DOOR 17

Originally posted by knightmeister
Define free will. What is our will supposed to be 'free' of if it is free. Free of dust ? Free as opposed to very expensive? What freedom are you describing when you talk or free will? You can't be talking about the freedom to choose A or B as real possibilities since that is not afforded by determinism--so what exactly is your will free from in this model?

It's your argument. You define it how it works in the context of your argument. It would be helpful
to define determinism, too.

Premise 1: We live in a deterministic universe, where determinism means ....
Premise 2: We have free will, where free will means ....
Argument: ....

Conclusion: Premise 1 and Premise 2 yield a formal contradiction, therefore one is false.

If you can lead the argument to the conclusion, you'd be a lot better off than these question-begging
scenarios which don't define anything that anyone believes here.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
(KM RESPONSE- Making distinctions between internal and external forces seems arbitary . One might ask why is this important since both external and internal forces are capable of forcing the decision in various ways)

Arbitrary you say?

From Merriam Webster:
Free
2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously.

Thats what the word means. Do you have a better definition?

Originally posted by knightmeister
(KM RESPONSE - One might easily argue that all conscious and deliberated decisions can be traced to the unconscious and the instinctual/evolutionary anyway . How is one to argue that conscious choices are any more free than unconscious ones?

I am not arguing that. I am merely saying that you cannot call it 'free will' if there is no 'will' involved. I already said that a free choice is still possible without consciousness and have no way implied that a 'free' choice is less free than a 'free will' choice. The difference is that 'free will' is based on a highly complex thing called consciousness. A free choice may be little more than a one line IF statement in a computer program.

Originally posted by knightmeister
(KM - RESPONSE- Of course you will call it free will. The question is 'why?' If what one wills is no more free or less driven than a simple organism driven by instinct , which logically you must be in this model , then why call if free will ?

I believe the simple organism to be as free as me. When have I claimed otherwise? In fact it is implied in my definitions. It does not have 'free will' because it does not have a will.

One's will is not free of anything in your model. Your will is not determined by you. You are not directing events, the cosmos is directing you.
I am a part of the cosmos. That part (which is me) is directing me. You have not shown that any part external to me is directing me.

If you want to say that you feel like you are making free decisions and therefore you are , then fine , but don't complain the next time a christian says that they feel like the Holy Spirit is with them so he is)
Sorry, I can't understand that sentence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe the simple organism to be as free as me. When have I claimed otherwise? In fact it is implied in my definitions. It does not have 'free will' because it does not have a will.

[b]One's will is not free of anything in your model. Your will is not determined by you. You are not directing events, the cosmos is directing you.
I am a part of t ...[text shortened]... l like the Holy Spirit is with them so he is)[/b]
Sorry, I can't understand that sentence.[/b]

I am a part of the cosmos. That part (which is me) is directing me. You have not shown that any part external to me is directing me. WHITEY

So when you make a choice there is no causal connection between you and the external cosmos with all its forces and physical laws and biology etc? What exactly causes you to choose then? Are you some isolated self directing, independent entity that exists free of said laws?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So when you make a choice there is no causal connection between you and the external cosmos with all its forces and physical laws and biology etc? What exactly causes you to choose then? Are you some isolated self directing, independent entity that exists free of said laws?

There is some causal connection but as I have said before not all events are caused. A significant amount of what constitutes me is a result of random events internal to me.
But even if that was not the case, certain properties of 'me' such as my memories, consciousness etc, even if they were caused by external entities, still constitute parts of me and still fulfill the definitions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is some causal connection but as I have said before not all events are caused. A significant amount of what constitutes me is a result of random events internal to me.
But even if that was not the case, certain properties of 'me' such as my memories, consciousness etc, even if they were caused by external entities, still constitute parts of me and still fulfill the definitions.

would it make sense that everything has a cause, except for the first event ever?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
would it make sense that everything has a cause, except for the first event ever?

That is a possibility I think, but not the only one. Modern physics cannot find the cause of all events and the implications of quantum physics are that if there is a cause to each event then it is not in the known universe. (Dont mistake that for being 'outside' the universe)
There are other possibilities including:
1. Not everything is caused.
2. Every event has a prior event ie there was no 'first event'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a possibility I think, but not the only one. Modern physics cannot find the cause of all events and the implications of quantum physics are that if there is a cause to each event then it is not in the known universe. (Dont mistake that for being 'outside' the universe)
There are other possibilities including:
1. Not everything is caused.
2. Every event has a prior event ie there was no 'first event'.

