INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

How can we possibly have free will?

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
Compassionist
Posts: 3425
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: How can we possibly have free will?

#41 Postby Compassionist » April 16th, 2018, 10:16 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

animist wrote:free will, whatever it is, is a pretty strange and elusive thing. The following speculation is not about determinism in relation to free will, but I think it sort of relates to our decision making and how "free" decisions are conventionally viewed - in the context of a currently popular TV game show! I hope it makes some sense and that you in particular, Compo, might find it interesting.

I wonder if anyone else has seen the ITV game show "The Tipping Point"? Contestants try to dislodge counters stacked towards the outer edges of two trays in a machine; the upper tray moves continuously backwards and forwards. The punter presses a button which releases a new counter onto the top, moving tray; when this tray moves back towards the new counter, some counters already on the tray are pushed off and tip onto the lower tray; then the bottom of the upper tray, as it moves out again from the back of the machine, may push some of these dislodged counters towards the existing counters on the edge of the lower tray. Any of these counters which tip off the lower tray wins money for the contestant.

Anyway, the winning contestant is, in the final part of the show, given a "jackpot" counter to release, and if he or she can eventually get this counter off the lower tray they will win the jackpot of £10K. Usually they fail to do this, and they are then given the choice of releasing three further counters or leaving with their money; they win the jackpot if these three new counters do the job of sending the jackpot counter over the tipping point, but if they still fail to do this then they lose all the money they have already won. Usually they decline the chance to win the £10K, but if they do opt to take the money already won they have to release the three counters anyway, and if these counters DO push the jackpot counter off the tipping point the contestant is invariably somewhat mortified at winning only a smaller amount of money!

But should they be mortified if this happens? What occurred to me was that this bit of psychological torture depends on the assumption that, if a person makes one or other of two stark choices which are significant to them (in this case because a lot of money is involved) then their states of mind in the two alternative scenarios will be the same; so that, whether they are releasing the three extra counters in the hope of winning £10K or just to see if they would have won this if they had opted to risk the money already won, their behaviour will be the same. But surely this is in fact unlikely. If they have been brave enough to go for the jackpot they will be in an excited and yet anxious state of mind and so they will attempt to be extra efficient in their timing of the button pressing. In contrast, if their fate is already determined, they will unmotivated to release the button in the most efficacious way and in fact may hope to mess up the last three drops! At any rate, their decision has led to two different futures, and I do not think that they can be compared. Once a decision has been made, and assuming that it cannot be reversed, the whole of life alters, so that, at least in the context I have described, it makes no sense to regret "losing" what appears to be better outcome if one had acted differently.

Thank you for this interesting post animist. Sorry about the delayed reply - I have been busy with other things and didn't visit this site until now. I agree that it makes no sense to regret losing. Given how much suffering life is full of, I would love to go back in time and prevent all suffering but the sad fact is that I don't know how to do that. No point wasting time dwelling on it. Much better to work on what I can do to prevent suffering and to relieve suffering.

VINDICATOR
Posts: 593
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: How can we possibly have free will?

#42 Postby VINDICATOR » April 19th, 2018, 2:13 pm

Quantum mechanics is one of the fundamental laws of nature and is the queerest one. According to it, in the extremely small sizes, (quanta) all sorts of qeer things can happen, like schroedinger's cat can be alive and dead at the same time! Einstein hated it and said: “God doesn't roll dice!" But Hawking had to admit that he does, and said: 'He not only rolls them, He sometimes loses them in the cracks of the universe!" Maybe the enigma of "free will" can be solved by quantum mechanics!

Compassionist
Posts: 3425
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: How can we possibly have free will?

#43 Postby Compassionist » May 6th, 2018, 11:46 am

VINDICATOR wrote:Quantum mechanics is one of the fundamental laws of nature and is the queerest one. According to it, in the extremely small sizes, (quanta) all sorts of qeer things can happen, like schroedinger's cat can be alive and dead at the same time! Einstein hated it and said: “God doesn't roll dice!" But Hawking had to admit that he does, and said: 'He not only rolls them, He sometimes loses them in the cracks of the universe!" Maybe the enigma of "free will" can be solved by quantum mechanics!

The metaphorical cat can be both alive and dead at the quantum level but it doesn't mean at the level of human experience the cat is both alive and dead. Yes, Quantum Mechanics is strange and I don't fully understand it. I find quantum entanglement fascinating. As for free will, I think it's impossible for us to have a will that is free from the limitations imposed by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Also, I think that all our choices are inevitable choices which are the products of causal antecedents. Yes, we have to lock up murderers, rapists, robbers, etc. in order to keep others safe but not because it's their fault. If a bacteria had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of a monk who has dedicated her life to selfless service of others, the bacteria would have done what the monk did. Conversely, if the monk had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of a mass murderer, the monk would have lived the way the mass murderer lived. We are all prisoners of causality who are doomed to be conceived into a world full of suffering and we are doomed to suffer and doomed to die. Please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that we can't make any choices. I am saying that we do make choices but the choices occur inevitably according to our unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. If you had my mix you would be a compassionist pacifist vegan, if you had Stalin's mix you would have been Stalin and would have done everything he did, if you had Jonas Salk's mix you would have been Jonas Salk and would have done everything he did and so on. Everything is proceeding inevitably.


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests