Causality, free will, deities, morality. It seems to lead down a road filled with philosophical paradoxes. Somehow it reminds me of this quote that I like:
"A physicist is the atoms' way of thinking about atoms"
--unknown author

I really do like my Philosphy of Religion professor, but if there's one thing I wish he was a bit different with is he doesn't always air each argument, let alone equally...most of the philosophy (and literature, for that matter) professors I've had so far DO insist on lecturing, but they WANT you talking and they'll generally sacrifice some lecture time (to a point...no 15-minute sessions with obi explaining why Lady Gaga garbage :p) for discussions if they get into rapid-fire, everyone's-into-it mode. He does...but far less than any of them.

But we were discussing the above topics, if God's abilities (he WAS a pastor for 30+ years, so in terms of yes/no on that subject we have yet to seriously challenge that idea, though it is scheduled...still, for a Philosophy of Religion class I guess it's more fun to discuss the religions and so God becomes necessary to take to an extent...but I digress) could mean a loss of free will; the arguments are pretty standard: if God knows all past, present and future is everything planned and so no free will...does God giving us free will within the onfines of that pre-ordained future track of his really count...if we somehow do have free will and can act against God's predictions or even wishes what does that say about Him...and so on.

The question I'm MOST interested here (since we've covered the G-Man six ways from...well, it DOES fit I suppose, six ways from Sunday) is the question of Causality--I'm typing this because of something that happened in a class which was caused by the fact I read philosophy for breakfast, lunch and dinner so I knew it which was caused by my listening to my first lectures and reading Kierkegaard fragments and finally "Human, All Too Human" as my first full philosophy text ever which was caused by my 11th-12th grade English teacher suggesting I add to my analyusis skills since I had a lot of authors and styles he covered in class down and enjoyed the analysis and logic and take up philosophy which was caused by my having him which was caused by...

And so on. :)

But it certainly seems that at least SOME free will has bee lost/never been with me, that seems an awful lot like cause-and-effect (to a point.)

I brought this up after the professor/priest suggested maybe God and Man can "yield Decisive Power" to one another and meet somewhere between God-is-puppetmaster and Man-is-Superman-and-controls-all...it just seems to me ven if they yield causality presents a problem for free will...in fact, partially BECAUSE of that fact as surely this "yielding of power" can be counted as a cause to our current state, and if we yield power and God yields power we must have had a causal reason to do so (ESPECIALLY in God's case, if he's all-powerful and all of the rest he'd need a pretty good cause, it'd seem, to loosen his grip)...so really, how free ARE we?

@yebellz:

But if we've no free will and no control over our actions, how can we be responsible for those actions, and if we're NOT...how can we be faulted or praised for those actions, and if we CAN'T BE...what becomes of right and wrong, good and evil?

1. Without Kierkegaard in the contest, the Rushmore is tainted.

2. Pretty much all the scientific evidence points towards a determinist universe, although things get funny at the quantum level. Free will seems to me to be a necessary illusion so society doesn't go off the rails, but it seems to me to be an illusion.

Oh, also:

I LOVE literature and philosophy (SHOCKER! :p) so I'm on this new site as well to type and talk even MORE about all this stuff and Shakespeare and Beckett and Homer and poetry and all the rest...because I really do have a book or laptop or pen and paper with me every single moment of the day except when I sleep and even THEN I go to sleep quite often listening to a philosophy or literature lecture from Oxford or UCLA or the like...

Anyway, the site (not my creation, just a fun and very active place for word-lovers) is:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/index.php

So anyone who wants to, I give it two thumbs up...if it's got pages and a cover they have a forum and thread for it, no matter who, what, when, where, why, or how it was written.

Also...bonus points to anyone who can guess what I picked as my name (hint: a character, not an author.) ;)

@Bob G.

Without Nietzsche in there instead of Seneca...and Kierkegaard not even making the Fianl 20--yep...oh well, fun, and maybe we'll go Round II next year. :p

i want to look at this from two points of view, but i'm not sure i've thought either out fully.

First, we definitely have the appearance of free will. We can see ourselves being in any given situation and making a choice which affects our life. So we appear to ourselves (and presumably to others) to have 'free-will' now causality may mean that our past expierences cause us to make certain choices but this is not apparent (ie decision making has the appearance of being free and willed)

I've often (ok, maybe once) thought of free-will as an illusion, but one which is unbreakable. However the question this raises for me is, if a thing is illusion, but you take away the prime attribute of this illusion - by making it firm and unbreakable - then is it's nature really the same?

