With Or Without A Creator Does Man Every Have "free Will"

[Mattnxtc 0]

Its a concept I have been thinkin about for sometime now. My theory is that depending on how we define "free will" a person may or may not have free will no matter if there is a creator or not. It is my assertion that with enough information we can always determine exactly what a person will do regardless of any number of choices he has. By merely lookin at a person utility we can always know exactly what a person will do. what do yall think. Using this reason we can obviously include a creator in this argument as when we take the creator out we see that the choices will be the same.

[copernicus 0]

Its a concept I have been thinkin about for sometime now. My theory is that depending on how we define "free will" a person may or may not have free will no matter if there is a creator or not. It is my assertion that with enough information we can always determine exactly what a person will do regardless of any number of choices he has. By merely lookin at a person utility we can always know exactly what a person will do. what do yall think. Using this reason we can obviously include a creator in this argument as when we take the creator out we see that the choices will be the same.

You can include a creator in anything you want, its a non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is why there can never be a scientific proof of a creator.Free will? Absolutely.

[Mattnxtc 0]

You can include a creator in anything you want, its a non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is why there can never be a scientific proof of a creator.Free will? Absolutely.

and you define free will as what?

[copernicus 0]

and you define free will as what?

the ability of a sentient being to make choices

[Mattnxtc 0]

the ability of a sentient being to make choices

and you would agree that everybody makes choices that lead to the highest utility for themselves correct? (utility is defined as whatever they feel is the "best" of the choices. It can be a wide variety of things but as long as it is the "best" then they will always choose it)

[copernicus 0]

and you would agree that everybody makes choices that lead to the highest utility for themselves correct? (utility is defined as whatever they feel is the "best" of the choices. It can be a wide variety of things but as long as it is the "best" then they will always choose it)

Your defninition of utility is circular. "everybody makes choices that lead to whatever they feel is the best of choices" is what results when you substitute your definiton of utility into your proposition (and correct the English)

[timwakefield 68]

So many choices are based on nothing more than a whim.Take poker for example. I could play 50 tournaments and have exactly 4000 chips with 7 people left in every single one, be in the exact same position regarding other players stacks, etc, and get dealt 74 suited on the button in all 50 games, and it's folded to me. Probably 5 times out of 50 I raise there, and 45 times I fold. The 5 times I steal it is purely on a whim. Obviously I will always be doing a little stealing, but exactly when is based on the action level of the table, etc....but also on a whim. How could something like that be predicted acurately?

[copernicus 0]

So many choices are based on nothing more than a whim.Take poker for example. I could play 50 tournaments and have exactly 4000 chips with 7 people left in every single one, be in the exact same position regarding other players stacks, etc, and get dealt 74 suited on the button in all 50 games, and it's folded to me. Probably 5 times out of 50 I raise there, and 45 times I fold. The 5 times I steal it is purely on a whim. Obviously I will always be doing a little stealing, but exactly when is based on the action level of the table, etc....but also on a whim. How could something like that be predicted acurately?

My guess is that he is trying to get us to agree that since all decisions will be those that maximize utility, and if we have a perfect "utility" matrix for the individual then we can predict exactly what he will do. But if it can be pre-determined then it isnt truly free.The problem with this argument is, of course, that the "utility matrix" itself is changeable and subject to free will (as you said..maybe to be changed on a whim"), so the basic premise is faulty.I also love the Newtonian based argument that there can be no free will because if the positions and velocities of everything are known then Newtons laws tell you where they will always be...ie no free will.Even ignoring quantum effects (that I dont believe are applicable to matter big enough to be visible to us anyway), the positions and velocities of everything are only predictable when not subjected to external forces. At the brain chemistry level the act of making a choice instantiates an electrical or chemical force, disrupting whatever the predicted motions would be.Those anti-free will arguments hold no water in light of our rudimentary but growing knowledge of brain function and the chemeical/electrical effects of thinking.

[DerekTah 0]

With arguments like this I gain more appreaition of those last two Matrix films every day.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Even ignoring quantum effects (that I dont believe are applicable to matter big enough to be visible to us anyway), the positions and velocities of everything are only predictable when not subjected to external forces. At the brain chemistry level the act of making a choice instantiates an electrical or chemical force, disrupting whatever the predicted motions would be.

Uh, are you forgetting Newton's second law? We can also know the acceleration of an object based on the forces acting on it. Of course we can predict the position and velocities of objects that are subject to external forces! How else would we ever do anything in science?I'm not arguing that the motion of any chemical or neuron in the brain is in practice ever knowable, but in theory in a classical world it is. The argument is that if we can know the nature of all forces in the universe and the initial conditions (initial positions, initial velocities) of every object in the universe, we can in theory know the resulting positions and velocities throughout the span of the universe. Because we can know them in theory, then our future actions must be already determined. Again, this is assuming a purely classical world and it assumes that on could ever know the exact nature of every force, the exact positions and velocities of every particle simultaneously (take that, Heisenberg), etc.Personally, I waver slightly on the subject, but for right now I'd say that I don't believe in free will. I guess it's an illusion and more of an emergent behavior, but I'll just leave it at that.

