Free Will & Determinism

[Dragoon Knight]

Alright, it's been a while since we discussed the nature of causality with reference to this specific area of philosophy.  We've had God threads and whatnot, but I think the last time Free Will and Determinism was discussed was a few years ago.  Since thread necromancy is unpleasant and confusing to newcomers, I thought it would be good to have a fresh look on the entire topic.

Now, for those of you who don't know, Determinism is a topic that concerns how we perceive causality; that is, do we believe that we control our lives through the choices we make?  Or are we all subject to a pre-destined fate, with choice being nothing more than an illusion?  While the philosophical mind may form an opinion straight away, it's always interesting to see the arguments put forth by both sides.  For people who may not have entered the realm of philosophical discussion before, this topic could be insightful and inspire further thought - feel free to comment if you agree or disagree with anything said.

With this in mind, the following diagram gives a basic outline of the positions surrounding this issue:

Libertarianism --> "Soft" Determinism --> "Hard" Determinism --> Fatalism

Now I realise that these titles aren't necessarily professional, and they don't cover the entire range of views, but it gives a general understanding of the positions one can take.  Having read through my previous explanation of my beliefs in this area, I feel that some re-wording is required.  I wasn't particularly coherent, and I think my views may have even changed slightly.  To clarify, I am a Soft Determinist.

My belief is that every action we have taken - and every action we will take - is determined by the choices we make.  I believe we have a degree of control over these choices, but that some outcomes are more probable than others.

To elaborate, imagine a line.  This line represents our passage through time - we move along it as we live our lives.  When we come to make a choice, the line splits off into as many different lines are there are options to choose from.  This happens for every choice we make, no matter how small.  When we make our choice, we follow the new line, forsaking all the others, and the process begins again.  To try and represent this accurately in a diagram would be impossible (as one could argue that there are an infinite amount of choices that can be made for most issues) but it is easy to imagine.

The deterministic element in this scenario comes when you consider all the choices you have made up until now - they will influence you in ways that you cannot fathom.  Also, consider the possibility that every possible future is already laid out before you, with an infinite number of ways your life can come to an end.

Some of you may already be likening this belief to the parallel universes theory, or indeed, even to the idea of prescience as explained in the Dune novels.  I agree that they - along with movies like Back to the Future and other media - have influenced the way I think about causality.  I simply believe it to be the most logical and moreover the most plausible explanation out there.  I cannot accept that we are completely free in the choices we make, but I also refute that we are bound by fate to make one choice over another.

I've refrained from using examples, but hopefully this has made sense to at least some of you.  What are everyone else's thoughts on the matter?  Does anyone agree with me, or do you have points to the contrary?  Feel free to reply - I haven't stretched my philosophical muscles in quite a while and would welcome a debate. :)

[Sneakgab]

From a purely conventional physics standpoint, there can be no free will. Our actions (physical manipulation of matter and energy) are determined by our brain chemistry which is ultimately determined by matter and charge which is all pure deterministic physics. I have heard of people speaking of truly random factors but only in rumor and even then this may have been........ (dang, the word is on the tip of my tongue).... misconstrued? (thats not it!:D). More like they misunderstood the nature of the theory. Eg: some people see thermodynamics as order decreasing as the law of the universe but it is truer to say that the universe follows the most likely configurations and this just happens by coincidence to be more disorders and uniform (no dependenc on definition). So this is option 1 of a universe with no free will that is purely deterministic. As I will explain in the next paragraph this option is eliminated unless we revert to the ''impossible to know anything'' law.

However, from a metaphysical perspective we can speak of the soul. I assume sentience because I experience it... mostly just I think therefore I am. However, purely conventional physics cannot account for cognisence. Hence, we require something unaccounted for by regular physics. This may or may not provide free will and an alternative to determinism and one can imagine endless possibilities. It seems that all one can conclude is that there may or not be free will and that THEY (they can only be certain about themselves) are sentient and that therefore this element that allows it must exist (not that we can truly know anything, but speaking with assumption of the most base axioms). In addition, one cay say that they may as well live as though they are sure of their free will (and their cognisence for that matter) as if it is the case that they truly have no free will then this can cause no harm but if it is the case that they do have free will then they should obviously utilize it to meet their objectives.

