Can free-will exist in a causal world?

[Sharkull]

IMO, true cause-effect relationships can exist independant of observation or reproduction. Either free-will exists or it doesn't. Either reality is 100% causal or it isn't. Whether or not these things are "known" does not change reality.

 

[aside]

All deaths may have been proceeded by some for of birth / creation, but all births have not resulted in death. All living entities have not died (yet?) and to assume that death is unavoidable would be to assume that the future will be like the past (which is something that can never be proven absolutely by humans).

[/aside]

[Wookiee]

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?

 

Firstly I would like to say THETA! long time no see :)

 

Secondly sure quantum physics provides plenty of gaps for randomness within its confines and this bleeds out ever so slightly into relative physics but some quantum physicists beleave that these "seemingly random and/or strange behavior" can be explained by something they are just laking this "something" :)

 

and by causality i mean hypothetically a perfect causality on the smallest (if there is such a thing) elements of everything

[Tchos]

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 :)

I find this statement to be the pinnacle of immorality. No sane person would actually change their behaviour depending on whether or not they think it's predetermined. A destructive act committed by a particular individual, whether determined or not-determined, was nevertheless committed by a particular individual. That particular configuration of brain cells needs to be judged, and, if the rest of us determine that this individual is likely to commit more such acts, he needs to be stopped. Personal responsibility is a utilitarian concept, which has nothing to do with determinism, because the world works exactly the same as it always did, no matter what you might think about it.

[papakapp]

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 :)

I find this statement to be the pinnacle of immorality. No sane person would actually change their behaviour depending on whether or not they think it's predetermined. A destructive act committed by a particular individual, whether determined or not-determined, was nevertheless committed by a particular individual. That particular configuration of brain cells needs to be judged, and, if the rest of us determine that this individual is likely to commit more such acts, he needs to be stopped. Personal responsibility is a utilitarian concept, which has nothing to do with determinism, because the world works exactly the same as it always did, no matter what you might think about it.

 

fascinating...

 

so let me get this straight, no free will, only strict determinism.

 

But the impetus to make good choices is to demonstrate the pedigree of ones brain cells.

 

So you basically have functional free will and philosophical determinism. That is precisely what I have believed, I just have never been able to make the two logically stand together.

[Tchos]

Not just the pedigree, but the processing of all new information. Our minds are physically changed every time we come across new information, depending on how we process it. How it compares to the existing structure does make a difference, of course. But surely most of us know the strange mental feeling of completely changing our opinions on something based on something new we learn. It's a cascading effect that's like the closing of dozens of doors and the opening of dozens of others.

 

At any rate, I think you were asking me if that was my outlook, and if so, yes. I make decisions all the time, and it seems that I'm perfectly free to choose anything at all, but as far as I can tell, there is only one decision I can make in any particular situation, and that is the one that I made at the time.

 

To put it into context, look at your own past. You made many decisions. Can you change any of them now? No, because you already made them, it's the past, you can't change the past. Is it a restriction of personal freedom that you cannot change those decisions? Does it demean your humanity or your individuality that you can't change your own past? Would it make any difference if you couldn't change the future, either? Not as long as you don't know what happens in the future. Classical literature has considered these topics many times in the context of prophecies, with people trying to change what they know of the future, always failing. Oedipus Rex comes to mind, or what happened to Achilles.

 

It's a complicated issue, but what it comes down to is as you said -- the world works with the appearance of free will, so it doesn't really mean anything whether or not it actually exists.

[Sativarg]

YES

 

Every moment is sacred...

Light is the core of all that I am.

Yet I do not act according to the truth.

If causality held sway I would either be dead or I would be true.

I am neither and thus an acception and abomination. Yet I am that that is.

I exist and I am pissed. We are all exceptional and unique.

We are the result of the past moving into the future and yet we decide that that will be.

Every moment is sacred. Every choice moves the universe.

We are that that is. We are the Light.

[Tchos]

Could you maybe go into a little detail on why you've come to those conclusions, Gravitas? I feel like I wasted a lot of time explaining the reasoning behind my outlook.

[Sativarg]

Could you maybe go into a little detail on why you've come to those conclusions, Gravitas? I feel like I wasted a lot of time explaining the reasoning behind my outlook.

Ouch

 

I am sorry If I dissed your eloquence.

I am not saying I am right and you are not.

I confess I did not read what you wrote. :blush:

I am having to be brief in this place today because I am only a trustee and not free.

How do I do you Justice?

I can choose to lie and I will not die...

I can choose to frame and kill another in my stead.

I can tell the truth and be put to death.

What should I do? What did I do>>>

What will I do...

I am that that is and yet I ask You what is the truth>>

The key is I am... I choose

"see"?

[Tchos]

Perhaps I see, perhaps I don't. It sounds like you're saying, in a roundabout way, that you are guilty of a capital crime, and you're evading execution by not confessing to it. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted)

 

"I am that I am" is the quote of Yahweh and of many teenagers' profiles in their "about me" section when they don't have anything of substance to write, because we can all say that, and it's a tautologous statement that's true for anyone, even though it's a truth that relays no information at all. I don't think anyone contests the "I am" part, but the "I choose" part is in fact the heart of this debate, and simply stating it does not support its verity.

[Sativarg]

Perhaps I see, perhaps I don't. It sounds like you're saying, in a roundabout way, that you are guilty of a capital crime, and you're evading execution by not confessing to it. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted)

 

"I am that I am" is the quote of Yahweh and of many teenagers' profiles in their "about me" section when they don't have anything of substance to write, because we can all say that, and it's a tautologous statement that's true for anyone, even though it's a truth that relays no information at all. I don't think anyone contests the "I am" part, but the "I choose" part is in fact the heart of this debate, and simply stating it does not support its verity.

OK well now that was unfortunate.

No I am not confessing to a crime. I meant to propose a circumstance from the point of view of a desperate person. A situation in which one must chose ones own mortality according to the truth and either with or against reality.

 

In such a situation is it possibly to free ones self without free will? How could slavery have existed and then be abolished? How could most people smoke and then be smoke free? How could bad humanity be reformed if there was no free will?

 

Perhaps what we perceive as destiny is an echo of natural precognition that we have developed as a species to overcome the limitations of our slow perceptions. Every thing we experience is a fraction of a second behind now and we must always be pre-cognizant just to survive...

Just a thought.