Thread: Predestination Vs. Free Will

Originally Posted by Northastings

Pre-destination adheres to the fact that there is an intelligent being deciding our lives for us. Yes, we do have the free will to decide our lives from moment to moment. The whole subject is illogical, you can't answer this question unless you get to live life more than once or change decisions you've made in the past. If you do not believe in an all-powerful being that decides our lives for us, then we are not pre-determined nor do we have free will, we have the ability to experience our lives the way they happen to be.[/b]

You must have missed most of the post in regards to firing neurons.
quite honestly it was refreshing to see a proposition that did not involve some transcendent reason.

Originally Posted by Northastings

Pre-destination adheres to the fact that there is an intelligent being deciding our lives for us. Yes, we do have the free will to decide our lives from moment to moment. The whole subject is illogical, you can't answer this question unless you get to live life more than once or change decisions you've made in the past. If you do not believe in an all-powerful being that decides our lives for us, then we are not pre-determined nor do we have free will, we have the ability to experience our lives the way they happen to be.[/b]

I don't believe that there has to be some intelligent being deciding our lives for us in order for predestination to come into play. Our lives are decided for us based on the fact that once we do something, its done. We can never undo something, and even if we could, would that not also be predestined? Like I said before, everything that we have ever done or will ever do, is set in stone. There is nothing we can do to change it, b/c no matter what we do, we are following a set path that we were destined to follow.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

So even if unbound by causality, you're suggesting that free will as conceived is still bound by itself? You make a decision and now your choosing impacts the course of events and array of options available for you to choose from in the future, destroying your freedom even as you exercise it? So to engender real freedom you would not only have to disallow your actions being caused by prior events, but also disallow your actions themselves causing any other events, since those new caused events would clamp down on the freedom of your actions in the future.

if I'm getting you right, then, this siphons Free Will down into pretty much nothing - uncaused and uncausing. I would agree to that, which is why I default to compatibilistic determinism to avoid the issue, but I also think I'm not fully grokking you.

"But in the end you end up the same no matter why choices you make." Are you for one side or the other, explicitly (determinism/free will), or are you confused as to how either position can ever result in a human action? Hope I'm not being too annoying asking for elucidation again.[/b]

Well, both ideas are possible, but I believe in both of them at the same time and I do not believe in either of them. If that makes any sense.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

You must have missed most of the post in regards to firing neurons.
quite honestly it was refreshing to see a proposition that did not involve some transcendent reason. [/b]

That's speaking on a scientific basis. I'm speaking on a philosophical basis.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

I don't believe that there has to be some intelligent being deciding our lives for us in order for predestination to come into play. Our lives are decided for us based on the fact that once we do something, its done. We can never undo something, and even if we could, would that not also be predestined? Like I said before, everything that we have ever done or will ever do, is set in stone. There is nothing we can do to change it, b/c no matter what we do, we are following a set path that we were destined to follow.[/b]

The intelligent being is not necessarily a god. I could have been referring to 6th dimensional beings who live on Titan that send radio signals to our brains and tell us what to do but we have no idea. The intelligent being could also be ourselves. What I'm getting at is that you have the free will to make a decision, but as soon as you do you became pre-determined by yourself.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

In short, I think determinism exists, or at the very least exists within the bounds of a single universe/reality (indeterminism might exist - flip a coin and it may come up either heads or tails, but for each outcome there comes into being a parallel universe for which there could have been no other result). "Know that you're a machine, act like you're not." is my maxim, I suppose.[/b]

Many times in the past I have found myself wondering about this. The idea that for each random event there are two universes (assuming that this random event has only two outcomes) created. A branch of multiverse theory, I think it is. My first thought was "wow, there must be a lot of them, a new universe every time—" and then I realized how difficult it was to come up with an example of a random event.

When you flip a coin the outcome is considered random because nobody cares to do all the math involved, but really the outcome depends on things like angular velocity, angular momentum, coin shape, barometric pressure, any air currents in the area, the various coefficients of friction about the scene, and probably a few others that I have missed. I mean, if you had all of the information, you could calculate the outcome. Well... someone could.

