A scientist says we have no free will

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In 2 Nephi 2, the prophet Lehi testifies that there can be no existence unless each individual thing that does exist has a counterpart that also exists in diametric opposition to itself. In fact, Lehi teaches us that without the eternal principle of diametric opposition in all things not a single thing that does now exist could exist, including God himself. There can be no goodness without the possibility of choosing evil; no choice to love without the possibility of choosing to hate; no enjoyment of pleasure without also having experience with unpleasantness and pain. And truth cannot exist without the possibility of untruth and deception.

Congrats on proving the story of Eden and the Fall to be completely false I guess.

[tagriffy]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Randomness (either because of incomplete information like chaos theory or because of indeterminism like in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) does not free will make.

True enough, but it does make a difference when talking about the interaction between free will and God's foreknowledge. Consider each decision each person makes is more or less a random factor when it comes to predicting the future with any sort of precision. Of course, the further out you are trying to predict, the less precision you're going to have.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Each observer experiences time passing at one second per second and lives in the present. Only the present. Completely irrelevant to causality, free will, or whether it is possible to be outside time and see all moments at once. 

So the end has already happened for God, but he can also change it? It’s fine if you want to invoke paradox and magic to maintain libertarian free will, but I don’t find such to be a compelling argument. 

No they don't, passengers in a fast-moving vehicle advance further into the future in a short period of their own time, do to time dilation. Gravity curves space-time, which means that in this universe the passage of time is not the same everywhere.

I'm invoking science and math. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a math- and science-based novella, introducing theories of space’s multi-dimensional nature. One section deals with concepts such as teleportation and omniscience, from perspective of a being in a higher dimension interacting with a being in a lower dimension. 

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If God is working off of probabilities can God deliver on promises when the very unlikely happens?

Assuming God is powerful and intelligent enough to deal with such contingencies, then yes, he could still deliver on promises. There might be delays, there might be certain changes in plans, etc., but the overall course could still be maintained.

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

Assuming God is powerful and intelligent enough to deal with such contingencies, then yes, he could still deliver on promises. There might be delays, there might be certain changes in plans, etc., but the overall course could still be maintained.

And his changed plans are also based on probabilities.

We can also toss out all the Second Coming prophecies since they are just probable but not certain.

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

Well, since a scientist said it, it must be true. The article does cite some others who disagree with him. Myself, a scientist, also disagree.

A quick primer:

Sapolsky would likely be a hard determinist (though, if one accepts certain quantum mechanical interpretations, there is hard indeterminism). There are LDS thinkers who are Compatibilists. I personally am and Libertarian (I think "intelligence" acts indeterministically -- though that has some physics challenges yet to be overcome). It is without a doubt that our biology influences us. I think it a remarkable engineering feat that our bodies were designed so as to allow us a measure of moral agency while still maintaining it's proper functions and such. I further suggest that Lucifer's position wasn't to remove the existence of sin but simply that he would have organized our physical bodies such that we simply not would have the moral agency to sin and thus be guiltless of any misdeeds.

Sapolsky's hard determinism does leave him a conundrum though which he admits he hasn't resolved: "It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something 'good' can happen to a machine," he writes. "Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness." Seems kind of the flip side of the "problem of evil" and thus we might call it the "problem of good".

PS: There is a funny anecdote in the early 1900's where a murderer attempted to use hard determinism as a defense. He argued that though he murdered, since he doesn't have free will he shouldn't be punished. The judge, cleverly, responded along the lines, "FIne, but I don't have a choice either but to sentence you to jail. It's just what I am going to do even though I don't have free will."

 

He has an interesting position and both his position, and that of Sam Harris ( who also argues we do not have free will) hurt my head. 

I do find it interesting that you, as a scientist, base and argument on the existence of Lucifer and the LDS version of a war in Heaven.  That does not seem scientific to me.  Also your comment about our bodies being designed to allow us a measure of moral agency. Science says we were not designed.  Rather we are the product of evolution and natural selection.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

He has an interesting position and both his position, and that of Sam Harris ( who also argues we do not have free will) hurt my head. 

I do find it interesting that you, as a scientist, base and argument on the existence of Lucifer and the LDS version of a war in Heaven.  That does not seem scientific to me.  Also your comment about our bodies being designed to allow us a measure of moral agency. Science says we were not designed.  Rather we are the product of evolution and natural selection.

