Q&A 5, Second Answer

The basic form of my question is: If free will or chance does exist, what happens to the decisions that we did not make or the random events which did not occur?

I think that the most likely solution (which is not likely; I don't think that free will exists, and chance seems unlikely as well) is that these untaken options would lead to the creation of alternate timelines.  As there would be an infinite number of options - deciding to move one's hand is not a yes-or-no choice; one can decide to move it different distances, and as distance is infinitely divisible there are an infinite number of possible choices - there would have to be an infinite number of timelines as well.

Q&A 5, First Answer

My question is: Is it more possible for free will to exist if chance exists?

I am not sure about this one.  I think that it depends on exactly what sort of chance there is.  For example, if the only chance is produced by minuscule particles (smaller than electrons) which move in a truly random manner, then that does not mean that free will exists.  If one could reverse time and repeat a decision, the result might well be different, but only because the causes behind the decision were different due to the random particle movement.  If, however, chance means something more extensive, then it might conceivably make free will possible.  I am not certain, however, what sort of chance this would be.  Perhaps chance causing some things (like free will) to be able to break the laws of the universe?  If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd like very much to hear them.

Response: Very Important Illusions

In response to Rachel Niddrie's post "Maybe I'm Not So Decisive" (February 22, 2012):
While according to determinism we are only able to make one choice in any given situation, we do not know ahead of time what that choice will be.  We can weigh options, consider pros and cons, and then eventually reach a decision - which is the only decision we could have reached, admittedly, but as we did not know what decision we would reach before making it that does not really matter.

It is useful to examine one's life, because doing so will result in more knowledge, just as it would if free will did exist.  This is the case with every decision; determinism does not make anyone's choices less important, or mean that their effects will be any less significant.  Consider: if you are faced with a choice about whether to jump off a bridge or not, and you decide that, as your fate is predetermined, you might as well jump, you will be just as dead as if that were not predetermined.  If, on the other hand, you decide not to jump off, then that also was predetermined, but you are alive.

I do not know how many great philosophers supported the theory of determinism and how many supported free will, but considering that we do have at least the illusion of free will, this likely would not have affected their philosophy.

Where are Thoughts?

The brain produces thoughts, but do thoughts themselves take up physical space - do they exist physically?  Currently, most if not all things which we are aware exist have some sort of physical manifestation, whether or not that manifestation is perceivable by our senses.  Apart from the obvious examples (rocks, air, water, etc.) even things like light are physically present.  While something may be in the same place as light, the light is still present and perceivable, whether by the unaided eye or by complex instruments.  Sound comes in waves, and we can measure gravity.  It is true that we can also measure brain activity, but that is simply measuring the amount of electrical impulses produced by the brain - we cannot see someone's thoughts this way.

It seems likely that thoughts are made up by combinations of electrical impulses in the brain, but it is difficult to understand exactly how a combination of electrical signals can produce an imaginary goat, or whatever other thought one may have.  Thoughts may be produced by the electrical impulses, but they are not the electrical impulses themselves.  Where, then, are they?  Or do they exist without being physically there?  Is that possible?

I am aware that this post asks a large number of questions and provides very few answers, but I don't know the answers, so I cannot present them here.  In fact, I don't even really have hypotheses on this matter - it merely seemed like it might be interesting to present these questions.  If anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I would appreciate hearing them!

Lesser of Two Evils

For this post, let us refer to altruism as a manner of acting which is for the benefit of others and involves risk or cost to oneself.  Heroism is altruism which involves a very high risk or cost to oneself.

Is it possible to be altruistic while knowingly causing harm, or commiting an action which one believes to be wrong?  I think that, under some circumstances, it is.  An example of this might be lying (generally agreed to be morally wrong) to protect someone, in a way that causes some risk or cost to oneself.  In fact, merely the cost of knowing one has broken a typical rule of morality might be sufficient to make the action altruistic, depending upon how well one is able to justify the action to oneself.