|
CSflim, I'm not sure I follow you. Admittedly, I've not read closely, but I keep seeing you bring up random things like radioactive decay and dice rolling and asking if this is free will. What is the point of auch a line of questioning? Perhaps it is best if you set about your definition of free will, that way we can see what objective criteria you are using to either accept or deny its' existence.
I am not asking this as a challenge, but as a legitimate question. We've argued free will quite a bit, but I am not certain anyone has taken the time to define what it is we are speaking of.
To counter the questions that I saw you ask:
1) Computer program - Yes, it 'makes choices', but those choices are based on pre-set instructions. Given the same set of inputs, a computer program will make the same precise choice again and again. It must do so because it is ruled by a set of algorithms that determine its' choices. It is also not sentient. I think I am fairly safe in positing that sentience is necessary for free will.
2) Rolling the dice - Certainly not free will. The die does not make any decision whatsoever. While it may not act the same in every given situation, there is neither reasoning behind its' acts nor sentience with which to decide what act to take.
3) Radioactive decay - see #2 for refutations of insensate objects lacking the facilities for free will.
--
Taking the argument in a slightly different direction, let's assume that our hypothetical being sees THE future. Not A future, not one of many possible futures, but THE future. What is to say that there are not many paths to reach said future? If our being sees a world devastated by war, are there not multiple ways to which we could reach that point? Again, just because a future is perceived it does not mean that the choices taken to reach said future are necessarily predetermined.
|