Are our lives completely predetermined?

[Reach]

I would say no. Quantum mechanics should prohibit it. The entire universe as a whole is indeterminate. You cannot know with 100% certainty the outcome of most events. For example, it is possible to pass through a wall. Unlikely? Yes, so unlikely in fact given you tried to for the entire duration of the universes existance you would probably not make it through, but alas still possible.

That computer monitor sitting infront of you; there is nothing keeping it there other than shere probability. It could at any moment appear in another room.

And then we have crazy things in this universe like turbulence that we just can't seem to figure out. Quantum foam anyone?

It's not like I can prove that the universe is or is not predetermined, but I would like to think of it as self manifesting, and we determine our own path in life ( at least relative to the choices we are actually able to make). As an analogy, rather than thinking of the universe as a set of determined reactions, I would think of a set of reactions that are like dice; each reaction having multiple outcomes that have not yet been determined.

You can take a pair of identical twins, who are genetically exactly the same. They have the same brains. Do they have the same thoughts and make the same choices? No, they don't, because their existance influences these 'dice' reactions that are happening all around them, independant of one another. They too are able to make thier own choices, and their existance is not predetermined in any way.

I think you would require a set of supernatural forces to try and say the universe and everything in it is predetermined. What we do know from science points to the fact that this simply isn't true.

Instead, what appears to be happening is there is a certain degree to which things are predetermined; for example, you have to abide by the laws of physics. However, within this degree of prederministic existance, there is chaos and randomness which can exist freely from the predetermined. These 'Laws' in themselves make up the framework, or the 'rules' of the 'game', and then from there it is a free for all battle. The world would be one hell of a lame place had we no influence on events. Questions like 'why' or 'how' would be erased; the answer simply becomes 'because' and 'it just does'.


edit: I was just thinking and, I hope you guys that do believe everything is predetermined don't believe in God I mean, holy ****, God would be such an a-hole if everything was predetermined. You know, imagine a family that has some sob sneak into their house in the middle of the night and murder every one of them. Well then, God planned that. He planned it every time something goes horribly wrong in your life. He planned it every time you lose, all of your failures and shortcomings were planned by this being you worship and love.

Yea...for the sake of keeping some good in religion I hope I'm right XD

[kylehaas]

not completely. we make all the decisions, and we control our futures.

dont be a frigggin retard, please.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Could_Strife007

Because, you cannot prove that free will exists, which means that you cannot conclude that our universe is not completely physical.

We can prove that everything in the universe is created from physical particles This proof is based on repeated and expected sensory perception of experimental data and materials.

Not quite. It is true my perceptions (as of free will) could be illusory (even if I think it is unlikely). However, the same goes for sensory perceptions. All sensory perceptions of the physical world could be illusory also, and you cannot prove they are not. Therefore, you cannot prove there even exists such things as physical particles.

You talk about testing theories with sensory perceptions. I also have repeated perceptions of my free will. If I want to test the belief that I can control my actions, I can try moving my arm or typing the keyboard--and behold, it happens. You might say that this perception is illusory, but once we discount perceptions, we also have no grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

Rejection of free will and belief in a purely physical world seem rational on the surface, but once we dig deeper we find that this worldview collapses on itself.

[aperson]

The notion that we can be seen as a very large cellular automata network has been presented many times. It's an interesting and reasonable concept to try to construct existence as a base case (the first instant of the big bang), and then as a generating algorithm which can spawn each future frame of the base case.

Now, initially it might seem that quantum physics and stochasticity tear this belief apart, but this belief has a few problems that must be addressed:

First, what good does having a stochastic versus deterministic process do for you? It might answer the question of whether our lives are predetermined, but it doesn't say anything about free will. It could just be that we have no free will, but instead of a single outcome occurring, there is now a branched pathway out from each event with a given probability assigned to it. Instead of life being predetermined, it is instead just completely outside of your control. There are certainly stochastic automata, and I could easily program one for you to show you. Even though each cell inside of a stochastic network might cause a different outcome when the same network arises twice, the cells still do not have any free will in the decision.

If you think in terms of our development from the quantum level, you can see human beings as a process which has just bootstrapped itself up a few times from the quantum level. Even though we might be able to normalize the chaos inherent in our systems, we ultimately rest upon quantum, stochastic processes which act completely beyond our scope of control... We just happen to have large sample sizes on our side to normalize variance over quantum phenomena.



I also just want to add:
"Though this is an interesting proposition, I believe in chaos theory, which nullifies everything you said."

