Is the action axiom merely physics applied to humans? Can there be truly “free will” vis a vis physics?
Please provide me with a working definition of free will so I can answer your question.
It really depends on the nature and mechanism of human thought and conciousness. I assume, Jackson, you’re referencing the fact that the human brain influences, creates, or is the human mind, and since the brain is a biological structure that exists in the physical world, then the human mind is the product of physical laws? Therefore, if the human mind is determined by physical laws, then “free will” is an illusion and our actions and thoughts are also determined by the physical laws?
If that’s the question, then I’m not sure how the action axiom relates to your question. Determinism or free will have little to do with it. The axiom merely states that humans form goals in thier mind and act to achieve them. Whether the mind has free will or not is no matter.
As a side point, I’ve always found arguement for determinism kind of moot. If we’re merely automatons (albiet very complex ones), then there is no point to inquiry or achievement. You might as well believe in free will by default. Personally I think the view that our fates are determined by rigid physical formula is a leap of logic at this stage. We don’t know enough about physics at the sub-atomic level, nor do we know the mechanism that creates conciousness. Without that information, it’s all just speculation.
Free will - Unrestricted ability to express one’s desire.
LogisticEarth,
We are on the same page, more or less. I wouldn’t say that I’m a determinist, but I do think that the laws of physics act as sort of a “speed limit”. Any of our desires beyond which are, in effect, “unachieveable”. In other words, I can’t “will myself” to defy gravity.
Also, you are right. The OP is about two different topics. They were both physics related, so I figured I’d mash them together.
Do you mean that in a positive or a negative sense? Or both?
I’m not sure. What’s the difference?
If we’re merely automatons (albiet very complex ones), then there is no point to inquiry or achievement
Here’s what I come to conclude (as a determinist myself): When people say “if we have no free will then no law is moral because of predestination, why not just go out and kill people?” they make the inherent presumption that they can decide to instead go out and kill people, inherently rejecting determinism and allowing for ethics, and hence not killing people.
If someone says that punishment is immoral in a deterministic universe, I counter that punishment is inevitable (we were, after all, made to punish the lawbreaker).
With this duality in mind (no responsibility but still punishment) I’ve come to conclude that though determinism is fact, we “should” act as if we have free will. It’s a duality that is pretty useful (though it might break down when examining criminal trials through a libertarian deterministic lens, but those are details that don’t really affect us).
Well if I observe a restriction on one’s ability to express a desire, will that eliminate “free will” from your question? Because this medium restricts my ability to express my desire for more cowbell. Typing it out just doesnt have the same impact, and so the audience doesnt see how intense I am when I needs more cowbell. Other than that, I am not sure how to interpret your statement. Surely you didnt mean “unrestricted ability to achieve one’s desire” or “unrestricted ability to pursue one’s desire.”
also, I dont see how this is relevant to the action axiom.
“no law is moral because of predestination”
this begs the question. Why would predestination affect morality? The speaker requires you to accept a version of morals that requires “free will.” ask them to explain why “no law is moral because of predestination” and watch them disintegrate.
If someone says that punishment is immoral in a deterministic universe, ask them who is responsible for the immorality. By what standard is it immoral, and from whence did this standard originate? Could we also say that suffering of any kind is immoral in a deterministic universe? Could not we also say that chemical reactions that turn water in hydrogen and oxygen are immoral?
I am also curious as to how someone “acts” like he has free will. Does he make random decisions for no reason?
That’s my argument: in a deterministic universe even the punishment would be a-moral (because they were destined to punish the guy), and hence we cannot say “determinism ergo chaos.”
About acting as if you have free will: I’m saying “don’t suddenly jump out of your seat and go rob a bank and claim that’s deterministic.” Instead, pretend you have free will (of course, the pretending itself is deterministic, but w/e.)
So why single out punishment? Why not postulate “all deterministic universes are necessarily amoral”? Because that is easy to challenge. In fact, my original question still stands. “punishment in deterministworld is immoral” according to whom? How is it immoral? In deterministworld, what would be moral, so I can compare this immoral act to it?
how do I “pretend” to have free will? What does it entail? How does a person with free will behave differently from someone who does not?
