|
| Thread: Free will vs 'Fate' |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted December 12, 2010 07:58 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 07:58, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Now hold on. I am going to shock everybody and say..I know where Elodin is coming from.
As long as god does not directly interfere..then it is total free will. Ie if you are given a choice between said blue pill, and said red pill..he knows the outcome of both. People seem to think that he only knows what would happen if you chose a certain one. Not so.
Where I disagree with him is...
However, if God has a plan for anybody at all, ever..then the free will is an illusion. He might WANT somebody to do something, and might know the path that that person would have to take to get there, but the second he 'guided' them..there was never any free will and it is all bunk. Even one person in all of history, or ever actually. The second 'God' predetermines ANYTHING, then he makes himself a liar. As he declared that all people have free will. Since fate and free will can not ever exist at the same time..it is either one or the other. Never both.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 08:21 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 08:32, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
My point is that regardless of whether you know what I'll choose, if I don't know what I'm going to choose (or have the opportunity to choose not to do something), and then I do what I chose, then I have free will. (Of course, in reality, it is impossible for you or anyone to know what I'll choose, but I assume this is a thought experiment in which you are able to do so.) There are plenty of things I can do that I will never do. Does that mean I can't do them? No, of course not.
*sigh* You are arguing against things I am not saying.
The outcome of an event is not dependent upon who possesses knowledge. If I flip a coin and secretly observe that it lands on heads, there is not a chance that you will observe tails. Once one person has knowledge of the outcome*, the outcome is determined, whether other people know the outcome or not. This is the case whether my knowledge occurs after observation or a hypothetical case of knowing ahead of time. A coin flip is not a choice, of course, but the distinction is inconsequential.
Here's a lesson in logic.
The argument under discussion appears to be the following.
I am given the option of choosing a red pill or a blue pill. A fortune teller [or God, if you prefer] can know what I will choose before I make my choice, but I still have free will to choose what I want (supposedly because I do not know the outcome that the fortune teller does).
This scenario contradicts itself.
Let us say that the fortune teller knows that I will choose the red pill. This implies that there is 100% chance that I will choose the red pill. If there is less than 100% chance of this happening, we would not say the fortune teller knows I will choose the red pill. We would say the fortune teller predicts I will choose the red pill. Knowledge implies truth of being. It is, of course, inappropriate for us to use the term "knowledge" in the context of a future event, because future events are always uncertain. You cannot know you will flip a heads on a coin any more than you can know that I will choose a red pill. Knowledge can only be used on events in the past - and even then we might argue over what exactly is known to be and what is only believed to be.
In any case, will assume that a fortune teller violates this fundamental property of the universe and stipulate that the fortune teller knows that I will choose the red pill.
The question then becomes: do I have free will?
Clearly the answer is no.
If I choose the red pill, as the fortune teller has already determined, then we could conclude one of two things.
(1) I opted to take the red pill because it was the only action I could take - that action already being forseen by the fortune teller. In which case I had no free will.
(2) The fortune teller merely got lucky - in which case the fortune teller didn't really know anything and he merely guessed correctly.
Case 1 implies that the fortune teller truly did have knowledge of the future but that I have no free will. Case 2 implies that I do have free will, but the fortune teller really had no knowledge of the future.
If I choose the blue pill, I would demonstrate my ability to choose as I see fit (presuming this was not my inescapable destiny). However in this case clearly the fortune teller was wrong and did not, by the definition of knowledge provided above, know what he claimed to know. He was either a charlatan or a fool.
So you see, it is impossible for a future outcome to be known by any individual (whether he is in communication with me or not) and still preserve my free will to bring about a different future outcome than the one known by that individual. The mere possibility of me being able to turn the future toward a different outcome violates the definition of knowledge. It doesn't matter if I possess the knowledge or not. Certainly if the fortune teller does truly know that I will pick the red pill, but he does not tell me, I might think I have a free choice (because I don't possess such knowledge), but I really don't - only the illusion of it. Because if I choose the blue pill, then the fortune teller (whoever it is) never had the knowledge he thought he had. He was wrong.
