What evidence is there for free will?

[XJDenton]

Serious question. The libertarians on this forum work on the assumption that all other concerns in our life are secondary to personaly freedom, or at least it is one of the cornerstones of a decent society. However this hinges on the assumption that free will and freedom as an entity actually exists, and to be honest, I don't hold that assumption to be true, or at least it is an unverified assumption.

Humans are ultimately dominated by the laws of physics. The atoms that make up our bodies are subject to quantum laws, we age and decay according to the laws of thermodynamics. In no other physical system do we assume that the system itself can make a decision about how it evolves. It either evolves deterministically or in random way. What is special about the human system that makes us assume we are somehow different?

[Scheavo]

Humans are ultimately dominated by the laws of physics. The atoms that make up our bodies are subject to quantum laws, we age and decay according to the laws of thermodynamics. In no other physical system do we assume that the system itself can make a decision about how it evolves. It either evolves deterministically or in random way. What is special about the human system that makes us assume we are somehow different?

I think we assume we are somehow different because we experience our own (seeming?) freedom. When I type these words, I have a sense of control over writing these words. We control ourselves in a way we don't control anything else, and this implies a sense of freedom.

I don't think there is any evidence either way, for or against free will. To say something about free will, I think we'd have to have a perspective outside of ourselves; if we could make a claim about free will, I think we could make a claim about the question of existence, and of God. Yes, we are dominated by physical laws, but what do those laws actually say? Quantum Mechanics muddles the entire thing, becuase in Quantum Mechanics we are presented with a world that make's no sense to our every day experience, and which doesn't display overly deterministic qualities. Probability is not deterministic, and as of yet, we don't know how the possibilities of quantum mechanics get's turned into the deterministic laws we note in our every day lives. I don't think quantum principles like Heisenberg uncertainty principle or super-positional theory prove free will, but their enigmatic nature allows for the possibility that what is experienced is experienced becuase of conscious awareness, because of our free will.

[Adami]

I believe in free will, but unless you can literally perform 2 different actions within the same space/time confinement, then it's impossible to verify.


However, I do not believe that reasons for doing what we do are necessarily binding forces. I am writing this to you because it piqued my interest and I happen to be a member of this forum and etc. But all of those factors didn't mean that I would write it no matter what, however there is no way to verify that. It's just faith.

[Var]

Free will is relative depending on what you're talking about.  Was this post pre-destined to exist?  I suppose that, due to the nature of how the universe works, yes.

However, it doesn't really work in such a way that we'll know it directly.  Having no free will, to me, would be actively trying to do things or knowing that things are happening and being unable to control them.  Like, if someone stuck a bunch of wires into your motor cortex and controlled your limbs without you being able to counteract.  That, I'd say, is having no free will.  But normally, that doesn't happen, so, we have enough free will that we might as well have free will, anyway.

[Horatio]

People have "effective" free will (i.e. they feel like they have a choice, from their own perspective), but in reality every single choice we make (and we make choices and change every moment of our lives) is a product of our past (the influences of biology, genetics, society, ancestry, etc.) interacting with our present circumstances (the entire world around us). What a person will become or will do is dictated by what he already is and has been (and, from the genetics angle, what his ancestors were long before he was even born), and humans don't have any real, truly conscious choice about this any more than a dog or a vacuum cleaner has a real, truly conscious choice. We only feel like we do because otherwise living would be intolerable (it'd basically feel like the wire thing Var was saying), but to an outside observer we'd pretty much look like a computer program.

[bosk1]

Well, I met an old woman who told me some stuff about free will and gave me a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie.  Not more than a few seconds later when I left her apartment, I took a bite of said cookie, and it cracked like it had been double baked and left sitting out for days.  Not sure exactly what that says about free will, but I'm sure it means something.

[Scheavo]

We only feel like we do because otherwise living would be intolerable (it'd basically feel like the wire thing Var was saying), but to an outside observer we'd pretty much look like a computer program.

I'm pretty much with you up to here. If we're so determined, why then do we even feel? Why have consciousness to begin with? How we feel about it wouldn't matter if we can't truly make any conscious choice. Consciousness exists, I am prove of that fact, and there's no good reason to assume other people don't have it. Why is there consciousness if we can't make a conscious choice? Even scientifically, and evolutionarily speaking, consciousness is enigmatic if all we are is the physical result of deterministic laws.

