Magical Glace Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Both, actually. Both in the sense of physical laws entailing the whole world and future happenings and in the sense of freedom in our own actions and decisions. Quantum theory made me rethink my position, but ultimately, I found myself siding with the deterministic viewpoint, considering causality exists and quantum theory applies only to quantum structures I came to the conclusion that even quantum theory does not grant free will. Either my actions are random, or they are determined by factors that are random. If there are random events, then my will operates such that 'if random variable X returns true, then I will do Y; if it return false, then I will do Z' without me deciding which I am predisposed to do at any stage. Edited November 2, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I came to the conclusion that even quantum theory does not grant free will. Either my actions are random, or they are determined by factors that are random. If there are random events, then my will operates such that 'if random variable X returns true, then I will do Y; if it return false, then I will do Z' without me deciding which I am predisposed to do at any stage. There is no escape. Also, quantum theory is still not completed, "bigger" objects don't follow quantum randomness (which is still the reason why the reconciliation of quantum theory with relativity theory is one of the major unsolved problems in physics), meaning I'd be inclined to take that out of the equation anyways. But yes, events we cannot influence make us act the way we do. I'm writing this sentence because I'm compelled to do so. Free will could only exist in a space outside of our dimension, or rather, an isolated space. The mere existance of our world makes inherent independency impossible. Thus, if a god were to exist, he'd be the only being with free will. What would you answer to the criticism that determinism is a problem for our jurisdiction? Even if we cannot choose our own actions, we still perceivr ourselves to have free will, which makes it possible to judge people based on their actions. I find it hardly noteworthy a criticism as it doesn't disprove determinism, but merely warns of its outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I'd watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Devil Trigger Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Replace doc with little mac and call ROB CHEESE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Replace doc with little mac and call ROB CHEESE back to tsukihime with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Also, quantum theory is still not completed, "bigger" objects don't follow quantum randomness (which is still the reason why the reconciliation of quantum theory with relativity theory is one of the major unsolved problems in physics), meaning I'd be inclined to take that out of the equation anyways. But yes, events we cannot influence make us act the way we do. I'm writing this sentence because I'm compelled to do so. Free will could only exist in a space outside of our dimension, or rather, an isolated space. The mere existance of our world makes inherent independency impossible. Thus, if a god were to exist, he'd be the only being with free will. What would you answer to the criticism that determinism is a problem for our jurisdiction? Even if we cannot choose our own actions, we still perceivr ourselves to have free will, which makes it possible to judge people based on their actions. I find it hardly noteworthy a criticism as it doesn't disprove determinism, but merely warns of its outcome I thought I was clear before, but... I believe that freedom of will is contradictory to the idea of will itself. If you have a will, you are not free by definition because you have a will. The only way for your will to be 'free' is to have equal magnitudes of desire for everything. If you have no desire for anything, you will want to do nothing. If you have equal desire to do everything, you will not be able to decide on anything to do. Apathy and ambivalence, in other words. Not even a god can have a 'free' will because of that. I don't think it matters if we have free will. If I want something, it doesn't matter if I was led to want it or not. I'll do my damnedest to make it happen. Criticism and judgment, even morality, are merely ideas we weaponize to get each other to do things we want. If we propagate the idea that A is good and B is bad, we might be able to get a society where A is more common than B, and we want that. Edited November 2, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I thought I was clear before, but... I believe that freedom of will is contradictory to the idea of will itself. If you have a will, you are not free by definition because you have a will. The only way for your will to be 'free' is to have equal magnitudes of desire for everything. If you have no desire for anything, you will want to do nothing. If you have equal desire to do everything, you will not be able to decide on anything to do. Apathy and ambivalence, in other words. Not even a god can have a 'free' will because of that. I don't think it matters if we have free will. If I want something, it doesn't matter if I was led to want it or not. I'll do my damnedest to make it happen. Criticism and judgment, even morality, are simply ideas we weaponize to get each other to do things we want. If we propagate the idea that A is good and B is bad, we might be able to get a society where A is more common than B, and we want that. I believe it's that simple. How are those desires created though? By our environments and by our upbringings. They form our personality and thus give us different 'magnitudes of desire' in your words. If we take those out of the equation desire cannot exist to begin with, which in my mind does not entail the desire to do nothing, which is arguably a desire too, thus destroying any sense of duty, there is nothing to forve one to do anything anymore. I define a 'god' as an entity different to us, human concepts like desire don't apply to a deity. Although, I'd nontheles say that while theoretically he can do whatever he wants (there is nothing, no inclination meaning he is the one to choose what to do), he'd lose his free will the moment he does do something, for the reason that that would once again cause causality to play a part. I suppose it boils down to what we define a desire, or rather, lack of desire. I've nothing to disagree with in the second paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Masayoshi Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadFighter Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I'm around 5'10-5'11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 How are those desires created though? By our environments and by our upbringings. They form our personality and thus give us different 'magnitudes of desire' in your words. If we take those out of the equation desire cannot exist to begin with, which in my mind does not entail the desire to do nothing, which is arguably a desire too, thus destroying any sense of duty, there is nothing to forve one to do anything anymore. I define a 'god' as an entity different to us, human concepts like desire don't apply to a deity. Although, I'd nontheles say that while theoretically he can do whatever he wants (there is nothing, no inclination meaning he is the one to choose what to do), he'd lose his free will the moment he does do something, for the reason that that would once again cause causality to play a part. I suppose it boils down to what we define a desire, or rather, lack of desire. I've nothing to disagree with in the second paragraph I would go a step further. Those desires exist even in a vacuum with no environment. The way we react to the room we are born into comes from those innate desires. Whether