Problems with free will, possibility, and causality

[PseuTonym]

We begin with the context. PseuTonym wrote:

We could consider some examples, if it will help. For example, how would you define all of the following directions: left, right, up, down, north, east, west, and south, without using any of those words in your definition? You can get the direction down from gravity and the direction east from where you see the Sunrise. So you are given two directions. West is the opposite of east, and up is the opposite of down. We have made some progress. Now you just need to define all of the following: left, right, north, and south. Can you do it?

Left, right, north and south, are all names arbitrarily assigned to orthogonal directions derived from relativity from a certain point.

I didn’t anticipate that reply.

I anticipated that you would provide four definitions, one for each word.

Let’s examine what you wrote in bite-sized pieces:

Left, right, north and south …

You copied the list of words exactly as it was provided to you

are all names arbitrarily assigned …

You could say that about almost any words, except perhaps such words as “haha” to indicate the sound of laughter in several languages.

to orthogonal directions …

Is it possible to stand on your feet facing east, with your left hand pointing north and your right hand pointing south? If it is possible, then left, right, north and south can be all along the same axis. I thought that “orthogonal” meant at 90 degree angles to each other.

derived from relativity from a certain point.

That’s a bit more obscure than the rest. Is this the key to the whole puzzle? Should I study those seven words to become enlightened?

 

[blase6]

The statement they are illusions is interesting. Illusions are things which are not real. How do you imperially KNOW they are not real? Is it faith that just because you don’t see them, they don’t exist?

Or are you saying that the only reality is perceived reality?

It does not matter whether the choices exist or not. If the will always chooses the most appealing motive, as is seen, then freedom does not exist. It’s that simple, because then my will is predetermined by what I will experience. Having a “choice” doesn’t matter in that case.

The concept of linear is that because events have a pre state, actuality and post state, they fall into a singular continuum of time. Just like time has a yesterday, today, tomorrow, all events have these three states.

Because you are in time, you perceive events in these three conditions. We can slice these as small or large as possible, but these three always occur within time. However because God is not in time (but the author of it), God and eternity do not see these events. My best guess is what I title the eternal now. I get this from God’s name being “I AM.”

Actually, even eternal events outside of time are seen to follow a linear order. For example, since God exists first, and then he creates the angels, we do not say that they both exist at once. We say that God exists first and then they exist secondarily. Just because this is outside of time, does not mean that they happen on the same level.

You know, that is a great question. I guess at this current point I could be titled a catechumen of the Roman Catholic church, but to some extent that would be to understate my current beliefs. Catechumen gives the concept of exploring the beliefs.

Six months ago I was what would be considered a heretical protestant, but then I had an epiphany where I realized that if I became Catholic, I would no longer be heretical, because my “heretical” beliefs were actually Catholic dogma.

So I reasoned, my religion was “In process” of correcting itself to a more fuller truth. Easter will be the change of that status

 

[blase6]

We begin with the context. PseuTonym wrote:

I didn’t anticipate that reply.

I anticipated that you would provide four definitions, one for each word.

Let’s examine what you wrote in bite-sized pieces:

You copied the list of words exactly as it was provided to you

You could say that about almost any words, except perhaps such words as “haha” to indicate the sound of laughter in several languages.

Is it possible to stand on your feet facing east, with your left hand pointing north and your right hand pointing south? If it is possible, then left, right, north and south can be all along the same axis. I thought that “orthogonal” meant at 90 degree angles to each other.

That’s a bit more obscure than the rest. Is this the key to the whole puzzle? Should I study those seven words to become enlightened?

North, south, east and west are the names for relative directions. There is no objective north, but there is a north of your face, north of the equator, et cetera.

 

[NeuralMonk]

It does not matter whether the choices exist or not. If the will always chooses the most appealing motive, as is seen, then freedom does not exist. It’s that simple, because then my will is predetermined by what I will experience. Having a “choice” doesn’t matter in that case.

So I see you have opinion mixed into your argument, I will leave you to your opinion.

I am going to try to rephrase your argument (this is not my belief):
Because you discover the choice, you assume there was no act of will. If I throw a set of dice, the resultant set of dice was not random but determined because after I threw the dice, I can now state the universe always would have that number appear. I could not state that fact before I through them, but it doesn’t matter what I throw, the number on the dice is always determined ahead of time. So really the number never matters. We are given the illusion of control, but never the actual control. So if there is a God controlling this, he is a liar, cheat, bully, evil and con-artist. Or maybe God doesn’t choose either, is God stuck in this as well?

