I think we are part of a deeper reality, so our free will is also part of DEEP WILL which is beyond all consciousness. For instance, what is happening right now some fingers are pressing some keys on the keyboard by something which we call Free Will is also part of that DEEP WILL.
@"The brain may also be deterministic but unpredictable. I find that idea comforting in a way. "
I guess you might be right. I think when people talk about these things they usually forget about synergy. Genes work through synergy, so I can easily see how it could be true for the brain itself.
@“…because ultimately science cant tell me what was here first and what will be here last.”
you see, if I would discover that I’m seriously ill, I’m sure I’d be much more interested in a more trivial scientific answers, like how to cure that disease. Science is not a religion and it doesn’t have an obligation to give the precise ultimate answers (42?) if at this stage is not able to give them. However, that doesn’t prevent me from taking as true something that has been empirically proven again and again (and to continue believing it’s true till the opposite proof shows up).
Aineko,
I realise that people have difficulties understanding the crux of my argument unless they are well versed in physics and chemistry themselves. The argument is this: we are made of atoms and molecules, these atoms and molecules don’t have free will, they only follow the laws of physics. Molecules of liquid water don’t decide to form solid ice below 0°, they simply behave according to the laws of physics. All our body functions including our cognitive functions are merely chemical processes which simply follow the rules of physics. Now, if our molecules have no choice to to this or that, how can our brain as a whole be non deterministic, how can free will exist?
Aineko, you seem to be interested in the subject, if you have some questions you like me to answer, let me know, your above post was a bit long so I didn’t know where to start,
Friedemann
Steve,
I concede that the free will argument hasn’t been settled finally, but it isn’t easy to dismiss people like Einstein and the body of scientific evidence that points in that direction.
Again, I find the idea of having no real control over my actions rather depressing. And in a wider context this would have far reaching implications for the concept of guilt. If we all are just machines functioning according the laws of physics, there is no guilt.
Friedemann
Rjtrudel,
the laws of physics are in fact universal in time and space. They are as valid here on planet earth as they are inside distant quasars. That is the beauty about physics!
Science cannot explain everything, but no other method has given us the vast amount of knowledge about the universe. If you allude to religion and similar completely unproven belief systems, they don’t give us any knowledge about the nature of the universe,
Friedemann
Victor2,
you need to show more respect for science! Everyday who are benefiting from the knowledge and inventions achieved through the scientific method. Think about it the next time you switch on a TV, get in your car, receive a chest X-ray…
Friedemann
@ Friedemann: re Again, I find the idea of having no real control over my actions rather depressing. This only works if you believe your thoughts! As you can never be absolutely sure about determinism vs free will, you might as well choose not to believe your thoughts…
I realize that I am in the minority, but I believe that we are not simply biological machines. To me, your ideas are the necessary outcome of any thinking along the lines that we are simply machines. I may be old fashioned and from the Southern U.S. (e.g., the Bible belt), but I also believe in something more than purely human and mechanical.
If you drive a car drunk, you will be arrested, but the car will not be arrested because it is just a machine, although it might be confiscated from you. Our society prohibits drunk driving because it is dangerous to us all. The existence of free will might be an illusion, but you cannot dismiss the idea. Freedom, equality, privacy, and informed consent, and so forth are all ideas. You cannot disregard these ideas because they are not tested by scientific procedures.
This is certainly an interesting point to speculate on, however. From a purely chemical level, of course free will is an illusion. To me, however, there must be more than the purely chemical or physical.
If all is purely chemical and physical, what would be the point in living?
and informed consent, and so forth → informed consent, and so forth
Will,
I was a devout Christian in my teens but lost my faith when I grew up. I just saw to much arguments stacking up against religious beliefs.
I am a physicist. To me, we are matter that has became aware of itself. We are stardust (quite literally) that has become conscious. To me that is an exhilarating thought!
Friedemann, why do you assume that people that do not share your views do not understand you? I think that is not the case. We just do not share your views. I am not depressed. I am happy every day when I contemplate nature and the wonders of this life and that fact that I have a whole day in front of me to do things, most of which I enjoy.
My view is: of course we have free will because we have no choice but to have it!
You force me to ask you now to please 'twitter" it, I’d like to use it…
“…Think about it the next time you switch on a TV, get in your car, receive a chest X-ray…”
Friedemann,
your conduct is very similar to that of a televangelist. You suggest me to admire these things and then I should aquire faith in physics, right? And I should belive you because all the toys are so nice? And of course you suppose I have no idea about how all those things work? Let us leave all those things in peace. Let us go directly to you main idea, determin-ism. Fortunately, I have a diploma in physics, so we can discuss determinism in physics.
If we take something very simple, say, an electron, what can we say about it, what we can know about it? I am afraid that the only thing we can know is its wave function. Can we pre-dict the behaviour of our electron? No. Can we can know its history? No. Can we know its place right now? Yes, but then we don’t know its speed, and if we know its speed, we don’t know its place. If we have two holes, we don’t know in which of them it will go, maybe through both, And if we already know that it pass through one, we don’t know through which. What can we say about determinism in this case? We only can guess it determinism exists or not. But we don’t know for sure because we have no tools to follow the behaviour of a single electron and we never will have such tools, And if we can determine what happens with an electron, what can we say about the whole world?
Physics is not an exact science. Would you argue with that? Only math is exact because it deals with abstractions. Physics cannot decide on the issue of determinism in principle. You can’t set up an experiment in result of which you can definitely say if determinism exists or not.
Physics is a mundane thing, it can’t solve the problems of determinism, religion, free will, etc. You can’t conceive an experiment to prove or disprove God’s existence. I don’t believe neither in physics nor science in genetal because it is not an issue of faith and it is just silly after all to believe in such things.
And about guilt. Do youj really want to use physics to decide on moral issues?
I betrayed my own rule and wrote sooo looong post.
Victor2,
the issue about uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics that you alluded to is one about measurement, the trajectory of the electron is still deterministic even if we cannot exactly measure it. An electron has no free will. If you do quantum mechanical calculations you can predict phenomena with incredible precision. Quantum mechanics does not necessarily save free will.
You are right that science cannot disprove God’s existance, but given the evidence so far his existance his highly improbable.
Friedemann
Steve,
I did note that you didn’t address the core of my scientific argument at all. You talked about your subjective feelings about life which are irrelevant to the argument at hand. Maybe that is because you don’t really understand the point, you’re not a physicist after all, or may be because you just reject the concept for any other reason, I don’t know, either way, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion.
So to answer your question: I do not generally assume that people don’t understand me when they disagree with me. But given that physics is not something most people understand well it might well be the case here.
Rohr,
'You talked about your subjective feelings about life"
You titled the thread “a terrifying thought” , the thought being that we are 100% subject to physical laws. If this is not a paraphrase for your subjective feeling about life, I don’t what is.
This discussion is moral, dressed in the language fo physics. I had this discussion many times as a teenager when my friends and I would sit up late at night. It is not complex. People differ.