A lot of people mistake belief or prediction for knowledge, of course. But that is neither here nor there.
As for your last statement ("There are plenty of things I can do that I will never do. Does that mean I can't do them? No, of course not.")- again you are arguing against points I am not making. Read carefully what I have written. It is not a matter of physical ability that concerns us - it is a matter of knowledge and choice.
Consider this. If you know the outcome of a horse race ahead of time - meaning, you have seen the future and are 100% certain of the outcome - is it logical to bet against the horse you know will win? If you are logical, and you would bet against the horse, then you cannot be certain of the future (you cannot know it). And if you are certain of the future, and you are logical, you will not bet against the horse. It would not be logical to be certain of the future and still bet against the horse. You are essentially arguing that it is logical to bet against a horse that you are certain will win. I hope I don't have to explain why this is not logical.
* In point of fact, the result is determined before anyone observes the coin - for macroscale coins, anyway - but that's an unimportant detail here.
____________
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
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 09:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The question then becomes: do I have free will?
Clearly the answer is no.
Clearly the answer is yes, as you were free to choose either, and could have (not in a probabilistic sense, but had the opportunity) to choose the other.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 09:25 AM |
|
|
Does that preclude an all knowing being knowing the outcome of both possibilities however? If not, then it seems an argument in futility. I agree 100% that if there is only one possible outcome then there is no free will involved however.
One can not say "You can have any one thing in this room." then every time you pick up say "Except that." until you pick up the thing they want you to. That is not free will.
On a slightly different subject...
To those who follow 'fate' is where you are at now 'fate'? IE regardless of what choices or moves you made in the past, were you 'meant' to end up where you are? If not, then why would the end of your life be so? What would have changed?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 10:00 AM |
|
|
I answered that already.
If whoever has knowledge of a definite future that future is determined - or whoever has no definite knowledge. Only ONE thing is possible: free will or definite knowledge about a decision.
If whoever has knowledge of all possible futures without knowing which one will become actual, this is fine. This "knowledge" is possible to co-exist with free will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there is still the possibility of the "multiverse" - that all these possible futures do exist as separate universes (and not only as mere possibilities) - and from the beginning of time. This would basically mean that god would know all these separate universes. That is possible as well, because we would basically choose our own way through, so-to-speak. However, in this case there would be infinitely many versions of you and me and everyone. There was a couple of universes where Hitler had died in WW I already, for example.
Now here is the kicker: If there WAS free will, then there has been at least ONE universe (and a plethora of those that develop from it) in which Eve did not pluck the apple. And there is at least one in which Adam didn't take it from Eve, called god, whatever.
If there would be no such universe - if in ALL universes Adam and Eve snowed up the same way - then they would have had no free will, because their behaviour would seem determined.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 01:40 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:42, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
In any case, will assume that a fortune teller violates this fundamental property of the universe and stipulate that the fortune teller knows that I will choose the red pill.
The question then becomes: do I have free will?
Clearly the answer is no.
The answer clearly is yes if one properly employs logic.
Sorry, but knowledge is not causation. The fortune teller is merely recording the choice you made by your own free will. Her observation of your future choice did not impact your ability to chose either pill. You made your choice regardless of what knowledge she had.
You continue to claim that a person's [or God's] knowledge of what you will chose means that you can't chose. That is totally illogical. Knowledge is not a causal agent. Regardless of who knows or does not know what your choice will be the choice is yours to make and you make it of your own free will.
Quote:
Now here is the kicker: If there WAS free will, then there has been at least ONE universe (and a plethora of those that develop from it) in which Eve did not pluck the apple. And there is at least one in which Adam didn't take it from Eve, called god, whatever.
That's so silly. Free will does not mean that you have an equal (or any likelihood) chance of making all available decisions and has nothing to do with wether or not a mutiverse exists.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 03:23 PM |
|
|
Your error - and Mvass's as well - is that you assume something, that violates everything we know. As far as we know it is not possible to know the future, because as far as we know the future IS YET TO HAPPEN. That is, at this time, the future is yet UNDECIDED and UNDETERMINED.
