this is a transcription of a philosophical discussion that took place on facebook recently. there's nothing like a little bit of "facebook philosophy" to get the mind churning. enjoy...
Erik Muir
free will versus predetermination... is there any middle ground?
free will versus predetermination... is there any middle ground?
Aaron Montgomery
??
??
Josh Steinkoetter
absolutely...We have a predetermined destiny but without knowing that destiny we act on free will with every choice we make.
absolutely...We have a predetermined destiny but without knowing that destiny we act on free will with every choice we make.
Erik Muir
but is it really free will, or just the illusion of free will?
but is it really free will, or just the illusion of free will?
Josh Steinkoetter
It's free will because we do not know our destiny..it's predetermination because our creator already knew what our choices will be because he is omniscience and outside of time.
It's free will because we do not know our destiny..it's predetermination because our creator already knew what our choices will be because he is omniscience and outside of time.
Erik Muir
a ball on a pool table doesn't know its own destiny, but yet it cannot choose where it will go once it's been struck. the ball's movement, acceleration, velocity, direction, etc... are predetermined by the laws of physics. just because someone isn't aware of their destiny doesn't automatically mean they are making choices of their own free will, right?
a ball on a pool table doesn't know its own destiny, but yet it cannot choose where it will go once it's been struck. the ball's movement, acceleration, velocity, direction, etc... are predetermined by the laws of physics. just because someone isn't aware of their destiny doesn't automatically mean they are making choices of their own free will, right?
Josh Steinkoetter
your example consists of an inanimate object which has no choice. People, however, make choices every day that affects there lives through use of free will. At the same time, for predetermination to exists there must be another who knows the choice you are going to make. Yes, if i jump from a 50 story building I am predetermined to die from the consequence of that action by use of the laws of physics, but the decisions i made that lead me to jump came from choices I made through use of free will
your example consists of an inanimate object which has no choice. People, however, make choices every day that affects there lives through use of free will. At the same time, for predetermination to exists there must be another who knows the choice you are going to make. Yes, if i jump from a 50 story building I am predetermined to die from the consequence of that action by use of the laws of physics, but the decisions i made that lead me to jump came from choices I made through use of free will
Erik Muir
but some might argue that even the "choice" to jump off a 50 story building was one that was predetermined by several internal and external factors, such as brain chemistry, personality, outside influence, and how your brain chemistry and environmental upbringing influenced how you'll react to certain outside stimuli. they might argue that all of these factors are just variables which can indeed predetermine an outcome, if only there were a way to quantify and compute the necessary information.
but some might argue that even the "choice" to jump off a 50 story building was one that was predetermined by several internal and external factors, such as brain chemistry, personality, outside influence, and how your brain chemistry and environmental upbringing influenced how you'll react to certain outside stimuli. they might argue that all of these factors are just variables which can indeed predetermine an outcome, if only there were a way to quantify and compute the necessary information.
Josh Steinkoetter
Yes, we re influenced by many factors, both external and internal. But when we make a choice, it is only after we calculate what is most rational for us at the time. During even those calculations we are making choices before we make our "choice". Depending on your personal indoctrination will depend how quickly and confident you are in the decision that you make. But even through the indoctrination process we are making choices as to what we will accept as unquestioned truth. To deny that we have free will, though, is to deny that we have a responsibility for our own actions.
Yes, we re influenced by many factors, both external and internal. But when we make a choice, it is only after we calculate what is most rational for us at the time. During even those calculations we are making choices before we make our "choice". Depending on your personal indoctrination will depend how quickly and confident you are in the decision that you make. But even through the indoctrination process we are making choices as to what we will accept as unquestioned truth. To deny that we have free will, though, is to deny that we have a responsibility for our own actions.
Erik Muir
ah, and so we've stumbled upon the crux of the issue: responsibility for our own actions. i think this is where it gets interesting because if our creator has planned our destinies in advance, then wouldn't he hold more of the responsibility rather than us? or are you just suggesting that the creator set forth a set of conditions and rules governing the universe and that humans are the unknown variable which even he has no power over?
ah, and so we've stumbled upon the crux of the issue: responsibility for our own actions. i think this is where it gets interesting because if our creator has planned our destinies in advance, then wouldn't he hold more of the responsibility rather than us? or are you just suggesting that the creator set forth a set of conditions and rules governing the universe and that humans are the unknown variable which even he has no power over?
Aaron Montgomery
who cares... stay in the center...
Terry Weber
Ask a Lutheran. Christ died for all people that all might be saved. But free will allows you to reject that work of salvation.
Ask a Lutheran. Christ died for all people that all might be saved. But free will allows you to reject that work of salvation.
