Some Ramblings on Free Will, Desire, and Power

[Arnox]

Join me now, one and all, as I put on my armchair philosopher hat again. This time, we're going into the very core of things. What drives every single one of us as human beings. Or more specifically, are we just extremely complex physical processes that are entirely dictated by what came and happened before? Or is there something... More? But let's make this more interesting. Let's say there IS such a thing as a soul. Spirit matter. This doesn't actually necessarily mean we have free will. Our spirits could still be complete slaves to what came and happened before.

Ok, so let's make up a hypothetical situation. Let's say that we find out the absolute ends of matter, as in, we see and know everything there is about the smallest possible atomic particles. And let's also say we can now predict everything by calculating how all those particles interact with each other. We can forecast literally everything that will happen for the next 24 hours. Clearly then, that would prove that there's no free will, right? But then... Let's say that forecast says that in the next 10 seconds, I'm going to calmly sit and simply adjust my right hand a little bit. What if I just... Don't? What would possibly stop me from walking away for the next 10 seconds? Unless there was some omnipotent external force there to ABSOLUTELY PHYSICALLY FORCE me to calmly sit down and adjust my right hand a little bit, then that would completely invalidate the forecast. This means that as long as we have the knowledge and have the physical power, we have free will. Those two key things are the essence of it.

With that covered, Let's go a step further now (since we're already here) and get into the real meat of what it means to be living in any capacity. Again there's two components. Desire and power. Desire is the fuel behind our actions. It is the 'why'. Always present. Or at least, it must be present, or else there is no reason for action. I suppose you could have desire without any power, but such a thing is by far the most terrible Hell scenario that could happen. I've always said that the absolute worst thing in the universe, and the core behind every single fear, is powerlessness. That is what the deepest darkest pit is, metaphorically speaking. Desire with zero power.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to go so far into the dark there, but sometimes, when we plunge into the unknown and seek for truth, we find ugly things, and in this case, we've found quite literally the worst most ugly thing of all. But there is a silver lining. Now that we know what the absolute worst thing of all is, we can mentally prepare against it and even use it to harden ourselves and form inner strength and discipline, for you now know the worst that could happen. What else is there in the night? Nothing. Or at least, nothing that can top that atrocity.

Alright lads, that's it. BE SURE TO LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE!

 

[Houseman]

But then... Let's say that forecast says that in the next 10 seconds, I'm going to calmly sit and simply adjust my right hand a little bit. What if I just... Don't?

It's not just environmental inputs that would be determining our behavior. The knowledge that you have or don't have, or otherwise the stuff that goes on in your brain, also factors into the forecast. So, that forecast would be obsolete as soon as you magically gained omniscience.

It would be like your consciousness travelling back in time to your old body. Everything that you did or didn't do the first time around was also based on what knowledge you had. Since you're from the future, you now have different knowledge.

So it would be logically impossible even to do a thought experiment. The forecast would always be outdated.

 

[Arnox]

It's not just environmental inputs that would be determining our behavior. The knowledge that you have or don't have, or otherwise the stuff that goes on in your brain, also factors into the forecast. So, that forecast would be obsolete as soon as you magically gained omniscience.

It would be like your consciousness travelling back in time to your old body. Everything that you did or didn't do the first time around was also based on what knowledge you had. Since you're from the future, you now have different knowledge.

So it would be logically impossible even to do a thought experiment. The forecast would always be outdated.

Ah, but that is the point. Either nobody can calculate to that degree to make a forecast, so the question of free will is completely moot, or we can, in which case, the forecast would always have a possibility of being invalid because we now have not just the physical power to choose, but the knowledge to invalidate it. Having free will means we can, of course, freely choose and are not forced into a particular path. Hence, by this definition, and the results of this thought experiment, we always have free will or it is always a moot point.

 

[Houseman]

Either nobody can calculate to that degree to make a forecast, so the question of free will is completely moot

It's not that nobody can calculate it, it's that you have to be "outside" the system to make a forecast of it. If you are inside the system that you're forecasting, you're changing it, and so your forecast is immediately outdated.

 

[Arnox]

It's not that nobody can calculate it, it's that you have to be "outside" the system to make a forecast of it. If you are inside the system that you're forecasting, you're changing it, and so your forecast is immediately outdated.

But if someone is outside the system, then the forecast is not considering everything there is to consider. Therefore, the forecast is not comprehensive as we are assuming.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

It's almost never black or white, but always shades of gray. Everything that has come before has set the hard and soft limits within which we can exercise our free will. The Big Bang set the initial algorithm for how the "hard" universal laws developed, our ancestors actions and our genetics set the "al dente" limits, and our society sets the "soft" limits. We ourselves are able to change the two latter ones for people in the future, and future people might be able to change the universal laws.

I too have been getting the YT vid about "operating away" our free will, but it fails to take into account that even animals have free will, to a much lesser extent. They're not sapient, just simply sentient. Operating, pun not intended, on instincts alone.

 

[Houseman]

But if someone is outside the system, then the forecast is not considering everything there is to consider.