The same applies to just about every physical phenomena there is... in our study of the world around us—so far—we have found it to be completely deterministic. In certain fields, those regarding subatomic particles particularly, we have things that we consider random, but I would argue that it is because we don't fully understand the nature of those particles, and not because they are truly random. Just two centuries ago we thought that maggots came from meat, and mice came from dirty laundry(source), now we know that their existence is determined by various factors. For now we think that the position of an electron is random (along its orbital) and we can only use probability to guess where it will be, but in two centuries...

So, with the world fast running out of any freedom—because the more we study it, the more deterministic it seems—what is left? Howietzer blinks his eyes 32 times. Was it the culmination of the character he was born with and various experiences he has had? Some part deep in his mind that said to itself "an appropriate example for a free-will decision, in this context, is to blink 32 times. This decision was made by weighing the strengths and weaknesses of various actions for use in this scenario..." Or did he simply exercise his freedom, and do it?

As far as the determinism based on neurons goes, while it's true that I can't say "I want a lot of synapses in my motor cortex" and have it happen... On some level thos synapses are firing on my command, they're working for me, acting on my decision. So it comes down to the motivation for that decision, was it based on variables stored somewhere within my psyche, and churned out like the solution to some equation? I think not.

While our subjective analysis of the universe may result in many ways to support determinism, it has been theorized by a few (Immanuel Kant, is the man I'm thinking of, but there are others) that rather than our perception of the world depending on the objects in it, the world depends on our perception of it (transcendental idealism is what he called it). If we look at things scientifically, neurons for example, we're going to get scientific answers; scientific theory assumes causality and determinism. In this way, we are really choosing to create the predetermination.

There's really no answer, the Freedom vs Determinsm debate has been going on for thousands of years. Still, it looked like freedom needed some supporters, so I (feebly as it may have been) stepped up.

Edit:

In certain fields, those regarding subatomic particles particularly[/b]

no pun intended, heh.

Xnyper, I think you're pretty much on the money. I readily concede that determinism probably does reign absolutely so that a coin flip really can't end up any other way than the way it does (I suggested two possible outcomes each with their own personal universe not because I think that's the case, but to try and wrap indeterminists into my argument).

Here's a thought of mine: ultimately the entire universe can be said to be determined by a single random seed, something tied intimately to the big bang, or potentially the bang itself, that led to the rapidly-diversifying and complexifying conditions that have eventually resulted in us and everything around us. We have to ask, then, why is that random starting variable what it is, and not anything else? Parallel universes don't work when you try to fork a caused event into two different end-states in the here and now because determinism allows only one, ever, but back at the beginning of the universe - to me, I conceive of an infinite set of beginning-points (because it seems the start of all existence could only be one of a few things: either nothing, or everything), of initial causes, each essentially a random seed from which is born its own universe.

Thus while we can't say that for flipping a coin that this universe splits off into two parallels, I think it could be feasible to say that for flipping a coin in this universe, there's a parallel universe somewhere whose starting conditions were so similar to ours that it has mirrored ours in every conceivable way, up until that coin flip where the variables finally diverge significantly enough to effect a macroscopic change: heads, instead of tails in our world. This wouldn't be indeterminism, but would still allow about as close as I can figure to for at least seemingly different results for seemingly same actions (even though we're still stuck in this shoddy old universe, so we'd never know it).

Originally Posted by Spamtek

Xnyper, I think you're pretty much on the money. I readily concede that determinism probably does reign absolutely so that a coin flip really can't end up any other way than the way it does (I suggested two possible outcomes each with their own personal universe not because I think that's the case, but to try and wrap indeterminists into my argument).

Here's a thought of mine: ultimately the entire universe can be said to be determined by a single random seed, something tied intimately to the big bang, or potentially the bang itself, that led to the rapidly-diversifying and complexifying conditions that have eventually resulted in us and everything around us. We have to ask, then, why is that random starting variable what it is, and not anything else? Parallel universes don't work when you try to fork a caused event into two different end-states in the here and now because determinism allows only one, ever, but back at the beginning of the universe - to me, I conceive of an infinite set of beginning-points (because it seems the start of all existence could only be one of a few things: either nothing, or everything), of initial causes, each essentially a random seed from which is born its own universe.

