Do we all really have free will?

[Joel]

This conversation started in the "do you believe in God" thread, and I think it needs to be carried over to it's own thread. I personally believe we do have free will, but if Time Travel is invented, or there is a God (please, don't debate whether there is or not), we do not.


Let's say tomorrow, I go to school, and I get chocolate milk from the cafeteria. Assuming there is a God, he already knew I would get one. Is my will my own? If God already knows my choice, do I really have the free will to choose a coke, or white milk?

 

[WVUscion]

I would have to disagree with including Time Traveling in the idea that it limits free will. A time traveler would not share the same properties as the classical definition of God. That is "all powerful, all knowing, and perfectly good". While a time traveler could go to the future and see his future actions. One could rightly assume that upon going back he could change his life. Much like Scrooge did in "A Christmas Carol". This would be a good example of someone time traveling, and yet still maintaining their free will.

 

[Danoff]

The idea behind the time traveler is that he can see the actions of others, go back in time, and know what their actions will be before they happen. If your actions in the future can be known, do you really have free will?

 

[WVUscion]

It is not that your actions are known, its that your actions can or cannot be changed thataht determines free will. Take this example for instance.

If I was sitting with you Danoff and we were discussing what you were going to have for breakfast. Either toast or cereal. I decide that I am going to go into the future and find out which choice you made. I do so and come back and tell you that you chose cereal. You then choose toast immediately.

What happens in this scenario? Are you showing your free will? Yes and no. See I could have witnessed you pick the toast and then came back and told you otherwise thinking you would immediately pick the opposite in order to flex your "free will muscles". If that were the case you didn't have free will. I more or less would have manipulated you into picking the toast. But what if me telling you cereal was accurate, and your choice of toast contradicted my observation. This would be free will, because you were not bound to the events of the future. You were likewise free to choose whatever you wanted to, whether you were aware of your supposed future choice or not.

 

[Danoff]

It is not that your actions are known, its that your actions can or cannot be changed thataht determines free will. Take this example for instance.

If I was sitting with you Danoff and we were discussing what you were going to have for breakfast. Either toast or cereal. I decide that I am going to go into the future and find out which choice you made. I do so and come back and tell you that you chose cereal. You then choose toast immediately.

What happens in this scenario? Are you showing your free will? Yes and no. See I could have witnessed you pick the toast and then came back and told you otherwise thinking you would immediately pick the opposite in order to flex your "free will muscles". If that were the case you didn't have free will. I more or less would have manipulated you into picking the toast. But what if me telling you cereal was accurate, and your choice of toast contradicted my observation. This would be free will, because you were not bound to the events of the future. You were likewise free to choose whatever you wanted to, whether you were aware of your supposed future choice or not.

Suppose you went into the future to find out that I picked toast. Then came back and watched me pick toast (without telling me what I picked). If you know my actions before I make them, how do I have free will?

 

[WVUscion]

Suppose you went into the future to find out that I picked toast. Then came back and watched me pick toast (without telling me what I picked). If you know my actions before I make them, how do I have free will?

Because me knowing your choice would therefore be completely independent of your choice. The only way that the breakfast choice would effect your free will is if YOU would know what your decision would be.

This does however connect to the God thread. We used similar arguments for how God would effect our free will. The key difference between us and God is that God is all powerful AND all knowing, so he could actively effect the decisions that you make without you knowing it. Thus depriving you of your free will.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Suppose you went into the future to find out that I picked toast. Then came back and watched me pick toast (without telling me what I picked). If you know my actions before I make them, how do I have free will?

Because you could have picked something else and the time traveler did not interfere with your decision.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Because you could have picked something else and the time traveler did not interfere with your decision.

The conflict rests in the knowledge that there is a predetermined outcome: toast. If it's predetermined, how is it free will?

 

[WVUscion]

The conflict rests in the knowledge that there is a predetermined outcome: toast. If it's predetermined, how is it free will?

Because it is not predetermined. The only way it would be predetermined is if there was nothing he could do EXCEPT picking toast. That is obviously not the case. Upon hearing the time travelers account of the future he could pick cold cereal. I'm sure all of you have seen Back To The Future. As he changed things, the future subsequently would change. Since the time traveler is not God and has no characteristics of God, he does not have the power to control the actions of Danoff, whom is at this point very worried about his toast and cereal

 

[dylansan]

Wouldn't the fact that the time traveller decided to go to the future have to be predetermined? You can't really have half of the people of the world live predetermined lives and the other have free will without them somehow affecting each other.