Actually, it doesn't. Mathematical chaos just describes systems which have very small and confounding epsilons for large, dynamical change. There is still a sense of causality inside of these systems; even the Lorenz attractor, which is the crowning origin of mathematical chaos, shows some level of consistency across a range of inputs for variables. Ultimately, chaos theory is undermined by the Buddhist idea of karma: Everything is based off of causes and dependent arising. Though things may have their causal links buried at a very inscrutable level, they still exist and events are still attached.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by aperson

First, what good does having a stochastic versus deterministic process do for you?

I might be able to help here. A common interpretation of quantum mechanics is what I'll call metaphysical randomness: that identical physical conditions can yield different outcomes. The human soul can interact by having limited power to choose which outcome will happen (in the human brain). Methinks this would happen over an aggregate network of physically infinitesimal sites. Of course, the question could arise of how this delicate relationship between the soul and brain came about. (I could answer with a possible theory if anybody’s interested…)

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

I might be able to help here. A common interpretation of quantum mechanics is what I'll call metaphysical randomness: that identical physical conditions can yield different outcomes. The human soul can interact by having limited power to choose which outcome will happen (in the human brain). Methinks this would happen over an aggregate network of physically infinitesimal sites. Of course, the question could arise of how this delicate relationship between the soul and brain came about. (I could answer with a possible theory if anybody’s interested…)

Right, the metaphysical randomness is what I described above by having a cellular automaton which possesses the same state at different times, but each state leads to a different outcome on the next frame. I don't think you need to call it 'metaphysical randomness' though, I think true probability fits it much, much better. However, you make a leap in assumption by saying that the human soul has any power 'to choose which outcome will happen.' This is the requirement to validate free-will, but where is the proof behind the claim? Certainly it's possible to demonstrate an illusion of causal will over a pseudo-random event (i.e. all random number generators on computers today), but could you demonstrate causal will over quantum phenomena?



Also as a note:

Rejection of free will and belief in a purely physical world seem rational on the surface, but once we dig deeper we find that this worldview collapses on itself.

Not necessarily. Take the perspective that all of your sensory inputs merely provide a graph of reality. At another level, you can view consciousness as a graph of all your sensory inputs. In essence then, the reality we define is nothing but a graph, or image, of the true nature of reality. At all times, we aren't seeing reality as it is, rather we are seeing images (think of the mathematical definition of the image of a function here) that we have created as a function of our own processes. This means that the concept of free will is ultimately a graph of our consciousness, and ultimately we are passive observers in a sequence of events.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by aperson

However, you make a leap in assumption by saying that the human soul has any power 'to choose which outcome will happen.' This is the requirement to validate free-will, but where is the proof behind the claim?

What is the proof that atoms exist? Data? Then how do we know our sensory perceptions are not illusions? Eventually we have to rely on our perceptions somewhere. My direct perceptions tell me that I exist and I have free will. As I said earlier,

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

I also have repeated perceptions of my free will. If I want to test the belief that I can control my actions, I can try moving my arm or typing the keyboard--and behold, it happens. You might say that this perception is illusory, but once we discount perceptions, we also have no grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

Not necessarily. Take the perspective that all of your sensory inputs merely provide a graph of reality. At another level, you can view consciousness as a graph of all your sensory inputs. In essence then, the reality we define is nothing but a graph, or image, of the true nature of reality. At all times, we aren't seeing reality as it is, rather we are seeing images (think of the mathematical definition of the image of a function here) that we have created as a function of our own processes.

That's all fine, but the point is there is no way to prove that those "graphs" correspond to reality. Once we toss out perceptions as a basis for belief (because they are not "proven"), we also toss out any grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

What is the proof that atoms exist? Data? Then how do we know our sensory perceptions are not illusions? Eventually we have to rely on our perceptions somewhere. My direct perceptions tell me that I exist and I have free will. As I said earlier,






That's all fine, but the point is there is no way to prove that those "graphs" correspond to reality. Once we toss out perceptions as a basis for belief (because they are not "proven"), we also toss out any grounds for thinking the physical world is real.

Okay, then necessarily I believe that our reality is not real. What is wrong with this belief? I think the human mind as it has been programmed over the course of human history does not readily open up to the collapse of subject and object. But really, mind-only Buddhists have been expressing this belief for thousands of years.

Moreover, I think all of these claims show that the argument for free will is undecidable, because they all require 'going up a level' to create any background assumptions to answer the question; the question isn't answerable inside the system of human perception itself.

