Ok, this is going to start out easy, but get progressively more complicated.

[VTHodge]

Originally posted by: gerwen
I can't really find the words to say this:
Within the bounds of how accurately the starting conditions can be stated, the result can be predicted with the same accuracy.

Well put. That was essentially the point I had in mind.

 

[Tiamat]

Im gonna have to say that you specifying the condition of the reactions at the atomic level undermines the fundamental of wave physics and quantum mechanics we would use to answer your question. Thus, if we use science as we know it to answer your question, we would be automatically wrong since our science works by the assumption of a statistical and not absolute. Im definitely not acute in modern/wave/quantum physics mind you.

 

[NuclearNed]

Ok, forget the question/answer format I originally imagined, and read the bottom of the original post to get the whole enchilada that I was thinking about the other night.

Yes, given my limited knowledge on such matters, its probably stupid.

 

[DaShen]

Yes, if we were able to grasp every single movement of every atom in a system, we could predict every outcome and also manipulate the outcomes in any way we saw fit. "freewill" would be an illusion.

 

[Pacemaker]

In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.
--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927


So basically if you could know the present exactly, you could in theory predict the future. However, because that is impossible you cannot.

 

[irishScott]

Seriously (seriously people): I've had dreams where I'm doing something ordinary. 2 months or so later, I find myself doing in reality what I dreamed of. This has happened many times over the last 6 years (once a month or so), and what I dream about is random, besides the fact that it is always something I am doing. It can be anything from waking up and going to class to sitting at my desk neffing (although in such cases the screen is blurry). However, recently I have recognized when I am doing said things in reality, and before the sequence I saw is up, I force myself to do something differing (I'm experimenting). To me, this proves that free will exists. If we can see the future of anything, it is only one of many possible futures.

I'm not crazy, and I'm not lying. I actually have 2 friends who have reported similar dreams. It may defy science, but so do a lot of things. I don't know what it is, I can't control it, but there are records of much more powerful psychics that science could not explain (ie: There was one guy in the 1950s who could speak like an MD on illnesses while in a trance, even though he had nothing past a primary school education. History Channel did a special on him)

 

[gerwen]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

*** START READING HERE - JUST FORGET THE STUFF ABOVE ***
Ok, screw the question/answer format I was attempting. Let me just cut to the chase so people can poke holes in it.
Its obvious to me that I don't know what I'm talking about, but it was an interesting line of thought I had the other night. Lets see if I can adequately put this in words:

Suppose that within infinitely small intervals of time we can completely accurately predict the behavior of an atom/molecule/particle given all the outside forces that are acting upon it.

For the sake of the discussion, let me coin a phrase: "macro-stimulus". What I mean by macro-stimulus is the entirety of all forces that affects an atom/molecule/particle.

If it were possible to have knowledge of the "macro-stimulus" acting on a particular particle, the behavior of the particle should be completely predictable within an infinitely small time slice.

(this is that part of the discussion that gets kind of weird)
Since our brains are composed of an enormous number of atoms/molecules/particles, if it were possible to have knowledge of the "macro-stimulus" simultaneously acting on them all, the behavior of all of them should be completely predictable.

Therefore, free will is an illusion. Every decision we make is the only possible outcome that could happen.

Possibly, but i think there's an innate randomness in the system. Which parts of our brain are receiving more or less blood flow, neurons misfiring, even body position.

Also, just because you can take a snapshot of a system and predict what will come next, doesn't mean you can predict what will happen in an hour, a day, a week or a year. Look at the weather for an example of this. Predicting the future from current events will require more than an accurate snapshot of the subject of your prediction, it also requires an accurate snapshot of all the external forces affecting it. The further out you look, the more you have to include in your snapshot. You'll essentially require a 100% accurate model of the universe, or an exact copy of it. Even given an exact copy, i'm still not sure that both will end up in the same state given x amount of time. AFAIK there are still random things in the universe. (I know this is arguable)

Maybe the concept of free will is flawed. I do as i will. Whether or not my actions are determined by the state of the atoms in my brain is moot imo.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that you cannot set up two pairs of identically positioned atoms as posed the the question. The question is void.

WINNER

 

[KoolAidKid]

I agree with you. Humans are exceptionally complex machines. If you have perfect knowledge of the machine and perfect knowledge of the environment that the machine is in, you can make perfectly accurate predictions about its future behavior. The only entity with this amount of knowledge is God, and therefore if you believe God is omniscient, you shouldn't believe in free will.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
I agree with you. Humans are exceptionally complex machines. If you have perfect knowledge of the machine and perfect knowledge of the environment that the machine is in, you can make perfectly accurate predictions about its future behavior. The only entity with this amount of knowledge is God, and therefore if you believe God is omniscient, you shouldn't believe in free will.

Calvinism vs. Armenism

Another dilemna that can cause heated debate

But yes, I agree with you.

 

[Alienwho]

I agree with you. From the perspective of somebody who believes in "God", I do believe we have "free will", that is, we are free to react however we choose in a variety of different circumstances. But that doesn't change the fact that God knows us so well, that he knows exactly how the "macro stimuli" will affect us, therefore he can completely predict the outcome. It's like when you know somebody so well, that you know exactly how they will react in a given situation. You don't take away there free will by knowing how they're going to react.

But to enter in a step of complication to the matter. I can manipulate a person by helping influence the situation they are in in order to get the outcome I desire. We see this all the time, we do it every day. Seduction is an example, or sabatoge, or telling your wife/gf she doesn't look fat in that dress because you don't want her mad at you. But does this classify as taking away their free will? If it does, that means that God (if you believe) can also influence your surroundings, thus possibly changing your reactions, and in essence taking away your free will.