Groundhog Day and Fatalism/Free Will

I figured that I would get the cliche topics out of the way, and talk about the movie Groundhog Day. In this film, the main character relives one day from his life over and over again. This brings forth ideas about determinism, free will, etc. Phil tries different things each day, since he pretty much doesn't have to deal with consequences. He seems kinda nihilistic at times.

By the way, I'm reading over this and I feel like I didn't do a great job of explaining, if you are bored then here's a Wikipedia article that does a decent job outlining the whole "free will" thing.

Ok, back to the blog.

The questions about free will that this movie brings up are interesting, although in some ways confusing. For example, the fact that Phil is able to make different decisions in the same situations almost seems to bring him "freedom." However, if we really dig down and think about it, are the situations he is in really the same? His surroundings are different, but he himself has changed due to his added experiences. If Phil were to relive the same day as the "same person" (without additional experiences) would he really have the capacity to change his behavior?

I assume that most theorists would believe that our actions wouldn't change if we were run though our experiences time after time (without the benefit of knowing what is happening to us, or having gained additional knowledge). Basically, it's a question of whether or not we would WANT to have our actions change in such a scenario.

Would you want to have your actions change if, for example, you went through the last hour of your life ten more times (without knowing you were repeating anything)? It certainly breaks down some of the major issues people have with free will, or the lack thereof: we want the ability to do otherwise. But what does that really mean? To say "in the past, I COULD HAVE behaved differently, or done better on that test" doesn't really mean that it could have been different. To some prominent modern psychologists, to say that I COULD have done otherwise really only means that in a similar scenario in the future I have the potential to not repeat my mistake. It doesn't mean that I had a real choice in the past (at least, not in a way that would allow my volition to change arbitrarily).

It's occurred to me that I didn't really give much of a background for this topic. Free will is tricky, and so I'll include a couple of quotes that might help out.

From Wikipedia (although most of it is a quote from Van Inwagen, who explains the problem with free will and "determinism" or the thought that the entirety of history can be inferred at the Big Bang through the knowledge of all matter in the universe and an understanding of all laws in the universe):

Van Inwagen's central argument (the Consequence Argument) for this (incompatibilist) view says that "If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of those things (including our present acts) are not up to us."

So from this, it seems like we have no choice in our actions, since the determining factors in those actions came before we were even born. There is a pretty huge debate on whether or not this is true, and the favored position on free will, compatibilism, denies Van Inwagen's claim. It does echo similar concerns within religion (i.e. what is our amount of freedom if God knows the entirety of the future, and knew what we would do before he even created us?). What would Phil from Groundhog Day say to this? When he says "I could have done otherwise" he proves it, by doing something else within the same circumstances. But, just like we have already said, it is not quite the same. He has new experiences to think about when he is acting, even if it is in an identical situation.

Really, though, would we want to be able to say that given the absolute same situation, state of mind, surroundings, that we would have different results each time we ran through it? I'm not sure how satisfying that would feel. It would almost make our actions random, something that we as "selves" have no real control over. In the end, that might be more dissatisfying than saying that we are determined, or only have one pathway to go down when making decisions.

And it's not like we aren't deliberating and weighing choices carefully when we decide on our actions, right? At any rate, that's enough randomness. I'm sure I've slaughtered the debate, or at least made it more confusing than it needs to be. Plus, I've left out some pretty important parts, so feel free to ask questions or force me to clarify.