New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Free choice

שו”תCategory: philosophyFree choice
asked 3 years ago

Recently, I saw on the Elya forum an argument against free choice that seems to be a very strong argument. I am copying it here and would love to hear what the Rabbi thinks about this argument.
The third law is avoided.
 
 
The term “free will” refers to the possibility of choosing between several alternatives. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume two. When a choice needs to be made between them, it can be done deterministically, according to a fixed algorithm, similar to a flowchart common to programmers, and it can be done randomly by rolling a die, or by using its quantum equivalent – ​​a radioactive atom and a Geiger counter. Trying to find another option besides these two quickly brings us to the same conclusion that Avigdor Kahalani reached when the ballots were counted: there is no third way. When someone claims that in addition to these two options, one can also choose “freely”, and we press him to explain how such a choice is made, it always ends up with him bringing another factor into play: his desire, or his will, or his soul – factors “free” from any physical limitation, which are supposed, somehow, to answer our request. “I freely chose according to what I felt like, what my will commanded me,” he will say.
 
But after a second of thought, it becomes clear that Mr. Ratzon, the new agent called to the flag, also has to make the same mysterious “free” choice from one list or another, and we haven’t solved anything. After all, “free will” itself also has to decide in some way what it wants or what it deems appropriate, and it too is faced with a list and the same problem from which we started. The lists, by the way, don’t have to be the same: “I” can be faced with a list that includes the two items “eat the bar of chocolate in front of me” or “don’t eat the bar,” and my will instructs me according to the choice he made from another list: “diet is good” and “chocolate is delicious.” The lists are different, but the problem is the same, and hence these agents solve nothing; they only roll the problem to another level, as in “he who wants to confuse, let his testimony be removed.” Even in the world of souls free from any physical constraint, in a world with laws that are unfamiliar to us or in a world without laws at all, it is impossible for the agent we have chosen to evade the need to choose. Apart from calling another agent and rolling this hot potato into his hands, I have not come across any satisfactory explanation for the question: How, in the end, do we choose freely?


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 3 years ago
I have answered this trite argument in my book and in an article that summarizes it. It presents Peter van Inwagen’s dilemma argument, which I explained is simply a misunderstanding that assumes what is wanted. His assumption is that either the outcome is deterministically determined by circumstances or it is arbitrary. But the libertarian claims that there is a third possibility: determination through voluntary decision. The same is not deterministic because I decide this way or that way. And it is not arbitrary because I act from a value consideration and for a purpose and not just for no reason.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

בחור ישיבה replied 3 years ago

Which chapter/page in the book does the Rabbi talk about this?

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

The beginning of chapter four. But the full answer is found in chapter two, where I distinguish between this path and libertarianism and randomness.

בחור ישיבה replied 3 years ago

What you write is exactly the escape to desire that he is talking about
But the question of why a person wants A and not B is ultimately either causal or random. It is never his choice.

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

And that's exactly the mistake I'm talking about. When you ask why he wants, you assume there's a reason for it. But the meaning of free will is that there isn't. It has a purpose and not a reason. He chooses it for some purpose.

בחור ישיבה replied 3 years ago

What is called he chooses for some purpose why he chooses for this purpose and not another why others do not choose for this purpose
Ultimately, this is regression Reuven chose A because he wanted (and by this will we include wanting for any purpose or anything else) Now we ask about the will is there a reason he wanted A if there is a reason it is not his fault if there is no reason it is not his fault if it is because he wanted to want why he wanted to want and so on and so forth

מיכי replied 3 years ago

I gave a very clear answer to that. There's no point in repeating myself over and over again.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button