|
| Thread: Free Will |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
posted December 08, 2010 08:32 AM |
|
|
Just because they contradict each other doesn't mean they can't coexist. We do make CHOICES, even if they propably could be calculated. You could say that the choices are illusions, but still, we do choose a way.
If "fate" would "predict" our death the day we come to the fork, we would choose the way that leads to our death. "Fate" is as set as we choose it not to be.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 09:11 AM |
|
|
Let's see: what evidence is there that would hint on deterministic fate?
All evidence there is points into the opposite direction, actually, so "fate" and determinism is just unfounded speculation.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Back to the free will/fate can not exist thing however. If we actually have free will, then fate has no part. When we come to a fork in the road..it MATTERS which we choose. Where if fate is in charge, it doesn't. Whatever was going to happen when we went down one road, would also happen if we went down the other. So free will in that aspect would be an illusion.
Okay then what about this.
My free-will or choice is mine and mine alone right. So I am living day to day and doing that present bit. However I am operating "under a bigger umbrella" in a world that is full of other's doing the same thing that may or may not affect me and then there are all of the environmental things, like hurricanes, revolutions etc. and the whole thing gets blended to create a future result for me...my fate. What happened to me at the end.
I guess to me Fate is too 'robotic' when it is not encompassing all factors that can determine a life or lives.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:18 AM |
|
|
Well we are veering a bit off topic. Let me create another thread, with a reply 
____________
Message received.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well we are veering a bit off topic. Let me create another thread, with a reply
Not if there is a gene that makes me say free-will-man and you have the one that says Fate....arrrggghhh
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:31 AM |
|
|
*rolls on the floor laughing* good point!!!
____________
Message received.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:40 AM |
|
|
I don't really believe in randomness or undefinability. Things will appear random when you do not know all the factors(which I've said)and if you cannot determine something it is because of ignorance (lack of information, knowledge or faulty conclusion) rather than because it is really undefined. This is hard to apply in any arguement (which I've said), but that does not matter for the theory(which both of us've said).
That does not mean that we do not make choices. We make the choices based on our previous experiences, knowledge and physical features (dna, healthyness, mood etc).
Quantum mechanics say that an unknown value or state of the universe will be random until we've concluded the value. This is basicly saying that a tree does not make a sound in the forest, unless some one hears it. That the observed universe is the real universe (which would suggest that there's a universe for each person, if we were to draw physics over to philosofy).
Or more precisely it will say that very small "particles of energy" (quantas) that are so small and changes and moves so frequently that we cannot determine nor predict it. This will create an uncertainity that will make events random. Not because they necessarily are, but because we don't know the result yet.
If I were to throw a dice, it would be a random until settled. The can't wouldn't be dead, nor alive, until I open the box. In reality how ever, the answe would already be settled.
Do you see my point yet? I'd hate it if you asked me to repeat myself again, mostly because I have a tendancy to be less and less clear for every repetition and I know that other people are getting VERY tired of both of us.
____________
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:42 AM |
|
|
I think Markkur just "won" the arguement.
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 11:52 AM |
|
|
I do have to give a  to Markkur. Quickly becoming a fan (only in a non official capacity, Moderator Mytical stays as neutral as always).
____________
Message received.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 12:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't really believe in randomness or undefinability. Things will appear random when you do not know all the factors(which I've said)and if you cannot determine something it is because of ignorance (lack of information, knowledge or faulty conclusion) rather than because it is really undefined. This is hard to apply in any arguement (which I've said), but that does not matter for the theory(which both of us've said).
That does not mean that we do not make choices. We make the choices based on our previous experiences, knowledge and physical features (dna, healthyness, mood etc).
Deserves a reprint
@Mytical
Man it's good to laugh. Folks are getting too serious. Or its this crappy medium as usual. My last post in your other thread is littered with too-many smileys and looks stupid and I don't care. Wish I could type something that sounded like a belly laugh.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2010 12:14 PM |
|
|
Shares, the simple thing is, that you have no pint, since this is not a question of belief or a question of a "really existing universe" versus a measurable one. I quote from the wiki article about the uncertainty principle. Note the bold print
Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. It should be emphasized that this is not meant to be a statement about a researcher's ability to measure these specific pairs of quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π .
