If the universe is governed by a strict set of rules, everything comes from a large cause and effect relationship similar to what happens in that commercial.
So me going 9 pool speed in my last game would have been caused starting from the very beginning of the universe: a particle hits another particle, which hits another particle, etc. for billions of years which finally causes me to lay down my spawning pool at 9.
Since my "decision" to go 9 pool stems purely from physic interactions starting eons ago, does that mean I have no free will? Everything I do is already predetermined because of the laws of physics?
Just because you exist of very old matter doesn't mean it determines your actions. Free will is still around, unless you are a TL member. Browse TL - close browser - reopen browser - open TL
its like that thing I used to hear "either what you decide to do is random, or it was not random and thus predetermined, hence there is no free will!1"
I loved that. It's either A or B because I say so hence it can't be C
you could say that. you chose to do 9 pool because of how you were brought up, how you play sc, how you study sc, how you practice sc. how you do all those things depends on what came before those, etc etc. that's one way of thinking about it.
And then I decided that I wasn't going to think about it any more. Do you know that they took THOUSANDS of attempts to get that commercial to work properly? All of the fancy physics that went into it said that it should have worked the first time..... And every time.....
There is too much unpredictability to worry about that. If you're right, you're right, and there's nothing you can do about it.
We don't know enough about physics to make any significant claims about free will (at least, from this perspective). When we have a better understanding of the nature of indeterminism in quantum mechanics then maybe we can make a reasonable conclusion about whether or not every action we make is truly predetermined.
You are making a wrong assumption when you say everything is related to a cause and effect relationship. For example the electron, we know it exist somewhere in the "perimeter" of the atom but we cant find it. Thats because its everywhere in the perimeter but not 2 places at the same time.
there is an inherent randomness in the movement of atoms (physics) so nothing can be predicted from the past state (at least not compeltely accurately) whether this implies that we have free will or not -- i will let the philosopher answer this because i am not entirely sure
I don't see why the question of free will even matters really. Who cares if you have free will or not or if your life is predetermined, as long as your consciousness works as if you have free will it doesn't mean much. Even if we dont have any free will, you have to treat people as if they have free will, that's the only way we can live.
Edit:
On April 19 2010 14:59 phosphorylation wrote: there is an inherent randomness in the movement of atoms (physics) so nothing can be predicted from the past state (at least not compeltely accurately) whether this implies that we have free will or not -- i will let the philosopher answer this because i am not entirely sure
Quantum physics does not have much to do with this right now. It merely states that tiny particles act in a probabilistic manner, the question that we should ask is if we are merely biological programs like say bacteria which act on a probabilistic based genetic behavior pattern and if our consciousness does not give us any free will at all, we are all driven to some extent by biological probability behavioral patterns, but does that strip us from any free will and is our conscious free will an illusion. I am not saying quantum mechanics is completely meaningless, but it's negligible in complex biological systems where interactions are fine tuned, I remember reading on a certain type of bacterium that only has 60 free H+ protons to do molecular work inside itself. The question of quantum mechanics asks if our entire universe is deterministic and not whether we have free will or not at this stage.
It's an interesting question from a thought experiment process, but for me it falls into the category of "that's cool".
Let's say it's correct, and that its random interaction of subatomic particles that result in the various nerver impulses you send, the thoughts you have, the actions you make. If that's true, what difference does it make; is it going to have any effect on how you feel like you choose live your life. I know it won't to me. I feel like I'm living out my life with free will, and thats good enough for me. See as how in the above case there is nothing I could possibly do to change that, I see no reason to worry about it besides academic interest.
Various interpretations of quantum mechanics exist, each having different ideas about why things occur the way they do. But, as Micronesia said, we don't have a good enough understanding to know what makes quantum behavior operate the way it does.
On April 19 2010 14:59 phosphorylation wrote: there is an inherent randomness in the movement of atoms (physics) so nothing can be predicted from the past state (at least not compeltely accurately) whether this implies that we have free will or not -- i will let the philosopher answer this because i am not entirely sure
Free will doesn't exist. Our emotions actually are in charge of our decisions, and it is only a little part of the brain called Gazaniga's Interpreter (Gazaniga is the neuroscientist who theorized it) which gives us the impression of control by rationalizing decisions after our amygdala (seat of emotion in the brain) has already made them. This takes place in fractions of a second.
So no, your decision to 9 pool was not a conscious one, it was merely a result of your emotional system learning that a 9 pool was the best and choosing to do it before the interpreter came in and interpreted the already made decision as a fully rational one.
I think random basically means if you do something, then go back in time and do the same thing under the exact conditions, it will not necessarily have the same outcome as the first time.
for instance, obviously if you roll a dice like how I described above, it'll have the same outcome both times. Same with a "random number generator" on a computer.
On April 19 2010 15:14 Two_DoWn wrote: Free will doesn't exist. Our emotions actually are in charge of our decisions, and it is only a little part of the brain called Gazaniga's Interpreter (Gazaniga is the neuroscientist who theorized it) which gives us the impression of control by rationalizing decisions after our amygdala (seat of emotion in the brain) has already made them. This takes place in fractions of a second.
So no, your decision to 9 pool was not a conscious one, it was merely a result of your emotional system learning that a 9 pool was the best and choosing to do it before the interpreter came in and interpreted the already made decision as a fully rational one.
Visual communication theory ftw!
Journal citations please.
When you make large claims such as this you have to bring evidence with it. I do know of this study, but show me multiple studies along with this that support this theory.
I am also a strong believer in determinism. Currently, we do not have the information to decipher whether free will does exist or not, since we only know about 40% of how the human brain works. It's a very interesting topic, and I think it will eventually be handed from philosophy to science.
So no, your decision to 9 pool was not a conscious one, it was merely a result of your emotional system learning that a 9 pool was the best and choosing to do it before the interpreter came in and interpreted the already made decision as a fully rational one.
How would an emotional system know that 9 pool is best, what does deciding to 9 pool or not have to do with emotional centers or emotions; its a logical decision based on past experiences, knowledge, and external stimuli.
I could be wrong but the idea of a left brain interpretor doesn't seem to be universally accepted. Searching for basic articles on Gazaniga's Interpreter, brain interpreter, etc. don't turn up much. Nothing that really describes the Interpreter itself in detail explaining why/how it functions.
