Very interesting. We can see the belief in free will as Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager was conceived on shaky foundations, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean we can't use his concept in a more solid way.
Applied to free will, it would be as follows: we don't know what we don't know about the universe. It's possible tha…
Very interesting. We can see the belief in free will as Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager was conceived on shaky foundations, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean we can't use his concept in a more solid way.
Applied to free will, it would be as follows: we don't know what we don't know about the universe. It's possible that the sum of what we know is infinitesimal compared to what there is to know.
So if we admit, for example, that with our current knowledge, there's a 90% chance that free will doesn't exist, Pascal's wager of free will would be as follows:
- If you don't believe in free will and you're right, you haven't won anything special, because as you pointed out in the article, this belief harms people rather than helps them.
- If you don't believe in free will and you're wrong, you've lost *a lot* of capacity, potentiality, joie de vivre for some, and what makes life worth living.
- If you believe in free will and you're wrong, at least you'll have experienced a pleasant illusion that makes life more enjoyable.
- If you believe in free will and you're right, then you have a better chance of realizing your potential as a human being.
Really, there's no reason not to believe in free will, unless you really place truth above all else, like Kant (which I can understand).
But putting truth above all else must also make you realize that we don't know what we don't know, and that it's possible that this 90% chance that free will doesn't exist will turn into 10% in the centuries to come, with the new knowledge about how the universe works that we'll learn.
It wouldn't be the first time in history that our beliefs have been proven wrong.
Very interesting. We can see the belief in free will as Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager was conceived on shaky foundations, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean we can't use his concept in a more solid way.
Applied to free will, it would be as follows: we don't know what we don't know about the universe. It's possible that the sum of what we know is infinitesimal compared to what there is to know.
So if we admit, for example, that with our current knowledge, there's a 90% chance that free will doesn't exist, Pascal's wager of free will would be as follows:
- If you don't believe in free will and you're right, you haven't won anything special, because as you pointed out in the article, this belief harms people rather than helps them.
- If you don't believe in free will and you're wrong, you've lost *a lot* of capacity, potentiality, joie de vivre for some, and what makes life worth living.
- If you believe in free will and you're wrong, at least you'll have experienced a pleasant illusion that makes life more enjoyable.
- If you believe in free will and you're right, then you have a better chance of realizing your potential as a human being.
Really, there's no reason not to believe in free will, unless you really place truth above all else, like Kant (which I can understand).
But putting truth above all else must also make you realize that we don't know what we don't know, and that it's possible that this 90% chance that free will doesn't exist will turn into 10% in the centuries to come, with the new knowledge about how the universe works that we'll learn.
It wouldn't be the first time in history that our beliefs have been proven wrong.