[copernicus 0]

Uh, are you forgetting Newton's second law? We can also know the acceleration of an object based on the forces acting on it. Of course we can predict the position and velocities of objects that are subject to external forces! How else would we ever do anything in science?I'm not arguing that the motion of any chemical or neuron in the brain is in practice ever knowable, but in theory in a classical world it is. The argument is that if we can know the nature of all forces in the universe and the initial conditions (initial positions, initial velocities) of every object in the universe, we can in theory know the resulting positions and velocities throughout the span of the universe. Because we can know them in theory, then our future actions must be already determined. Again, this is assuming a purely classical world and it assumes that on could ever know the exact nature of every force, the exact positions and velocities of every particle simultaneously (take that, Heisenberg), etc.Personally, I waver slightly on the subject, but for right now I'd say that I don't believe in free will. I guess it's an illusion and more of an emergent behavior, but I'll just leave it at that.

Re the bold:Only if you know the external forces. Since I am proposing that the "utility matrix" of decisions is always changing, sometimes just by whim, you dont know the specific forces that will act on existing brain "matter" in advance, and if you dont know the forces you cant predict the future positions/velocities.The circular definition of "utility" (or more precisely the circularity of the hyptothesis that max put forth) is just one problem with it. It also makes the assumption that all decisions are rational (which they arent), ignores the possibility of equal utility, and ignores the possibility of incomplete information to determine utility. Layer quantum uncertainty on top of that (if the processes are small enough for quantum effects to prevail) and the hyptothesis has major problems.There is a paradox (or self-contradiction) in a belief in no free will, which:To accept that there is no free will ultimately breaks down to an "everything is illusion" argument, since we certainly live our lives under the "illusion" that we are making decisions.But if "everything is illusion" and our exercise of free will is part of that illusion, then free will is part of that everything..ie there is free will.By reductio ad absurdum we are back to there being free will.I freely (pun intended) admit that the first proposition (no free will is equivalent to "everything is illusion") needs tightening, but I think ultimately it is supportable.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Your defninition of utility is circular. "everybody makes choices that lead to whatever they feel is the best of choices" is what results when you substitute your definiton of utility into your proposition (and correct the English)

not sure what you are tryin to say here...that is the common definition of utility. It will be what makes a person better off though what that "better off" is will vary from person to person. and i guess i should correct your spelling... defninition isnt a word, I believe it is definition

[Mattnxtc 0]

So many choices are based on nothing more than a whim.Take poker for example. I could play 50 tournaments and have exactly 4000 chips with 7 people left in every single one, be in the exact same position regarding other players stacks, etc, and get dealt 74 suited on the button in all 50 games, and it's folded to me. Probably 5 times out of 50 I raise there, and 45 times I fold. The 5 times I steal it is purely on a whim. Obviously I will always be doing a little stealing, but exactly when is based on the action level of the table, etc....but also on a whim. How could something like that be predicted acurately?

I highly doubt you do anything in poker on a whim. Your example is not a good one either for several reasons. First off, You would only bluff if you felt you could win the pot. So thats not on a whim. It would be a calculated decision. And all we would need to know is your thought process and we coudl know your action well before you made itSecond off, If you did move in without caring, then it would be b/c there is some utility that is higher than being in this game. So again that is not a whim. So it simply comes down to us being able to understand all that you "know" and we could always accurately predict your movements. Humans are random beings, we dont do random actions. its not very tough to see. Take flippin a coin. Say it was heads 5 times in a row. Wouldnt you be more likely to say tails? knowing your thoughts would make it very easy to predict yoru actions

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Only if you know the external forces.

I assumed they were fully understood and knowable in my discussion. Of course, they are not fully understood (yet). And, even more damaging, those that are understood are fully quantum mechanical and therefore totally non deterministic (unless one can rig the dice that god uses to dictate motion).

But if "everything is illusion" and our exercise of free will is part of that illusion, then free will is part of that everything..ie there is free will.By reductio ad absurdum we are back to there being free will.

I don't understand this step. Everything isn't an illusion, for there certainly must exist matter and energy somewhere in some universe for we to even have the illusion of free will. It is only free will and consciousness that are illusions.

