Does causality undermine free will?

Author: Benjamin
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 50
Topic's author
#1
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Causality: The idea that every event has a cause

Free will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]


Does causality undermnine free will?
Topic's author
#2
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
There is a fundamental contradiction in humanity's experience. On one hand, humans feel free and responsible for their own actions - on the other hand, science has shown us that reality, with few exceptions, is always governed by rules set in stone. Is this contradiction enough to destroy the fundamental idea of free will?

Some interesting paradoxes might appear:
  • If we have no free will - we do not choose to not believe in free will.
  • Would God, if he exists, have free will - if not, why did he create the universe?
  • If the words "random" and "free will" are both illusions - then they did not create the universe. Therefore the universe is just a link in an infinite timeline.
Wagyu - what is your opinion on the matter?

#3
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Determinism is incompatible with free will but ethics must assume free will

Topic's author
#4
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
I disagree.

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.[1]

Will: The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action. [2]
Free [3]:
  • Not or no longer confined or imprisoned.
  • Able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another.

Faculty: An inherent mental or physical power [3]
Even if determinism is correct, the will does still exist - the brain for example. The only difference would be that "the will" would be determined by strict physical laws.
Does free will mean "acausal will"? This is a question about definitions, but still, it is very important. The problem is that by trying to answer these questions, one needs more and more definitions until we reach the limit of language. It boils down to what you mean by "free". 

My logic:
  • Free will means "personal will"
  • "personal will" can exist even in determinism
  • Free will would still exist in determinism.
The thing is that humans might be determined by outer factors, but they are also determined by inner factors, like thinking.

Sources:
#5
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
1. If someone acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreeWillProbCausDete



Topic's author
#6
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Wagyu
My argument: 
  1. If God exists then free will can exist
  2. God, or something similar, must exist
  3. Therefore, free will must be a possibility



1. IF GOD EXISTS THEN FREE WILL EXISTS

Imagine for the sake of argument, that "God" created the universe and that he has a mind similar to human brains. We assume basic logical principles apply (like causality).

There are two options for choosing one among multiple alternatives, as far as we know of:
  1. Randomness (acausality)
  2. Logic (causality)
Nobody has ever claimed that God makes random decisions, so his mind thinking would be governed by the law of cause and effect. 

Since God is the first cause, there exists no outer cause able to control his mind. Every "event" in his mind would be controlled by previous events inside his mind.

God is not controlled by outer forces - and his actions are taken solely because of his own thoughts and intentions.

b. the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Therefore God - is the definition of free will. 

Conclusion: If reality is deterministic, the existence of God would indeed make free will a logical possibility.



2. GOD, OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, MUST EXIST

Let us proceed. We continue to assume that the laws of logic apply to reality, and that reality is causal. But we do not assume Gods existence as a premise.

Let us see how the universe works:
  • Matter is created and destroyed inside our universe (E = MC2) - matter is not the most basic thing in existence
  • Space is constantly expanding, and according to many scientists dark matter is spontaneously created in the vacum of space
  • Therefore, nothing we can deduce using science has innate existence - so our universe has an outer cause

The outer cause created our universe using the law of causality. There are different theories as to what the "ultimate reality" is:
  • Energy
  • Information
  • God (aka an omnipotent being with free will)
  • Faith
  • A multiverse
  • Randomness
Now, these are quite different approaches. Let us put their difference aside for the time being.


  1. The ultimate reality has innate existence. (nothing cannot create something)
  2. The ultimate reality is the reason why non-ultimate realities exist. (humans for example)
  3. Therefore, the ultimate reality must necessarily be 1) a closed omnipotent system  2) our universe which is a closed system as well
So in fact, no matter how we twist or turn philosophy, an ultimate reality must exist that is a closed CAUSAL system. 

If you remove a single domino piece, the train of dominoes stops for eternity. This is not possible for the ultimate reality because it's ultimate, no cause can exist beyond its control. As such, we can conclude that 


A closed system governed by causality has existed forever - and it is the cause for why our reality exists. AKA = God/something similar must necessarily exist.



