Timeline for What are the necessary conditions for an action to be regarded as a free choice?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
47 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Feb 3 at 1:50 | history | suggested | Julius Hamilton | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
cleaning up and retagging
|
| Feb 1 at 17:25 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 3 at 1:50 | |||||
| Jan 31 at 23:43 | comment | added | Julius Hamilton | This is one of the best questions I've seen so far on Philosophy SE in my opinion. | |
| Jan 31 at 23:42 | answer | added | Julius Hamilton | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 18, 2018 at 19:01 | comment | added | Vivek Iyer | L.E.J Brouwer formalised a notion of a choice sequence and Turing used it. More recently, given what we believe about P=NP, it is likely that 'freedom' is baked into maths. Thus there is no necessary or sufficient condition for it. | |
| Dec 29, 2017 at 10:13 | answer | added | Boondoggle | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 3:05 | answer | added | LightCC | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 23, 2015 at 19:17 | comment | added | Jo Wehler | @Speldosa: Could you please give a "mathematical explanation of a deterministic at will." Do you consider a process deterministic if it is formalized by a differential equation? | |
| Jul 2, 2014 at 21:39 | answer | added | ndvo | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 11, 2014 at 1:41 | answer | added | WraithKenny | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 16:03 | history | unprotected | Joseph Weissman♦ | ||
| Jan 6, 2014 at 11:46 | comment | added | Ingo | Anyone who denies the free will should tell us who or what forces him to do so. | |
| Jan 5, 2014 at 10:24 | answer | added | George Chen | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:35 | comment | added | stoicfury | (2/2) On the other hand, the kin of the person whom was murdered will tend to want the murderer heavily and spitefully punished. They will try to convince people that, "Everyone has choice," in order to strengthen the severity of the murderer's punishment. Since the best lie is the lie believed, the kin of the murdered will typically convince themselves that everyone has a lot of choice. –user18921 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 4:13 | comment | added | goblin GONE | (1/2) I think that free will has to do with morality and the problems of group-living. If we weren't preoccupied with morality, we wouldn't be preoccupied with free will. Furthermore, I think that whether an action is to be regarded as free choice is dependent on the observer and their moral interests. For example, a murderer will try to convince people that, "I had no choice," in order to lessen the severity of their punishment. Since the best lie is the lie believed, the murderer will typically convince themselves they had no choice in the matter. | |
| S Jul 27, 2012 at 5:25 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 27, 2012 at 5:25 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 27, 2012 at 4:01 | history | notice added | Joseph Weissman♦ | Historical significance | |
| S Jul 27, 2012 at 4:01 | history | locked | Joseph Weissman♦ | ||
| Jul 25, 2012 at 1:04 | comment | converted from answer | Alfred Centauri | At any moment, you have the freedom, the choice, to think or not. That's your fundamental choice. And, that you have this choice is evident from introspection. While you're reading this, you may choose to think about it or evade the effort, correct? | |
| Jun 28, 2012 at 0:26 | answer | added | Seremonia | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 21, 2011 at 17:40 | history | protected | Joseph Weissman♦ | ||
| Nov 21, 2011 at 13:27 | answer | added | andrewfd | timeline score: -1 | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 18:39 | answer | added | stoicfury | timeline score: 22 | |
| Aug 10, 2011 at 8:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/101206440949194752 | ||
| Aug 10, 2011 at 2:33 | answer | added | user unknown | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:41 | answer | added | Mitch | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:24 | comment | added | Mitch | From the wording of this question and examples, it is still not clear if what you want is either 1) a way to tell if a given system (as a black box) is behaving deterministically or with free will, or 2) if of a known system and known properties, can you say the system (or entities within it) is deterministic or has freewill. Or some other possibility? | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:21 | comment | added | Mitch | @Joseph: I think this is an excellent question. It is related to how discussions of logical thinking and argumentation, logical rules, the idea of truth, has eventually boiled down to mathematical logic, where the vague narrative rules that were used before can be replaced by operators that can be manipulated mechanically (for example, there is no worry about the paradoxes of material implication because it is accepted as the way to deal with implication. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 16:19 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 624 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 14:07 | answer | added | Michael Dorfman | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 12:54 | answer | added | WinW | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 11:54 | history | edited | Cody Gray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 11:47 | history | edited | Cody Gray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more manageable-sized cartoon
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 11:44 | comment | added | Cody Gray | (Related Meta discussion regarding this question: meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/190/…) | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 11:42 | history | edited | Cody Gray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1141 characters in body; edited title
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 11:36 | history | reopened | Cody Gray | ||
| Aug 9, 2011 at 8:37 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 8:22 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1929 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2011 at 21:39 | comment | added | Michael Dorfman | I agree that it is not a real question: in fact, it is a nonsensical question-- but in this case, it does have a real answer. The answer is: no philosophers have tried to do this, for reasons best found in Wittgenstein on rule following (cf. the Philosophical Investigations). Put simply: given the output of the "game of life" example, there is no rigorous way that one could determine what rules (if any) were followed. Thus, there is no mathematically formalizable structure that would allow one to examine a set of actions and determine whether they came about via free will or determinism. | |
| Aug 5, 2011 at 15:03 | comment | added | stoicfury | I like this question, not sure why it was closed so fast. However, while it makes sense to me, I doubt anyone will have answer for you, because although I sure people have tried to "mathematically" formulate free will, none (as far as I know) have even remotely succeeded, because if they had, it would be HUGE. The determinism / free will debate is critical to many theories in philosophy and other sciences; the discovery of a mathematical proof for the opposite would not be something that is likely to go unnoticed. | |
| Aug 5, 2011 at 13:57 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2011 at 13:41 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 140 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2011 at 13:00 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2011 at 12:55 | history | edited | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1192 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2011 at 12:39 | history | closed | Joseph Weissman♦ | not a real question | |
| Aug 5, 2011 at 12:24 | history | asked | Speldosa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |