All things considered..

[Metsfanmax]

I voted for determinism.

[nietzsche]

I voted for determinism.

Interesting, is this a position common in other physicists, in spite their knowledge of quantum mechanics?

(I'm not saying quantum mechanics can conclude one thing or the other)

[nietzsche]

Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

[mrswdk]

I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

[Metsfanmax]

I voted for determinism.

Interesting, is this a position common in other physicists, in spite their knowledge of quantum mechanics?

(I'm not saying quantum mechanics can conclude one thing or the other)

As you might expect, physicists generally don't give straight answers to this question. The most common response I've seen physicists give is that while the universe probably is really deterministic at the atomic level, the level of complexity separating that physics from the complexity of a human brain is such that we may as well pretend that free will exists for pragmatic purposes.

Regarding quantum mechanics: I do not believe it really bears on the question of determinism (at present). Quantum mechanical laws are deterministic to the extent that if you know the wave-function of all particles in the universe at a given time, you know the wave-functions at all future times (given sufficient computational power, etc.). But since we don't understand things like wave-function "collapse" yet (and some physicists completely reject this in favor of the many-worlds interpretation) it's hard to use this information at present.

[Dukasaur]

I voted for determinism.

Interesting, is this a position common in other physicists, in spite their knowledge of quantum mechanics?

(I'm not saying quantum mechanics can conclude one thing or the other)

As you might expect, physicists generally don't give straight answers to this question. The most common response I've seen physicists give is that while the universe probably is really deterministic at the atomic level, the level of complexity separating that physics from the complexity of a human brain is such that we may as well pretend that free will exists for pragmatic purposes.

I'm sure nobody cares how I voted, but I voted "Not sure" pretty much on this kind of reasoning.

[tzor]

do you believe you have free will? Or do you think the future is already determined and you're just enjoying the ride?

I object to the very nature of the question. You need to really give an argument why you think there must be an exclusive or operation here. Both can be true at the same time. It has to do with trans-dimensional relativity.

From the outside of Space-Time, as Hawking once said, the universe "IS." From outside of Space-Time, the universe is just as observable along the time axis as it is along the space axis. (How can one observe anything outside of a time axis of ones own is another matter entirely.)

From the inside of Space-Time, the view of the universe is extremely limited. One can only observe things that have emitted particles in the past. (Now there is an interesting question about the nature of antimatter being matter traveling backwards in time, but the universe is so massively weighed towards matter over antimatter that it hardly matters.)

Thus, (with the exception of a plethora of antimatter particles in your personal space) the actions of the present are effected by the past and effect the future.

This has, technically speaking, squat to do with the fundamental question of whether your actions are a simple function of the inputs into the system. The human brain is a complex system that allows some degree of self alteration. This allows some degree of programming to adjust from what should be the expected output. To use the example of those infamous witches you can put your hand in a box, feel the flesh burn off of your bones and not pull that hand out of that box because that Benne Gerrerit is standing right beside you and will poke you with an instantly fatal poison if you do. (Congratulations your'e HUMAN by their strange standards!)

That ability is FREE WILL; the ability to reject the stimulus of the moment because of the "will" which is the accumulated experiences of the person and which some people might argue is self modifying.

[AndyDufresne]

It has to do with trans-dimensional relativity.

--Andy

[nietzsche]

do you believe you have free will? Or do you think the future is already determined and you're just enjoying the ride?

I object to the very nature of the question. You need to really give an argument why you think there must be an exclusive or operation here. Both can be true at the same time. It has to do with trans-dimensional relativity.

From the outside of Space-Time, as Hawking once said, the universe "IS." From outside of Space-Time, the universe is just as observable along the time axis as it is along the space axis. (How can one observe anything outside of a time axis of ones own is another matter entirely.)

From the inside of Space-Time, the view of the universe is extremely limited. One can only observe things that have emitted particles in the past. (Now there is an interesting question about the nature of antimatter being matter traveling backwards in time, but the universe is so massively weighed towards matter over antimatter that it hardly matters.)