you cry in pain or look around in joy depends on your internal nature. These exist before you open your eyes. Your desires can be developed over time, but the feedback loop can't even get started without those starting preferences. Forgoing that, where the desires come from ultimately doesn't matter. The problem remains that you cannot choose your desires. If a god desires a certain kind of world, you must ask 'Why do you desire that?' If the god says they made themselves desire it, you must ask, 'Why did you want to want it?' It leads to an infinite regress/tautology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Nepos Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I thought I was clear before, but... I believe that freedom of will is contradictory to the idea of will itself. If you have a will, you are not free by definition because you have a will. The only way for your will to be 'free' is to have equal magnitudes of desire for everything. If you have no desire for anything, you will want to do nothing. If you have equal desire to do everything, you will not be able to decide on anything to do. Apathy and ambivalence, in other words. Sorry to barge in on a conversation, but I find this rather interesting. You are saying that a will cannot be free because it is restricted by itself, namely by its own differing magnitudes of desire, yes? A will can only be free if it has equal magnitudes of desire for everything; after all, this is the only way the will is not restricted by itself and the will can be entirely free. I would argue that even then a will is not free. It is still restricted by its magnitudes of desire and though these magnitudes are equal for all things, they are still restrictions upon the will; the will is now restricted in its freedom by its equal desire for everything: it cannot act upon any one of these desires because acting on one would mean not acting on another; as it values both of these desires to the same extent it cannot have the freedom to choose acting on one over acting on the other. Its freedom to choose is restricted by its own inability to choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Sorry to barge in on a conversation, but I find this rather interesting. You are saying that a will cannot be free because it is restricted by itself, namely by its own differing magnitudes of desire, yes? A will can only be free if it has equal magnitudes of desire for everything; after all, this is the only way the will is not restricted by itself and the will can be entirely free. I would argue that even then a will is not free. It is still restricted by its magnitudes of desire and though these magnitudes are equal for all things, they are still restrictions upon the will; the will is now restricted in its freedom by its equal desire for everything: it cannot act upon any one of these desires because acting on one would mean not acting on another; as it values both of these desires to the same extent it cannot have the freedom to choose acting on one over acting on the other. Its freedom to choose is restricted by its own inability to choose. That is correct. You could be said to be free of will itself if you have none, however. Buddhism is based around attaining this level of ego death. Edited November 2, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Devil Trigger Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Desu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Nepos Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Desu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Devil Trigger Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Dewott m8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Stewart Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadFighter Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Oh my Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I would go a step further. Those desires exist even in a vacuum with no environment. The way we react to the room we are born into comes from those innate desires. Whether you cry in pain or look around in joy depends on your internal nature. These exist before you open your eyes. Your desires can be developed over time, but the feedback loop can't even get started without those starting preferences.Forgoing that, where the desires come from ultimately doesn't matter. The problem remains that you cannot choose your desires. If a god desires a certain kind of world, you must ask 'Why do you desire that?' If the god says they made themselves desire it, you must ask, 'Why did you want to want it?' It leads to an infinite regress/tautology. Interesting. However, this internal nature, is it not caused by our parents? We acquire traits from our parents, and as such have defined preferences even before birth. What if we are speaking about an uncreated being? A common question about god is whether he is an atemporal entity or a temporal entity. Logic would lead us to temporal, as everything must have been created at one point, but what about before that? A temporal deity/world leads to the problem that there always must have been something before that. A beginning ofthe world seems near impossible like that. What if we assume god to be atemporal, i.e. unborn, unaffected by time and immortal. Can there still be innate desires? I'd respond to the desire problem with god with the multiversum theory. Every possibility might be manifested in an entirely different world, meaning a god wouldn't have desired/preferred a world over another, and created each world without any sense of desire behind it. Now I might say that even that can be considered a desire, a desire to create something , but must one desire to create something. Considering god is a notion abstract to us, it might not be wrong to say that he created because but he just did. Every potentiality was actualized by god's hands insofar that actuality automatically follows after potentiality. That is also quantum randomness, what may happen will somehow happen. That is the biggest problem with conversing about god. If speaking about a deity, we assume that we can apply our concepts and notions to it, whereas he might be completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Wth guys Also, art history sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokone Kirino Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 That is correct. You could be said to be free of will itself if you have none, however. Buddhism is based around attaining this level of ego death. In many ways, I find Buddhism to be the most interesting religion. Partly because of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Masayoshi Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 badum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Nepos Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I have only the following to say on the concept of god: I cannot say anything about it. We cannot knowingly know objective truth; we have only a perception of truth and have no way of determining whether there is anything of objective truth in that perception or even if objective truth exists (after all, we cannot use anything other than our perception of truth to determine that). Everything we know we know only from our own perceptions. I believe we cannot restrict the concept of a god or the divine by what we know: after all, what we know is perception rather than objective truth, whereas the divine is the most abstract: the divine represents that which is above all, including perception, which means it must exist within an objective reality. In theorizing on what the divine might be we err already by this very theorizing, because our theorizing is restricted by our own perceptions of truth. The human mind I believe to be too restricted by these perceptions to understand the most omnipotent that is the divine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.