Evidence for God from Science

Philosophically, free will is a term for a particular capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. In essence, freewill is commonly taken to mean, "I could have done differently had I desired." But just how does this work? How does the mental operation that makes the choice to go left rather than right, work?

So far, the only operative agents in the universe that have been found to bring events into being are utter randomness and causation. Utter randomness is a total lack of causation. Events simply pop into being for absolutely no reason whatsoever. While seemingly preposterous, this reportedly does occur in quantum mechanics; subatomic particles do simply pop in and out of existence for absolutely no reason at all. While this is the prevailing notion in quantum physics, there are those who do question it, but assuming utter randomness does exist could it contribute to free will? Hardly. Any effect it had on the mental operation of choosing would immediately render the choosing itself random. So utter randomness can be eliminated as the agent of choosing. This leaves us with causation as the explanation for our actions.

What we choose to do is caused.

Causation is a "because of this, then that" sort of operation---notice the "cause" in the word "because," it's kind of telling. So, looking at our choice to go left rather than right, we have to ask ourselves what caused this choice? The common and immediate answer is, "our free will." Nice, but what is the will and what is it free of?

......"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its ......own actions"
......source

The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action. It determined (coerced) the will to make the choice to go left rather than right. If there wasn't then why would the will choose what it did? So, where does this causal agent get its instructions that determine the action of the will? Well, we've ruled out randomness as a possibility, so it too must have had a causal agent that determined its action. And where does this casual agent get it's instructions? As is probably evident, it's turtles all the way down. What we choose to do is because of a successive series of cause/effect operations that ultimately led to one choosing to go left rather than right. But, could we have chosen differently? Chose to go right instead? Not unless there was something different in the chain of cause/effect events that led up to the moment of going one way or the other. Think of the cause/effect events as a series of numbers. Say its the series of six numbers of 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, which equals 26. For the series to equal some other number one or more of the numbers would have to be different. But they weren't, they were 1 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7, so the final outcome has to be 26 and no other number. Same is true of the series of events leading up to moment of going one way or the other. They were what they were and not something else, and because of this it was inevitable that one chose to go left rather than right. One simply couldn't have gone right. One HAD TO go left.

So where is the meat in the notion of choosing? There isn't any. Choosing, and all of its cognates, are really empty notions and terms that don't mean a thing---other in their most simplistic usage. We no more choose to go left than a rock chooses to sit where it does. While the will does control the mind as to its actions, what it does is not free, but controlled (determined) by all the causal effects that lead up to any doing.

Audacity: We no more choose to go left than a rock chooses to sit where it does. While the will does control the mind as to its actions, what it does is not free, but controlled (determined) by all the causal effects that lead up to any doing.

So, a murderer cannot choose differently - his choice to kill was programmed/unavoidable/his choice an illusion? Why hold such a person accountable? Oops, that would be a choice of an action? Who does this so-called programming? Where did biological entity come from so as to have this illusion of choice?

Audacity, what is your point? Why are you here? Was that your choice? No? Yes? Does it matter? Does anything? Is this even worth pondering? What if our illusions have conflict? Who decides about that - oops, another "apparent" choice?

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

Philip wrote:

Audacity: We no more choose to go left than a rock chooses to sit where it does. While the will does control the mind as to its actions, what it does is not free, but controlled (determined) by all the causal effects that lead up to any doing.

So, a murderer cannot choose differently - his choice to kill was programmed/unavoidable/his choice an illusion?

No, he can't choose anything, much less to do differently.

Why hold such a person accountable?

When one gets right down to the nitty-gritty of it, we shouldn't.

Oops, that would be a choice of an action?

No, it wouldn't be a choice of action, but an unavoidable response. The person who holds such a person accountable has no more choice in doing so than the person had in committing the murder.

Who does this so-called programming?

No "who" is doing any such programming. It's the nature of our deterministic universe---with a perhaps little randomness thrown in at the quantum level for good measure.

Where did biological entity come from so as to have this illusion of choice?

Why are you assuming there's any such biological entity?

Audacity, what is your point? Why are you here? Was that your choice? No? Yes? Does it matter? Does anything? Is this even worth pondering? What if our illusions have conflict? Who decides about that - oops, another "apparent" choice?

WOW! Ten, count 'em, 10 questions in just two lines. Sorry, but you've overwhelmed me.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

Thanks for the welcome.

