Free will versus determinism

[Goober]

Can you supply said 'law'? I simply can not find the equation anywhere in his text.

It falls under the Time, Space Continuum of Space Cadetitis - Worm holes, Black Holes and all shxtholes do play an important part in this as well.

But many beers and some really good reefers under a clear and starlit sky on a warm Summers eve makes it all clear.

 

[talloola]

As you carefully read the text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.　[/I]　　

if that is what you believe, not fact at all, not proven at all.

 

[Goober]

The laws of our nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. In that sense we're in agreement;



If you read the first couple pages of the book, it explicitly states:

Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is an evangelical work. Perhaps the ‘G’ word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the text you will see that the word God (often referred to as ‘He’) is simply a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.　　　

Is that book of laws in print, constantly revised as we learn. I really think that you are off the deepend on this. Not to be rude, and i know it sounds rude but think about it. Sounds cultish to me. But then again i only sold kool aid as a kid - hated the taste.

 

[s_lone]

Is that book of laws in print, constantly revised as we learn. I really think that you are off the deepend on this. Not to be rude, and i know it sounds rude but think about it. Sounds cultish to me. But then again i only sold kool aid as a kid - hated the taste.

Science is based on the presupposition that there are universal laws. The fact that we can revise and correct our scientific theories changes nothing on the reality of the laws.

 

[Goober]

Science is based on the presupposition that there are universal laws. The fact that we can revise and correct our scientific theories changes nothing on the reality of the laws.

Those laws as per our understanding of them, those yet to be discounted, those yet to be discovered does change our perception though in their present form..

 

[peacegirl]

PeaceGirl

I continue to see the inevitable "lesson" in your choices for us - one which you finally let loose a few posts up in your description on Mankind's Free Will.

peacegirl: I don't make choices for anyone Curiosity. What do you mean by letting loose a few posts up?

curiosity: One thing seems remiss to me personally in your drive to make us see your view,
while requesting discussion pro or con.

Honest Freedom of Will has elements of responsibility attached to it or it can never be Free Will. True freedom is emancipation of man himself and others in his environment, in mind, lifestyle, treatment of others, respect for all, and honesty to conduct his/her life in honor of all.

peacegirl: The freedom you are talking about is only increased by understanding our true nature, not decreased. Until you understand the reason why, you will continue to believe that we can only take responsibility for our actions if we have free will, which is inaccurate. You are so close to understanding this knowledge. I just hope you give the author the benefit of the doubt.

curiosity: Mankind indeed has all the attributes of being able to exercise his/her Free Will regardless of the consequences.

peacegirl: Absolutely wrong curiosity. You obviously are not understanding the author's definition of determinism. You are going by the conventional definition. Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. I have no idea when you came into this discussion, but until you read the first three chapters of this book with a fine tooth comb, there is no way we can have a basis for communication.

 

[Goober]

peacegirl: Absolutely wrong curiosity. I have no idea where you came into this discussion, but until you read the first three chapters of this discovery, there is no way we can communicate. Sorry.

So after 3 chapter sudden conversion happens - Why not after 1 or 2, why not wait to the last page like a good cliffhanger novel would, or yet a sequel.I mean Really - Only 3 chapters - so does that mean the rest of the story can be disregarded?

 

[peacegirl]

Those laws as per our understanding of them, those yet to be discounted, those yet to be discovered does change our perception though in their present form..

Very true! I hope you try to understand this law of our nature which the author is presenting. There is a lot animosity when someone makes a big claim such as this author, but this in and of itself does not make it untrue. Unfortunately, it brings out the worst in people for some reason, especially philosophy students.

So after 3 chapter sudden conversion happens - Why not after 1 or 2, why not wait to the last page like a good cliffhanger novel would, or yet a sequel.I mean Really - Only 3 chapters - so does that mean the rest of the story can be disregarded?

Chapter One reconciles free will with determinism. The second chapter is fundamental because it explains the two-sided equation which is the very core of this discovery. Chapter Three shows how this discovery actually works in the real world, which is why I suggested you read it. Chapter Four is the author's second discovery. I don't even want to open this can of worms because you are all so skeptical I am afraid you will close your minds entirely. Chapter Five deals with premarital relations. Chapter Six shows how this new world can actually become a reality through a total revamping of the economic system. Chapter Seven deals with the medical profession. Chapter Eight deals with marriage. Chapter Nine deals with parents and children. Chapter Ten (Our Posterity) which is the author's third and final discovery, I left out because it doesn't directly relate to the other discoveries. It is a discovery on why we have nothing to fear in our own death. And Chapter Eleven deals with education. All of these chapters are extensions of the first two chapters, so if you skip these chapters, the whole book will appear like a fairy tale. But it is not.

