Free Will, especially as it applies to writing

MisterV

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
Figured I'd post this here, since this seems to be the general thread-dump area. It might work better in the philosophy forum a few below this one, so if you would like to send the thread down there to die, feel free.

I've been thinking about the concept of theory of free will, especially as it applies to the plot and theory of writing. In everyday life, I consider myself somewhat liberal. I will sometimes support rules and laws that reduce freedom in favor of protection, such as environmental regulations and things like political favor curtailing. The argument made against things like this is that is reduces personal freedom. My counter argument is usually something like, "Why is my right to clean water less important than your company's right to profits?"

Anyways, carrying it further, we get to overvbearing governments that take away your rights. This is usually deemed as bad, on the grounds of freedom. But thinking about it from a philosophical perspective, we have a situation where sometimes personal freedom is increased due to a more stable society.

And yet, the book I'm writing right now has ultimately become a story about a warlord trying to take control of the world's magic system. If he does this, he can rewrite the genes of every person to turn them into an ideal being. Death would be eradicated, there would be no war, strife, killing, or suffering. All it takes to reach this utopia is to rewrite every single living person in the world to become an ideal person, in the warlord's image. He would be God. This is similar, interestingly, to the Bible's story, more or less, depending on which way you look at it. Some say the devil took off with a bunch of angels because he favored protection and non-suffering while God supported freedom of choice. I find it interesting that my story may wind up being about someone exerting total dominion and removing free will, when that was not my intention at all. My intention was to do a dictator that wanted to control the world to make it perfect, but that line of thought seemed to quickly turn into the paradigm of free will vs force.

And on the nature of free will itself, is it actually even what we think it is? To take an egregious example, I do not have the free will to jump a mile high. I have to use a helicopter to accomplish it, which requires money, which I may or may not have. Therefore, my ability to "jump" a mile high is dependent on my ability to finance a helicopter trip. In other words, excepting of government law, I have free will within the bounds of physical law. So do we trick ourselves into thinking free will even exists?

So, how free am I, how free are you, how much does government influence free will, how much does it influence us, how important is it, does it exist, why does it or does it not, etc.

Here's something interetsing:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-free-will-an-illusion/

And a behemoth of an article that I'm currently trying to wade through:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/
 

MysterySpot

Registered
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
43
Reaction score
3
Location
Israel <3
That's a really interesting concept. In my opinion, it depends on how you define free will. If you define free will as the completely free choice to decide between different realistic options, then you do have free will.

Then again, thinking free will itself is free isn't realistic, I think. After all, we all have things we have to consider when making a decision. For example, I can't just up and go leave in a different country if I don't have the means for that. So no one of us, is truly free to do whatever they want, because there are other people around us who have free will as well, and our "free wills" cancel each other out.

Does it make sense? I hope I'm not too confusing LOL
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,171
Reaction score
15,732
Location
Australia.
And on the nature of free will itself, is it actually even what we think it is? To take an egregious example, I do not have the free will to jump a mile high. I have to use a helicopter to accomplish it, which requires money, which I may or may not have. Therefore, my ability to "jump" a mile high is dependent on my ability to finance a helicopter trip.

But free will is not the same thing as ability, is it? I've always understood it as more of an argument against predestination.
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
I agree with Mystery, that you have to define what you mean by free will before you can have a discussion that makes sense. Unless you're having a discussion about what the definition of free will is, in which case give me a moment to take some Advil :D.

I don't think free will is curtailed by not being able to jump a mile. Free will is about wanting to or not wanting to, irrespective of ability to. If you are put in prison, your free will hasn't been impacted, just your ability to act on it. Cons, given an opportunity, will still shiv someone.

The thing about the wizard brings up a more abstract ethical conundrum--is it wrong to do something good for someone against their will, or without their permission? You haven't been very specific about exactly what this genetic cleanup entails, but if it's just getting rid of Parkinson's, Leukemia, and other genetic syndromes and tendencies, then it'd be pretty hard to make the case that he's doing a Bad Thing (tm). However, if the tinkering involves turning everyone into placid, obedient drones, then you've just screwed with their free will. And yeah, evil.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
I used to wonder about such things, but I noticed that in science and logic everything is ruled by an endless chain of cause and effect. While we may think we have free-will it is simply that the web of cause and effect is so mashed together that we just aren't noticing the different events. I believe that is what the article says (I read it when it came out, and it agreed with my position), but I didn't read the other article. I tried to see if Many Worlds changed things, and it does but not completely.

