Free Will in an Ordained Reality

Visual Novel Community Off Topic
#1

Philosophical discussion. :slight_smile:

How can someone possess free will in a reality that is already predetermined? If the world is prophesized to end on 2050 – and no mortal decision can prevent that end – how is it that mortals possess the free will to change that event from occurring?

Addendum: If supplication to an immortal force will delay the inevitable end or result in a more favorable outcome, then there is the argument that free will is choosing to worship or not worship the immortal force. However is that merely the illusion of choice? True free will is choice without constraints - blackmail and threats of finality are constraints.

Arthur Schopenhauer once proposed that, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills”.

That basically translates as: though you may choose to act in accordance to the events presented to you, the events leading to and after have already been predetermined. Therefore free will is an illusion if the future is prophetic: what you do is not your choice, for it must happen for the planned events afterward to occur.

Thus Narg having a basement full of enslaved twincest servants in Stockholm Syndrome is not morally his fault: it was destined to occur to preserve the future. Don’t wanna cause a reality destructive paradox. :wink:

#2

It is impossible to build a device that (using physics models of the universe) can accurately predict the future inerrantly. For the same reason, actually, that the Halting Problem cannot be solved.

I ask the Oracle a question about what it thinks I am going to do in the future … then I make sure to do something else.

So reality may be predetermined, or quantum mechanics might mean that reality is in fact not on a set clockwork-like course, but proceeds with some randomness and unpredictability. It doesn’t matter. Since no prediction device can be built that is 100% foolproof, there is no such thing as a set of equations you could sit and grind out to predict what “should” happen, or what “will” happen. Even if there in fact is no free will at all, it will appear to us as though there is.

#3

Yet according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, anything that can be quantified and solved, is quantified and solved: we just haven’t figured it out yet. :wink:

IMHO the Halting Problem really isn’t a problem per se, but a proof that machines (at least non-sentient) are devoid of free will and will continue on and on and on and on and on and on and on…

It is simply an order to not stop doing something until being told to stop, but the instruction to stop never occurs, and a device incapable of making the decision to stop on it’s own will never stop until it ceases to function. An organic creature - and theoretically a true AI - would simply give up, because we’re wired with enough freewill to say, “fuck that, I got better things to do,” after the first thousand or so cycles. :o

The smart solution is to simply quit. It’s sorta like trying to find the last number… one will never accomplish it (as theoretically even if someone started counting at the beginning of time, and stopped counting at the end of time, an outside observer beyond the constraints of time could continue measuring infinity).

#4

Actually, that’s not the interpretation of HUP I’m familiar with. (I admit the math involved is beyond me, but I’ve seen it summarized in readable English before). Basically, reality itself is imprecise; given (say) position and momentum (one of the pairs of quantities related in this way) … There’s a certain amount of “fuzziness” involved. The particle doesn’t have a particular position; instead, it is (on average) located approximately between here and there. Likewise, it has approximately momentum M. But you can’t know both perfectly; improving the accuracy of one measurement literally causes the fuzziness in the other quantity to increase.

That is - the particles doesn’t have a “true momentum” and “true position” that simply can’t be determined by inspection. The particles exist in a kind of averaged-out state across the wave function, and it has something to do with messing with the wave function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

… My brain hurts.

#5

Exactly. But you’re only stating what the HUP is: not what it ultimate entails.

The principal goes beyond what we can measure, and explores what we could ever hope to measure. The rational is that unknowable values can never be determined, yet will still possess precise values (though nonetheless unknowable).

Therefore my previous statement: anything that can be quantified and solved, is quantified and solved, we just haven’t figured it out yet.

Quantum physics is funny that way. :o

EDIT
The simplest way is to put it like this: you have an A and then you have a B. You can only watch A and B at the same time with 50% accuracy. The more attention you put on one value, the less attention you put on the other. So if you give 80% attention to B, you are only giving 20% to A. To accurately predict A with perfect certainty (100%), you must cease to observe B (0%). However just because you can no longer observe B, does not mean B was impossible to predict at the beginning - it was only impossible because you made it impossible. Nonetheless, B still has a value and therefore is predictable in that strange sense, yet is completely unknown at the sacrifice of becoming absolutely certain of A.

The “question” seems rather simple: how do you keep track of A and B with 100% certainty at the same time? Of course the “answer” ain’t so simple. :stuck_out_tongue:

My solution? Twincest. It solves everything. [u]EVERYTHING[/u]!!

#6

Actually, I am given to understand the entire point is they don’t possess precise values. Supposedly, there are ways to distinguish between “has an indeterminate value averaging about this” and “has a precise but unmeasurable value” and that experiments have shown it to be the former. But I’m no quantum physicist.

#7

It possesses a precise value in part: not in whole. In making one precise, you make the other not, ruining the whole.

In the original theory HUP: position or momentum. One or the other. Not both. So it becomes a yes and a no at the same time.

That’s the hallmark of quantum physics though, so no surprise how it turns out that way. :slight_smile:

However you need both position and momentum to be 100% absolute in everything, thus the impossibility cited in the work. There is still a value: it’s just uncertain.

EDIT
Using no word games or examples, ultimately HUP just comes down to this: the Universe can be valued and measured; it cannot be absolutely predicted. That’s really the only “real world application” one gets out of it. There is a good counter argument against HUP however: is time linear? And that of course would question if we have free will (if the future is absolute like the past), bringing us back to the original topic. :o

EDIT 2
To further add: HUP is also one of the factors that reveals, by observing something (which is a mandatory part of the Scientific Method), you’ve tainted the results (which is a mandatory no-no of the Scientific Method). So to obtain the true untainted results, you must make predictions based on what your tainted observations have caused. This is the central core of what are known as Thought Experiments… which is what the Halting Problem is categorized as.

#8

If true free will is as it is described in the addendum I must say true free will is something we don’t need. If we didn’t have any limitations I do doubt anyone would have a need for free will. If I never became hungry I would never inject free will when conditions arise. I wouldn’t have to decide whether to go out to a restaurant or not, then select an item off the restaurant’s menu and then decide what the tip would be. No, I’d just never become hungry and simply exist without needing to make choices. Of course, someone could say without any constraints such as getting fat they could be free to eat as much food as they want, but I am pretty sure most of us see hunger as the main limitation and not the issue of over-eating.

It is as if one were trapped in a maze. If they weren’t restricted between the walls and they could walk through them they wouldn’t have a need to traverse the maze properly. Of course, if someone had true free will without constraints they wouldn’t be in a maze to begin with.

I won’t go into that pre-determined stuff as I always see people who think things are hopeless no matter what they do as pathetic. I suppose I believe strongly enough in free will to know that there are only two things certain and the saying probably doesn’t need to be typed.

#9