Is Free Will an illusion?

[ocean size]

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Even though it may not seem like it, I do include both sides.

TIME. Someone earlier said "if we perceived time as it really exists," I'm not sure what that means. How does time supposedly exist, and where is our disconnect?

The basis for relativity is that all of time exists at once. From the perspective of the universe, the past and the future is all the present.

We all know that trajectory curves are functions of time, but Einstein deduced that time is also a function of motion through space, so that means that time itself also has a rate of change.

So our perception of time is probably an illusion. If you put a watch on the sun it would tick slower, but as you move further away, it would tick faster.

 

[minute bull]

How is it an illusion?

A lot of our reasoning does have to be circular, it's true. If we were unabashedly strict about our principles we'd never get further than the knowledge of our own existence.

The thing I think is really circular is that I believe these introspective epochs in our lives bespeak a need to learn about ourselves via the contrast/context of different philosophies. Like looking for the right pair(s) of shoes.

 

[ocean size]

So our perception of time is probably an illusion. If you put a watch on the sun it would tick slower, but as you move further away, it would tick faster.

Is the second statement evidence for the first? Because experiencing the effects of time dilation doesn't make time it an illusion.

Another good followup thread to this one down the time rabbithole would be Eternalism-Presentism

 

[KrazyKanadian]

I just grabbed my ****. Did I want to do it or did your thread make me do it?

 

[MortalWombat]

I just grabbed my ****. Did I want to do it or did your thread make me do it?

Wrong thread, Pole Holders' Brotherhood is a bit down the page.

 

[Gref]

free will is what you make of it.

 

[Rekrul]

The basis for relativity is that all of time exists at once.

You mean time from all frames of reference exists at once, right? As in if I'm moving 99.9% the speed of light, time is very different for me, compared to earth, but equally valid. Not time as in past, present, future exist at once.

From the perspective of the universe, the past and the future is all the present.

This is basically the determinist position. All future events are contained within the starting conditions. In the same way that the answer to any equation is contained within the equation itself.

So our perception of time is probably an illusion. If you put a watch on the sun it would tick slower, but as you move further away, it would tick faster.

Relativity != illusion. No privileged frame of reference != subjective.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

If all of time exists at once then our perception of past and future is indeed an illusion. But it's an illusion that allows for freedom of will. Without it, then I would concede to people saying we have zero free will.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html

But then again if a being or beings do exist that are immortal and omnipotent, would they have free will if they saw all of time and space at once and understood what they saw?

 

[minute bull]

How does that have bearing on this conversation? WHY DID I BRING THIS UP!?

Also I am not sure people actually think that. That illusion.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

This is basically the determinist position. All future events are contained within the starting conditions. In the same way that the answer to any equation is contained within the equation itself.

Yeah, but the existence sentient beings with the ability to shape present events throws a wrench into the simplistic determinist position, and I haven't seen it satisfactorilly explained away yet.

With space and time being linked to each other, then any event can be interpretted as a 4-D vector: <x,y,z,t>. Time can be described as an arrow moving in the direction toward entropy. We already know that time has a scalar value since we differentiate position functions with respect to a scalar time value. If time has a direction, then time must also be a vector. A 4-D vector of <x,y,z,t> used to address an event implies that there is a vector in the t direction.

Since we collectively perceive past, present, and future; we assume these must be real things and represent what we call reality. Since time is not a spatial dimension, we perceive it in our mind with extrasensory methods. If time has a rate of change past, present, and future could be the method we perceive time changing. The only way we could experience all of time at once would be if we existed apart from it, being able to see it from start to finish in an instant. For this to even be possible, we would have to be older than the universe itself, outside the constraints of time and space, and essentially immortal. If we were immortal then everything we think of as the present and the future would all be the universe&#8217;s past. Since we are temporal beings constrained by time and space, our experience of time and space is limited to our own position on a time vector as it moves forward on a determined path.

Although the path our time vector takes is determined, I believe that what we do while we are on it is not, from our own perspective. This gives us accountability for the decisions we make because rather than watching what we did in the past from the perspective of the universe and beyond, our perspective allows us to actively participate in it. A very important thing about being able to perceive past, present and future, is that it allows us to exercise some degree of power over our wills. Having the ability to reason is evidence of free will existing; at least within parameters. We all make decisions in a way that is different from computer software, taking empathy and emotion into account alongside logical reasoning. I don&#8217;t believe these things would be at all possible if we perceived time as it truly exists in reality.

I have laid out my position as clearly as I think I can. Although it may be TLDR. I don't usually post long replies like this.

 

[Rekrul]

If all of time exists at once then our perception of past and future is indeed an illusion. But it's an illusion that allows for freedom of will. Without it, then I would concede to people saying we have zero free will.

I don't see how your statements are supported by the article you posted.

Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

Doesn't sound very free.

