opnet [OpNet] Determinism and Free Will

[Blur]

Ms. Newcastle's topic has generated some interesting responses and it's spurred me on to ask a question of my own: what are your views on free will and determinism/predestination? For those with abilities related to predictions and analysis, have your views on this topic changed in your post-eruption life?

(I apologize for any repetition in topics with this question; I'm hoping to hear about current points of view)

[Timeslip]

Blur,

Based on my experiences with temporal divergence and "precognitive" episodes, I am confident that there is no one fixed, predetermined or predestined future. Simply put, the existence of divergent timelines where the point of divergence hinged on a decision rather than a random chance bolsters, in my opinion, the prospect that free will carries the day.

[Matryoshka]

The world never lack wonders for those who know where to look. Let's say that I know the future, and I can tell you everything you will do in a day. Okay let's say I am always right in knowing what will happen. Does that mean you do not have free will? not at all. Free will is acting in a free way based on what you know.

That being said, if I know what you will do and let you do it, you are still acting on free will, if I tell you what you will do and do not change you are still acting on free will. My action and seeing things does not take away your free, nor does it even change the idea of free will.

Taking away some's free will requires many things, and can be done in a few ways, but seeing the future, nope not taking away free will. Knowing the future oddly enough does not make determinism. Life is funny and the world is wonderful, I could tell you more but the simple fact is I think anymore I say will lead down a long road.

[Sam 'The Crusader' Hill]

Ah, free will. Choice and responsibility, mixed together in equal portions with care and baked into that grand soufflé that we like to call our future. We’re each the master chef of this colorful concoction, and it’s our decision and ours alone if we want to use the cinnamon of comfort or the chives of challenge.

Even so, we can’t guarantee that our potential pastry will look just like the picture in our mental cook book. Others may stomp through our kitchen, shaking that rising dream in its pan. Or, something could go funny with the temperature or timer of the cosmic oven, and that’s up to that great Maytag Repairman in the sky. Our soufflé of self-development could wind up burned or undercooked or even get knocked as flat as a foundered flounder. All there is to do then is to taste of the bitter experience before consigning it to the trashcan of our past, and grease up another pan to try to bake up a new future.

But no matter how your experience goes, home-cooked futures still beat the heck out of the sort of McDonalds of the soul where so many folks choose to dine day after dreary day, taking what is handed to them with hardly a gaze at the end-product, let alone the ingredients. Sure, they'll get the recipe right every time... but where's the adventure in that?

[Leliel]

As Timeslip mentioned, the very existance of crosstime projection/sensing, not to mention quantum mechanics itself, allows for an infinite number of possibilities.

Aside from the scientific approach though, yes, free will is the greatest factor in the continual development of sentient life. There is no evidence at all for predestination, and quite frankly on a philosophical level the concept is terrifying.

Not that it's non-existance will keep whackos from justifying all sorts of crimes and attrocities by saying "It was presdestined to happen".

I don't buy it, doubt a judge would either.

PS to Sam "The Crusader" McDonalds of the Soul.... Nice way of phrasing it, and quite accurate a description.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
As Timeslip mentioned, the very existance of crosstime projection/sensing, not to mention quantum mechanics itself, allows for an infinite number of possibilities.

Potentially infinite.

The universe tends towards a systemic level of efficiency. That leads me to believe any potential not sufficiently differentiated would (re)merge into the quantum foam as a failure. On the brighter side; information theory suggests the raw data on even a failed differentiation would still be present and possible to extract provided the fundamental axioms of reality and the aborted universe were still common.

So. The universe where you bought a Kazaan Hyundai SUV instead of a Meriweather-Smythe Roadster is probably not a meaningful coordinate in the string of potential universes. However, there is probably more than a few coordinates where a cloud of debris is to be found in place of the planet Earth. Causes vary from the sublime to the horrific. I don't think we can have a really detailed discussion on something like "cross-time projection" at this point. It would be a little like aborigines theorizing on Detroit with nothing more than a hubcap to base their theories on.

[Leliel]

Since it is entirely possible that new universes/dimensions could form as we speak, I think we are dealing with semantics more then anything else.

