The Indeterminacy of Free Will

free will
I argued on another thread (maybe this one) that when it comes to the past, we can see that it was INEVITABLE, BECAUSE it happened as it did. We know now that it could not have been another way. But regarding the future, chance rules. The future is indeterminate, meaning we do not know how it will turn out, but once it does, we know that it could not have been any other way. Formula: the PAST is determinate; the FUTURE is indeterminate.

A Long Time Age, In A Far Off Place...
The PAST is ended, the FUTURE is ongoing.

This would hold true, if we started the past on a fixed end point of the time line continuum. Also, since there appears to be, no such thing as a straight line, it is quite possible that this "time line" is wrapped around its' self like a ball of twine. Even to the point of it intersecting at countless points. Talk about History repeating it's self. One relapse or distortion in this time line, and all that we hold true about the PAST, could change in an instant (and we wouldn't even be aware of it.) We would only be relying on our perceptions for what we hold as "factual."

truth
You'll recall, Ferrous, that in Candide, Voltaire satirizes the philosopher, Liebnitz in the character of Dr. Pangloss. The good doctor's dictum, "this is the best of all possible worlds" is meant to indicate his polyannish, and unreasonable optimism (if I recall and understand Voltaire correctly). To me, the ACTUAL world of this moment IS the best of all POSSIBLE worlds, not because it is the best of all CONCEIVABLE worlds. It is the "best" because it is--at this moment--the only possible ACTUAL world. Existentially it IS; the conceivable/hypothetical alternatives are fictions.

"The PAST is ended, the FUTURE is ongoing." Or as you say, "Formula: the PAST is determinate; the FUTURE is indeterminate."

Then I could say, that the future is determinate, as the universe heads to a fixed end point on the time line. Possibly 260 trillion light years in the future, all energy is spent, the lights go out, time comes to a stand still. There is no indetermancy of the future, because there is no time to reference it, from. The Future is infinitely determanant at this point.

free will
Gasp!

brain/mind
Terry wrote:



If you are not a thought what are you referring to with the use of the word " I ", other then a thought?

I am awareness. is not the awareness, it's just another thought.




I think consciousness experiences me as a body/brain/mind in all its complexities.



We may be sleeping as we speak, dreaming we are awake. We are self ignorant.

Do you think a thought can exist out side the brain?

I know of the existence of this screen as visual perceptions which are essentially ideas that are not experienced to be located in the brain. Right this moment are you aware of a screen located in your brain and one located out here? Are there two of them in the immediate moment?

My experience is that there is only one screen, "out there". In this moment I am not aware of any screen located in my brain, yet the [actual] screen has to be an idea or thought in my mind in order for me (as consciousness) to be aware of it. The existence of the screen is experienced as being located outside my brain but in my mind.

Jl; can't agree with you here re: " the PAST is determinate".

The past is simply assessable, now that it has stopped happening; it was subject to chance, chaos, etc. while it was occurring. History is no longer "up for grabs", simple because it "was". The laws of physics are not the only possible way, they are merely defineable from past evidence.

The past "was" indeterminate!

I find ferrous' image of time like a wrapped ball of twine, infectious.
Possiblities!

Jl; your analogy re: "the best of all possible worlds", is well paraleled by Winston Churchill's comment that democracy was the best form of government, he rated it extremely lowly in many respects, but said it happens to still be better than any of the others!

ferrous; while I love your phrase "infinitely determinant" whatever that could possibly mean, I think the scenario of the universe eventually ending is not a very highly rated option, and, with 260 trillion years (is that British, or American trillion?) on our hands, we can probably arrange to make a new one by then, eh?

No Problemo
I sent a letter to the "Big Guy" and he's working on it...

free will
Bogowo, I understand why you would be unable to accept my "the past is determinate." If we talk about determinism (or causation) we are talking about something NOW causing something in the future. In that sense, I don't make sense talking about the past as determinate. What I mean, however, is simply that once we arrive at the so-called present we realize that the past could not have occurred other than as it did, BECAUSE it did not occur in another way. You say that the past is assessable. Of course the past is not an "IT" that IS (or even is not) assessable because it doesn't exist. We see only traces of "it." Historians, for example, look at evidence for talking about, which is to say INTERPRETING, a past. They are not really RECONSTRUCTING it; they are CONSTRUCTING stories of what they THINK happened. And, of course, they make stories (based on as much and as good evidence as they can) about SOME lines of action (e.g, the Depression, the Civil War, etc.) not about everything, or randomly anything.
I agree with what you say about the laws of physics. All the so-called "laws" of nature are really only empirical generalizations of what has been observed in the past. There is no law-giver, no rules that Nature must obey or be punished for disobedience. The "laws" of Nature are merely tentative descriptions of how Nature works--its behavioral REGULARITIES, as it were.

Jl; I agree with your comments on the past, as a source of evidence from which to draw conclusions; but I thought that was what I was saying - note I said "ass"essable, not "acc"essable. (that's "ass"; I was in my "anal" mode!)

BoGoWo, no I got you right. I was referring to assessing (interpreting) evidential traces of the past. I was not noting that the past is inACCessable because it's past (non-existent): that is obvious. I was referring to our ability to make ASSessments/evaluations/interpretations, etc. It would have been ASSinine for me to have meant otherwise. :wink: