Free Will vs Determinism

[Lee1026]

Free will is entirely imcompatible with determinism, since the latter says all our actions are predetermined and we have no choice in them, only the illusion of choice...

Actually, free will and indeterminism is completely incompatible. To see why it is not absolutely compatible, consider the following thought experiment:
We have a man locked in a room completely unable to move. His tormentor hooks him up to a killing machine, and then use a random number generator to decide if he will live or die. Now, let us assume that the random number generator is truly random, and that both situations have a chance of happening that is greater then 0. Clearly, we have indeterminism, but can you really say that either the man or the tormentor had a role in whether that machine killed or not?

For a more general proof that shows that indeterminism makes free will impossible, consider the definition of indeterminism, that is, it is impossible for anyone to know what you are going to chose yourself. And that anyone includes yourself. Which means that you can't say for sure what you are going to chose the next second. Which implies that you don't have free will.

[Ummon]

Now, let's imagine a set of parallel universes. Each one of them, is predetermined. I, by choosing a particular action, can pick in which universe I will exist, but not change the set of universes.

Voila!

[Tom Paine]

But he acted to give us free will. My choice makes his knowledge true. I act, and i choose, God just has knowledge of my choice. God cannot help existing or being omniscient and omnipotent. His power to act seems like it would allow for us to have free will, regardless of God's knowledge.

Your choice follows on after his knowledge. His knowledge makes your "choice" true.

Now, let's imagine a set of parallel universes. Each one of them, is predetermined. I, by choosing a particular action, can pick in which universe I will exist, but not change the set of universes.

Voila!

But you are simultaneously choosing to enter all the others too, and in fact you do so. Free will still doesn't exist; rather than havng no choices, you make all the choices simultaneously.

Lee, I think we are using different definitions of determinism; mine is explained here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/freewill.htm#H3

[Ummon]

You will notice, the multiplicity of choice, is not inherent to me, but to my doubles.

[Tom Paine]

But your doubles are you; it appears you don't quite understand the way it works. You make all the choices; there are no doubles, there are just lots of "you"s. They have the same qualities, such as tenaciousness, as you. They have the same abilities, knowledge, flaws, up until the divergence. They are you, and to them, you are their double.

[Ummon]

No, my doubles are me only after I die.

[Tom Paine]

Then why are they not you? And from their perspectives they are you and its the reverse; to every "version", he is the true one.

[Ummon]

Because I still live...

[Tom Paine]

And so do they. Your point being?

[Ummon]

My point being that until we are all dead, we cannot be the same.

[Tom Paine]

But you are. There lies the problem. Because you are the same person but after different choices, you are the same "soul" if you will, with different overlaid experiences.

[Ummon]

I am not the same as long as I am an observer. I am trying not to explain this to you, not to ruin you the pleasure of studying quantum mechanics.

[Lee1026]

Lee, I think we are using different definitions of determinism; mine is explained here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/freewill.htm#H3

We are using the same one.

Now, let's imagine a set of parallel universes. Each one of them, is predetermined. I, by choosing a particular action, can pick in which universe I will exist, but not change the set of universes.

But that implies indeterminism, because my action also cause several different worlds, and you won't know which one of the worlds (differing because of me) you will end up in. Hence, indeterminism.

[Tom Paine]

We are using the same one.

Then you have to accept that free will is incompatible with determinism, as the latter states that the future, and the course of human actions, are preset, and we have no choice!

[Ummon]

Indeterminism from human POV, not from Divine POV.

[Lee1026]

No, I do not accept that free will is incompatible with determinism. In fact, free will requires determinism!

[Tom Paine]

Causal determinism (hereafter, simply "determinism") is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature

If the course of the future is determined entirely by the past plus the laws of nature, how can we have free will, because free will is not amongst the laws of nature?

[Lee1026]

Why not? It would only imply that we are rational beings who can be depended upon to make the right choice every time.

[Tom Paine]

No, it wouldn't; since that means a possible choice against the laws of nature. What it means is that all our minds are is an odd conjunction of physics and so on. And totally illusory.

[Lee1026]

No, it would not imply a choice against the laws of nature; it merely tells us that the laws of nature can be used to predict what our actions are.

According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. That is, when one says that one could either continue to read this page or to delete it, one doesn't really mean that both choices are compatible with the complete state of the world right now, but rather that if one had desired to delete it one would have, even though as a matter of fact one actually desires to continue reading it, and therefore that is what will actually happen.