If "god" violates this and knows or can see what should be an undecided and undetermined future, it means automatically that the future just lost that quality. There suddenly is only one future anymore, and that is the future god sees - a decided and determined future, that is as decided and determined as the past.
This means that people don't MAKE the future by their decisions and actions anymore; instead everything is just following the predetermined path of that one and only future god knows about.
Quote:
Quote:
Now here is the kicker: If there WAS free will, then there has been at least ONE universe (and a plethora of those that develop from it) in which Eve did not pluck the apple. And there is at least one in which Adam didn't take it from Eve, called god, whatever.
That's so silly. Free will does not mean that you have an equal (or any likelihood) chance of making all available decisions and has nothing to do with wether or not a mutiverse exists.
Call it silly as much as you like - it just shows that you have a wrong idea about things.
An "option" can be an option only if there is a higher than 0 probability of it happening.
So if Eve indeed HAD the option - using free will - to reject the apple, then the probability of Eve rejecting it would have to have been bigger than 0. If it WAS 0, she didn't have the option. If she would ALWAYS, under all circulstances would have taken the apple, she would just not have had the option not to.
In that case it was determined for her to take the apple.
Note that with the assumption of free will there cannot be probability 1 or 0 for anything specific - there MUST BE a chance UNLIKE 0 for an event, otherwise it's not a matter of free will anymore, but a matter of automatic flow of events.
In this case, however, IF there is indeed a multiverse, at least ONE of them will have seen Eve rejecting the serpent and one of them will have seen Adam rejecting Eve.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 03:56 PM |
|
|
@JJ
How utterly rediculous to say that someone seeing something causes the event to happen. If I see you drink a vodka I did not cause you to drink the vodka. If God sees you drinka vodka God did not cause you to drink the vodka.
You and Corribus are making the same illogical statements. Knowledge is NOT a causal agent. Nothing I know and nothing God knows causes anything to happen. Knowledge does not cause stuff to happen.
You are the one who determines your future no matter what I or anyone else may know about it. Knowledge is not causal.
You chose. God knows what you will chose. That does not imply that God caused you to chose or that you did not use your free will to chose what you wanted to chose.
A pill is not blue becasue I know it is blue, because God knows it is blue or because you know it is blue. Knowledge that the pill is blue does not cause the pill to be blue.
Quote:
Quote:
That's so silly. Free will does not mean that you have an equal (or any likelihood) chance of making all available decisions and has nothing to do with wether or not a mutiverse exists.
Call it silly as much as you like - it just shows that you have a wrong idea about things.
An "option" can be an option only if there is a higher than 0 probability of it happening.
How utterly rediculous. There is zero chance that I will rape a baby today or any day. There is zero chance that I will climb to the top of the nearest tall building and jump off. There is zero chance that I will take my shotgun out and bow my head off.
It is illogical to say that I don't have the free will to do those things simply because I would never do them.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 04:21 PM |
|
|
I don't think that phrases like "silly" and "utterly ridiculous" are beneficial for the spirit of this discussion; while you may be an expert in these things I seriously doubt you are an expert in questions of logic, so calling other people's well-founded opinions illogical is, all things considered, pretty presumptuous.
So before this will get out of hand, I will make use of my free will and stop discussion with you. It makes no sense anyway.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 07:50 PM |
|
|
Hasn't it already been cleared that being able to know the future implies that the future is already determined and therefore you will only will the things that you were supposed to will from the start?
@Mvass: I guess I meant having the impression or feeling that you're deciding for yourself. As in that you don't feel like you're forced by the situation or other external force (like when treathened with a gun).
Though that way being craftily deceived to do things would count as free will.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 08:58 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:59, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Well I gave it the old college try. There's no room for conversation here, not with your monosyllabic, fingers-in-your-ears answers. Believe what you want, mvass.
@Mytical
Quote:
Does that preclude an all knowing being knowing the outcome of both possibilities however?
