Comments on: A Simplified Argument Against Free Will

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:42:00 +0000

"The physical rules that will determine how the universe transitions from one state to another, namely from that previous-state to the next-state."

Your argument is already circular because you've assumed that the laws of physics are deterministic (you used the word "determine"). Yet this isn't just a debatable assumption; it's been proven to be false.

By: Eznight

Eznight — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:43:00 +0000

Thank you for the kind words and I honestly say ditto to you however, you seem to be confused. Since we have not even conversed regarding science yet I have no idea why you are stating that I am not educated in science. I know quite a good deal about our world and I have a affinity for science, philosophy, history and theology. Your presuppositions are showing...

With regard to your statement of definitions and evidence I assume you are once again referring to faith. I have no issues using the proper definition of faith in contrast to the meaning of blind faith, while providing ample evidence for my positions.

"Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you've got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all." ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

“The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it... it is an article of faith.” ~ Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics

I would be delighted to discuss science (and Richard Dawkins) with you however, you must first establish an epistemological foundation accordingly with naturalism. Atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be performed. It undermines the very rationality that we need to construct an argument or understand an argument of any kind. However, theism does provide the necessary basis. The rational intelligibility of the universe points to a rational creator. And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries. On the naturalism world-view there is no epistemological foundation for our cognitive faculties and perhaps that is why you are throwing in the towel so soon.

"It has to be admitted that of course science grew out of a religious tradition." ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:48:00 +0000

So it has been nice talking to you, Eznight. You seem like a nice person and you're obviously very intelligent. I wish you well in life. I am afraid I can no longer spend time with someone who is not educated in science and refuses to becomes so.

I won't be providing responses to you anymore unless you can show an actual willingness to use definitions that others use and to respect evidence. I've no time for games.

If you truly wish to learn about the world, I ask you to read The Greatest Show On Earth. Unlike his previous books, this book is designed specifically to show how evolution is actual, pure fact and not anything less.

If you go read that and come back with honest questions, I'd love to speak with you. And if you want to speak philosophy I'd happily do that as well. But don't speak to me of the world we live in; it's not a strong area for you.

Take care.

By: Eznight

Eznight — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:44:00 +0000

Sorry, it should read: So are you stating that it is your determinism…

By: Eznight

Eznight — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:23:00 +0000

So are stating is that it is your determinism that is driving you to try and influence the determinism of others? And yes, I meant begging the question because determinism itself is a logical fallacy that leads to the question of why do you think you have power over the universe? The problem also treats human beings naturalistically as purely material objects. Their choices are, accordingly, either causally determined or else random events. I must say that it’s very hard to see why, on a materialist anthropology, this conclusion would be mistaken. Ironically, however, it also seems to be a conclusion that a naturalist could never rationally draw. For if all our choices are causally determined or merely random, then the choice to believe in naturalism can be no more rational than having a toothache or a tree’s growing a limb. Thus, determinism seems to be rationally unaffirmable. By contrast, theists believe in the reality of immaterial agents, first and foremost God Himself and, secondarily, embodied, finite persons. Hence, everything is not predictable on the basis of scientific laws and initial conditions.

As I mentioned before, there is an even deeper problem with naturalism. The irony of the atheistic position appears when we ask where our human faculty of reason comes from. It holds that our human cognitive faculties were produced by purely naturalistic mechanisms that were not concerned with truth but with survival. But if the thoughts in our minds are just the motions of atoms in our brains, a mechanism that has itself arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should we believe anything it tells us including the fact that it is made of atoms?

By: Eznight

Eznight — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:23:00 +0000

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:54:00 +0000

Which part of influencing people who believe one way, using evidence and argument, to believe another way is confusing to you? This is perfectly consistent with a lack of free will.
"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy and is improper when meaning to say "raising the question".

By: Eznight

Eznight — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:49:00 +0000

I’m sorry but I have to say that you are quite a contradiction. Since you are a determinist then why do you debate believers in God? According to you, it is ineluctable for those who believe in God not to believe in God since they have no free-will. So this begs the question of, why do you think you have the ability to change their minds? Are you now postulating that you have power over the universe?

By: Are you religious?

Are you religious? — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:15:47 +0000

[...] of you are making inconsistent arguments about that point IMO. My position is based on this… A Simplified Argument Against Free Will | danielmiessler.com So I should agree with you… it's almost pointless trying to influence Cogi…but I have no [...]

