Do We Have Free Will?

I believe not. I argue it is outlawed by Einstein's explanation of the relativity of time.

Any arguments/affirmations?

 

How does relativity address free will?

Have you read Sam Harris's "Free Will" or listened to his lecture? He makes a biologically based argument against free will.

 

What does the explanation of, or even the theory of, the relativity of time have to do with free will?

 

Well, it proves that past, present and future are not real things. They represent merely the human perception of time relative to ourselves.

We believe that we have free will over the present and the future, but this is not supported by any factual evidence. It is merely an assumption we must necessarily make in order to make sense of the universe.

We can factually prove we cannot have free will over the past, because it has already occurred.

Therefore, we must conclude that, since past, present and future are not real, that time itself cannot be changed. It is all the past. At least it is when seen relative to the most distant observer.

The easiest way to analogise it is to ask you to imagine sitting on the nearest star to our own Sun, Proxima Centauri, and looking through a really huge telescope back down at Earth. Since it takes 4 years for light to reach from there to where you are, you will effectively be able to watch the past. Now, imagine that Earth had been rendered completely uninhabitable by a solar flare 3 years ago. You would see all those people, living their lives in real-time, going about their business, but nothing you can do can change their fate. They factually are all going to all die in a solar flare.

Because it has already happened.

That is my argument. We cannot have free will because it has already happened.

 

Myself and others have made a few threads on this topic and though I'm not a proponent of free will I haven't seen it argued against from this position so could you explain your position in more detail?

Edit: Never mind you did right before this post.

 

Hmmmmm, let me see.

I can either type my opinion on this.....or.....

 

Yes, we have a free will. "Your will be done" is important because it acknowledges that God's will is greater for us than our own free will. Our free will allows us to be deceived. It encourages us to sin. If we didn't have free will, it wouldn't be necessary to submit to God's will.

 

The perception of a choice already made contrasted against the ones that would never have been made does not denote free will; it merely gives the illusion of it.

 

Apologies brother. This was intended as a philosophical science thread, not straight religion.

 

No we do not have free will because we cannot have free will. There is nothing we know about the human brain or our biological make-up that would allow for free will.

The interesting thing is we don't even really have to look at the science to see how difficult it is to validate the idea of free will. Where are your thoughts before you think them?

 

I think free will (volition) definitely exists but I haven't read Harris' book on the subject. I would have to reserve judgement on his presentation until I have. My mind will not be changed by his presentation I'm afraid but I might have to give him a read. I have been fairly impressed with Harris in other areas.

 

A fellow fatalist/determinist, I see.

 

Sorry, no. I might have to check him out, but I've got a backlog of people to check out at the moment and I'm lazy as hell!!

Can you give me the basis of the argument?

Peace.

 

I'll participate, if you don't mind.

 

Will your mind not be changed because you don't have or choice or because you choose to not let it be changed? If it's the latter why would you approach anything in that way?

 

Of course, but could you please keep God out of it?

 

The one analogy to 'free will' in humans that may help to demonstrate why science may not find material evidence of the faculty of volition is flight in birds or insects. If you never saw any birds or insects flying, you would never know that they have such an ability because flight doesn't exist materially. But we do know flight exists by observing it in action. Free will as a concept references an action, not an object.

 

Determinism is not fatalism or pre-determinism because the latter two do not account for chance and the random whereas determinism does.

 

I thought something similar when I read that, actually. If you make a decision (or think you're making a decision, since we're discussing free will!!) that your mind won't be changed before you've seen potential new evidence, what's the point in looking at the potential new evidence?

 

Where are your thoughts before you think them? Remember in order for you to have free will you would have to be the conscious author of your thoughts and actions so the answer to my first question must reflect this.

- - - Updated - - -

Or having free will?

 

By asking me "why" you have already acknowledged volition. There is no "why" to be asked of a person who's thoughts are determined instead of free to be chosen.

 

Thanks, but I'm perfectly aware of the difference. The slash was to indicate it was impossible to tell from what you'd written which of the two you are.

- - - Updated - - -

The argument against free will would be that he is predetermined to ask you why. He cannot ask you anything else.

 

I ask why because it is in my nature to, to say I could simply change my nature is to simply say I would be someone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Point taken, but it was equally impossible for me to tell what you meant by the slash.

 

If not seen from the side of religion, does it matter if we have free will?
And are you speaking as a human race as a whole or each individual?
Are we not mostly free to do as we please, make choices and live with the consequences?
And on occasion, change our choice if we deem it bad?

Or are you saying our lives are predetermined before we are born?
Where we will live and how?
How long?
How we will die?
With whom we share our lives?
None of that is our choice?

 

That's not an argument. That's an assertion. He isn't proving or demonstrating anything by merely saying that one is predetermined to do X instead of Y.