kurious_kathy explain this.

[Bri]

Or Lot is a creep, but not enough of a creep to warrant killing him, showing that God didn't kill the Sodomites just because they were creeps, but because they were utterly depraved.

-Bri

 

[Pauliesonne]

duh dee dum duh dee dum duh dee dum duh dee dum duh dee dum............

 

[Taffer]

Randomness wouldn't account for free will, but would mean that given the exact same conditions, one might behave differently every time. Quantum theory essentially allows for uncaused events. Free will, if it exists, would be something other than randomness, but would still be uncaused (or perhaps caused by something that isn't material).

One might, but then the conditions would not be the same, would they? Even with true random elements of quantum mechanics, the same quantum states would have to be present for the conditions to be the same. Discounting uncaused quantum randomness, the universe is determanistic. Determanism cannot allow for free will. Quantum theory allows for true randomness, which is, as you say, uncaused events. You are correct in thinking that this does not account for free will, nor does it even allow for it.

There have been previous threads concerning free will on this forum, and as kmortis pointed out, they are seldom pleasant or simple (and in this case possibly off-topic).

-Bri

Perhaps. I've always enjoyed the discussions, but you are correct, this is off topic.

 

[Taffer]

We asked a hundred people and our survey said...

Here's the proof.

This is not true quantum randomness. It still uses mathematical formulae to simulate chaos. True quantum randomness could not code for any information. It is random.

 

[David Swidler]

Or Lot is a creep, but not enough of a creep to warrant killing him, showing that God didn't kill the Sodomites just because they were creeps, but because they were utterly depraved.

-Bri

The Bible sets up the story as a study in contrasts - Abraham's role as host vs. Lot's. Lot apparently retained some of Abraham's influence in that regard, even through living in Sodom for a long time (twenty-plus years, IIRC). Apparently Lot is worth saving because of his connection to Abraham (Abraham himself went to war for the same purpose a few years before), but not because Lot himself deserves it.

 

[Bri]

One might, but then the conditions would not be the same, would they?

I'm not a quantum physicist, but my understanding is that yes, scientifically speaking, the conditions could be exactly the same and a different outcome might occur.

Even with true random elements of quantum mechanics, the same quantum states would have to be present for the conditions to be the same. Discounting uncaused quantum randomness, the universe is determanistic.

I wasn't discounting uncaused quantum randomness in my statement. In fact, I was referring to it specifically. Yes, the same quantum states would result in the same outcome, but the conditions of which I'm speaking are the conditions before the quantum states occur, which could be exactly the same and still result in different quantum states.

Determanism cannot allow for free will. Quantum theory allows for true randomness, which is, as you say, uncaused events. You are correct in thinking that this does not account for free will, nor does it even allow for it.

Some compatibilists (such as Daniel Dennett) would disagree that determinism cannot allow for free will, but that's another discussion. It is also true that neither quantum theory nor strict determinism allows for libertarian free will, but then they also don't allow for each other.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The Bible sets up the story as a study in contrasts - Abraham's role as host vs. Lot's. Lot apparently retained some of Abraham's influence in that regard, even through living in Sodom for a long time (twenty-plus years, IIRC). Apparently Lot is worth saving because of his connection to Abraham (Abraham himself went to war for the same purpose a few years before), but not because Lot himself deserves it.

The commentary in the Chumash I have suggests that the angels tested Lot to see if he was worthy of being saved. Lot offered to have them as guests when the other residents of Sodom were known to be hostile to outsiders. According to the commentary, Lot is risking his life by offering his hospitality (a fact which is obvious from the text). The angels even refuse Lot at first, giving Lot an opportunity to back out. Because Lot shows hospitality to strangers he is deemed worthy to be saved despite his other serious shortcomings.

-Bri

 

[Taffer]

I'm not a quantum physicist, but my understanding is that yes, scientifically speaking, the conditions could be exactly the same and a different outcome might occur.

Correct.

I wasn't discounting uncaused quantum randomness in my statement. In fact, I was referring to it specifically. Yes, the same quantum states would result in the same outcome, but the conditions of which I'm speaking are the conditions before the quantum states occur, which could be exactly the same and still result in different quantum states.

Of course. But this is unrelated to free will. Also, note that I specificially said I wasn't dealing with quantum randomness, as it cannot pertain to free will in any sense.

Some compatibilists (such as Daniel Dennett) would disagree that determinism cannot allow for free will, but that's another discussion. It is also true that neither quantum theory nor strict determinism allows for libertarian free will, but then they also don't allow for each other.

-Bri

True. I prefer the form of determinism which is "the universe is deterministic...except those pesky quantum thingies, darn them!"

 

[Bri]

Of course. But this is unrelated to free will. Also, note that I specificially said I wasn't dealing with quantum randomness, as it cannot pertain to free will in any sense.

True, although some philosophers have used quantum theory to defend libertarian free will. Wikipedia mentions it here. A relevant quote:

The leading contemporary philosopher who has capitalized on the success of quantum mechanics and chaos theory in order to defend incompatibilist freedom is Robert Kane, in The Significance of Free Will and several other writings.

-Bri

 

[SirPhilip]

Pure Determinism As Opposed To...

My initial response to this is simply that randomness isn't will. However, I feel I need to elaborate in a more cautious manner.

This is one of those topics that require a great deal of thought and assumption to get a foothold on, so no worries.

Before I start, I must say (perhaps needlessly) that true quantum randomness in a system can, in my humble opinion, be discounted as adding anything to the matter of freewill. Something which is truely random can hold no information and can thus make no decision. I will continue with the given that we are ignoring truely random elements such as certain quantum phenomenon.

