Are we "prisoners of destiny"?

[[BL]Phalanx]

"Prisoners of destiny" being a gaming clan that one of my other buddies is in, but I felt the phrase was appropriate.

I'm setting this up for people to discuss whether or not we have free will, or we are bound by fate.


My own views:

I don't know if we have free will or not. But if we don't have free will, that means we aren't responsible for our own actions... we're bound by fate. That seems like an easy way to shirk responsibility, so I just assume we do have free will.

Having made that assumption, I question where and how we have free will. I was in a discussion with someone else, and I said that if we *only* had a physical component, we'd be prisoners of destiny. The molecules in our bodies and in our brains follow prescribed actions, as they are bound by the laws of our universe and cannot break free, just as a planet cannot decide on its own to change its orbit.

He then brought up quantum mechanics and said that things aren't "set in stone", and that even if you were to set up the same initial conditions a hundred times, you'd get a different result a hundred times. He said there was randomness involved. I then replied that even then, we'd still be prisoners of probability, if not prisoners of destiny.

Can free will exist if only the physical body exists? I didn't believe it could, he believed it could. We realized neither of us could change the others' mind and respectfully agreed to disagree.

What do you think?

[Edi]

I had this argument with my brother and a friend of mine, but basically all that I said went right over their heads because they lack any indepth understanding of physics.

Basically the universe is going from Point A (Big Bang) to Point B (its end, whether that be heat death, Big Crunch or whatever) and this will happen with 100% certainty and has a probability of 1. This does not mean that every subcomponent of the universe is locked into a prescribed pattern that it is bound by, they can meander pretty much in whatever sort of convoluted circles they desire because they will eventually end up in the in Point B (or State B, if it's more appropriate to call them States instead of Points).

Therefore humans (and other animals and life forms in general) have free will and are free to do as they choose within the limits of what they can choose (obviously an amoeba is hardly free to choose to contemplate quantum physics because it lacks the capacity to do so, afaik anyway). The freedom of choice, free will, is constrained by limits placed on it by our interaction with other subcomponents of the universe, e.g. other humans, and how they apply their freedom of choice (either as individuals or collectively). It's called consequences. I can choose to use my free will and decide to just hit some random stranger who comes across my path in the face. Possible consequences are that I will beat him to a pulp, or that he will beat me to a pulp, or that both end up beaten to a pulp, or that he will run away, or that I will run away when I realize I'll get my ass kicked. Another consequence will be that I will be arrested by the police and charged with assault, and I will go to prison for it while the other guy walks off (because he was just defending himself).

Generally any and all objects are governed by the laws of physics which dictate the interactions of said objects with each other, with life forms the possible interactions are just more varied than with inanimate things, but no object can transcend its own physical limits (e.g. a human cannot fly or survive vacuum) unassisted by another object that either accidentally or by design allows for such breaching of limits.

Now, if we were able to be in the position of an observer outside the universe, unable to influence anything, but able to watch from start to finish, and we could restart the universe every time it ends and watch things unfold, it is not at all certain that things would happen the same way. Even if things went mostly the same way, there is no guarantee that for example evolution would produce vertebrates instead of something else. Or supposing it did, that Western style civilization wouldn't originally rise in the Americas and then proceed to conquer the rest of the world from there. Or any other variables.

Mark two points on an A4 size paper. Now how many different ways are there to draw a line between the two, when that line does not need to be straight? You guessed it, infinite, because they will all differ from each other slightly (or more than slightly).

I guess those people on the board more knowledgeable about the subject will fall on me like a ton of bricks if I'm wrong about the next statement, but the way I see it is that the above explanation is just analoguously applying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on a massively macroscopic level. We know what and how much, but we don't know precisely where all of it is and we can't know.

Only omniscience would allow that, and omniscience implies already set patterns and that precludes free will.

Did anything I said make any sense, by the way?

Edi

[Darth Wong]

There are two questions here:

1) Do we have free will?

2) Does this absolve us of responsibility?

I would say yes and no for the first question. While we have nowhere near as much free will as we like to think (genes, upbringing, etc), it is doubtful that it is entirely deterministic.

For the second question, I would say that the question of free will is irrelevant to personal responsibility. If you commit murder (for example), you can be held responsible for that murder for the simple reason that you are technically responsible, ie- you did it. Whether you did it of "free will" or some other factor is wholly irrelevant. The reason for the popular belief that a lack of free will removes personal responsibility is, I suspect, derived from the common tendency to forgive or minimize peoples' crimes if they come from bad backgrounds. This is an unacceptable practice; the magnitude and prescribed punishment for a crime have nothing to do with the problems of the perpetrator's upbringing. Society can and must enforce laws, otherwise it cannot function and will dissolve into chaos.

Or, to put it another way, even if it's true that your actions are dictated by external conditions rather than "free will", societal punishment is one of those conditions, therefore personal responsibility is necessary in order to prevent undesirable behaviour.