 

[Goober]

Very very true Goober! I hope you try to understand the yet to be recognized law of our nature that this author discovered. There is a lot animosity when someone puts forth a big claim as this author has. It brings out the beast in many for some odd reason.



No Goober, Chapter One explains reconciles the two opposing ideologies of free will and determinism. The second chapter is fundamental because explains the two-sided equation which is the discovery itself. Chapter Three is an extension of this knowledge to show how it is extended in the real world. Chapter Four is the author's second discovery. I don't even want to go there because you are all so skeptical I am afraid you will close your minds completely. Chapter Six shows how this new world can actually become a reality through a total revamping of the economic system. The following chapters are just more extension of how this principle works in real life, except for Chapter Ten (Our Posterity) which I left out for various reasons.

So tell me about no 10 - posterity?

 

[s_lone]

The link I provided above might help you there. What we call the laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive, which makes a critical difference.

I read the whole link, and while it is a good read, I don't see how this gives an answer to my interrogation.

I understand the difference between prescriptive laws and descriptive laws. The laws of gravity did not stop us from going on the moon. But insisting that the laws of nature are descriptive in no way proves that free will is a fact. It only shows that it's possible. But so far, nobody seems to formulate a reasonable hypothesis as to how free will actually works!

Let me reformulate my question:

Is it possible to formulate a sound hypothesis explaining how free will can be possible according to the knowledge science has given us so far? If so, I would like you to formulate it.

But before you do, please reconsider the ''video game'' analogy:

Let's say you are a programmer. You can either program interactive software (two-sided) or ''static'' software (one-sided), meaning the program executes itself without any form of further input.

In static software, there is no ''free will''. Everything is predetermined according to the intentions of the programmer (who you could call the ''God'' of the program).

But in interactive software, there is free will. The program can unfold in many different ways depending on the input given by the one using it. Most software functions that way. A word processing software is interactive. You can write pretty much what you want with it, as long as you understand its basic functional guidelines

Video games are all interactive software, otherwise they wouldn't be fun wouldn't they?. But for video games to interactive, they need to be programmed in such a way. I don't know much about programming, it's obvious there needs to be sections of the program that use variables instead of fixed data, the variables depending on the choices of the one playing the game.

Now let us for a second view our universe as a huge and immensely complicated video game. The laws of nature are ''the script'' or the program itself. But in supposing that we do in fact have free will, we are supposing that our world is interactive.

What I want to know exactly is where can we find ''the variables'' needed in the laws of nature in order for the world to be interactive?

Is it in quantum physics? You know why I'm suggesting this. It's the only thing I know of which seems to be ruled by fundamental indeterminacy...

 

[karrie]

I\ve asked before, but, I'll stick my neck out and ask again... can you please post the equations and mathematical laws of which yuo speak?

 

[peacegirl]

Is that book of laws in print, constantly revised as we learn. I really think that you are off the deepend on this. Not to be rude, and i know it sounds rude but think about it. Sounds cultish to me. But then again i only sold kool aid as a kid - hated the taste.

You may have to go back to selling Cool Aid. Just kidding Goober. I hope you're laughing. I need some comic relief here. This is not a cult. How can it be a cult when there is no leader? :roll: This is knowledge that is very freeing, not confining. You are all making all kinds of guesses because you haven't read it, and I can't keep defending this work when no one has offered any concrete refutations.

I\ve asked before, but, I'll stick my neck out and ask again... can you please post the equations and mathematical laws of which yuo speak?

Karrie, I have bent over backwards to post here. I suggest you read it. I also suggest you read Chapters One and Two online. If you do this with the sincere intention to learn something new, I will be here to answer your questions. But the questions have to be relevant. I am sorry that I cannot do more.

 

[karrie]

I've asked you questions and you refuse to answer them. You keep referring to mathematical laws and equations... please specify the math, the equations, to which you refer. That's not an irrelevant request.

 

[peacegirl]

I've asked you questions and you refuse to answer them. You keep referring to mathematical laws and equations... please specify the math, the equations, to which you refer. That's not an irrelevant request.

Yes, that is a relevant request, but if you had read the introduction, he mentioned that this does not deal with numbers or math per se. Please read Chapter Two and you will understand more clearly what he meant by the two-sided equation.

 

[karrie]

I read chapter two. And no, I really don't see anything clear about it.

