Destiny and Free will

[Darat]

Um... no I'm not.

If there's a reason it was that number, then it's deterministic. If there isn't, then it's not deterministic. The effect had no cause in the second case. I'll admit that there's a difference between not knowing the cause and there being no cause, but an effect having no cause isn't allowed.

...snip..

I think you are, for an example of the decoupling look at radioactive decay and half-life of an element, that is very predictable i.e. we can determine how many atoms will be in a sample after say 2 periods of its half-life has elapsed, however we cannot predict which atoms will undergo radioactive decay. It is a deterministic system, but it is also unpredictable. (And way beyond my mathematical abilities: the mathematicians and the theoretical physicists state that there are not any local hidden variables that would allow any quantum theory to move from being probabilistic to being deterministic. All tied up in Bell's theorem.)

 

[Manopolus]

I think you are, for an example of the decoupling look at radioactive decay and half-life of an element, that is very predictable i.e. we can determine how many atoms will be in a sample after say 2 periods of its half-life has elapsed, however we cannot predict which atoms will undergo radioactive decay. It is a deterministic system, but it is also unpredictable. (And way beyond my mathematical abilities: the mathematicians and the theoretical physicists state that there are not any local hidden variables that would allow any quantum theory to move from being probabilistic to being deterministic. All tied up in Bell's theorem.)

Saying that you lack the capacity to determine a thing and saying it's uncaused are two different things. I didn't fail to address this prior. I suppose it could be individual atoms "choosing" to decay one by one until the urge (influence) no longer exists. Maybe some of them have more willpower than others. Sounds silly and anthropomorphized, but hey, you haven't proven otherwise.

That's just another example of systemic randomness--equates to humans not knowing the cause, rather than presuming the lack of one. Ontological randomness would propose that there is literally no cause, and that's not deterministic.

So I did address that in the prior post.

Sounds functionally like a building pressure being released intermittently, and despite not being a physicist, I'd have to guess that the math reflects that. The part that you haven't determined in the equation is the difference between urge and choice (force and selection). Metaphorically, you could tie that quite directly to ideas about cognitive-behavioral therapy. The "cognitive" part is the only branch of psychology that acknowledges free will. And it works. It's the only therapy we have that works well, other than feeding people drugs and performing surgeries.

 

[Manopolus]

Just to clarify subtext more clearly:

Even when it's the subject's "choice" to take drugs or undergo surgery, it's still just one part of the psyche performing violence against another part. Cognitive behavioral therapy does something else entirely. It's usually a de-escalation of conflicting motives.

 

[Olmstead]

Just to clarify subtext more clearly:

Even when it's the subject's "choice" to take drugs or undergo surgery, it's still just one part of the psyche performing violence against another part. Cognitive behavioral therapy does something else entirely. It's usually a de-escalation.

I don't see it. In all cases the brain is forced to work differently, drugs or not. And the brain chemistry will change as well, just in a more roundabout way.

 

[Manopolus]

I don't see it. In all cases the brain is forced to work differently, drugs or not. And the brain chemistry will change as well, just in a more roundabout way.

Forced? No. It's chosen in CBT. De-escalating the conflicting motives allows space for the realization that a choice exists. That's the whole theory. Both sides of the internal argument are allowed to continue existing. The conflict between them just no longer controls you.

Yeah, I know. It's confusing to people that haven't done it. You tend to assume that there's a "good side" and a "bad side." But both sides are misbehaving, and the dark side must be given its due... or at least allowed to present a reason for existing. The problem behaviors arise out of the conflict itself, not from a particular side of it. That's why emotional instability shows up.

 

[acbytesla]

I absolutely despise this question as it is totally unsolvable. On the one hand, I think like Christopher Hitchens. I believe I have free will. I don't have a choice. That said, all of our existence is possibly 100% determistic. That it is not that we actually have free will. We only have the illusion we do. Each of us react the way do because that is the way the neutrons, electrons inside of us always do. I am no more responsible for my thoughts and actions than the sun is responsible for its movements.

 

[Olmstead]

Forced? No. It's chosen in CBT. De-escalating the conflicting motives allows space for the realization that a choice exists. That's the whole theory. Both sides of the internal argument are allowed to continue existing. The conflict between them just no longer controls you.