But to reiterate on the original subject, and not quantum mechanics or Calabi-Yau manifestations, there is zero evidence for determinism/predestination that is anywhere near empirical.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blur:
what are your views on free will and determinism/predestination?

Free will is very nearly an illusion altogether. Novas are still biological organisms, and therefore still predictable, and that means still subject to determinism. What most people misperceive as free will is little more than how your body and brain interact with the sensory input it receives. Considering one's genes and the capriciousness of the human (or nova) organism, it would actually be nearly impossible for one to act in violation of their biological impulses. Handily, most people don't realize or understand this, and therefore continue to live their lives with the illusion of free will.

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
...there is zero evidence for determinism/predestination that is anywhere near empirical.

That is simply incorrect. It isn't "the world is flat" incorrect, but it's definetely more incorrect than "the world is round" incorrect.

[Leliel]

What is some of that evidence then?

To be specific, is there any such evidence that is not based on personal views?

For obvious reasons I do not include physical laws as being really applicable to the matter of discussion.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
...evidence that is not based on personal views?

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
I do not include physical laws as being really applicable...

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
zero evidence for determinism/predestination that is anywhere near empirical.

You want me to refute your argument using empirical evidence that isn't personal and doesn't abide the laws of physics. Splendid. Enjoy your padded cell.

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

Quote:

Novas are still biological organisms, and therefore still predictable, and that means still subject to determinism.

Although I am not a biologist, that science does have a basis on physics and, as you may know, the most widely accepted theory in that field is non-deterministic in nature. In fact, studies following probabilistic instead of deterministic calculations have had a much higher degree of success. Biology being based on physics, if only at the smallest level, means that there may well be lack of determinism in certain parts of that science as well, which may or may not be proof of the existence of free will, but certainly makes the argument against it less solid.

[kestrel404]

In point of fact, Miss Hoshiko, Biology is a statistical and not a deterministic science - at levels above and below that of the individual. Whether it is deterministic AT the level of the individual organism is hard to determine.

Let me clarify: The study of biology at the macroscopic level - the study of the environment - does not predict how individual organisms will interact with their environment. It is the study of how all organisms, as a whole, are likely to affect their environment. Like the study of a large volume of heated gasses, each individual is either treated as a probability, or else studied in order to predict the behaviour of other, similar individuals. Even nova level biologists do not often considder the actions of every individual within a system - they merely tend to be better at predicting the gestalt actions of the whole.

The study of biology at the level of the species is the same. Anthropology, sociology, history - while they may occasionally be concerned with the individual, that tends to be concern over the outliers - the actions of the individual are largely ignored, because the actions of the individual are hard to predict. It is with the central mass of the group that these sciences concern themselves. Again, it is a statistical science. Some of this has started to change with late human and early nova science and computational abilities, but not yet to any great degree.

At the level of the individual, we get psychology, biochemistry, neurology, and a whole host of other sciences devoted to understanding how the body or mind functions. I think that Miss Newcastle is saying that the entire individual can be understood (if not by a human or nova, then by something) well enough so as to be completely predicted. This may or may not be true - the uncertainty you find at the quantum level really only applies when you're working with less than a dozen atoms. Something the size of a single strand of DNA - tens of thousands of atoms in size - is as stable in quantum mechanics as the chair you're sitting in.

Of course, there could be other factors in the determination of free will. While a single person can be predicted statistically with a high (90% or better) chance of accuracy, it has never been shown (and believe me, experiments HAVE been done) that the workings of the brain are deterministic in nature. This may be a problem with the current models - to truly predict the firing of neurons you need to be able to map, in real time, the concentrations of dozens of different neurochemicals in the brain. You must also have a physical understanding of the neuroconnections within the brain - how one neuron connects to the others around it - that is beyond normal human science. Even with a complete understanding of these things, the brain may not be deterministic.

The only way to be sure is by getting the brain into an identical state multiple times and seeing it go through the same set of states over and over. The first part of this is beyond our current science, even with the aid of novas. Percieving the second step may be possible now, but has not been tried to my knowledge.

As for what I believe on the subject - I say it doesn't matter. Free choice is both true and an illusion at the same time. You choose to be who you are, and your choices define who you are. You cannot act contrary to yourself even if you try - because by trying, you have become someone who acts contrary to themselves.

