 |
| |
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
theres 2 ways i can imagine both free will and fate to exist.
One is the one Ive been talking about, where fate is a ideal line and free will represents real data. You have some freedome to sway from the ideal line, but general best fit line represents fate. So for example, ideally on graph of future, fate predicts numerical value to be 100 on where X-axis is at 5, but real life data is 100.000001. (where there was possibility of being in between anywhere from 99.9999999999 to 100.00001)
The other way I can think of is that you have free will, but you have absolutely no control whatso ever of ur end result. So for example, you have choices to enter 5 doors, but you have no control of where you end up... which is the same place for all five doors. Should you even tempt fate by not entering, midgets will come and push you into one of the door so that you do end up in the same place at the same time.
either way, those 2 systems cant exist IMO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
I'm glad this question was asked.
The concept of fate, or 6 of one a half dozen of the other is absurd, for someone to have the thought that because this event is happening we can't do this.
Examples, to make myself more clear.
I can leave my driveway to go to point "B", and go by 2 routes, both the same distance.
If I go one way, I'll encounter diferent circumstances than had I gone the other.
6 of one a half dozen of the other, but 1 egg has 2 yolks, so...you tell me. Is it the same? I say not.
Whatever you do ripples the water of all the people in your life's lake.
Fate? No. You make choices on which fork in the road, and sure, if you pick one it goes to one place and the other fork goes to another, but that's not fate.
I fear I'm clear as mud in what I'm trying to convey.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Or even if something that knows exactly how you think, could tell which one you are going to choose. I mean that knows the exact impulses in your brain, and is thus both telepathic, and knows you better than yourself, 'perfect knowledge'. That thing could then foretell which path you would choose. Now that fact that you believe you are choosing it doesn't make any difference fromthe fact that you, put in that position, would choose to do that thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
IIRC you said once that you called yourself a utilitarian, meaning you want the biggest happiness for the biggest possible group of people, and that you saw having freedom as being happy. Thus you strived for the biggest possible freedom for the biggest possible group of people. Isn't that kind of in contradiction with not believing in free will??  |
The logic isn't quite right. I am a Utilitarian in the most part, and I believe that freedom generally brings happiness. I don't want the most freedom, but I do believe it is generally good. With regards to determinism, I am not good at explaining, but will try here:
I believe that one person, put in exactly the same situation (obviously impossible, due to time, but anyway) would always choose the same option. I believe that choice is determined by the impulses in their brain, by the genes and experience of that person. However when talkign about freedom with regards to Utilitarianism, with regards to politics, I am talking about not having contraints on what that person is going to do. For example, someone who is in a certain situation, and would do action A. The fact that action A is illegal, means that they do action B instead. Some may see this as free will, by which they choose not to commit an illegal act. Whether or not it is free or not is irrelevant to me, the fact is that since a person does not have control over who they are, means that they cannot stop themselves choosing what they would choose. Some people would not commit an illegal act, that they otherwise would, and thus would change. Some people would still commit action A, even though it is illegal. We cannot choose which of these catagories we fall into, and that is why I believe in determinism when it comes to responsibility and predeterminism. Given that there is that law, that person would do this. If there was not that law, they may do something different, and to predict, you would therefore not only have to have 'perfect knowledge' about that person, but also about the laws, and everything else around them. I am for the removing of many of these laws, as I believe it makes people more able to do what they would 'naturally' do, and thus am for freedom, and believe that freedom, to a great degree, creates the most happiness.