Audacity, where do you think this universe, that you insist is perfectly deterministic in how it operates/necessitates, came from? And how did it come about with this sophisticated, if illusions of choice, world?

As well, if all is determined by a universe so wired, did it wire itself in such a way? How did this universe come to exist?

It would seem, with Audacity's logic, that there is no difference between love and hate, as far as CAUSES. But what about outcomes? Do they matter? Should we try to change them? Why or why not? Does it matter as to how we consider a victim vs. an aggressor? Should we care? Why? What if I determine that what you determine is vastly different? Does the determinant universe then sometimes determine differently in the same situation, over the very same issue, with the very same people? You see, determination would suggest there is some kind of consistency to how things are wired, as to how they are determined. But that's not what we see in the real world, is it? If everything is determined, how could we do science if the results were constantly conflicting due to differ determinations? You see, the idea behind determination refutes randomness, because randomness 1) has no cause AND 2) it has no certainty or specificity - which means it cannot be a determined thing. A determined thing can't be just this or that, as it must ONLY be THIS!

OK, enough of dating Mary Jane, I've determined she's a bad influence on you!

Philip wrote:Audacity, where do you think this universe, that you insist is perfectly deterministic in how it operates/necessitates, came from?

First of all, because quantum randomness does appear to be a fact, I wouldn't call it perfectly deterministic. As for where the universe came from, I defer to science, which says it originated from a singularity around 13.82 billions years ago.

And how did it come about with this sophisticated, if illusions of choice, world?

This isn't clear. Please rephrase.

Audacity: I defer to science, which says it originated from a singularity around 13.82 billions years ago.

So, where did the singularity come from - with its ability to produce massive complexity, design, incredibly fine-tuned mechanisms, physics, biologies, chemistries, matter, dimension, space, all that physically exists? Where did the intelligence and power within Singularity come from? HOW did Singularity get so brilliant, so powerful - so ETERNAL? What DETERMINED its attributes? And, BTW, science only can say what appears to have happened - not HOW it happened or what its source is. As for unproven speculation - whether done by scientist or lesser mortals - it's still unproven conjecture of where Singularity MIGHT have come from or developed, without any scientific analysis that proves it. And wherever it came from, you'd have to explain where THAT came from. So, you're in the land of Metaphysics, not science!

Philip wrote:So, where did the singularity come from - with its ability to produce massive complexity, design, incredibly fine-tuned mechanisms, physics, biologies, chemistries, matter, dimension, space, all that physically exists?

That's the $64 question.

Where did the intelligence and power within Singularity come from?

Why are you assuming an intelligence?

HOW did Singularity get so brilliant, so powerful - so ETERNAL?

DK

What DETERMINED its attributes?

DK.

And, BTW, science only can say what appears to have happened - not HOW it happened or what its source is.

Right.

As for unproven speculation - whether done by scientist or lesser mortals - it's still unproven conjecture of where Singularity MIGHT have come from or developed, without any scientific analysis that proves it.

Actually, there isn't much conjecture about the origin of the singularity at all, and certainly no analysis that I'm aware of.

And wherever it came from, you'd have to explain where THAT came from. So, you're in the land of Metaphysics, not science!

Fact is, there's no imperative that demands any kind of explanation at all. Cosmology, the principle field of science dealing with such things, is quite content with letting the origin of the singularity remain in the background, principally because whatever it may be it has no impact on our present-day investigation of the universe.

This said, unless you have a question or comment dealing with the subject of my Original Post, Free Will, this will be my last reply.
However . . . if you really want to discuss the universe and the science of cosmology I suggest you create a new thread. If it looks interesting I'll be happy to jump in and comment.

Audacity wrote:The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action.

This is incorrect. Further, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free will is.

Free will is nothing more than this: the elective power of the rational entity whereby one moves ]toward this rather than that good."

