Whether or not the universe is 'good' is completely subjective. The universe simply is.

Free Will has always been a strange concept for me because I ask: free of what?

Now if one says that our minds are free of the typical causal mechanisms that matter operates under in the universe, I would agree. But that doesn't necessarily mean free of all causality. It could be the mind operates under a different set of rules but those rules are still deterministic.

Ok, lot of angles in there. I basically want to know what you think about these ideas on the nature of free will, what determines our destinies, and whether reality is all good. Thanks — Gregory

Free will is usually held to be free of - to have won its freedom from - mere desire. They're different things, not to be mistaken for or confused with each other.

And tangentially I have a suspicion that any good parent already knows all about this in his or her bones, from the imperatives of being a good parent. Probably most people confronted with responsibility and who choose to do their duty also. A whole world full of medical professionals and care-givers comes to mind at the moment.

I got my compatabilism from st. Augustine. I don't see how one can act in a moral way without motive. Thinking otherwise sounds like Enlightenment philosophy to me. It's all quite confusing because we are trying to define what and who we are through introspection when addressing the issue of free will

any good parent — tim wood

This reminds me of a way I’ve sometimes got phrased my compatibilist position: free will is like self-parenting. Your parents can influence the choices you will make. You can influence the choices your children will make. Free will is just bending that in a loop: influencing the choices you yourself will make in the same way your parents influence you and you influence your children. The stronger an influence you have over yourself like that, to the exclusion of other influences, the freer your will.

I think free will works in this way: we always follow our strongest desire, but we are free in our choices. — Gregory

Yes. I agree that we have freedom of choice, but only in a very limited range. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of evils, not from a range of desires. Elsewhere, I have expounded on the notion of Freewill Within Determinism, but here I'll just refer to an inherent paradox in the Christian notion of Freewill Despite Predestination. This is my reply, and later commentary on a Quora question about that article of faith. :chin:

Freewill vs Predestination :
http://enformationism.info/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=108&sid=38deb1140c94fe0303d1ba2f954b9c95#p108

Paradox of Freewill :
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html

My problem with the Christian position on hell is that God creates humanity knowing the majority of them will end up in hell. He might surely have reason to allow it (so the saved can have greater spiritual benefits), but I thought creation reflects his nature. It seems to me that his nature is defective if he can't create a world where everyone goes to heaven and has all the spiritual benefits they could imagine. I'm working on this question from an atheistic perspective

Consider your desire to be volatile and impulsive - consider how in many cases, you'll want something only for as long as you don't have it - once you achieve it, once you have it in your hands, it quickly becomes rather irrelevant. In a way this is unreasonable. We will chase something with huge amounts of effort only to realize the result wasn't all that desirable. If our decisions are based on what we desire, then our decisions, our free will too, becomes volatile, impulsive, erratic - those are the choices we make that are made on that "gut feeling".

There is another option here: Making decisions based on rationality. For instance take a scenario where our personal interest might be in option A, yet we might settle on option B if it's significant for someone else or a group we belong to. Similarly, we can decide to opt for delayed gratification in a given situation, even if instant gratification might be much more enticing to us. Such decisions are based on our rational, based on our ability to analyze, compare and consider a multitude of factors to any choices presented to us. How we prioritize these factors, how we rationally decide which one is the "correct" choice for us, is based solely on experience and expectations - though I believe the latter, expectation, is also based on our previous experiences.

So on one hand, we make decisions based on an impulse we can't really explain, on the other hand, we make decisions based on what happened to us in the past. At this point though, we can take a look at how our experiences are shaped - not by ourselves but by everything that is external - or more precisely by how we interact with the external, by our relationship with everything that isn't us - the outside world.

Take a child for instance. A child is naturally curious about ANYTHING. It will try to engage with whatever it comes across. A child does not make decisions like an adult does. In fact, you could argue a young child does not make decisions at all. Rather, they jump at whatever pulls their interest first - it is quite similar, if not the same, to the "gut feeling"-decisions I mentioned earlier - what is certain is that it's not rational at all. So if the experiences we make first are not based on rationality - but rationality is based on our experiences - are our rational decisions even rational at all? Even the application of education does not lift this predicament. If our upbringing leads us to a point that does not meet our expectations (which again, are likely based on previous experience), we'll take an extra effort to stir in the other direction - that is displayed for example in the rebellious phase of a teenager.