With Many Worlds, there can be free will within a given world, because one option is that another space-time will burst into existence, but when one takes all of the worlds together the situation is the same as in a single space-time and everything is determined. Adding parallel universes adds a degree of freedom, but that freedom is within limits. Most people don't consider free will in their thinking, so it is a waste of words to write a huge amount about it. If you were to end free will or to allow free will, then it might be different,but those create other problems. A number of writers of time-travel have handled the matter of the determined universe very nicely, but they usually don't attack directly.
 

Curlz

cutsie-pie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
382
Location
here
I've been thinking about the concept of theory of free will, especially as it applies to the plot and theory of writing.

The examples you mentioned are not about "free will" but about "ability" to do things, "will to comply" with the law, "freedom" to do things, achieving "desired results" etc. These are different things. If we apply "free will" to plotting and writing, that won't be a discussion about "my plot did not come out the way I wanted it". It will be a discussion about "did you decide to write this post and start this discussion because a fly landed on your nose when you were 3 year old, despite that you thought you started this discussion because a question about free will appeared in your head 5 minutes ago" ;) The physical world or the laws of the government don't reflect on your "free will", only on your "freedoms" and "abilities". "Decisions" are not the same as the philosophical concept of "free will". The "free will" is a question of whether you made a decision at all. And in the case of plotting, yes, you did made those decisions which lead to that plot being as it is. The fact that you didn't realise where the plot will end up, does not mean that you did not have free will to change the plot and make it go elsewhere. Bad decisions and unexpected results do not mean lack of free will. :tongue
 

MisterV

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
So the way I often hear free will is as it being a greatest individual freedom. But as someone pointed out, it's really not possible to have Titian individual freedom. For instance, I have the freedom to go buy something. Do I have enough money? If not, then do I have free will? But that's not a very practical example, because not very many people can just go buy something. And that may or may not actually impact their life anyways.

But if it is free will of thought, that is probably something we all have, to an extent. Again, there may be limitations even to that. I could decide right now to change my beliefs and believe that the earth is flat. I'd have to convince myself, but if I want to, I can honestly believe the earth is flat. But what if I am psychologically and mentally challenged, and am actually incapable of making proper decisions and thought processes. Is my individual free will lessened because of this? I guess one could say it might.

I guess what I am getting at is the essence of free will, what it is, and why it's wrong when it's violated. It's pretty easy to say, no don't violate my free will. Because we don't like it when people tell us what to do, and we don't like it when people tell us how to think. For the most part, however, it's not possible to tell people how to think except through very powerful social programming, and even that requires incredible effort and skill and still doesn't work that well.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,284
free will

n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

It is primarily the second part of the definition that drives the philosophical concept; that is the question of the divine influence and destiny, or the concept of individual's choosing their actions, and thereby driving their own destiny.
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
So the way I often hear free will is as it being a greatest individual freedom. But as someone pointed out, it's really not possible to have Titian individual freedom. For instance, I have the freedom to go buy something. Do I have enough money? If not, then do I have free will? But that's not a very practical example, because not very many people can just go buy something. And that may or may not actually impact their life anyways.

But if it is free will of thought, that is probably something we all have, to an extent. Again, there may be limitations even to that. I could decide right now to change my beliefs and believe that the earth is flat. I'd have to convince myself, but if I want to, I can honestly believe the earth is flat. But what if I am psychologically and mentally challenged, and am actually incapable of making proper decisions and thought processes. Is my individual free will lessened because of this? I guess one could say it might.

I guess what I am getting at is the essence of free will, what it is, and why it's wrong when it's violated. It's pretty easy to say, no don't violate my free will. Because we don't like it when people tell us what to do, and we don't like it when people tell us how to think. For the most part, however, it's not possible to tell people how to think except through very powerful social programming, and even that requires incredible effort and skill and still doesn't work that well.