On April 19 2010 15:14 Two_DoWn wrote: Free will doesn't exist. Our emotions actually are in charge of our decisions, and it is only a little part of the brain called Gazaniga's Interpreter (Gazaniga is the neuroscientist who theorized it) which gives us the impression of control by rationalizing decisions after our amygdala (seat of emotion in the brain) has already made them. This takes place in fractions of a second.
So no, your decision to 9 pool was not a conscious one, it was merely a result of your emotional system learning that a 9 pool was the best and choosing to do it before the interpreter came in and interpreted the already made decision as a fully rational one.
Visual communication theory ftw!
Journal citations please.
When you make large claims such as this you have to bring evidence with it. I do know of this study, but show me multiple studies along with this that support this theory.
If string theory is true, you could say that your actions are both predetermined by the laws of physics AND free will, since there's an infinite number of probabilities creating parallel universes through the 10-11 dimensions... some of which you make one decision and some of which you make another (edit: and maybe another in which you spontaneously turn into a gerbal).
I doubt it's particularly important to think too hard about these sorta things unless it's your field of study. Maybe a little fun. For instance, I had a random thought about the nature of dark matter/energy that I don't have the background in physics/mathematics to explore... so instead I'm going to write a sci fi story where that original thought (along with some other sci fi conventions) drives the plot. Fun stuff, but not terribly important.
I believe in determinism. I can cope with the idea that what we abstractly call a free will can in absolute sense be completely predicted. It can only be predicted if you know the entirety of the parameters that make up the process of decision making, which I would think is about the entire galaxy (since even Jupiter for example has a tiny tiny tiny influence due to gravity on the protons in my brain).
Edit: Tadzio, I don't 100% get tring theory, but the idea that there are a bunch of universes in a multiverse, that doesn't mean that you as a person can travel between them, does it? You are stuck in the universe where you are, so you can predict everything what is going to happen. In another universe it might happen differently, but then I believe that other universe can at the point of time of that event not be exactly the same.
Your line of thought is nothing new and has been around for quite a while. It's called Determinism.
Contrary to what many are saying here, Determinism is not a fact. Indeed, it is a theory, as much as Free Will is. It is up to you to come to your own conclusions by reading and studying Philosophy. Just be aware, the consequences of each Philosophy.
Myself I am not a Determinist. Personally, I think far too many people today are abandoning Philosophy and transposing Science in its place, but Science cannot answer these questions. Any Scientists who tells you they can are nothing more than proverbial Astrologers.
But quantum mechanics has a probabilistic nature...
I think there is a causal element in a universe, but thing are set in stone at some point. I don't know if science has "discovered" any Quantum effects occurring within the brain, but I know that there were some theories. I'm not really up to date on it though ^^
The basic premise behind determinism is that the universe has a logic to it that can be understood. So, if you knew the initial state of the universe, and the laws by which it is governed, you could predict everything. Unfortunately, we cannot know the initial state of the universe because it's 14 billion years later and light doesn't travel slowly enough. Through logic, if we understood all the laws of the universe and could gather the current state of the universe, we could infer the initial state and from there predict everything that will happen in the future.
We're quite far from that happening, though.
And, of course, if string theory is true, a large majority of our predictions would occur in non-detectable universes.
Whether or not you do have free will, you still feel like you have free will. To you, the choices you make are actual choices. So, what matter if they were predetermined? If billions of years and trillions of particle interactions lead up to the sequence of you being indecisive over breakfast one day, flip-flopping three times between Cheerios, no, Cornflakes!, back to Cheerios, screw it TOAST! then, well, the effect seems real enough to me for the point to be moot.
However, I believe free will does exist in a real sense -- ie, all interactions are not deterministic. I used to believe in your physics-based model, that all existence really is, is particles interacting, and if we could chart all particles' masses and velocities and what-have-you that we could determine the future of everything. Also, that everything up to this point had been predetermined in a similar manner. This scenario holds true if all particle interactions have definite outcomes, but the indication is that they do not. Instead of a and b interacting to produce result c, it has been shown there are some interactions where a and b interact to produce c some % of the time, and d some % of the time. And there is no way of knowing which one it will be until it happens. Ergo, no determinism.
My first point still holds though, even if you truly believe everything were predetermined, and even if it really were, it wouldn't be worth a damn because your end perception doesn't feel that way.
So every time that I nailed a chick and left her sobbing in the next morning, it was already predetermined by shit which is totally beyond the realm of my understanding wasn't it?
That's awesome. I feel so much less guilty now thanks to physics.
On April 19 2010 16:12 RoTaNiMoD wrote: However, I believe free will does exist in a real sense -- ie, all interactions are not deterministic. I used to believe in your physics-based model, that all existence really is, is particles interacting, and if we could chart all particles' masses and velocities and what-have-you that we could determine the future of everything. Also, that everything up to this point had been predetermined in a similar manner. This scenario holds true if all particle interactions have definite outcomes, but the indication is that they do not. Instead of a and b interacting to produce result c, it has been shown there are some interactions where a and b interact to produce c some % of the time, and d some % of the time. And there is no way of knowing which one it will be until it happens. Ergo, no determinism.
You should tone down that conclusion just a tad there... as a determinist I can't prove my point by your example. But you can't prove your point either. You have to prove that no other factors than the a and b that you know, are involved in the interaction. Proving the absence of something unknown is rather difficult, but without it, you can not be certain. When there is a 100% complete physics model, I guess then we can say with certain probability, that your experiment stands. Otherwise, as soon as the presence of a factor other than the known a and b are discovered, it is no longer a proof against determinism.
The set of rules that have been made by man that "governs" the events throughout universe history are pretty lacking.
Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined.
(or at least there is a very strong case to support such a conclusion)
To see how this is the case, its easiest to look first at as an ad reductio argument of whether or not free-will and INdeterminism can be compatible. (Gonna play this proof fast & loose, its 4:30am and I am writing a paper on analytic philosophy not metaphysics)
1) If you have Free-Will do you control your actions? (Yes, supposedly as it is typically defined as having the choice of "could have done otherwise")
2) If you control your actions, are you the necessary & sufficient cause of those actions? (Yes, your decision to do X causes X, X wouldn't happen if you didn't will X)
3) If you were the cause of X, and you willing X is necessary for X to happen, then what produced that will?