3.This is the evidence why free will MUST exist.

I have shown why free will must exist. This is if we define free will as an act that is not determined by outer but rather inner factors.
We have now found common ground, as the christian God, the multiverse, philosophical atheism - all of these must necessarily accept the theoretical existence of a free will. One might say that "God" is another type of free will. But I clearly showed that the only difference between "God" and other ultimate realities is that he would be a person while the other ones would be impersonal. This is actually the entire debate between atheism and theism: 
  • Theists believe that the power which created the universe is personal and can relate to humans - this would allow actual free will to exist.
  • Atheist believe that the power which created the universe is impersonal
  • Agnostics refuse to take a position

My argument has hopefully given you some new ideas regarding determinism and free will.

Topic's author
#7
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
The theistic idea of God clearly allows free will to exist - as I proved above.
Also, if humans are created in "the image of God" they can have a copy of free will - thus theism can actually support ethics on a logical basis.
#8
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
But you can't prove god exists so that's a non starter. Also, the existence of god doesn't impact the incompatibalist argument I gave you above. God can't simultaneously have a determined plan while also allowing person's to choose freely. The syllogism applies the same
Topic's author
#9
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
I cannot prove God exists - but I proved that whatever exists instead of God would indeed share most of his qualities, except his personality.

Also, I God COULD exist, then free will COULD as well - I am not trying to prove free will MUST exist - just that it very well might.


God can't simultaneously have a determined plan while also allowing person's to choose freely.
I disagree. Humans are able to have a determined plan to create sentient AI but we have no clue how it will turn out. Being omnipotent God could create a mind in a closed system. If Gods omniscience is based on his ability to calculate reality before it happens, he could simply choose not to do so - and thus humans would indeed have free will.
#10
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
The cosmological argument is not an argument for god, it's an argument for a caused universe. You dont get god from that without special pleading.

Unless god specifically intervenes to disrupt the flow of causality, then free will probably doesn't exist. You haven't refuted the incompatibalist syllogism

Topic's author
#11
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Free will is not the same as acausality.

It means that an action is taken based on inner, not outer causes.

Therefore God would have ultimate free will. But still, humans (especially if an immaterial soul exists) would have free will.

The difference is that God could choose to not see what happens in the universe, humans cannot.

If a single human brain was put in a closed system, it would be the equivalent of a spiritual "mind", but humans are both mind and body - according to theology.


The point is: free will exists, but the difference we are debating is to what extent.
#12
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Well if free will exists then determinism isn't true. But scientific determinism can be argued with great force. You dropped that the cosmological argument isn't an argument for god. You seem to be presupposing gods existence and reasoning from there.
#13
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
Determinism is incompatible with free will but ethics must assume free will
Why must ethics assume free will? You’re responsible for your actions either way. 
When it comes to justice we’re also able to learn from our mistakes.
#14
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Reece101
You have to assume that the person pulling the trolley lever had the option to do otherwise
Topic's author
#15
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
The cosmological argument is not an argument for god, it's an argument for a caused universe. You dont get god from that without special pleading.
I did not try to do that. I just demonstrated that theism allows free will to exist. Therefore theism is a solid foundation for morality.


1. If someone acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will

  1. If someone acts of her own free will - their will would make the decision. A will is not random, so a person would do the exact same thing in the same situation, this is not a logical statement. In order to change the action you do not need to change the situation, you could also change the will. Acting otherwise would be a random decision, not a decision from free will. BTW randomness can be simulated using causality (mathematics) - so that would still be an option if you wanted a free-will universe that was still deterministic.
  2. Determinism is not the same as causality [1] - a deterministic universe would destroy free will but a causal universe would allow free will.
  3. Therefore, both points are valid but they are incompatible - free will can exist in a causal universe

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. 
If you look closely - the second point includes the conclusion: free will does not exist. As such, this is a null point as the logic is circular.
In a deterministic universe by definition free will does not exist. You cannot take a part of a worldview and use it to claim that two worldviews are equally based on the fact they both share this single claim. Causality does not imply determinism, there are other options.

