The Indeterminacy of Free Will

JLNobody, I have no problem with quantum events being uncaused, in the sense of being individually unpredictable regardless of how well you know the initial conditions. And I do not believe that every conclusion that we come to is predetermined.

But it seems to me that the source of our logical belief that events ARE caused is our observation that the universe actually operates this way on a macro level. If it does not, why would our senses tell us that it does?

The causes may be subtle, but events do not occur out of the blue. The right conditions must exist to allow an event to happen, and something must trigger it. Same goes for thoughts.

twyvel, why does awareness have to be a subject OR an object? It may be neither. It just is.

Of course thoughts do not know anything. They are the products of consciousness, not the source of it.

ferrous, if we truly had free will, why would some choose good and some choose to do what they knew was wrong or evil? Do our individual makeup and experiences influence our choices? If so, our will is not as free as we would like to believe. If not, what is the basis for choosing? Who endows us with our "true nature" and why do some people go against it? Or is it their "true nature" to harm others?

will
Terry, excellent points. You've breathed new life into this thread. My use of the term "true nature," was more ambitious than your reference to it would suggest. I was suggesting a more mystical orientation--not really of great relevance here, I guess.
Regarding the nature of causation. I feel that we need (psycho-epistemologicallly) to assume the existence of, and then to identify discrete causitive antecedent conditions before we can feel we have explained something. But just because these explanations sometimes work, or satisfy our questions, does not necesssarily mean that the macro- level cosmos can be described, metaphysically, as a causal system. I tend to think of the causal process as being more like the ending of a story; it was not caused by the beginning any more than the point of a pencil is caused by the eraser. While these two notions suggest to me the relationship between past and future (in time) or there and here (in space), they seem to hint at an alternative to a model of metaphysical determinism, a model of a world that is only compatible with the methodology of causal explanation. It's late here, and I'm not too clear on the above points. I want to thrown out now and edit them later in response to criticisms. Let's see if even I agree with, or understand them, tomorrow.

Probably humans can believe in their free will (thanks to quantum mechanics).
The fact might be contrary to the belief (as there is no assurance of the absolute correctness of the framework yet).

I wonder if a puppy dog could not understand the whole world how humans alone were able to get at it (through quantum theory).

Hi Terry,

I think awareness is just IS. That is, it's nondual.

But most of us experience awarenesss as divided, between subject--object in which the awareness as subject is never embodied, meaning it isn't anything

Yes, you agree thoughts don't know anything. The statement was intended to point out the futile attempt to locate the subject, by uncovering what it is not.

If thoughts don't know anything then who knows?

Whatever the answer is, it's just another thought that doesn't know anything.

free will
Twyvel, well you've rung my bell again. Given your statement about the non-duality of experience, you would understand the Hindu dictum, Tat Tvam Asi (Thou art that). I do see, when I look very passively, that I AM my experience not the subject of them. Even when I look for the sensations of "me" it is only another experience. Nobody has it, if you'll pardon my pun.
All the so-called objects of my experience ARE me. This might be, do you think, the basis for the zen proverb "All things enlighten me"?

"Nobody has it"

Yes, the ground of experience is emptiness. How could it be any other way? It is emptiness that makes it possible for the perceivable universe to arise.

Emptiness is looking at this monitor. This void is everywhere your perception is not.

free will
Yes, Twyvel, nobody has it, and there's nothing to have--how wonderful...
.emptiness is form; form is emptiness, etc.
We've got to be careful not to turn this great thread into a private dialog.

While I'm a little tardy arriving at this latest "party";
- now we're getting somewhere -

It is the substantiation of "nothingness", the ordering of "chaos", the finding of meaning in "meaninglessness" that renders form to our existence !

Sorry to Terry, but I couldn't disagree with you more about:
"But it seems to me that the source of our logical belief that events ARE caused is our observation that the universe actually operates this way(*)on a macro level. If it does not, why would our senses tell us that it does?"

Caused like a ping pong ball is "caused" bouncing around in totally random movement (albeit exactly predictable per its physical history).

