How God could create a being with free will?

[Bahman]

Why do you think that free will must imply an unpredictable outcome?

I mean in many cases it probably does, sure, but why always?

We don’t need the free will to decide in a situation that our desires or logic has already defined the outcome. Our desires and logic would be force to drive us on the decided path.

 

[Bahman]

Unpredictable does not equal free will. Most people who act freely act predictably also.

Also, external constraints were present in the thought experiment. The external constraint for example of chocolate being on the table in the first place and not cake as well. Hence external constraints change the options available. External influence does not diminish freedom, I really am not clear on where you are coming from. Why can’t someone be both free and influenced?

Unpredictability is necessary when we want to decide in a situation with two equivalent choices. If the choices are not equivalent then the outcome the situation is already defined. I mean, we like to do X more than Y then we certainly do X or we think that it is better to do X than Y then we do X.

I agree that the external forces are there in my thought experiment but non of them intervene in the process of decision making. I mean the process of decision making is reduced to a solely abstract state.

 

[Bahman]

Let’s work with this formulation:

1) A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature when it comes to decision making on a situation.

There is just no reason to suppose that this is true. All that is necessary for a being to make a free decision in a given situation is a rational intellect (which we quite clearly have). Free will follows from knowledge and understanding, both of which intellectual beings clearly possess. A being with free will does not have to be free of any constraint, it must simply be in control, to some degree, of its causal activity. If we know and understand the effects of different actions, we can choose to perform one or the other based on that knowledge. There is nothing outside of us forcing us to do one or the other. We may have an internal inclination towards one or the other based on our emotions or physiology, but, except in cases of extreme mental impairment, we can still choose to act against such inclinations; a fact to which most everyone can attest.

2) A being that is free of any constraint is indefinable since it is free of any law that define its decision.

This, along with the rest of the argument, only follows if premise 1 is true. However, you have not provided any reason to think that premise 1 is true.

We as human possess desires and have knowledge. These are basic columns that our decision depends on them. Desires/pains act as a force deriving us on a decided path. Knowledge is the result of experiences (both personal and public) which help us to decide on a occasion which the outcome is already experienced.

Let me give you an example so I can explain my opinion better:

1. Jumping from a high place damage your body (influence of knowledge).
2. Injured body hurts and I don’t like pain (influence pain).
3. I won’t jump from high place if I am asked to do so (soft decision).

This what I call as a loop (premises 1 and 2). We can define many loops like this in each person mind some of them could be very long and complex and some as simple as what I explained. This is what I call, if we agree, as soft decision. In fact the outcome of premises 1+2 is known as soon as we ask a person to do so. There is no place for free will if we define an agent as sole set of loops and we are reduced to an robot who just analyze knowledge to make soft decision. We in fact gather information to build knowledge by performing thought/real experiences and we use our free will to make hard decision in such an unknown situation.

Now let me give you an example that any loop related to a situation has not formed inside our mind yet. This situation can either be the result of lack of knowledge for minimally two choices or equivalence of choices. I already gave an example of one of them (read my previous post) and now I provide another clear example:

1. Doing X either causes A or B (knowledge is not constructed yet).
2. I like A and hate B.

My question is how a human being decide to perform the above action (X) or avoid it. Knowledge is not constructed yet so it cannot be used to perform soft decision and the agent has to make a hard decision or with what I mean use his/her free will. My focus is in such experiences. How an agent make a decision on such a situation? I mean the process of decision making is clearly indefinable in this case since the result of action is not known prior.

 

[TomD123]

Unpredictability is necessary when we want to decide in a situation with two equivalent choices. If the choices are not equivalent then the outcome the situation is already defined. I mean, we like to do X more than Y then we certainly do X or we think that it is better to do X than Y then we do X.

I agree that the external forces are there in my thought experiment but non of them intervene in the process of decision making. I mean the process of decision making is reduced to a solely abstract state.

The outcome isn’t predetermined though. Just because me choosing x is more likely than me choosing y doesn’t mean that I don’t have freedom to chose.