Thus, (with the exception of a plethora of antimatter particles in your personal space) the actions of the present are effected by the past and effect the future.

This has, technically speaking, squat to do with the fundamental question of whether your actions are a simple function of the inputs into the system. The human brain is a complex system that allows some degree of self alteration. This allows some degree of programming to adjust from what should be the expected output. To use the example of those infamous witches you can put your hand in a box, feel the flesh burn off of your bones and not pull that hand out of that box because that Benne Gerrerit is standing right beside you and will poke you with an instantly fatal poison if you do. (Congratulations your'e HUMAN by their strange standards!)

That ability is FREE WILL; the ability to reject the stimulus of the moment because of the "will" which is the accumulated experiences of the person and which some people might argue is self modifying.

The tittle is part of the question, "All things considered.."

I (personally) don't think our current understanding of laws of physics really truly matter for this question. Because we will understand it better in the future and in the past we didn't understand it as much as we do now and that didn't prevent us to give an opinion.

[nietzsche]

I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

I don't think there's nothing to convince of.

I'm of a more spiritualistic view, I regard my personal experience as more important and truthful than the outside world. I never forget the "gap".

But that's a personal opinion so I really can't convince anyone.

In any case though, if this was a deterministic universe, we are part of the system, so since we cannot get outside and observe and measure without influencing it, we are part of it and have our roles to play, including believing or not there's free will.

It's more a matter of personal opinion as you see. But this opinion, or belief, is important because it dictates to different extents or personal functioning.

This question has another issue in it, mentioned already. Time. We're asking if the future state is completely dependant on the past state, so time is a vital concept in the question, and our understanding of time is not complete.

[Quirk]

[AndyDufresne]

our understanding of time is not complete.

--Andy

[Dukasaur]

Yeah, yeah, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. We know all that. But what if you choose to decide, and then find out you didn't have a choice?

Still a great song, either way...

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, yeah, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. We know all that. But what if you choose to decide, and then find out you didn't have a choice?

Then you were predetermined to have thought you really had a choice, and so there's nothing you could have done differently.

[clangfield]

Yeah, yeah, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. We know all that. But what if you choose to decide, and then find out you didn't have a choice?

Then you were predetermined to have thought you really had a choice, and so there's nothing you could have done differently.

Precisely.
Imagine you're a computer game character. You think you make decisions; from the outside, we can see that those decisions are within a set of predefined limits, but you have no idea. As long as your universe makes sense, you'll never know.
So even if you think you have free will, that might still be the result of someone external deciding what your will should be, then putting that decision into your "brain".
We can never know - not while we're "alive", anyway, if at all.
So, as they say, "hang the sense of it, and try to keep yourself occupied". Don't waste time trying to know things you can never find out.

[mrswdk]

I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

I don't think there's nothing to convince of.

I'm of a more spiritualistic view, I regard my personal experience as more important and truthful than the outside world. I never forget the "gap".

But that's a personal opinion so I really can't convince anyone.

In any case though, if this was a deterministic universe, we are part of the system, so since we cannot get outside and observe and measure without influencing it, we are part of it and have our roles to play, including believing or not there's free will.

It's more a matter of personal opinion as you see. But this opinion, or belief, is important because it dictates to different extents or personal functioning.

This question has another issue in it, mentioned already. Time. We're asking if the future state is completely dependant on the past state, so time is a vital concept in the question, and our understanding of time is not complete.

You shoulda put more options in the poll then.

[nietzsche]

I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

I don't think there's nothing to convince of.

I'm of a more spiritualistic view, I regard my personal experience as more important and truthful than the outside world. I never forget the "gap".

But that's a personal opinion so I really can't convince anyone.

In any case though, if this was a deterministic universe, we are part of the system, so since we cannot get outside and observe and measure without influencing it, we are part of it and have our roles to play, including believing or not there's free will.

It's more a matter of personal opinion as you see. But this opinion, or belief, is important because it dictates to different extents or personal functioning.

This question has another issue in it, mentioned already. Time. We're asking if the future state is completely dependant on the past state, so time is a vital concept in the question, and our understanding of time is not complete.

