Just a few things that caught my eye.
polytrip said:
your and mine free will is a necessary illusion that is part of our functioning as an organism and social being. Not believing you hava a free will would be most unhealthy.
I'd have to strongly disagree with you there. What makes you think that believing in free will is necessary and healthy? I'd like to know what you think not believing would do to your psyche? I think NOT believing in it has a lot of interesting advantages as well. Especially if it the truth. What you're saying reminds me of people that say we should believe in God because it makes us feel better when loved ones die, for example. I mean I wish I could believe in God, but if you were to ask me what was "better," I'd have to lead towards the truth, because its a consistent picture of reality.
polytrip said:
This means that from a subjective point of view we are destined to belief we have a free will and thus that the concept of free will is real. We cannot do otherwise then believe that we are free and therefore the concept is from a subjective point of view, absolutely true.
So if I believe that I'm being constantly spied upon by the CIA does that make it true?
Overall though, I love the fact that you're suggesting is more than just black and white. I think just about everything in this world's shades of gray.
lbeing789 said:
I think modern physics is starting to make some headway with this question... it may well be true that we exist in a multiverse, a multiverse effectively means a universe of ifinite possibility, a universe that always was and always will be, it may also be true that the multiverse behaves in a completely deterministic way
Yea this is the basic perspective I come from. And from my own lay-person's understanding of impossibly complex theories of physics :lol: I still think it leans against any kind of special free will for us.
To me the multiverse idea has always made a lot of sense when you look at the whole question of quantum wave collapse questions. The idea is that every possible thing that can happen, DOES, but that reality splits into two diverging universes, one with each possibility, so we only see the one that were in (for obvious reasons). But if EVERYTHING that is physically possible DOES happen, then what does that do to our free will? Does it make sense to say you "choose" an action, when, by definition, you made the exact opposite choice as well? I'd have to say no.
Plus there's the other multiverse idea, based only on the fact that space is infinite (and from what I've heard the best evidence we have supports that it is infinite). The nutty part is that if space is infinite, then somewhere out there, every single physically possible reality must take place. So if you traveled far enough you'd have to eventually run into a galaxy that was EXACTLY like ours, complete all the way down to the solar system, history of earth, and even YOU! And in one of these exact copies out there, your twin will make the same decision as you, and in another, he'll do the opposite. So we come back to a paradox much like that of the other multiverse idea in the paragraph above. "If you're going to decide both ways, necessarily, then how can you say you choose anything?"
But even if there is no such thing as the multiverse, and there is just one time-line, I think the history of science has shown us that everything we've once thought to be free, or unexplainable, or of divine origin has ended up being explainable by regular, mechanistic means. Im sure people once thought the the eruption of a volcano was the result only of an act of god, but now we know about tectonic plates and lava and all that. Or people might have thought the parts of a cell interact through the use of a mysterious life force, when now we can see about the complex chemical reactions going on inside (which is far more beautiful and awe inspiring and divine to me anyway).
So with all this progress, should we really doubt that the basis of our actions, of our decisions, should be the one thing this pattern doesn't apply to?
Then again, physics could be used in support of free will as well. Quantum mechanics has clearly shown that not every phenomena has a 'cause' in the traditional sense. For example, an atom may have a 50% chance of decaying in the next minute, and there is NO WAY of knowing if it will or not. You can only find out afterward by looking at it. It's completely up to chance. I think this is a logical place for defenders of free will to look, as it sure seems to leave an opening for exactly that. I don't particularly like it though, because I don't think free will should be random, and I don't think the kind of free will most people believe in should be able to include single (mindless, inanimate) particles.
Peace
PS. I just hit the 'Preview' button and wow, that's a HUGE post lol