Can free-will exist in a causal world?

[Wookiee]

Just doing a paper on this at the moment thought I would throw the question out there and see what every one else thinks.

 

Basic argument is: If everything has a cause such that effects are repeatable by recreating the causes perfectly. Are we really free to make any decisions at all or is it all just an illusion?

 

Basically the two are incompatible one has to be an illusion or rather a rough approximation of what we perceive. So I am curios as to what people believe more strongly. That free will is real and Scientific causation is just an approximation of how things work OR is Scientific causality the way all things are and free will is just an illusion.

 

Ramifications for the winning poll result will be the next topic :)

 

Edit: I realise that several philosophers have arguments for the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Libertarian Free-Will compatibility but I am making the stronger case here of complete reason not of sufficient reason.

 

Also both might be false but that idea is neither enjoyable nor interesting.

[Chesto]

How spooky is it that you should ask this question now? Just had this very conversation with son who is writing his ethics exam today.

 

My conclusion was that free will is an illusion. That it can only exist in treatises (sp?) on free will. That we are so at the mercy of the laws of cause and effect, minute by minute, that we mere mortals are pretty well prey to them. Unless we have attained Bodhisatva-hood, of course. Like that is going to happen real soon!

Oh...and my son's conclusion? That the old man was raving as usual. He's young. He still has most of his illusions intact. Me...I'm just a candle in the wind.

[Wookiee]

nice reply!

 

Me and my other philosopher mates are divided about the whole thing. personally I'm leaning towards free will on several reasons (infinite vicious regress, accountability, and free will being something we seem to experience as opposed to something we seem to observe) but allot of mates of mine, all really good philosophers have nice arguments for causality as well :)

 

I hope i get some more replies on this soon :)

 

thanks for responding :)

[Chesto]

Dont get me wrong, Wookiee. I like to fool myself that the decisions I make are mine and that , being considered ones, occasionally, are independent of 'stuff'. But I also know that there are things that I am unaware of, things that have yet to come into play even as I am making a decision, and that are lurking, waiting to deal me a blow, in the back ground. To repeat... there is so much 'stuff' that we just can not keep on top of it enough to be able to make true 'free will' decisions.

[Lisnpuppy]

I believe in free-will. Now this may be strange or stupid sounding....but reality is relative. It is all about perception and your relationship to this. You look at someone's life and think it horrid....they are perfectly content. So there is your perspective.

 

The life one leads and their "reality" is all in how they seem to view it and thus if you believe you can choose and have free will to do..whatever..then you do. It is realy that simple and that complex.

 

The "rules" of society, science...what have you-only restrict you as much as your perception allows. It is almost like the Looney Toon cartoons where they walk off a cliff and don't fall...commenting that they never learned the law of gravity.

 

So perceive that you have this ability of free will and you do. It is not illusion because it exist FOR YOU. To the outside perspective it appears an illusion because they may see through their own reality the constrictions of choice.

 

I hope this makes some sense...I did just wake up and have not yet had my Coke. :)

[Wookiee]

Dont get me wrong, Wookiee. I like to fool myself that the decisions I make are mine and that , being considered ones, occasionally, are independent of 'stuff'. But I also know that there are things that I am unaware of, things that have yet to come into play even as I am making a decision, and that are lurking, waiting to deal me a blow, in the back ground. To repeat... there is so much 'stuff' that we just can not keep on top of it enough to be able to make true 'free will' decisions.

 

 

yes no I agree, There is an incalculable amount of influences on the most minor of decisions, in fact I just finished reading W,D, ROSS "the right and the good" you may like it if you have not already read it, its more moral theory but it works along those lines. but also I am a duelist and if something can influence my actions that has itself no cause in this world then I am free but through these actions I am a causeless cause to other things AND can be held accountable for my actions. :)

 

Now I have no more proof than any other duelist.

 

But in a fatalistic world the likes of which perfect causality would produce. it seems interesting that we come to contemplate this very idea on sheer "chance" as a causal chain dating back to the big bang and possibly beyond (incidentally the thing that "caused" the big bang is another interesting idea because if Everything has a cause then the universe seems to extend back in time infinitely[another interesting note the big bang is but one theory]) Now I understand the million monkeys million typewriters analogy But even according to quantum physics the chances of me being able to walk through a wall are actually greater than doing exactly what I'm doing now. That of contemplating if I am in control of my contemplations ;)

 

Now I admit causality seems to work for most things but to assume it holds for all things is just as inductive as assuming it does not. there is no deductive proof one way or the other.

 

I may in fact just be doing all this because I have to... I was caused to... but hell, then its out of my hands what I believe. :)

[Malchik]

How does such a theory of causality deal with random or irrational events or is such an event impossible?

[Sharkull]

I voted Free-Will, but I didn't really have any choice in the matter... :P :biggrin:

 

Seriously though, I don't believe that there can ever be a final answer to this question. We are limited to the perspective of our consciousness, and the question is basically asking for a description of the nature of said consciousness. We are thinking about the nature of thought. The idea of free-will implies that there is something, independant of causal influence, that makes decisions. What is the objective nature of this decision maker? :wacko:

 

Humans experience "reality" subjectively, relative to our individual perspectives. Even empirical evidence is subject to the perspective of the observer. While we use tools in an attempt to minimize the impact of perspective when studying things scientifically, the fact is that observing the results produced by these tools is still experienced subjectively. The scope of things that are absolutely knowable is therefore very limited... basically to things of pure logic. We define what "1", "+", "=" and "2" are, and based on those definitions one can objectively conclude that "1+1=2". These details and the conclusion can exist outside of our perceived reality... unfiltered through subjective human senses. When thinking about the nature of thought, you are using a subjective tool to "measure" itself.

 

It follows that the question of the existance of free-will will forever by unknowable to humans. All discussions on the topic are simply a matter of subjective belief, not absolute objective knowledge. Some arguments to belief may be stronger than others, but a final answer is not possible.

 

As to why I answered free-will in the poll? Either I choose to believe in free-will (for various reasons) or the laws of physics, working on the molecules in my brain, created the illusion of choice. I have no way of knowing which. ;)

[Wookiee]

How does such a theory of causality deal with random or irrational events or is such an event impossible?

 

Good question and the answer in a complete causal world is... no randomness is just very complicated :)

[Chesto]

How does such a theory of causality deal with random or irrational events or is such an event impossible?

 

Good question and the answer in a complete causal world is... no randomness is just very complicated :)

Well I say 'Embrace the randomness... might just be your last chance to 'go steady' !'.