Can anyone find a hole in this argument against free will?

Um, that I don’t believe in a Big Bang?

That’s a pretty big hole in logic – sound logical theorems should not contain theories.

I have no free will. It is pre-determined that I must empty a litter box…now or it will be pre-determined that I will receive a tangible message from Milo, on a spot that I can’t miss.

@gail: lmao

@squirbel – Well, this is all based on the assumption that the big bang theory and the theories of quantum and particle physics are true. None of these are seriously questioned in the scientific community, and while I agree that an argument shouldn’t be based on faulty premises, these two ideas are the closest to truth the scientists can come.

@gail – cats give the strongest arguments against free will

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) writes prolifically about this subject on his blog.

Hobbes, do you really believe the statements from the original post?

I disagree with the statements on a theoretical level. To bring it to a subatomic level I’ll put it like this:

Those theoretical particles even have (some version of) free will. Everything orbits in a slightly off way. I believe that there’s something akin to a random number generator in each particle which decides whether it vibrates right or left. Because the vibrations could be slightly different on a microscopic level, it could hypothetically create a humongous number of future possibilities for that particle. Multiply that by a million particles and you get everything where anything could have happened but only one thing did happen.

Fate and predetermination are things that can only be 100% when they are based on things that have happened in the past.

If you want to get technical about the current cosmological theories, the universe is mostly composed of nothing. HTH.

Hobbes you would be correct in a Newtonian universe. But those days are gone and the new “best-guess” odel is the Einsteinian universe, which isn’t as “clockwork lockstep” so you might look into that.

More than you want to know about the contents of the universe according to recent research and theories.

I’m sorry – when it comes to logic – I am completely black & white. There is no grey logic – it works or it does not.

If you tell me outright that I am working with theories, I will dance in the grey all day.

But draw the line – because where logic and theory are allowed to frolic together, confusion and disarray are always the end result… or perpetual result. [did you see what i did thar?]

I’m not a physicist, but it’s my understanding that the kind of determinism you’re outlining depends on a strictly Newtonian interpretation of sub-atomic phenomena. Quantum mechanics tells us that sub-atomic particles don’t behave in the deterministic way billiard balls do, but in ways that can only be understood in terms of probability.

If it’s impossible to calculate with 100% certainty the behavior of any sub-atomic particle, then how could a future event which depends upon the enchaining of untold myriads of such probabilistic occurrences be predetermined?

the forces of these subatomic particles changed as things developed and were driven away during the blast. As galaxies and worlds developed and gravitational pulls and such didn’t that change everything. Aren’t we now down to the point where a MRI can change the polarization of our molecules for imaging purposes?

So I can choose to walk if the light is green or not.

Or answer this question or not.

For that matter how would it dictate certain things like innovation?

@bodyhead – well, that depends on what you mean by “random” for one thing. We say a dice throw is “random”, but it really isn’t – the result is simply determined by such a vast number of factors that we have no way of predicting it.

Also, Unless you’re using the loosest possible definition of the word, a particle whose movements are random doesn’t have “free will”. If your premise is true, our behavior may not be mechanistically determined, but it being randomly or probabilistically determined isn’t much better.

@squirbel – What I’m doing is saying “If X is true, then Y”. I’m assuming a premise is true and deriving its logical consequences. What’s incorrect about that?

If someone knows what we’re going to do, we can’t change that.

@Hobbes
trying to understand how something can be “probabilistically determined”

1. The universe is composed of subatomic particles. [logic, proven]
2. The trajectory each of those particles was set in motion by the Big Bang. [theoretical, unproven – the big bang has not been proven anymore than creation. It also sounds like creation – just a scientific version, lending credence to the creation theory]
3. This trajectory, combined with the laws governing the interactions between said particles, determine all their present and possible movements. [logic, proven]
4. The human brain is composed of particles, which are in motion. [logic, proven]
5. Therefore, all the interactions in the human brain which govern behavior are determined by the interactions of particles, which are in turn determined by the aforementioned forces. [theoretical, unproven – we don’t know for sure that all behaviors are determined by the movements of these partcles.]
6. Therefore, everything you do, from whether you have Captain Crunch for breakfast on Thursday, to whether you accept a job, to whether to move your arm a little to the left was predetermined at the moment of the big bang. [theoretical, unproven – even if the Big Bang were true – the particles in the future had not moved yet – and the randomness of the movements could not have been predetermined.]