Yeah, I know. It's confusing to people that haven't done it. You tend to assume that there's a "good side" and a "bad side." But both sides are misbehaving, and the dark side must be given its due... or at least allowed to present a reason for existing.

That's not my point. I'm saying that whatever state your mind is put into by the therapy is simply a manipulation by psychologists etc., and also by yourself, in a feedback loop that has been faciliated by the therapy (I'm using "manipulation" in the most neutral way possible, but perhaps there's a better word). Hence, I don't see it as a "choice", just another method to get a system moving in some desirable direction.

 

[Pixel42]

Saying that you lack the capacity to determine a thing and saying it's uncaused are two different things. I didn't fail to address this prior. I suppose it could be individual atoms "choosing" to decay one by one until the urge (influence) no longer exists. Maybe some of them have more willpower than others. Sounds silly and anthropomorphized, but hey, you haven't proven otherwise.

That's just another example of systemic randomness--equates to humans not knowing the cause, rather than presuming the lack of one. Ontological randomness would propose that there is literally no cause, and that's not deterministic.

So I did address that in the prior post.

Sounds functionally like a building pressure being released intermittently, and despite not being a physicist, I'd have to guess that the math reflects that. The part that you haven't determined in the equation is the difference between urge and choice (force and selection). Metaphorically, you could tie that quite directly to ideas about cognitive-behavioral therapy. The "cognitive" part is the only branch of psychology that acknowledges free will. And it works. It's the only therapy we have that works well, other than feeding people drugs and performing surgeries.

AIUI (I did it for my maths degree, but that was nearly 50 years ago) when physicists talk about wave/particle duality, the wave in question is a probability wave.

The way it was explained to me is that under classical physics radioactive decay is inexplicable, because the particle is always sitting inside the minimum distance from the centre of nucleus from which it could escape. The strong nuclear force should prevent it escaping. But the position of the particle is actually described by a probability wave: at any one instant there's say a 99.99% chance that it's within the distance where it can't escape, but a 0.01% that it's just beyond it. If it is beyond it, it escapes.

Because we know how many atoms are within the lump of radioactive material, we can predict how many of them will emit an alpha particle in the next hour, say. But we can't predict which particular atoms will do so because nothing happens to the ones that do emit one that doesn't happen to the ones that don't. So the emission of each individual alpha particle is unpredictable - an event without a cause - even though the number which will do so is predictable, and the reason why it does so is known.

 

[Manopolus]

That's not my point. I'm saying that whatever state your mind is put into by the therapy is simply a manipulation by psychologists etc., and also by yourself, in a feedback loop that has been faciliated by the therapy (I'm using "manipulation" in the most neutral way possible, but perhaps there's a better word). Hence, I don't see it as a "choice", just another method to get a system moving in some desirable direction.

Nope. Can't be applied externally. The therapist just points out the tools available. They don't do the work.

And, of course, the fact that the mind isn't unified is part of the point. You choose whether to do it. There are still parts that don't want to. Those will always be there. Conceptualizing it as experimental/experiential (rather than necessary) can sometimes quiet the objections.

I do realize that it can be countered with turtles all the way down, but choice is critical to the method. And the time to apply it is when you're about to do something insane, not when the therapist is right in front of you. The latter situation is just practice.

 

[Manopolus]

...and it doesn't even stop anywhere close to where I left it.

We often see two conflicting ideas on a one-dimensional slider, as if all possible positions are somehow positioned between those two extremes that are tugging against each other. Once you zoom out to even two dimensions, there are more points that aren't even on the slider than there are on it.

When you fixate on the conflict, you're missing other dimensions. That's also why the goalposts frequently shift. The contestants are adjusting to each other's direction of force and twisting and turning in a 3-dimensional space. But they only see the current axis of engagement.

These conflicts exist both externally and internally. My own version here is just a mental model... a way of looking at things.

