Is there a freedom of choice? (rree will)

by DannyBloem 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Free will can only be discussed when everybody in the discussion is on the same page with the same terms and definitions.

  Free? Free from what?

  Will? What is it? How is it?

  If you correctly identify the "will" you discover the secret hiding place of God in man's consciousness.

  But, few people who participate in these kinds of discussions are willing to DEFINE their terms. The results are that the hidden presuppositions pop out looking like conclusions.

  Kind of like stacking the deck and finding a royal flush in your poker hand.

  Remember, the Uncertainty Principle isn't anything more than a description of what happens when you bump something.

  You can only "observe" things by bumping them with either light (photons) or electrons, etc. That process of bumping disturbs either their path or their behavior.

  Aristotle was way ahead of things back in the 4th century B.C. He discussed things in terms of their natural state or nature.

  A thing is defined by its nature. Nothing escapes its nature. A rock does rock things and a balloon does balloon things.

  Choice is purely a matter of semantics that falls within the boundries of the nature of man.

  Think of it this way. A man alone on an island has a choice of things to eat determined by what is available and what he can find and obtain. He won't eat rocks or sunlight. His nature at work.

  The only ultimate "choice" is whether to eat at all. By not ending life; we choose it.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  C.S. Lewis (he is talking about him again! He must be a distant relative who collects royalties) put it this way; Think of the progression of time for man like reading a book. Man can only read a single word at a time moving forward, and never going back to reread. Nor can man skip ahead. God on the other hand can jump around all He wants.

  I guess that doesn't get to the question of pre-destination, but it is related in some way that I can't figure out, and would probably only seem to make sense if I still smoked weed.

  My head hurts.

  I'm afraid I'm terribly unimpressed by C.S. Lewis because he is the master of the false analogy.

  In Lewis' above analogy the book represents what exactly? It is a false premise and nothing more.

  You've asserted the existence of a spirit world and that is your premise. It is like a dead fish in the trunk of your car. No matterw where you drive with it; the car stinks.

  T.
• 

  Hellrider

  Ok LT, I think I get it. But the subject should then only be discussed in a philosophical manner, not in a Theological (if my english is unclear on some points, sorry, it`s my second language) - as this is a bit "on the side" of what I think the guy that started this thread, meant. Predestination doesn`t have to be discussed taking God into consideration at all, it can (and usually is) discussed in the sense of mere mechanics - cause and effect, and I think this was what was the intention of the thread in the first place. The theological discussion pretty much amounts to God being a)mean, or b)really mean...anyway.
• 

  Hellrider

  One more thing LT, when you say: "regardless of which position you take regarding Predestination, all the events surrounding it would be deemed Foreordained"

  ...this would in philosophy be regarded as an extreme form of predestination (or really, true predestination). Hence, no real difference, philosophically.
• 

  DannyBloem

  Remember, the Uncertainty Principle isn't anything more than a description of what happens when you bump something.

  You can only "observe" things by bumping them with either light (photons) or electrons, etc. That process of bumping disturbs either their path or their behavior.

  I do not agree here. The Uncertainty Principle is very important in this case. It does just do the opposite then to describe what happens when you bump something. It describes that it can not be known or determed in advance what is going to happen.
  It is one of the very strong points against scientific determinism.

  Danny
• 

  LittleToe

  Hellrider:
  I think you may have that the wrong way around
• 

  LouBelle

  I've read some of these posts and you guys can get so technical and very deep. So I may seem simplistic and out of my depth here but hell each to their own opinion.

  I believe in free-will, yet since God is supposed to be all knowing and all seeing he knows what the outcome would be if you chose a certain path in life or if you along the way decided to change paths, what the new outcome would be. (I'm talking as if there is a god)

  This thread kinda reminds me of the oracle in The Matrix when she says to him "don't worry about the vase" he knocks it over, apologises & she said "I told you not to worry about it" Then throws in the curve ball "would you have still knocked it over if I did't say anything" ........ I'm straying and losing myself now. But in my opinion we have free will. Thank you *bow*
• 

  Terry

  . The Uncertainty Principle is very important in this case. It does just do the opposite then to describe what happens when you bump something. It describes that it can not be known or determed in advance what is going to ;happen.
  
  It is one of the very strong points against scientific determinism.

  Well, with all due respect; it sounds to me like you don't have an understanding of the Uncertainty Principle at all.

  I've made clear what I am saying. To observe something you have to "see" it or detect it. The only way you can do that is to resort to disturbing it physically with light or electron bombardment. (How do you think you see large things? You receive the light bouncing off the object. When the object in question is sub-microscopic the size of the photon or electron makes a HUGE difference.)

  Would you please define YOUR understanding of the Uncertainty Principle?

  I'm ready to be wrong about your misunderstanding if you can better explain.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  This thread kinda reminds me of the oracle in The Matrix when she says to him "don't worry about the vase" he knocks it over, apologises & she said "I told you not to worry about it" Then throws in the curve ball "would you have still knocked it over if I did't say anything" ........ I'm straying and losing myself now. But in my opinion we have free will. Thank you *bow*

  Well, using fiction (science-fiction) to bolster your point doesn't quite do the trick!!

  The recursive nature of FREE WILL and foreseeing what has not been done requires us to resort to analogy which breaks down immediately.

  What we have is the ILLUSION of free will and that is much much different than free will.

  If you don't fully know what it is in your NATURE to choose in each circumstance you will undoubtedly choose with the idea you are FREE. But, you are not.

  Offer one man spinach and he'll turn away disgusted. Offer it to somebody else and they'll smile and dive right in to eat. It is the nature of each person to make their "seeming choice"; yet, it is no choice at all.

  Once you fully know yourself you are less and less inclined to consider the moves you make and the thoughts you think something spontaneously conceived.

  The potter makes the pots. The pot with the flaw leaks. It is the nature of flawed pots.

  So too with humans. Some of us leak.

  T.
• 

  DannyBloem

  Well, with all due respect; it sounds to me like you don't have an understanding of the Uncertainty Principle at all.

  I've made clear what I am saying. To observe something you have to "see" it or detect it. The only way you can do that is to resort to disturbing it physically with light or electron bombardment. (How do you think you see large things? You receive the light bouncing off the object. When the object in question is sub-microscopic the size of the photon or electron makes a HUGE difference.)

  Would you please define YOUR understanding of the Uncertainty Principle?

  I'm ready to be wrong about your misunderstanding if you can better explain.

  T.

  Hi Terry,

  I am reading up on the phylosophy arguments about free will, consiousness etc. Although I got some subject of filosophy, it did not go that deep. As I studied quantum physics I know somwthing about the uncertainty principle. Altough also there is sometimes a gap between the real world and mathematics, and the moto for some scientists is 'shut up and calculate'. (famous saying).

  Anyway the wikipedia encyclopedia says the following:

  The uncertainty principle is often misunderstood or misstated in the popular press. One common incorrect formulation is that observation of an event changes the event. This may be true in some cases, but it has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.

  The uncertainty principle goes a lot deeper. It comes back in a lot of calculations. For example it predicts that particles can be created spontanously without violation of any rules if they only live for a short time. Here again the relation between energie/mass and time. m*T < h/2 pi.

  h is the constant of plank. This posibility describes how forces are passed. How one particle knows for example that there is another particle that has influence. Gravitons are mass less, but the carrier of other forces are not. This is why the distance of influence of these forces is smaller. It is not the distance square behaviour that is expected with mass less particles.

  Some other quote from wikipedia:

  the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form—but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials.

  I hope this clears what I think.

  Danny