Scotty D
i know i'm late to the party, but i'll throw in my two cents. i do not think predetermination exists at all. if it did, being ignorant to our own predetermined destiny would not mean that we would have free will. it would only mean we were not aware of our lack of free will. assuming for a moment that the universe was created by a god that will send you to heaven or hell depending on your beliefs, i would find it very morbid that this god knows ahead of time who s/he is damning to hell for all eternity. if s/he knows what will happen, then your choices are an illusion. you may THINK they are free will, but that's only because you don't know any better. i would think life a rather sad existence if this were the case. thankfully, i don't think it is.
Annie Spear
There is no "versus," it's both. We have free will, but there is "foreknowledge" of God that allows him to predetermine our lives, since he is outside of time, he already knows what we will choose.
There is no "versus," it's both. We have free will, but there is "foreknowledge" of God that allows him to predetermine our lives, since he is outside of time, he already knows what we will choose.
Erik Muir
oh, how convenient for god... "outside of time". geez, i wish i could be outside of time. you know, just for like a few hours or so. ;)
Scotty D
i maintain that if the events of our lives are predetermined by god, then free will cannot exist. god may or may not exist "outside of time" (a realm we have no way of exploring and therefore do not know anything about), but WE most certainly do not. so from my point of view, all of the time leading up to a choice that i make, i am considered to be "undecided" in that choice. except that in all of my "undecided" time, god would be sitting right beside me already knowing what my choice would be. in this hypothetical situation, god must, at the very least, exist "inside of time" if god wants to interact with our physical universe. so, every minute that i debate this choice in my mind, god already knows what my choice will be. my choices would have been chosen for me...so to speak. no matter how much analysis i put into it, god's choice is the only one that could possibly exist by theological determination's standards. thus, free will would not exist.
i maintain that if the events of our lives are predetermined by god, then free will cannot exist. god may or may not exist "outside of time" (a realm we have no way of exploring and therefore do not know anything about), but WE most certainly do not. so from my point of view, all of the time leading up to a choice that i make, i am considered to be "undecided" in that choice. except that in all of my "undecided" time, god would be sitting right beside me already knowing what my choice would be. in this hypothetical situation, god must, at the very least, exist "inside of time" if god wants to interact with our physical universe. so, every minute that i debate this choice in my mind, god already knows what my choice will be. my choices would have been chosen for me...so to speak. no matter how much analysis i put into it, god's choice is the only one that could possibly exist by theological determination's standards. thus, free will would not exist.
Erik Muir
also, i think some people think that predetermination is an excuse to not take responsibility for one's actions. but i think it's obvious that we should carefully consider every choice we make, thoroughly weighing the consequences before making the choice. i don't believe we'd have the capacity to do this if we weren't supposed to use it. but our ability and responsibility to do this doesn't inherently mean that it's free will and that everything isn't predetermined already.
also, i think some people think that predetermination is an excuse to not take responsibility for one's actions. but i think it's obvious that we should carefully consider every choice we make, thoroughly weighing the consequences before making the choice. i don't believe we'd have the capacity to do this if we weren't supposed to use it. but our ability and responsibility to do this doesn't inherently mean that it's free will and that everything isn't predetermined already.
Erik Muir
taking the discussion to a different place, "all this has happened before and will happen again" is the creed from battlestar galactica, but it also hints at the "quantum bounce" theory that the universe is not just expanding, but perpetually expanding and contracting, and that the universe as we know it might have already happened innumerable times before. if this is the case, does each iteration of the universe happen exactly the same or is each one unique? the answer would probably tell us more about free will and predetermination.
Scotty D
my guess is that if the big bounce theory were correct, then each iteration would be different. given the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, i would think the likelihood of *everything* turning out *exactly* the same (down to each sub-atomic particle!) would be extremely low. on a related note, i'd like to point out the "many-worlds theory" which says that there exists a multiverse, made up of many many parallel universes. quantum mechanics says that you can't (for the most part) get an exact value for a measurement of a particle (position for example). you can only get the probability that the value will be a certain number. in the many-worlds theory, the particle would have ALL possible values - each parallel universe is entangled with one value. if we extrapolate this concept to a macro level, then what if each parallel universe contains a different version of US. maybe we choose EVERY option - one choice in each universe, much like the value for a particle. maybe we just observe one of these parallel universes and perceive it as a single choice. maybe predetermination to god just means that god can see ALL of these parallel universes and so knows ALL outcomes of ALL choices. maybe god (being outside of spacetime) doesn't differentiate between the parallel versions of each one of us. but our perceived conciousness is a single-universe creature who can only see one universe and interpret this as "choice" when maybe its just the probability of an outcome in OUR universe.
taking the discussion to a different place, "all this has happened before and will happen again" is the creed from battlestar galactica, but it also hints at the "quantum bounce" theory that the universe is not just expanding, but perpetually expanding and contracting, and that the universe as we know it might have already happened innumerable times before. if this is the case, does each iteration of the universe happen exactly the same or is each one unique? the answer would probably tell us more about free will and predetermination.
