# That whole free will doesn't exist in the universe thing:

• S

#### seneschal

So if I'm understanding this concept of determinism, at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang caused everything that happened right up to the present time. So if I decided to have a steak dinner, this "decision" was caused by what happened before it. In which case it really wasn't my decision. My choice to have a steak dinner was determined by the events of the past, or they are random.

Sounds pretty nihilistic to me.

• #### TupSum

So if I'm understanding this concept of determinism, at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang caused everything that happened right up to the present time. So if I decided to have a steak dinner, this "decision" was caused by what happened before it. In which case it really wasn't my decision. My choice to have a steak dinner was determined by the events of the past, or they are random.

Sounds pretty nihilistic to me.
Well, of course the Big Bang is the cause that you decided to have a steak dinner. How couldn't it be? It's the cause of everything because without it nothing would exist. However nobody could predict through measurements that you would decide to have a steak dinner. So in a way, yes, you have a free will, because nobody can measure and calculate all that is happening.

As an example: a vortex (chaos theory), we know it consists of water molecules, which have certain properties and positions, buy we can't calculate every ripple and splash. They seem pretty random.

• #### Openminded

Important thing to note is that even with the randomness at quantum level there's still no room for free-will.

So out of:

A. Everything is set in stone/predetermined because of the principles of causality

B. Sometimes, a dice is thrown in the sub-atomic realm

C. You are in control of your actions (free-will)

Option C is the only one which is incompatible with any plausible model of reality science has to offer.

Hence, free-will doesn't exist to our better knowledge.

Also, even if God exists and he gave you a soul (whatever that would mean), you still did not choose it. So again, no room for free-will.

• E

#### Elric

Truth claim violates determinism.

• E

#### Elric

Important thing to note is that even with the randomness at quantum level there's still no room for free-will.

So out of:

A. Everything is set in stone/predetermined because of the principles of causality

B. Sometimes, a dice is thrown in the sub-atomic realm

C. You are in control of your actions (free-will)

Option C is the only one which is incompatible with any plausible model of reality science has to offer.

Hence, free-will doesn't exist to our better knowledge.

Also, even if God exists and he gave you a soul (whatever that would mean), you still did not choose it. So again, no room for free-will.
If determinism is true, then you have no more free-wil than a robot, so you're programmed to say and believe all these assertions, and so you cannot pretend it's true, at least no more than someone who would be "programmed" to believe the exact opposite statement.

Also if your C. is true, then people such as Francis Collins, James Tour or Hugh Ross should be banned from the scientific community. Interistingly enough, at least the two firsts are at the top of their respective fields, and I don't think the third has less knowledge that you do in Astrophysic field.

Once again, if determinism is true, then no free-will, and no one can pretend that your brain, the product of hazard , can guess what truth is. You're just programmed to percieve reality as your brain intend to.

Oh, and by the way, no moral law of course to distinct what good and bad is. That's what all the nihilists say: there is no good or evil. Problem is: you surely know by yourself that such a statement is not true, because in your everyday life, you know perfectly well what good and bad is, even when you do bad things.

• #### Openminded

If determinism is true, then you have no more free-wil than a robot, so you're programmed to say and believe all these assertions, and so you cannot pretend it's true, at least no more than someone who would be "programmed" to believe the exact opposite statement.

Also if your C. is true, then people such as Francis Collins, James Tour or Hugh Ross should be banned from the scientific community. Interistingly enough, at least the two firsts are at the top of their respective fields, and I don't think the third has less knowledge that you do in Astrophysic field.

Once again, if determinism is true, then no free-will, and no one can pretend that your brain, the product of hazard , can guess what truth is. You're just programmed to percieve reality as your brain intend to.

Oh, and by the way, no moral law of course to distinct what good and bad is. That's what all the nihilists say: there is no good or evil. Problem is: you surely know by yourself that such a statement is not true, because in your everyday life, you know perfectly well what good and bad is, even when you do bad things.
You offered no proof for free will or any sort of plausible model of reality in which it can exist. You just stated few consequences of its absence so I don't really know what to answer...

• #### tomar

I think you have this whole thing a little ass backwards.

Under no circumstances anywhere in the universe can you see into the future. We can however see into the past. This is not a function of weird physics of space time, it is simply a restriction caused by the speed of light.

To consider free will as a function of the universe requires an investment in a faith that there is an overriding intelligence.
That is a theory

There are theories that particles can actually move faster than light....