Finally, there is the issue of free will and a purely deterministic  (is that not the term for an inalterable universe? or does my useless memory fail me once more?) universe existing simultaneously. This may seem like a paradox that makes no sense, and indeed it may be (lol). However, while one may be able to make choices actively, it could be that they are destined to make this choice and will always make it at said impasse. Assuming a universe with free will, one could say that given the choice a cowardly man will never decide to make the daring act of leaping from one height to another even though by assumption he has free choice. Therefore, at this impasse of possible daring, he will always take the cautious route. A man seeking profit may always take the more profitable choice. Hence, we have a scenario where despite the existence of free will things are predetermined in these given cases. The cautious man will never jump so that question and its consequences in a sense are deterministic while allowing for free will. This could possibly allow for the religious view of God's knowledge of the future despite the free will of man. However this brings us to the suspicion that the ''decisions'' and ''choices'' are determined by our ''soul'' or collection of traits that we have no control over... or rather we were at some time given this soul or set of attributes without any control over it and since our soul always makes the same decision under given circumstances we cannot (indirectly) freely alter our growth of our soul despite seemingly direct control of choices.

But here, what lies beyond the depths of human understanding has its effect once again. If our personalities and whatnot were attributed purely to physical phenomena then indeed it would be as such that our beginning set pre-destines our decisions and growth which decides our next batch of decisions and so and so forth. However, the idea of a ''soul'' or whatever element defies our understanding allows for something that defies this logic.

So, first the idea of the metaphysical allows for a POSSIBILITY of randomness or multiple possible paths. This does not necessitate free will but gives an altnernative to determinism. Then a soul (requiring metaphysics) gives the possibility of choice. However, this choice could still exist with a purely deterministic universe if the same choice can always be garanteed for every point. Here lies the issue of definition of making a choice. I propose (or suggest really) that a choice can still be made even if it pre-destined and that free will can still have been enacted... or rather I propose that such an idea exists and makes sense rather than it being the way of the universe. If you disagree that this has any meaning or sense to it, then of course there can be no deterministic universe with free will in it.

The third option would be that of free will and no determinism.You make you're choices based not on attributes (at least not entirely) but also not on randomness as this would not be free will (but would allow for no free will with no determinism). So this third option requires a choice made dependent on ''something else'' that is not determined by earlier choices and our initial set of attributes that we have no control over (else, we must have control, but how could we control something before our attributes are given? that would require either randomness or ''something else'' which brings us back to the same point and therefore this option makes no difference and is in effect the same as choices dependent on ''something else'' option). Since I see no coherent ''something else'' option I guess this eliminates the option of free will and no determinism unless we introduce a random element into the choice of the individual that can overpower his attribute dependent element in making his choice. This is the only conceivable possibility for free will and no determinism. However, this still means that though we cannot see the future (randomness), we ALSO cannot AFFECT the future with our choices. The choice will be made on attributes that are determined staticly or randomly while the random element is obviously pure random so pre-determined + random means we have no control on the decision we make even if we ''choose'' it. So our decision is random OR pre-determined and we have no control over the future. Hence though the universe is non-deterministic we have no power to alter it. I cannot see any combination of features that allows us to change the future in this third category.

Then there is the forth option of no free will and no determinism. This could be in the case of true randomness, that is a most awkward scenario where no laws can truly apply and hence the universe becomes a meaningless jumble of events. Alternatively, God could manage things though by definition he would not have free will but maybe a plan in this case. In this case we of course cannot alter the future without free will. Since the universe is clearly not a sequence of random events and configurations we can basically rule out this option until a random element is observed. Who knows though, maybe there is some minor randomness yet to be detected?

So those are the only two options non deterministic universes. Obviously, assuming a deterministic universe we can have no control over the future. In the case of assuming non-deterministic universes, the two possibilities require conditions (to make sense of them) that exclude the possibility of control over the future. Therefore, there can be no control over the future whether or not we have free will. The only way we can have control is through the: It is possible in a way that is beyond the understanding of man as we cannot truly know anything because our axioms have no proof approach. Of course, this is a possibility. But, using this law (which counteracts itself), anything is possible and there seemingly can be no sense and meaning. So ignoring this law the possibility of choosing a future is eliminated.

I do not see how we can determine if our choices are predestined and decided completely by our personalities which would then necessitate free will and determinism (if not then is there an element of randomness in which our personality is only a single element? In which case there are times where the randomness overtakes any personality issue and creates a universe where some choices would be predestined from the human perspective but in reality we would have a universe with free will and no determinism. We cannot say in this case there is partial determinism though because any free will to change anything technically results in choice btw diffferent, if similar, universes.