So then, can we say that the way how our will operates is determined from the earliest periods of our life? Well, not quite. Because a single influence from outside can completely shatter our previous world-view in an instance. We are in constant motion - the internal me and the external world, always dancing with eachother- our thoughts, our experiences, our desires are constantly challenged and changed through the interactions we have with everything and everyone else. Likewise, we're always "the external" to someone else. We are constantly shaping and being shaped by the world.

Whether this implies free will or if it implies destiny is a matter of taste (or faith, if you want) - it's either all order, or all chaos - but beneath and above every order lies chaos and vice versa. Likewise, what you make of "god" is personal preference. But let's do go there and imagine we are indeed god as some form of conscious being (or non-being).


Imagine you are exactly as the bible suggests - omnipotent, omniscientific, all-powerful and all-knowing. From the very beginning of your existence, you would be bored of yourself and everything else - afterall, you've already seen it all, you've already experienced it all. As god, you would never be able to surprise or entertain yourself. There is however, one possible solution to this problem: You surrender your consciousness. You come up with an universal system that nurtures and maintains itself - you build everything under the fundamental principle to expand and propagate - from the motions of the universe to any organism. Once you've set up the rules, the laws of physics and life itself, you just let go of all control. You delegate all control to your creation - they shall manage and maintain themselves and each other. You surrender your consciousness and surprise yourself at last, through the limited consciousness of your own creation.

In that sense, I don't think reality is good or bad - those are terms that humans invented to begin with. I think reality is more playful than that. It is like art, following no purpose other than to be witnessed.

I don't think goodness is outside us. It IS subjective, but it is real inside us. So it's a legit question whether a compatabilist universe is good if within it people end up in eternal Hell. That is, whether the universe is kind

My problem with the Christian position on hell is that God creates humanity knowing the majority of them will end up in hell. He might surely have reason to allow it (so the saved can have greater spiritual benefits), but I thought creation reflects his nature. It seems to me that his nature is defective if he can't create a world where everyone goes to heaven and has all the spiritual benefits they could imagine. I'm working on this question from an atheistic perspective — Gregory

Yes. The Calvinist Predestination interpretation of creation never made any sense to me. And Hell is obviously a scare-tactic invented by provoked prophets & preachy priests to control their incorrigible straying flocks. That's the imaginary stick to curb "bad" behavior, and Heaven is the hypothetical carrot that we strive for. Yet, it still seems unlikely that the world created itself. And according to our current understanding, it began in an unformed state, neither good nor bad. Since humans arrived on the scene though, we have learned how to modify Nature to suit our needs & desires. And, seeing that we can make things better, some of us have imagined a perfect happy ending, to compensate for the imperfections of daily life : Utopia or Heaven.

With that as a background, my pragmatic Panendeist worldview assumes, from circumstantial evidence, that a (non-biblical) Creator, or First Cause or Logos, programmed the physical universe to function as a living organism, evolving via a trial & error learning process toward some, yet to be determined, final state *1. However, for us temporary creatures, the process of living & learning is more important than the end product of this cosmic "experiment", or "game" *2. The Programmer or Experimenter put us in this iffy situation, so there is no reason to expect to be "saved" from our assigned role in the game . The experiment is not about us as individuals --- we are simply means to an end *3. Yet, as a team, we can try to make it a win-win game --- good for all --- instead of win-lose : Heaven for me, Hell for you.

I don't know what the final score of this ongoing creative process will be, but it seems to involve the gradual emergence of more & more intelligent creatures, capable of contemplating their own provenance . Unlike an ant farm though, we are entities with a sense of self, so humans can choose a path that is determined not just by instinct, but by reason & self-interest. A talent for self-improvement seems to be essential for our minor roles in this cosmic research project. Hence Religion (moral), Philosophy (mental), & Science (technical) advances are indications of progress in cultural evolution. And that historical trend of positive growth in individual & collective mental & moral function is a sign of Progression-of and Intention-behind the mechanism of evolution. *4

In my view, the "nature" of an eternal immaterial creative Principle (Logos) is neither Good nor Evil, but includes the omni-potential to create a natural system with choices that can be construed by us "lab rats" (or "players" or "actors") as positive or negative, relative to personal needs and desires. And as a species, humans seem to be still on the uphill side of the learning curve. You can call this worldview “Science Fiction” if you like. But, for me it's merely a way of understanding how & why the world works as it does. The "Problem of Evil" is for humanity to work out as best they can. And each of us must play our role to the best of our ability, by contributing to a positive outcome.