[Mattnxtc 0]

My guess is that he is trying to get us to agree that since all decisions will be those that maximize utility, and if we have a perfect "utility" matrix for the individual then we can predict exactly what he will do. But if it can be pre-determined then it isnt truly free.The problem with this argument is, of course, that the "utility matrix" itself is changeable and subject to free will (as you said..maybe to be changed on a whim"), so the basic premise is faulty.I also love the Newtonian based argument that there can be no free will because if the positions and velocities of everything are known then Newtons laws tell you where they will always be...ie no free will.Even ignoring quantum effects (that I dont believe are applicable to matter big enough to be visible to us anyway), the positions and velocities of everything are only predictable when not subjected to external forces. At the brain chemistry level the act of making a choice instantiates an electrical or chemical force, disrupting whatever the predicted motions would be.Those anti-free will arguments hold no water in light of our rudimentary but growing knowledge of brain function and the chemeical/electrical effects of thinking.

while most of this is irrelevant to any sort of discussion we had going, I would like to point out the faulty reasoning you use. You say peoples utility changes over time and that therefore ruins my premise. That is in fact right and wrong. A persons utility does change overtime, heck it can change every minute if you would like. But that does nothing to prove anythign I have said wrong. one minute from now you might learn something that changes your utility. But thats fine, you dont know the future so that line of reasoning is mute. You will still make a decision at this moment based on what is best for your utility.

[copernicus 0]

while most of this is irrelevant to any sort of discussion we had going, I would like to point out the faulty reasoning you use. You say peoples utility changes over time and that therefore ruins my premise. That is in fact right and wrong. A persons utility does change overtime, heck it can change every minute if you would like. But that does nothing to prove anythign I have said wrong. one minute from now you might learn something that changes your utility. But thats fine, you dont know the future so that line of reasoning is mute. You will still make a decision at this moment based on what is best for your utility.

I guess I should correct your word usage, it is not "mute", it is "moot".The point on changing utility is that an external observer cannot know that utility in advance when it may change at the instant a decision is made. Your assumption is that you always know the other person's utility, and that faulty assumption is what destroys your premise.

[copernicus 0]

I assumed they were fully understood and knowable in my discussion. Of course, they are not fully understood (yet). And, even more damaging, those that are understood are fully quantum mechanical and therefore totally non deterministic (unless one can rig the dice that god uses to dictate motion).I don't understand this step. Everything isn't an illusion, for there certainly must exist matter and energy somewhere in some universe for we to even have the illusion of free will. It is only free will and consciousness that are illusions.

I dont think its that you dont understand the last step, you disagree with the step before. As I said, that needs tightening up but the reasoning goes something like this:The proposition is that there is no free will.We perceive that we are making choices...that we have free will, but under the proposition that perception is an illusion.If that perception of choice, which seems so real, is an illusion, then we cannot trust any of our perceptions.If we cannot trust any of our perceptions, ie we cannot distinguish between what is real and what is an illusion, then no perception can be counted on as being any more than illusion, and we are reduced to operating under the assumption that everything may be illusion.But an existence that suffers from the assumption that everything may be illusion provides us no more substance than one in which everything is illusion.That brings us to the last statement, clarified somewhat:Once our existence has no reliable substance, and can be treated as if everything is illusion, and free will is one of those illusions, then free will IS part of that existence, which contradicts the orignial premise that there is no free will.I dont remember if Talbot discusses free will in "Holographic Universe". That is the best discussion of the possiblity that there is no substance, that our perception/interpretation of energy only provides the illusion of substance, that Ive read. After taxes I'll try and dig it out. He would be much more precise about it than I was.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Thanks, that actually helped a lot. How Descartes of you.Your argument makes a lot of sense. Again, I said that I was still struggling with how I feel on the subject. Frankly, I'm not sure if it'll ever be possible to know for sure. I guess I can only see two ways of resolving the issue:1) Scientists succeed in totally figuring out all of physics. They conclude that the laws of physics are finite and knowable. From this knowledge, they can determine whether or not free will is compatible with these complete laws.2) We die, it turns out that there is a god, and we ask him.Either way, I can't see us figuring it out in my lifetime.

[timwakefield 68]

I highly doubt you do anything in poker on a whim. Your example is not a good one either for several reasons.

"Here's what I want you to know:1. Most hands your opponents play are at whim! That's because there are relatively few overwhelmingly strong or weak hands that dictate an exact tactic.2. Some hands your opponents play at whim are the result of spontaneous decisions about whether to fold, call, or raise!3. When you try to analyze poker strategy, you need to realize that you simply can't say how most opponents would play a hand or - in many cases - IF they would have played a hand. They often don't know this themselves until the very last second!"- Mike CaroMike Caro knows more about poker than you or I.