4) If determinism is false, then nothing caused X and X was a completely spontaneous occurrence
5) If X was spontaneous action, then there is no way to say that it was in any way willed by you (free yes, but no will involved, you have no control)
6) Therefore assuming free-will and indeterminism arrives at a contradiction
While this doesn't quite get you to full compatibilitism, I am too tired to prove the other half of the problem. (This far at least shows it as a distinct possibility, but assuming it to be true from here is full of all kinds trouble)
Check out R. E. Hobart, and maybe a little bit of Harry Frankfurt if you're curious....
On April 19 2010 17:40 Ota Solgryn wrote: The set of rules that have been made by man that "governs" the events throughout universe history are pretty lacking.
Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined.
Randomness to the human mind is the lack of knowledge on the cause of the observed. (In my opinion)
Take a dice roll. Build a device that will throw a device in the exact same way every time, and keep obvious factors like wind and shocks out of the experiment. The dice should roll the same side up. (Depending on how well you can exterminate unknown factors.) A dice is nice and coarse for this to work. Predicting the pattern of waves of the sea as they crash on the shores, that's a rather more difficult task.
On April 19 2010 17:40 Ota Solgryn wrote: The set of rules that have been made by man that "governs" the events throughout universe history are pretty lacking.
Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined.
Randomness to the human mind is the lack of knowledge on the cause of the observed. (In my opinion)
Take a dice roll. Build a device that will throw a device in the exact same way every time, and keep obvious factors like wind and shocks out of the experiment. The dice should roll the same side up. (Depending on how well you can exterminate unknown factors.) A dice is nice and coarse for this to work. Predicting the pattern of waves of the sea as they crash on the shores, that's a rather more difficult task.
(edit typo)
No. Your example with the dice is just an example of where you make the system simple enough so that the classic newtonian rules of physics apply, which are very simple rules that are very easy to predict stuff from, if the system actually follows these rules.
If the system gets more complex and/or at the atomic level the newtonian physics no longer apply. The OP talked about how his decision was predetermined because particles throughout time have been interacting in such a way that he finally made a 9 pool. In such a system that works at an atomic level there is no way of predicting the outcome because there is randomness in the universe (most scientists agree on this).
Why is it random? The accepted physics rules states that all matter is particles if you look at them in the past, i.e. they can be said to have this and that size, be at this and that position with this and that speed/velocity. On the contrary all matter consists of waves in the future, i.e. they do not have a well defined position, size or velocity, they do however have some sort confined space in which they can are, so it is possible to predict their position, but not precisely. This is also why a simple or well defined system in which the waves are within a very small space, can be predicted to some degree, which is the case with the dices. Finally the present is then the strange system where we have a particle/wave duallity which which is hard to comprehend.
The string theory pretty much states the same things just in different ways. The reason why these theories have not revolutionized the scientific world is because these theories run in to problems, albeit different from the kvantum mechanics, but just as severe when trying to calculate and predict physical systems on the atomic level.
I often duck to avoid imaginary snipers aiming at me. I also twitch randomly and in ways I don't expect until that moment to prove to myself I have free will.
You stretch the argument too far. Physics and scientific laws provide the rules or boundaries for what you can do, they don't dictate what you actually do. For example, if you look at basketball, the scientific laws are like the rules. You can't travel, you can't go outside the lines, you can't double dribble etc. That doesn't mean that those rules also dictate whether a player is going to pass or shoot, go for a layup or jump shot, fake and then shoot etc. That decision is up to the person. What we do know is that no matter what decision the player does make, he is not going to travel, step outside the lines, or break other rules.
On April 19 2010 19:42 GrayArea wrote: You stretch the argument too far. Physics and scientific laws provide the rules or boundaries for what you can do, they don't dictate what you actually do. For example, if you look at basketball, the scientific laws are like the rules. You can't travel, you can't go outside the lines, you can't double dribble etc. That doesn't mean that those rules also dictate whether a player is going to pass or shoot, go for a layup or jump shot, fake and then shoot etc. That decision is up to the person. What we do know is that no matter what decision the player does make, he is not going to travel, step outside the lines, or break other rules.
On April 19 2010 19:22 KurtistheTurtle wrote: I often duck to avoid imaginary snipers aiming at me. I also twitch randomly and in ways I don't expect until that moment to prove to myself I have free will.
Wow, I thought I was the only person who did weird things like this haha!!! I totally do this too. I always challenge myself do things "out of the norm" just to show that I have free will and CAN do it if I WANT to do it. Like if I drop a tiny piece of paper on the floor somewhere and it doesn't even matter if I leave it there or pick it up (and it's easier to just leave it there and keep walking), I will stop, go out of my way to turn around and go pick up that paper, and then put it in the trash or wherever. Just to show that I can do it if I want to. lol
On April 19 2010 17:40 Ota Solgryn wrote: The set of rules that have been made by man that "governs" the events throughout universe history are pretty lacking.
Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined.
Randomness to the human mind is the lack of knowledge on the cause of the observed. (In my opinion)
Take a dice roll. Build a device that will throw a device in the exact same way every time, and keep obvious factors like wind and shocks out of the experiment. The dice should roll the same side up. (Depending on how well you can exterminate unknown factors.) A dice is nice and coarse for this to work. Predicting the pattern of waves of the sea as they crash on the shores, that's a rather more difficult task.
(edit typo)
No. Your example with the dice is just an example of where you make the system simple enough so that the classic newtonian rules of physics apply, which are very simple rules that are very easy to predict stuff from, if the system actually follows these rules.
If the system gets more complex and/or at the atomic level the newtonian physics no longer apply. The OP talked about how his decision was predetermined because particles throughout time have been interacting in such a way that he finally made a 9 pool. In such a system that works at an atomic level there is no way of predicting the outcome because there is randomness in the universe (most scientists agree on this).
Why is it random? The accepted physics rules states that all matter is particles if you look at them in the past, i.e. they can be said to have this and that size, be at this and that position with this and that speed/velocity. On the contrary all matter consists of waves in the future, i.e. they do not have a well defined position, size or velocity, they do however have some sort confined space in which they can are, so it is possible to predict their position, but not precisely. This is also why a simple or well defined system in which the waves are within a very small space, can be predicted to some degree, which is the case with the dices. Finally the present is then the strange system where we have a particle/wave duallity which which is hard to comprehend.