An omnipotent deity should indeed be able to create a perfect unchanging world, but that would be Heaven. And nothing notable would happen there --- no drama, no room for improvement --- just strumming harps all day. Would you sign up for that . . . forever? Unfortunately, that's not an option. So I simply work with the situation I find myself in. And, all told, it's not so bad . . . for me at least. :yum:

*1 Evolutionary Programming : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*2 “It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.” ___Grantland Rice

*3 Means to an end : However, Panendeism assumes that, in a literal sense, the universe is G*D, or at least made of god-stuff (information). If so, humans are integral parts of G*D. And each of us has a meaningful role to play in the evolution of G*D. But our physical bodies are not built for eternity. So, this brief spark in the dark may be as close as we will ever come to eternal life. No Heaven, no Hell, just Now. Each person's final destiny is indeterminate, but Now is determined by your next choice.

*4 Moral evolution : for those skeptical or cynical of moral progress, check out Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now, The Case For Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.

Note : Sorry, I got on a roll, and started preaching. Can I get an amen! :cool:

I think free will works in this way: we always follow our strongest desire, but we are free in our choices. You are free to choose one way or another when a genuine choice is put before you, but it's infallibly certain which one you will choose if you are looking at it from the outside like Laplace's demon. The reason is that there is no reason to choose the weaker impulse! But I think we are free none the less to choose the lesser one and although we never will choose it, we will always consider it¹. This might seem like a paradox, or it might seem perfectly clear. It probably depends where someone is in their journey. I was wondering if I should post about this because I am not sure where I am in my journey,
or any of you.

The question of the nature of reality is involved in this topic as well. If some people never reach their full potential while others do, it is through their fault². HOWEVER, the universe is set up such that many will fail their destiny³. So can we conclude that reality is not good? Yet it is still the fault of the people who fail that they trip themselves up. — Gregory

Okay, I'm infallibly certain (ha) that there are quite a few... hazy assertions in the preceding deluge. I've taken the liberty to exhibit just a handful of them.

1. assuming there are only two possible choices is completely ignoring Laplace's demon?
2. assuming free will
3. you seem to have access to Laplace's demon?

Seems as it's mad rant time on the forums.

SO you act freely if and only if you might have done otherwise.

While removing a tumour, your surgeon puts a Bill Gates chip in your head programmed so that, come the election, if you decide to vote for Trump, the chip will interfere in such a way as to ensure you actually vote for Kanye West. But if you decide to vote for West, then the chip will do nothing. One wants to say that you could freely choose to vote for West.

But it is not possible for you to do otherwise than to vote for West.

Hence, even if you choose to vote for West, you could not have done otherwise, and your vote was not free.

(Stolen from Harry Frankfurt.)

Following on, if the Bill Gates Chip forces you to vote for West, then you did not exercise your free will. If you chose to vote for West, you did exercise your free will. It seems that, whatever it is that renders a choice free, it is not to do with what you might have done. It seems instead to be something to do with what brings the action about.

It's not the possibility of a different outcome that makes the choice free, but the reason for the choice.

So is a choice free if one can give reasons - presumably good ones, whatever that means - for making it?

But it is a straight forward thing to give reasons for acting in a certain way after the fact; post hoc excuses.

SO is a choice free if it is first deliberated on, and the reasons decided - before the act? Are our free choices weighed down by our rumination?