The key here is "this rather than that good," because that tells us something about the nature of the will (and so its "freedom"). The will necessarily chooses the good. That, in and of itself, is enough to demonstrate the flaw in your sentence quoted above. You are arguing against a more Cartesian notion of "free will," and if you're going to insist on arguing against that, I'll just shrug my shoulders and note that you've disproved something that Christians have not historically held anyway. But if you want to talk about the classical position, then you are just way off the mark. But, as I was saying, while the will necessarily is directed towards the good, it is not necessarily directed towards any particular good. In this life, every good has a drawback, which is to say that no good is perfect (except, of course, God--and that has very important ramifications for the free will of the departed saints and of angels, but let that pass for now). Because all temporal goods are imperfect, that means that the will is not, by nature, determined to any particular good. Therefore, to use your two categories, if the person opts for this good rather than that good, there are only two logical possibilities to account for the movement: either it was random or else it was chosen. Experience itself teaches against the former, which only leaves us with the latter.

And that is just what free will is. It is the election of this rather than that good.

BTW, you were too quick to dismiss QM in your comments, as they are actually rather relevant to all of this. It is not true that the events we see in QM are random. They are properly caused effects. It is simply that the effects are indeterminate (which is different from random). We know that, given this particular set of conditions, that will happen, where "that" is not a singular thing but rather a probability range. Which is to say, under a particular set of conditions, the following things may happen: x, y, and z (with probability ranges assigned to each). It is not, then, "random." It is the nature of reality itself to be indeterminate as to x, y, or z. But it is determinate that it be either x, y, or z.

Likewise, free will is understood primarily in terms of indeterminacy. In fact, we can (and many philosophers do) better talk about "free will" in terms of the indeterminacy of the will. So if the will is indeterminately directed towards x, y, and z, (but determined towards that entire set) then what is the determining factor? And the answer is, of course, the will. There may be many influences on that will, and those influences come by way of 1) the intellect and 2) the instinct. That is to say, there are some factors that work with the intellect (as when we deliberate over what to choose) and some are subconscious (as when we are reacting for some unknown reason). That does not violate the principle of free will. It enables it. For the will is the faculty of the person to make the choice. They do not make the choice with their will alone but with their being, which includes other faculties as well (including, necessarily, the intellect). There are, then, many factors that influence the will. But after all those factors are accounted for, it is the final movement of the being toward the selected good that we call "the choice," and that choice is rightly called "free" precisely because the will was not predetermined (necessarily, by nature) to that end rather than to another.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audacity wrote:The "free" part indicates that no coercive factor was involved, but as we've seen, there was a causal agent operating within the will that, in effect, determined its action.

This is incorrect. Further, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free will is.

Free will is nothing more than this: the elective power of the rational entity whereby one moves ]toward this rather than that good."

The key here is "this rather than that good," because that tells us something about the nature of the will (and so its "freedom"). The will necessarily chooses the good.

So, just how does this "elective power" operate? This is the crux of my OP. How does the will operate and remain free of coercion? Simply asserting the existence of some kind choosing power simply doesn't cut it. It's no better than using the term "free will" itself. What we're after here is to explain just how the will goes about its business and still remain free. You haven't done this. And! your digression into some kind of irrelevant "good" doesn't help.

And that is just what free will is. It is the election of this rather than that good.

Okay. . . . . but just how does it work, this electing process, and still keep the will free?

. . . free will is understood primarily in terms of indeterminacy. In fact, we can (and many philosophers do) better talk about "free will" in terms of the indeterminacy of the will.

Yup they do, and here's one of them, from Great Issues in Philosophy, by James Fieser.

"Indeterminacy. A fourth argument for genuine free will stems from the principle of indeterminacy which was discovered by physicists in the early 20th century. When investigating the way that electrons zip around the nucleus of an atom, physicists realized that they could not determine with certainty where an electron would be at any given moment. It wasn’t because their scientific equipment was too primitive. Rather, it’s because the electrons themselves are by nature indeterminable. It’s as though electrons exist in a cloud of potentiality around a nucleus, and their specific locations in space become actualized only when we take measurements of them. An electron is “indeterminate” in the sense that, prior to measuring it, no standard causal law calculation can be preformed to designate its exact location at a particular time. The best that we can do is to calculate the probability of where it might be at that point in time.

“Aha!” says the free will advocate, “there are uncaused events in the physical world, which are unconstrained by precise natural laws. This is the basis of our unconstrained free choices.” More precisely, there are two ways in which subatomic indeterminacy might bolster the theory of free will. First, the principle of indeterminacy rewrites the book on how the physical world around us operates. We can no longer say that the world is just a giant cause-effect machine with each link in the causal chain obeying rigid laws. There’s a break in that chain at the subatomic level, and that entitles us to consider the possibility of breaks in the chain other places, particularly with free human choices. Second, it could be that the indeterminacy of electrons themselves trigger a chain of bio-chemical reactions in my body that result in a freely chosen action. For example, when I select chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, my thoughts and neurological activity build upon deeper and deeper biochemical events, which might ultimately trace back to the indeterminacy of electrons.