That said, I don't think we always make conscious choices; we influence our bodies and brains, and our bodies and brains influences us.

[AndyDT]

Serious question. The libertarians on this forum work on the assumption that all other concerns in our life are secondary to personaly freedom, or at least it is one of the cornerstones of a decent society. However this hinges on the assumption that free will and freedom as an entity actually exists, and to be honest, I don't hold that assumption to be true, or at least it is an unverified assumption.

Humans are ultimately dominated by the laws of physics. The atoms that make up our bodies are subject to quantum laws, we age and decay according to the laws of thermodynamics. In no other physical system do we assume that the system itself can make a decision about how it evolves. It either evolves deterministically or in random way. What is special about the human system that makes us assume we are somehow different?

One example might be the PEAR experiments into psyhcokinesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab#Psychokinesis

[Chino]

I don't believe in free will. Any decisison we make is based on previous experience. Our brain is just a difference engine that decides on what it it's the best choice. Then again I wrote a paper on this in philosophy and failed it, so I'm probably wrong.

[lordxizor]

I don't like to overthink this personally. You can go into the deep philosophical depths of free will if you'd like, but I don't see the point. Here's all the evidence I need for the existence of free will: I can think of something that I want to do and then go do it (within the physical bounds of my body and the universe obviously).

[rumborak]

People have "effective" free will

That's my stance too. The brain is reasonably complex to be unpredictable, both by us and by others. As such, it looks to the casual observer to be a "random" entity.
It's kinda like random number generators in computers. They are completely deterministic, but unless you know the code and the starting point, it is virtually impossible to predict the next number from the previous. Thus, it looks completely random, even though it isn't.

rumborak  

[73109]

I don't believe in free will. Any decisison we make is based on previous experience. Our brain is just a difference engine that decides on what it it's the best choice. Then again I wrote a paper on this in philosophy and failed it, so I'm probably wrong.

This is called hard determinism. I personally feel this way too. It may seem like we have free will, but I don't think we do. Granted, pondering whether we actually have free will when we have "effective" free will is rather pointless. So, for me, I just say to myself, "You really don't have any free will, but it seems as though you do, so make do with that."

[Horatio]

I'm pretty much with you up to here. If we're so determined, why then do we even feel? Why have consciousness to begin with? How we feel about it wouldn't matter if we can't truly make any conscious choice. Consciousness exists, I am prove of that fact, and there's no good reason to assume other people don't have it. Why is there consciousness if we can't make a conscious choice? Even scientifically, and evolutionarily speaking, consciousness is enigmatic if all we are is the physical result of deterministic laws.

Consciousness exists as a result of the brain needing to make choices and pick a course of action, and as a result of the brain's interpretations of sensory data. The point was that the choices the brain makes are deterministic; the same person, put in the same circumstances (which include the person's entire past, the person's physical and biological properties, and the current state of the world around him), will make the same decision, even though both times he'll feel like he's making a decision of his own free will. Of course, this is essentially unprovable because every set of circumstances is unrepeatable (no man ever steps in the same river twice, etc.), but you'll find it makes sense logically and scientifically.

That said, I don't think we always make conscious choices; we influence our bodies and brains, and our bodies and brains influences us.

Huh? We are our bodies and brains, they don't "influence" us. The outside world's what influences us (though at the same time, we also influence it and everything inside it to some degree, since we're a part of it).

Here's all the evidence I need for the existence of free will: I can think of something that I want to do and then go do it (within the physical bounds of my body and the universe obviously).

The "physical bounds of your body" extend to your brain and your thinking because your brain is a physical part of you. The same physical and biological restrictions that are placed on your body also apply to your brain, and the range of your thinking is limited by previous experience, including the influences of biology, society, and genetics. Basically it ends up all being deterministic (though not necessarily entirely predictable; see quantum mechanics, which I think someone brought up earlier, as well as chaos theory). Of course, free will is a necessary simplification for daily life (our legal systems are based on free will, for example), but at the end of the day, like all other human simplifications, it doesn't exist in reality.

[lordxizor]

Here's all the evidence I need for the existence of free will: I can think of something that I want to do and then go do it (within the physical bounds of my body and the universe obviously).