 

[arthwollipot]

Saying that you lack the capacity to determine a thing and saying it's uncaused are two different things. I didn't fail to address this prior. I suppose it could be individual atoms "choosing" to decay one by one until the urge (influence) no longer exists. Maybe some of them have more willpower than others. Sounds silly and anthropomorphized, but hey, you haven't proven otherwise.

That's just another example of systemic randomness--equates to humans not knowing the cause, rather than presuming the lack of one. Ontological randomness would propose that there is literally no cause, and that's not deterministic.

You're describing the Hidden Variables theory, which lots of very smart people have ruled out.

 

[Manopolus]

You're describing the Hidden Variables theory, which lots of very smart people have ruled out.

Well, if it's ruled out, that points to indeterminism (randomness is a thing), not strict determinism. It shows an uncaused effect in the execution.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, if it's ruled out, that points to indeterminism (randomness is a thing), not strict determinism. It shows an uncaused effect in the execution.

Yes.

 

[acbytesla]

AIUI (I did it for my maths degree, but that was nearly 50 years ago) when physicists talk about wave/particle duality, the wave in question is a probability wave.

The way it was explained to me is that under classical physics radioactive decay is inexplicable, because the particle is always sitting inside the minimum distance from the centre of nucleus from which it could escape. The strong nuclear force should prevent it escaping. But the position of the particle is actually described by a probability wave: at any one instant there's say a 99.99% chance that it's within the distance where it can't escape, but a 0.01% that it's just beyond it. If it is beyond it, it escapes.

Because we know how many atoms are within the lump of radioactive material, we can predict how many of them will emit an alpha particle in the next hour, say. But we can't predict which particular atoms will do so because nothing happens to the ones that do emit one that doesn't happen to the ones that don't. So the emission of each individual alpha particle is unpredictable - an event without a cause - even though the number which will do so is predictable, and the reason why it does so is known.

This is mostly right. But not totally. All radioactive decay is not the same. Sometimes it gives off alpha radiation, Sometimes beta and sometimes gamma. For example, Carbon14 experiences beta decay becoming Nitrogen14.

Doesn't really affect your explanation though.

 

[Emre_1974tr]

God knows what will happen in the future and what a person deserves, even before creating them.

3:45 And the angels said: "O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary. Honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close."

29:3 Yea, indeed, We did test those who lived before them; and so, [too, shall be tested the people now living: and] most certainly will God mark out those who prove themselves true, and most certainly will He mark out those who are lying.

47:31 And We will test you for We know those who strive among you and those who are patient. And We will bring out your qualities.

 

[Belgian thought]

God knows what will happen in the future and what a person deserves, even before creating them.

Like a Sims player? Crap game, crap god.

 

[Olmstead]

God knows what will happen in the future and what a person deserves, even before creating them.

3:45 And the angels said: "O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary. Honorable in this world and in the Hereafter, and from among those who are made close."

29:3 Yea, indeed, We did test those who lived before them; and so, [too, shall be tested the people now living: and] most certainly will God mark out those who prove themselves true, and most certainly will He mark out those who are lying.

47:31 And We will test you for We know those who strive among you and those who are patient. And We will bring out your qualities.

And how does that make you feel?

 

[ahhell]

And how does that make you feel?

Doesn't matter how he feels about it, God has already decided to send him to hell. I have to wonder why someone who believes God has already decided everyone's fate would bother trying to convince anyone of anything, let alone that their version of God is correct. Actually, never mind, he really doesn't have a choice, does he?

 

[Olmstead]

Doesn't matter how he feels about it, God has already decided to send him to hell. I have to wonder why someone who believes God has already decided everyone's fate would bother trying to convince anyone of anything, let alone that their version of God is correct. Actually, never mind, he really doesn't have a choice, does he?

Nonetheless, as an atheist who's firmly convinced that there's no free will, I'd love to hear a theological perspective. I think it's a rare one amongst the religious, despite the paradoxes that free will creates for an omniscient being.

 

[ahhell]

Nonetheless, as an atheist who's firmly convinced that there's no free will, I'd love to hear a theological perspective. I think it's a rare one amongst the religious, despite the paradoxes that free will creates for an omniscient being.

A common criticism of Calvinists, they believe in believe in predestinations which most Christians find somewhat unchristian.