My main issue with this entire question is that you allow theory and logic to play together so closely – you never get straight or solid answers when you investigate in this manner.

I think the paradox of Shrödinger’s Cat needs to be addressed before serious discussion of quantum pre-determination can lead to resolution.

Oh, and I like what squirbel said.

Shrödinger’s Cat is immortal – dead and alive all at once. Chew on that :D

@squirbel – I’m assuming the Big Bang model is true because a.) So far, there isn’t a better one and b.) there is a pretty large body of observational evidence to support it.

If the human brain is composed of particles, how could its behavior possibly be controlled by anything other than the movements of those particles?

I understand you, squirbel, but I really don’t see anything wrong with assuming a few theories are true and then determining their conclusions.

To address the argument many people have put forth: assuming that subatomic motion is probabilistic (sorry, Harp, you’re right – it can’t be deterministic and probabilistic at once), that still doesn’t demonstrate free will to me. If an action is taken due to quantum randomness, it’s still not controlled by “free will”.

Truth, and belief – two very different things.

Truth is logic and logic is truth. Theories are only beliefs with supposed logic.

@Hobbes
No, it doesn’t demonstrate free will, but it would put a hole in the above line of reasoning.

“If the human brain is composed of particles, how could its behavior possibly be controlled by anything other than the movements of those particles?”

The soul, as separate and distinct from the body.

Since your hypothetical here precludes the concept of a soul, then all you’re left with is particle interaction. Not here to define the soul for anyone, but if science has yet to construct life even at the most rudimentary level, then I think it’s safe to say that there’s some “secret ingredient” that isn’t yet accounted for.

The big leap is made between these two points.

4. The human brain is composed of particles, which are in motion.
5. Therefore, all the interactions in the human brain which govern behavior are determined by the interactions of particles, which are in turn determined by the aforementioned forces.

Why assume that the movement of the particles in the brain is determined by the aforementioned forces?

It is said that when you measure the acidity of someone’s tears the tears will be more acidic if the person is angry, upset or depressed. If the person is happy or calm, then the tears are more alkaline.

Through anger management, prayer, meditation, relaxation techniques, curious robot methods (apparently), etc. you can learn to control your anger. Thus, the brain is now controlling the interactions between the particles that control the level of acidity.

Are you saying that at the moment of the Big Bang, Dennis Leary was predetermined to need therapy?

@rob
Because I value your input as an intelligent guy, let me ask you something that has always puzzled me about the “soul” concept:

To what extent would you say that thought and emotion and memory are physiological phenomena, and to what extent are they properties of the soul? If “soul” and “body” are separable, then do the memories encoded in my neurons belong to the body or the soul? And if thought and emotion can be altered by physical or chemical manipulation of the brain, then can they be said to belong to the soul?

So, to bring this back to the question at hand, if free will exists, how could it be disentangled from the physiological processes of thought and emotion?

Not trying to start a debate; I’d just like to hear your view. Really

And the second that Rob mentioned Shrödinger’s Cat. it was foreordained that I would cite Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle.

@Hobbes, I’m actually marrying the definitions of random and free will for that explanation. I’m saying that vibrating one way instead of another is the subatomic form of free will because it would seem like randomness to anyone who actually would observe it.

Hey Gail, could we borrow Milo for a bit?

Oops. Nevermind. Sorry guys. That’s what I get for skimming.

@harp: BAHAHAHAH

Poor Milo.

/read

@All; Milo has a levée on Tues. and Thurs., at 10 AM. You have to face him on entering and back out of the throne room on departing. Contributions are voluntary.

Yea Hobbes, I’m trying to explain something akin to Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle (which gailcalled mentioned).

I think my little explanation up there is just an idiots guide to Heisenberg’s Uncertainly Principle. I knew there must be a reason that I concocted that nutty little jem.

@niki, yes, I think you’re right. Uncertainty to me also means “unknown”... in that it’s not just that there might be a prohibitive number of variables, but that there are some variables we don’t know yet how to quantify or describe.

@Harp, your question makes perfect sense. I enjoyed the biological psych courses in college and remember being astounded by what happens when a person has their corpus collosum interrupted (usually surgically). Best I can reason – and this is not my forté – the mind/body connection is that the brain (and body as a whole) acts as a gateway/filter/bridge for the soul.

I do not believe that life is fixed. What would be the point. If it was I wouldn’t be writing this answer and you wouldn’t have asked this question. What would be the point if time was fixed. Thats just silly.

