Hear me out on this, people, keep with me:
We were discussing Jung's theory of the collective unconsciousness today in philosophy club at the university I attend. Now, my proposition doesn't have anything to do with Jung, but his theory propelled my thought. I am a relatively strict empricist/rationalist. I don't dig mysticism, I don't believe in supernatural episodes, I don't believe in God (in most definitions of the word).
Life can be explained by numbers and relationships/ratios. It's the most complicated and complex logic test--but really--life comes down to hundreds of thousands of yes/no questions.
Here's the mathematical theory I roughly sketched out in my head earlier today:
X = A real event that actually took place A = A specific subject (person, animal, single, group, plant, object, etc.) B = A specific time (past, present, or future) C = A specific location (exact langitude/longitude coordinates, country, planet, universe, etc.) D, E, F, G, ... , AA, AB, AC, ... ... = There's a LOT of possible variables that can describe a particular situation--I obviously can't list all of them right here, BUT (here's the kicker)-- there's a finite number of variables and possibilities in life; theoretically I could write out an exact description including all of life's variables.
Here's the formula: X = A &&(logical expression AND) B && C && D...
Let's collect variables A, B, C, D... into variable Alpha
IF X = Alpha: "predetermined" (ut-oh, frightening word) situation has came into being.
IF X != (not equal) Alpha: "predetermined" situation has not came into being. But it's 'matching' Alpha is still predicted.
So, is that evidence for predisposition? If we really had free will, X couldn't be predictable. I mean, there are MILLIONS of variables out there--certainly--but there's not an infinite amount (I suppose this is debatable).
Let me know how you all feel. Maybe this doesn't make sense, granted I'm not suggesting that this is THEE proof (or that it's any proof at all) for predisposition. However, this pushes me to believe in predisposition.
Thanks.
-------------------- YIPPIE!
|
I don't think anything ever has or ever will prove/disprove the existence of free will. It will always be a matter of speculation.
I'm definitly not mathematically inclined, so I have a difficult time critiquing your theory. I guess my thing is that no matter how much knowledge we have we will never be able to quantify what it is to be human. We are not the sum of our knowledge systems.
I think that the phenomenologist Merleau Ponty made an excellent case for free will when he said that we do not experience ourselves as caused. He said that when we make choices we simply choose, and that our motivations are a product of the choice. This seems bizarre, but really, it makes sense. Before we make a choice, we deliberate over a range of different, often contradicting motivations. It is often difficult to determine which motivation is most valid. At some point we make a choice, and once the choice is made we immediately justify it by filling in the appropriate motivation. Take smoking for example. When one is trying to quit and is craving just one more all kinds of thoughts go through thier head - 'i can quit tommorrow', 'this is a bad idea', 'i really want this cigarette', 'if i give in this time, i'll never quit', etc. It's not that any motivation wins out, but that one simply makes a choice and then explains it through thier motivation.
Regardless, there will never be certain proof of any of these questions. We will never get any farther than really good arguments. Really, when it comes down to it we just have to choose a perspective. No argument will ever conclusively solve the problem.
|