Philosophical Vegan Forum

I might be really far off-base here, but I gave a shot at translating it, and here's what I have:

"Wikipedia’s concept of free will doesn’t make sense because it’s illogical, and on top of that, can be proven false through observations of people.

The choices of people are based off of how we see a situation, but that can involve both misinformation and lack of information. Our decision is also based on other things, but the Wikipedia definition doesn’t factor in the knowledge part, and since lack of knowledge can prevent you from making a possible and desired choice, the definition is wrong (I think this is what you were saying?).

Also, a free action under this definition is uncaused (I thought all actions are caused, because they are reactions to the surrounding environment?), and there apparently are two ways this can be:

1) The action is completely random and happened for literally no reason, but some people use logical reasoning to justify their choices, so I don’t think that is the case.

2) It’s just a natural part of the multiverse (but also necessary, what?). Apparently, the only way this is possible is if the Universe itself is uncaused, but I don't know why.

Number one doesn't make sense, and as for number two- Christians believe ‘God’ created the Universe, so therefore it was caused, so theists can’t be theists while believing in this."

EquALLity wrote:Our decision is also based on other things, but the Wikipedia definition doesn’t factor in the knowledge part, and since lack of knowledge can prevent you from making a possible and desired choice, the definition is wrong (I think this is what you were saying?).

It's just incorrect that will and action are without internal cause. Two of those Wikipedia lists in the first paragraph are ultimately internal:

Wikipedia wrote:social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions).

That is, fear of punishment or censure; a threat in itself has no effect unless it is feared. Mental constraints also must include incorrect information, or lack of knowledge -- although it doesn't list those explicitly there it doesn't deny them either.
The point is that all actions have constraints, so the idea of an action being completely free of these isn't really coherent.

EquALLity wrote:I thought all actions are caused, because they are reactions to the surrounding environment?

All actions beyond the quantum scope are caused. I'm talking about IF you ignore those causes, or somehow call them irrelevant.

Look at the table Wikipedia provides.



There are two stances that agree that free will is possible. The Compatibilists, and the Libertarians.

Compatibilists define free will very differently (e.g. not metaphysically, but practically), and are pretty much irrelevant to these kinds of discussions.

Libertarians either deny determinism in supposing some magical force of will that controls actions (deciding between at least two options), or deny the relevance of macroscopic determinism, favoring microscopic indeterminism (that is, quantum effects).

There are three common interpretations for quantum phenomena (although with varying degrees of support).

Hidden variable, which is deterministic (it means there's some information somewhere that determines the outcome). This has been debunked locally by Bell's Inequality, but also not very useful for the Libertarians.

Copenhagen, which is random resolution of wave function collapse. That would be a random will, not a "free" one, whatever that is supposed to mean.

And MWI, which means all possible choices have been made, and just 'branched' off into different universes: All equally real and true.

None of these really resolve the issue in the Libertarian's favor, and only the first one (Hidden Variable) which denies free will is "Theism friendly" (or, the least obviously hostile to theism).

As to the magical "soul" or whatever causing action and trumping determinism, that doesn't answer the problem, it just puts it off to an infinite regress. What caused the soul's action? Was it uncaused? Then was it random?

Kind of like "who created the creator?"

EquALLity wrote:Apparently, the only way this is possible is if the Universe itself is uncaused, but I don't know why.

In a deterministic universe, all things have a cause (as the theists like to harp on), and the universe itself has to have a cause too. Of course, any temporally active thing that caused the universe also needs to be caused, so this doesn't really help theists. This case just requires an infinitely old universe that continues forever, or in the least a paradoxical cycle (more like Vedic metaphysics), not a creator god.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the universe is still basically a temporal series of events, but the most primitive of those are causeless random events which provide all of the necessary information in the universe. So, there is no need for a god, but just as the universe could randomly pop into existence out of nothing, so too could a god (if it were physically and logically possible that it be at all). Copenhagen is more of a wash, where you can presume anything (provided it is logically and physically possible) has existed at some point: although what people usually call a god is not even possible in this interpretation.

In MWI, things are different. We're talking about atemporal acausality. Nothing could create the multiverse, because it "exists" outside of time and embodies it in its structure (although it can be equally said that it doesn't "exist" since that's more of a temporal concept). There's no room for anything resembling a creator god in this interpretation.
It rules out theism completely, full stop. This also happens to be the correct interpretation.

I guess I kind of understand it.