The "physical bounds of your body" extend to your brain and your thinking because your brain is a physical part of you. The same physical and biological restrictions that are placed on your body also apply to your brain, and the range of your thinking is limited by previous experience, including the influences of biology, society, and genetics. Basically it ends up all being deterministic (though not necessarily entirely predictable; see quantum mechanics, which I think someone brought up earlier, as well as chaos theory). Of course, free will is a necessary simplification for daily life (our legal systems are based on free will, for example), but at the end of the day, like all other human simplifications, it doesn't exist in reality.

My basic point is that all that doesn't matter. I can do what I choose on a daily basis, so for all practical purposes I have free will. If you want to overthink it and define free will as something more complicated, be my guest. I don't find anything terribly worthwhile out of going there.

[Silver Tears]

I don't believe in free will. Any decisison we make is based on previous experience. Our brain is just a difference engine that decides on what it it's the best choice. Then again I wrote a paper on this in philosophy and failed it, so I'm probably wrong.

This is called hard determinism. I personally feel this way too. It may seem like we have free will, but I don't think we do. Granted, pondering whether we actually have free will when we have "effective" free will is rather pointless. So, for me, I just say to myself, "You really don't have any free will, but it seems as though you do, so make do with that."

That's the way I see it too, we don't have true free will but it seems to us that we do, which makes it real enough.

[Scheavo]

I'm pretty much with you up to here. If we're so determined, why then do we even feel? Why have consciousness to begin with? How we feel about it wouldn't matter if we can't truly make any conscious choice. Consciousness exists, I am prove of that fact, and there's no good reason to assume other people don't have it. Why is there consciousness if we can't make a conscious choice? Even scientifically, and evolutionarily speaking, consciousness is enigmatic if all we are is the physical result of deterministic laws.

Consciousness exists as a result of the brain needing to make choices and pick a course of action, and as a result of the brain's interpretations of sensory data. The point was that the choices the brain makes are deterministic; the same person, put in the same circumstances (which include the person's entire past, the person's physical and biological properties, and the current state of the world around him), will make the same decision, even though both times he'll feel like he's making a decision of his own free will. Of course, this is essentially unprovable because every set of circumstances is unrepeatable (no man ever steps in the same river twice, etc.), but you'll find it makes sense logically and scientifically.

You contradict yourself in your first two sentences... why does the brain need to make any "choices" and "pick a course of action"? In the very next sentence you say these choices are deterministic... so what choice is there? If consciousness exists to make choices, and you stick with that definition, then you're already denying determinism. I agree with the overall situation you portray, that given the same circumstances, people will often behave and act in similar ways. We are a product of our world. However, this at the same time doesn't mean we are determined beings, only that we are influenced beings.

That said, I don't think we always make conscious choices; we influence our bodies and brains, and our bodies and brains influences us.

Huh? We are our bodies and brains, they don't "influence" us. The outside world's what influences us (though at the same time, we also influence it and everything inside it to some degree, since we're a part of it).

We are the holistic creation of our bodies, not any specific part of it. The whole influences the parts, "we", the whole, influence the brain and the body. "We" are our worlds, where our world is built upon experience, and this is where we agree.

[Horatio]

You contradict yourself in your first two sentences... why does the brain need to make any "choices" and "pick a course of action"? In the very next sentence you say these choices are deterministic... so what choice is there? If consciousness exists to make choices, and you stick with that definition, then you're already denying determinism.

I'll put it this way: when making a choice, we evaluate what we see as all the possible courses of actions, and then pick one. We don't know ourselves what choice we're going to make in advance, which is why we need consciousness, and we wouldn't know what choice we'd make in advance even if we didn't have "effective" free will. The deterministic part is that the same person, put in the same circumstances, would evaluate his situation and the possible courses of action the same way, and end up at the same final choice (so in reality he never had an actual free choice, since he couldn't just pick something else the second time around). There isn't a contradiction there.

I agree with the overall situation you portray, that given the same circumstances, people will often behave and act in similar ways. We are a product of our world. However, this at the same time doesn't mean we are determined beings, only that we are influenced beings.