Scotty D
my guess is that if the big bounce theory were correct, then each iteration would be different. given the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, i would think the likelihood of *everything* turning out *exactly* the same (down to each sub-atomic particle!) would be extremely low. on a related note, i'd like to point out the "many-worlds theory" which says that there exists a multiverse, made up of many many parallel universes. quantum mechanics says that you can't (for the most part) get an exact value for a measurement of a particle (position for example). you can only get the probability that the value will be a certain number. in the many-worlds theory, the particle would have ALL possible values - each parallel universe is entangled with one value. if we extrapolate this concept to a macro level, then what if each parallel universe contains a different version of US. maybe we choose EVERY option - one choice in each universe, much like the value for a particle. maybe we just observe one of these parallel universes and perceive it as a single choice. maybe predetermination to god just means that god can see ALL of these parallel universes and so knows ALL outcomes of ALL choices. maybe god (being outside of spacetime) doesn't differentiate between the parallel versions of each one of us. but our perceived conciousness is a single-universe creature who can only see one universe and interpret this as "choice" when maybe its just the probability of an outcome in OUR universe.
Erik Muir
to me, there would need to be an infinite number of universes for the multiverse theory to be correct. my mind just tells me that there's either one universe or infinite universes. why would there be only 14, ya know? and with infinite universes, there would obviously be several that resembled ours, where our "counterparts" had made different choices and experienced different timelines. but there would also be universes where the properties of the fundamental forces (strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force) would be so far out of whack from our universe that they would never create a stable enough environment to allow life to even exist at all (which gets into an existential debate). this doesn't have much to do with free will vs. predetermination, but i just thought i'd mention it since you brought it up, scott.
to me, there would need to be an infinite number of universes for the multiverse theory to be correct. my mind just tells me that there's either one universe or infinite universes. why would there be only 14, ya know? and with infinite universes, there would obviously be several that resembled ours, where our "counterparts" had made different choices and experienced different timelines. but there would also be universes where the properties of the fundamental forces (strong/weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force) would be so far out of whack from our universe that they would never create a stable enough environment to allow life to even exist at all (which gets into an existential debate). this doesn't have much to do with free will vs. predetermination, but i just thought i'd mention it since you brought it up, scott.
Scotty D
yes, i agree with you that there would probably be an infinite number of parallel universes in the multiverse. i'm pretty sure this is what the many-worlds theory states. and regarding your point on the universes that wouldn't support life, this is addressed in the anthropic principle. it basically says that, from our point of view, our universe appears to be fine-tuned to support life, but that's only because if our universe did not have these specific life-supporting characteristics, then we wouldn't be around to observe it. if the multiverse theory is true, the vast majority of these universes probably wouldn't support life since it takes such a precise balance of so many variables. anyway, hope i didn't go too far off topic with that whole many-worlds thing - i'd never really thought about the deterministic/free will aspect that way until we got into this discussion. probably the most interesting facebook status (and ensuing conversation) i've seen yet. thanks, erik!
yes, i agree with you that there would probably be an infinite number of parallel universes in the multiverse. i'm pretty sure this is what the many-worlds theory states. and regarding your point on the universes that wouldn't support life, this is addressed in the anthropic principle. it basically says that, from our point of view, our universe appears to be fine-tuned to support life, but that's only because if our universe did not have these specific life-supporting characteristics, then we wouldn't be around to observe it. if the multiverse theory is true, the vast majority of these universes probably wouldn't support life since it takes such a precise balance of so many variables. anyway, hope i didn't go too far off topic with that whole many-worlds thing - i'd never really thought about the deterministic/free will aspect that way until we got into this discussion. probably the most interesting facebook status (and ensuing conversation) i've seen yet. thanks, erik!
Annie Spear
You guys are way smarter than me, I is dumb, but there is one thing I'm adamant about and that's that everything that happens is supposed to happen and I'm adamant about that because if that's untrue I'll hang myself, so don't dissuade me! Here's the thing, you remember the past, right? You had free will then, and now you know what choices you made. Mathematically past and future are equal right? We don't know why we remember the past and not the future, so if they're equal then because we do remember the past the way it happened we will one day remember what is today the future only one way. As to whether these things were "meant" to happen, what does it matter? I personally believe that they were because that's what saves my life everyday, but either way, "what happened, happened," you can't change the past, so you can't change the future. But we still have free will, it's just that it's all already happened and we're just experiencing in a line.
