Zeroing in on free will

[hmkpoker]

I know this has been done before, but I really want a good answer to this challenge; a philosophical/hypothetical one, not a scriptural one. (link me to one if it already exists)

Let us say that there is another planet, identical to Earth in every concievable way, down to the molecule. Same people, same animals, same families, etc. etc. etc.

Person A (who resides on Earth) and Person A' (who resides on our parallel planet) are both born into identical families with identical genetics and identical environments. God gives each a soul, and the power of free will.

Twenty years later, A and A' mature and walk down the street where they are hassled by person B and B' respectively. A gives B some money; A' kills B'. Different choices were made, because they each had free will.

Something must cause an action. Either 1) the soul of A had a different quality than the soul of A', or 2) the souls act at random.

Explain how another possibility could exist that explains this phenomenon.

__________________________________________________ __________

Secondly, a neat little idea I was thinking about before:

A certain robot is programmed with a random number generator; whenever someone asks for a random number, it automatically takes the millisecond from its clock, enters it as a variable, and out comes a random number between 1 and 10.

However, the program exists outside of its main OS (or whatever), and the robot can't detect the presence of this program. It readily uses its RNG, but doesn't know that it exists.

The robot believes it has free will.

[nothumb]

This situation is useless as a hypothetical problem. It is designed so restrictively as to be virtually meaningless. It's like saying, if some wildly improbable situation with no possibility of being proven or carried out were to occur, what would it mean? If free will indeed exists, then there is no way the person and his doppelganger reach identical situations twenty years down the road. If there is anything random about molecules and physics, this situation would never occur. If this situation did occur, it would mean free will and randomness do not exist and both men perform the same action.

NT

NT

[hypermegachi]

there is no answer. otherwise this topic wouldn't be discussed for thousands of years.

someone else on this forum posted this...i forget who, so i can't give credit. on the determinism vs non-determinism universe debate of free will, we cannot prove whether our universe is really random, or if it is a deterministic universe simulating pseudo randomness. thus, that possibility removes all decisive conclusions.

and then there's the omnipotent God. personally, i think if God is omnipotent, then we cannot have free will because by definition, God must be able to give and take our free will.

time argument? like the thread i started a couple weeks back, i think if a certain timeline which includes a beginning and end must mean we have no free will, since everything is predetermined and must be followed a certain. whether we "choose" or not is irrevelant because we will always choose the same result. but of course, there's no way to prove that this is the case.

blah blah blah and the list goes on...

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This situation is useless as a hypothetical problem. It is designed so restrictively as to be virtually meaningless. It's like saying, if some wildly improbable situation with no possibility of being proven or carried out were to occur, what would it mean? If free will indeed exists, then there is no way the person and his doppelganger reach identical situations twenty years down the road. If there is anything random about molecules and physics, this situation would never occur. If this situation did occur, it would mean free will and randomness do not exist and both men perform the same action.

NT

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetical yes, useless no. It should be assumed that all events leading up to that point are identical, and the only meaningful variable are A and A''s actions. I figured this was implied, but apparently I was wrong.

It is impossible to conduct this experiment practically to the satisfaction of any reasonable person; the natural variations of reality, no matter how subtle, can cause things that would interfere with the experiment. It also assumes something (free will) that is philosophical in nature and I don't feel that it needs real empirical evidence to debate effectively. It is useful to deal with it hypothetically.

[ QUOTE ]
This situation is useless as a hypothetical problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you in a philosophy forum?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no answer. otherwise this topic wouldn't be discussed for thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are answers, just not ones that satisfy everyone. I'm just asking for answers, not perfect ones.

What have you got? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DougShrapnel]

So let me get this str8. You want to know that if two different people are really identical in every possible way. And you give them an instant to exercise free will. Is this a fair assessment of free will? You are correct about the two options the souls could be different or the souls act randomly, but to think that these are the only two mutually exclusive options is short-sighted.

[ QUOTE ]
Something must cause an action.

[/ QUOTE ] You do, it's called freewill. When you examine the "instants" of peoples life, freewill isn't so apparent, it is only when we look at the longevity of life that one can understand freewill. As a rational creature you can change your future actions by educating yourself today. So in a sense you are right there are a ton of people who do not have free-will, others of us choose to be human. Free-will isn't random it's calculated. It isn't given, it's earned.

[Scotch78]

There is no logically consistent solution to the free will problem using traditional causality, i.e. A, therefore B. This leaves us with two options. First, we have simply defined the problem incorrectly, that is to say, there are no such things as free will and determinism. Second, causality is not what we think it is.

If you decide to go with option two, then I have some good news: there is a logically consistent explanation of free will. The key is to redefine causality with the form A, therefore ~B. For example, you and nine friends are deciding which of ten bars to hit up tonight. In scenario one, they unanimously force you to bar seven. In scenario two, they allow you to pick the location. However, each friend hates a different bar and vetoes one of your choices such that bar seven is the only option where you can effectively exercise your will. So far, it does not matter which view of causality one takes.

Enter scenario three, where you only have eight friends and can effectively exercise your will by choosing either bar six or seven . . . now traditional causality breaks down. There is a catch though. While we can construct a sound definition of free will by changing our defintion of causality, we cannot maintain our traditional definition of reality with the new causality.

Scott

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical yes, useless no. It should be assumed that all events leading up to that point are identical, and the only meaningful variable are A and A''s actions. I figured this was implied, but apparently I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand this. What I'm saying is, the question answers itself. If you create two parallel planets, and the same events take place over a person's lifetime as you describe, the laws of physics and what we know of the complexity of life DICTATE that every action is the result of inevitable physical reactions or some other deterministic, presumably metaphysical force. The probability of that inestimable number of atomic, molecular and cellular movements leading up to the moment in question all taking place in the same fashion in a universe where randomness exists, and then having a different event occur at the critical moment in your scenario (the robbery and A's actions), is so mathematically absurd as to be called impossible. The very terms of this exercise negate the possibility that free will exists in your universe. Therefore it's a useless hypothetical, not because this issue is useless, but because your question does a poor job of framing the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you in a philosophy forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I have no use for poorly devised hypotheticals does not mean I have no interest in philosophy or nothing to contribute to the search for knowledge in general. Unless you were being sarcastic. Philosophical inquiry that disregards practical application or the observable circumstances of reality is masturbatory and counterproductive.

EDIT: and to answer your question, the other possibility is that your all-powerful interventionist God stepped in and made one person act in a particular way.

NT

[BadgerAle]

The free will question seems very easy to me:

free will exists = alot of very confused and unsatisfactory arguments.

free will doesn't exist = no logical problems with this view.

Is this being to obvious?

The real question is wether there is such a thing as randomness? especially at the sub-atomic level. My suspicion is no, just unpredictability- think of it like the poker hand generator online.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no answer. otherwise this topic wouldn't be discussed for thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hardly seems correct. Plato's theory of knowledge stood as widely accepted for 2300 years before it was more or less refuted by Gettier's counterexample. And there was a 700-year gap between Anselm's ontological argument and Kant's refutation. Time does nothing for an argument's soundness or validity.