If you had free will to be protected, then violating it might be wrong, but you only have the illusion of free will, because your actions are determined by what came before. Whether you buy a given thing has little to do with go on in your head and more to do with what you have been exposed to as cultural artifacts and advertising.

Similarly, I had no choice as to what I wrote here, because it was determined by my background.
 

Jason

Ideas bounce around in my head
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
6,011
Reaction score
1,036
Location
Nashville, TN
Growing up in a religious family, at a young age, I asked the pastor that if God is all-seeing and all-knowing, and all-powerful, wouldn't he have known that Adam and Even would bite into the Apple, thus condemning humanity to be sinners for the rest of time?

If that's the case, and God is also all-powerful, why didn't he/she/it build Adam and Eve so they would resist the temptation?

The pastor's answer: Because God designed humans with this concept of free will, or freedom of choice. God gave us the option to choose for ourselves way back then.

As I age, that has caused me to think that if God does exist, wow, that means he (or she or it...whatever) knew that all this stuff since then would happen. I can't help but shake my head at that concept.

It's a tough moral compass to resolve - do I agree with this religious principle, or do I align more with the whole scientific principle of cause and effect? Having worked in IT for the better part of 20 years now, there's a fundamental respect for logic and the scientific method, but does that mean there's no moral compass? What defined that moral compass?

Was there a cosmic cause to my existence? What caused it? Atoms flying together and apart, from some onmiscient God or is there some measure of fate here?

I don't have the answers, and am not sure anyone really can, since we all probably suffer from some bias somewhere in our own history either toward one end or the other. My only contribution here would be to suggest that when writing, there are usually themes of two different concepts that anything is grounded in:

1. Good versus evil which defines a moral element
2. Or free will versus predetermined existence

Some works out there use one, some use the other. Others still use both. What song sings in your heart between these two themes? I don't want to suggest that these are the only two themes, because obviously there are others out there, but these do seem to appear quite frequently in literature. But as a writer, it seems we are all guided by some tune inside of us that will direct how we write.

The fun part is asking whether that "tune" is predetermined, or is it something in the human consciousness that defies any sort of logical method of thinking?

Fun stuff! :)
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I used to wonder about such things, but I noticed that in science and logic everything is ruled by an endless chain of cause and effect. While we may think we have free-will it is simply that the web of cause and effect is so mashed together that we just aren't noticing the different events. I believe that is what the article says (I read it when it came out, and it agreed with my position), but I didn't read the other article. I tried to see if Many Worlds changed things, and it does but not completely.

With Many Worlds, there can be free will within a given world, because one option is that another space-time will burst into existence, but when one takes all of the worlds together the situation is the same as in a single space-time and everything is determined. Adding parallel universes adds a degree of freedom, but that freedom is within limits. Most people don't consider free will in their thinking, so it is a waste of words to write a huge amount about it. If you were to end free will or to allow free will, then it might be different,but those create other problems. A number of writers of time-travel have handled the matter of the determined universe very nicely, but they usually don't attack directly.

free will



It is primarily the second part of the definition that drives the philosophical concept; that is the question of the divine influence and destiny, or the concept of individual's choosing their actions, and thereby driving their own destiny.

The dichotomy of Free Will and Determinism falls apart when confronted with the nature of the physical universe. Our universe is probabilistic. In such a universe neither concept in the dichotomy makes any sense.

One of the difficulties people have is that they create models for reality that create ideas that are contingent on the truth of those models. Free Will and Determinism as concepts arose from the idea of a created universe. The models of a created universe tend to focus on the actions of individual sapient beings. As a result the questions in such a universe tend to be variants of "Who gets to do what, when?"

In a probabilistic universe the questions tend toward "What events are likely and how likely are they?"

In such a universe, sapience seems to be a rarity and is a complex contingent phenomenon that is yet only slightly understood. As a result, the questions that seem natural in a created universe become muddy at best.

One possible answer when confronted with questions that misapply ways of thinking is the classic Zen response, mu.
 

MisterV

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
If you had free will to be protected, then violating it might be wrong, but you only have the illusion of free will, because your actions are determined by what came before. Whether you buy a given thing has little to do with go on in your head and more to do with what you have been exposed to as cultural artifacts and advertising.

