing machines (i.e. "computers"). Consciousness isn't an algorithm.
Also, I'm not so sure that time is linear. Perhaps it looks that way due to our perspective and reference frame. Observers in accelerating reference frames experience time at different "rates" from each other. If time were purely linear, how would this be possible? There is a clear "arrow" of time, defined in terms which entropy increases. But every other equation in physics is pretty much independent of the directionality of time. In terms of pure math, there is nothing unique about most physics equations whether you run them forwards or backwards. (I can't think of specific examples right now . . . it's going on two decades since I switched majors in college from physics to philosophy.)
While it is tempting to use the metaphor "computer" to talk about our brains, we must be careful not to confuse this symbol for reality. The brain is NOT a biochemical computer, even though computers can approximate one single function which brains are capable of understanding (though not very good at performing). That function is the processing of algorithms. We are good at writing algorithms, talking about them, theorizing about them--otherwise we couldn't even build computers. But as far as actually running the algorithm ("crunching the numbers") our brains are extremely limited in this regard.
So to assume that processing algorithms is what our brains *do* when we're thinking, feeling, understanding, guessing, judging, etc., is misleading. Our brains are not Turing machines (i.e. "computers"). Consciousness isn't an algorithm.
Also, I'm not so sure that time is linear. Perhaps it looks that way due to our perspective and reference frame. Observers in accelerating reference frames experience time at different "rates" from each other. If time were purely linear, how would this be possible? There is a clear "arrow" of time, defined in terms which entropy increases. But every other equation in physics is pretty much independent of the directionality of time. In terms of pure math, there is nothing unique about most physics equations whether you run them forwards or backwards. (I can't think of specific examples right now . . . it's going on two decades since I switched majors in college from physics to philosophy.)
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19644
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Av, I don't necessarily think that it's possible for events to happen non-sequentially. I don't know. Perhaps on the quantum scale? After all, according to some theories on quantum cosmology, the universe is self-caused (since, in the beginning, the entire universe was small enough for quantum effects to apply to the whole). In this sense, the Big Band itself seems to violate sequential causation.
Back to linearity . . .I don't know how to make sense of a universe where one observer can experience a few hours of time, while other observers experience years worth of time, depending on their reference frame. Since Einstein, it has been impossible to say that there is a "single time" for the universe as a whole. If time can flow independently for various observers, then this certainly doesn't seem linear. (I assume you're in agreement with that point.)
Back to linearity . . .I don't know how to make sense of a universe where one observer can experience a few hours of time, while other observers experience years worth of time, depending on their reference frame. Since Einstein, it has been impossible to say that there is a "single time" for the universe as a whole. If time can flow independently for various observers, then this certainly doesn't seem linear. (I assume you're in agreement with that point.)
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
If someone doesn't dissect my posts then either a) no one is reading them or b) I am not stating things worthy of discussion. I would be upset at either outcome, so your "nit-picking" is welcome.Malik23 wrote:HL, interesting post. I agree with much of it, so don't take my nit-picking as serious disagreement. Just a few points:
While it is tempting to use the metaphor "computer" to talk about our brains, we must be careful not to confuse this symbol for reality. The brain is NOT a biochemical computer, even though computers can approximate one single function which brains are capable of understanding (though not very good at performing). That function is the processing of algorithms. We are good at writing algorithms, talking about them, theorizing about them--otherwise we couldn't even build computers. But as far as actually running the algorithm ("crunching the numbers") our brains are extremely limited in this regard.
So to assume that processing algorithms is what our brains *do* when we're thinking, feeling, understanding, guessing, judging, etc., is misleading. Our brains are not Turing machines (i.e. "computers"). Consciousness isn't an algorithm.
Also, I'm not so sure that time is linear. Perhaps it looks that way due to our perspective and reference frame. Observers in accelerating reference frames experience time at different "rates" from each other. If time were purely linear, how would this be possible? There is a clear "arrow" of time, defined in terms which entropy increases. But every other equation in physics is pretty much independent of the directionality of time. In terms of pure math, there is nothing unique about most physics equations whether you run them forwards or backwards. (I can't think of specific examples right now . . . it's going on two decades since I switched majors in college from physics to philosophy.)
No, our brains are not really computers because we are capable of things such as "intuition" or, in the case of some folks on the Asperger's specturm, automatically knowing how many objects are in a pile--computers, no matter how sophisticated, can do such things. For a more concrete example, no computer could paint a masterpiece or write music.