But that causes us to jump up to a higher question: Why must our system of perception be consistent, decidable, or complete? Godel's claims about the limitations of formal systems are inextricably linked to human cognition and human will. In fact, there are some individuals (when I'm back on campus I'll find the book and author) that argue that the ability to create a Godel proof itself derives free will.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by aperson

Okay, then necessarily I believe that our reality is not real. What is wrong with this belief?

Solipsism has its advantages: you only accept beliefs that can be "proven." But you also toss out a lot of other things that seem rational to believe: the existence of atoms, that the Holocaust occurred etc.

Godel's claims about the limitations of formal systems are inextricably linked to human cognition and human will. In fact, there are some individuals (when I'm back on campus I'll find the book and author) that argue that the ability to create a Godel proof itself derives free will.

That seems interesting.

[drummerlsu]

I don't think that measureable uncertainty and predetermination have to be mutually exclusive. Just because a quantity can't be measured exactly doesn't mean it isn't an exact quantity.

One thing I don't understand is why some of you claim quantum mechanics isn't deterministic. The Shrodiner equation gives an exact description of the quantum state. Again, just because there is no way to actually find out what the state is doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Just because something is predetermined doesn't mean anyone can actually find out what is is.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

Solipsism has its advantages: you only accept beliefs that can be "proven." But you also toss out a lot of other things that seem rational to believe: the existence of atoms, that the Holocaust occurred etc.

That seems interesting.

Solipsism is a bit more subtle than that. It isn't just that you accept beliefs that are proven, it's that you accept systems that are consistent with your internal model of the world. The problem, however, is that any consistent system is incomplete or undecidable, which means that solipsistic thinking requires a constant shift of axioms based on what set of beliefs you want to preserve. When the solipsist steps out a level they realize that their system of reality is ultimately held prisoner to its axioms and all systems themselves are absolutely arbitrary. This is the (natural) step from solipsism to nihilism, which I extended to show the statement that nothing is real in an earlier post. Necessarily, the enlightened (in this regard) solipsist rejects all formalization of thought and any weight of knowledge.

This leaves a myriad routes for the nihilistic solipsist to attack free will. First off, you could simply assume that our concept of excluded middle is absolutely arbitrary, and neither free will nor the absence of free will must exist.

Ultimately, though, I think all of this shows that the concept of free will is a very self-referential statement; it's self-referential in the sense that it speaks about the system from which it's originating. Formally, for any statement to speak about itself, it must have been formalized on a system stronger than itself. (For example, in Godel's proofs, the process of Godel numbering takes place in something like MathEnglish, while the system itself where the self-referential processes are being injected is something like Peano Arithmetic, or a Turing Machine). Because of the limitations in human empathy, anything that rests upon a super-perceptual level is ultimately individual, and unconnectable across individuals.

[das1ngerplayer]

This is one topic I have no clue what the answer is. It's confising if you think about it for too long. But it does raise a lot of questions.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by drummerlsu

I don't think that measureable uncertainty and predetermination have to be mutually exclusive. Just because a quantity can't be measured exactly doesn't mean it isn't an exact quantity.

One thing I don't understand is why some of you claim quantum mechanics isn't deterministic. The Shrodiner equation gives an exact description of the quantum state. Again, just because there is no way to actually find out what the state is doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Just because something is predetermined doesn't mean anyone can actually find out what is is.

In order for the Schrodinger equation to imply that quantum mechanics is deterministic, you have to make a few assumptions ( as always, hence this argument will always exist ). You have to assume the wave function is an all governing function that applies to everything in the universe, from the very beginning. Otherwise, you just run yourself in circles.

I would agree with your premise, though. Although I'm not a fan of predeterminism, there is unquestionably some degree of it that exists. However, if you assume quantum mechanics is somehow operated by an external, quantifiable process, you can't really tell it apart from a random one now can you?

I'm going to stick with my Reach-Determinism here in that it seems a more logical conclusion to assume the universe is governed by both causation and undetermined events.



As for the free will argument...I would consider free will absolutely necessary. In essence it can be described as the mechanism which we use to think; an expression of our brains existance. Sensation in itself does not appear to be deterministic, i.e. your current state does not imply a future state and so on.

You have to construct your own definition of free will to argue its existance, though. There should always be some form of it which you can define that implies it does not exist. Tis and ap both bring up good points.