[neoolong]

We have free will. Well, we have it up to point after considering all the influences that we have growing up. But, our capability and action is due to free will.

He then brought up quantum mechanics and said that things aren't "set in stone", and that even if you were to set up the same initial conditions a hundred times, you'd get a different result a hundred times. He said there was randomness involved. I then replied that even then, we'd still be prisoners of probability, if not prisoners of destiny.

You don't need quantum mechanics for this to happen. Measurement error explains it fine.

[Durandal]

Now, if we were able to be in the position of an observer outside the universe, unable to influence anything, but able to watch from start to finish, and we could restart the universe every time it ends and watch things unfold, it is not at all certain that things would happen the same way. Even if things went mostly the same way, there is no guarantee that for example evolution would produce vertebrates instead of something else. Or supposing it did, that Western style civilization wouldn't originally rise in the Americas and then proceed to conquer the rest of the world from there. Or any other variables.

You're almost right. What we've largely discovered is that, even though random interactions are at the heart of most things in the universe, there are so many of those random interactions that they add up according to statistics and probability quite nicely.

Take, for example, an atom undergoing laser cooling. The basic idea behind laser cooling is that if you bombard an atom with photons from one direction, it will absorb the photons from that direction and slow down as a result of conservation of momentum. However, those photons will almost immediately discharge from the atom. You'd think that, once they discharge, they'd speed the atom back up, right? Nope, it turns out that photons aren't very picky about which direction they discharge in. They just discharge in a random direction, so you get a net effect of the atom slowing down, and the photon discharges in other directions will cancel out so the atom keeps moving in a straight line and will keep slowing down.

So, if we were to run a universe simulation over and over, the details may not be exactly the same as the last one, but the net effects would be very similar, if not the same. Of course, this all depends on how chaotic the initial big bang reaction was.

I guess those people on the board more knowledgeable about the subject will fall on me like a ton of bricks if I'm wrong about the next statement, but the way I see it is that the above explanation is just analoguously applying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on a massively macroscopic level. We know what and how much, but we don't know precisely where all of it is and we can't know.

Heisenberg uncertainty can be applied on a macroscopic level quite easily. I had to do a problem one time involving measuring the uncertainty of a flying baseball's momentum and position using the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty was ridiculously small. On our macroscopic scale, we define error in terms of multiple trials, standard deviations, given uncertainties in measurement equipment and the propagation of those uncertainties throughout measurement and calculation.

[kojikun]

To continue on for mike, we cant simply say "oh its not your fault" for certain crimes. Would we say to a robot thats set to kill people "oh its not your fault" then let it continue? No, even tho it has no free will. We would dismantle the robot. Just as we should draw and quarter murderers.

[Edi]

You're almost right. What we've largely discovered is that, even though random interactions are at the heart of most things in the universe, there are so many of those random interactions that they add up according to statistics and probability quite nicely.

Take, for example, an atom undergoing laser cooling. The basic idea behind laser cooling is that if you bombard an atom with photons from one direction, it will absorb the photons from that direction and slow down as a result of conservation of momentum. However, those photons will almost immediately discharge from the atom. You'd think that, once they discharge, they'd speed the atom back up, right? Nope, it turns out that photons aren't very picky about which direction they discharge in. They just discharge in a random direction, so you get a net effect of the atom slowing down, and the photon discharges in other directions will cancel out so the atom keeps moving in a straight line and will keep slowing down.

So, if we were to run a universe simulation over and over, the details may not be exactly the same as the last one, but the net effects would be very similar, if not the same. Of course, this all depends on how chaotic the initial big bang reaction was.

Thanks, Durandal.
I was assuming that all the constants and rules, so to speak, were the same, and that every time you would probably get the same ultimate end result, just that the details would likely be different every time, and possibly very different in some respects.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Think about the fact that we're discussing this.

To me, I think that Free Will is ultimately a result of Reason. Humans are beings with Reason. Since we can Reason, we have freedom of action within the limits of the physical laws of the universe.

We can evaluate courses of action, and, again with those forestated limits, act upon them. Therefore Free Will exists, but only within the context of our physical reality.

Also, by evaluating the consequences of our actions, we may voluntarily further restrain ourselves, based on the limits that society, and civilization, place on certain actions, that being morality - and we can rationally judge those limits, unless there's something wrong with us to interfere with our ability to reason - and the limits that States place on our behaviour, those being laws, which can also be rationally judged; and both, voluntarily followed (Based essentially on the consideration of the consequences, which can be varied).

However, that is not an absolute restraint on Free Will, but rather one that exists more by social forces, and the power of the State. The only absolute force which can restrain Free Will is that of the physical laws of the universe, and how they apply to our actions.