Similarly, I had no choice as to what I wrote here, because it was determined by my background.

Maybe. But you could have written something different. For instance, I can write what I'm writing now, or I can backspace it and replace it with a blithering retort, or an off the wall pun, or something else entirely. I'm free to do that, within the restraints of forum rules, but I am not free from the consequences of my actions. Does that make me less free?

But your mention of upbringing is interesting. My upbringing is different than yours which is different from Susie Q over there. And that colors our perceptions of the world, and since the world is interpreted through our minds, each of us receives a slightly different version of reality. In short, even though there is but unreality experienced, there exist an infinite number. Just within this one.

*faints from over exertion of pontification*

So, has our upbringing colored our current reality so much that our free will is effected? People who are abused, for instance, have most of their lives messed up. They simply often can't handle reality. Their free will was tampered with.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,171
Reaction score
15,732
Location
Australia.
Their free will was tampered with.
I'm still not convinced that what you're discussing is free will. Here, it seems you're talking more about opportunities, or abilities, or potential - which is not the same thing.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
Maybe. But you could have written something different. For instance, I can write what I'm writing now, or I can backspace it and replace it with a blithering retort, or an off the wall pun, or something else entirely. I'm free to do that, within the restraints of forum rules, but I am not free from the consequences of my actions. Does that make me less free?

You can only write what you know how to write and have to write to fill the current requirements.

But your mention of upbringing is interesting. My upbringing is different than yours which is different from Susie Q over there. And that colors our perceptions of the world, and since the world is interpreted through our minds, each of us receives a slightly different version of reality. In short, even though there is but unreality experienced, there exist an infinite number. Just within this one.

I find it interesting that someone might assert that I mentioned "upbringing", because I did not. I did mention "background", but that is quite different from "upbringing". By background I meant the mechanistic and philosophical basis from which my actions have been determined. That is the events that have caused what I have done and will do.

So, has our upbringing colored our current reality so much that our free will is effected? People who are abused, for instance, have most of their lives messed up. They simply often can't handle reality. Their free will was tampered with.

I would imagine that your upbringing was a matter of the events that happened to your parents and to others.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still not convinced that what you're discussing is free will. Here, it seems you're talking more about opportunities, or abilities, or potential - which is not the same thing.

I think you are right about that.
 
Last edited:

MisterV

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
Growing up in a religious family, at a young age, I asked the pastor that if God is all-seeing and all-knowing, and all-powerful, wouldn't he have known that Adam and Even would bite into the Apple, thus condemning humanity to be sinners for the rest of time?

If that's the case, and God is also all-powerful, why didn't he/she/it build Adam and Eve so they would resist the temptation?

The pastor's answer: Because God designed humans with this concept of free will, or freedom of choice. God gave us the option to choose for ourselves way back then.

As I age, that has caused me to think that if God does exist, wow, that means he (or she or it...whatever) knew that all this stuff since then would happen. I can't help but shake my head at that concept.

It's a tough moral compass to resolve - do I agree with this religious principle, or do I align more with the whole scientific principle of cause and effect? Having worked in IT for the better part of 20 years now, there's a fundamental respect for logic and the scientific method, but does that mean there's no moral compass? What defined that moral compass?

Was there a cosmic cause to my existence? What caused it? Atoms flying together and apart, from some onmiscient God or is there some measure of fate here?

I don't have the answers, and am not sure anyone really can, since we all probably suffer from some bias somewhere in our own history either toward one end or the other. My only contribution here would be to suggest that when writing, there are usually themes of two different concepts that anything is grounded in:

1. Good versus evil which defines a moral element
2. Or free will versus predetermined existence

Some works out there use one, some use the other. Others still use both. What song sings in your heart between these two themes? I don't want to suggest that these are the only two themes, because obviously there are others out there, but these do seem to appear quite frequently in literature. But as a writer, it seems we are all guided by some tune inside of us that will direct how we write.

The fun part is asking whether that "tune" is predetermined, or is it something in the human consciousness that defies any sort of logical method of thinking?