You’ve never met Lucifer? Someone was sleeping through the Sunday School lessons on demon summoning and binding.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

Sapolsky's hard determinism does leave him a conundrum though which he admits he hasn't resolved: "It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something 'good' can happen to a machine," he writes. "Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness." Seems kind of the flip side of the "problem of evil" and thus we might call it the "problem of good".

 

He hasn't resolved it because he is trained to think objectively as scientists do.

Yet he makes personal decisions all the time. 

Wittgenstein, the Neo-Pragmatists, and Phenomenologists see this as both a category error and a shift of "language games" all of which constitute logical errors of their own type.

Long story short- he is confusing the SUBJECTIVE with the OBJECTIVE.

 

 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, filovirus said:

Can you expound a bit on this. I can't seem to wrap my head around what you are trying to say. Are you saying we would be like the other animals, we would just live lives without any awareness of moral issues?

Well we are animals.  I don't know what you mean by "other animals."

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Doesn't that leave you with a God who is not truly omnipotent nor omniscient?

Yes

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

o God, being outside time, the end may have happened, but being outside time, he may also access the now and tamper with the end. For us, the now, is still changeable. So, advice can be given, because he's altering your fate. If you can alter fate, is it still fate? I don't see the issue.

I don't think Mormonism teaches that God is outside time.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I suppose this is why it’s mostly atheists who push this destructive and demoralizing false doctrine that cynically negates the eternal love and goodness of God. Simply put, it’s a doctrine of the devil designed to destroy faith in the love inspired mission of the great liberator, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Last I checked a large part of Christianity believes in Calvinism and the TULIP dogma which totally negates free will.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I do find it interesting that you, as a scientist, base and argument on the existence of Lucifer and the LDS version of a war in Heaven.  That does not seem scientific to me.  Also your comment about our bodies being designed to allow us a measure of moral agency. Science says we were not designed.  Rather we are the product of evolution and natural selection.

I'm scientifically minded enough to know that even though we can see a lot, we can't see everything. Heck, we still don't know what ~95% of the universe is. While theology isn't science and science isn't theology, I do allow the two to have a conversation. I personally find that conversation most illuminating.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

No they don't, passengers in a fast-moving vehicle advance further into the future in a short period of their own time, do to time dilation. Gravity curves space-time, which means that in this universe the passage of time is not the same everywhere.

Each person experiences time at one second per second, period end of story. Depending on my reference frame, I could say that I am currently at rest, or that I am traveling 0.9999999c. I still experience time at 1 second per second. That said if two individuals synchronize clocks, and meet up in the future after traveling different paths through space, their clocks will not match. The person who covers the least distance through space will have experienced the most time. None of this has any possible bearing on free will, determinism, God, the ability to travel through time and change the past. 

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm invoking science and math. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a math- and science-based novella, introducing theories of space’s multi-dimensional nature. One section deals with concepts such as teleportation and omniscience, from perspective of a being in a higher dimension interacting with a being in a lower dimension. 

 

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm scientifically minded enough to know that even though we can see a lot, we can't see everything. Heck, we still don't know what ~95% of the universe is. While theology isn't science and science isn't theology, I do allow the two to have a conversation. I personally find that conversation most illuminating.

Fair enough. Thank you.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Consider each decision each person makes is more or less a random factor when it comes to predicting the future with any sort of precision.

Why a person’s decision be assumed to be a random factor?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why a person’s decision be assumed to be a random factor?

I think randomness might be the wrong word, but libertarian free will looks weaker every day. I mean look at the marriage thread. Parents decisions negatively impact their children’s outcomes? Where is the free will of the kids there? Can’t they just choose to do better? If I had to look at any “choice” an individual made, free will is way down on my list of explanatory factors when compared to genetics, environment, and the sum total of life experiences. I mean my “choice” to be baptized and serve a mission could have been predicted with an extremely high degree of accuracy, based on my parents beliefs, and my personality as evidenced at age 2. 

I mean look at this cited by Uchtdorf in general conference:

Quote

In the 1960s, a professor at Stanford University began a modest experiment testing the willpower of four-year-old children. He placed before them a large marshmallow and then told them they could eat it right away or, if they waited for 15 minutes, they could have two marshmallows.

He then left the children alone and watched what happened behind a two-way mirror. Some of the children ate the marshmallow immediately; some could wait only a few minutes before giving in to temptation. Only 30 percent were able to wait.