@body – niki said it best: why would more than one possible outcome to the system necessitate free will?

@squirbel – theories are beliefs backed up by experimental evidence.

@rob – I’m beginning from the assumption that there is no soul. I think scientists haven’t suceeded in synthesizing life yet because life is very complex and difficult to create from whole cloth, not because there’s a thing that somehow exists outside of the physical universe and transcends the laws of cause and effect, yet is also fundamentally connected to the universe, but only at the level of a few lumps of grey matter on one of hundreds of billions of planets in one of millions of billions of galaxies.

Aside from the doctrinal necessity of free will and in religious belief systems, it seems to me that an illusion of free will is as good as the real thing. As long as we believe that we guide our decisions, and as long as we’re unable to prove the contrary, then whether that is or isn’t actually the case is immaterial. We will perceive it as working out the same either way.

If we’re happier and society functions better when operating under the assumption of free will, then there’s not much point in calling it into question.

Bri_L – Sorry, I accidentally missed your answer.

The forces of the subatomic particles did change, yes, in that they didn’t keep traveling in the same direction after the blast because they collided with one another, were attracted to each other, or were repelled from one another. However, their state at any given moment could be predicted based on the initial trajectory of all the particles, because you could predict their interactions. Of course, this prediction could never happen in practice because it’s all incredibly complicated. And when you add in quantum randomness, it just gets even more so.

The thing is, we may be able to change the polarization of molecules, but the interactions between particles in our brains that lead us to do so are themselves determined by the very complex interactions of subatomic particles, not an outside will.

@Harp – Well, that’s probably true. And yet, saying that we shouldn’t question anything that makes us happy seems to be a rather insidious proposition to me. If we were all constantly on mood-altering drugs, would you refuse to question their use because they held society together and made us all content?

Hobbes, this is different in a very important way: if there is no free will, then we have no choice whether or not to question it, so our “choice” not to question it would be inevitable anyway. But if there is free will, then our choce not to question it would be the factually correct one anyway.

OK, yes, fair point. To function in the world, we must behave as though we have free will. However, I think the question of whether we do have it in actuality is still interesting and important

Well. I have nothing to add at this point as I am desperately trying to write a paper that may or may not end up being on the same topic, and I hope, @Hobbes, I can talk you into giving it a once-over before I turn it in. If I come up with anything good I’ll paste it here. Anyway, am glad you have (ostensibly) come around to my hardline materialist viewpoint.

Sorry, but I still don’t see how controlling our emotions can be considered anything other than free will.

If there was no free will, then people would act much as they do when they are children or when they become aged, mainly they don’t care if they impose themselves on others.

The fact that adults, for the most part, are able to control their emotions with effort shows that they have chosen how to respond.

@fireside: The difference between children and adults is that adults have (supposedly) learned how to control their behavior. Learning is a physical process.

@fireside, I think one point is that human emotion is closely tied to hormones and other chemicals present in the body. Manic-depression, for example, would be a case where one could argue that physiological conditions dictate a person’s actions moreso than his/her choices.

Or more bluntly, a brain surgeon can poke electrodes into your brain and arbitrarily make you see colors, hear sounds, feel happy, sad, cold, or nauseous… all without your free will’s input.

Sure, but neither of those take away from a person’s choice to respond positively or negatively to a situation. I can allow my blood to boil and vent, or I can relax and let the moment pass.

That changes from situation to situation, not just from person to person.

The physical process is controlled by the will.

Just because the same synapses can be fired from an external stimulus, doesn’t take away from the internal processes. That would be like saying that every time i stub my toe, i will react the exact same way.

@fireside – the point is that the brain’s “decision” to control or not control an emotion is determined by the interaction between particles in the brain. Perhaps the “I” that makes that choice doesn’t do so because of the lizard brain’s influence, but that “I” still arises from the interactions between neurons, and thus from the interactions between subatomic particles, and thus all decisions the “I” makes are dictated by the motions of those particles, not by an “willer” removed from the whole mess.

Perhaps is a huge word in the middle or your theory.

The fact that the “I” is able to build upon past stimuli and modify the interactions of the neurons that cause the reaction to the stimuli shows that something independent from the process is happening.