Secondly. Not having studied philosophy, I have to fall back on my physics. So to answer the question of whether or not God's knowing the future somehow prevents free-will and morality, well I have to take my answer from Quantum physics. No, that the future is set does not make it knowable to US - until a thing has been observed it exists in a undefined state - at least according to quantum physics. So it doesn't matter if it is all pre-determined, if the universe is deterministic - quantum physics describes a deterministic universe which never-the-less has random manifestations.

A wave-function (which is a probability amplitude - or a mathematical tool for describing the universe) is fully deterministic, how it evolves doesn't depend on what the experimenter does. The phenomina of wave funciton collapse is odd.

It's like the wave function was free to choose which state to be in (like, say up or down, with a 50% probability of each) it's like the experimenter destroys this probability distribution by observing what is really going on.

Until then it is only defined as a probability amplitude.

And htis appears to be the actual way the Universe is built.

Mathematically the wave function - and it can be extended to describe more than just a single electron or photon, it just gets very complicated very fast, the mathematical tool for describing the probability amplitude of the whole universe is deterministic - it evolves along specific set paths, and yet any specific interaction (or measurement) is indeterminant - that is a measurment is apparently random - that is to say, within this completely determined system, thigns occur seemingly at random.

So the idea that God determining the entire course of human history does not preclude the idea that human interactions are completely unpredictable (at least from my understanding of quantum mechanics)

Finally to morality. With a completey causal Universe, morality can be a cause. Comparing to the human body, cells have certain functions and signals are transmitted to them to trrigger certain behaviours. (whether that is removing toxins from the blood or forming scabs over a wound.) If a cell misbehaves it will be destroyed - or if it's suicide mechanism is broken it will become cancerous.

Morality is a system for telling humans what functions are benificial to the social order, what is correct behaviour and what is misbehaviour - it causes us to make certain decisions and respond in certain ways to certain signals. Not behaving in the right way will cause us to be removed/killed. Not being able to correctly respond to the signals may result in suicide (where the 'signals' society sends result in depression and suicide)
--------------------
We are responcible for our actions because we appear to be in control of those actions, and morality faults us because that's what it is there to do... show fault and send the signals of what is healthy...

at least thats my 8 cent.

The universe is causal at the macro level, but at the quantum level there is randomness and uncertainty. So while we can predict likely events, the furture of the universe is not fixed. We can say what is likely, but over time our certainty should get less.

Couple that with the potential that conciousness and decision making would appear to be an emergent phenomenon from a complex neural net, and I think we do have free will, but we don't realise (normally) how much our background and environemnt, as well as uor genetic influences actually impact on the choices we make.

Morality is interesting - the 'rules' seem to make sense, and are almost certainly a result of our collective 'extilligence' (a word I shameless steal from another source). It makes sense from a social evolutionary viewpoint. We can (and do) choose to ignore the rules.

So we have free will. We do not always (in fact rarely) choose to excercise that free will.

I vote that everyone who wants to discuss quantum physics has to read Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics or adequate at least.

On divinity:
I am an atheist. That does not mean I believe there is no deity but that I don't believe there is a deity until there is (scientific) reason to. It's that simple. And if the concept of a divinty contradicts some other ideas I have, all the better.

On free will:
What do you consider free will? If free will means that the reaction of my body to some given input cannot (theoretically, not practically due to insufficient data) be predicted, quantum physics suggests it is true. For anything else about spirit and the like, see "On divinity".

On morality:
Objective morality is a farce. Morality is always axiomatic and the result of human interactions and decisions. If you haven't read Nietzsche (I know obi did), do so.

This is my views and so far I have been able to live with them nicely. The dilemmas you mention above do not apply to me. As usual, excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker.

"Do we have free will?" is an question like "does the universe exist outside my consciousness?" Even if the answer is "no," we still have to act *as though* the answer is "yes." So the discussion is entirely pointless, and we should move on to thinking about how to make those decisions. I guess this is a variant on some of Kant's arguments--even if free will is a construction of our consciousness, we can't get outside it so we might as well get on with it.

Pete U +1

@Pete U+zarat
How does the fact that the future is not 'fixed' and completely predictable, suggest we have free will? Unless you think our brains control what happens on a sub atomic level when we observe quantum events and what reality the probability wave function of a particle (a photon for example) breaks down into, which is really an incredible thing to try and claim as physicists believe this is entirely random, then all you can conclude is that our actions are random- not that we have freewill.

The future is not fixed?

Well given quantum mechanics - the time evolution of a wave function IS deterministic - the question of whether reality is really definied merely in terms of probability amplitudes is one which annoys some people - most people don't understand what it means that the wave function collapses. (ie that the probability suddenly changes to 100% in on place and 0% everywhere else... if measuring the position ofa particle, say.