Look, free will is possible because the freedom to chose just means we are the one making a decision and have the ability to pick between options.
This does not exclude outside influences—either influences which exclude certain options or which effect our mental/emotional state so as to push us to one outcome.

I don’t see what your even getting at anymore?

 

[Linux]

The outcome isn’t predetermined though. Just because me choosing x is more likely than me choosing y doesn’t mean that I don’t have freedom to chose.

Look, free will is possible because the freedom to chose just means we are the one making a decision and have the ability to pick between options.
This does not exclude outside influences—either influences which exclude certain options or which effect our mental/emotional state so as to push us to one outcome.

I don’t see what your even getting at anymore?

People make the mistake of thinking that the existence of free will is contingent up the existence of two or more options. But it is clear that while i might not have no other option but to choose one particular sequence it has no bearing on whether my nature has the “capacity” to make free choices. Freedom of choice begins with the intellect and the comprehension of differentiation and therefore the knowledge by which we make a difference in reference to some potential event.

 

[jmjconder]

People make the mistake of thinking that the existence of free will is contingent up the existence of two or more options. But it is clear that while i might not have no other option but to choose one particular sequence it has no bearing on whether my nature has the “capacity” to make free choices. Freedom of choice begins with the intellect and the comprehension of differentiation and therefore the knowledge by which we make a difference in reference to some potential event.

A great post! Thank you.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

We don’t need the free will to decide in a situation that our desires or logic has already defined the outcome. Our desires and logic would be force to drive us on the decided path.

Just because free will isn’t necessary to decide what will happen in a particular situation, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

If a robot checks the temperature in New York City and follows the program “if temperature > 0.2 Kelvin, display green light, else display red light,” then clearly that robot will always display a green light. But it is still checking the temperature in New York City. The fact that we know the outcome ourselves without bothering to check doesn’t mean that the robot isn’t checking.

Or to put it another way, just because anyone who knows me knows that I will put my shoes on in the morning before I go to work does not mean that I am not in fact choosing to put my shoes on. I could choose not to. But I don’t, because that would be silly.

Unpredictability is a common result of free will in some situations, but it is not a requirement for it to exist.

 

[jmjconder]

The outcome isn’t predetermined though. Just because me choosing x is more likely than me choosing y doesn’t mean that I don’t have freedom to chose.

Look, free will is possible because the freedom to chose just means we are the one making a decision and have the ability to pick between options.
This does not exclude outside influences—either influences which exclude certain options or which effect our mental/emotional state so as to push us to one outcome.

I don’t see what your even getting at anymore?

 

[jmjconder]

The outcome isn’t predetermined though. Just because me choosing x is more likely than me choosing y doesn’t mean that I don’t have freedom to chose.

Look, free will is possible because the freedom to chose just means we are the one making a decision and have the ability to pick between options.
This does not exclude outside influences—either influences which exclude certain options or which effect our mental/emotional state so as to push us to one outcome.

I don’t see what your even getting at anymore?/QUOTE]

**I agree 100,000X! I do not “get” where this OP wants to go or where it is going.

I respect the questions - however it is beyond an email exchange. To the OP please find a person who you can debate face to face this philsophical matter.**

 

[Bahman]

The outcome isn’t predetermined though. Just because me choosing x is more likely than me choosing y doesn’t mean that I don’t have freedom to chose.

Look, free will is possible because the freedom to chose just means we are the one making a decision and have the ability to pick between options.
This does not exclude outside influences—either influences which exclude certain options or which effect our mental/emotional state so as to push us to one outcome.

I don’t see what your even getting at anymore?

My argument is very simple.

1. Outcome of a decision in a situation could be unpredictable. That is why we say “I am not sure” when people ask about our decision on a situation that we didn’t perform any decision yet. There was no place for free will if the outcomes of our decisions was always 100% predictable.
2. Unpredictably of outcome means that the process of decision making is indefinable. Contrary, if the process of decision making was definable then one can find the outcome of out decision meaning that the outcome of our decision is predictable.
3. My question from you is that how an indefinable quality could be created or exist?