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 01:27:00 +0000

Hi Martin,

So it seems you might have something here, but I am honestly not following your argument fully. Are you saying my argument isn't falsifiable? Can you restate?

By: Captain Awesome

Captain Awesome — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:27:00 +0000

You do not need to have control over the entire universe. Just over any part of it. You do not need control over the past. Just over the present.

Humans can control a small part of the universe in the present.

Some say that we are merely the sum of all the things that have happened up until this moment, and that the weight of all those things precludes free will. We will react as we will because of all the things that make us who we are. However, the system is SO complex and SO complicated that it is impossible to use it as a predictor. In other words, it ceases to have direct effect, and instead, becomes background noise. Self-awareness carries much more weight in the moment than any background noise.

By: Galen Strawson – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | danielmiessler.com

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 05:01:54 +0000

[...] Response to "Atheists are arrogant".The Only Class That MattersFree Will: Absolute vs. PracticalA Simplified Argument Against Free WillHappiness: Creation vs. CollectionWant: A Disease Based in Low Self-EsteemHow to See If Your [...]

By: Egregious

Egregious — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:12:08 +0000

Problem with first condition: the current state of the universe has as much impact on the future as some past state. We can alter the present.

That said, it does not in and of itself imply anything about free will.

More succinctly, OP seems to have fallen victim to oversimplified, faulty premises.

By: Egregious

Egregious — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:12:08 +0000

By: Snarky

Snarky — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:39:07 +0000

No, he has to be right. Wanna know how I know? No one with free thought would have become as douchey (sp?) as this Daniel cat appears to have.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:11:37 +0000

"Explain why this is not logical."

"I'm laying out what seems to be a perfectly logical argument."

Your argument as stated is both invalid and meaningless.

Your first claim is “you must be able to consciously change at least one of these [following levers] in order to have any active influence on the world”.

Your second claim is a definition of the first lever, namely: “how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision.”

So, when we combine these claims to form a consequent (as this seems to be the logical relationship you intend for these two claims), we get:

If you are able to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision, then you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists).

Unfortunately, the antecedent of the conditional

“If you are able to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision”

is self contradictory/impossible, and thus is necessarily false. Therefore the truth value of the consequent as a whole is necessarily true, regardless of whether the antecedent “you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists)” is true or false.

So, what does this mean?

If I restated your argument with the premises it seems you intend, it would read as follows:

(1) If you are able to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision, then you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists).

(2) It is impossible to consciously change how the universe was configured at the moment prior to you making a [conscious] decision.

Therefore: C1: It is not the case that you are able to have active influence on the world (free will does not exist)
OR
Therefore: C2: It is the case that you are able to have active influence on the world (free will exists).

Validity: An argument is valid iff there is no situation in which its premises are true and its conclusion is false.

Since the premises are both necessarily true, and the premises have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the conclusion, this argument logically supports either of these contradictory conclusions, one of which must be false.

Since both of these conclusions follow logically from the premises, and one is necessarily false, there is a possible situation in which the conclusion is false and the premises true, so from the definition of validity the argument is invalid. And, since either of two contradictory conclusions could be true, the argument is also meaningless.

It seems there is either something deeply wrong with your definitions, or I have dreadfully misinterpreted your argument.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:01:34 +0000

You've basically argued that real (free) choice is possible because
you feel you've made choices in the past, and that it feels like
people make choices in general.

I suggest you read my latest essay on the topic, which captures both
your point and mine:

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/absolute-vs-prac…

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:31:13 +0000

It is pointless to think about changing the past but you can choose to starve or eat, Speed on the motorway or drive like your grandma, Buy a Mac or a PC. Each choice can be influenced but not not pre-determined 100% of the time. So, you can still make the choice and your future is not set. Free Will wins again!

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:24:54 +0000

Determinism is out of the picture. It's not relevant. We are not discussing predictability or anything of the sort. The issue is with whether or not we have control of the essential pieces that allow us to manipulate outcomes.

Ok yes, we are dealing with a constant stream of knock on effects, but self awareness allows us to choose what influences we take notice of. It's much harder to do than say but it is do-able.

By: mub

mub — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:18:17 +0000

Before you say it I know others have made much the same argument but you seem to skirt around the question by telling us the Random factor is irrelevant or an illusion. I think determinism boils down to what I call “Playing with words”.