Free Will Paradox

[Reav3R]

Definition of Free Will (Assumption): We assume having free will means having the ability to pick one or more choice(s) (but not all) out of definite or indefinite choices; that one or more choice(s) could be any of the various options.
The Paradox: The only way to prove that you have the ability to pick a (any) choice is by picking that (one) choice, and since you can only pick one or more (but not all) of the various choices, you can't prove that you had the ability to pick anything other than those particular choice(s) already made.
Example: I give you a cup of fatal poison and ask you whether you have the ability to drink the cup. You can reason that you do have the ability but you won't drink it because of common sense. I argue that you don't have the ability to drink it because common sense prevents you from drinking it no matter how hard you try. You can't prove that you have the ability to drink it because you won't do it, so you don't have the ability to drink that cup. Consequently, you don't posses the free will to do so either. This example can be expanded to everything (minus choices already made).
Conclusion: Since you can't make all the possible choices there is to make, you can't prove that you had the ability to choose any of those choices (other than the ones already made), therefore you had no control over the choices already made. Consequently, you don't posses any free will. By proving free will exists (making all possible choices at the same time), you also prove that it doesn't exist because if all choices can be made simultaneously, then the definition of free will would be invalid.

Does that make any sense to anyone here?

[IA56]

Hi Reav3R,
I feel that your example is not accurat, it is very one sided so to speak. Off course I can drink the poison if I want to kill myself, and therefore can meet up to your task asked. I do not think you can argue this way....
You have used your free will by saying No to your offer of to drink poison, then I can only wonder why you would even come up with this kind of thought??

Love
ia

[Reav3R]

Hi Reav3R,
You have used your free will by saying No to your offer of to drink poison, then I can only wonder why you would even come up with this kind of thought??

How can you prove that a chain of previous events and thoughts set from the very beginning of existence hasn't set things up for you to make that No choice at the present? That's my point. How do you prove that you used your free will to make such a choice and how will you prove that you actually had the ability to say Yes if you have already taken No?

How can you know you could've done A instead of B if B is already done, the only way to prove you can do something is by doing it and if you have already done X in the past then you can't prove you could've done something else unless you change the past which is impossible.

[IA56]

How can you prove that a chain of previous events and thoughts set from the very beginning of existence hasn't set things up for you to make that No choice at the present? That's my point. How do you prove that you used your free will to make such a choice and how will you prove that you actually had the ability to say Yes if you have already taken No?

How can you know you could've done A instead of B if B is already done, the only way to prove you can do something is by doing it and if you have already done X in the past then you can't prove you could've done something else unless you change the past which is impossible.

By knowing that it is poison you offer, there is Always knowledge to lean at, from beginning all knowledge was to know by try and error...as if you look at rat´s they send a weak or sick individual from the Group to eat new food what they do not have any knowledge about, to see if it is safe....so we have a knowledge bank inside of us all...we have lived many Lifes.

Love
ia

[Reav3R]

By knowing that it is poison you offer, there is Always knowledge to lean at, from beginning all knowledge was to know by try and error...as if you look at rat´s they send a weak or sick individual from the Group to eat new food what they do not have any knowledge about, to see if it is safe....so we have a knowledge bank inside of us all...we have lived many Lifes.

Love
ia

Let me make another example:

I ask you to pick 1, 2 or 3 and only pick one, prove you have the ability to pick either 1, 2 or 3. The moment you give me the number you picked, I argue that you couldn't have picked another number by choice, how do you prove I'm wrong logically?

[IA56]

Let me make another example:

I ask you to pick 1, 2 or 3 and only pick one, prove you have the ability to pick either 1, 2 or 3. The moment you give me the number you picked, I argue that you couldn't have picked another number by choice, how do you prove I'm wrong logically?

There is no logic to prove, but accept the fact that I did use my free will and picked one number. When known all 3 alternatives you can start to Think if it was the best choice, but when not knowing what the numbers represent, when you know more about each of the numbers you can start to argue about the intuition was the one who helped in your choice by some kind of sensing to be the best choice for you.

Love
ia

[ButterflyWoman]

Oh, I've gone round and round about this. Wrote about it extensively on my journal, in fact. Do a search on this board, though, for a number of threads on the topic, there might be some insight in one of them that you find helpful.

[CFTraveler]

So I'm a little confused with the premise of the statement- that by failing to prove that something exists it means it doesn't?
I can't prove the ocean exists, but if you go to the beach and see it, you can either decide it exists, think it's something else, or think you have hallucinated it's existence. In other words, if experience doesn't show something exists to someone who has as a premise that it doesn't, nothing will prove it because his premise is already set, and nothing will convince him it does.
That's why in logic, you cannot prove a negative.

[Reav3R]

So I'm a little confused with the premise of the statement- that by failing to prove that something exists it means it doesn't?
I can't prove the ocean exists, but if you go to the beach and see it, you can either decide it exists, think it's something else, or think you have hallucinated it's existence. In other words, if experience doesn't show something exists to someone who has as a premise that it doesn't, nothing will prove it because his premise is already set, and nothing will convince him it does.
That's why in logic, you cannot prove a negative.

Well you've mentioned my own point exactly, you can't logically prove is exists, you can't prove it doesn't exist either BUT if you prove it does exist, you also prove that it can't exist so it's a paradox. You don't prove it doesn't exist by failing to prove it does, there simply is no outcome where it can exist. It either doesn't exist, or it doesn't.

P.S.: I don't think it was a good idea to move the thread here since it's not really a question, it's more like a theory.

[heliac]

Well you've mentioned my own point exactly, you can't logically prove is exists, you can't prove it doesn't exist either BUT if you prove it does exist, you also prove that it can't exist so it's a paradox. You don't prove it doesn't exist by failing to prove it does, there simply is no outcome where it can exist. It either doesn't exist, or it doesn't.

P.S.: I don't think it was a good idea to move the thread here since it's not really a question, it's more like a theory.

We can't really prove anything in the end though right? We can make make approximations of what we think will most likely happen based on what we know(knowledge as a subset of belief).
I could show to you that i have the ability to drink. If the poision is drinkable you don't have any good reason to believe that i would lack the ability to drink it if i wanted to.