As such - the logic is flawed and your point rebutted.
Topic's author
#16
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
But scientific determinism can be argued with great force
You mean scientific causality - that is not the same. Determinism has as a premise that only external forces decide what you do, but causality allows internal causes to exist.
#17
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
You have to assume that the person pulling the trolley lever had the option to do otherwise
What for?
Topic's author
#18
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
You have to assume that the person pulling the trolley lever had the option to do otherwise
In fact, no - a murderer would be just as dangerous to society even if he was a robot.

But your point is valid: in a deterministic universe, objective morality does not exist. Because morality does not exist only practical concerns would rule.
#19
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin
You mean scientific causality - that is not the same. Determinism has as a premise that only external forces decide what you do, but causality allows internal causes to exist.
What? External and internal causes are governed by the same fundamental forces.
#20
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Reece101
@Benjamin
.
"What for?"
"In fact, no - a murderer would be just as dangerous to society even if he was a robot"
  Because if there wasn't an option to do otherwise, like a robot following it's programming then there is no moral decisions making. There is no ethical responsibility. There is no moral agency. 
#21
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Scientific determinism was formalized with laplace's demon. Suppose there was a demon with perfect knowledge of every particle and thing in the universe, or perfect knowledge of the present. That demon should necessarily be able to perfectly predict the future. 

  Causality is the bedrock of determinism. That's why it's called causal determinism. 
Topic's author
#22
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
There is no ethical responsibility. There is no moral agency. 
I agree.

But society would still have to put that dangerous robot murderer to jail.

We can make one of three conclusions:
  1. Morality exists and is given by a supernatural deity or force
  2. Morality is created by humans but does not exist
  3. Morality is created by humans and does objectively exist
Of these three only the two first are actually logical.

#23
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Free will cannot exist if everything is the inevitable result of an unbroken chain of events leading back to the dawn of time, because physical causality determines action at the most fundamental level.
#24
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Of course murderers should be removed from society, but your robot would not be a moral agent, just a dangerous weapon.
Topic's author
#25
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Causality is the bedrock of determinism. That's why it's called causal determinism. 
Other bedrocks also exist, for example, faith, the idea that the history of the world is already written in stone.
But theistic causality would allow for free will and ethics at the same time. If one cannot disprove the existence of any type of god and the mind then free will is possible.

#26
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because if there wasn't an option to do otherwise, like a robot following it's programming then there is no moral decisions making. There is no ethical responsibility. There is no moral agency. 
Do you think morality is objective? I personally adopted the view of intersubjective morality 
Topic's author
#27
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Free will cannot exist if everything is the inevitable result of an unbroken chain of events leading back to the dawn of time
Incorrect. The free will you are talking about is not actually free will, it is randomness.

Free will: the ability to act at one's own discretion.
So as long as your actions are decided by your own mind/brain you have free will. If you could put all people in the same situation and have them all do the same thing that would not have been free will.

As you describe free will, both causality and acausality would undermine it - I do not believe in random free will, I believe in logical free will.
Topic's author
#28
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Do you think morality is objective? I personally adopted the view of  inter-subjective morality 
That is the same as saying morality does not exist. Morality needs an objective standard. Lenght might be subjective, but ultimately it is objective, you can measure it exactly. The same thing applies to morality if it exists. Therefore, morality can only be measured by humans, it must be created by God or something similar. Morality created by humans would not be morality, it would just be a norm or a law.

#29
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Benjamin

That is the same as saying morality does not exist
Morality is not what’s right or wrong, it’s the distinction between right and wrong that we instil in our communities. 
#30
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Reece101
I think that by using Reason alone, via theoretical deduction, we can arrive at moral law. I don't want o say objective because people use that word to mean different things and idk how you mean it.