Are our unconsidered actions then not free?

we always follow our strongest desire, but we are free in our choices. — Gregory

Out of interest, I offer the view that this is a bit too "easy" of a theory, and there's reason to suspect it can't quite work this way (this is quite nit picky, but I'm actually particularly interested in the weeds). In particular, when we choose something, we choose options, not desires; the desires we have sort of rank the options, and somehow choices come out. If you view this like voting, then Arrow's Impossibility Theorem comes into play... this suggests that at least when more than 2 options are presented, then there's simply some sort of messy conflict resolution between the options, and AIT kind of proves that it has to be messy.

assuming there are only two possible choices is completely ignoring Laplace's demon? — Key

Options being considered in a choice are considerations, not "realities". (I have no qualms how you map this to "free will" one way or the other, but having a single outcome does not entail a choice was not made... all it entails is that if a choice was made, that outcome was what was chosen).

I am not sure what Philosophy of Mind means, but I think this is the appropriate subsection.

I think free will works in this way: we always follow our strongest desire, but we are free in our choices. You are free to choose one way or another when a genuine choice is put before you, but it's infallibly certain which one you will choose if you are looking at it from the outside like Laplace's demon. The reason is that there is no reason to choose the weaker impulse! But I think we are free none the less to choose the lesser one and although we never will choose it, we will always consider it. This might seem
like a paradox, or it might seem perfectly clear. It probably depends where someone is in their
journey. I was wondering if I should post about this because I am not sure where I am in my journey,
or any of you.

The question of the nature of reality is involved in this topic as well. If some people never reach their full potential while others do, it is through their fault. HOWEVER, the universe is set up such that many will fail their destiny. So can we conclude that reality is not good? Yet it is still the fault of the people who fail that they trip themselves up.

Imagine you are God and you want you set up creation such that 3 fourths of everyone ends up in hell. You can tell yourself "so what, it was their fault at the end of the day" or you can say "I should have set it up so everyone goes to heaven because this is obviously the kind thing to do".

Ok, lot of angles in there. I basically want to know what you think about these ideas on the nature of free will, what determines our destinies, and whether reality is all good. Thanks — Gregory

I think people who believe in free will tend to be more creative in their solutions but i don't believe free will is logical.

I believe people who believe in scientific determinism which is a form of fate tend to be more forgiving in the objective sense or to put it in another way, they are more effective at being compassionate. These people tend to be less shallow.

Options being considered in a choice are considerations, not "realities". (I have no qualms how you map this to "free will" one way or the other, but having a single outcome does not entail a choice was not made... all it entails is that if a choice was made, that outcome was what was chosen). — InPitzotl

If you look rather briefly at the entirety of my post and the references I made to the original post... you may note the thick, goopy sarcasm. The question mark might also help you.

If Laplace's demon indicates the possibility for a good number of realities, the likelihood that only two of those are ever available to be chosen from isn't too hot.

After rereading your two sentences I'm only amused that I have wasted a few moments replying to someone who didn't put very much thought into the words that their fingers tapped and brains lapsed.

If you look rather briefly at the entirety of my post and the references I made to the original post... you may note the thick, goopy sarcasm. The question mark might also help you. — Key

Okay.

Your footnote for 1 was here:

But I think we are free none the less to choose the lesser one and although we never will choose it, we will always consider it¹. — Gregory

"Free ... to choose the lesser one" admits to a potential interpretation that the lesser is part of the consideration and that the actor is the cause of the choice. The particular phrasing of this sentence supports this interpretation.

If Laplace's demon indicates the possibility for a good number of realities, the likelihood that only two of those are ever available to be chosen from isn't too hot. — Key

Laplace's demon would indicate that the greater happens. This is consistent with the fact that there was a consideration of the lesser and that the actor was the cause of the choice; that is, all three of the following can be true:

• The actor considered the lesser and the greater option
• The actor selected the greater option
• Laplace's demon specifies that selecting the greater option would happen

I can see a conflict if we add the presumption that "free to choose the lesser" must require that the actor be capable of violating his own nature. But you would have to specifically add that presumption to get the conflict.

https://youtu.be/7eYsN66WQZg

Sorry; let me rephrase this more simply... you're making an unwarranted assumption.

Sorry; let me rephrase this more simply... you're making an unwarranted assumption. — InPitzotl

Assumptions are elicited by assertions, yes?
The one and only assertion I made in my original post was: "there are quite a few... hazy assertions in the preceding deluge." And in following I demonstrated where gaps arose; you can look back if you must, reading is good for you.