Fun stuff! :)

Yes, I've heard some people say that God evidently knew it would happen - in fact, had planned for the outcome. I'm not sure what I think about that. Honestly, it can seem kind of insulting sometimes. Another thing to think about, though, is the concept that perfection couldn't be created. The creation, humans, us, had to experience life and gain knowledge that way, that there is no substitute for actually going through something. Maybe? If we were holograms, could be plug ourselves into the mainframe and download each other's experiences? Or is that how the Borg from Star Trek evolved?:ROFL:

On the more empirical, logical spectrum is the principle of probability. That a supercomputer, sufficiently knowing and powerful, could actually predict the outcomes of things before they happen. This is what meteorological supercomputing accomplished with varying degrees of success, and has also been experimented with on the social level. So if you can predict the interaction of every piece of matter at the quantum level, you could possibly predict the whole future. Maybe. And such a feat would require, essentially, magic. :)

On the note of my personal writing, I didn't want to write the traditional Dark One (devil) tries to take over the world scenario. I do, however, have a history where, a long time ago, the magic was created and one of the Inventors wanted total dominion for all of them. They fought over it and locked him up and set rules and boundaries for the magic system. But the main story revolves around a different character, the warlord, colluding with machinery and magic to try and turn everyone into a perfect little mindless drone, and possibly getting help from the locked-up Inventor. If I do that, I have a pretty traditional God-devil-angels and the harmony of heave blah blah blah going on, so my main intention is to focus on the actions of the one war lord and examine the motivations and philosophy behind wanting to rewrite the world. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are my main role models for that. Role models! :ROFL:

ETA:

I'm still not convinced that what you're discussing is free will. Here, it seems you're talking more about opportunities, or abilities, or potential - which is not the same thing.

Well, I'm not particularly interested in defining exactly what I mean, because then I run the risk of pigeon holing my and others' thought process. Especially when I'm not 100% on what I actually mean - free will is a rather amorphous term, wouldn't you say? But you are right that I was probably talking more about what your abilities and potential will allow. Opportunities might fall somewhere in there - to an extent, we have the free will to create our own opportunities, no? No one is making me write, for example. It's my free will to put my thoughts onto paper (keyboard).

What kind of dog is that by the way?

You can only write what you know how to write and have to write to fill the current requirements.



I find it interesting that someone might assert that I mentioned "upbringing", because I did not. I did mention "background", but that is quite different from "upbringing". By background I meant the mechanistic and philosophical basis from which my actions have been determined. That is the events that have caused what I have done and will do.



I would imagine that your upbringing was a matter of the events that happened to your parents and to others.

- - - Updated - - -



Ithinkyouarerightaboutthat.

I may of read into that the wrong way, then. By "background" we're still talking about philosophy, however, because how you're raised in the first few years, the formative years, and then what information you feed yourself from that point all effects the basis upon which you base your morality, decisions, and philosophy. Yet it's also subject to change within our personal grasp.
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
The dichotomy of Free Will and Determinism falls apart when confronted with the nature of the physical universe. Our universe is probabilistic. In such a universe neither concept in the dichotomy makes any sense.

One of the difficulties people have is that they create models for reality that create ideas that are contingent on the truth of those models. Free Will and Determinism as concepts arose from the idea of a created universe. The models of a created universe tend to focus on the actions of individual sapient beings. As a result the questions in such a universe tend to be variants of "Who gets to do what, when?"

In a probabilistic universe the questions tend toward "What events are likely and how likely are they?"

In such a universe, sapience seems to be a rarity and is a complex contingent phenomenon that is yet only slightly understood. As a result, the questions that seem natural in a created universe become muddy at best.

One possible answer when confronted with questions that misapply ways of thinking is the classic Zen response, mu.

I am not aware of any natural phenomena that are not subject to cause and effect. Am I missing some phenomena, or is that true, or do you know?
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Maybe. But you could have written something different. For instance, I can write what I'm writing now, or I can backspace it and replace it with a blithering retort, or an off the wall pun, or something else entirely. I'm free to do that, within the restraints of forum rules, but I am not free from the consequences of my actions. Does that make me less free?

But your mention of upbringing is interesting. My upbringing is different than yours which is different from Susie Q over there. And that colors our perceptions of the world, and since the world is interpreted through our minds, each of us receives a slightly different version of reality. In short, even though there is but unreality experienced, there exist an infinite number. Just within this one.