I guess you could argue for some amount of wiggle room on how deterministic the world is (and at any rate it's not like we even need the concept of will to feel like we're making choices and decisions in our lives), though personally I like hard determinism the most, and it's most compatible with our current scientific knowledge (the introduction of quantum mechanics just makes the universe unpredictable, not non-deterministic, and even if it did chaotic randomness is just as "unfree" as determinism). Either way, you agree at least that we aren't the primary causes of our own actions, right?

[Scheavo]

You contradict yourself in your first two sentences... why does the brain need to make any "choices" and "pick a course of action"? In the very next sentence you say these choices are deterministic... so what choice is there? If consciousness exists to make choices, and you stick with that definition, then you're already denying determinism.

I'll put it this way: when making a choice, we evaluate what we see as all the possible courses of actions, and then pick one. We don't know ourselves what choice we're going to make in advance, which is why we need consciousness, and we wouldn't know what choice we'd make in advance even if we didn't have "effective" free will. The deterministic part is that the same person, put in the same circumstances, would evaluate his situation and the possible courses of action the same way, and end up at the same final choice (so in reality he never had an actual free choice, since he couldn't just pick something else the second time around). There isn't a contradiction there.

So basically the compatabilist argument; I've always had issues with this combining of freedom and determinism, because it actually doesn't have any elements of free will. "Effective" free will, in your terms, means no free will. You didn't choose anything, you merely watched it unfold. If anyone with the same history would do the same thing, then I am irrelevant, my will is irrelevant, and I don't actually have any free will. Now, to back up a bit and restate myself, I think that it's possible we only have an illusion of free will; what I'm objecting to is that you say consciousness has an effective free will, even though what is chosen is determined and outside of the agents will, so that there is actually no free will at all.

I agree with the overall situation you portray, that given the same circumstances, people will often behave and act in similar ways. We are a product of our world. However, this at the same time doesn't mean we are determined beings, only that we are influenced beings.

I guess you could argue for some amount of wiggle room on how deterministic the world is (and at any rate it's not like we even need the concept of will to feel like we're making choices and decisions in our lives), though personally I like hard determinism the most, and it's most compatible with our current scientific knowledge (the introduction of quantum mechanics just makes the universe unpredictable, not non-deterministic, and even if it did chaotic randomness is just as "unfree" as determinism). Either way, you agree at least that we aren't the primary causes of our own actions, right?

I guess that depends upon your interpretation of quantum mechanics; I've listened to quantum physicists on both side, some saying it undermines determinism, others saying it doesn't. I even  wrote a philosophy paper about this subject, on more than one occasion. Now, I'm not saying quantum mechanics disproves determinism, I'm saying quantum mechanics throws everything for a loop, and puts us in a position where you can adequately say. What is experienced and observed is observed, as far as we know as of right now, is so only becuase it is observed (Heisenberg). I'm guessing you know about super-position; the problem is we don't have a theory which explains how the possibilities inherent in a particles super-position collapses into the definite position we experience and can observe. Until we have a theory to do so, we're left in a world which, as far as our experiences go, is not deterministic, open to possibilities, and open a non-deterministic reality. There's theories that say every possibility in the quantum world actually happens and exists; assuming this is true, that there are countless dimensions of space and time representing every possible outcome ever, my question is: why do we experience the world we live in? What determines our conscious travel through this quantum world?

I wouldn't use the word primary, because that implies I know all the factors and influences of my life, as well as the world around me, and that "I" am not in control. I agree that there are things we don't control; I think whatever it is we are do make choices that effect reality, however. Perhaps most of the time we don't make "free" choices, but the possibility for a free-choice exists. Maybe some of us make more free choices than others. Overall, I do not consider us to be "individuals," who make choices on everything, who are constantly bucking the trend of history.

[DylanHomie256]

evidence? is the theatrical poster not enough to prove that Free Will exists?

[Var]

Basically, what Horatio's saying: your body is made up of a bunch of particles that are moving around rapidly.  If you took the same amount of particles, made them move in exactly the same way, at exactly the same position in space and have the exact same forces act upon them (forces as in things like gravity), then "they" will make the same decision.

That, however, is a stupidly large amount of circumstances to replicate, and we might as well say that we have free will, because never, in our lifetimes, will we be able to recreate that.

[Scheavo]

I get his point, but it's an argument which undermines itself by making a positive claim after saying you can't make a positive claim.

