Conclusion C: The part of us that possesses free will is not physical.
• This non-physical part is what is typically referred to as the Soul.
What do you think? — Samuel Lacrampe
Premise P1: Everything that is physical is determined, as per the laws of physics. — Samuel Lacrampe
freely chosen, and therefore not fully determined. — Samuel Lacrampe
• An act is called freely chosen when it is voluntary, intended, willed, as opposed to being accidental, fully caused by external forces outside our control. — Samuel Lacrampe
Everything that is physical is determined, as per the laws of physics. — Samuel Lacrampe
https://www.britannica.com › scienceUncertainty principle, also called Heisenberg uncertainty principle or indeterminacy principle, statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory.
I think I get what you are saying, namely that although our acts are freely chosen, those choices are based on what we judge to have the most beneficial outcome, and thus this judgement determines our choices.This is correct, but being voluntary, intended, willed, is a deterministic matter (of whether your judgement of the merits of alternative courses of action determines your actions) — Pfhorrest
↪Banno ↪A Seagull Hello.
Can you elaborate on why P1 is false? Are you saying that some physical things do not obey some laws of physics, or in other words that equal causes may give unequal effects? — Samuel Lacrampe
Can you elaborate on why P1 is false? — Samuel Lacrampe
...and it's not just virtual particles. It's double slit experiments - nothing causes the photon to go left instead of right. It's atomic decay - nothing causes this uranium atom to decay now, but not that one. The list goes on.
And again, what is salient is that intelligent, practical folk accept these uncaused events as part of the mechanism that allows all our electronic devices to function. — Banno
Does this uncertainty principle entail that equal causes may give unequal effects, or does it merely say that we cannot predict with precision what these effects may be? If the latter, then I don't think this invalidates the argument in the OP. — Samuel Lacrampe
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
Conclusion C: The part of us that possesses free will is not physical.
• This non-physical part is what is typically referred to as the Soul. — Samuel Lacrampe
I think this is a confusion about the dilemma of free will. Volition is just an action with a goal. An intention is simply a goal that a voluntary action is directed towards. "Ordinary" will is simply about initiating a voluntary action.An act is called freely chosen when it is voluntary, intended, willed, as opposed to being accidental, fully caused by external forces outside our control. — Samuel Lacrampe
E.g. most rational persons understand that cheating on their spouse is morally wrong, but are tempted to do it because it gives pleasure. Free will kicks in when they choose between moral value and pleasure. At that point, indeed, the act is determined by that judgement of the best outcome, based on the values they chose. — Samuel Lacrampe
I would accept the claim "we don't know what causes [...]", but "nothing causes [...]" is a logical fallacy.nothing causes [...] — Banno
And again, what is salient is that intelligent, practical folk accept these uncaused events as part of the mechanism that allows all our electronic devices to function. — Banno
...four... — Samuel Lacrampe
That's okay. What I meant by "determined" is not that we can know it with certainty, but that the cause-effect is consistent or uniform, even if we don't know it. So identical causes yield identical effects.it's that these cannot both be known (or determined) with certainty at all. — Wayfarer
Indeed, "parts" don't apply to non-physical things. But if we define a human being as the whole system of body and soul, then the soul is a part of that system.There is no non-physical 'part' because 'parts' generally characterise physical things; in other words, physical things are composed of parts, and it is not as if 'the soul' is one part amongst others. — Wayfarer
Thomas Aquinas was already talking about this back then (but I cannot find the source of this anymore).science can't account for the 'subjective unity of individual perception'. — Wayfarer
To say that all physical things "obey the laws of physics" is merely an expression. It refers to the Uniformity of Nature, which is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same. For a given cause A, we always expect to see effect B. — Samuel Lacrampe
I would accept the claim "we don't know what causes [...]", but "nothing causes [...]" is a logical fallacy.
It goes against the Principle of Sufficient Reason — Samuel Lacrampe
Alright, I'll ask it. Does Free Will violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason?Free Will enables some of our acts to be freely chosen, and therefore not fully determined. — Samuel Lacrampe
Meh. People have developed technology in the past before fully understanding the theory behind it; like boats before fully understanding buoyancy. Also I'm wondering if order can result out of chaos, which sounds like what something-out-of-nothing would be.The important bit...
And again, what is salient is that intelligent, practical folk accept these uncaused events as part of the mechanism that allows all our electronic devices to function.
— Banno — Banno
Oh ok. I didn't know this was disputed as a Law of Thought. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is self-evidently true, because any attempt to give a sufficient reason for or against it would presuppose it. This is why it fits as part of the basic laws of thoughts or logic....four...
— Samuel Lacrampe
There's your problem. — Banno
I don't understand this statement. If nature is uniform, consistent in its effects resulting from a given cause, then it is indeed determined; where the opposite of "determine" is "randomness", when free will is not involved.But you have used that claim to further claim that the world is determined. If the 'laws of physics' are merely a description, which they are, then any claim of determinism is unjustified. — A Seagull
So is the alternative randomness? This seems to fail the Principle of Sufficient Reason. In addition, how do you explain technology without the Uniformity of Nature? E.g. planes consistently fly.Nature is not uniform, there is no claim for that in physics, and any claim to uniformity is at best, very very approximate and even then only in some circumstances. — A Seagull
Sure. But what's your point with regards to this discussion?We are also animals. — Daniel
Hmmm... I don't think a choice in outcome is necessary for free will. You can tie me up so as to remove my choice in outcome of moving vs not moving, but this would not take away my free will, because I can still choose to intend to move.Free will is supposed to involve choice, which is none of the above things. I voluntarily reach towards the chocolate ice cream after I deliberate about whether to get chocolate or vanilla. — InPitzotl
I don't believe so.Does Free Will violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason? — InPitzotl
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.