The string theory pretty much states the same things just in different ways. The reason why these theories have not revolutionized the scientific world is because these theories run in to problems, albeit different from the kvantum mechanics, but just as severe when trying to calculate and predict physical systems on the atomic level.
The only beef I have with what you write, is that you speak as if what you are saying is the truth. Also, [citation needed] on the 'most scientists agree' part.
What you say about the dice example, I agree with. It is the exact reason I brought it up. In my belief, it has all to do with the amount of knowledge of a system. (And I do not claim that we will ever know all about the universe.) Knowledge is of course only meaningful in the context of an (human) observer and it is the human observer which has the concept of randomness (and /perhaps/ it is a universal property in a certain way).
On April 19 2010 19:42 GrayArea wrote: You stretch the argument too far. Physics and scientific laws provide the rules or boundaries for what you can do, they don't dictate what you actually do. For example, if you look at basketball, the scientific laws are like the rules. You can't travel, you can't go outside the lines, you can't double dribble etc. That doesn't mean that those rules also dictate whether a player is going to pass or shoot, go for a layup or jump shot, fake and then shoot etc. That decision is up to the person. What we do know is that no matter what decision the player does make, he is not going to travel, step outside the lines, or break other rules.
can you also walk on water at will
walking on water defies physics, and you can't break the rules.
edit: I actually don't even know why you even asked that question seeing as it has nothing to do with what I just said. Did you misquote or are you trolling? Or maybe you didn't get what I was saying? o.O
On April 19 2010 17:40 Ota Solgryn wrote: The set of rules that have been made by man that "governs" the events throughout universe history are pretty lacking.
Also, the universe is not made of particles nor is it made of waves, it is made of something in between. This particle/wave duality gives a great amount of randomness, thus you cannot predict everything perfectly and thus your decision was not predetermined.
Randomness to the human mind is the lack of knowledge on the cause of the observed. (In my opinion)
Take a dice roll. Build a device that will throw a device in the exact same way every time, and keep obvious factors like wind and shocks out of the experiment. The dice should roll the same side up. (Depending on how well you can exterminate unknown factors.) A dice is nice and coarse for this to work. Predicting the pattern of waves of the sea as they crash on the shores, that's a rather more difficult task.
(edit typo)
No. Your example with the dice is just an example of where you make the system simple enough so that the classic newtonian rules of physics apply, which are very simple rules that are very easy to predict stuff from, if the system actually follows these rules.
If the system gets more complex and/or at the atomic level the newtonian physics no longer apply. The OP talked about how his decision was predetermined because particles throughout time have been interacting in such a way that he finally made a 9 pool. In such a system that works at an atomic level there is no way of predicting the outcome because there is randomness in the universe (most scientists agree on this).
Why is it random? The accepted physics rules states that all matter is particles if you look at them in the past, i.e. they can be said to have this and that size, be at this and that position with this and that speed/velocity. On the contrary all matter consists of waves in the future, i.e. they do not have a well defined position, size or velocity, they do however have some sort confined space in which they can are, so it is possible to predict their position, but not precisely. This is also why a simple or well defined system in which the waves are within a very small space, can be predicted to some degree, which is the case with the dices. Finally the present is then the strange system where we have a particle/wave duallity which which is hard to comprehend.
The string theory pretty much states the same things just in different ways. The reason why these theories have not revolutionized the scientific world is because these theories run in to problems, albeit different from the kvantum mechanics, but just as severe when trying to calculate and predict physical systems on the atomic level.
The only beef I have with what you write, is that you speak as if what you are saying is the truth. Also, [citation needed] on the 'most scientists agree' part.
What you say about the dice example, I agree with. It is the exact reason I brought it up. In my belief, it has all to do with the amount of knowledge of a system. (And I do not claim that we will ever know all about the universe.) Knowledge is of course only meaningful in the context of an (human) observer and it is the human observer which has the concept of randomness (and /perhaps/ it is a universal property in a certain way).
Yes, you are right. I could find citation but I really do not have the time or patience. But it would be more optimal.
But then again, I could just cite one physics book and all would be fine. I just can't remember the name of it right now. Maybe I'll find it later when I get home.
You are also right about that it is the limits of the observer that might be what leads to apparent randomness. But science has to believe what, at the time, have been proved and accepted, otherwise there is no science. And as far as I know from classes and various books, the generel concensus is that the physics world is random and unpredictable.
I just now watched the video and I think the problem with it is that it shows everything as being too linear. In the beginning, it was linear. But only up until the point where it spawned something that is able to go in more than one way. Specifically, I'm talking about the ability to rationalize (i.e. animals). When that happens, everything isn't so linear, you have options and choices and based on how you decide to act the outcome will be different.
Arbiter, you posting that out of free will or is the professor manipulating you?
Anyway I read the short description of the book. I am opposed to the view that a non-free will implies that people are not responsible for their actions. Free will has a meaning on a more abstract ground which is totally out of context when regarding the evaluation of one's actions in society. Guess I should read the book to see what the professor's actually saying in this regard before jumping to conclusions on a short description.
Y'know, if there is a god(s), for that/those god(s) to be considered "infinite," he/they would only need to be slightly bigger than the universe itself. time=distance
On April 19 2010 20:55 Badjas wrote:Guess I should read the book to see what the professor's actually saying in this regard before jumping to conclusions on a short description.
That's a splendid idea.
I really recommend it for anyone who is relatively new to the free will problem.
didn't read the entire threads but are we on physics now??? I thought he was asking about free will...
I don't know about physics having much to do with this, but does the fact that one day all our behaviors and thoughts can be predicted and caused by certain neurotransmitter in our brain mean we don't have free will?
The game of Go is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play.[1] While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess.[2]
The game complexity of Go is such that describing even elementary strategy fills many introductory books. In fact, numerical estimates show that the number of possible games of Go far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe.
Lets go over that last sentence again. Just ONE single board game has more possible outcomes than the total number of atoms in the known universe.
Now let's also consider that fact that this is a turn based game, as compared to starcraft which is done in REAL TIME. Imagine the possible number of game states for a game like that (guessing it would be multiple times the number of atoms in the universe).
Basically what I'm trying to say is, if there is such a thing as predeterminism, that the links of cause and effect are so complex, the number of causes (atoms in the universe) far exceeds the number of eventual outcomes (events unfolding around us). What you end up with is an infinite tree graph, always increasing and expanding, never decreasing.