Thus while we can't say that for flipping a coin that this universe splits off into two parallels, I think it could be feasible to say that for flipping a coin in this universe, there's a parallel universe somewhere whose starting conditions were so similar to ours that it has mirrored ours in every conceivable way, up until that coin flip where the variables finally diverge significantly enough to effect a macroscopic change: heads, instead of tails in our world. This wouldn't be indeterminism, but would still allow about as close as I can figure to for at least seemingly different results for seemingly same actions (even though we're still stuck in this shoddy old universe, so we'd never know it).[/b]

I really like your idea. I wonder if in the future there is a way to determine every factor imaginable and then we can attempt to view the future. Kind of like what meteorologists do but with people and society and such.

Originally Posted by Northastings

I really like your idea. I wonder if in the future there is a way to determine every factor imaginable and then we can attempt to view the future. Kind of like what meteorologists do but with people and society and such.[/b]

I touched on this earlier. To predict the future, you would need a metaphorical "map of the universe" with every bit of info about present-day everything within it. Necessarily, this map of the universe is bigger than the universe itself - but in order for you to use it, it has to be within the universe, a part of it. Do you see how this contradicts? Something that contains all information about the universe can be no smaller than it; if it is, then there's compression or omission going on somewhere, and information is lost. In which case it's an incomplete (even if extremely accurate) way to predict the future, and not an unerring one.

I mean, we can attempt to view the future right now; honestly, we do it nonstop. But it's usually hideously inaccurate based on incomplete data, and there's no way to bridge that knowledge gap completely.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

I touched on this earlier. To predict the future, you would need a metaphorical "map of the universe" with every bit of info about present-day everything within it. Necessarily, this map of the universe is bigger than the universe itself - but in order for you to use it, it has to be within the universe, a part of it. Do you see how this contradicts? Something that contains all information about the universe can be no smaller than it; if it is, then there's compression or omission going on somewhere, and information is lost. In which case it's an incomplete (even if extremely accurate) way to predict the future, and not an unerring one.

I mean, we can attempt to view the future right now; honestly, we do it nonstop. But it's usually hideously inaccurate based on incomplete data, and there's no way to bridge that knowledge gap completely.[/b]

Aside from what you have already said, very well. Shit we cannot even interpret the present accurately.
Tests have shown my are very inadeqate in our awareness of the now, let alone the future.
Much of our daily perceptions a false, very inaccurate.
This does however not have much to do with fore site.

Hmmm, I agree that the multiple universes with only slight variations does fix the problem of cause (i.e. the coin flip's result is based on various conditions, but might have a different result in another universe) but if one removes the whole universe-splits-for-each-"random"-act idea, then why do we need multiple universes at all? Yeah, it's fun to theorize about them, but they don't really do anything for us (not to mention they are possibly the most blatant violation of occam's razor ever). Still, their existence doesn't affect the freedom vs. determinism debate, so I digress. (I've been looking for an instance in which I could use that phrase, yaay&#33

I know that there are some instances within string and M-theory that support the multi-universe worldview, and if anyone is versed in those theories I'd love to hear about it, but possibly in another thread ('cause I've got a lot of questions...).

As far as the map of the universe that we would use to predict the future thing, I think it could work if
a) we agree to let the amount of error increase as time goes on (accounting for every air molecule would be less grueling than accounting for just the imporant ones, but would introduce an increasing margin or error),
b) we let the fields: quantum mechanics, psychology, and computing develop for 500 more years,
c) we concern ourselves with a smaller chunk of the universe. More like... an acre.
Now though, we've made it feasible, and removed any usefulness from it. I'm not too heartbroken about it though. I'd rather live in a free universe than a determinstic one, but I'd also prefer to live with the illusion of freedom than without.

I'm sure there are many psychics who are well intuned w/ the future, but sadly there are so many fakes, you could never truly know who actually knows what they are talking about.

Though, even if you could map out the future, would you really want to know what was going to happen? I honestly wouldn't want to know the exact date of my death, or some inevitable car accident. You would spend every waking moment worrying about it.