It was a mildly interesting experiment, and the professor moved on to other areas of research, for, in his own words, “there are only so many things you can do with kids trying not to eat marshmallows.” But as time went on, he kept track of the children and began to notice an interesting correlation: the children who could not wait struggled later in life and had more behavioral problems, while those who waited tended to be more positive and better motivated, have higher grades and incomes, and have healthier relationships.

What started as a simple experiment with children and marshmallows became a landmark study suggesting that the ability to wait—to be patient—was a key character trait that might predict later success in life.¹

 

 

What credit can a four year take in waiting for a marshmallow? And what does it say that so much can be correlated and predicted from such a young age?

[Calm]

I see the possibility of some free will/moral agency while in mortality, but it makes more sense to me that mortality is more like a playground that gives us a sense of freedom because we are choosing what equipment and other kids to play with, but our parents are watching from the side and there is a fence surrounding it so it is impossible for us to stray off. 

The playground with its very limited freedoms, but with the subjective sense of a greater freedom, is a great place for us immature humans to practice making choices that are very significant to us in the here and now and seeing how they impact others without any significant damage occurring. 
 

Real, full agency comes later, when our world expands much larger than the mortality playground. It is safer to give it to us then so we don’t screw things up.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What credit can a four year take in waiting for a marshmallow? And what does it say that so much can be correlated and predicted from such a young age?

There have been more recent attempts to replicate the marshmallow test and those studies have reduced the significance of it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment#Follow-up_studies

Though, if there is free will and we have spirits that do affect us, then a 4 year old with more "will-power" could be because of their pre-existing spirit.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

Though, if there is free will and we have spirits that do affect us, then a 4 year old with more "will-power" could be because of their pre-existing spirit.

Our spirits, which existed as intelligences - co-eternal with God. With attributes that we didn’t choose? Just another factor to add to genetics, environment etc. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think randomness might be the wrong word, but libertarian free will looks weaker every day. I mean look at the marriage thread. Parents decisions negatively impact their children’s outcomes? Where is the free will of the kids there? Can’t they just choose to do better? If I had to look at any “choice” an individual made, free will is way down on my list of explanatory factors when compared to genetics, environment, and the sum total of life experiences. I mean my “choice” to be baptized and serve a mission could have been predicted with an extremely high degree of accuracy, based on my parents beliefs, and my personality as evidenced at age 2. 

I mean look at this cited by Uchtdorf in general conference:

What credit can a four year take in waiting for a marshmallow? And what does it say that so much can be correlated and predicted from such a young age?

Last I read there were a lot of problems with the marshmallow experiment. One similar test said it may have had more to do with whether the child trusted the tester to actually give the bigger reward. I also couldn’t figure out what he meant using that in a Conference talk. What was the anticipated result? Train four year olds to be patient?

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see the possibility of some free will/moral agency while in mortality, but it makes more sense to me that mortality is more like a playground that gives us a sense of freedom because we are choosing what equipment and other kids to play with, but our parents are watching from the side and there is a fence surrounding it so it is impossible for us to stray off. 

The playground with its very limited freedoms, but with the subjective sense of a greater freedom, is a great place for us immature humans to practice making choices that are very significant to us in the here and now and seeing how they impact others without any significant damage occurring. 
 

Real, full agency comes later, when our world expands much larger than the mortality playground. It is safer to give it to us then so we don’t screw things up.

I would expect the parents to intervene a lot more if this is a playground. They are watching children brutalize other children.

[tagriffy]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And his changed plans are also based on probabilities.

We can also toss out all the Second Coming prophecies since they are just probable but not certain.

Most of the Second Coming prophecies are couched in vague language that could mean just about anything anyway. IMO, Mark 13:32 is the only reliable Second Coming prophecy.

[tagriffy]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Doesn't that leave you with a God who is not truly omnipotent nor omniscient?

Yes and no. God wouldn't be omnipotent nor omniscient in the classical sense of the words. But he would still be able to do all that is doable and know all that is knowable.

Edited October 26, 2023 by tagriffy
additional comment

[tagriffy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why a person’s decision be assumed to be a random factor?

Because you can't truly predict what a person is going to do until they do it. I'm sure there have been occasions where you planned to do something and then changed your mind at the last minute. Somethimes people act totally out of character. Good people sometimes go bad and sometimes evil people repent.