Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20

# Strong PSR and Free Will

 Posts: 3,884 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/9/2014 7:14:53 AMPosted: 3 years agoI just had a thought... I have done zero research so I presume there is already stuff written about it.Basically there seems to be an issue of the existence of free will if the Strong PSR is true. I will formulate my argument as follows:w1 & w2 are possible worlds with identical CCF (conjunctive contingent fact) and identical physical/non physical states. Basically a carbon-copy of each other where the 'branching point' is when the conscious entity takes a choice from w0.A. Free will exists (assumption)P1. If free will exists, then there exists a w1 and a w2 where a conscious entity took two different choices (t=0).P2. If w1 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P3. If w2 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P4. SR for w1 =/= w2 from w0C. P4 entails a contradiction, and henceP2 & P3 are just statements of the PSR, and P1 is just a modal description of free will (I would have chosen to do a or b at point 0), so the major contention is in P4. If both w1 and w2 have explanations, then the explanation for w2 must exist in w1, since they are carbon copy realities past the 'branching point'.In other words, assuming the PSR means that it's impossible for free will to exist, since there no way for there to be a SR for one reality over another without entailing a contradiction.Similarly, there is no way for even God to have free will, since each choice he makes is subject to the PSR, why make choice a over choice b, or no choice at all?
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/9/2014 8:30:31 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/9/2014 7:14:53 AM, Envisage wrote:I just had a thought... I have done zero research so I presume there is already stuff written about it.Basically there seems to be an issue of the existence of free will if the Strong PSR is true. I will formulate my argument as follows:w1 & w2 are possible worlds with identical CCF (conjunctive contingent fact) and identical physical/non physical states. Basically a carbon-copy of each other where the 'branching point' is when the conscious entity takes a choice from w0.A. Free will exists (assumption)P1. If free will exists, then there exists a w1 and a w2 where a conscious entity took two different choices (t=0).P2. If w1 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P3. If w2 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P4. SR for w1 =/= w2 from w0C. P4 entails a contradiction, and henceP2 & P3 are just statements of the PSR, and P1 is just a modal description of free will (I would have chosen to do a or b at point 0), so the major contention is in P4. If both w1 and w2 have explanations, then the explanation for w2 must exist in w1, since they are carbon copy realities past the 'branching point'.In other words, assuming the PSR means that it's impossible for free will to exist, since there no way for there to be a SR for one reality over another without entailing a contradiction.Similarly, there is no way for even God to have free will, since each choice he makes is subject to the PSR, why make choice a over choice b, or no choice at all?Premise 2 and 3 presuppose determinism. That is, they assume the reason (cause) for world 1 and 2 can be totally explained by world 0 (their prior state). Free will says this is not the case - that the explanation resides in the choice itself. Obviously, this implies neither determinism nor randomness, but rather self-determination.
 Posts: 3,884 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/9/2014 8:37:44 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/9/2014 8:30:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/9/2014 7:14:53 AM, Envisage wrote:I just had a thought... I have done zero research so I presume there is already stuff written about it.Basically there seems to be an issue of the existence of free will if the Strong PSR is true. I will formulate my argument as follows:w1 & w2 are possible worlds with identical CCF (conjunctive contingent fact) and identical physical/non physical states. Basically a carbon-copy of each other where the 'branching point' is when the conscious entity takes a choice from w0.A. Free will exists (assumption)P1. If free will exists, then there exists a w1 and a w2 where a conscious entity took two different choices (t=0).P2. If w1 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P3. If w2 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P4. SR for w1 =/= w2 from w0C. P4 entails a contradiction, and henceP2 & P3 are just statements of the PSR, and P1 is just a modal description of free will (I would have chosen to do a or b at point 0), so the major contention is in P4. If both w1 and w2 have explanations, then the explanation for w2 must exist in w1, since they are carbon copy realities past the 'branching point'.In other words, assuming the PSR means that it's impossible for free will to exist, since there no way for there to be a SR for one reality over another without entailing a contradiction.Similarly, there is no way for even God to have free will, since each choice he makes is subject to the PSR, why make choice a over choice b, or no choice at all?Premise 2 and 3 presuppose determinism. That is, they assume the reason (cause) for world 1 and 2 can be totally explained by world 0 (their prior state). Free will says this is not the case - that the explanation resides in the choice itself. Obviously, this implies neither determinism nor randomness, but rather self-determination. Then this just asserts that the PSR is false... As there is no reason why a world should go to w1 state instead of w2...
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/9/2014 8:39:34 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/9/2014 8:37:44 AM, Envisage wrote:At 7/9/2014 8:30:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/9/2014 7:14:53 AM, Envisage wrote:I just had a thought... I have done zero research so I presume there is already stuff written about it.Basically there seems to be an issue of the existence of free will if the Strong PSR is true. I will formulate my argument as follows:w1 & w2 are possible worlds with identical CCF (conjunctive contingent fact) and identical physical/non physical states. Basically a carbon-copy of each other where the 'branching point' is when the conscious entity takes a choice from w0.A. Free will exists (assumption)P1. If free will exists, then there exists a w1 and a w2 where a conscious entity took two different choices (t=0).P2. If w1 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P3. If w2 exists, then there exists a SR for it's existence from w0P4. SR for w1 =/= w2 from w0C. P4 entails a contradiction, and henceP2 & P3 are just statements of the PSR, and P1 is just a modal description of free will (I would have chosen to do a or b at point 0), so the major contention is in P4. If both w1 and w2 have explanations, then the explanation for w2 must exist in w1, since they are carbon copy realities past the 'branching point'.In other words, assuming the PSR means that it's impossible for free will to exist, since there no way for there to be a SR for one reality over another without entailing a contradiction.Similarly, there is no way for even God to have free will, since each choice he makes is subject to the PSR, why make choice a over choice b, or no choice at all?Premise 2 and 3 presuppose determinism. That is, they assume the reason (cause) for world 1 and 2 can be totally explained by world 0 (their prior state). Free will says this is not the case - that the explanation resides in the choice itself. Obviously, this implies neither determinism nor randomness, but rather self-determination. Then this just asserts that the PSR is false... As there is no reason why a world should go to w1 state instead of w2...No reason external to the state in question. Self-determinacy...that's what free will is all about.
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/9/2014 8:40:56 AMPosted: 3 years agoIf W1 and W2 are actually identical, then you cannot make a distinction between them.