Take flippin a coin. Say it was heads 5 times in a row. Wouldnt you be more likely to say tails? knowing your thoughts would make it very easy to predict yoru actions

You think you can predict whether I would call heads or tails on a coinflip? That's ridiculous. What if my thought process was that, hey it's been heads 5 times straight, it'll probably be heads again. Or, I always choose heads. Let's say you don't flip a coin 6 times, you only flip it once. What will I pick?

[copernicus 0]

Thanks, that actually helped a lot. How Descartes of you.Your argument makes a lot of sense. Again, I said that I was still struggling with how I feel on the subject. Frankly, I'm not sure if it'll ever be possible to know for sure. I guess I can only see two ways of resolving the issue:1) Scientists succeed in totally figuring out all of physics. They conclude that the laws of physics are finite and knowable. From this knowledge, they can determine whether or not free will is compatible with these complete laws.2) We die, it turns out that there is a god, and we ask him.Either way, I can't see us figuring it out in my lifetime.

I guess the third way is some sort of divine enlightenment before death. But none of the 3 will happen soon.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I guess I should correct your word usage, it is not "mute", it is "moot".The point on changing utility is that an external observer cannot know that utility in advance when it may change at the instant a decision is made. Your assumption is that you always know the other person's utility, and that faulty assumption is what destroys your premise.

actually again this does nothing to destroy anything merely shows you cannot get around the theory i proposed. If you notice I said that if the information could be known before hand. You are correct that if we internalized everything then no outside force could see it. But if knowledge coudl be known then no my point definately holds up

[crowTrobot 2]

Its a concept I have been thinkin about for sometime now. My theory is that depending on how we define "free will" a person may or may not have free will no matter if there is a creator or not. It is my assertion that with enough information we can always determine exactly what a person will do regardless of any number of choices he has. By merely lookin at a person utility we can always know exactly what a person will do. what do yall think. Using this reason we can obviously include a creator in this argument as when we take the creator out we see that the choices will be the same.

matt is a closet calvinist apparently B)

[copernicus 0]

actually again this does nothing to destroy anything merely shows you cannot get around the theory i proposed. If you notice I said that if the information could be known before hand. You are correct that if we internalized everything then no outside force could see it. But if knowledge coudl be known then no my point definately holds up

It holds up because it has to hold up the way you defined it...it is circular. You said If A then B. My bad, I thought you were asserting A was true. Understanding that A was merely a hypothetical still doesnt give your argument any meaning though.Your proposition is equivalent to "If we know the utility matrix, and if decisions are always made in accordance with that utility matrix, then we can predict the decision." There is no room to "destroy" it because it is defined so narrowly it has to be true.It is no different than saying "If we know there are no clouds that can reach us within 2 hours, and if clouds are the only way that rain can be produced, then we can say with 100% accuracy that it will not rain within 2 hours".Sure would make the meteorologists job easy if he could define things the way you do.

[Mattnxtc 0]

It holds up because it has to hold up the way you defined it...it is circular. You said If A then B. My bad, I thought you were asserting A was true. Understanding that A was merely a hypothetical still doesnt give your argument any meaning though.Your proposition is equivalent to "If we know the utility matrix, and if decisions are always made in accordance with that utility matrix, then we can predict the decision." There is no room to "destroy" it because it is defined so narrowly it has to be true.It is no different than saying "If we know there are no clouds that can reach us within 2 hours, and if clouds are the only way that rain can be produced, then we can say with 100% accuracy that it will not rain within 2 hours".Sure would make the meteorologists job easy if he could define things the way you do.

I did not define the utility not to make it easier but merely b/c each persons utility will be different. I am sure yours is different than mine. Thats the sole reason I didnt define it. Thats why I defined what IT TELLS US. Since we assume that A is what everybody is what everybody wants, we know they will always pick B that leads to it. A being the utility can change every minute of the day but that is meaningless. The mere fact is that with enough information we could always know exactly what choice will be made simply by knowing A and then knowing the choices B. Now of courses B could be considered infinite if you want to go really abstract but logically we can conclude that each choice isnt infinite as there are so many inferior choices that we can always exclude those and we are generally left with the decisions that each person usually has to decide with.

[copernicus 0]

I did not define the utility not to make it easier but merely b/c each persons utility will be different. I am sure yours is different than mine. Thats the sole reason I didnt define it. Thats why I defined what IT TELLS US. Since we assume that A is what everybody is what everybody wants, we know they will always pick B that leads to it. A being the utility can change every minute of the day but that is meaningless. The mere fact is that with enough information we could always know exactly what choice will be made simply by knowing A and then knowing the choices B. Now of courses B could be considered infinite if you want to go really abstract but logically we can conclude that each choice isnt infinite as there are so many inferior choices that we can always exclude those and we are generally left with the decisions that each person usually has to decide with.

Wow. If anyone can make any sense out of what he's saying, please interpret for me.