Time and Free Will

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
fzhang
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:57 pm

Time and Free Will

Post by fzhang »

Hey all, I'm currently learning a philosophy course, and I saw a discussion about "free will", where someone used an example of going to the gym and growing muscles to explain how we can make choices for ourselves. Here is what I said:
Firstly, I define the present as a specific point in time that separates the past and the future (i.e. before the present is "past" and beyond the present is "future"). However, we know that the concept of "the present" is not absolute and is constantly moving forward in time. This means that the present at one given moment is never the same as the present in the next moment. As time goes on, the "present" as defined now would eventually be the "past", and the "future" as defined now would eventually be the "present". So I conclude that the past, the present and the future are fundamentally interchangeable when the context of time is disregarded.

This means that the argument of "the past determines the future" is really just saying "the present determines the future" in the past, or "the past determines the present" in the future. In other words, it is essentially saying "the present in the past determines the present in the future". Using your gym example - let us assume that "going to the gym" must lead to "having muscles" (of course - that is not true in the real world, but let's imagine so for the purpose of explanation). If I went to the gym yesterday, I could say at the gym: "What I am doing in the present (going to the gym) will determine my future (having muscles)." Now, sitting in front of a computer, I would say: "What I did in the past (going to the gym) will determine my future (having muscles)." A few days later, when I actually have muscles, I might say: "What I did in the past (going to the gym) determined my present (having muscles)." Therefore, I draw the conclusion that this argument itself is relative to time, and in that sense, the concept of "past" and "future" would be irrelevant to determining whether we have free will in our actions, as actions can only happen in the present.

I think the key thing here is to notice that even though "going to the gym" and "having muscles" both happen in the present at a certain moment, there are some fundamental differences in their properties. "Having muscles" is a result of "going to the gym", and therefore it is inevitable. On the other hand, the action of "going to the gym" itself is our very own choice, and it is not a result of anything, at least in our example. So saying everything is inevitable (i.e. "the past determines the future") is not a sound argument…

… unless someone raises an argument that everything happens for a cause. Indeed, in the real world, "going to the gym" could be caused by multiple things: "being overweight" (which might lead to "getting health issues"), "being peer-pressured" (which might lead to "losing friends"), etc. But this leads to "infinite regress" - what is the ultimate cause for everything? What is at the end of the chain? This argument might not stand if the starting cause, the thing that caused everything else to happen, cannot be found. I guess it could also lead to philosophical discussions about "human nature" (e.g. "greed") as the ultimate cause.
Well, given that I have almost zero knowledge about philosophical concepts and the rigorous definition of "free will", plus the fact that I felt a bit confused multiple times when writing that answer, I'd like some second opinions. If anyone can help me clarify and organise my ideas, or point out some incoherence, it would be greatly appreciated!
Post Reply