Btw, I kind of agree w/ Xnyper about only using a small part of the universe to predict the future. Though, I'd say you would need to use the whole planet. Really, most of the info you would need is already on the internet and available to anyone. A good hacker could find out just about anything about anyone in about 10 seconds. So, if you just kept some huge internet database of everything that happened to everyone, then it seems like you would pretty much be able to make predictions from that. I just hope that no-one actually gets bored enough to try something like that.

They've already tried it... called it "the weather channel." It's accuracy is questionable.

The reason its accuracy is questionable is because it relies on statistics, a big web of percentages that cover things we don't know. We have the math capability to map each interaction of each air particle and water particle but we don't know where, and at what speed, each particle is. Even if we did, the biggest hard-drive in the world coldn't store the information and the fastest processor in the world couldn't calculate it any faster than it was currently happening. Which is why this deterministic 'map of the world' only works in theory. Weather aside, you'll never find a hacker thats good enough to use the internet to find my math homework for this week, that's because I don't even know where it went. It's that sort of mundane information that nobody cares to notice--the location and position and length of every blade of grass anywhere--that would be required for an accurate model of the planet.

Still, it would be cool.

The big question is, if everything is known about the universe at any given time--despite the paridoxes involved--can it be used to determine everything about the universe in the next moment, or are there decisions that people will make that are not solely based on the weighing of certain external factors, but are infact based on their freedom to do so?

There is no such thing as predestination. really. As for the bible, it doesnt teach that either, God can foresee into the future but he doesnt predestine anyone, he may plan out for a particular person what he will become if it has to do with his will, but ultimately in the end, they are responsible for their actions, they are not controlled.

I don't think anything is predetermined. Everything that happens in the world is a direct result of another human being's actions or the random effects of nature.

Originally Posted by Spinseeker

I don't think anything is predetermined. Everything that happens in the world is a direct result of another human being's actions or the random effects of nature.[/b]

What do you mean by "random effects of nature?" Like... an example.

how about genetic mutations? or the way a fly will patrol a room? or the way smoke disperses in still air? or radioactive decay? those are pretty random.

Originally Posted by folded

how about genetic mutations? or the way a fly will patrol a room? or the way smoke disperses in still air? or radioactive decay? those are pretty random.[/b]

I thought radioactive decay was so reliable that we use it to date things millions of years old (carbon-14, etc.).

the average amount of decay in a second is fairly reliable. but exactly when something will decay? random. everything at the quantum level is random, with only reliable estimates when you average over time.

I suppose my problem with claiming that anything is random is that it can imply one of two things: 1) that the thing really is random, or 2) that it follows an order so complex we haven't been able to identify it yet. The retrograde motion of mars seemed pretty random back in the day, but now... so I have a problem with claiming that anything is truly random, because there's always a chance somewhere along the road where we gain enough knowledge to discover that it actually fits into the order we've known all along.

I don't think this rules out nature using things as functionally random as genetic mutation to produce unpredictable results, but I don't think it follows that just because outcome B is hard, perhaps impossible to discern with our current level of understanding and with looking at starting conditions A, that it is actually undiscernable. This smacks of anthropocentrism and presentism: "Right here, right now, we're the smartest damn things in the universe! If it looks random to us, then it is!"

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the cutting edge of science always seemed new, strange, in flux, ill-defined, and random? Then we define its boundaries and enumerate its laws, and we continue on down to the next level, where we encounter new paradigms that we have to struggle again to find order within. But we've always done it so far.

I cannot dispute that natural occurances that appear random today may be found to have some underlying non-random structure tomorrow. That that does not mean that all random structures will be found to have a non-random structure. Maybe all things are interconnected. Maybe. Nonetheless, such discussion is speculation.

I agree that for a person to operate in their normal everyday life, they must operate as if they have free will. At least enough free will so that you can decide whether or not to cross the street now, or wait until the light turns green. . . have another beer now, or wait until later.

There is obviously predeterminism that one cannot argue. Our consciousness operates on a predetermined level as a human (we do not live underwater, so we do not think as a whale thinks; we do not have 8 limbs, so therefore the consciousness of an arachnid.) This may seem extreme, but it makes it obvious. We could not learn human language without some ingrained, genetically retermined ability to learn the rules, grow the mouth and tongue, and develop the art. On a more subtle level, our culture infuses us with more deterministic behaviors in our childhood: our need to clothe ourselves, the food we find tasty, etc.