As for those who have posted above:

Crusader: My, that was particularly lucid of you. Very nicely put.

Leliel: RE Crusader: A quotation about infinite monkeys comes to mind. As for reality, I don't really think there IS such a thing as 'infinite', even where a multiverse is concerned.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alchemist:
You cannot act contrary to yourself even if you try - because by trying, you have become someone who acts contrary to themselves.

Circular logic unless you're trying to say that by becoming someone that acts contrary to themselves has effectively become someone else therefore is no longer the same person and no longer acting contrary to themselves. Something I believe is possible and even desirable in some instances although it often the result of "life changing circumstances". Death, eruption, a complete redefinition of life, etc.

[Leliel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Regina Newcastle:

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
...evidence that is not based on personal views?

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
I do not include physical laws as being really applicable...

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
zero evidence for determinism/predestination that is anywhere near empirical.

You want me to refute your argument using empirical evidence that isn't personal and doesn't abide the laws of physics. Splendid. Enjoy your padded cell.

Ah yes, now the insults come out.

Either you misunderstood me, or you are just the abusive arrogant individual that many people claim you are.

Maybe this will make things clearer to you:

I saw the text of the argument as being whether or not determinism applied to people's actions. Determinism obviously applies to chemical reactions, subatomic interaction, gravity, and other physical laws.

Therefore, what I meant is can you show me any empirical evidence for determinism as applying to the actions/lives of sentient beings.

And please lay off the insults, they are not becoming anyone who claims to be a scientist.

[Lou Anne Burgess]

I believe that some level of destiny or pre-determination may exist.

I believe that Free Will exists even in a world where people can see or have seen the future.

I do not believe these are mutually exclusive.

Everyone has free will, they are born with it. People may choose to exercise it and make decisions for themselves and take responsibility for their actions and thus use their free will. People may also use their free will to allow others to make decisions and cede responsibility for those actions, in a case like this, the person has chosen at one point to allow destiny to rule their lives and make choices for them. Using The Crusader’s analogy, the former are chefs, the latter eat value meals.

This position exists in psychology regarding people being happy or miserable. They either decide to be happy or miserable or allow someone else the power to make them happy or miserable. People can blame these others for being happy or miserable, but ultimately if a person has power over them, it is because the ‘victim’ gave them that power, be it consciously or not.

Just because someone has by and large ceded their will to the whims of fate and causality does not mean that they don’t sometimes break free and exercise their volition. Likewise even those who strive to use their free will at every opportunity may sometimes feel it is better to just go along for the ride and let someone or something else determine their path.

The presence of Novas that can see the future, or at least, possible future clouds this discussion. I met The Wakinyan at the end of the Pow Wow and he showed me a vision that appeared to be of my death. To say that it bothered me would be quite an understatement. It bothered me enough that I chose to act differently than I would have. I went to help refugees and the underprivileged in Africa rather than people in the still active combat zone that I normally would have visited in South Central Asia. When things from the vision started to happen, I chose to act differently again. These events lead to my eruption, had I not erupted, I certainly wouldn’t be alive now.

Did things play out at ‘the end’ exactly as they had in ‘the end’ of Wakinyan’s vision? No. Was that my doing? I would like to think so. Would I have survived had I done things differently or would I have erupted under similar circumstances in Asia? Honestly I don’t know that anyone can answer that question, even other seers. Perhaps in another ‘possibility’ it played out exactly as Wakinyan saw it; does it matter? Not a bit. I chose to do what I did. I took action and did everything in my power to overcome what was supposed to happen.

Perhaps it is mere pride or arrogance that allows (unless I’ve misread what they’ve written) The Crusader, Leliel, Blur and myself to think that we make decisions and are not pawns of causality when we are. If that’s the case, then I’ll take my pride and live a very satisfied life. Those of you that think causality rules all, I hope you are happy with being just as accomplished and intelligent as someone that is clinically brain dead. By the philosophical definition of determinism, you have just as much effect on your life’s path as they do.

[Gerald Haney]

I've always thought the free will, yes or no, argument was an absurd one. It doesn't make any difference to me. I live my life as I will. Whether the ultimate cause of my action is free-will or some sort of determinism isn't going to change what I do or don't do. If it's determinism I didn't have a choice. If it's free-will then that was the choice I made.