*faints from over exertion of pontification*

So, has our upbringing colored our current reality so much that our free will is effected? People who are abused, for instance, have most of their lives messed up. They simply often can't handle reality. Their free will was tampered with.

You're using some definitions of free will that don't jibe with mine, and seem to be shifting. Having the free will to buy something and having the money to are fundamentally different things.

You have the free will to choose to say something that'll get you banned, and the freedom to get banned. Being banned has nothing to do with your free will.

That sounds like the dips who complain they don't have freedom of speech because a store throws them out, or they get tossed off a plane, or fired, for something.

Also, I don't get what the articles you linked have to do with what you're discussing here.
 

MisterV

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
You're using some definitions of free will that don't jibe with mine, and seem to be shifting.

Due to my free will, I don't particularly care about that. Instead of discussing what my definitions are or are not, try to present your own.

Having the free will to buy something and having the money to are fundamentally different things.

You have the free will to choose to say something that'll get you banned, and the freedom to get banned. Being banned has nothing to do with your free will.

That sounds like the dips who complain they don't have freedom of speech because a store throws them out, or they get tossed off a plane, or fired, for something.

Also, I don't get what the articles you linked have to do with what you're discussing here.

1. Maybe, maybe not. Why do you say that? Am I not excising free will to purchase something? Have I not made a decision? Have I made an effort to obtain money to then obtain said product? If I have not made effort to obtain money I have not exercised free will to obtain said product. When I exercise my free will in this manner, I assume a capitalistic society with adequate freedom to perform these actions, such as America.

2. I would say I agree with that. Being banned is outside my control. I'm free to yell "FIRE" on an airplane and getting jetted out (haha) at 5000'. Or should we separate the concepts of free will and freedom of action? They seem quite interconnected, however, to me.

3. See above...

4. Maybe a lot, maybe nothing. Like I said before, I try not to pigeon hole philosophical discourse.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,171
Reaction score
15,732
Location
Australia.
Due to my free will, I don't particularly care about that. Instead of discussing what my definitions are or are not, try to present your own.
Welcome, the post-truth world.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I am not aware of any natural phenomena that are not subject to cause and effect. Am I missing some phenomena, or is that true, or do you know?


All phenomena are probabilistic. This is clear on the quantum level. Macroscopic phenomena are aggregations of probabilistic phenomena. Cause and effect is an inaccurate model that approximates the expectations of the probabilistic phenomena in aggregate.

Consider the classic example of objects in collision. If those objects are individual particles the scattering of the particles that results from the collision have a wider range of likely outcomes than if those objects are billiard balls. It's possible, but very unlikely that two billiard balls will simply pass through each other, or that one will jump over the other. On the other hand, for individual particles, these outcomes happen with fair regularity.

The problem with cause and effect and with free will and determinism is that they are generalizations into natural law of how some, emphasis some phenomena we experience appear to us. But this is based on the arrogant assumptions that our experiences can be easily generalized, and indeed that the universe has to work in a way convenient to our biases as a species that evolved in one narrow environment (a life bearing planet) and to our individual tastes in how we would like the universe to work.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
Yes, I've heard some people say that God evidently knew it would happen - in fact, had planned for the outcome. I'm not sure what I think about that. Honestly, it can seem kind of insulting sometimes. Another thing to think about, though, is the concept that perfection couldn't be created. The creation, humans, us, had to experience life and gain knowledge that way, that there is no substitute for actually going through something. Maybe? If we were holograms, could be plug ourselves into the mainframe and download each other's experiences? Or is that how the Borg from Star Trek evolved?:ROFL:

On the more empirical, logical spectrum is the principle of probability. That a supercomputer, sufficiently knowing and powerful, could actually predict the outcomes of things before they happen. This is what meteorological supercomputing accomplished with varying degrees of success, and has also been experimented with on the social level. So if you can predict the interaction of every piece of matter at the quantum level, you could possibly predict the whole future. Maybe. And such a feat would require, essentially, magic. :)