But, I think to argue free will vs determinism is simplistic. I don't think it can be one or the other. I think it is a mix of the two. Genetic and cultural predetermined behaviors may guide what you do, direct many of your thoughts. But when presented with something unexpected, you cannot rely on every predetermined behaviors. Sometimes you must act in a novel way.

Steven Pinker's excellent book The Blank Slate covers this subject quite well, even if it is thick and heavy to get through.

Originally Posted by folded

There is obviously predeterminism that one cannot argue. Our consciousness operates on a predetermined level as a human (we do not live underwater, so we do not think as a whale thinks; we do not have 8 limbs, so therefore the consciousness of an arachnid.) This may seem extreme, but it makes it obvious. We could not learn human language without some ingrained, genetically retermined ability to learn the rules, grow the mouth and tongue, and develop the art. On a more subtle level, our culture infuses us with more deterministic behaviors in our childhood: our need to clothe ourselves, the food we find tasty, etc.[/b]

You also have to take into account the proof that heredity and environment can also have an effect on your future. The proof being the statistics. For example, children who come from families of alcoholics are more likely to become alcoholics. Mental and physical illnesses can easily be passed right down the family tree. I'm not saying that everyone w/ an alcoholic father will become alcoholic, b/c that is ridiculous, but a lot of people will. Even if they don't become an alcoholic themselves, being around the alcoholic for all of those years would determine the decisions they made in the future. They may end up being completely against alcohol and everything it stands for b/c of their terrible upbringing, or they could take the other path and marry into a family of more alcoholics. In all reality, I think every bit of it depends on heredity. I think that the genes a person receives determines what type of person they are. Genes determines their health, their mental stability, so why not their personality?

well, yes, the point was that we inherit a lot. I was going extreme -- we inherit human-tendancies and behaviors because of our genes. I was not specific enough.

now, are children of alcoholics more apt to become alcoholic because of their genes? or is it because they were around alcoholics, and learned that method of behaving? I think its both. I do not think it is JUST genes. Again, I feel its oversimplistic to argue only one of the two, the genetic or free-will aspects, as if there is no in-between.

I'd have to agree with folded... when it comes to nature vs. nurture, "both" seems to be the way to go.

Whatever the case though, whether your future is determined by your genetics or whether is is determined by your past experiences... we're still talking determinsm. The trouble with this type of thing is that there have never been any experiments to figure it out. This is not because of shortcomings in the scientific community--such experiments would just require an extreme disregard for quality of human life. I suppose that if you were to take identical quintuplets (clones would be even better because they could all be "born" at the same time) and raise them, separately, with exactly the same stimuli. Multiple identical rooms with multiple identical robot mothers and identical material for the purpose of learning language and whatnot... and then have them make a choice that has no benefit to them whatsoever, something like "granite or Malaysia?" In a purely deterministic world you would get the same answer every time, no matter how many clones you made (assuming that their life experiences were the same, which I suspect would be difficult to control with even the best technology). Where if freedom were a factor in human behavior, the answers would vary. I'm not proposing we actually do this to people, thats horrible, but... do you think it would work? (just in case I lost you on the clones/identical twins thing, it would cause them to have identical genetic makeup)

Also, Spamtek... I tried to pick a fight with my "name a random event" spiel and it looks like you finished it for me... thanks!

I just think it's impossible to control the variables to a point where you can be 100% assured of an identical response between two people of an identical 'nature' ... if nothing else, what makes me not you is the fact that I inhabit a point in space that you do not, and while we could make a lot of the variables superficially the same, at least that would be different. Now whether spatial displacement by itself is cause enough to make a person give a different irrelevant answer to an irrelevant question is something I don't know - but the difference is there, maybe the gravity of the universe is pulling on your quarks in a slightly different direction, and I think in moments of inconsequential decision-making like that that even the stupidest, most imperceivable differences in awareness, ones you don't even recognize are there (the different pull of Jupiter on your medulla oblongata as compared to your suitemate), can still decide events differently too.

Well, if things were hypothetically "presdestined" then there is no "free will." But things aren't predestined.. so...