[Machina]

I'm on Gerry's boat on this one. I think Genie Genome is technically correct, but whether you have free will or not is pretty fuckin' irrelevant to your day-to-day life. If you think you're free, you pretty much are free, for all practical purposes. "Freedom" is a relative term, and not one that others can define for you.

See, Gerry? I ain't all bad. I ain't so goddamn big I can't admit when you're right. You're just wrong about God. Sorry, kiddo.

[Y.T.]

Free will. Does it mater? If I do not have it, then it will not change anything I do. If I do have it will not change what I do. The point is largely mute as it will not matter either way. Either I do, or I don't.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
Ah yes, now the insults come out.
...
And please lay off the insults, they are not becoming anyone who claims to be a scientist.

You're right, Leliel, this is where the insults come out. The difference, it seems, is that while I make my disapproval plain, you'd rather snipe with backhanded remarks in some laughable attempt to maintain a facade of civility. Spare me your false propriety.

And if you deign to deal with the vanguard of people who "claim to be" scientists, you had better become accustomed to facing dismissal in the face of making erroneous statements. Those of the last generation pioneered intellectual honesty; mine is pioneering intellectual bravery, and we will no longer be bullied by fools.

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
Therefore, what I meant is can you show me any empirical evidence for determinism as applying to the actions/lives of sentient beings.

By virtue of the nature of empirical research, any such evidence will necessarily fill a tome. If you like, I can direct you to some fine books that you can read in your own time. If you're looking for a bite-sized proof, I'm afraid I can't supply you.

[Leliel]

I was actually trying to be civil, but I guess civility is alien to someone like you.

Bullied by fools.....Nice one. You really strike me as a throwback to the "wonderkids" of the 20th century, the ones who knew in their hearts that they were superior to all others on the planet due to their awesome intellects. They also seemed to enjoy putting other people down.

I see a pattern developing here.

Rejection or criticism of a theory I can take. Even being told I am in error. Fine, everyone is at some point. I just fail to see why you have this need to chuck insults at people. But quite frankly, I don't care. Do whatever you need to do to buoy up your ego.

[kestrel404]

Tommy: I was overcomplicating matters. Gerald explained it better than I did. Free will, yes or no, doesn't matter.

[Trooper]

This is why I never took any philosophy classes.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

I'm beginning to wish I had.

[Leliel]

Actually Blur, the more I think about it Determinism and Predestination should be listed as separate categories.

Determinism exists on certain phyical levels, such as in chemistry. Predestination, in the sense of being foretold/ordained to do something by totally non-causal means, especially a "greater intelligence" or "fate"?

That in my opinion is rubbish.

It does however bring up an interesting theory. We know that the quantum signature of the universe can be manipulated by novas in many different ways. This is on a conscious level I speak of. What though about the subconscious level? Could the subconscious minds of novas, or even baselines for that matter, affect the quantum starta on a minute level? I still do not believe this could cause predestination, but perhaps could cause an alteration of quantum probablities that combined with the psychological and or philosophical levels of individuals, make them believe it was all predestined?

I'm not sure the quantum ability and/or technology exists to prove this for certain at this time. Probably the answer is it does not.

Determinism also exists on a biological level. Predeliction towards genetic diseases, etc.

PS To Ms Newcastle.

I should have been more clear on the difference between determinism and predestination. I let my passions get the better of me after your response. I usually show better control then that.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:
I should have been more clear on the difference between determinism and predestination. I let my passions get the better of me after your response. I usually show better control then that.

It appears I also allowed my passions to run away with me. I apologise. Having read your recent post, I retract my previous statements. You do seem to have a firm grip of the subject. I do not agree with you entirely, but I see that we are, for the most part, in accord on this issue.

[Blur]

Thank you, everyone, for responding; I'm happy to see so many people contributed their opinion.

And, since I didn't specify before, I agree with the general sentiment that whether we have free will it doesn't matter too much, otherwise we could be left frozen in indecision or worse.

,,

Quote:

Originally posted by Leliel:

Actually Blur, the more I think about it Determinism and Predestination should be listed as separate categories.

I tend to agree, but it seems philosophy and theology go hand in hand at this site so I kept them together.