 

[Joel]

This is mind bendingly difficult to comprehend... But back the toast vs cereal thing, I agree with Public's Twin. If somebody already knows the outcome, is it really your choice?


And to the God is all good thing, I disagree. If God was all good, he wouldn't have killed everyone in the flood, and we wouldn't still be under punishment from the original sin, but that's for another thread.

 

[nobuffalo]

Anyone who chooses toast over cereal clearly has no free will.

 

[Danoff]

Because you could have picked something else and the time traveler did not interfere with your decision.

Supposing God does not interfere with your decision, but is all-knowing and therefore, like the time traveler, knows what you will do. I find these two scenarios to be parallel, and am wondering whether it constitutes free will.

 

[Joel]

<removed for irrelevance>

 

[Public'sTwin]

Because it is not predetermined. The only way it would be predetermined is if there was nothing he could do EXCEPT picking toast. That is obviously not the case. Upon hearing the time travelers account of the future he could pick cold cereal.

Subject A has a decision: toast or cereal.
Subject B knows he will pick toast. He bets $500 on toast, and to be a bastard, poisons all the bread.
(Subject B determined A would pick 'toast', before A actually picked toast&#8212;and knew so infallibly. Thus, A's fate is predetermined.)
Subject A inevitably picks the poisoned toast and dies; B profits.

How this isn't predetermined, you must explain.

I'm sure all of you have seen Back To The Future. As he changed things, the future subsequently would change. Since the time traveler is not God and has no characteristics of God, he does not have the power to control the actions of Danoff, whom is at this point very worried about his toast and cereal

This is all superfluous; it has nothing to do with free will&#8212;cause and effect are only components of the capacity to choose those things. They are still outcomes, decided freely or not.

 

[WVUscion]

Supposing God does not interfere with your decision, but is all-knowing and therefore, like the time traveler, knows what you will do. I find these two scenarios to be parallel, and am wondering whether it constitutes free will.

I would say that they are not parallel. Because God being all-knowing means that he would know that you would change your decision, and would know all of the thought process that you would go through to make the decision.

The time traveller does not share such knowledge. It would be a flip of the coin for the traveler. He could tell you in the hopes you'd change, but there would be no guarantee that you would. The travelers perspective is only limited to what he experienced during his journey, and is independent from the sort of omnipotence and omniscience present with God.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I would say that they are not parallel. Because God being all-knowing means that he would know that you would change your decision, and would know all of the thought process that you would go through to make the decision.

The time traveller does not share such knowledge. It would be a flip of the coin for the traveler. He could tell you in the hopes you'd change, but there would be no guarantee that you would. The travelers perspective is only limited to what he experienced during his journey, and is independent from the sort of omnipotence and omniscience present with God.

The point is — and you also seem to have misinterpreted even the scientific as well as logical theory behind this — the time-traveller followed the same thread of decision as [assuming] God did.

What you seem to be implying, and quite naturally so, is that there are an infinite number of permutations which lay in store for the future.

This may be true, but each permutation is theorized to exist on its own thread, or plain if you will. The time-traveler and the Subject, having the same thread origins can, using conventional logic, only travel only along the same 'thread'—and thus observe the same situations, lest they be altered by the time traveller himself, which would result in the creation of a new "thread". (Divergent timelines, therefore, have still resulted in a predetermined future, this one uniquely caused by the actions of the time-traveller. The "other", if it still exists, is simply unknown.)

 

[WVUscion]

Subject A has a decision: toast or cereal.
Subject B knows he will pick toast. He bets $500 on toast, and to be a bastard, poisons all the bread.
(Subject B determined A would pick 'toast', before A actually picked toast—and knew so infallibly. Thus, A's fate is predetermined.)
Subject A inevitably picks the poisoned toast and dies; B profits.

How this isn't predetermined, you must explain.



This is all superfluous; it has nothing to do with free will—cause and effect are only components of the capacity to choose those things. They are still outcomes, decided freely or not.

Forgive for the double post, is there a way to merge the two posts? Sorry I'm new here

I think both of us have a different interpretation of the word predetermined. This obviously is fine, but may help to resolve our problem. I have kind of alluded to this a couple times through a couple of posts, but it might be useful to combine it into a single post to help develop further. I believe that there is a schism between that which is observed by a time traveler (back to the future style) and being omniscient. Subject B may have witnessed that Subject A will pick toast due to time travel, but Subject B has no power over the decision that Subject A will make. Subject B has witnessed a moment in time before it happened completely independent of the breakfast oriented decisions that are going through Subject A's mind. Therefore it would be plausible for Subject A to make his choice of toast while still maintaining his free will. Maybe this example might help express my opinion a little further.

