Marxist ßastard Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 If there is no free will, then whether you "think" there is free will or not makes no difference: all events are predetermined, and so this debate---like everything else in the universe---is completely pointless. If there is free will, then believing that there is free will is trivially the only correct answer. Philosophers: overanalyzing ridiculously simple questions since man invented leisure time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosisab Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 If there is no free will, then whether you "think" there is free will or not makes no difference: all events are predetermined, and so this debate---like everything else in the universe---is completely pointless. If there is free will, then believing that there is free will is trivially the only correct answer. Philosophers: overanalyzing ridiculously simple questions since man invented leisure time.Man, you "proved" ridiculously simple questions with ridiculous simple answer :) I really wish things were so simple. But answering this was a free will act or predetermined event? Maybe there is things we can decide by free will, others we don't have much to say about.Maybe we can even say and do about anything and we indeed are doing this and proving we are better in doing the wrong ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 answering this was a free will act or predetermined event?Does it make any difference? You might as well be asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Since Wookie was predetermined to create the thread and each one of us to answer as we have, may I request that the mention of angels does not predetermine anyone to direct this topic down a forbidden avenue, with the predetermined knowledge that it will be closed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkull Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 For those looking for some thought provoking information on the subject of what a "causal world" might be, I find "Laplace's demon" to be an interesting concept / mental exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookiee Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 LOL nice to see you as well MB long time no see :) And you Malchik :) And in reply MB as debates go I feel this to be an important one. Because if free will does exist I'm going to be nice to everyone for I can be held accountable for my actions, yet if it does not then I can do what I like and the consequences as well are pre-determined but I will know that it couldn't of been any other way and I am just a cosmic joke and as such perfectly innocent regardless of what I do :) Morality is tied up with free will.Morality is just a causal illusion if everything is caused by something else, I can still be held accountable for my actions but only if it is pre-determined that I am to be.Causality leads to an infinite vicious regress, there can be no beginning of time if everything is caused by something else, it disappears backwards with out end... but there can be an end in the future.Is it possible for something like reality to have an end with no beginning?If it is then destruction is the ultimate meaning of everything... to get to that "end" But these are ideas I want to explore when i get a good demographic of what people believe reality to be like :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Hi Wookiee, Have you been taking spelling lessons? :biggrin: Surely Douglas Adams has pointed out and proved beyond all reasonable doubt that we are no more than computer generated holograms in a big rpg created by the mice. We are not real but believe we are real because that is how we have been programmed. The question of free will versus causality is also perhaps unanswerable because even if free will does not exist the trillions and trillions of possible connections between each particle in the multiverse make the suggestion one can establish causality almost a nonsense. I can for instance produce a perfectly cogent analysis that proves beyond doubt that the only true cause of death is being born (or coming into existence if you prefer). Other questions are equally unanswerable - what lies beyond the edge of space? what happens when time ends? etc. Since proof seems to me improbable or at least a very long time ahead (if time hasn't stopped by then) the more interesting question is 'how should society behave differently if it learns free will does not exist?' But if and when that happened we would by definition be able to determine just how it would behave. Thus looking at the question now is nothing more than idle speculation. Looked at another way, you can behave any way you like even now, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. By and large you know what those consequences will be before you act. Whether or not you act freely or under compulsion of causality, the reaction ain't gonna be no different. You can say 'it was my genetic make up' until the cows come home but it won't get you any Brownie points. Unfair if true? Since when was causality 'fair'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookiee Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 fair point or points i should say and i wont try and defend against them because your absolutely right. However all the best questions are unanswered if they had concrete answers then there would no longer be a need for the question, by that logic the more impossible the question the better it will be :) (my logic is slightly different to actual logic) and as for the spelling.doing my thesis at the moment so I'm getting some practice as opposed to just IRC english ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesto Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 It seems to me that we have strayed, somewhat, onto the meaning of 'reality'...though whether a definition of 'reality' and a definition of 'free will', and whether or not it exists, can ever be divorced from each other...? What you end up with is three blind guys in a lightless cave...with an elephant. All wish to determine 'what' an elelphant is, and to explain it to their fellows. But what motivates them to want to determine 'elephantness' in the first place? ...and who the hell is going to clean up all that mess... ...and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 How do you define causality? When you mention 'recreating causes perfectly' - how far does that go back? The molecular level? The atomic? The subatomic? I would argue that due to the uncertainties at the subatomic level it would be impossible to recreate a state or cause perfectly. Maybe causality is an illusion caused by observation on too large a scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.