Additionally, Albert Einstein

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I don't see how your statements are supported by the article you posted. Doesn't sound very free.
See my previous post.


I don't see how that would have any bearing on free will. How would they choose between the red shirt, and blue shirt? In order to choose anything, you need some preexisting bias, or preference, and your choices will always follow from that. I don't think there's a way to get around that.

But time had a beginning, so we know there are initial conditions. What existed before the initial conditions, ie before there was a preexisting condition? Hell, we don;t even know what the initial conditions are. This is why I was saying that just one hole in the position means it isn't entirely correct. Although I do feel it gets a lot right, but not in the case of this thrad topic. It needs some reworking.

But such a hypothetical being would not be constrained by time, hence there would be no preexisting bias. Which is why I asked that question. I don't kow how to apporach an answer to it myself.

 

[ocean size]

Lucas, if you are correct in that the past present future occur together, the illusion is that we can shapr anything in the future -it has already happened.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Lucas, if you are correct in that the past present future occur together, the illusion is that we can shapr anything in the future -it has already happened.

But from our perspective, it hasn't. And does that change our participation in it?

 

[ocean size]

But from our perspective, it hasn't. And does that change our participation in it?

As you said before, then it is how we perceive flow that is illusory. We participate but could not do anything but- we can't change a 'future' that already exists.

I don't necessarily agree with your take on time, but it seems to make a most deterministic case.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

As you said before, then it is how we perceive flow that is illusory. We participate but could not do anything but- we can't change a 'future' that already exists.

I don't necessarily agree with your take on time, but it seems to make a most deterministic case.

I think determinism gets a lot of things right, but it's much too narrow.

We are here now participating in an outcome that is already known (if there is intelligence beyond the universe), but not to us because we are here now participating in it. Our participation is just as much a factor in this outcome as the intial conditions, and I think these two things can be seperated, although we can not exist without the other. Hence my partial determinisitic position.

We aren't changing the future, we are acting to make it what it is.

 

[Rekrul]

We are here now participating in an outcome that is already known (if there is intelligence beyond the universe), but not to us because we are here now participating in it. Our participation is just as much a factor in this outcome as the intial conditions, and I think these two things can be seperated, although we can not exist without the other. Hence my partial determinisitic position.

We aren't changing the future, we are acting to make it what it is.

So, you're a compibilist? I agree that, from our own perspectives, we have free will. What I think I'm intentionally doing is perfectly in line with the physical causes of that action. I don't consider that to be true freedom though.

Having the ability to reason is evidence of free will existing; at least within parameters.

Explain.

We all make decisions in a way that is different from computer software, taking empathy and emotion into account alongside logical reasoning.

Why wouldn't it be possible to model emotions in computer software? It would just be more steps in the equation. Obviously, I couldn't know if they experienced emotions in the way that I do, but I can't know if you do either.

But time had a beginning, so we know there are initial conditions. What existed before the initial conditions, ie before there was a preexisting condition? Hell, we don;t even know what the initial conditions are. This is why I was saying that just one hole in the position means it isn't entirely correct. Although I do feel it gets a lot right, but not in the case of this thrad topic. It needs some reworking.

But such a hypothetical being would not be constrained by time, hence there would be no preexisting bias. Which is why I asked that question. I don't kow how to apporach an answer to it myself.

That's basically my point. I don't think there is any way to think about how a being would act, if their actions did not follow from prior conditions. There isn't any way to think about the unfolding of the universe prior to initial conditions. We have to say x is fundamental, and then y follows from x. There's no way to think about x, or y willing things from nothing.

 

[Oenomaus]

I just grabbed my ****. Did I want to do it or did your thread make me do it?

Clearly, my thread made you do it.

 

[minute bull]

I have laid out my position as clearly as I think I can. Although it may be TLDR. I don't usually post long replies like this.

Thank you for taking the time, sir. Sincerely.

The only way we could experience all of time at once would be if we existed apart from it, being able to see it from start to finish in an instant.

I think this might be the illusion, which I nominally think when people use examples that are strictly hypothetical. Time doesn't define anything. Time is defined by everything. We measure time by the rate of change. This is why time goes slowly when you have nothing to do. You ever experience that?

When we describe past or future it is not the concept of time we actually refer to but rather previous and predictable states and conditions. The vector of time may be purely our imagination, which is not to say it's without value, but I'm not sure that's the same as an illusion because we don't really operate under this fantastical model. I mean, we all wish we had a time machine but if we thought about we all know how impossible such a thing would be.

Yeah, but the existence sentient beings with the ability to shape present events throws a wrench into the simplistic determinist position, and I haven't seen it satisfactorilly explained away yet.

I wonder if we're mixing up determinism with predetermination. I don't think determinism gets into what we will do next, it rather explains how we arrived at our decisions, which determinism argues is not a free will but rather a necessity by experience/environment.