free will

[Sappho]

Hey guys, back once again with hopefully some interesting food for thought!

This time I have a question about free will. Please keep in mind that I do not have my own opinion in this matter, nor do I try to convince any of you into anything, but I like to make people think about stuff; not to form an opinion, but just for the lolz.



I think we all agree that the universe consists of particles, and particles alone, such as quarks, elektrons, etc. Those particles do not have an own will: they cannot choose where and when to go anywhere. Whatever happens to them is the result of forces interacting with them, forces such as gravitational force, elektromagnetic force, ... Those forces also do not have an own will: they can't choose whether or not to interact with anything. 
Now for exemple: any person is made out of particles who are moved by forces, and since these forces never change, whatever happens to that person and whatever he does cannot change, for that would imply that either these particles can choose or these forces can change. In other words, that person has no free will. (A question for another thread could be: then what does it mean to be 'human'?)

The only thing what I know of that isn't always certain is the strange world of quantum mechanics, yet for what I know about it, it works with chances which is still not free will. Having a chance of winning the lottery is not a matter of free will or not. But correct me if I'm wrong on this, I'm just a school boy, not your everyday quantum physicist.

This means that nothing of what we know of the universe gives us free will and that everything we do is destined to happen.
The only way that we can still choose is if something we know nothing about interferes. This can either be something natural of this universe which we haven't discoverd yet, or something unnatural. What that could be, if it even exists, is up to your own fantasy. Maybe it's a pink flying unicorn from another universe who like to play the piano on sunny summery sundays.


What are your thoughts about this?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree that the universe consists of particles, and particles alone.  I would also caution aganst a line of reasoning that states that since particles do not have a will, things made out of a particles cannot have a will.  Or that if a thing made of particles has a will, that means that individual particles have a will.  Both sides of that statement are uninformative..one being a fallacy of composition, the other a fallacy of division.  

A particle may not be able to type this message to you.  Obviously, a thing made out of particles can.  That a thing made out of particles can type this message to you, does not imply that any single particle can.

[Alex K]

How do you define free will?

[Edwardo Piet]

Compatabilist free will exists, incompatabilist free will doesn't.

[brewer]

I am bowl of petunias.

[Sappho]

I think that you'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree that the universe consists of particles, and particles alone.  I would also caution aganst a line of reasoning that states that since particles do not have a will, things made out of a particles cannot have a will.  Or that if a thing made of particles has a will, that means that individual particles have a will.  Both sides of that statement are uninformative..one being a fallacy of composition, the other a fallacy of division.  

A particle may not be able to type this message to you.  Obviously, a thing made out of particles can.  That a thing made out of particles can type this message to you, does not imply that any single particle can.

Well since particles is all we have discovered, it must be, as I said, be something we haven't discovered yet.

You might be right here, although I don't think that something that only moves when a force is apllied to it suddenly moves on it's own just because there are more of it.

Also it is true that one particle cannot write this message but more together can, however that doesn't mean they have chosen themselves to do so.

[Sappho]

How do you define free will?

As we both know that definition is to be found in a dictionairy, but I'll try to formulate my grasp of the concept.

Free will is, without breaking the laws of physics, being able to choose between multiple possible ways, while still being influenced by the past.

I know the definition is lacking, but I'll keep thinking about it.

What's yours?

Compatabilist free will exists, incompatabilist free will doesn't.

Thank you, I didn't know these terms and I looked them up. It's quite interesting.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're welcome.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well since particles is all we have discovered, it must be, as I said, be something we haven't discovered yet.

No, it "mustn't be". 

You're still relying on the truth of two fallacious arguments in making that statement - which is, itself, a complete non-sequitur.  

You might be right here, although I don't think that something that only moves when a force is apllied to it suddenly moves on it's own just because there are more of it.

I'm not sure what you're commenting on.  I'm right about what?  I made no comments to that effect.  

Also it is true that one particle cannot write this message but more together can, however that doesn't mean they have chosen themselves to do so.

OFC not.  I only commented upon your means of inference, not whether or not our will is free.

[Whateverist]

I think that you'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree that the universe consists of particles, and particles alone.  I would also caution aganst a line of reasoning that states that since particles do not have a will, things made out of a particles cannot have a will.  Or that if a thing made of particles has a will, that means that individual particles have a will.  Both sides of that statement are uninformative..one being a fallacy of composition, the other a fallacy of division.  

A particle may not be able to type this message to you.  Obviously, a thing made out of particles can.  That a thing made out of particles can type this message to you, does not imply that any single particle can.

Well since particles is all we have discovered, it must be, as I said, be something we haven't discovered yet.

You might be right here, although I don't think that something that only moves when a force is apllied to it suddenly moves on it's own just because there are more of it.

Also it is true that one particle cannot write this message but more together can, however that doesn't mean they have chosen themselves to do so.

If only particles exist, how do you explain the existence of living cells?  And even if living cells exist, how do explain the existence living tissues composed of cells let alone organs made up of systems of tissues?  For that matter how do you explain multi cellular creatures.  If you can't explain it, obviously we don't exist and the volition we experience as creatures is entirely illusory.  No free will is only the tip of the iceberg; it's actually no nothing, all the way down .. except for particles of course.  They are free to continue binging around haphazardly.  

Nervy matter thinking it can just come together in any old manner that suits it.  Doesn't it know that our ability to explain it is paramount?  Without a good explanation particles may only bing around chaotically.  At least until we can explain how they do more than that they should refrain from all forms of complexity.[/sarcasm]