My point is that science and physics, as we currently understand them, cannot explain consciousness and the conscious experience. It can explain how life came about, thermodynamics, chemistry, and all the physical laws that do exist can create the universe we observe. All of this though ignores that we observe it, and that there is no reason why we need to observe it, and we don't really know why it exists or quite how it exists. Considering this, I don't think we should use current science to say what is absolutely true about the nature of reality. Remember, Newton was heralded as reading God's mind for like 200 years, and then Einstein and a bunch of other guys came along and showed us how fundamentally wrong the Newtonian world view was. Just because you can describe something by a mathematical formula does not actually mean that said thing is actually computing and following that formula.

We agree that we will never know if free will exists, what we disagree on is that for me, this means free will may or may not exist, whereas Horatio (and you?) thinks that we are actually determined, it's just impossible to actually prove.

[Var]

Just because you can describe something by a mathematical formula does not actually mean that said thing is actually computing and following that formula.

Unless the fundamentals of our mathematical system are broken, we have proven things.  Mathematics are our best way of proving things, and if they don't work, then nothing that we know can be true.

We agree that we will never know if free will exists, what we disagree on is that for me, this means free will may or may not exist, whereas Horatio (and you?) thinks that we are actually determined, it's just impossible to actually prove.

Then what is the point of this topic?

We're stating our(?) views on what we think about the subject of free will.  Nobody was expecting a definite answer from this topic.  At least, I wasn't.

[Horatio]

god damn these posts are getting longer and longer lmao

So basically the compatabilist argument; I've always had issues with this combining of freedom and determinism, because it actually doesn't have any elements of free will. "Effective" free will, in your terms, means no free will. You didn't choose anything, you merely watched it unfold.

We'd only watch our actions unfold if we didn't have the illusion of free will, which would make living pretty much unbearable. But we don't watch our actions unfold, we feel as if we're making choices and decisions (which is why I say "effective" free will) even if, in the end, we would have made these same choices and decisions in the same circumstances anyway.

If anyone with the same history would do the same thing, then I am irrelevant, my will is irrelevant, and I don't actually have any free will. Now, to back up a bit and restate myself, I think that it's possible we only have an illusion of free will; what I'm objecting to is that you say consciousness has an effective free will, even though what is chosen is determined and outside of the agents will, so that there is actually no free will at all.

You don't become irrelevant at all. In fact you become extremely relevant, because the only person with the same past and the same psychological and biological makeup could be, well, you. No one else would even have the same history. If any of these things change then it's not you, as you were at that point in time, making the decision anymore; it'd effectively be a different person who would make a different decision (and how different the decision is would depend on how different the person is).

By effective free will all I really mean is that we feel like we're in control from our own perspective even though we're not, like I clarified above.

Now, I'm not saying qauantum mechanics disproves determinism, I'm saying quantum mechanics throws everything for a loop, and puts us in a position where you can adequately say. What is experienced and observed is observed, as far as we know as of right now, is so only becuase it is observed (Heisenberg).

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dealt with limits of measurement, not observation, didn't it? And IIRC the observer effect on quantum mechanics has been extended to non-living things as well, e.g. using a single electron as the "observer."

I'm guessing you know about super-position; the problem is we don't have a theory which explains how the possibilities inherent in a particles super-position collapses into the definite position we experience and can observe. Until we have a theory to do so, we're left in a world which, as far as our experiences go, is not deterministic, open to possibilities, and open a non-deterministic reality. There's theories that say every possibility in the quantum world actually happens and exists; assuming this is true, that there are countless dimensions of space and time representing every possible outcome ever, my question is: why do we experience the world we live in? What determines our conscious travel through this quantum world?

A non-deterministic reality wouldn't guarantee free will either. Randomness and chaos at the quantum level leaves us as unfree as determinism. And if there isn't randomness and chaos, then, well...it has to be deterministic, doesn't it? (Actually, even if it was random and chaotic it could still be deterministic -- determinism doesn't imply predictability, after all.)

I don't see the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as compatible with free will either. Subjectively, you'd only see one of the possible worlds, and you have no choice over which one you see, or even which ones occur (because all possibilities would occur).

That, however, is a stupidly large amount of circumstances to replicate, and we might as well say that we have free will, because never, in our lifetimes, will we be able to recreate that.