Summary:

So the idea is that our choice-making is dependent on attributes or it is random. Either way we cannot have control over the future. Still I am not so confident that there is no third option to dependance and randomness wherein lies the true definition of free will and making a choice.

So, in the case of attribute dependance free-will we must have determinism as our initial set determines attributes which determine future attributes and therefore decisions and future decisions. Determinism excludes ability to alter future.

In the case of random free-will (some attribute dependance makes it so that we can SOMETIMES choose and overwhelm of random element hence free will) we have no determinism as this random element means there exists randomness in the universe which means by definition we have no determinism. But we still do not determine our attributes; they are determined by our attributes in an earlier moment and by randomness so we still have no control over future

In the case of the third possibility of some ''something else'' which is yet to be conceived and perhaps inconceivable by humans, we can have free will and the ability to alter the future by making decisions based not on randomness + attributes OR purely attributes.

By deciding whether you can accept free will + determinism as meaning anything you can decide whether option 2 is there or not. If not you are left with 3 and 4 as 1 is eliminated (no God does not mean no supernatural/metaphysical element) if you are sentient (and therefore have a ''you'' for me to refer to). If you are an atheist then you are left with only 3 (free will and no determinism) unless you can accept free will + deternimism. Thats not to say that 3 cannot be a choice for theists as well, of course. God can give you free will and then intervene to alter the future. Taking note of this it is truer to say that no human can alter the future rather than the future cannot be altered by anything other than randomness. (since randomness follows probability laws, one might argue that the universe therefore is deterministic without God as no man can alter it and randomness is set leaving free will and determinism as the ONLY option as option 4 is also eliminated like this. However, there is always small flux over even the longest period of time and the universe will never truly suffer ''heat death'' and perfect uniformity as this will be on average approached at an inverse exponential rate and this stage will never be reached. Only in an infinite time will this be reached and randomness removed as an element hence dissallowing any atheistic non-deterministic universe and therefore forcing option 3 for atheists. But infinite duration is of course never filled... infite amount of time will never have passed. Therefore options 2 and 3 for atheists).

So atheists can choose btw 2 and 3 and only 3 if they cannot accept free will + determinism.

Theists can chose btw 2,3 and 4 and only 3 and 4 if they cannot accept free will + determinism. Clearly a God can allow an non-deterministic universe via his own actions and allow free will so of course 3 remains an option for them.

Summary complete.

Hmmm. Not sure if this makes sense. By this time in the very early morning my words can be akin to those of a madman or drug abuser. If that is the case I apologize. Just my two cents really.

[Dragoon Knight]

Always seem to be at a bit of a loss when trying to reply to your posts, Sneakgab.  There's just... so much of it. :D

I think I get the jist of what you're saying, though.  I think the 'beauty' of my personal belief is that it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the issue of where control ultimately lies.  If you go for a purely libertarian perspective, you can throw in arguments about chaos theory, quantum physics and string theory, whereas hard determinists / fatalists will cite influences in the environment / human brain, and personal tendencies (e.g. the cowardly man example you used).

Soft determinism marries these two viewpoints in a way that acknowledges them both.  Choice is governed by the individual - he or she is given an almost infinite number of options to choose from at any given point.  For example, sitting here right now, I could continue typing, or I could start typing gibberish.  I could click Spell Check, I could open and close my door for no reason, I could start singing... the list is only limited by physical possibility (i.e. I could not levitate to my bed and have a quick nap).

This brings order to chaos - by defining "free will" as a choice of innumerable options, it makes little-to-no difference.  If the amount of choices you have is limited by physical possibility only, then there would be no discernable difference between innumerable and infinite options.

Determinism is then brought to the fore with the acknowledgement that each choice brings with it a set path, until another choice is made.  In reality, the time between one choice and another is the speed of thought, but the length of the path has no consequence.  For that split second, your "fate" was determined.  In the space between thoughts, the world has to be the way it is, and it could be no different.  Soft determinism implies that each choice made beforehand influences the available "innumerable choices" (e.g. if you made a choice to stay at home one day, the choice to jump off Mount Everest would not be immediately do-able).  It also dictates that there are an infinite number of possible universes, but only one exists, because the choices that we make determine the path that our lives follow.

What becomes difficult is trying to imagine how your choice interacts with the choices of others.  We can all imagine a line branching out into a whole load of other lines, following one and then repeating the process... but try and picture your line as being one of 6,000,000,000 others, all moving through time, all branching out almost infinitely, all somehow along the same path: the universe as we know it.  Kind of throws a spanner in the works of the typical "timeline" depiction. :P

Hopefully this elaborates a bit more.  One doesn't necessarily have to accept randomness or deterministic causality to believe in both.  Somewhat paradoxical, yes, but still true. :)

[Sneakgab]

''Always seem to be at a bit of a loss when trying to reply to your posts, Sneakgab.  There's just... so much of it. Cheesy''

I do apologize for unnecessary length. Conciseness is not my forte. However, I would like to believe that the freedom I take in length constraints allows for original and substantial posts that often times cannot be accomplished if shortened. Also, I like to deal with all options and possible issues with the post (that I can think of) in one post. Kind of speeds things up.

''What becomes difficult is trying to imagine how your choice interacts with the choices of others.  We can all imagine a line branching out into a whole load of other lines, following one and then repeating the process... but try and picture your line as being one of 6,000,000,000 others, all moving through time, all branching out almost infinitely, all somehow along the same path: the universe as we know it.  Kind of throws a spanner in the works of the typical "timeline" depiction. Tongue''

I assume you speak of this 6 billion number in reference to the other humans on Earth. This matter of different lines is simpler than you think. It is not that each human has his own line, it is that the sum of the choices of all choice-making individual defines the possible lines. Via sum, it is no different than as though there were only only choice making individual in existence. Regardless, there are innumerable lines. We consider the possible points of the universe not of an individual.

However, this is only in the case that free will can decide the possible outcomes of the universe. Since free will must be based on randomness or on set attributes, it cannot determine the outcomes of the universe. Only its attributes that determine the given decisions can. Ie: It is randomness from a metaphysical element that allows the spawning of these lines. Were it not for this there would be only 1 line. So randomness is the ultimate decider.

''

I think I get the jist of what you're saying, though.  I think the 'beauty' of my personal belief is that it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the issue of where control ultimately lies.  If you go for a purely libertarian perspective, you can throw in arguments about chaos theory, quantum physics and string theory, whereas hard determinists / fatalists will cite influences in the environment / human brain, and personal tendencies (e.g. the cowardly man example you used).''

Although, chaos theory, quantum physics and string theory do not hold any way to deviate from determinism that I can see? Well, at least not the last two. Given sufficient influence of randomness, the coward may decide to leap. This is the only way reasonable way I can see to avoid determinism, else the coward would always logically choose caution.

Well, it is definitely true that ones choices are limited by physical possibility that was decided upon by his earlier choices. Arguing against that would be madness. However, it is only the randomness that influences our choices that can allow for multiple possible universes. Otherwise, our choices must be based on a non-random factor in which case though they are made through free will (else we would have no choice to speak of) they are destined to certain points just like any mechanical set up. Though you make no such assumption, it is worth stating that assuming that we have power to alter the universe is to much. Only randomness chooses.

So considering all this, since you seem to believe in free will and a non-deterministic universe, you must by extension believe that randomness is the ultimate decider. Also, since the notion of an omniscient God does not make sense in a non-deterministic universe, you must also not believe in traditional religious fare? I am not so certain about this last conclusion as one can argue that God is what makes a universe non-deterministic as opposed to randomness (an avenue of thought to consider) but if he is free to make alterations then it would seem that predicting these alterations would either be incorrect predictions or effectively stating via prediction that there can only be this future (which would mean that the universe must be deterministic else the prediction might not be correct).

In a minor addendum to my first post: 1 (that is, a case of no free will and determinism) may  still be considered possible even with the clear evidence of metaphysical elements. However, since one would consider such elements as above the laws of physics and hence in spit of them and are therefore capable of acting randomly or by some will, it seems strange to think that there would only be elements above the laws of physics that yet obey them in a deterministic fashion. This essentially leads to the ruling out of this option. So options 1 and 4 are basically nonsense.

For those not wishing to go through my first convoluted post, this summarizes the summary (:D) much better. Since 1 and 4 are basically nonsense, if you cannot accept 2 (I do accept it not neccesarily being paradoxical though) then there can only be 1 possibility; 3. It would be strange for a theist to not be willing to accept 2 as it is basically the only option that agrees with the standard religious ideas of free will along with an omniscient Go