Also you can "see into the future" , we do that every day..... For example we know the exact time when the sun will rise tomorrow or when a tide will occur or even the time when mother in law will visit (maybe not no exact in this last case depending on mother in law)

• #### tomar

I'm still confused by this whole thing with the non-existence of free will as it relates to the Big Bang. One of the questions in physics that is particularly confusing to me is the absence of free-will in the universe:

If we believe in the Big Bang Theory – and the universe’s continuous expansion is a strong indication that such theory must be correct – the initial state of the universe was a single point (known as a singularity) that then expanded to the cosmos we know and perceive today, which, of course, includes us.

If so, there is a causal relationship between the Big Bang and us. In other words, free will is not allowed, and all of our actions are just a mere consequence of that first event. Such a view is known as “determinism”, or “super-determinism” (if one finds it productive to reinvent the wheel).

Does free will exist in the universe? (That would be a no.) | Cosmos

I guess my best take on this is the universe is so vast and constantly expanding, that if there are aliens in distant far away star systems and galaxies observing earth, some of them have already seen the earth's sun turn supernova and humans no longer exist, in which case everything we do, our choices and our actions have been predestined and free will doesn't exist. In some galaxies, they are only just observing dinosaurs still roaming the earth. That's how weird the physics of space and time is.
Perhaps the best way to think of that, is the example of 6 a sided die.... If you roll it long enough, the average will be very close to 3.5... You can stand on your head, play the banjo and recite poetry , or lay on your back and scream..... the average will still be 3.5... In that sense we have determinism of the result while still allowing "freedom" of the individual roll (it does not matter if this roll is a 1 or a 5 , the average will still be 3.5) and the way it is rolled

Last edited:

• E

#### Elric

You offered no proof for free will or any sort of plausible model of reality in which it can exist. You just stated few consequences of its absence so I don't really know what to answer...
If you believe in determinsm, you're whole statement is no more than a mere perception, and you cannot claim it to be the reality, it's just what you're programmed to percieve as reality.
And if there is no such things as good or bad... well I suppose, because it's for you "reality", that you live according to your beliefs.

Claiming determinism and absence of free will is just saying: believe in what I'm programmed to believe to be true. Well, sorry, I can't.
When I'm programming a software, I believe him in computing matters, not for claiming what is truth or reality. Now if this software was just the product of hazard and blind selection, I would not belive him for anything.

• #### Millennium

Oh, and by the way, no moral law of course to distinct what good and bad is. That's what all the nihilists say: there is no good or evil. Problem is: you surely know by yourself that such a statement is not true, because in your everyday life, you know perfectly well what good and bad is, even when you do bad things.
For those extreme nihilists: even as a naturalist & misanthrope, barely people loving, I would say that morality can be best thought of as a tool or system to keep societies & people from falling apart, perhaps into chaos as well. Of course that will have varied interpretations, but even basic morality seems to be widely acknowledged across societies & history. Quite like how engineers, workers, security or scientists need to follow minimal guidelines to foster safety & success, the same applies to morality, it need not be pondered on deeply for natural science. Just a tool to keep people from breaking down quite like how engineers or operators follow guidelines to keep their machines from breaking down. That’s just looking at morality at the barest level, if you consider yourself more than just basic, then you should acknowledge & think about deeper moral principles, not just for keeping societies from falling but also for moral, social & emotional good, or even just to not have to worry about being an @\$\$H0L3

Some extreme nihilists may say that morality has no place in nature; this is where I would reply that people often forget that nature, or since morality is most linked to biology, an ecosystem, is by no means a unified community in any way, in contrast to even the most basic society, both human & animal, in any ecosystem there are creatures who vary tremendously in their anatomies & cognitions, even sense perception, who struggle to get by with their desires, needs & lives. People also forget that in nature animals tend to be much more distantly spaced from each other than often imagined, animals or groups of animals stumble across each other much more rarely than is often imagined, far less than any human urban center, which plays a big part in perception of morality, I suppose whenever your near or within proximity to others people or individuals, morality always come to mind, but when your alone in nature it doesn’t.
Sure when your out in nature you could do or think whatever you want, particularly to survive, but as long as your in any society you need to abide by its not just basic rules but basic principles as well, which are linked together of course, to do so otherwise would imply that you have no desire for society to continue functioning or existing, in which case you shouldn’t be part of it. So to not desire morality or to follow its even basic principles would be akin to operators not desiring their machines to continue to work.

May not be directly relevant to the thread topic, but just food for thought, hope that was insightful.

Last edited: