If you want to for some reason connect the notion of free will to the 'unpredictability' of QM, then wouldn't that make every atom or at least every cell in your body have its own free will? Is "unpredictability" even required for free will?
What exactly do we have free will over? If game is to life as player is to free will and as controller is to available choices, then what are the fundamental buttons (aka choices) would we have control over? Is that even a good analogy?
I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but the more chaotic each particle behaves, then the less likely they could determine things on a macroscopic level. Hypothetically changing the outcome of one chaotic event of one particle to another possibility would virtually change nothing on a grand scale, unless it was in an extremely influential position, which could be astronomically unlikely due to the scale the event happened at.
Either you could consider there being one free will that determines all QM randomness, or that there is free will for each and every particle. Both ways free will wouldn't be something we all individually own one of. Any other definition involving QM would be too arbitrary, scientifically speaking.
Once again, I know little about what I'm talking about.
If you want to for some reason connect the notion of free will to the 'unpredictability' of QM, then wouldn't that make every atom or at least every cell in your body have its own free will? Is "unpredictability" even required for free will?
I think you misunderstand. The argument is that we don't have free will because everything is determined either by deterministic causes or by pure unpredictable randomness. (Basically the only question under discussion was whether the universe is completely deterministic, or whether there are non-deterministic random effects involved.) Actual free will would require a consciousness that transcends physical reality and thus is not bound to it.
Of course there's the third, more pragmatic option (which for some reason went almost completely unnoticed): In practice we can say we have free will because nobody can force someone else to have a certain opinion and make certain decisions, under normal circumstances. From my perspective you make your own decisions, and I can't have full control of them. Hence you have free will.
do any of you guys have a theory of quantum gravity?
I have a theory about it. But not a scientific theory, otherwise I would probably win the nobel prize. It's kinda off topic though, so I won't go into it.
This is probably the first time I see you freely admitting that your world view is pseudoscientific. Kudos for honesty.
I didn't admit my worldview was pseudoscientific, I just admitted that my "theory" of quantum gravity is not a scientific theory (ie. it probably doesn't make predictions etc).
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Despite the likelihood that all forces in nature follow laws of some kind, on both a macroscopic and microscopic level, it does not mean we will ever be able to actually measure or predict these interactions (due to things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Sooooo... even if things can theoretically be deterministic, we'll never be able to prove it. Woohoo!
Btw, there's another aspect to the practical definition of free will, and that's of responsibility and accountability.
If one would to say that "we don't have free will, it's all an inevitable consequence of deterministic causes (possibly with random quantum variations thrown in)" that would imply that we are not responsible for our actions, and hence not accountable. We didn't do it because we wanted to, because we made the decision. We did it because it was inevitable.
The practical approach to free will ("a person's opinions and decisions are his own, and no other person can force them to have a specific opinion") accounts for responsibility: If someone makes a bad decision, it is his decision, and hence he is responsible for it and should face the consequences.
Joined: 6/5/2006
Posts: 188
Location: Malmö, Sweden
To that I propose that accountability (both in the form of various punishments and shame or whatever in the case of morals) works as a deterrent. And even though our brains are deterministic, knowing that a punishment exists as a consequence certainly makes an action less desirable. Which means having punishment for an undesirable action greatly reduces instances of this action, for the good of society.
Now there's also the moral question on if any kind of punishment is justifiable. And I would say it is as long as the possibility of punishment was known by the offender prior to the action in question. Which clearly creates edge cases with fairly subjective or hard-to-define actions (getting thrown out of a bar or club for being an all-around asshole for example :P), and that's one of the reasons why we have lawyers!
Even the best player is limited by the speed of his fingers, or his mind's ability to control them. But what happens when speed is not a factor, when theory becomes reality?
Despite the likelihood that all forces in nature follow laws of some kind,
Aren't many forces also called laws, so would laws be following laws then? What's a law anyway? I'd just stick to what we have observed in all other lifeforms: all things follow their will.
Dragonfangs wrote:
having punishment for an undesirable action greatly reduces instances of this action, for the good of society.
Punishment and laws are just the easy way out. If people don't know how to solve a problem, like how to prevent people from doing undesirable actions, they invent punishments/laws. There are better ways to prevent them, like trying to understand why people do such things and why those people turned out the way they are.
That's why I like determinism in one way.
Btw, this article is relevant to the discussion of determinism and predictability. (An interesting point it makes is that Cantor's diagonal argument can be used to show that if there were two entities inside this universe that could predict everything that happens in this universe with absolute accuracy, they could not predict each other with absolute accuracy, and hence what happens in this universe cannot be fully predicted.)
And of course see also this.
'
Even if people have no free will, punishment would still work the same way it does. It would still teach people to not do things that are "wrong". There are of course better ways to teach people than punishing them.
Yeah... except that doesn't work. Study after study has shown that punishment as a deterrent doesn't work. If you don't believe in sutdys, just compare the prison population of the USA to the ones in Europe, then compare how hard the punishments are. It's mindboggling how many people are behind bars in the USA.