It is true that the indeterminacy principle compromises the most extreme versions of determinism, since the determinist can no longer say that all events in the physical world have prior causes guided by standard natural laws. Nevertheless, the free will advocate’s excitement may be premature for two reasons. First, even if things are indeterminable at the level of subatomic particles, the physical world is still governed by rigid natural laws at higher levels of chemical molecules and biological cells. Chemists have complete confidence that the substances they work with follow strict chemical laws. Biochemists have the same confidence that the living cells they study follow strict biological laws. At these higher levels, the causal machinery of the world is completely intact, regardless of what happens at the subatomic level. Whatever choices we make as human beings, these originate within our brains, which follow chemical and biological laws. The indeterminacy of electrons doesn’t just jump up to these higher levels – either literally or metaphorically.

A second problem with the indeterminacy argument is that it does not allow for the type of human choices that free will advocates need. The indeterminacy of electrons is a random thing, but genuinely free choices could not be random: they are thoughtful and meaningful actions. If I’m deciding between buying chocolate ice cream and vanilla and I randomly flip a coin to decide, that’s an arbitrary action, not a free action. If in fact all of our actions were indeterminate in the way that electrons are, we’d have nonstop spasms and convulsions, not meaningfully chosen actions. Rather than selecting either the chocolate ice cream or vanilla, I’d start quivering like I’m having a seizure. Thus, subatomic indeterminacy is no real help to the free will advocate. "
source

So if the will is indeterminately directed towards x, y, and z, (but determined towards that entire set) then what is the determining factor? And the answer is, of course, the will. There may be many influences on that will, and those influences come by way of 1) the intellect and 2) the instinct. That is to say, there are some factors that work with the intellect (as when we deliberate over what to choose) and some are subconscious (as when we are reacting for some unknown reason). That does not violate the principle of free will. It enables it. For the will is the faculty of the person to make the choice. They do not make the choice with their will alone but with their being, which includes other faculties as well (including, necessarily, the intellect). There are, then, many factors that influence the will. But after all those factors are accounted for, it is the final movement of the being toward the selected good that we call "the choice," and that choice is rightly called "free" precisely because the will was not predetermined (necessarily, by nature) to that end rather than to another.

You might want to review what you've said here. Really review it. In any case, thank you for your efforts.


.

Audacity wrote:So, just how does this "elective power" operate? This is the crux of my OP. How does the will operate and remain free of coercion? Simply asserting the existence of some kind choosing power simply doesn't cut it. It's no better than using the term "free will" itself. What we're after here is to explain just how the will goes about its business and still remain free. You haven't done this. And! your digression into some kind of irrelevant "good" doesn't help.

It does help. As I said, it is the key, and your failure to grasp that suggests to me that you don't understand and have not studied the relevant metaphysical foundations. Do you understand the notion of good as a transcendental predicate? If so, you understand the interchangeability of "good", "being", "true", and other such terms. That is extremely important, highly relevant, to our discussion. To quote from your "great" Fieser, "genuinely free choices could not be random: they are thoughtful and meaningful actions." That which is thoughtful or meaningful is intentional, which means it is aimed at an end. That is, all thoughtful actions have a telos, a goal, or in more classical language, a perfection to which they are attaining. More on that below.

Okay. . . . . but just how does it work, this electing process, and still keep the will free?

To quote Aquinas on the matter:

• But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.

There's nothing, then, especially mysterious here. The will is a judgment. But that judgment is not predetermined to any particular good/end but is naturally fitted to many goods/ends. Therefore, the determination to this rather than that end just is what we call "free will." To ask "how" is to misunderstand what it is. "How" is answered by knowing what it is: the person makes a judgment and then wills in light of that judgment. Willing, like knowledge, is a natural power or capacity of the human, and that in virtue of his nature.

"Indeterminacy. A fourth argument for genuine free will stems from the principle of indeterminacy which was discovered by physicists in the early 20th century.