By "linear", I mean that events happen in a particular order: the cause happens before the effect. Observers from different relativistic frames of motion will both see the archer release the arrow and the arrow hit the target, even if one observer sees it in "slow motion".
Quantum events can happen backwards--that which we call a "positron" is simply an electron moving backwards in time.
The deal with entropy is that if you measure the total entropy (or disorder) in a system at time t=0 then again at some later time, you will find the the total entropy will have increased. The only time this will not happen is if the system is at absolute zero--all vibrational energy at that point has ceased and only quantum properties are present. Weird things happen at this point, though.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
Gadget nee Jemcheeta
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: Cleveland
As far as making decisions, yes, I believe we all make decisions constantly. I just believe that we make those decisions based on reasons, beliefs, consequences. Those things being based on predispositions of various kinds, chemical or psychological or what-have-you.
As far as whether or not there is some reason to believe that consciousness behaves in the same causal way, I feel like the weight of proof here should be on the side of free will, not the lack of free will.
I don't believe we can take an action that we do not want to take, and I believe we always take the action that most aligns with our desire for happiness or fulfillment. I just don't see any room in the process for free will, or what exactly it would do. It doesn't circumvent desire, and it seems to be easily persuaded to change by necessity. It seems purely reactive.
If events do not occur instrictly one direction, then I suppose my version of determinism is still alright, it's just that the freely made decisions of a human being will be even more woefully innacurate or short-sighted, sort of like trying to understand disease before microbiology.
As far as whether or not there is some reason to believe that consciousness behaves in the same causal way, I feel like the weight of proof here should be on the side of free will, not the lack of free will.
I don't believe we can take an action that we do not want to take, and I believe we always take the action that most aligns with our desire for happiness or fulfillment. I just don't see any room in the process for free will, or what exactly it would do. It doesn't circumvent desire, and it seems to be easily persuaded to change by necessity. It seems purely reactive.
If events do not occur instrictly one direction, then I suppose my version of determinism is still alright, it's just that the freely made decisions of a human being will be even more woefully innacurate or short-sighted, sort of like trying to understand disease before microbiology.
Start where you are,
use what you have,
do what you can.
use what you have,
do what you can.
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19644
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Hashi, cool. I understand what you're saying about seeing the arrow fire from different reference frames. Yes, I suppose you're right. I can't really think of any example of non-sequential events, but I've read too much Hume to not be suspicious of causation and events that appear to always happen in a certain order.
Jem, just because there are reasons for our decisions doesn't mean that these aren't freely made. That's why I specified, "freedom to by myself." Those factors which make up the reasons for my decisions are part of my identity, who I am. So even if my decisions are determined by me, I think we can still conceive of this as being free in the sense of "self-caused." I'm not determined by anything external to me (though external things can exert influence). That's why my view of freewill is qualified. However, what else can we possibly want out of freewill other than "self-causation?" That's good enough for me. I've never wanted anything more. In fact, I can't even imagine it.
I disagree with you on the burden of proof. It seems to me that I have freewill. I can decide to have ice cream today. Tomorrow, I can decide to refrain. This feels like freedom to me. Therefore, since my "default state" seems to be freewill, I think the burden of proof lies with those who believe this feeling is an illusion. Why shouldn't I trust my own conscious impression of my freedom? Why should I have to prove something that is given to me in my experience? Not until I'm given substantial reason to doubt my experience will the burden of proof lie with me.
I think we can take actions we don't want to take. We do it all the time. You might argue that there is some over-riding reason which we want more than the intermediate, unpleasant step, but I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that every action we do is performed merely for happiness. Sometimes it's a sense of obligation, responsibility, guilt, etc.
But in the end, even if you can argue that fulfilling these obligations, responsibilities, etc. produces the happiness/fulfillment you're talking about, how does that disprove freewill? Being free to do what I want in order to make myself happy is exactly what I'd want in freewill!
Jem, just because there are reasons for our decisions doesn't mean that these aren't freely made. That's why I specified, "freedom to by myself." Those factors which make up the reasons for my decisions are part of my identity, who I am. So even if my decisions are determined by me, I think we can still conceive of this as being free in the sense of "self-caused." I'm not determined by anything external to me (though external things can exert influence). That's why my view of freewill is qualified. However, what else can we possibly want out of freewill other than "self-causation?" That's good enough for me. I've never wanted anything more. In fact, I can't even imagine it.