Never, ever, actually (or if you believe in eternal recurrence, never within this cycle of the universe). Even forces in other galaxies have an infinitesimal effect on us, for example. But that doesn't lead to saying we have real free will just because every set of circumstances is unrepeatable.

evidence? is the theatrical poster not enough to prove that Free Will exists?

-snip-

Motherfucker! I spend all this time carefully and deliberately constructing my argument to ignore this fact, and then you come in here and post...the movie. God damn it dude. I think we'll need to have a talk in Skypechat sometime soon. By a talk in Skypechat I mean a real-life meeting. By a real-life meeting I mean a meeting in a warehouse. By a meeting in a warehouse I mean a meeting in a warehouse where you're tied to a chair. By tied to a chair I mean tied to a chair with gasoline and a match on the floor. Don't worry, I'll bring cake too (that's what the match is for).

[Scheavo]

Just because you can describe something by a mathematical formula does not actually mean that said thing is actually computing and following that formula.

Unless the fundamentals of our mathematical system are broken, we have proven things.  Mathematics are our best way of proving things, and if they don't work, then nothing that we know can be true.

Perform classical physics experiments, and you get correct result, which are mathematically provable. Yet we know through the quantum world and special relativity that classical physics is wrong, despite their mathematical accuracy.

We agree that we will never know if free will exists, what we disagree on is that for me, this means free will may or may not exist, whereas Horatio (and you?) thinks that we are actually determined, it's just impossible to actually prove.

Then what is the point of this topic?

We're stating our(?) views on what we think about the subject of free will.  Nobody was expecting a definite answer from this topic.  At least, I wasn't.

The point is to have the discussion we're having... and to probably disagree and discuss why we disagree... which is what we're doing. Answers aside, we both have a position.

[Scheavo]

So basically the compatabilist argument; I've always had issues with this combining of freedom and determinism, because it actually doesn't have any elements of free will. "Effective" free will, in your terms, means no free will. You didn't choose anything, you merely watched it unfold.

We'd only watch our actions unfold if we didn't have the illusion of free will, which would make living pretty much unbearable. But we don't watch our actions unfold, we feel as if we're making choices and decisions (which is why I say "effective" free will) even if, in the end, we would have made these same choices and decisions in the same circumstances anyway.

But why would it matter if live is unbearable if we don't control our actions? It being unbearable or not would have no effect upon our decisions. Why do you feel life at all? Why have a consciousness which only feels like it's free, so that it can feel like life is bearable, so that it doesn't do something it couldn't do anyways?

If anyone with the same history would do the same thing, then I am irrelevant, my will is irrelevant, and I don't actually have any free will. Now, to back up a bit and restate myself, I think that it's possible we only have an illusion of free will; what I'm objecting to is that you say consciousness has an effective free will, even though what is chosen is determined and outside of the agents will, so that there is actually no free will at all.

You don't become irrelevant at all. In fact you become extremely relevant, because the only person with the same past and the same psychological and biological makeup could be, well, you. No one else would even have the same history. If any of these things change then it's not you, as you were at that point in time, making the decision anymore; it'd effectively be a different person who would make a different decision (and how different the decision is would depend on how different the person is).

If I am replaceable, I am not very relevant. Just because something like me is necessary, does not mean that I myself am necessary. My value diminishes to zero if I can just be replaced, even if only theoretically.

Now, I'm not saying qauantum mechanics disproves determinism, I'm saying quantum mechanics throws everything for a loop, and puts us in a position where you can adequately say. What is experienced and observed is observed, as far as we know as of right now, is so only becuase it is observed (Heisenberg).

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dealt with limits of measurement, not observation, didn't it? And IIRC the observer effect on quantum mechanics has been extended to non-living things as well, e.g. using a single electron as the "observer."

Limiting measurement is limiting observation; the more we know about a particles velocity, the less we know about that particles position, and vica versa. This has far reaching consequences, but it is importantly an epstemological barrier (meaning it says what we can and cannot know, not what "actually is"). I would love to actually read Heisenberg thoughts, but from what I've gathered, he put a lot of imprtance upon observance.

Do you also have a link to that study? I'd be interested in reading it. Furthermore, by observing the obersving electron, we are observing the event, so it may not actual contradict this barrier.