 

[gopher]

Free will? That would mean that abortion or holocaust victims could readily walk away from jeopardy at will. Don't think those victims had too much success with that.

 

[s_lone]

Free will? That would mean that abortion or holocaust victims could readily walk away from jeopardy at will. Don't think those victims had too much success with that.

Determinism? That would mean that blind mechanical laws are to be held responsible for painting the Mona Lisa and composing Beethoven's Ninth.

I'm being sarcastic. My point is that notions of free will and determinism don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Don't you think we are free, but also determined? I can't walk through a mountain. But I can decide to climb it, surround it, or dig through it.

 

[taxslave]

It falls under the Time, Space Continuum of Space Cadetitis - Worm holes, Black Holes and all shxtholes do play an important part in this as well.

But many beers and some really good reefers under a clear and starlit sky on a warm Summers eve makes it all clear.

Thanks. Now perhaps I can figure out what peacegirl is talking about. Obviously one needs some kind of mind enhancer to follow all this theory. Somehow her idea of free will and mine are not the same.
Save me some time and tell me where the practical application to all this is.
When I rush into a burning building when normal people are running out am I compelled or is it my free will? Or is it just because I am an adrenaline junkie?

 

[Bar Sinister]

Belief in a single all-powerful deity eventually runs up against the problem of predestination. An all-powerful god controls the past, present, and future; and a result there can be no free will. Setting up a system where free will is allowed runs into the same problem as once again the all powerful god already knows the result of his free will system. The only way around the problem has always been to reject the idea of a single all-powerful god. Theologians have wrestled with this problem for centuries without coming up with a satisfactory answer.

 

[s_lone]

Ok PeaceGirl, I just finished chapter 2.

What I simply don't get is how one would necessarily avoid giving the first strike, even in the utopian scenario of a blameless world. I feel the author is on to something but from my own understanding this is clearly the weakest aspect of what I've read so far. He just repeats his point on and on but fails to make it. At least that is how I perceive it for the time being.

I'll try to make a summary of it all as briefly as possible. And you can tell me if I'm on the right track.

1. We do not have free will. We don't have it because in the end we always necessarily choose what we consider best for ourselves or at least what is the lesser evil. The fact that we necessarily choose what seems to be the best option over all others negates the concept of free will. In that sense we are all determined.

2. However, nothing or nobody in the world can force us to do something against our will. For example, if I am held at gun point and asked to give away my money, I will do it. From a superficial point of view, I am forced to so against my will. But from a more profound point of view, my desire to live is stronger than my desire to keep my money so because of what I stated in point number 1, I will necessarily give away my money. I actually want to give my money in that situation because I get more satisfaction from doing so than from getting a bullet shot at me.

What seems to be the ''two sided equation'' is this idea that while one has no free will whatsoever, no one or nothing can force something on my will because my will necessarily ends up willing what is considered best for myself, whatever the circumstances. I am very open minded, but I do wonder about the relevance of calling this a mathematical equation. But I may have misunderstood something.

3. Here is where things get tricky. The author then starts talking about a utopian world where nobody would blame anybody for anything. The reason for not blaming anybody for anything is that everybody would know that we all necessarily are compelled to act according to what seems best for ourselves. By truly understanding that it is in our nature to do so, then we can't blame one for acting according to his nature.

4. Here is where I really don't follow the author. He says that in the perfect blameless world where ''Thou Shall Not Blame'' is the ultimate guideline which everyone necessarily follows, nobody would ever end up hurting anybody else because... well... I don't know. I just don't get his point. I'll quote him directly and perhaps you can help me.

''Up until the present time there was nothing powerful enough to prevent man from risking his life to satisfy a desire regardless of who got hurt because the satisfaction of possible success outweighed the dissatisfaction of possible failure, but when he becomes conscious that a particular reaction of no blame will be the only response to his actions by the entire world regardless of what he is contemplating, he will be compelled, completely beyond his control but of his own free will (or desire), to refrain from what he now foresees can give him absolutely no satisfaction. How can he possibly find satisfaction in doing something that the world must excuse, but he can no longer justify? This natural law of man’s nature gives him no alternative but to obey it in order to derive greater satisfaction, and will prevent the first blow from ever being struck. As we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, we will be able to unravel the causes of war, crime, and hatred — which are deep-rooted and interwoven — and envision how life will be when all hurt in human relations comes to a peaceful end.''

How does this work? Let's say we live in the blameless world. What would stop a pedophile from abusing a child? How would the pedophile's certainty that nobody would blame him stop him from abusing a child?