Attempting to overcome those laws is impossible when thinking rationally; to do so you must descend into the realm of Fantasy. It is possible for a person to do so, with consequences that are often severe. Ultimately, to descend into thinking in context of Fantasy as opposed to Rationality, one loses their Free Will, because one is no longer operating in the same realm that Free Will exists within. Therefore, to descend into a Fantasy life, is to become enslaved to that Fantasy.

So Free Will is rational thought, resulting in decisions thereof, on the consequences of actions as constrained by the physical laws of the universe.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

It depends. Do you believe in a all knowing god? If you do, you don't believe in free will.

[pecker]

It depends. Do you believe in a all knowing god? If you do, you don't believe in free will.

Actually, that can be a matter of opinion.

[HemlockGrey]

It depends. Do you believe in a all knowing god? If you do, you don't believe in free will.

Not necessarily. I believe that God knows everything that is happening or he knows all possible futures, but he doesn't fore-ordain people's actions.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

It depends. Do you believe in a all knowing god? If you do, you don't believe in free will.

Not necessarily. I believe that God knows everything that is happening or he knows all possible futures, but he doesn't fore-ordain people's actions.

If you know everything, you must know what Bob the bus driver is going to do. But if you know what Bob is going to do before he does it, he has no free will. It's preplanned he'll do it.

[Drewcifer]

But knowing all possible futures doesn't mean that God would know the actual outcome, does it?

Like the laser cooling example, we know all possible outcomes for the direction the photons will take, but have no way of knowing the actual outcome until the experiment has taken place.

Does that make any sense, or did I eat too much Pad Thai for lunch?

[Durandal]

But knowing all possible futures doesn't mean that God would know the actual outcome, does it?

Like the laser cooling example, we know all possible outcomes for the direction the photons will take, but have no way of knowing the actual outcome until the experiment has taken place.

Does that make any sense, or did I eat too much Pad Thai for lunch?

An all-knowing God would be able to predict with 100% accuracy the direction of the photon discharges. If you can do that for every action taking place in the universe, everything is indeed predestined.

[HemlockGrey]

Gah.

What I mean is, he may know that Bob will face a choice between taking Road A and Road B, and he knows what will happen if Bob takes Road A over Road B, but he allows Bob to make the choice himself.

[Drewcifer]

An all-knowing God would be able to predict with 100% accuracy the direction of the photon discharges. If you can do that for every action taking place in the universe, everything is indeed predestined.

Ah yes. Knowing all futures would include knowing the ones that will actually happen. To much pad thai

[Durandal]

Gah.

What I mean is, he may know that Bob will face a choice between taking Road A and Road B, and he knows what will happen if Bob takes Road A over Road B, but he allows Bob to make the choice himself.

But he knows what choice Bob will make. Assuming he is the originator of all creation, he must have also created Bob with his entire life planned out. In the case of the Christian God, he would have created Bob knowing whether or not he was going to Heaven or Hell, since he knew what course his life would take.

[fennyCWAL]

We do not have a free will. The human mind, for all it's marvels, is a hidiously complex sequence of biochemical and electromagnetical reactions, that in the end obey the rules of physics.

So does the unvierse. And, as we all know, only one probability state can exist, which collapses from myriad possibilities to create what actually happens. So, since only one state can exist, the particles (or whatever) can, untimately, go only where they were MEANT to go, by the rules of normal physics and quantum physics.

In a sense, everything is then predetermined because action A leads to action B, which leads to Action C. Looking back on it, one can clearly see why things happened an dhow they happened, in a precise order. Just because we cannot see the future, and live in the present, does not mean these is such a thing as 'free will'.


I dunno how to really explain it.. perhaps somebody here has an idea of what I mean?

[Andrew J.]

We do not have a free will. The human mind, for all it's marvels, is a hidiously complex sequence of biochemical and electromagnetical reactions, that in the end obey the rules of physics.

So does the unvierse. And, as we all know, only one probability state can exist, which collapses from myriad possibilities to create what actually happens. So, since only one state can exist, the particles (or whatever) can, untimately, go only where they were MEANT to go, by the rules of normal physics and quantum physics.

In a sense, everything is then predetermined because action A leads to action B, which leads to Action C. Looking back on it, one can clearly see why things happened an dhow they happened, in a precise order. Just because we cannot see the future, and live in the present, does not mean these is such a thing as 'free will'.


I dunno how to really explain it.. perhaps somebody here has an idea of what I mean?

Don't quantum particles move randomly, or something like that?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Gah.

What I mean is, he may know that Bob will face a choice between taking Road A and Road B, and he knows what will happen if Bob takes Road A over Road B, but he allows Bob to make the choice himself.

It's not that God forces Bob to choose B. It is that since God (or any other all knowing being) knows what happens, Bob is not making his own choice. He cannot choose B.

[HemlockGrey]

He knows what would happen if Bob picked A and he knew what will happen if Bob picked B, but he doesn't know which one Bob is going to pick. Am I missing something?