The alternative I see is this:
What if the will is the freedom to choose what will not be in the future. What if will really did exist, and the will was that random agent in standard causation. It is true that if I choose A and get C, and that the same link between B and D will never occur. However, it isn’t that B and D never could have occurred, it is that my random decision of will (for the most appealing motive) caused B and D to not occur. Just because I arrive at C, what rules out that B and D never would have occurred? How do you know that for a fact?

Actually, even eternal events outside of time are seen to follow a linear order. For example, since God exists first, and then he creates the angels, we do not say that they both exist at once. We say that God exists first and then they exist secondarily. Just because this is outside of time, does not mean that they happen on the same level.

So your assumption is that time was created after the angels? Or are angels created in time? I would love more clarification on this. This seems like an assumption of fact, so sorry I am not seeing it.

 

[blase6]

So I see you have opinion mixed into your argument, I will leave you to your opinion.

I am going to try to rephrase your argument (this is not my belief):
Because you discover the choice, you assume there was no act of will. If I throw a set of dice, the resultant set of dice was not random but determined because after I threw the dice, I can now state the universe always would have that number appear. I could not state that fact before I through them, but it doesn’t matter what I throw, the number on the dice is always determined ahead of time. So really the number never matters. We are given the illusion of control, but never the actual control. So if there is a God controlling this, he is a liar, cheat, bully, evil and con-artist. Or maybe God doesn’t choose either, is God stuck in this as well?

I am not saying that because only one option is actualized, that was the only option. (I may have said that by mistake.) I am saying that if the will follows a constant, invariable criteria for determining an option, then that excludes a free choice. And if free will does not exist, it also does not exist for God.

The alternative I see is this:
What if the will is the freedom to choose what will not be in the future. What if will really did exist, and the will was that random agent in standard causation. It is true that if I choose A and get C, and that the same link between B and D will never occur. However, it isn’t that B and D never could have occurred, it is that my random decision of will (for the most appealing motive) caused B and D to not occur. Just because I arrive at C, what rules out that B and D never would have occurred? How do you know that for a fact?

**Randomness is not freedom. Freedom implies a desired object of action, not random action without pursuit of an object. Or can an object be desired randomly? **

So your assumption is that time was created after the angels? Or are angels created in time? I would love more clarification on this. This seems like an assumption of fact, so sorry I am not seeing it.

Angels are created by God. Since there is no time in the spiritual world, it does not happen in sequential moments like we perceive in the physical world. But it still follows a linear order. The angels do not exist and then God exists. God exists and then the angels exist. There does not have to be the passing of a moment for this sequence.

 

[John_Martin]

Angels are created by God. Since there is no time in the spiritual world, it does not happen in sequential moments like we perceive in the physical world. But it still follows a linear order. The angels do not exist and then God exists. God exists and then the angels exist. There does not have to be the passing of a moment for this sequence.

I am going to try a different route to speak to this (not the quote, but the topic in general).

Being Catholic, I have declared my certain faith that the Church is True in all it teaches me (via Scripture, Tradition, Apostolic Authority, Magisterium).
My approach, then to wondering about something that seems untenable (for your posts it is free will in us and in God) would be as follows:

If I began with the thought, “How can there be free will?”, I would and must question the Church and ask, “Is there free will?” - that means, in my belief concerning the Church, the equivalent to asking Jesus, and therefore asking God, “Is there free will?” (And I have questioned free will in the past, being formerly Lutheran and well versed in Luther’s answer to Erasmus in “The Bondage of the Will”)

But now, I ask the Church, therefore ask Jesus, therefore ask God for the “real answer” of whether it is real or not.

The Church (Jesus, God) then replies, “Yes, there is free will.”

My next move is not to investigate the validity of that claim as a claim, to see if it is true. Instead I start from the standpoint that it is fully true. And I want to know it, understand it, what it is, its quiddity, and not simply “that it is true”.

Being rational (understanding what they know), God, Jesus, the Church, not only know what is true, but they also understand the “workings” of it, the essence of it, and can (given sufficient breathing room to converse with me) explain its “whatness” to me. And I am, being Catholic and trusting of them, disposed to listen attentively and converse with them until I come to the understanding of what it is, how it is true and real.