- Here’s what I come to conclude (as a determinist myself): When people say “if we have no free will then no law is moral because of predestination, why not just go out and kill people?” they make the inherent presumption that they can decide to instead go out and kill people, inherently rejecting determinism and allowing for ethics, and hence not killing people.
To clarify, I’m talking about inquiry into determination, not necessarily morality. You basically have to operate as a creature with free will. I garuntee you deliberate and make decisions in your day to day life, the outcome may be predetermined, but you’ll never know and it makes no difference in human affairs.
Point being, if you know your life is completely determined along it’s path based on physical laws set into motion at the creation of the universe, it does you no good and is of no use to you. You might as well forget that you even had that knowledge, because, by definition, it makes no difference.
As for morality though, a determinisitic universe would be valueless and the idea of “morals” among humans would be absurd. It would be like saying that it was “immoral” for rushing water to push away a ripple of sand. You don’t kill that man because that’s what you’re determined to do, you do steal that purse because that’s what your determined to do. You personally may form the idea of morality in your mind, but it makes zero impact on the universe. Just like a rain drop has to fall from the sky.
How is deliberation and decision-making supposedly incompatible with determinism?
“As for morality though, a determinisitic universe would be valueless and the idea of “morals” among humans would be absurd.”
how so? Do you suggest that our current universe is something other than deterministic? How is a deterministic universe supposed to be valueless?
“It would be like saying that it was “immoral” for rushing water to push away a ripple of sand. You don’t kill that man because that’s what you’re determined to do, you do steal that purse because that’s what your determined to do. You personally may form the idea of morality in your mind, but it makes zero impact on the universe. Just like a rain drop has to fall from the sky.”
mental ideas have considerable impact on the universe at large. Think about it.
You might as well forget that you even had that knowledge, because, by definition, it makes no difference.
Yes, my point exactly.
mental ideas have considerable impact on the universe at large
As do gears grinding in a clock. That doesn’t detract from the fact that both are deterministic.
How, exactly, do you reconcile those two affirmations? You basically just said that the gears in a clock affect how a clock runs, and it doesnt matter if you have worm gears in the clock because it would run exactly the same without worm gearing.
Ultimately, you know that clocks tell time. Whether they do so because an angel comes down with an invisible hand (pun not intended) and turns the hands or there are gears which do this, it doesn’t really matter (as long as we have no contact with said angel and we cannot open the clock to see whether there are gears).
We can take the conclusions outside of this black box (man acts) and work from there.
Free will - Unrestricted ability to express one’s desire.
I would say the action axiom would say something like it is impossible not to do such a thing - and than describe how what is presented in the world “is what is” and inescapable. In other words, if that is Free Will, it does something like a dilectic on it and just puts it in a deterministic language- saying every “fact” presented is uncalcuable and “all and all unto itself” and can not be spoken of as more or less than any other fact
Also:
In the way some other people use “free will” - the Austrian use of the word “choice” is no different than a biologist saying the Jackyle chooses a mate - or an Oxygen atom desires to fill it’s outer shell.
If I say the distance is 1.1 yard or 1 meter - it’s the same picture. Glass half full or half empty it doesn’t matter if you get the picture.
Man acts with purpose. Morals are relevant to the phenomenon of human action, even if you personally consider them mythological. I fear we are more or less in agreement, but arguing over some definitions. This is because “free will vs determinism” is a totally false dichotomy. Humans make choices according to their estimate of their own best profit. Humans are analogous to extremely complex, self-programming computers. Humans have complete freedom to choose what they want, and so they are bound to choose exactly what they want from the known available options. None of this negates causation, and none of this permits the conciousness to exist as a captive observer, aware of moral decisions but totally unable to act contrary to the particles that make up his brain.
I was really hoping you would resolve the apparent contradiction in a specific way, however. Alas, perhaps another time.
Malachai,
I would say that “unrestricted ability to achieve one’s desire” is more accurate than “express”. It isn’t really relevant to the action axiom. They were both physics related, so I mashed them together.