When you compare two different moments in time, one right after another, the difference in possible outcomes is astronomically different. There will never even be close to the same number of molecules in the universe as there are possible outcomes (ideas exist even if they've never been encountered/materialized). The ratio is so skewed, I don't think a computer could ever come close to calculating a number big enough to represent it.
Hahaha I love this topic because I went through this exact same train of thought like 5-6 years ago. This question is probably the reason I decided to become a physics major <3
On April 19 2010 21:33 SkylineSC wrote: didn't read the entire threads but are we on physics now??? I thought he was asking about free will...
I don't know about physics having much to do with this, but does the fact that one day all our behaviors and thoughts can be predicted and caused by certain neurotransmitter in our brain mean we don't have free will?
what is free will really?
The classical problem associated with free will relates to causal determinism. It is natural to chracterise the possession of free will as something like the ability to have done otherwise than one did. But if all events are determined by antecedent causes then my own actions are determined by antecedent causes and it would seem it was not possible, after all, that for any action of mine I could have done otherwise than I did.
That is a basic statement of the problem as it has been framed in philosophy.
It amuses me how people can confuse themselves over semantics. That's what happens when you mix different concepts together. "Free will" would be an attribute that is part of how we conceptualize our lives as human beings whereas things such as things such as atomics and particles is a way to conceptualize the existance of everything. You speak about the latter while still using the attribute of "free will" from the former. How you end up interpreting it doesn't really have any meaning since it's a mismatch; you try to talk about free will in an area where talking about will is void.
You see, all the things that can be explained by science as things that go on without our conscious knowledge when we act and think are all part of how we see humans and human behaviour, just not explicitly. There will always be different connections of cause and effect in everything that goes on in the universe, but this does not change the way we act, it just explains it. This explanation is not a reason, it's just a different conceptualisation of our actions. So, it has no impact on the discussion of free will, since the actions are still many and determined by humans, who just happen to be made up of atoms, particles and whatnot.
If you look at other things that have raised doubt about free will, you have something such as fate. This idea still operates within our conceptualization of human lives, not assuming that people are seperate from what we consider them to be, but simply that in some abstract way our actions are controlled and determined by something else, this rendering us without actual free will to do as we like.
While it is true, they are different concepts; if either one is right, the other is wrong. Either we really do have free will (since physics tells us that everything is predetermined and is wrong), or we do not have free will (since physics tells us that everything is predetermined and is right).
I mean, that is unless you think we have "souls" or something of the like which defines us as human beings instead of just biological machines evolved to reproduce in the most efficient way possible..... We obey the laws of physics (whether we will ever truly understand these laws is up for debate), and therefore, it leaves a scary thought that everything truly is predetermined.....
There aren't any "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics by the way, so any determinist interpretation of physics on the quantum level is wrong. If you look at a two-slit interference pattern caused by one particle passing through the slit at a time, there's not something "hidden" in the particle that determines which slit it goes through because if there were that leads to other predictions that are not consistent with reality.*
*There are a few people who question this, as you can see in the wikipedia article on Bell's inequality. By far the majority interpretation though is that quantum mechanics is truly random.
My understanding is that nothing in physics as we understand it today precludes free will.
But, IMPERVIOUS, once again you let the words confuse you. You say that we "obey" and that how we explain physics is about "laws". You could instead have said that we "operate" within the "workings" of physics, and would have had a different effect if you tried to transfer it directly to things that it does not relate to. Similarly, instead of saying our actions are "predetermined" because of causal links, you could say that our actions all consist through a "serious of connections".
It's not about right or wrong, it's simply a matter of understanding different aspects of the same thing. Really, these are just words used to explain different things and make them easier for us to understand. It does not mean that it changes the way we act and think, and has no impact on our conceptualization of human life, among other things the idea of "free will".
I have no idea why people are bring physics to the equation of free will. I am not a physicst and nowhere near it, but I think the question we should ask is a biological one which is within our reach instead of physical determinism which encompasses the existence of our entire universe.
Are we just biological programs that simply feel like we have free will through consciousness? Or are we fully in control of our own decisions. Not that this question is really relevant since we act as if we have free will and are molded by our environmental choices, so either way it's not going to change the way we live at all, it's just going to make us more humble, that's all.
Thanks for the link two_down, but I currently am not subscribed to Nature so I can't access the article T__T.
Btw the lardy goose, that argument is tautological and wrong, the problem with determinism is that it controls the action of our microscopic particles, and our microscopic particles control our macrocosm, and if the action of our neurochemicals and neuroparticles is determined and cannot be changed, you cannot have free will since the actions are predetermined and determine the whole actions of the individual(alas no control). It might work as a philosophical argument, but biology says otherwise. Free will implies you have a choice in what you do, and since the neurons can't act in any other way I do not see the part where this any choice + you have to factor in consciousness into it. I guess my arguments may be wrong and fallacious, but I do feel there is a fallacy in that line of argument.
You can have no determinism and still have no free will, and that's why I think the question of free will is a question of biology and not physics.
On April 20 2010 03:28 Asjo wrote: But, IMPERVIOUS, once again you let the words confuse you. You say that we "obey" and that how we explain physics is about "laws". You could instead have said that we "operate" within the "workings" of physics, and would have had a different effect if you tried to transfer it directly to things that it does not relate to. Similarly, instead of saying our actions are "predetermined" because of causal links, you could say that our actions all consist through a "serious of connections".
I drop a ball. It falls to the floor. It has obeyed the law of gravity. It has also operated within the workings of gravity. It means the same thing, it just sounds nicer to any argument against the science behind it if you use less concrete wording.....
On April 20 2010 03:28 Asjo wrote: But, IMPERVIOUS, once again you let the words confuse you. You say that we "obey" and that how we explain physics is about "laws". You could instead have said that we "operate" within the "workings" of physics, and would have had a different effect if you tried to transfer it directly to things that it does not relate to. Similarly, instead of saying our actions are "predetermined" because of causal links, you could say that our actions all consist through a "serious of connections".
I drop a ball. It falls to the floor. It has obeyed the law of gravity. It has also operated within the workings of gravity. It means the same thing, it just sounds nicer to any argument against the science behind it if you use less concrete wording.....
It's not whether it's more or less concrete. It's that by using certain wording you get a specific transferred meaning. You decide to read into this meaning, which is really just based on semantics rather than actual conceptualization of human behaviour.