For me, it is the “person” telling me that is the key that leads to understanding (knowing that they “know”) and not some objective explanation that somehow I decide finally is true.
I do come to a point of that certainty with the understanding itself, and not simply with the person revealing it, but it is that person that is the truth. It begins with “I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and in the Catholic Church, etc.”. Believing in them I listen and learn all truth, including of free will. So, you might say I am a submissive apprentice learning the trade, rather than a competing trader advertising the flaws in my competitor’s product.

 

[PseuTonym]

North, south, east and west are the names for relative directions.

I can appreciate that you might be struggling with a difficult problem when you try to define east and west, but I didn’t ask you to define them. I defined them. I asked you to define left and right. Can you remember the context?

There is no objective north, but there is a north of your face, north of the equator, et cetera.

Okay, you could just as easily say that there is no objective down. For example, from the point of view of a person on the opposite side of the Earth from where you are, your down arrow points through the planet in that person’s up direction. Also, Copernicus taught us that the Earth rotates, so what is now your up arrow will, if we imagine it being fixed in absolute space, point in what will be, twelve hours from now, your down direction

However, it is possible to define down with reference to your current location on the surface of the Earth and the pull of gravity.

Here is a reminder of the context (this version is new and improved!)

We could consider some examples, if it will help. For example, how would you define all of the following directions: left, right, up, down, north, east, west, and south, without using any of those words in your definitions? You can get the direction down from gravity and the direction east from where you see the Sunrise. So you are given two directions. West is the opposite of east, and up is the opposite of down. We have made some progress. Now you just need to define all of the following: left, right, north, and south. Can you do it?

Should I provide you with a completely different example to consider? Remember the larger context. The example does not prove anything. It merely illustrates the general principle that I attempted to formulate.

 

[blase6]

I am going to try a different route to speak to this (not the quote, but the topic in general).

Being Catholic, I have declared my certain faith that the Church is True in all it teaches me (via Scripture, Tradition, Apostolic Authority, Magisterium).
My approach, then to wondering about something that seems untenable (for your posts it is free will in us and in God) would be as follows:

If I began with the thought, “How can there be free will?”, I would and must question the Church and ask, “Is there free will?” - that means, in my belief concerning the Church, the equivalent to asking Jesus, and therefore asking God, “Is there free will?” (And I have questioned free will in the past, being formerly Lutheran and well versed in Luther’s answer to Erasmus in “The Bondage of the Will”)

But now, I ask the Church, therefore ask Jesus, therefore ask God for the “real answer” of whether it is real or not.

The Church (Jesus, God) then replies, “Yes, there is free will.”

My next move is not to investigate the validity of that claim as a claim, to see if it is true. Instead I start from the standpoint that it is fully true. And I want to know it, understand it, what it is, its quiddity, and not simply “that it is true”.

Being rational (understanding what they know), God, Jesus, the Church, not only know what is true, but they also understand the “workings” of it, the essence of it, and can (given sufficient breathing room to converse with me) explain its “whatness” to me. And I am, being Catholic and trusting of them, disposed to listen attentively and converse with them until I come to the understanding of what it is, how it is true and real.

For me, it is the “person” telling me that is the key that leads to understanding (knowing that they “know”) and not some objective explanation that somehow I decide finally is true.
I do come to a point of that certainty with the understanding itself, and not simply with the person revealing it, but it is that person that is the truth. It begins with “I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and in the Catholic Church, etc.”. Believing in them I listen and learn all truth, including of free will. So, you might say I am a submissive apprentice learning the trade, rather than a competing trader advertising the flaws in my competitor’s product.

That’s all well and good, unless what the Church teaches as true contradicts with what you perceive as true. Since a person is more inclined to believe what directly appears true than what they are told is true, I am still struggling to see how freedom can possibly exist.

 

[blase6]

I can appreciate that you might be struggling with a difficult problem when you try to define east and west, but I didn’t ask you to define them. I defined them. I asked you to define left and right. Can you remember the context?

Okay, you could just as easily say that there is no objective down. For example, from the point of view of a person on the opposite side of the Earth from where you are, your down arrow points through the planet in that person’s up direction. Also, Copernicus taught us that the Earth rotates, so what is now your up arrow will, if we imagine it being fixed in absolute space, point in what will be, twelve hours from now, your down direction

However, it is possible to define down with reference to your current location on the surface of the Earth and the pull of gravity.

Here is a reminder of the context (this version is new and improved!)

Should I provide you with a completely different example to consider? Remember the larger context. The example does not prove anything. It merely illustrates the general principle that I attempted to formulate.

I don’t need to give definitions for this anymore. It is losing relevance to my topic.