Does free will exist? Porbably not. Will that insight make us stop punishing people? Probably not. Our lust for revenge is just to big. And really we don't have any better ideas of how to deal with criminals.
Study after study has shown that punishment as a deterrent doesn't work.
Incorrect.
Ok, punishment might not remove crime completely. However, it certainly does reduce crime by a very significant amount. There are actual cases that demonstrate this very clearly. (For example, there was a police strike in a Canadian city. This caused the city to basically fall into chaos, with people looting everything in sight, forcing the government to deploy the Canadian equivalent of the national guard and declare martial law for the duration of the strike.)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Slowking wrote:
Study after study has shown that punishment as a deterrent doesn't work.
Please cite your sources to receive full credit.
Warp wrote:
Ok, punishment might not remove crime completely. However, it certainly does reduce crime by a very significant amount. There are actual cases that demonstrate this very clearly. (For example, there was a police strike in a Canadian city. This caused the city to basically fall into chaos, with people looting everything in sight, forcing the government to deploy the Canadian equivalent of the national guard and declare martial law for the duration of the strike.)
Please cite your sources to receive full credit.
In other, semi-related news, studies have shown that referring to studies by not providing any sort of reference to said studies will make you impotent.
Study after study has shown that punishment as a deterrent doesn't work.
Ok, punishment might not remove crime completely. However, it certainly does reduce crime by a very significant amount. There are actual cases that demonstrate this very clearly. (For example, there was a police strike in a Canadian city. This caused the city to basically fall into chaos, with people looting everything in sight, forcing the government to deploy the Canadian equivalent of the national guard and declare martial law for the duration of the strike.)
Yeah sure. Your uncited anecdotal reference invalidates studies.
You might want to take a look at this: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf
Then think about in which of these countrys punishment is hard and in which it is relatively soft.
For example:
USA: 756 of 100.000 people are in jail
Germany: 89 of 100.000 people are in jail
That can't all be explained by longer sentences. There is a much higher crime rate in the USA than in germany. So these hard sentences do nothing.
Ofcourse one could debate if no punishments at all would work. But it seems mild punishments work just as good as the hard ones, maybe even better.
So if there is no free will there is no debt to society that has to be settled, thus punishments could get much lighter, still have the same effect and don't cost nearly as much money.
Like I said that will probably never happen, but it's the logical conclusion. ;)
Ok, punishment might not remove crime completely. However, it certainly does reduce crime by a very significant amount. There are actual cases that demonstrate this very clearly. (For example, there was a police strike in a Canadian city. This caused the city to basically fall into chaos, with people looting everything in sight, forcing the government to deploy the Canadian equivalent of the national guard and declare martial law for the duration of the strike.)
For example:
USA: 756 of 100.000 people are in jail
Germany: 89 of 100.000 people are in jail
That can't all be explained by longer sentences. There is a much higher crime rate in the USA than in germany. So these hard sentences do nothing.
If there's anything those numbers may demonstrate is that the length of the sentences is not a significant factor in deterring crimes (but probably only after a certain minimum length), not that they are not crime deterrents at all.
What would be telling is the contrast between having those sentences and not having law enforcement at all.
>>So these hard sentences do nothing.
Or there's five million other factors that affect crime rates that you're completely ignoring.
PS: if there's no free will then the DA and state don't have a choice in punishing so they must (at least historically, and with no ability to intentionally change things for the future) give harsh sentences! Clearly the only logical conclusion. But if there's no free will logic doesn't matter and pirate_sephiroth can take over this topic!
Does free will exist? Porbably not. Will that insight make us stop punishing people? Probably not.
Well, considering we're already predestined to punish people there's hardly any point in trying not to.
edit: oh haha I didn't even read the preceding post
My own experience with free will tells me that it doesn't exist. I am unable to make certain decisions I would very much like to make, just because other parts of my brain vehemently refuse to. It's like wanting to move a limb, but it just doesn't work. So you're forced to do something else instead. They call it depression.
I guess it's generally so, that whenever we want us to want something, it doesn't really work that easily. So how can there be free will? My will much more seems to be influenced from past experience than from what I want myself to want.
Joined: 3/18/2006
Posts: 971
Location: Great Britain
Kuwaga wrote:
My own experience with free will tells me that it doesn't exist. I am unable to make certain decisions I would very much like to make, just because other parts of my brain vehemently refuse to. It's like wanting to move a limb, but it just doesn't work. So you're forced to do something else instead. They call it depression.
I guess it's generally so, that whenever we want us to want something, it doesn't really work that easily. So how can there be free will? My will much more seems to be influenced from past experience than from what I want myself to want.
From what I've read, libertarians do believe in influences; they accept it is difficult to not consume heroin if one is addicted, and it is difficult to get up and do something if one is depressed. However, they tend to state that the ultimate responsibility is still there for the individual. Sometimes, one could have acted otherwise by using rational thought and deliberation.
