4 ms·

Since the code will never finish executing, it isn't correct to say that free will has been proven to be an illusion. Even if it could, the most that can be pro

Since the code will never finish executing, it isn't correct to say that free will has been proven to be an illusion. Even if it could, the most that can be proved to be true is that a certain aspect of the universe is fully determined. It does not follow that simply because certain aspects of the universe are determined (such as a computer program) that human action is wholly determined. That would be like saying that because certain aspects of the universe are conscious and self-aware, the entire universe is conscious and self-aware.

danielrm26 12y ago
It is true that the program doesn't show free will is completely impossible for all instants in time (because it cannot test infinite instants), but one has to wonder why any instant n would be different than the first. Your second point equates to, "Well, we don't know everything about everything in the universe, so there might be a mechanism for free will we haven't discovered." True, but that also applies to every other proposition that we can safely disregard because there's no good reason to accept it. In the case of free will, we as potential authors of action need a lever for injecting ourself into the universe's chain of events. We need a hook. We need an influence point. But since we ourselves are products of that universe, such a mechanism is purely speculative. The only reason we think free will exists is because we experience it. But given our understanding of the brain and its propensity for projecting all manner of illusions onto our consciousness, I submit we should not consider this evidence. Show us how we have gained control over a previous state of the universe in one of the instants between the big bang and now, or show us how we can control the physics of transition from one state to the next. Only then will one have made a case for free will.
- Tomte 12y ago
  > Only then will one have made a case for free will. That's why it's generally considered to be an open question. You, on the other hand, haven't nearly made a case against free will, but still act as if you had definitive proof. This is not a situation where the free will advocates have to prove it to you, and unless they can, you win.

danielrm26 12y ago

It is true that the program doesn't show free will is completely impossible for all instants in time (because it cannot test infinite instants), but one has to wonder why any instant n would be different than the first. Your second point equates to, "Well, we don't know everything about everything in the universe, so there might be a mechanism for free will we haven't discovered." True, but that also applies to every other proposition that we can safely disregard because there's no good reason to accept it. In the case of free will, we as potential authors of action need a lever for injecting ourself into the universe's chain of events. We need a hook. We need an influence point. But since we ourselves are products of that universe, such a mechanism is purely speculative. The only reason we think free will exists is because we experience it. But given our understanding of the brain and its propensity for projecting all manner of illusions onto our consciousness, I submit we should not consider this evidence. Show us how we have gained control over a previous state of the universe in one of the instants between the big bang and now, or show us how we can control the physics of transition from one state to the next. Only then will one have made a case for free will.

Tomte 12y ago
> Only then will one have made a case for free will. That's why it's generally considered to be an open question. You, on the other hand, haven't nearly made a case against free will, but still act as if you had definitive proof. This is not a situation where the free will advocates have to prove it to you, and unless they can, you win.