Thanks for your answers.

 

[Bahman]

TomD123;11121508:

The outcome isn’t predetermined though. Just because me choosing x is more likely than me choosing y doesn’t mean that I don’t have freedom to chose.

Look, free will is possible because the freedom to chose just means we are the one making a decision and have the ability to pick between options.
This does not exclude outside influences—either influences which exclude certain options or which effect our mental/emotional state so as to push us to one outcome.

I don’t see what your even getting at anymore?/

QUOTE]

**I agree 100,000X! I do not “get” where this OP wants to go or where it is going.

I respect the questions - however it is beyond an email exchange. To the OP please find a person who you can debate face to face this philsophical matter.**

I am sorry I cannot find any person that could discuss such a subject matter. Thank you very much for your attention.

 

[Linux]

My argument is very simple.

1. Outcome of a decision in a situation could be unpredictable. That is why we say “I am not sure” when people ask about our decision on a situation that we didn’t perform any decision yet. There was no place for free will if the outcomes of our decisions was always 100% predictable.
2. Unpredictably of outcome means that the process of decision making is indefinable. Contrary, if the process of decision making was definable then one can find the outcome of out decision meaning that the outcome of our decision is predictable.
3. My question from you is that how an indefinable quality could be created or exist?

Thanks for your answers.

What does predictability have to do with determinism?

 

[Bahman]

What does predictability have to do with determinism?

They are basically same: If state of a being, state of mind for example, is predictable for any small time interval then one can define the evolution of the being in deterministic way.

 

[Linux]

They are basically same: If state of a being, state of mind for example, is predictable for any small time interval then one can define the evolution of the being in deterministic way.

The predictability of a thing only relates to our ability to know the kind of actions a thing will take in a particular environment. It does not necessarily entail that a thing is determined by some agency, as there is always the possibility that it will do something unpredictable.

Also, i do not know what you mean by definable and how it relates to a things existence. There are possibly things in existence that are yet to be defined because we are yet to know if they exist; or perhaps some things exist beyond our comprehension. I do not understand why our inability to know what a being will freely do means that it cannot exist? What is the connection between the two concepts.

 

[Bahman]

The predictability of a thing only relates to our ability to know the kind of actions a thing will take in a particular environment. It does not necessarily entail that a thing is determined by some agency, as there is always the possibility that it will do something unpredictable.

I meant that an agency could observe the course of actions and explain/define the behaviour of the being in deterministic way with a set of equations for example.

Also, i do not know what you mean by definable and how it relates to a things existence.

Things are intrinsically either definable or indefinable.

A being is definable if its action/evolution is determined in term of set of attributes and a set of laws that define how the attributes change over time.

A being is indefinable if its action/evolution can not be determined in term of time, because the number of attributes or/and the set of laws that are need to define its action/evolution are infinite. I already provide a set of arguments that why a thing which is not definable could not exist or be created. Please read post #50.

There are possibly things in existence that are yet to be defined because we are yet to know if they exist; or perhaps some things exist beyond our comprehension. I do not understand why our inability to know what a being will freely do means that it cannot exist? What is the connection between the two concepts.

What do you mean beyond our comprehension? Do you mean indefinable in my point of view?

 

[DanAl]

I was thinking about the free will and the creating and came out with the following argument which I would be happy to discuss it with you:

1. A being with free will is free of any constraint including laws of nature.
2. A being that is free of any constraint is undefinable since it is free of any law that define its action.
3. A being which is undefinable could not exist or be created (unless if it God that is infinite and does not need a creator).
4. A being with free will could not be created or exist.