Your "great" philosopher is already incorrect. The argument does not stem from what 20th century discoveries in physics. Indeterminacy has been the way we have talked about free will since Aristotle. Read the link to Aquinas I just provided above.

So if the will is indeterminately directed towards x, y, and z, (but determined towards that entire set) then what is the determining factor? And the answer is, of course, the will. There may be many influences on that will, and those influences come by way of 1) the intellect and 2) the instinct. That is to say, there are some factors that work with the intellect (as when we deliberate over what to choose) and some are subconscious (as when we are reacting for some unknown reason). That does not violate the principle of free will. It enables it. For the will is the faculty of the person to make the choice. They do not make the choice with their will alone but with their being, which includes other faculties as well (including, necessarily, the intellect). There are, then, many factors that influence the will. But after all those factors are accounted for, it is the final movement of the being toward the selected good that we call "the choice," and that choice is rightly called "free" precisely because the will was not predetermined (necessarily, by nature) to that end rather than to another.

You might want to review what you've said here. Really review it. In any case, thank you for your efforts.

You would do well to take your own advice and review what I've written here. Really review it. I won't bother to thank you for your efforts because it is clear you haven't put any into this. Stop being lazy.

Some believe that free will is only free if itis free of coercion, free of any and all influences and this is, incorrect.
Why?
Because it is the very nature of being a rational being and that rationale IS based on the sum total of one's experiences and understandings and those, in turn, are based on numerous factors that also have been influenced by numerous factors.
In short there is NO choice that can be made, no possibility of choice that is isolated from anything else, ever.
BUT free will is NOT about choosing DEVOID of influence, it is about choosing from the choices you have.
A person choose to go left instead of right because all the signs point to going left and he/she is not allowed to go right, may not even be able to go right BUT the person still chooses to go right ( they could, for example not go at all or even decide to go right even though they will crash into a wall and go no further).
Having no viable choice but to choose (A) is still a choice and a person that chooses (A) does so in an exercise of free will, NOT to choose (A) but to choose TO CHOOSE (A).

Some will say that choosing when we have no choice at all is not really a choice or free will BUT they forget that the very act of choosing IS free will.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audacity wrote:So, just how does this "elective power" operate? This is the crux of my OP. How does the will operate and remain free of coercion? Simply asserting the existence of some kind choosing power simply doesn't cut it. It's no better than using the term "free will" itself. What we're after here is to explain just how the will goes about its business and still remain free. You haven't done this. And! your digression into some kind of irrelevant "good" doesn't help.

It does help. As I said, it is the key, and your failure to . . . .


. . . . Stop being lazy.

Okay, you simply don't get it at all, or find it too difficult to deal with. So be it. Have a good day.

Free. For you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEuZ0Ym2iKA

Audacity wrote:Okay, you simply don't get it at all, or find it to difficult to deal with. So be it. Have a good day.

Typical. Intellectual laziness at its best. I wish I could be surprised by your ilk anymore.

PaulSacramento wrote:Some believe that free will is only free if itis free of coercion, free of any and all influences and this is, incorrect.
Why?
Because it is the very nature of being a rational being and that rationale IS based on the sum total of one's experiences and understandings and those, in turn, are based on numerous factors that also have been influenced by numerous factors.
In short there is NO choice that can be made, no possibility of choice that is isolated from anything else, ever.
BUT free will is NOT about choosing DEVOID of influence, it is about choosing from the choices you have.

So your definition of freewill would be: the ability to choose from the choices one has. That about it?

A person choose to go left instead of right because all the signs point to going left and he/she is not allowed to go right, may not even be able to go right BUT the person still chooses to go right ( they could, for example not go at all or even decide to go right even though they will crash into a wall and go no further).

But exactly what determines what he chooses?

Having no viable choice but to choose (A) is still a choice and a person that chooses (A) does so in an exercise of free will,

Yet having "no viable choice" would mean it isn't freely made, but coerced. If you are made to do X would you say you freely chose to do X? I certainly wouldn't.

. . .(A) does so in an exercise of free will, NOT to choose (A) but to choose TO CHOOSE (A).

Sorry, but I'm not understanding. Please rephrase.

Some will say that choosing when we have no choice at all is not really a choice or free will BUT they forget that the very act of choosing IS free will.

Which is the reason why I pointed out that there's no such a thing as choosing, or any of its cognates.