That's a separate issue. I'm not speaking about knowing the trajectories of different possible choices for a dilemma. I'm speaking of knowing what the choice will be.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 10:00 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Obviously, no one knows the future. That's why this is a thought experiment - if a being that knows the future existed, how would it work? Would there still be free will? Etc.
Quote:
This means that people don't MAKE the future by their decisions and actions anymore; instead everything is just following the predetermined path of that one and only future god knows about.
True, but that doesn't mean free will wouldn't exist. When you're making a choice, there is nothing preventing you from choosing otherwise, even though you won't. Therefore, you have free will. You can choose what the future will be - it's just that what you'll happen to choose would already be predetermined.
keksi:
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 10:26 PM |
|
|
There IS something that prevents you - the fact that you already are determined for one option. While it may LOOK like you have an alternative, you haven't.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 10:33 PM |
|
|
I mean that there's no force that prevents you from choosing otherwise. Moreover, you don't know what you're going to choose - and you will do what you choose. That sounds like free will to me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 10:38 PM |
|
|
It might sound like it, it might look like it, it might feel like it but it's still just an illusion.
Easy analogy, you have two spoons. You can pick either one. Except that the other is only a mirage so you actually only have one choice. The others are just an illusion.
Not an exact analogy but should get the point across to you, mvass.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 10:43 PM |
|
|
It's not a good analogy, because you can pick one spoon, but then find out that it's a mirage. With will, on the other hand, you will pick one particular choice, and not any of the others - but you're still making a choice. As long as nothing coerces you into choosing something, you have free will, as far as I can see.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 11:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There IS something that prevents you - the fact that you already are determined for one option. While it may LOOK like you have an alternative, you haven't.
No one is determining your choice but you.
Knowledge is not causation. Regardless of who knows or does not know what you will chose it is you making the choice. It is you determining your choice. It is you determining your future.
That is free will.
A fortune teller seeing your choice does not change the fact that it is you choosing. God seeing your choice does not change the fact that it is you choosing. No one is determining your path but you.
You are the master of your own "destiny."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 11:29 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
Knowledge is not causation. Regardless of who knows or does not know what you will chose it is you making the choice.
I don't think that's what they're claiming. If I understand them correctly, what they're saying is that it isn't knowledge that's causation - it's that God knows the future, which means that there is only one future, which in turn means that there is no free will. I don't agree with their argument, but I think that's what they're saying.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 01:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As long as god does not directly interfere..then it is total free will. Ie if you are given a choice between said blue pill, and said red pill..he knows the outcome of both.
but there is never a finite number of possible outcome. they are infinite and you need infinite amount of time to review all of them, so god must exist out of time.
Quote:
How utterly rediculous to say that someone seeing something causes the event to happen. If I see you drink a vodka I did not cause you to drink the vodka. If God sees you drinka vodka God did not cause you to drink the vodka.
knowledge is a result thus it is based on time, you can only know what already happened. to know the future, it must have already happened. to know all possible outcomes, you need to be out of time. but since you are out of time, then it's not knowledge, it's simple observation. we enjoy free will, and the entity simply observe all we do. that entity has no knowledge and can't gather knowledge in any way.
then, we can wonder, if an entity out of time is able to interact in any way with what is caught in the process of time?
that entity has no knowledge, so can't think. but maybe it is still able to act spontaneously? is it possible to act out of time? an action must have a result, and the result follows the action, so time is involved. but that entity is out of time, so it can't act.
so the idea of a god knowing (or seeing) all, and being able to guide us while we enjoy free will seems wrong.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 07:39 AM |
|
|
Ok, now it has been a long time since I studied the bible, and I have forgotten a lot of what I once knew. However, if I remember correctly, there is something in the bible that points to the fact that God does not indeed know everything.
After Even and Adam eat the apple, and hide..god goes to search for them (ie if he is searching he doesn't know where they are..therefore he does not know everything). When they are found, but remain as hidden as possible God asks them why (again..if he knew everything, he would not have to ask).
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