On the note of my personal writing, I didn't want to write the traditional Dark One (devil) tries to take over the world scenario. I do, however, have a history where, a long time ago, the magic was created and one of the Inventors wanted total dominion for all of them. They fought over it and locked him up and set rules and boundaries for the magic system. But the main story revolves around a different character, the warlord, colluding with machinery and magic to try and turn everyone into a perfect little mindless drone, and possibly getting help from the locked-up Inventor. If I do that, I have a pretty traditional God-devil-angels and the harmony of heave blah blah blah going on, so my main intention is to focus on the actions of the one war lord and examine the motivations and philosophy behind wanting to rewrite the world. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are my main role models for that. Role models! :ROFL:

ETA:



Well, I'm not particularly interested in defining exactly what I mean, because then I run the risk of pigeon holing my and others' thought process. Especially when I'm not 100% on what I actually mean - free will is a rather amorphous term, wouldn't you say? But you are right that I was probably talking more about what your abilities and potential will allow. Opportunities might fall somewhere in there - to an extent, we have the free will to create our own opportunities, no?

You might want to look into the terms "determinism" and "free will" to see what your take is on them. They are common terms in philosophy, so there is plenty available about them. I think that what you are referring to as "free-will is something different.


I may of read into that the wrong way, then. By "background" we're still talking about philosophy, however, because how you're raised in the first few years, the formative years, and then what information you feed yourself from that point all effects the basis upon which you base your morality, decisions, and philosophy. Yet it's also subject to change within our personal grasp.

By background I meant everything that went into to the present entity, including causes that happened hundreds or thousands or millions of years ago, all of the causes that produced this effect. And those causes preceded my upbringing.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
On the more empirical, logical spectrum is the principle of probability. That a supercomputer, sufficiently knowing and powerful, could actually predict the outcomes of things before they happen. This is what meteorological supercomputing accomplished with varying degrees of success, and has also been experimented with on the social level. So if you can predict the interaction of every piece of matter at the quantum level, you could possibly predict the whole future. Maybe. And such a feat would require, essentially, magic. :)

Meteorology is an excellent demonstration of why you can't get a computer this powerful. Weather is a chaotic phenomenon. No matter how accurate your data gathering, your predictions will cease to be reliable in a matter of days. No amount of computing power or data accuracy can beat the combination of uncertainty and chaos inherent in the universe.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
All phenomena are probabilistic. This is clear on the quantum level. Macroscopic phenomena are aggregations of probabilistic phenomena. Cause and effect is an inaccurate model that approximates the expectations of the probabilistic phenomena in aggregate.

Consider the classic example of objects in collision. If those objects are individual particles the scattering of the particles that results from the collision have a wider range of likely outcomes than if those objects are billiard balls. It's possible, but very unlikely that two billiard balls will simply pass through each other, or that one will jump over the other. On the other hand, for individual particles, these outcomes happen with fair regularity.

The problem with cause and effect and with free will and determinism is that they are generalizations into natural law of how some, emphasis some phenomena we experience appear to us. But this is based on the arrogant assumptions that our experiences can be easily generalized, and indeed that the universe has to work in a way convenient to our biases as a species that evolved in one narrow environment (a life bearing planet) and to our individual tastes in how we would like the universe to work.

Fine, you agree that the universe is determined; although you may prefer to call it something different.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Due to my free will, I don't particularly care about that. Instead of discussing what my definitions are or are not, try to present your own.

Uh... you know it's a writer's site here, right? Words mean things.

1. Maybe, maybe not. Why do you say that? Am I not excising free will to purchase something? Have I not made a decision? Have I made an effort to obtain money to then obtain said product? If I have not made effort to obtain money I have not exercised free will to obtain said product. When I exercise my free will in this manner, I assume a capitalistic society with adequate freedom to perform these actions, such as America.

What?

2. I would say I agree with that. Being banned is outside my control. I'm free to yell "FIRE" on an airplane and getting jetted out (haha) at 5000'. Or should we separate the concepts of free will and freedom of action? They seem quite interconnected, however, to me.

I didn't say being banned was outside your control. I have no idea what definitions of anything you're using, as they seem amorphous and shifting.

3. See above...

4. Maybe a lot, maybe nothing. Like I said before, I try not to pigeon hole philosophical discourse.

Welcome, the post-truth world.

Seriously.

*backing away*