What you are saying is that the motion of the subatomic particles emanating out of the heart of the big bang is what is causing my neurons to react differently as I age rather than my mental processes that are building upon my past experiences; because I am learning and my blood is pumping and my subatomic particles are in motion, then that is invariably all attributed to the motion of the particles based upon my relation in time and space to the big bang; and even though I have the same growth and recognition in different parts of the world, it is still because those particles that are in motion and passing through my subatomic field are affecting me the same way as the other particles that were in motion in a different place and time?

Fair enough.
My belief in God is not much different, except for the free will thing.

But I still think that controlling our actions and deciding whether to act in a positive or negative way to a repeated stimuli is proof of our capacity to choose our path and exercise our free will.

It is like that old flinching game. the fact that you are able to learn to control your lizard brain and not react instinctively, shows growth. What you are saying is that the subatomic particle stream just happens to be affecting your synapses in the exact same way when presented by the same stimulus, regardless of place or time.

@Hobbes, Even if you just have two possible outcomes, if both outcomes are just as likely then the object which holds the deciding factor will appear to have free will. Whether it actually does or not is debatable.

But in an absolutely deterministic universe, there could only ever be one possible outcome. The appearance of other possibilities would be an illusion caused by our unawareness of all the factors at play.

In that case, we couldn’t assign the cause to the motion of the subatomic particles emanating from the Big Bang. Since that may just be one of the factors and there may be many others of which we are unaware.

I guess this question as posed would really be an argument for Astrology.
But even Astrology assumes the individual is free to disregard the warnings of what may be based on the alignment of the stars.

@Fireside – The ability to “control” our actions (That is, override impulses from one part of the brain with impulses from another) may give the appearance of free will, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually there.

I think you made my argument overly complex. All I’m saying is that, since all the stimuli that our brains process arise from the interactions of particles, and since all the processes of our brains arise from the interactions of particles, and since all interactions of particles arise from the laws of physics (that is, a combination of their initial trajectory, their past interactions with particles, and Weird Quantum Stuff I Don’t Fully Understand), there’s no point at which something separate from the system “makes a decision”.

@bodyhead – Ah. I see what you mean now. Well, yes – we appear to have free will too, but just like that vibrating particle, it seems to me that the appearance is a false one.

@Fireside – Well, we assign the motion of the particles to the Big Bang in any case because it’s the best theory we currently have available to us. There may of course be factors of which we are unaware, but we’re proceeding from the assumption that the Big Bang theory is correct because nothing else matches the evidence.

Astrology presumes that the movements of the planets in our solar system determine specific aspects of our lives, and that the effects they have can be charted and understood. I suppose that the particles that compose the planets would affect the particles that compose our bodies and brains, but not in the way that Astrologers claim. Plus, according to my argument, everything in the universe affects everything else in the universe, and so any attempt to codify, understand and predict all those immensely complex interactions would probably be an exercise in futility.

Hobbes I think that it depends on your perspective. We have free will in the present and it was fate in the past.

Even if free will is an illusion, I would say it’s a fully complete illusion that no one will ever crack.

Well, unless we understand all the past and present interactions of every particle in the universe, as well as their current and future implications = ]

I guess we better get started. That’s a pretty big job.

This question is like asking everyone to find a hole in the following theory:

We are all just a part of someone’s dream.

Go ahead and debunk that one. good luck

@bodyhead – I think there’s a team of scientists in Nebraska currently doing preliminary research on the subject. I believe their methods involve a whole lot of shrooms and a bottle of Vodka.

@Fireside – Not really. The difference is that I’m proceeding from what we’re almost positive is true about the universe, and then deriving the implications. That is, my argument is possible to disprove – just prove that the universe isn’t actually composed of the interactions between physical things, or that something besides the laws of physics controls those interactions, or that the big bang never happened.

Oh, ok, well i can see why you asked the question on Fluther then.

Let me bust out my high school science kit and get back to you in a couple of weeks.

Look, fireside, all I’m saying is that the question isn’t completely impossible to prove either way. It may be mental masturbation, but dammit, it’s scientifically valid mental masturbation!

lol, fair enough.

btw, what’s the opposite of absolute zero?

Hobbes; Be careful. You are get getting dangerously close to the event horizon.

Check out String theory… a still-developing scientific approach to theoretical physics.

Theories at the edge of present-day scientific knowledge are just that; theories.

From ^^ link; “String theory itself consists of many theories with different mathematical formulas.”

[pipes in real quick]
”since all interactions of particles arise from the laws of physics”

Isn’t it the other way around? The laws of physics arise from [our study of] all interactions of particles. Kind of like how you don’t invent physics, but rather discover physics? No?

