Only possible things happen. Is free choice an illusion?

by Terry 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Terry

  Things are what they are.

  Everything acts according to its nature.

  Nothing escapes its own nature.

  We cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.

  Consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?

  Example: If I offer you dog piss or a Dove Bar is that really a choice?

  Only possible things happen. The things that happen are the result of events following their own natural bent.

  Is free choice an illusion? Mathematicians will tell you there really is no such things as "random". You cannot program a computer to generate an actual "random" number. There is always an algorithm underlying it. Randomness is our ignorance of the nature of inevitable consequent events.

  Just because you don't know what you'll pick to wear tomorrow does that mean you have a choice? Aren't your selections the result of how you react to things in a given circumstance?

  Is there a difference?

  In short: IS FREE CHOICE AN ILLUSION?
• 

  SixofNine

  Offer me dove piss or a dog bar and then we'll talk.
• 

  Robdar

  A Beatle song comes to mind.

  Hit it boys:

  All You Need Is LoveLennon/McCartney
  
  Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
  There?s nothing you can do that can?t be done.
  Nothing you can sing that can?t be sung.
  Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
  It?s easy.
  There?s nothing you can make that can?t be made.
  No one you can save that can?t be saved.
  Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
  It?s easy.
  All you need is love, all you need is love,
  All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
  Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
  All you need is love, all you need is love,
  All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
  There?s nothing you can know that isn?t known.
  Nothing you can see that isn?t shown.
  Nowhere you can be that isn?t where you?re meant to be.
  It?s easy.
  All you need is love, all you need is love,
  All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
  All you need is love (all together now)
  All you need is love (everybody)
  All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
• 

  onacruse

  And yet again the issue of predeterminism rears its ugly (and unavoidable) head.

  In a social sense, freedom of choice is an illusion: we are raised and conditioned within the constraints of norms and expectations that pattern our choices and behaviors, even if we express or behave ourselves in rebellion against those very same constraints. So, no.

  In a religious sense, well, the same as for "in a social sense," since religion is just one head of the social hydra. No.

  In the "absolute" sense? Again, no. We are limited beings, and the limitations of our own existence require that we be reactive, rather than proactive.

  May seem fatalistic, but it makes a lot of sense, and relieves us of a lot of perceived and self-imposed burdens of guilt and adverse judgment.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hello Terry,

  Very interesting topic. If there is no actual free choice, it would lead me to see all life, and indeed the entire universe, as components mechanically working out a solution, deterministically crunching numbers to find some final state. Kind of like working pi out to the trillionth digit: it is a tremendoubly computationally intensive task, and we do not know what the solution is, but there is a single, discreet answer or state.

  I'm not convinced that this is true. But I'm interesting in hearing arguments for predeterminism.

  Now to respond to a couple of points in your post:

  Only possible things happen. The things that happen are the result of events following their own natural bent.

  Isn't it probable that at any juncture there are multiple possible paths? The world is not binary. My sense is that any juncture has multiple possible paths with varying probabilities, many of which are well within the bounds of "possibility."

  You cannot program a computer to generate an actual "random" number. There is always an algorithm underlying it.

  That's because a computer is an abacus, nothing more. If I told you to make an abacus appear to generate random numbers, you would be forced to use pseudo-random numbers, too. Pseudo-random number algorithms were developed to work in applications where the appearance of randomness is sufficient, but they don't prove that there is no such thing as real randomness.

  Randomness is our ignorance of the nature of inevitable consequent events.

  I'm sure this is true much of the time, but isn't it possible that real randomness also exists?

  SNG
• 

  jgnat

  I play chess. Newcomers watching the game may wonder why a master suddenly resigns, when most of his peices still stand. What the master knows, and the observer cannot see, is all the possible outcomes, and they all look bleak. I have pondered for instance, if Satan's fate was sealed with Jesus' sacrifice. Perhaps everything since has been end-game tantrum. Like when my son used to furiously exchange every piece on the board, even after he knew in the end he had lost.

  I wonder sometimes, if future is determined just as the outcome of a chess game is known. That is, God has worked out all the possible outcomes. That does not remove free will, however, as we can still chose to go right or left. Our individual lives are still our own, it is only the grand picture that is set.
• 

  Robdar

  I wonder sometimes, if future is determined just as the outcome of a chess game is known. That is, God has worked out all the possible outcomes. That does not remove free will, however, as we can still chose to go right or left. Our individual lives are still our own, it is simply the grand picture that is set.

  Interesting.

  Robyn
• 

  onacruse

  jgnat:

  That is, God has worked out all the possible outcomes.

  God, as God, cannot, by definition of self-infinite-being, have done anything other than worked out all possible outcomes...The hypothesis of limited omniscience is oxymoronic.

  But then that leaves us with the existence of what we perceive as "evil" in the universe: Either God foreknew it, and anticipated it, and incorporated it (by default or otherwise), or else it's not infinite God.

  I forget the word for it, but this is a milleniums-long classic argument; perhaps you can refresh my memory? LOL

  Craig
• 

  myauntfanny

  I tend to believe in fate AND free choice, even though I know it's a paradox (but I love paradoxes). We do have our natures, but we can choose to go against our natures. I've noticed, however, that events often seem to have a way of bringing us back in line with our natures whether we like it or not.

  I don't see why we necessarily have to see god-thingy (if there is one) as being omniscient and "knowing" it all ahead of time, anymore than we have to see him/her/it as necessarily only good. Perhaps god (whatever it is, if anything) does not "know" things at all, maybe he just is things. But then, I don't really understand what "knowing" is, exactly.
• 

  onacruse

  myauntfanny :

  I tend to believe in fate AND free choice, even though I know it's a paradox (but I love paradoxes). We do have our natures, but we can choose to go against our natures

  I disagree; our nature is what it is, and there's only futility in fighting against it.

  I've noticed, however, that events often seem to have a way of bringing us back in line with our natures whether we like it or not.

  I agree.

  But then, I don't really understand what "knowing" is, exactly.

  That, mylady, is a most poignant query , and to which I expect that other posters will have much to say!

  Respects to you,

  Craig