 

[PseuTonym]

I don’t need to give definitions for this anymore. It is losing relevance to my topic.

Could you please provide a definition for the word “relevance”?

Do you remember the following?

The problem is that people assume without deep thought that relevance exists. It is such a basic idea for people that any attempt to define it becomes circular. But I do not see how relevance exists.

I made a substitution, but perhaps there is some structural similarity to what you wrote here:

Link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12622757&postcount=142

 

[PseuTonym]

Suppose somebody puts a gun to my head and demands that I break into a Coca-Cola machine so that he can make a long-distance phone call to give a recall code that could prevent some nuclear bombs from being dropped.

The case goes to trial. I am going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company. My lawyer claims that, because somebody put a gun to my head and commanded me to break into the machine, I did not break into the machine voluntarily. I was compelled. As the threat to me was increasing, I was losing my free will.

As the lawyer for the Coca-Cola company, you declare that nobody has free will, and that I can never be losing what I never had to begin with.

The judge says that the discussion of the lawyers is losing relevance to the trial, and moving into the realm of pure philosophy. However, is the judge correct? Perhaps nothing is relevant, just as nobody has free will. If nothing is relevant, then there never was any relevance to begin with, so it is impossible for the discussion to be losing relevance.

Link:
have to answer to the Coca-Cola company

 

[blase6]

Could you please provide a definition for the word “relevance”?

Do you remember the following?

I made a substitution, but perhaps there is some structural similarity to what you wrote here:

Link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12622757&postcount=142

Relevance is where one topic contains information which directly affects or is similar to another topic.

I don’t think my statement on free will can be easily compared to relevance. Relevance is about comparing two things; free will is about the causality of a person’s decisions.

 

[blase6]

Suppose somebody puts a gun to my head and demands that I break into a Coca-Cola machine so that he can make a long-distance phone call to give a recall code that could prevent some nuclear bombs from being dropped.

I wonder how breaking into a Coca-Cola machine would provide for making a phone call.

The case goes to trial. I am going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola company. My lawyer claims that, because somebody put a gun to my head and commanded me to break into the machine, I did not break into the machine voluntarily. I was compelled. As the threat to me was increasing, I was losing my free will.

Factors such as fear and confusion do affect your ability to make a deliberate choice.

As the lawyer for the Coca-Cola company, you declare that nobody has free will, and that I can never be losing what I never had to begin with.

The judge says that the discussion of the lawyers is losing relevance to the trial, and moving into the realm of pure philosophy. However, is the judge correct? Perhaps nothing is relevant, just as nobody has free will. If nothing is relevant, then there never was any relevance to begin with, so it is impossible for the discussion to be losing relevance.

First I made the statement that the definition of free will is circular. Then you said that many simple concepts have circular definitions, and you asked me to define the cardinal directions. Then I attempted to give a definition, and you argued with my definition. I think this is starting to lose relevance to the discussion of free will.

Link:
have to answer to the Coca-Cola company

 

[PseuTonym]

First I made the statement that the definition of free will is circular. Then you said that many simple concepts have circular definitions,

That attempt to summarize the discussion gives the impression that I fail to recognize that circular definitions are faulty definitions. What I actually said was the following:

If all words are defined, then the collection of definitions is filled with loops.

It is not my claim that it is necessary or even possible to define all words. Do you think that it is possible to define all words? If you do, then what is the first word that is defined, and what words are available to use in the definition?

and you asked me to define the cardinal directions.

What motivated you to use the word “cardinal” and what do you mean by it in your phrase “the cardinal directions”? This reminds me that earlier you decided to use the word “orthogonal.” You wrote:

Left, right, north and south, are all names arbitrarily assigned to orthogonal directions derived from relativity from a certain point.

I replied as follows:

Is it possible to stand on your feet facing east, with your left hand pointing north and your right hand pointing south? If it is possible, then left, right, north and south can be all along the same axis. I thought that “orthogonal” meant at 90 degree angles to each other.

 

[John_Martin]

That’s all well and good, unless what the Church teaches as true contradicts with what you perceive as true. Since a person is more inclined to believe what directly appears true than what they are told is true, I am still struggling to see how freedom can possibly exist.

Yes, well and indeed good.

The Church always contradicts our perception - we perceive a man, and the Church tells us he is the Son of God. We perceive the taste and texture of bread and wine, and the Church proclaims the Body and Blood of Christ.