1. would imply the possibility of an uncaused entity of some kind which in my opinion would have no need to be thought of as an event or happening therefore would be likely to have no beginning.

2.would imply an infinite number of caused events stretching back in time without beginning.

Both 1 and 2 get very close to or sound very similar to eternity to me.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Premise 1: We live in a deterministic universe, where determinism means ....
Premise 2: We have free will, where free will means ....
Argument: ....

Conclusion: Premise 1 and Premise 2 yield a formal contradiction, therefore one is false.

C'mon KnightMeister. Sack up and present your argument. Demonstrate logically that living in a
deterministic universe necessarily means free will is impossible.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
1. would imply the possibility of an uncaused entity of some kind which in my opinion would have no need to be thought of as an event or happening therefore would be likely to have no beginning.

What? Why should an uncaused event have no beginning? We know for a fact that in 'empty' space, particles of matter are popping in and out of existence all the time with no known cause. Lets suppose that there is no cause. Why would that instantly make them all eternal?

2.would imply an infinite number of caused events stretching back in time without beginning.
Both 1 and 2 get very close to or sound very similar to eternity to me.
Time without beginning maybe but don't confuse that with infinite time or your concept of eternity.
Lets suppose that time is not quantum in nature ie it is infinitely divisible. Now think about all positive real numbers. For any positive real number I can always find another positive real number that is less than the first one. So for any point in time B after a given point A, there is always another point in time that is before B and after A during which an event could have taken place that caused an event at B. So we can have an infinite regress of events causing and event at B without ever going back before point A. So if the universe has no time at or before A then its time is finite (not eternal) that direction but still has an infinite regress of causation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What? Why should an uncaused event have no beginning? We know for a fact that in 'empty' space, particles of matter are popping in and out of existence all the time with no known cause. Lets suppose that there is no cause. Why would that instantly make them all eternal?

[b]2.would imply an infinite number of caused events stretching back in time withou ...[text shortened]... s time is finite (not eternal) that direction but still has an infinite regress of causation.

What? Why should an uncaused event have no beginning? -Whitey

There's no logical reason that says that something uncaused should have no beginning but then again why would an uncaused something need to have a beginning? If something has the ability to exist without causation or free of causation then why would it have any need of a beginning? Beginnings and events etc are suggestive of causality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What? Why should an uncaused event have no beginning? We know for a fact that in 'empty' space, particles of matter are popping in and out of existence all the time with no known cause. Lets suppose that there is no cause. Why would that instantly make them all eternal?

[b]2.would imply an infinite number of caused events stretching back in time withou ...[text shortened]... s time is finite (not eternal) that direction but still has an infinite regress of causation.

The problem with your Point A and point B argument (although it is very neat I admit and quite an interesting idea) is that would not point A then become a 'first event' . One might ask how did point A get there? What is point A? Is it an event? By definition it would have to preceed all other events. This could contradict your statment below

"2. Every event has a prior event ie there was no 'first event'."

Originally posted by knightmeister
There's no logical reason that says that something uncaused should have no beginning but then again why would an uncaused something need to have a beginning? If something has the ability to exist without causation or free of causation then why would it have any need of a beginning? Beginnings and events etc are suggestive of causality.

Sounds like you are going back to your favorite fallacy from the something from nothing threads. Just because A doesn't need to have B it doesn't logically imply that A doesn't have B.

Also, as I have said, objects are already free of causation. 'cause' only applies to an event not to an object. You are trying hard, and wrongly so, to make it apply to an object.

As has already been discussed many many times, there is no reason to believe that all beginnings or events are caused, or even that the majority are, so 'suggestive of causality' just doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The problem with your Point A and point B argument (although it is very neat I admit and quite an interesting idea) is that would not point A then become a 'first event' . One might ask how did point A get there? What is point A? Is it an event? By definition it would have to preceed all other events. This could contradict your statment below

"2. Every event has a prior event ie there was no 'first event'."

Point A might not exist, ie not be part of the universe. For example if time is the set of all positive real numbers then for every positive real number there is another positive real number less than it yet still greater than zero.
Zero itself is not in the set of positive real numbers.