And what is human behavior? Is it not caused by the chemical reactions in our brains?
There has been a lot of proof showing that certain chemicals do specific things to us. We cannot predict everything, however, there is an immense amount of research done which proves correlation. More research is needed, but it definitely shows that our behavior is strongly influenced by chemicals in our brains, if not completely causing every one of our actions.
Chemical reactions are the physical interactions between molecules. These abide by laws of physics. A pretty simple analogy would be looking at bowling. You throw the ball down the lane, and you attempt to hit the pins, knocking down 0-10 of them. The amount you knock down is determined by the strength you threw the ball, the angle it hits the pins, the rotation of the ball, and the placement of the pins, air resistance, etc.....
By looking at which pins were knocked down, where they came to rest, and where the ball ended up coming to rest, you can possibly identify how the ball was thrown.
Looking at atoms again, for each chemical reaction that takes place, you could backtrack it, just like the bowling ball, and figure out which direction, and with what spin, it had. You could do this with every atom in existence, if you knew exactly how the laws of physics worked at the atomic level. You could look back billions of years.
Recapping - Human behavior is at minimum influenced by chemical reactions in our brains (if not completely controlled by it). Chemical reactions are based on physics at the atomic level. Physical interactions can be predicted, and backtracked, if the precise laws and situation is known. If it can be backtracked, then it means that the way that previous interactions happened shape future interactions. If this is the case, then the "free will" people think so highly of may not even exist.....
It's a pretty simple, logical argument..... And the outcome of it sucks.....
On April 19 2010 14:59 phosphorylation wrote: there is an inherent randomness in the movement of atoms (physics) so nothing can be predicted from the past state (at least not compeltely accurately) whether this implies that we have free will or not -- i will let the philosopher answer this because i am not entirely sure
NO this is NOT free will
This leaves us with 2 options. either one determinism or random shit.
Either we are guided by physics - no free will
Or we are guided by randomness - no free will
any combination of this still faisl to give us free wiil
lMPERVlOUS, you are doing exactly what I said here. You are mixing physics with human perception of reality which gave birth to, among many others, the concept of free will. You see, once again you are simply explaining how action happen, using the scientific understanding to shed light on what going on, looking at it from that aspect. You see, what we see when someone acts is a human being; however, what we seem is in fact simply a lot of atoms, neurons, electrodes, chemical reactions and whatnot. That doesn't mean that we stop thinking of what we see as human, it just means that human beings are made up of certain things - things which are not external influences, but are part of that which they are and, in effect, part of their actions, by extension their free will. Also, clearly by the way in which the author talks about the topic, he rather relates it to his conceptualization of everyday life rather than some object evaluation of the prerequisites for free will.
The basic point you end up with is that because you can explain something and find a connection between things, the future is influenced by the past and can be predicted. This really doesn't mean anything. Since everything we know is made up of physics, there is no wonder that every single detail can be explained as an effect of physics. And if you know everything, then yes, you can know the future. None of that means that we don't have free will. It just helps explain how our reality works. Our choices are still free, be it whether you see it as a human being making these choices or an entity made of up chemicals, atoms and neurons somehow shaping some kind of distinguishable reality. As you can see, in the end, translating all that we see into scientific terms isn't really of any use, since when you talk about things in terms of atoms, free will doesn't really have anything to do with it.
there is two views on this, or all is determined or you constantly weigh your ideas according to what has happened before and what you believe that is going to happen in the future.
to me you always are measuring what is good or bad based on what you see for me predetermination is not always present if it was always present then everything would follow a more predictable pattern. Not everything is easy to predict and not everything follows a certain pattern.
Either way in my view your choices make the pattern not the other way around. It may seem when things all line up but when they dont how would you explain that?
Asjo, you are asserting that there is something which does not manifest in reality and you cannot say something about it, but you are desperately saying something about it..... How is this different from a delusion?
Asjo, I like the point that you raise over the difference between the concept of free will in absolute sense (physically), and in a sociological sense (I guess that's the best way to describe it).
The absolute sense of free will is very easy to describe, and hence easy to discuss. The other version is much more complicated to define. Or make that versions, wikipedia gives some disambiguation hints.
I'd like to point out that the topic of this thread has the suffix "(physics related)" so I think free will in the absolute sense is the thread creator's aim.
On April 20 2010 05:27 Asjo wrote: And if you know everything, then yes, you can know the future [from physics].
Well ... sort of. (The following assumes that quantum mechanics as we know it today is correct). If you know the wavefunction of every particle in the universe right now, then you can theoretically know the wavefunction of every particle at any time in the future.
There are two things to consider here, though. First is that observation collapses wavefunctions in a probabilistic and not-entirely-predictable fashion (this is where the "no hidden variables" thing that I brought up in my previous post comes in), so we're only good for so long. Once it collapses we can continue to figure out how the wavefunction evolves, of course, but we have no way of knowing for sure what it'll collapse to. Second is that it's not physically possible to measure the wavefunction of anything, so it's anyone's guess how we'd get the wavefunctions in the first place (observables depend on the wavefunction squared).
On April 20 2010 05:27 Asjo wrote: And if you know everything, then yes, you can know the future [from physics].
Well ... sort of. (The following assumes that quantum mechanics as we know it today is correct). If you know the wavefunction of every particle in the universe right now, then you can theoretically know the wavefunction of every particle at any time in the future.
There are two things to consider here, though. First is that observation collapses wavefunctions in a probabilistic and not-entirely-predictable fashion (this is where the "no hidden variables" thing that I brought up in my previous post comes in), so we're only good for so long. Once it collapses we can continue to figure out how the wavefunction evolves, of course, but we have no way of knowing for sure what it'll collapse to. Second is that it's not physically possible to measure the wavefunction of anything, so it's anyone's guess how we'd get the wavefunctions in the first place (observables depend on the wavefunction squared).
qft. Physics explicitly states that you can't know everything. There are some things you have to make a choice about - linked pairs of information of which reality only gives you the option of knowing one or the other with total precision. Energy and time are linked this way as are position and momentum - the more accurately you know one of the values the less accurately you know the other. This allows particles, for example, to "borrow" energy from the future for some interaction in the present so long as they "give it back" in a short enough time.