In my second post (replying to you) I stated that the probability of an actor existing in a universe of potentially limitless realities and being bound to a maximum of two conscious choices is less than a snowman's chance in hell.

Laplace's demon specifies that selecting the greater option would happen — InPitzotl

I beg you to find any understanding of Laplace's demon that would remotely agree with you. Laplace's demon is a concept of causal determinism.

Here's a few questions you should consider answering: why does your actor only possess a greater and lesser choice? Why not lesser, greater, and greatest choices? Have you ever deliberated between chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry ice cream? Or does your brain only see chocolate and vanilla?

You're mistaken in where your unwarranted assumption lies.

The one and only assertion I made in my original post was: "there are quite a few... hazy assertions in the preceding deluge." — Key

This presumes that there are hazy assertions. Under a charitable interpretation, you misread the assertions.

I beg you to find any understanding of Laplace's demon that would remotely agree with you. Laplace's demon is a concept of causal determinism. — Key

In my second post (replying to you) I stated that the probability of an actor existing in a universe of potentially limitless realities and being bound to a maximum of two conscious choices is less than a snowman's chance in hell. — Key

Okay, so Laplace's demon is a concept of causal determinism. But under causal determinism, there is only one possible sequence of events. If there's only one possible sequence of events, there is only one reality. So what are these limitless realities you're talking about? I only count one of them.

Your unwarranted assumption is that @Gregory is talking about potential realities. Getting back to my original statement, options being considered in a choice are considerations, not realities. Considerations are just mental states. You don't need two potential realities to consider two options; you just need two mental states.

Here's a few questions you should consider answering: why does your actor only possess a greater and lesser choice? — Key

Because you quoted Gregory, and Gregory's model is that we always choose the "strongest" desire. This implies a well ordering of desires that specifies the choice, such that there's a well defined maximum. I've already critiqued this using Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, but it works just fine for two choices. But aside from there technically not being a clean concept of "strongest desire", the number really doesn't matter, so long as it's more than one.

I've already critiqued this using Arrow's Impossibility Theorem — InPitzotl

I don't think that theorem has much, if anything, to do with compatibilism. I find in my soul freedom and determinism. Things seemed already planned for me, but I seem most certainly free at the same time. Is the pre-established harmony choices of my own soul that come to the surface for me to see? If that is the case then compatibiism is worthless. I tend to be skeptical about the subconscious or unconscious or pre-conscious making chooses for my ego

There are times when I make the freest of choices when there are obviously only one road to choose and only one desire available. In those moments I too wonder if free will is logical

I don't think that theorem has much, if anything, to do with compatibilism. — Gregory

It's a fine point in the mechanics you describe. Suppose we're mulling over three options; A, B, and C. In terms of "effort" they may rank B, A, C; in terms of "fun" they may rank C, B, A; and so on. Under compatibilism there must be some sort of actual process resolving these desires into a selection. Whatever that process is, you can view it analogously to the desires being voters, and the options being what's voted on. The analogy dissolves when you consider that the math doesn't change just because these desires aren't literally voters. All I'm saying is that "strongest" desire doesn't necessarily fit the mechanics... it's simply some sort of messier resolution.

Things seemed already planned for me, but I seem most certainly free at the same time. Is the pre-established harmony choices of my own soul that come to the surface for me to see? — Gregory

Well if there are deterministic rules, then for all practical purposes our soul is physical and made of meat... but said meat would still cause things.

I tend to be skeptical about the subconscious or unconscious or pre-conscious making chooses for my ego — Gregory

That seems to presume that your ego is limited to what you're conscious of. I'm not quite sure I buy that; it violates specific observations involving self reflection. To me, it appears that anything meaningful that I call "me" is more than what I'm aware of... it's just that the stuff I am aware of happens to be that part that I'm aware of. The "me" is bigger, consisting of all of the stuff I mean, all of the stuff I know, all of the stuff I know how to do, and so on, whether I'm currently thinking about such things or not (and furthermore, the factual knowledge about my "me" seems to be a constructed model of myself). Furthermore, I don't think I can be conscious of a thing before there's a thing to be conscious of, so unless things loop from consciousness to mulling and back (or something to that effect), they generally start unconsciously.