What I was mostly getting at is nonlinearity would give the impression of free will or uncertainty. As an example, the relationship of space and matter are opposite, but equally real, qualities. Qualities that define decision making, insight, and sentience are of course, determined by brain structure and reducible neurochemical factors, but those qualities alone (linear not in respect to nonlinear) couldn't allow someone to make a distinction between linear and nonlinear. It also opens up a paradox. Imagine someone avoiding ceasing daily action after realizing his life is deterministic, this action is determined by realizing his daily actions are deterministic, but he's also aware of this and, as we all can, make a decision to be controlled by things or do nothing as a result of realizing this. Hence my idea of a degree of free will. This of course implies that more evolved and intelligent life have something more of that lesser living things don't that somehow bizarrely correlates to matter and space interaction.

In the light of this, I not think that, despite our limited knowledge of such matters, there will be found brain functions that cannot be predicted with accuracy. (Once again I need to point out that this does not include such things as radiation events, and the like). Thus, in some distant future, it is easily possible that humans understand perfectly all the factors that effect our choices. Therefore our choices become deterministic. Any deterministic process cannot allow for 'true' free will (although the illusion certainly exists).

Fundamentally all action, including thought, is deterministic (but purely?) in that sense, so action and behavior wasn't a good talking point I guess.

In my opinion, the only way to have proper free will is to have some immaterial nature to cognitive functions, one that is not bound to physical laws and is thus not determanistic in nature. If this were the case, then I concede that free will could very well exist. However, I do not consider this to be the case.

Well, ironically, that's what I had on my mind (no pun intended). Some type of special action between space and matter to explain a degree of indeterminancy in living things, but that is a negative and no point in debating. Interesting post and food for thought though.

 

[New Ager]

(Tobias)

The hare does not eat the cud, and it doesn't have hoofs. So, i guess either the bible is wrong, or god isn't perfect.

(New Ager)

Or maybe the hare changed his eating habits.

 

[Bri]

(Tobias)

The hare does not eat the cud, and it doesn't have hoofs. So, i guess either the bible is wrong, or god isn't perfect.

(New Ager)

Or maybe the hare changed his eating habits.

Or maybe they are both wrong. This passage was already been discussed on page 1 of this thread, and is far less problematic for believers than was characterized in Tobias' initial post.

-Bri

 

[SirPhilip]

...allow someone to make a distinction between linear and nonlinear. It also opens up a paradox. Imagine someone avoiding ceasing daily action after realizing ....

Intended statement:

...allow someone to make a distinction between linear and nonlinear. It also opens up a paradox. Imagine someone ceasing daily action after realizing ....

 

[SirPhilip]

Of course. But this is unrelated to free will. Also, note that I specificially said I wasn't dealing with quantum randomness, as it cannot pertain to free will in any sense.

Bear in mind that determinism/indeterminism in nature is directly related to the issue of indeterminancy in living things. Ultimately, living things and their enviornment are inseperable, and in that sense, matter, space and time are reflected in the evolution of behavior and sentience. What is fascinating is, as life evolves - at least in the case of homo sapiens, the farther, yet closer that relationship becomes. Note that I don't use intelligence, as intelligence alone can't make moral judgements.

 

[Taffer]

Thanks for the reply, SirPhilip. There are only a few things I'd like to comment on:

...and, as we all can, make a decision to be controlled by things or do nothing as a result of realizing this.

But his acting, or feeling like he is making a decision on his own, could also be part of the illusion. To me, this is not a paradox. Perhaps a 'feedback loop' in the brain, if one was to consider the brain a computer, but not something as illogical as a paradox. I believe it is only in assuming we have any free will at all that this becomes a problem. The problem then becomes what does one consider as part of the functioning whole of one's consciousness. For example, if you considered any indetermanticy at all to be an example of free will, then I could not argue the point (c.v. true quantum randomness). I do not, as I've already pointed out that I feel randomness cannot account for any form of will, let alone 'free'. This is a personal matter, though.

Well, ironically, that's what I had on my mind (no pun intended). Some type of special action between space and matter to explain a degree of indeterminancy in living things, but that is a negative and no point in debating.

I have to admit I am a little confused by your use of "space and matter". Perhaps you could clarify for me?

Interesting post and food for thought though.

Thank you.

 

[Taffer]

Bear in mind that determinism/indeterminism in nature is directly related to the issue of indeterminancy in living things. Ultimately, living things and their enviornment are inseperable, and in that sense, matter, space and time are reflected in the evolution of behavior and sentience. What is fascinating is, as life evolves - at least in the case of homo sapiens, the farther, yet closer that relationship becomes. Note that I don't use intelligence, as intelligence alone can't make moral judgements.

I'm afraid you've lost me here, mate.

 

[SirPhilip]

I'm afraid you've lost me here, mate.

The "farther, yet closer" statement probably was ambiguous. To clarify, and this is just my opinion, it is not so much random chance as it is self-organizing balance. Any living thing evolving to intelligence would have to also evolve a form of moral sanity to compensate for it. Ultimately, social rules wouldn't do it, as society is just the sum of it's parts - individual people. You could have a Brave New World or genetically engineered affair, but that would simply become onerous. The problem is, although remarkably, homo sapiens can understand the enviornment around them to an extraordinary degree - there is no objective validation of moral judgement balancing this out. Nothing in the enviornment affirms anything but indifference. As to space and matter, I'm just going out on a limb with the idea. In other words, what the brain can analyze and imagine to derive a true or false result are two sides of the same coin. If you can imagine riding a bicycle down the street approaching the speed of light without any of the relativistic effects, is it so far fetched to think conditions like that don't exist in universes with other absurd laws, and take it a step further to include the capacity to apprehend this is little more than a reflection of nature as it really is, rather than human thought? What is a human anyway but a reflection of it's enviornment.