Just the same, since our minds are complex chemical computers and are subject to these uncertainties on the scale of the reactions going on inside our brains we don't necessarily have to operate in a strictly deterministic manner. It also doesn't mean that this can be a source of "free will", however, since we equally can't control the probabilistic nature of these effects. The best description for human behaviour is deterministic mixed with enough chaos to provide the illusion of free choice, imo.
If anyone really wants something to scratch their heads over, how about this :
Badjas, I suppose my understanding of it is that you can only define "free will" in one way, but work with it in different ways, such as those shown in your link to Wikipedia. If defining free will was simply a matter of a scientific examination, it wouldn't really warrant any dicussion. That is why mixing science with the concept of free will does not really make any sense. You might say that it's a different understanding of free will that occurs from absolutism, but by accepting that all you would do would be to turn it into a blurry concept that tries to transcend human understanding, semantics and science. Also, if you look at how to author talks about it, you can clearly see that he relates it to conceptualizing his understanding of his everyday life, rather than casing some objective stance on defining the prerequisites for the brain making a neurologically free choice.
On April 20 2010 05:56 lMPERVlOUS wrote: Asjo, you are asserting that there is something which does not manifest in reality and you cannot say something about it, but you are desperately saying something about it..... How is this different from a delusion?
Sorry for taking my time to get back to you. I read this, got confused, and decided to play a bit of Half-Life 2 Deathmatch. I have now re-read my comment to find out what you are referring to. I have said earlier that talking about free choice while not relating it to humans rather to particles is useless as basically it's just a matter of semantics. It doesn't change that fact that we make choices, whether or not we make it as being made up of an inter-connection of atoms and neurons. Sorry to re-iterate myself.
Now, you're saying that I state that something does not manifest in reality. I'm not sure how I am to take that. I assume you are referring to the above, where I am simply underlining an important different in usefully distinguishing reality. All of this is reality. Physics, be it by our scientific definitions or something more abstract. Construct, the ideas that shape among people and give meaning to things, be it the idea of human beings or the notion of free will. All of this exits and is thereby reality, one that most people share. So ...yeah, I'd ask you to elaborate if I am to be of any use in clearing up your puzzlement.
When was the last time you were able to hold "free will" in your hand? How about see it with your eyes? Hear it? Taste it? Smell it? It is an abstract concept.
Every one of our senses are based on the physics. You can feel because your neurons are transmitting signals. You can see it because your optical nerves send signals when excited by an external stimulus. You can hear because of the pressure changes in the air around you. You can taste it because the taste buds recognize that there is something on your tongue. You can smell because the receptors in your nasal passage recognize a particle is there.
Physics is based on our observations from our senses (and equipment that can sense things using these same principles, possibly powerful enough to sense things that we cannot sense either because the stimulus is too strong or too weak for us to comprehend).
How does an abstract concept like "free will" compare to that, exactly? Especially in a thread with a "(physics related)" comment in the title?
You're talking about semantics in a physics topic, without having anything physical in your argument..... It's kinda pointless.....
Have you seen the edit of my last post, IMPERVIOUS? The edit of my comment, which I added to answer Badjas, glitched somehow, and I had to redo it.
Anyway, you are asking me how one can compare an abstract concept, like that of free will, to a more specific one like the science of physics. I guess this is what I have been asking you. As I'm saying, these two are different aspects of the same thing and I not useful to use to explain each other.
I'd like to point out that I'm not really discussing the semantics, I'm merely pointing out that semantics actually seems to be the reason why people in this thread are suddenly confused about the existence of free will. Obviously, I don't need anything about physics in my argument, seeing that, as explained, physics simply helps explain our actions; it doesn't actually change anything about them. I have accepted that there are all kinds of physical connection between things and that perfect knowledge would allow you to predict the future, but pointed out that this doesn't mean that we don't make free choices or that our choices are in any way pre-determined.
If you are somehow trying to relate this to physics, in light of what we have written, I'm missing the point. I would think you are aiming at the following point of example: scientists certain impulses in your brain and can, by interpreting these, know that you will perform a certain action 30 seconds later. Your argument would be that you are not able to make free choices because it all comes down to some kind of stimuli or cause/effect, not you wanting to do something. Meanwhile, I am saying that this process is not something that impedes on you being able to make free choices, but is rather a natural part of you making those choices. We much accept that our understanding of at all making a choice implicitly includes human beings having the physiological make up that the have, and that the processes leading up to you performing a certain action can therefore not be external, but rather internal, such as the free choice. Therefore, I point out that trying to apply this kind of thinking to your own life is pointless, and is rather a result of a confusion of semantics.
How is it obvious that your argument does not need anything about physics, in a physics discussion? This particularly confounds me:
On April 20 2010 08:35 Asjo wrote: I have accepted that there are all kinds of physical connection between things and that perfect knowledge would allow you to predict the future, but pointed out that this doesn't mean that we don't make free choices or that our choices are in any way pre-determined.
What? Perfect knowledge would allow us to predict the future, yet it is not predetermined? That is a huge contradiction there..... Science is looking for perfect knowledge, although I doubt anyone is trying to use it to build a machine to determine events in the future..... Predict things like the rise and fall of the stock market? Sure. The whole future? No way.
How is it possible that we could have the ability to determine what someone is going to, and this has no effect on your concept of "free will"? What is free will to you? Is it a delusion that everything is under an individual's control? If it's true that it is a delusion, I'd rather be delusional here..... Is it because our brains truly can't understand, nor be capable of dealing with it?
I'd think that "free will" would be the ability to make decisions, which are in no way predetermined. Maybe you and I have different views on it.....
I'm going to order a pizza tonight. The toppings I get on it will be a choice of mine. Or will they? They can be explained relatively easily as well..... I have certain "preferred" toppings. I honestly don't understand the reason why, but it's probably has roots in the social structure I was raised in, the social structure I am currently in, past history with the pizza parlor, genetics, my body telling me I need certain minerals/vitamins and making me crave certain toppings to fullfill it's requirements, etc..... It's a huge mess, no doubt barely scratching the surface with my description.....
Is this truly a choice of mine? Or is it rooted in everything that happened previously, which culminates at this point, merely giving me an illusion of choice? Maybe I'll decide to order toppings that I don't like, just to spite this illusion of "free will", but, then again, that could be a chemical reaction in my brain telling me to do that out of spite to the thought that I have no free will, because it will put my mind at ease and allow me to sleep better at night..... Etc..... Who knows?
