Hi Ham,
Well written. I have some comments below.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mark and All --
>
> Here is the follow-up of my previous message which quoted Murray's
> 'Hiddenness' essay.
>
> On Tues, Apr 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Free will can be considered a personal choice, although there are
>> those who claim we have been determined to believe in free will.
>> On the other hand we are free to choose determinism. The latter
>> is like electing a ruler who changes the constitution so that he never
>> leaves power, the other is more like an ever changing democracy,
>> so long as one side does not take complete control.
>>
>> Me, I choose free will.
>
> [Ham commented]:
>>
>> To be "predetermined to believe" in something makes no sense to me, and
>> I'm amazed at how many MDers resist the idea of man as a free agent. There
>> can be only two reasons for this, in my opinion: 1) they are persuaded that
>> the 'self' is some form of being, hence must be controlled by the
>> deterministic laws of the physical universe, and 2) they refuse to accept
>> the principle of an uncreated source in the belief that it is a throwback to
>> theism which is "anti-intellectual".
>
> Returning to issue 1): the belief that because the mind or 'self' is a
> product of evolution, it must therefore must be controlled by universal
> laws. The question is one between absolute determinism on the one hand and
> the absence of determinism (free choice) on the other.
>
> A philosopher who believes in determinism will find himself paradoxically
> denying that it is in any way meaningful to strive for a better life, avoid
> accidents, punish wrongdoers for their crimes, or otherwise behave as if
> there is anything to gain by choosing an initiative for action. He will
> instead have to concede that when he makes an (apparent) decision, wants to
> punish criminals, etc, this is also a result of the predetermined makeup of
> the universe. Although it is logically consistent, most people find this
> fatalistic system deeply disturbing, if not emotionally destructive, and
> man's concept of social justice would never accommodate it.
[Mark]
I would agree that Meaningfulness is paramount in any metaphysics.
Determinism is nihilistic and provides little personal meaning.
>
> The best known argument against Free Will was formulated in the 19th century
> by Simon Laplace, who proposed that if there existed a mind that knew, to
> the minutest detail, everything about every particle in the universe at any
> given point, then that mind would also be able to predict, with absolute
> accuracy, what would happen in the future. Given the knowledge of all that
> is, we would know all that could ever be. It thus follows that the entire
> course of the universe was laid out at its inception. There is, in this, no
> room for a free will.
>
[Mark]
Often when mathematicians get involved in philosophy there are
interesting results. Pirsig brings up the thoughts of Poincare to
some effect.
> But this argument is flawed, whatever the calculation used to support it.
> For even if it were theoretically possible to know in advance what you will
> do tomorrow, you would then have no free will. If I have a crystal ball
> that tells me you will have fried eggs for breakfast tomorrow, and the ball
> is 100% reliable, the fact that I choose not to look at it would still mean
> you cannot choose to have any different breakfast.
I think the argument is flawed in another way. Lately I have reading
up on infinite set theory. The future in your scenario must also
contain that one looked at a crystal ball. This kind of reasoning
tries to place the reading of the future within the future, and we end
up with a paradox which is like going back in time to kill your
father. This is also why we can never have an equation for
everything, because such an equation must have the equation itself
incorporated into it.
As such, determinism has no meaning whatsoever. If we are determined
to believe in determinism or to believe in free will, such speculation
suddenly makes the speculation meaningless. It is like saying that
everything is cheese. Yeah, and so what if everything is cheese?
What does that mean? I know this is not clear, I have an awareness of
what I am writing about, but it is difficult to put to words.
>
> Such arguments posited by philosophers and intellectuals seemingly doom
> humans to live under the illusion of having free will. All of existence is
> a theatre. Even though we actually feel we make choices, this is an
> illusion. When you choose A, be it such a trivial thing as what to eat for
> breakfast or a more life-altering decision, there is no possibility for you
> choose B.
>
[Mark]
Yes, and there is no possibility for such a possibility, and on and
on. The whole argument becomes on of a snake eating its tail.
> Although we generally consider the naturaI world deterministic, quantum
> mechanics has experimentally confirmed that, on the quantum level, the
> universe is not at all deterministic. Events happen according to a
> statistical distribution that comes out of quantum equations. It's
> inherently impossible, for example, to determine with certainty how a
> sub-atomic particle will behave, other than by statistical probabilities.
> While Einstein and some contemporary physicists argue that there must be an
> actual underlying deterministic system to quantum mechanics, no such system
> has ever been found and there is little evidence that it will.
>
[Mark]
I would be careful when you use the word confirm above. That is
Scientism. The QM model is a mathematical structure. It cannot
confirm anything except what it creates. Such confirmation is
teleological. So, I think that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
is a product of the math, not a product of reality (what ever that
is). But, your point is well taken, that is, there are mathematical
constructs that argue for free will.
> The deterministic argument against free will can also be refuted at another
> level: it prevents the exercise of free choice. But it's a misunderstanding
> to say that nature constrains human choices. The "laws of nature" only
> describe what happens, and that includes every action you make. The "law" is
> merely an inductive generalization of the past, and it is based on the
> unfounded premise that because the universe has behaved in a certain way up
> to now, it will continue doing so. Every time you make a choice and act on
> it, you create another tiny subset of a universal "law of nature". To even
> talk about "breaking the laws of nature" is absurd, since these laws
> describe everything that takes place in the universe, including what you do.
>
[Mark]
Yes, you have better stated what I was alluding to above. We are all
part of the unfolding. I have said in the past that we ARE the Big
Bang. It is not something that happened, it is something that is
happening at this very moment. Our actions are indeed involved in
what is happening.
> In summary, the evidence suggests that Free Will is not an illusion, but
> that we really are able to make choices. That there are situations in life
> where we can genuinely choose between either A or B affirms that we have a
> free will.
This ball of Free Will is tossed around a lot. I will go back to the
meaningfulness of one's own interpretation. This is why I state that
I choose free will. (I am borrowing from the rock group Rush on this
one). I honestly think that I do choose do to the attitude I present.
The attitude is like a window looking into this world. I have spoken
of this before, but I thought I would keep trying to promote this
metaphysical concept. If I consider being predetermined to think
this, the soul completely disappears, and I have not seen that happen
yet. But perhaps "It is written" ("Maktub" in Arabic)
>
ila al-Liqa' (until we meet again)
Mark
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