So while i acknowledge that quantum phenomina can't be predicted (the 'wave function collapse' is random) i don't think that means the Universe is not deterministic. That said I don't like the cophenhagen interpretation, and i haven't yet found a really decent theory of reality based on quantum mechanics. Except perhaps the many worlds theory, which just means every possible wave function collapse exists simultaneseously and you're just differentiating yourself from all the other by observing which universe you are actually in...

I don't think quantum mechanics is any excuse for suggesting the mind is not determiniistic... (in some ways it is a pity that most physicists ignore the philisophical questions raised by quantum mechanics and just take measurements knowing that their maths works so all they need is good measurements...)

I would really like to respond to these comments...

But (puts on his best Dr. McCoy impression) damnit man I'm a writer, not a physicist!

;)

Can anyone explain to me in layman's terms quantum...and...

Quantum eVERYTHING tbat's up there, and the wave things and...

All the scientific jargon I'm totally lost in? :)

Short answer: no. That's the problem with the modern world; it takes so long to understand what's going on in any one field that it's prodigiously difficult to relate different fields to each other.

@obiwan

One crash course in Quantum Mechanics coming up!

We live in a world of Classical Mechanics because we are large and slow. (compared to an atom and the speed of light). The world that we live in (or perceive on a daily basis) is very nice. Objects follow rules such as F=ma. Not only do they follow those rules, but these rules are directly measurable. Because we live in this world, we've come to expect that rules (F=ma) is directly related to what we observe (a car moving at 35m/h). In the world of Quantum Mechanics understanding the state of the system does *not* mean you can necessarily observe it. Nor, does the state directly correspond to any physical reality.

Information about a quantum particle is contained in the Wave Equation (Greek Psi). You can solve for Psi using the Schrodinger Equation. The Schrodinger equation *is* deterministic. (Just like F=ma can give you the position for all times, Schrodinger will give you everything about the state of the system for all times.) In short, Schrodinger's Equation tells you everything there is to know about a quantum system. Sounds good? Here's the problem:

The wave equation doesn't actually correspond to a particular physical feature. You can manipulate it to give you physical information. For instance, you can take it's magnitude squared to find the *probability* of it's location. This is the part that is random. Purely random. So, even though you know *everything* about the system, who still can not know, for certain, where the particle "is."

I'm sure people may criticize what I've said, but please keep in mind I've just condensed QM in under 5 minutes.

@orathaic

I believe in another thread we had a debate on the merits of Copenhagen vs. Multi-Worlds. I do like your thoughts on multi-worlds and I think I agree that under that interpretation, the Universe could be deterministic. However, I still haven't quite wrapped my head around it. Personally, I still lead towards the Copenhagen interpretation (admittedly, for not much of a better reason that it "feels more right.")

I'm not quite sure where your criticism of physicists come from. Isn't it, by definition, a physicists job to focus on the physics and, again, by definition, a philosophers job to focus on the philosophy. That isn't to say there can be no overlap, but I don't think you're justified with that complaint.

yeah, see i'm not convinced by the many-worlds interpretation... but i am convinced that quantum mechanics doesn't MEAN the universe is inherently random and non-deterministic.

Now I admit that a physicist is perfectly good at his job when it comes to using quantum mechanics - understanding how it affects a new device or whatever. But not understanding and explaining to a philosopher what it says about reality... it is the crossover or lack there of that i bemoan.

Only because being a phyicist (as my degree course drilled into me) also means explaining your findings to others so they can understand/use them (otherwise it doesn't matter what your experiment shows)

The fact is a physicist doesn't need to try and understand what it 'means' for what is or isn't real, they just need to know what the result of any experiment will be, and the mathematical tools of quantum mechanics give just that without worrying about if the thing you represent with a Psi has any 'real' existance within the universe...

Ok, i may be contradicting myself, but in the many-worlds interpretation at least- there is determinism, and also the illusion of randomness - that is it appear to the observer that you get a random wavefunction collapse, but really you get all possible results. However as these universe then decohere, you can't break this illusion by any means currently know. So it becomes an unbreakable illusion -> so we might aswell talk about it as if there is no determinism and forget the whole idea that we live in a many-world universe... (@Obi and others - there is no test to show that many worlds is more correct than the copenhagen interpretation - they are both different interpretations of the same mathematical model - thus they both entirely agree with whatever predictions quantum mechanics can make...)

Actually, there are tests, but these are a little funny. I really like Quantum Suicide. For anyone knowing Schrödinger's Cat it's easy to explain. Just get into the box yourself. Wait if you die. If you don't, repeat. The more often you do this the more sure you can be of MW. The problem is that it only works for yourself and you won't convince people in the universes where you die at some point. Also, if you were wrong, you are dead. I guess that's why no one has tried.

@Zarat

I think Quantum Suicide is a particularly flawed and unhelpful thought experiment.