Blase6, there is free will, but it is vastly different than most would speculate, just as the intellect and the will are not materially perceivable to the senses, neither is free will in its choices to achieve the end desired by the will. You cannot experience free will in your bodily consciousness, but you yourself in your conscious thoughts and actions are the resulting movement of your free will that happens in your soul with absolutely no conscious awareness of it to you. Your soul is not available to your perception and therefore your free will is not available for you to perceive, but the Church can “show you your soul”, just as it can give you the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[blase6]

That attempt to summarize the discussion gives the impression that I fail to recognize that circular definitions are faulty definitions. What I actually said was the following:

It is not my claim that it is necessary or even possible to define all words. Do you think that it is possible to define all words? If you do, then what is the first word that is defined, and what words are available to use in the definition?

Definition does not mean that it can be explained without using its normal word. It just has to have an understood meaning. I do not understand the meaning of free will because I have proved to myself that my different definitions of free will are impossibilities.

What motivated you to use the word “cardinal” and what do you mean by it in your phrase “the cardinal directions”? This reminds me that earlier you decided to use the word “orthogonal.” You wrote:

I replied as follows:

 

[blase6]

Yes, well and indeed good.

The Church always contradicts our perception - we perceive a man, and the Church tells us he is the Son of God. We perceive the taste and texture of bread and wine, and the Church proclaims the Body and Blood of Christ.

Blase6, there is free will, but it is vastly different than most would speculate, just as the intellect and the will are not materially perceivable to the senses, neither is free will in its choices to achieve the end desired by the will. You cannot experience free will in your bodily consciousness, but you yourself in your conscious thoughts and actions are the resulting movement of your free will that happens in your soul with absolutely no conscious awareness of it to you. Your soul is not available to your perception and therefore your free will is not available for you to perceive, but the Church can “show you your soul”, just as it can give you the Body and Blood of Christ.

The church always contradicts our perception? The examples you give are not contradictions. Jesus is a man, but that is not all he is. The Church tells us more of what he is beyond our perception. But there is not a contradiction. It is the same for the Eucharist.

I examine my motives for choices and see that my choice always comes from which option appeared best. Even if it is a sin, it is because it appeared to be the best course of action. The most I can hope for so far is for God to move me so that I will accept him and be taken into heaven.

I am basically told to accept that free will exists which is neither deterministic or indeterministic, but just “something else”. I’m supposed to throw out my intimate perception of reality and accept what some person or book told me.

 

[davidv]

The church always contradicts our perception? The examples you give are not contradictions. Jesus is a man, but that is not all he is. The Church tells us more of what he is beyond our perception. But there is not a contradiction. It is the same for the Eucharist.

I examine my motives for choices and see that my choice always comes from which option appeared best. Even if it is a sin, it is because it appeared to be the best course of action. The most I can hope for so far is for God to move me so that I will accept him and be taken into heaven.

The above seems to be a clear example of the exercise of free will as I understand it.

I am basically told to accept that free will exists which is neither deterministic or indeterministic, but just “something else”. I’m supposed to throw out my intimate perception of reality and accept what some person or book told me.

Yes you are supposed to throw out the falsehoods and cling to the truth.

 

[blase6]

The above seems to be a clear example of the exercise of free will as I understand it.

NO! If I always choose what appears best to me, then I can only hope that God will present himself to me so that I will accept him. If he does not appear good enough, then I cannot accept him.

Yes you are supposed to throw out the falsehoods and cling to the truth.

Which presupposes that I would be 100% certain that God always tells the truth. But I can never be absolutely 100% certain of almost anything being true. There is always the possibility that what I am told is false, and even my reason isn’t a guarantee for discovering what is objectively true.

 

[PseuTonym]

I do not understand the meaning of free will because I have proved to myself that my different definitions of free will are impossibilities.

If you want to know whether or not your arguments are sound, then you need to look for flaws in them. One cannot even proofread a document for trivial typographical errors unless one looks for errors. You cannot attempt to revise an argument and remove a flaw until after you are aware that the flaw exists.

I suggest that as a first step you should make your arguments as clear as possible. In particular, every step of the argument must proceed by invoking a principle that is explicitly formulated. In other words, it is not good enough for the reader to guess what principle is invoked. It has to be possible for people to create their own arguments and invoke one of the principles that your arguments rely upon, and for them to know that they are invoking it. If they need your authorization, then the principle has not been clearly formulated. If they begin with assumptions that you agree are true and use your principles to arrive at false conclusions, then you need to revise your principles and then check to see whether you can revise your arguments.