You shoulda put more options in the poll then.

Mmm no, ii wanted to know the polarity between the two options, and the undecided option is there. What other options were you thinking of?

[mrswdk]

I don't care
Kittens
My garden shed is bigger than this
Press the button to give everyone cake

Come on dude, you know the drill.

[2dimes]

My garden shed is bigger than this


Come on dude, you know the drill.

Is it a pub shed? Those look fun.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

I've pretty much said my bit. Much of this depends on definition, and even if the philosophical issues can be clarified, testing for the competing hypotheses seems daunting. Of course, simple tests by my basic observation suggest that I'm right (:P). You need only specify which part you'd like me to elaborate.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

If it brings you back, sugar, it's the best debate in the world.

-TG

[nietzsche]

Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

I've pretty much said my bit. Much of this depends on definition, and even if the philosophical issues can be clarified, testing for the competing hypotheses seems daunting. Of course, simple tests by my basic observation suggest that I'm right (:P). You need only specify which part you'd like me to elaborate.

Well there's the eastern philosophy idea that we as immortal consciousness plan our lives beforehand but then incarnated we have a range of freedom as to how to go about dealing with the topics we wanted to explore before getting in. I was curious if you were referring to this idea. I ventured to infer you might be referring to this because I was once stalking your conversations with Nola on your walls and found out you were sharing links about spiritualism. However it could've been just a phase of finding mystic topics interesting.

You could also be talking about that genetically we have many predominant traits and we tend to side to specific kind of behaviours specially after a certain age, when we become more and more like our familiy members.

Or you could be talking about something else.

And about testing the hypotheses, yes you're right, it's difficult, but I stated I was mainly curious, "all things considered.." what other ot regulars held as a belief.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

I've pretty much said my bit. Much of this depends on definition, and even if the philosophical issues can be clarified, testing for the competing hypotheses seems daunting. Of course, simple tests by my basic observation suggest that I'm right (:P). You need only specify which part you'd like me to elaborate.

Well there's the eastern philosophy idea that we as immortal consciousness plan our lives beforehand but then incarnated we have a range of freedom as to how to go about dealing with the topics we wanted to explore before getting in. I was curious if you were referring to this idea. I ventured to infer you might be referring to this because I was once stalking your conversations with Nola on your walls and found out you were sharing links about spiritualism. However it could've been just a phase of finding mystic topics interesting.

Nah, my points aren't related to reincarnation and breaking free from that alleged constraint.

You could also be talking about that genetically we have many predominant traits and we tend to side to specific kind of behaviours specially after a certain age, when we become more and more like our familiy members.

Or you could be talking about something else.

And about testing the hypotheses, yes you're right, it's difficult, but I stated I was mainly curious, "all things considered.." what other ot regulars held as a belief.

Sure, genes in some degree are deterministic, but it still depends on environment in order to "set one off." Genes, as we currently understand them, are difficult to pinpoint to certain behaviors and more difficult to then pinpoint to certain outcomes, so it's not quite deterministic. It's just a matter of sensitivity to environment.

We can become more and more like our family members, but we can also become more and more like our peers. It depends on issue.


Again, some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum. For example, one's opportunities are constrained by one's income, but a budget constraint (per say) is not deterministic, since one can generally choose what to do with that income. If one had a budget constraint of $10k per year, we still couldn't predict what exactly they'd do with it--which seems to be the standard for determinism (at least for a natural science approach, which it has yet to affirm).

And the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). For example, given $10k per year, I predict that such a person would spend much of it on housing and food. Yawn, big deal, BBS, but watch me slip in the determinist argument: the budget constraint determines his choices! It's a weak man of their position, but it's largely what it boils down to. They can add as many caveats as they like, but I'd expect that definition of determinism/free will to change as they do so.

So, ultimately, this debate is pointless. It's another route by which philosophers chase their imaginary tails.

[nietzsche]

Ok so I'll resume that into you beleve in free will, the philosophical idea but accept certain logical constraints.