Free-will is not free from all constraints, It requires the ability to reason, and without reason there would not be free-will, which is why the insane, and animals are not held responsible for their actions.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

You guys all seem to be missing an important point. There is reason we call it ‘free will’:
free will is control over one’s will. It is the power to try, not the power to suceed. There is sense in which Yoda was right about “do or do not, there is no try”. You can always try to do something, and that’s called free will. You can never fail to try. If you try to try, you will suceed in that. This does not guarantee that you will suceed in what you are trying to do, of course. That is entirely a different matter and is irrelevant here. Additionally, free will is not undefined: events in the physical universe have causes. Free events (immaterial decisions) do not have causes, but they aren’t random either. They have reasons, but not causes. If free will is seen in this light, bahman’s argument falls apart: Admittedly, there are metaphysical problems with the idea of randomness, but that’s not what free will is. Suppose that I could somehow generate a truly random number, one through ten. There is a clear conceptual difference between this and me consciously deciding that the number will be seven. Is there some mysterious cosmic consciousness that chooses what the number will be? There couldn’t be, because then it would be defined (by the free choice). Undefinedness is called randomness, and it’s not free will. Thus, bahman’s argument is irrelevant.

 

[Bahman]

Free-will is not free from all constraints, It requires the ability to reason, and without reason there would not be free-will, which is why the insane, and animals are not held responsible for their actions.

What if the outcome of an decision is not clear or the outcomes are equally likely? This, I have already discuss it by two thought experiments.

I think we can agree that reason is outcome of our experiences. This is what we learn since our childhood either by reading, experiencing things ourselves, or listening to experiences of others. At each certain age we accumulate a certain amount of knowledge depending on the amount of our exposure to previous situations (as I mentioned: reading, experiencing things ourselves, or listening to experiences of others). Simply we learn reasoning and that is not something intrinsic that we own since our childhood. Lets put aside those situation where reasoning gives you a direction since you are not using your free will anyhow. That is in fact the reasoning which dictate your action and you lose the freedom of action. That as you mention act like a strong constrain but the constrain is so strong that roles out free will. However, if reasoning play a role in the process of decision making but it could not completely determine the outcome of a decision, for example if it comes to a conflict with a desire , then we are faced with a situation that reasoning can’t determine the outcome and so it is not a constrain.This is type of situation that the role of free will becomes clear when reasoning tell you to do something and your desire force you to do something else. What you are going to do is only based on your reasoning and desire but the decision is up to you.

 

[Bahman]

You guys all seem to be missing an important point. There is reason we call it ‘free will’:
free will is control over one’s will.

I agree.

It is the power to try, not the power to suceed.

I don’t agree since free will is power to decide unless if by trying meant deciding.

There is sense in which Yoda was right about “do or do not, there is no try”. You can always try to do something, and that’s called free will. You can never fail to try. If you try to try, you will suceed in that. This does not guarantee that you will suceed in what you are trying to do, of course. That is entirely a different matter and is irrelevant here.

What is important for me at the moment is the process of decision making rather than being successful in a decision making.

Additionally, free will is not undefined: events in the physical universe have causes. Free events (immaterial decisions) do not have causes, but they aren’t random either. They have reasons, but not causes.

Reason could act like a mental cause. You can read my previous to see my opinion about reason and its role on free will.

If free will is seen in this light, bahman’s argument falls apart: Admittedly, there are metaphysical problems with the idea of randomness, but that’s not what free will is.

I didn’t get it.

Suppose that I could somehow generate a truly random number, one through ten. There is a clear conceptual difference between this and me consciously deciding that the number will be seven. Is there some mysterious cosmic consciousness that chooses what the number will be? There couldn’t be, because then it would be defined (by the free choice). Undefinedness is called randomness, and it’s not free will. Thus, bahman’s argument is irrelevant.

If our decision are based on throwing a deice then we are not responsible for our action!

 

[SentinelofTruth]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say about ‘the role of reason on free will’, but you are entirely correct about the bottom line of your last post. But if you grasp this, as well as that free will is the power to decide/try (not sure what the difference is), then I don’t see why you have a problem with free will. If by undefined you just mean that it isn’t pre-defined what a being with free will is going to choose, then I don’t see why this is a problem.