My perception is exactly the opposite - total lack of causality is the norm -
the universe just "is"! (and arose spontaneously, or always was)

(Not often that I disagree with you!)

free will
Bogowo, we were wondering where you were, then when we were able to pinpoint your location, we found it impossible to know in what direction you were travelling (were you coming here?). Then, strangely enough, when we were able to detect your momentum, we found we could not, at the same time, tell where you were. And you were not even at the subatomic level.
By the way, I "feel" agreement with your indeterminacy model, but I also think that it is just as wrong (ultimately) as the determinacy model. But they're fun to argue about. The ping pong is postdictable, if we are able to record it physical history (but then that's a trivial statement). It is not predictable, because we cannot know what environmental (non-vaccum) influences will affect its future activity.

"I" am the one who knows. "I" am not a thought, "I" am awareness produced by (or at least centered in) a particular human body. "I" exist in various states of consciousness, whether or not I am actively generating thoughts at any given time. "I" do not seem to be aware during some stages of sleep or under anesthesia, so I cannot be certain that "I" always exist or will exist after brain death.

I am not worried about future existence or non-existence. I am just grateful to be alive now to experience this mostly-delightful world.

JLNobody, could you elaborate on what you mean by our "true nature," where you think it comes from, whether some people are evil by nature or if not, why they choose to act against their nature?

Certainly people invent causes for things that they do not understand (storms caused by angry gods, illness due to possession by demons, health brought about by prayer or wearing an amulet) but it seems that there ARE actually causes for these things.

I don’t mean that everything is inevitable or that we live in a clockwork universe, but that events are the result of a particular set of conditions. If you put your hand on a hot stove you will suffer a painful burn. An accident may be the result of driving too fast on an icy road, driver error, or some chance set of events that put you in the path of a runaway truck. Maybe it was your fate to have that accident, and nothing you did could have changed it. I prefer to think that we can have some control over our lives by learning what effects certain actions will have, and choosing to do whatever is most likely to produce the results desired (hopefully we desire the greatest good for all, rather than just ourselves).

Satt, a dog is not capable of understanding quantum theory because their brains did not evolve the ability to conceptualize complex problems. Most dogs cannot even figure out how to unwrap their chain from around a tree! It is possible that our brains likewise lack some ability needed to understand the universe, such as being able to visualize in more than 4 dimensions. It is also possible that we already possess all the capabilities we need, and will someday understand the Theory of Everything.

BoGoWo, I agree that the universe just "is" and probably arose spontaneously from a bubble in the quantum foam or whatever.

But now that we are here, it seems that effects consistently follow causes. If events are not the result of their apparent causes, what determines them? Does everything in our lives happen by chance, is it predetermined by God's Immutable Plan, or do our minds control the reality that we think we perceive but are only dreaming?

We can trace the root causes of many things that seem to be random or unpredictable. Earthquakes, weather, wars, famine, plagues, elections, and most other events are caused by other things. Our actions and reactions are often predictable to someone who knows our personality and prior experiences.

While individual quantum events are random, the sum of sufficient quantum events is quite predictable based on statistics. Chaotic systems may not be predictable, not due to lack of causality but to the large effects that slight variations in initial conditions and inputs to the system can have.

Other than the big bang, where do you see lack of causality as the norm?

Ah, a dog can understand its position in the group, and a human can know quantum leap. I wonder what could be the difference between the two. Learning will be different, but it could be the only difference.

terry; everywhere, everything.

While events obviously have contributing causal beginnings (e.g. robbing a bank, is likely to get you arrested, and imprisonned) however chaos is constantly medling with the twists, and turns of the outcome. To continue the analogy - during the robbery events may alter transforming it into a murder; after the fact the investigating officer involved is selected mostly by chance, and depending on hi/er competance the thief may, or may not be apprehended; if caught, at the trial a mistake may render the charges null, and void; or, an arch conservative judge could double the sentence which might have been awarder by another; and ................

In everything we do chance usually plays a massive role; the controlling input into any circumstance is provided by the individual choices made by participants acting with "free will" !

P.S. a notable exception is the predictability of your use of an apostrophe;

(’)

Then Again
All these lines of chances, seem to have a predictable history of flow. If you would tell me, that the robber suddenly was the witness, and the judge the janitor, and all was somehow taking place in mason jar. Then I might belive your aguement on "Chaos."

If we could just get all the Masons into a jar..........