@orathaic

You do make a good point about a physicist needing to be able to explain his findings. However, this are very complicated things we're talking about; he shouldn't be required to be able to explain it to anyone with any given background. He should be able to explain it sufficiently to his peers and to those in similar fields. Other people can then take their findings and make them more accessible. That's why we have journals/periodicals of varying depth/technicality.

I'm not saying that to do physics a physicist needs to explain QM or any other theory to Joe public, but i am bemoaning the fact that there is very little done on the interface this has with philosophy.

though i did just find this: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1049544

Good find. Don't have time to watch it now, but will try to this weekend.

I think the real problem is this: Philosophers don't want to be bothered with the math (that is required for QM) and physicists don't want to be bothered with (what many of them probably consider) the uninteresting philosophical implications.

God (capital G) would know everything about the future, but, since He created time and would be outside of it (He existed "before" it did), His knowledge does not mean that we are forced/predestined to do what we do. He observes us from outside of time, so to speak, which is how he can see us in the future (though it's not future for him, as He would be able to see it and the present and the past "all at once").
My knowing what you did yesterday does not force you to have done it.
My watching you do something right now does not force you to do it.
His watching something that will happen does not force it happen.

If matter were all that existed, the universe would be deterministic, as matter cannot have freewill due to being governed by the unchanging laws of physics.
But if matter is NOT all that exists, then that would allow for souls, a spiritual, non-physical component of our nature that is not composed of matter or energy or space. Souls, not being governed by the laws of nature and interacting with our bodies and minds, would not have predetermined actions, and freewill could thus coexist with causality. Obiwan chose to follow that interest in philosophy. He could have rejected it if he so decided.

Those are my thoughts on the question in the original post: freewill is possible if one or both of these conditions are met:
1. God is a God with a capital G who exists seperately from time
2. non-physical, supernatural things exist (namely, souls, as it's humans we're talking about)

oh yeah, morality (choosing between right and wrong) makes no sense if there is no free will, because there is no real choice. Just a predetermined thought process.
Can the gun be blamed for cooperating as an instrument in a murder? It cooperated with the shooter, yet it is not guilty because it had no choice in the matter.

That was a noble attempt...

I am currently processing...this may take a while ;)

@baumhaeuer, i entirely disagree.

First at morality - just because a thought process is deterministic doesn't mean it is pre-determined*.

Morality does not become meaningless if we have no free will, it is still a set of guiding principles which we either 'choose' to follow or our programming allows us ignore - that is to say there is value in morality in how it affects the behaviour of these animals who can understand it.

I was going to say something about morality in animals, and our human concept, of morality, being more influential and more complex - something which seperates us from other animals. However i googled morality in animals and i think this video says a lot more than i can (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdSiLhW0Zn8 - ps i don't really like these guys, but that doesn't mean i disagree with everything they say, and the fact that they are atheists doesn't mean they are always wrong/right...)

Baumhaeuer said 'Morality makes no sense if there is no free will' - i disagree, morality is the system of rule and guiding principles which we use to help us make decisions. It is imposed on us by our peers. It makes sense for evolutionary reasons that societies/culture with a 'better' system of rules (moral system) will be more successful - however there is an overhead - the more complex the system of rules the more effort it takes to explain - thus the simplest system has an advantage over a more complex one.

A tryanny is simpler than a constitutional democracy. A wolf pack with an Alpha who dominates all the other members is probably pretty close to a tyranny.

"Deterministic NOT equal and pre-determined."

Ok, pre-determined means to us something which has already a conclusion which has been worked out. Mathematically like an equation - 2 + 2 = 4. You already know the answer is 4 because it has been done before. In this case we don't have to determine the answer, and even though it is deterministic (as opposed to stochastic or random) it IS pre-determined.

So you can have a 'pre-determined' system which is either deterministic or stochastic - the determination of the stochastic system is usually worked out as a probability distribution - all possible results and the probability of each one. Or you can have a system which hasn't been worked out yet - something which is not pre-determined.

Life is something which is not pre-determined, we do not know the answer/result/process. If it is deterministic that doesn't mean we can know the future, so in every practical sense it doesn't make us fated to do anything. Even if we have no choice and no alternative action at any point.

In a completely deterministic world, morality still makes sense and has value. We determine the enviroment we live in, we alter it - creating shelter to protect us from the elements - and we impose morality on others to protect ourselves from the most succesful predator on earth, other humans.

We even convince people that morality is an absolute. Something from on high that they may never question, something which an infallible God has passed down through revelation - so they will not challenge the rules.

It is not, morality is a human construct; and is vitally important to our prosperity and comfort - that we don't live in fear of our fellow man...

so just to be specific, that somethign CAN be know (deterministic) is not the same as it BEING know (pre-determined)