It's considering everything inside the system.

 

[Arnox]

It's considering everything inside the system.

Honestly, I think this is semantics at this point. You gotta draw the line at your scope somewhere. You can't just say, "Well, this scope, and also this scope, but also not really this scope because it's a special scope."

I too have been getting the YT vid about "operating away" our free will, but it fails to take into account that even animals have free will, to a much lesser extent. They're not sapient, just simply sentient. Operating, pun not intended, on instincts alone.

That video title from Joe Scott was such clickbait. lol

 

[Houseman]

Honestly, I think this is semantics at this point. You gotta draw the line at your scope somewhere. You can't just say, "Well, this scope, and also this scope, but also not really this scope because it's a special scope."

I think the scope has always been pretty clear. "You can only forecast a system from outside of it". The line is between "inside" and "outside".

 

[Arnox]

I think the scope has always been pretty clear. "You can only forecast a system from outside of it". The line is between "inside" and "outside".View attachment 396

But you can never go "outside" the system, because the minute you step outside it, the scope increases. Your forecast, if it is truly going to be comprehensive, must include everything, including what's "outside" the system. But you might say, "But everything outside the system might be utterly sealed off to us!" Then we're back in the it's-a-moot-question territory then, because we can't ever go out of the system to forecast it.

 

[Houseman]

But you can never go "outside" the system

In a thought experiment, sure you can! We can imagine being outside of a system, and we can imagine being outside the universe, like how some say that God is.

We can even imagine a small universe inside a glass sphere that we are looking at from above.

As long as a system does not receive input from outside, it should be fine for our purposes.

 

[Arnox]

In a thought experiment, sure you can! We can imagine being outside of a system, and we can imagine being outside the universe, like how some say that God is.

We can even imagine a small universe inside a glass sphere that we are looking at from above.

As long as a system does not receive input from outside, it should be fine for our purposes.

Say you have a glass of water with a person standing close to the table it's on. And let's say you can see the smallest particles within that glass of water including the glass itself, and you can calculate what will happen with each one of those particles. Is this forecast valid then? Obviously not, because you're not counting forces OUTSIDE of that glass of water. The forecast of that glass of water only holds if the glass of water is left completely and utterly undisturbed. Which means that this forecast is utterly useless, and, in order for it to be useful, it must also account for forces OUTSIDE of that glass of water.

Let's take another example then. A sealed bottle of water sitting on the table. But now, let's say that the bottle is indestructible, completely unable to be opened, and cannot even be moved in the slightest degree. In this case, were I to make a forecast of what would happen with that bottle of water, it would be valid and completely comprehensive then because there are no, and will never be, any outside forces acting upon it. It is a sealed independent system.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Say you have a glass of water with a person standing close to the table it's on. And let's say you can see the smallest particles within that glass of water including the glass itself, and you can calculate what will happen with each one of those particles. Is this forecast valid then? Obviously not, because you're not counting forces OUTSIDE of that glass of water. The forecast of that glass of water only holds if the glass of water is left completely and utterly undisturbed. Which means that this forecast is utterly useless, and, in order for it to be useful, it must also account for forces OUTSIDE of that glass of water.

Let's take another example then. A sealed bottle of water sitting on the table. But now, let's say that the bottle is indestructible, completely unable to be opened, and cannot even be moved in the slightest degree. In this case, were I to make a forecast of what would happen with that bottle of water, it would be valid and completely comprehensive then because there are no, and will never be, any outside forces acting upon it. It is a sealed independent system.

You're mistaken in both of your examples. First, that there even is something outside to disturb it in the first place, when it was never a supposition.

In the second example, supposing there are outside forces, then even if it is a completely sealed system, indestructable, immovable, and unopened.. then sound waves and light particles could penetrate it still.

 

[Houseman]

Is this forecast valid then? Obviously not, because you're not counting forces OUTSIDE of that glass of water.

I already said:

>As long as a system does not receive input from outside, it should be fine for our purposes.

Let's take another example then. A sealed bottle of water sitting on the table. But now, let's say that the bottle is indestructible, completely unable to be opened, and cannot even be moved in the slightest degree. In this case, were I to make a forecast of what would happen with that bottle of water, it would be valid and completely comprehensive then because there are no, and will never be, any outside forces acting upon it. It is a sealed independent system.

That sounds just like what I said:
>We can even imagine a small universe inside a glass sphere that we are looking at from above.

In the second example, supposing there are outside forces, then even if it is a completely sealed system, indestructable, immovable, and unopened.. then sound waves and light particles could penetrate it still.

Have some imagination. The idea is that we're imagining a system that does not receive input from outside of it.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Have some imagination. The idea is that we're imagining a system that does not receive input from outside of it.

It seemed to me like that's the crux of your disagreement though.

But fine, it's SimLife(TM). If you were the programmer behind it (with a flawless memory), then you would know the outcome from the initial setting, yes. Unless it runs on a Quantum Computer, and you intentionally designed the Quantum particles to be entirely random..