I really don't know, and I don't plan on thinking about it anymore. But science explains so much more than philosophy ever will..... I had this line of thought a few years ago, and it scared me more than anything else in my life has ever scared me..... The consequences of it that I also came to. Quarter-life crisis passed, and it's been on cruise since then. Then again, it made it really difficult to do well in my ethics course, cause my prof was the type where it was like "agree with me for a good grade, fail with a different view"..... I just couldn't wrap my head around some of the concepts he was preaching.....
Wow, I'm glad this topic generated this many interesting responses; I'll definitely check out some of the extra readings that were posted.
About the definition of free will, I guess it doesn't matter that much to me how you define it. I guess I'll just avoid using that term. What really bothers me is that if the universe is deterministic, then our lives would be set in stone. Although we might feel that we're calling the shots, our lives are going to play out the same way every time. If the universe is random due to quantum mechanics then how our lives play out is simply random as well. This just blows my mind.
Maybe it's best if I just don't think further on this topic and just enjoy my perception of choice.
Actually one theory of physics allows for free will, and that's the multiverse, if you can have each probabilistic quantum state you can get an infinite number of multiverses with every one of them you and everything going through different choices. But I think that question is quite early to tell. That's why I believe Biology and neuroscience should answer this question and not physics that encompasses the scope of our entire universe, although Biology is far more complex it still abides by the laws of physics and it's scope is only centered at man and other high intelligence primates.
Parallel universes are science fiction. It's a sore point that most theorists are loathe to admit, but they're nothing more than a cute idea. There is really no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they exist. The only reason they're not totally laughed out of existence is that there is no evidence to prove their non-existence either. Still, it's teapot-behind-the-moon stuff. So long as one is happy with the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" theorem you can really dream up just about anything you like, more or less. Perhaps I'm a bit biased, mind you - I have two degrees in applied physics - engineering physics. The kind that people actually use to do stuff Schrödinger's equation works great for building computer processors and quantum wells. It sucks for trying to figure out wtf to do with yourself or why we're all here, lol.
lMPERVlOUS: Well, the idea of perfect knowledge is really abstract, and it's hard to put this into the equation. It sure as hell has nothing to do with what human will have be able to conceive. I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid your point still plays into my original point. If you were not to have free will because something was predetermined, then it must be because it's determined by someone other than yourself. However, it's not, even if smoeone can predict what you will do, it's still your own choice. If anything, it simply assumes that we can grasp the essence of something through physics and know everything about it. You see, just because certain things led you to do what you did, doesn't mean that it's not your free choice. You are part of that mechanism. You begin to talk about social structure, history, and yet you have to realize that this is simple things that influence your decision. I think you seeing humans as seperate to the world that science describes leads to this description of how something out of our control affects our free will. You still make free decisions even if donig this is part of an interaction with the rest of the universe.
I assume that we might by now have reached a deadlock. It seems that I am by no means eloquent to get my point across in a manner where you can accept it. I understand by now that it's simply a matter of definition and how to choose to see it. We both know that certain events in the past eventually lead to what happens right now. Saying that this somehow has an effect on concepts such as free will seems to be a moot point, and, as I said, I think people are simply caught up in the semantics of it (which may shape the way in which we understand the process leading to our decisions, depend on how you put it) and come to see it in a certain light.
When talking about free will in the most abstract sense, the interaction of particles in the brain or whatever other extra part that is involved), the assumption of perfect knowledge in a reasoning is perfectly fine to me. However it has no practical value for application in human life.
So let's talk about free will at the level of human understanding, how we reach decisions based on previous influences within the limits of human observation so to speak. There is plenty of research on human behavior, for a part funded by the advertising industry as that industry is all about influencing decisions. From Pavlov's dog to the right sequence of scenes in a commercial. Testing human behavior in various circumstances with empirical methods. This leads me to believe that one does not have a completely free will, as one's will can be influenced by another one's will on purpose. I would think that with the expansion of knowledge on human behavior, people become less free.
Asjo, I really think that the OP means to correlate the advertisement in the video to the interaction between particles. The metaphor is really straightforward.
Badjas, what I meant was simply that the topic creator was referring the "free will" that he spoke of to his own life, saying that he was reconceptualizing it due to an altered understanding of his actions. So, even if his thinking is inspired by physics, some kind of alternative use of the concept that does not refer to human understanding of life, isn't really useful. It's not so much that I didn't catch the metaphor of the video, even if the video did not at all leave me with similar thoughts (for me it wasn't an interesting cause-effect display, simply one of many trick videos of this kind).
Since I found your post a bit vague (didn't know what your reasoning for saying that we only have part free will was), I chose to look up Pavlov's dog. I stmubled upon a few more definitions, and apparently what I have been arguing is somewhat close to soft determinism:
Soft Determinism is the view that human freedom and moral responsibility are far from being incompatible with determinism; rather determinism is incomprehensible without it. The misconception that the two are incompatible comes from a considerable confusion over what we mean when we say we are free. Freedom is incompatible with fatalism, but not with determinism.
All actions are wholly governed by causes but there are two types of causes:
There are two types of causes; 1) Internal Causes Lead to voluntary actions of free will, the results of one’s own wishes or desires, for example when you leave your country freely because it is your desire to go abroad. 2) External Causes Lead to involuntary actions of compulsion, contrary to one’s wishes or desires, for example when you leave the country because you are forced out by the Government.
It is this distinction which explains why soft determinism requires free-will. According to soft determinists, when we say a person acted freely we mean they did not act under compulsion or external pressure - they acted as free agents, even though their actions were just as much caused as those that are not free. Soft determinists therefore define freedom as the liberty of spontaneity, the freedom to act according to one’s nature which is determined by external factors such as heredity, education and background.
Edit: Come to think of it, I think I get your point now. You were talking about advertising agencies because here we have an example of people who want to provide stimuli to affect and manipulate our free choice. So, you are saying that the more science uncover about the manipulation of human behaviour, the less free behaviour becomes because people will find means to control us by our impulses. In a sociological sense (since we both agree that any abstract sense isn't useful to conceptualize), this does indeed impede our on free choice, since you clearly have one actor who is directly manipulating the choice of the other.
EPT
Schrödinger's equation works great for building computer processors and quantum wells. It sucks for trying to figure out wtf to do with yourself or why we're all here, lol.