I disagree with you on the burden of proof. It seems to me that I have freewill. I can decide to have ice cream today. Tomorrow, I can decide to refrain. This feels like freedom to me. Therefore, since my "default state" seems to be freewill, I think the burden of proof lies with those who believe this feeling is an illusion. Why shouldn't I trust my own conscious impression of my freedom? Why should I have to prove something that is given to me in my experience? Not until I'm given substantial reason to doubt my experience will the burden of proof lie with me.
I think we can take actions we don't want to take. We do it all the time. You might argue that there is some over-riding reason which we want more than the intermediate, unpleasant step, but I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that every action we do is performed merely for happiness. Sometimes it's a sense of obligation, responsibility, guilt, etc.
But in the end, even if you can argue that fulfilling these obligations, responsibilities, etc. produces the happiness/fulfillment you're talking about, how does that disprove freewill? Being free to do what I want in order to make myself happy is exactly what I'd want in freewill!
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Everyone's default position is "free will", even if they don't believe in it. The reason this is true is because they have used their Free Will to choose not to believe in it. As I noted earlier, reality is that which continues to exist or be true even when you stop believing in it.Malik23 wrote:I disagree with you on the burden of proof. It seems to me that I have freewill. I can decide to have ice cream today. Tomorrow, I can decide to refrain. This feels like freedom to me. Therefore, since my "default state" seems to be freewill, I think the burden of proof lies with those who believe this feeling is an illusion. Why shouldn't I trust my own conscious impression of my freedom? Why should I have to prove something that is given to me in my experience? Not until I'm given substantial reason to doubt my experience will the burden of proof lie with me.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
Well...I believe in sequential time. But I also believe in the potential bi-directional nature thereof. And if it can be bi-directional, it can certainly have a variable flow.Malik23 wrote:If time can flow independently for various observers, then this certainly doesn't seem linear. (I assume you're in agreement with that point.)
So if by non-linear you mean variable, rather than non-sequential, then I'm in agreement.
I'm not so sure about this one. The burden of proof lies with he who believes the extra thing, not he who denies it. Isn't free will an "extra thing"?Malik wrote:I disagree with you on the burden of proof.JemCheeta wrote:I feel like the weight of proof here should be on the side of free will...
I don't mind bearing the burden of proof...I can easily prove I have free will.
See? I excercised my will to avoid putting a smiley after that.
--A
-
aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
How do you know your decision wasn't pre-ordained?Avatar wrote:I don't mind bearing the burden of proof...I can easily prove I have free will.
See? I excercised my will to avoid putting a smiley after that.
I'm naturally resistant to either/or choices.
I don't think people's choices are pre-ordained, but I also think those choices can produce predictable consequences -- which dovetails nicely with my belief that people really do, eventually, get what they deserve. I suppose that can look like predestination, but really it's just the odds of the predictable outcome actually happening.
EZ Board Survivor
"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)
https://www.hearth-myth.com/
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Some choices really are "either-or", though--either you will respond to this post or you will not.aliantha wrote: I'm naturally resistant to either/or choices.
That being said, Free Will/making a choice happens first and then causality takes over--the consequenes of the choice that got made.
I have said before (not here, though) that people always deserve what they choose--if you make a choice then you deserve the consequences of that choice, for good or ill. Yes, that applies to me, too.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Has anyone ever considered the notion that predetermination means that all "choices", both conscious and inanimate, were preloaded into the state of the universe when it was created?
After all, if every effect can be deterministically linked to the conditions at the time the effect was caused, and those conditions are in turn effects of earlier conditions, etc. etc., eventually you trace back the origins of every effect to the beginning of the universe.
One issue I have with that is that is too much information to be contained in the first microseconds of all existence. (And, no, preloading just the "rules" is not sufficient if you think about it hard.)
But the second issue I have is that, at the end of the bread crumb trail, you are left with the dillema of explaining where all those preloaded decisions came from. You've begged the question to the beginning of space and time, not answered it.
After all, if every effect can be deterministically linked to the conditions at the time the effect was caused, and those conditions are in turn effects of earlier conditions, etc. etc., eventually you trace back the origins of every effect to the beginning of the universe.
One issue I have with that is that is too much information to be contained in the first microseconds of all existence. (And, no, preloading just the "rules" is not sufficient if you think about it hard.)
But the second issue I have is that, at the end of the bread crumb trail, you are left with the dillema of explaining where all those preloaded decisions came from. You've begged the question to the beginning of space and time, not answered it.
.