[drummerlsu]

Originally Posted by aperson

Ultimately, though, I think all of this shows that the concept of free will is a very self-referential statement; it's self-referential in the sense that it speaks about the system from which it's originating. Formally, for any statement to speak about itself, it must have been formalized on a system stronger than itself. (For example, in Godel's proofs, the process of Godel numbering takes place in something like MathEnglish, while the system itself where the self-referential processes are being injected is something like Peano Arithmetic, or a Turing Machine). Because of the limitations in human empathy, anything that rests upon a super-perceptual level is ultimately individual, and unconnectable across individuals.

Wouldn't it follow that the idea of human free will is irrelevant in the discussion of the universe (the higher level system) being deterministic?

Originally Posted by Reach

I would agree with your premise, though. Although I'm not a fan of predeterminism, there is unquestionably some degree of it that exists. However, if you assume quantum mechanics is somehow operated by an external, quantifiable process, you can't really tell it apart from a random one now can you?

Does it matter if we can tell it apart? It is already obvious that if the universe is deterministic we can't actually discern anything useful from that fact; the discussion is merely on a philosophical level.

My understanding of quantum principles is only basic, but it seems to me that some people are using the limitations in both the current state of human understanding of physical principles and the natural limitations on practical measurement to justify a "necessary randomness" that may or may not exist.

And even if it did, does the human actually have any real involvement with this randomness? If a human is struggling between two possible choices, does that randomness constitue free will over the outcome? I would argue that a logical person would be weiging much larger critera that are immune in the short-term to such randomness. Thus any random involvement would be at a much deeper level not actually known to the human making the desicion.

Originally Posted by Reach

As for the free will argument...I would consider free will absolutely necessary. In essence it can be described as the mechanism which we use to think; an expression of our brains existance. Sensation in itself does not appear to be deterministic, i.e. your current state does not imply a future state and so on.

In this sense free will does have meaning, but it is way outside the realm of universal determinism.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by drummerlsu

Wouldn't it follow that the idea of human free will is irrelevant in the discussion of the universe (the higher level system) being deterministic?

No, because we measure the universe through our perception. Everything is ultimately funneled through our perception before we actually do any information processing, therefore it is the highest level.

[slipstrike0159]

If you think of things as being predetermined then sensory perception is all that you are looking at, as that would completely say that it is predetermined. However, if you look deeper into it you will notice that all of our choices and thoughts are ultimately affected by everything that our senses have seen in past experiences. You could say that right now you moved your hand through free will, and of course you would be right but the base reason why you initially moved your hand through the air would be because of this post you are reading. Now this is not to say that everything you do is determined by everyone else because you could think of it in an opposite effect too, being that everything you do affects what everyone else does. While simple measure through sensory perception (the only thing we can rely on) would suggest that from this nothing you do will change because past experiences will ultimately affect what you do, thinking about this would be subject to make you do something to try and disprove this idea.
I think that in the entire scope of things, yes we do have free will and nothing is predetermined. Although, from my perspective right now (sensory perspective) the way you choose to react to an event or idea depends on experience through other similar past experiences. So in a lot of logical perspective ways we will see things as being predetermined even if they are not purely on the fact that we can only see things as they happen form our view. Surely this cannot mean that by one choice at the start of time could affect experiences for everyone in existence and how they act accordingly, or could it? This is the question that needs to be answered, however i do not think one person can effectively prove either way.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by drummerlsu

Again, just because there is no way to actually find out what the state is doesn't mean that there isn't one.

But if we can't find it, how are we going to predict anything?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[korny]

If you believe in god then you automatically believe that life is predetermined.This is because if god is all knowing from the beginning to the end like the bible says he is then he knows every single event that is going to occur in all of our lives before we were even created which contradicts the idea of free agency. In other words god isn't real.

[GuidoHunter]

Haha. God's omnipotence contradicts a pool of teamless sports players?

God himself also says he gave us free will.

What of that?

I really like how people think simple quips somehow disprove God's existence...

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[OmegaMetroid]

Originally Posted by korny

If you believe in god then you automatically believe that life is predetermined.This is because if god is all knowing from the beginning to the end like the bible says he is then he knows every single event that is going to occur in all of our lives before we were even created which contradicts the idea of free agency. In other words god isn't real.

Predetermined though is not the same as all knowing. He knows every single event that will occur yes, but that is not predestination. Predestination, at least to me, is that only those "chosen" will make it to heaven. So it is not just like your name was drawn from a hat and you get to go. If you start to think that you were a "chosen", and then become, for the lack of a better word, an evil person in life, then maybe you weren't one of those. God knows what you will do and why you do it, but does not control it in any way. Your beliefs infulence your decisions.

Basicly it comes down to choice, which you do have in life and if you dont believe it you should be slapped. You can choose to do good or bad.