Subject A and B are in the kitchen discussing whether to eat toast or cereal. Subject C and D are in the living room discussing the same. Following with our original example, Subject B goes forward in time and knows that A will pick toast. After B gets back he goes into the living room and says that he knows that A will pick toast. C and D's knowledge of A's decision, while it may influence their breakfast decision, is not something that has limited there free will, it has just provided them with further information in order to make a decision for themselves.

I think that B's effect on C and D is the same as B's effect on A. If B tells A of his decision then he is free to change it if he pleases, thus maintaining his free will.

Does that help to clear things up?

 

[Sam48]

This was also posted in the "do you believe in God thread", but I thought I'd be more appropriate here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common outcome from separating Identical twins at birth is that without ever knowing each other, they live almost identical lives. For example, two twins separated at birth one day meet up and discover they both drive 08' Ford Mustangs, both live in a two story condo, both have a blond haired wife named Sarah, and both have 3 kids.

This is an example of free will, and how identical minds make the same decisions.

 

[Joel]

However, If B says nothing to A, A's thought process will be the same.

And I don't agree. Twins don't have the same minds... But this is a Nature vs Nurture argument. Do we have a thread for that?

 

[Public'sTwin]

A common outcome from separating Identical twins at birth is that without ever knowing each other, they live almost identical lives. For example, two twins separated at birth one day meet up and discover they both drive 08' Ford Mustangs, both live in a two story condo, both have a blond haired wife named Sarah, and both have 3 kids.

This is an example of free will, and how identical minds make the same decisions.

Actually this is an example of the law of statistics (with fallacy in bold for clarification).

 

[WVUscion]

However, If B says nothing to A, A's thought process will be the same.

And I don't agree. Twins don't have the same minds... But this is a Nature vs Nurture argument. Do we have a thread for that?

Exactly

You can not say that B had any influence on the decision that A made in choosing toast. A's decision, whether B knew about it or not was completely A's own. Therefore he acted on free will.

 

[Joel]

However, it's predetermined by B knowing what will happen. Although B will not influence A, it's still a predetermined decision.

 

[Dotini]

Exactly

You can not say that B had any influence on the decision that A made in choosing toast. A's decision, whether B knew about it or not was completely A's own. Therefore he acted on free will.

That makes sense.

 

[dylansan]

There's a lot of strange conclusions being formed on the basis of time travel. I think the most important thing to consider is that going forward in time and seeing what will be is only possible if the outcomes are predetermined. If A changes his mind, the future B saw wouldn't have existed.

But I still don't think that means life is predetermined, just that time travel doesn't make sense. I don't really think including time travel in the discussion is helping to get the point across.

 

[WVUscion]

However, it's predetermined by B knowing what will happen. Although B will not influence A, it's still a predetermined decision.

I concede that it is predetermined. You, and others are correct. I just felt as if there was a connection being drawn (not necessarily by you I can't remember who specifically) between such a premonition and free will.

 

[Sam48]

Exactly

You can not say that B had any influence on the decision that A made in choosing toast. A's decision, whether B knew about it or not was completely A's own. Therefore he acted on free will.

If B has knows what A will do, it doesn't mean A doesn't have free will, it simply means B knows what he will do next. A can do whatever he likes out of free will, but B just happens to know what it is.

 

[Dotini]

There's a lot of strange conclusions being formed on the basis of time travel. I think the most important thing to consider is that going forward in time and seeing what will be is only possible if the outcomes are predetermined. If A changes his mind, the future B saw wouldn't have existed.

But I still don't think that means life is predetermined, just that time travel doesn't make sense. I don't really think including time travel in the discussion is helping to get the point across.

Sane and sober.

 

[WVUscion]

Getting back to the topic at hand

Danoff, Dotini, Twin, Others not mentioned,

Leaving the time traveler by the wayside do you believe that there is free will? Why? If not is it because of God? Or do you take a different approach? I am very interested in where this will go.

Philosophy Majors Unite!

 

[Joel]

I personally don't believe in a God, so that argument isn't valid in my life, but yes. I think there is free will. The reason that I have free will, is that none of my decisions are predetermined by any outside force (sure, my parents persuade me somewhat, but for the most part, they let me be my own person), therefore I have free will.

Haha, Philosophy majors. I wish. Hooray for Grade 10!