What you believe or not is rather irrelevant in comparison with the facts. A determination is impossible. In principle, not due to any limitations of means of determination. Which, as I said, means, that it is, in principle, impossible to fulfill the assumption necessary for determinism: that IF IT WAS possible to determine the state of the universe at any one time...
However - it isn't. In principle. Determinism is impossible because it's not possible to determine a given system fully and completely. There will always be an amount of uncertainty, of randomness.
However, this is not the only point. I mentioned this already. Gödel has proven, that in any "complex" axiomatic system (like mathematics) there will be NECESSARILY undecidable issues, things that cannot be proven this or that way. This may seem rather unrelated, but considering the fact that it's EXCLUSIVELY mathematics that allow to understand the workings of the universe and describe what is going on, it'a clear that we can conclude from one to the other: chances are that Gödel's theorem is valid for the complex axiomatic system called universe or creation as well.
So in the face of all that evidence, what evidence is there for determination or fate?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 06:39 PM |
|
|
Have-to & want-to
I want to come back here and talk about the implication of DNA and all that.
Does anyone else feel like maybe this should not be an area where man's plods about? Let me clarify.
If a man has been determined to have the "I have to lie Gene" then how can that get him off the hook in RL? Also more problematic; how could we be sure he has the gene since science is often re-writing itself...as new discoveries are made? This seems a snakes-nest to me.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 06:50 PM |
|
|
|
Well, there really is no viable alternative than to go on and find what there is to find. It can only further the understanding of mankind, and understanding of mankind is important.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 02:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, there really is no viable alternative than to go on and find what there is to find. It can only further the understanding of mankind, and understanding of mankind is important.
I agree except <imo> findings end up within decisions and law...too soon? Look at the health and insurance issues looming on the horizon.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 03:43 PM |
|
|
@Markkur
Human actions being influenced by biology is not a new concept. For instance, a person who is starving would no doubt kill another person - if it came to that - for food. Likewise, the collective human graveyard is filled with people who have been killed out of sexual competition. Do these not have genetic geneses? We are learning that more and more of our actions are influenced by specific genes, but does this additional knowledge really change anything fundamental about the way the law should work? I don't really think so. Ultimately we all must struggle to hold our primal instincts at bay if society is to work. Those of us who fail must go to jail.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 06:45 PM |
|
|
@Corribus
I agree with you Corribus, however there are things about this that are alarming. What if sometime in the near future ‘they’ discover a gene that makes a person more prone to the effects of alcohol and Car-insurance companies decide to charge those people that have the gene, higher rates for insurance? Same with the ’cancer’ Gene in health insurance.?
Since science is science and open to new findings, when would it be sound to use this stuff in RL? Especially since it ‘s the Corporations that have the power and not the people?
You know that the old concept of insurance is still based upon a shared-pool of money against separate ‘unknown’ risks, so doesn’t this path throw all that out the window, if it is taken as fact at any time?
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 06:58 PM |
|
|
|
Has already been decided in Germany, since already significant tests are available, that insurances cannot demand those tests.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 07:10 PM |
|
|
and employers?
and there is also the danger of parent choosing the genes of their child. (maybe it's not possible yet, but it will probably be)
Quote:
Human actions being influenced by biology is not a new concept. For instance, a person who is starving would no doubt kill another person - if it came to that - for food. Likewise, the collective human graveyard is filled with people who have been killed out of sexual competition.
there is a fundamental difference, food is necessary to live, but not sex. so from the point of view of the law, the question of killing for sex is (should be) easier than the one of killing for food.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Has already been decided in Germany, since already significant tests are available, that insurances cannot demand those tests.
Germany.
It's no secret we were sold done the river a long time ago. So I'm in more of a ..."what's next?".
@Fauch
Yeah...employers that are not the nice old neighborhood fellow of old, but huge multi national companies spanning the globe.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 06:05 PM |
|
|
It does admittedly seem silly that insurance underwriters, who base their decisions solely on risk analysis, should not be able to use genetics as a means to assess risk. :shrug:
Quote:
there is a fundamental difference, food is necessary to live, but not sex. so from the point of view of the law, the question of killing for sex is (should be) easier than the one of killing for food.
Why? The purpose of life isn't to live. It's to pass on genetic information.
Not that I'm suggesting people should be able to do whatever they want to do in order to pass on their genetic information. But from a species survival standpoint, killing for sex seems more justified. After all, after you've passed on your genetic information, what need do you have of food?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