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
"Freedom for all" isn't on my "wishlist of political goals" exactly because I don't really believe in free will, thus making freedom irrelevant. |
I agree, however they are different levels of freedom. I believe that even though we cannot change what we would do in certain circumstances, I believe in having fewer laws to impede what a person would do naturally.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
Taken from an MSN conversation with Drogue:
Ben Elijah says:
agathon put it perfectly a while back by saying "phenomenological liberty"
Ben Elijah says:
free will may be down to us, or environmental factors, but as far as the individual is concerned, he has liberty, and he has a free will
Ben Elijah says:
to me, the origins of that will (be it free or not) is irrelevant
[Drogue] says:
i agree with most of that
Ben Elijah says:
i am inclined to side with the argument that (transdimensionally speaking to eliminate the problem of uncertainty principle and schrodingers thesis) free will does not exist, and everything is pre-determined, although 4-d speaking, the level of determinism decreases exponentially as one moves back in time from the actual event
Ben Elijah says:
but like i said, phenomenological liberty, in the context of a society and the individual, liberty and free will does exist, but ultimately and out of context, it does not
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Maniac: That is not the reason to remove laws. I believe in determinism, thus I believe in a natural condition. However I also believe that in an outside force (the state) imposing laws, we can change what someone chooses to something that is better for society. Thus I do not believe in removing all, or indeed many laws, however I think increasing the number of coices that a person could take means that society improves, as people work better and are happier if they have more choice, for the most part. The natural condition is a seperate part mostly, I just cannot explain it well at all.
I would not call it an illusion of freedom, I would call it an increase in posible options, though given a set of conditions, a particular option will be chosen by a particular person.
I think society has a hard job. While I do not believe people are responsible for who they are as it is out of their control, and thus are not responsible for their actions. However, the wish not to punish people for things they have no control over must be weighed up against the cost of that action to society. Therefore, presuming that a person will choose a particular option in a particular situation, it is up to the government to set laws which mean that that particular option is also what is best for society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
The existence of a god is a tricky one, many or most rational people today would say that he does not, but many religious types seemingly point to the complexity and yet the order of the universe appearing to be the product of intelligent design.
All I can say there is that this universe is merely an implimentation of a certain number of variables, heisenbergs theory states that there are other universes out there, assuming that the big bang was an actual event. What one requires is the notion that our own universe is merely 4-dimensional, there is a 5d void between the other universes (this is all supported by superstring and p-brane theories), and those universes have a separate set of 4-d realms, each of which are defined by different paramaters to ours, for example, the gravitational constant and the speed of light will be different.
As such, we can only exist in our universe, thus, because we exist, we exist in this universe. In that sense, an atomic physist is an atoms way of knowing about atoms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Very much so. We had an interesting discussion on the ACDG a while ago. Playing the uber logical and rational Cybernetic Conciousness (Cyborg's) who are unable to choose fundamentalism as our government, but being that we know that GooglieGod exists, it is rational to believe in him. Whether or not you believe there is enough evidence to support the theory of a God or not is one matter, and the rationality of you [dis]belief depends upon the strength of that. It is a very human emotion, the need to believe in something, and becaused we have evolved it as an emotion, the chances are that it was rational for us at one point in our evolution. Therefore, to dismiss belief as irrational would be going too far. Indeed, I believe either Rousseau or Voltaire once said that belief in God was the only logical action. This was because God has not been proven not to exist, and thus whatever worldly pleasures you can have on Earth not believing, is nothing compared to the possibility, however small, of infinite return when you die. Any probability of infinite reward gives an expectation of infinity, and thus to maximise your expecation, you should believe in God. However that was presuming that a belief in God is the only way to get into Heaven. Personally, I believe that if there is a God, he is powerful enough that he does would judge on how a person lived, rather than their belief. I do not think a God suffers from an ego, much as my (relatively limited) knowledge of Greek Mythology tells me otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
It depends on one's opinio of "rational", elijah
|
Of course, in this context, your views are equally valid as mine, and also they are based on different assumptions, like you say, the definition of rational. I speak more in the familial, scientific sense, but of course in order to justify a different position, people can use a different interpretation and assumption, and that is fine.
Dont you just love relativism? Makes you feel all nice and cosy inside! 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2003 22:05
)
STOP! YOU'RE FRYING MY BRAIN! 
|