I'm guessing you know about super-position; the problem is we don't have a theory which explains how the possibilities inherent in a particles super-position collapses into the definite position we experience and can observe. Until we have a theory to do so, we're left in a world which, as far as our experiences go, is not deterministic, open to possibilities, and open a non-deterministic reality. There's theories that say every possibility in the quantum world actually happens and exists; assuming this is true, that there are countless dimensions of space and time representing every possible outcome ever, my question is: why do we experience the world we live in? What determines our conscious travel through this quantum world?

A non-deterministic reality wouldn't guarantee free will either. Randomness and chaos at the quantum level leaves us as unfree as determinism. And if there isn't randomness and chaos, then, well...it has to be deterministic, doesn't it? (Actually, even if it was random and chaotic it could still be deterministic -- determinism doesn't imply predictability, after all.)

I don't see the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as compatible with free will either. Subjectively, you'd only see one of the possible worlds, and you have no choice over which one you see, or even which ones occur (because all possibilities would occur).

I don't think free will is guaranteed, I'm playing devils advocate against you to try and show both sides of the coin. And no, if there isn't randomness and chaos, that doesn't mean there is determinism. The opposite of chaos would be order, which could be as in: I order this, I order that. Do I order everything? No. Do I have complete free will? No, but I feel I choose between options, which effects what happens to me. If this were the case, you wouldn't control which "reality" you see, but you would influence why you experience this reality over that reality. Why downplay subjective feeling and experience? The fact that I experience this reality, and not another one, cannot go unexplained.

[skydivingninja]

The thread title may as well be "what evidence is there for God?"    Free will is just one of those things you either have faith in or you don't.  You can justify why you do, but it can't be objectively proven, so who really knows?

Me, I think we do have free will.  This "determinism" thing sounds interesting (my first time hearing the term) but if the definition's accurate, we still have the choice to ignore our past experiences and take risks.  Or at least I think we do.  Also I like the idea of being accountable for what I do and having control over my own life.  "Fate" just doesn't seem realistic.  And when you throw the idea of "fate" out the window it makes the very fact we exist as we do now all the more remarkable. 

[William Wallace]

Serious, but perhaps noob, question: what, if anything, does the diversity of opinion on all the issues that concern us today say about the existence of free will?

[AndyDT]

People have "effective" free will

That's my stance too. The brain is reasonably complex to be unpredictable, both by us and by others. As such, it looks to the casual observer to be a "random" entity.
It's kinda like random number generators in computers. They are completely deterministic, but unless you know the code and the starting point, it is virtually impossible to predict the next number from the previous. Thus, it looks completely random, even though it isn't.

rumborak  

At the quantum level the universe isn't or can't be demonstrated to be deterministic. Another example is radioactive decay.

[73109]

I could be completely ignorant here, but these things along with the Uncertainty Principle, could it be that it is such a complex system, that we just can't "crack" it yet? I mean, in 400 years, will there be an uncertainty principle, or will we be able to see how fast something is and where it's located at the same time?

[Scheavo]

I could be completely ignorant here, but these things along with the Uncertainty Principle, could it be that it is such a complex system, that we just can't "crack" it yet? I mean, in 400 years, will there be an uncertainty principle, or will we be able to see how fast something is and where it's located at the same time?

Possibly, but Heisenberg principle has held up remarkably well. Even Newton's old laws are still usable, even though they've been demonstrated to be.... well.. technically false. There's theories out that that say the quantum world is completely determined, one theory says the future effects the present. However, these are all unproven and untested, so until there actually is a theory which adaquately explains things, it's unscientific and wrong to posit that any of them are actually true.

[73109]

I totally understand that. I was just wondering if the laws will change or if these are so concrete it has escalated to the point of 2+2=4.

[Scheavo]

I don't think physics will ever be as concrete as 2+2 = 4. Math depends upon humans to create and define it (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 because we say and define 2 + 2 as equaling 4; just like how we define a bachelor as an unmarried man, so a married bachelor is a pure contradiction), the same can't be said of the physical world.

[juice]

The thread title may as well be "what evidence is there for God?"    Free will is just one of those things you either have faith in or you don't.  You can justify why you do, but it can't be objectively proven, so who really knows?