You guys are way smarter than me, I is dumb, but there is one thing I'm adamant about and that's that everything that happens is supposed to happen and I'm adamant about that because if that's untrue I'll hang myself, so don't dissuade me! Here's the thing, you remember the past, right? You had free will then, and now you know what choices you made. Mathematically past and future are equal right? We don't know why we remember the past and not the future, so if they're equal then because we do remember the past the way it happened we will one day remember what is today the future only one way. As to whether these things were "meant" to happen, what does it matter? I personally believe that they were because that's what saves my life everyday, but either way, "what happened, happened," you can't change the past, so you can't change the future. But we still have free will, it's just that it's all already happened and we're just experiencing in a line.
Erik Muir
ah! hence the recent developments in the television show LOST. their point is not only that we can't change our past, but that we can't change our futures either. i'm beginning to see. i remember reading "a brief history of time" by stephen hawking and he theorized that since we experience time in a linear fashion, that's the only way we can understand it. but the universe might be contracting as we speak rather than expanding. and if it were, time would in essence be moving backwards, but our minds would perceive it as forwards. meaning that it's impossible to know whether the future is ahead of us or if it's already happened. in the words of lauryn hill: "everything is everything - what is meant to be will be."
ah! hence the recent developments in the television show LOST. their point is not only that we can't change our past, but that we can't change our futures either. i'm beginning to see. i remember reading "a brief history of time" by stephen hawking and he theorized that since we experience time in a linear fashion, that's the only way we can understand it. but the universe might be contracting as we speak rather than expanding. and if it were, time would in essence be moving backwards, but our minds would perceive it as forwards. meaning that it's impossible to know whether the future is ahead of us or if it's already happened. in the words of lauryn hill: "everything is everything - what is meant to be will be."
Scotty D
i prefer dr. emmett l. brown's theory on time travel. if you could go back in time, you'd be able to change anything you want. by doing so, you'd move to a new time line and begin traveling normally through time on this new time line. the original one may still exist (parallel universe?), but by changing something you'd have left it. *spoileralert* i have a few problems with the time line as its depicted in lost. first, if the past couldn't be changed (from the losties point of view), then they'd truly have no choice. for instance sayid couldn't choose to kill ben (btw, does this make ben invincible in 1977?). and i don't mean TRY to kill ben, i mean stand there and make sure he's dead. my second problem is that the very act of going back would change things...even if its only on a molecular level. photons bounce differently, your body exists where "empty space" should have existed. like the butterfly effect. ya know, a butterfly flaps its wings in brazil and texas gets a tornado.
Erik Muir
unless their "present" was the already altered timeline created by going back in time in the first place. a causation loop paradox. in regards to dr. brown's theory, let's say i travel back in time 10 yrs. the present would now be "erik-less", and the past would have two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the indigenous 19yo "me"). then, let's say i interfered in the timeline, taking actions which would change the course of my life. i could never return to the "present" because by altering the past i immediately started existing in a new parallel universe. so if i did travel forward 10 yrs in time, there would still be two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the 29yo non-time-traveling "me"). so in order to live the life i tried to make for myself, i'd have to kill the other erik and take his place. this actually helps me to better understand one of my favorite movies of all time: primer. if you haven't seen it you should.. you'd love it!
unless their "present" was the already altered timeline created by going back in time in the first place. a causation loop paradox. in regards to dr. brown's theory, let's say i travel back in time 10 yrs. the present would now be "erik-less", and the past would have two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the indigenous 19yo "me"). then, let's say i interfered in the timeline, taking actions which would change the course of my life. i could never return to the "present" because by altering the past i immediately started existing in a new parallel universe. so if i did travel forward 10 yrs in time, there would still be two eriks (the 29yo time-traveling "me" and the 29yo non-time-traveling "me"). so in order to live the life i tried to make for myself, i'd have to kill the other erik and take his place. this actually helps me to better understand one of my favorite movies of all time: primer. if you haven't seen it you should.. you'd love it!
Scotty D
yeah...those nasty paradoxes. i try to avoid them when i can. maybe they'll try to introduce something to get around that next season. good point about the time-traveling you! it would be a very odd experience to kill yourself. interesting moral question. and yes, primer is one of my favorites as well. i actually went so far as to send copies to tom and jeff the day after i watched it. seemed like one of those movies you could discuss for hours on end. the note i included in each one i wrote with my left hand so it looked like their handwriting in the movie. wow...i'm a nerd.
yeah...those nasty paradoxes. i try to avoid them when i can. maybe they'll try to introduce something to get around that next season. good point about the time-traveling you! it would be a very odd experience to kill yourself. interesting moral question. and yes, primer is one of my favorites as well. i actually went so far as to send copies to tom and jeff the day after i watched it. seemed like one of those movies you could discuss for hours on end. the note i included in each one i wrote with my left hand so it looked like their handwriting in the movie. wow...i'm a nerd.
Debbie Muir
Erik the imagination is a great thing, God given, and you have been blessed with a great imagination. Don't let it steal the truth from you.
No comments:
Post a Comment