Ooh. Good call, Nimis. It should be “All interactions of particles are determined/governed by universal laws (some of which we’ve discovered and many of which we haven’t). The point still stands, though, I think.

Here’s a reworked version of the argument, by the way:

1. The universe is composed of subatomic particles.
2. Various physical laws govern their motion and interaction (some of which we have discovered and partially understood, some of which we haven’t).
3. All brain input arises from the motion and interaction of these particles.
4. All brain and body processes also arise from this motion and interaction.
5. Assuming there is no such thing as the “soul”, the totality of the mind, and thus the totality of human consciousness, arises from a combination of the brain’s input and the brain’s and body’s processes.
6. All of human experience arises from the motion and interaction of subatomic particles.
7. All of human consciousness arises from various physical laws.
8. All decisions any given human makes are determined by these physical laws.
9. “Free Will” does not exist.

10. Removal of the “soul” causes the death of “Free Will”

: )

I can actually sum that down even more Hobbes:
Everything that happens, looks like it was suppose to happen (from 1 second in the future).

@Fireside, Do cats and dogs have souls? Do monkeys have souls? They seem to have free will.

Sure, why not?
Every living thing has the breath of life.

@Hobbes, why are you trying to make a case for determinism?

Chaos theory probably has something to say about this. I believe it is proven than it is impossible to predict the future accurately, and this is because you can not know both the position and direction of particles at the same time.

The significance of this is multiplied at every level of increased size. We are not in a Newtonian universe. So our choices matter. The presence of the observor changes things. Our choices change things. Even we can not predict our own choices.

The laws which govern at the scale of the atomic and subatomic level are in all but extreme situations not observable at larger scales. They do not govern at the scales of interest.

Might they not govern at the scale at which genetic mutation happens?

Well, yes, daloon. But the Uncertainty Principle does not relate to “choice” or “free will”. It simply means that particle movement is probabilistic, not deterministic – there’s still nothing in our mind that “chooses”, something outside of the physical interactions and motions of particles.

@critter – and yet, there must be some relationship there, as Harp says. Everything is made up of particles, so the laws which govern particles must govern very complex arrangements of particles. We just haven’t unified the two fields yet.

“Observation” implies (to me at least) an intelligent, aware observer.

The observer’s action, that is mere observation, affects probabilistic outcomes.

Therefore, the observer is an agent of change.

And change is in some ways synonymous with choice.

—

Not trying to bog this down with semantics, but perhaps someone else could help distill this concept down better to show that free will not only exists, but is also possibly a necessary ingredient in the makeup of the universe.

@rob- its a non-starter. hobbes already explained this away by saying that the observer too is made of subatomic particles. its a loop. where did the subatomic particles come from and what set them in motion? well, we don’t know yet, but it must have something to do with subatomic particles

@rob and fireside – You guys are right: I think I have been using somewhat circular reasoning. Here’s a (hopefully) non-recursive answer:

The Uncertainty Principle just states that any observation will affect the particle observed. That is, for us to detect a particle, a photon must interact with it, and thus change its position. It doesn’t state that the observer’s choice to observe or not observe affects the particle in and of itself. If a robot that was completely unconscious observed a particle through a means the same as a human eye, the effect would (as far as I know) be the same.

Also – change and choice aren’t synonymous. Galaxies change and morph constantly, stars break down, and the world’s temperature alters over millions of years, but none of these changes are driven by choice.

And sorry, Fireside, but I must point out that the origins of the particles themselves was never part of the argument.

An amino acid like Phenylalanine has a double bond with an oxygen atom. Is there any evidence to suggest that the subatomic particles contained within oxygen are the principle controlling forces behind the behaviour of the amino acid, or is the behaviour of the amino acid consistent with the combination of forces and interactions from all its chemical components?

This is why I say that the laws which govern at that scale do not govern at larger scales. A unified understanding will help to mesh all of our understanding. And our current understanding is as I put it, these laws don’t govern at higher scales. So unification theories would presumably have to incorporate such observations, rather than overturn them.

@critter – I was suggesting that the behavior and makeup of that molecule is determined by the behavior of all the subatomic particles that compose it. I don’t think I ever said that particles of the oxygen atom control the rest of the molecule. I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the problem is not that the universe is inconsistent, but that the models for it we’ve come up with don’t scale well.