Does determinism really negate free will?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I'm still wondering if you will just maybe come out and maybe just plainly answer/say that the entire universe (or this physical reality, etc) is all deterministic, etc...? And could perhaps maybe also explain why you maybe think that maybe, etc...?

Nobody knows.

You mentioned the laws of physics for example... So what about the laws of physics leads you to think, (or else otherwise believe/suspect, etc), that the universe is deterministic, etc...?

AIUI, the laws of physics appear to be deterministic, including those of quantum mechanics, but there is uncertainty about how to interpret the rules of quantum mechanics to account for the probabilistic nature of our observations of quantum behaviour. Some interpretations add extra rules involving non-deterministic behaviour and some don't.

I'm attracted by the simplicity of the deterministic interpretations and the challenge of the radically different view of the universe they imply; but in all interpretations, it seems we will observe probabilistic outcomes of quantum measurements.

So ISTM that the universe is empirically probabilistic at the quantum scale, but the averaging out of interactions over many orders of magnitude means that, at macro scales, the world is effectively deterministic - macro-scale unpredictability is more a result of deterministic chaotic and pseudo-random activity than quantum randomness.

Do you think everything above the level of the atom (right now) can be mathematically known/predicted right now, etc...? Or at least maybe could be at least potentially maybe, etc...?

And then also again, what also makes you maybe think that maybe, etc...?

No, I doubt that it's possible, even in principle, to make sufficiently precise observations for that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I have a feeling that both you and I are of the same kind of mind about this subject, but I also suspect you might be holding back because you don't want to have any other kinds of disagreements with your other more atheist friends on here also, etc, and I not only don't want you to hold back, but I even more especially so don't want you holding back just because of that, etc...

What do you think I'm 'holding back'?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'more atheist'. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or gods; that's the only qualification required. As it happens, I don't think there are supernatural phenomena, either. Both these views are open to revision with new evidence - but my credence for that is vanishingly small these days, and the idea of evidence for the supernatural seems to call the definition of the word into question.

 

[Neogaia777]

What do you think I'm 'holding back'?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'more atheist'. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god or gods; that's the only qualification required. As it happens, I don't think there are supernatural phenomena, either. Both these views are open to revision with new evidence - but my credence for that is vanishingly small these days, and the idea of evidence for the supernatural seems to call the definition of the word into question.

I'm not trying to prove God or even gods to you right now, but just for you to be honest about why it is in earlier posts that you said you either suspected or thought that the universe was deterministic, and that there was technically no such thing as choice for us, etc...

And yes, I do want you to be brave and just come out with it/that with your other friends on here, as I think your holding back, etc...

You said you thought it was, and I want you to; well, for one, state that (again), and then explain why it is that you think that, or I believe the exact word you used was "suspected" that, etc...

Why do you "suspect" that it is, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wasn't sure whether to place the following video in a new thread or just place it in this one. It's a video about superdeterminism by Sabine Hossenfelder. To me it has some relevance to free will because it reintroduces hidden variables, and until or unless one knows what those hidden variables are it would seem to be impossible to definitively say that reality is deterministic in the manner that we perceive it to be.

So I just thought that I would throw it in here and to see if anyone had any thoughts on the matter.

I liked the video, very interesting - it's the only reasonably coherent description of superdeterminism I've heard so far.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not trying to prove God or even gods to you right now, but just for you to be honest about why it is in earlier posts that you said you either suspected or thought that the universe was deterministic, and that there was technically no such thing as choice for us, etc...

It's simply because I can't see how true randomness (acausality) is possible, i.e. it doesn't make sense to me that something can occur without a mechanism, cause, or reason. I accept that this is a bias, not a scientific justification, so I'd like to know the answer - but if I was a gambling man, I'd favour determinism over randomness.

And yes, I do want you to be brave and just come out with it/that with your other friends on here, as I think your holding back, etc...

I don't know what you're talking about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

p.s. you didn't explain what you mean by 'more atheist'.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's simply because I can't see how true randomness (acausality) is possible, i.e. it doesn't make sense to me that something can occur without a mechanism, cause, or reason. I accept that this is a bias, not a scientific justification, so I'd like to know the answer - but if I was a gambling man, I'd favour determinism over randomness.

I don't know what you're talking about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

p.s. you didn't explain what you mean by 'more atheist'.

I'll accept that answer for now, thanks...

Would still like you to also in that same kind of way that you did just now also, also answer or give your opinion to the whole issue of "choice" and/or free will also though, etc...?

And, as far as the last issue/thing, I'm sorry I used the word "more", but I mainly just meant your other atheist friends on here, etc, so, I'm sorry I used the word "more", ok...

God Bless!

 

[zippy2006]

I sometimes think that we focus too much on justice and retribution because it's easier than focusing on compassion. We're moral and just when others have failed us, but we seem to take little or no responsibility when we have failed them. When we fail the poor, or the oppressed, or the exploited, or the addicted, or the mentality ill. I think that if we focused more on what we should do out of compassion, then we'd be far less concerned about we need to do out of justice.

To me that's where humanitarianism should lie. Not after the system has already failed, but before it has been given the opportunity to.

Yes, but I don't think you need to get rid of the justice system before you can open a charity. In fact the meaning of charity presupposes an understanding of justice. Confusing justice and charity will not do, but justice does need to be counterbalanced by pity.

(The difficulty is that our culture constantly confuses justice and charity, and even attempts to redefine 'justice' entirely.)

 

[zippy2006]

As I said, what is considered to be justice in this regime is giving the opportunity to voluntarily change their circumstances for the better; conversely, it would be considered unjust not to do so.

Word games. Please be more honest and stick to real definitions. I don't have time for folks who just redefine words wholesale and then pretend they've made an argument. You are piggybacking on the positive associations of the word 'justice' while at the same time redefining it, hijacking the word. This is enormously dishonest, irrational, and societally problematic.

The point is that the system would be aimed towards a beneficial outcome for society and offender through positive rather than negative reinforcement. Those unable or unwilling to meet acceptable standards would live isolated from wider society, under appropriate supervision if necessary, with the open option of assistance to reintegrate if they wish.

This is just a variation on coercive rehabilitation, and whether you are willing to admit it or not, ejecting people from society is a punishment and a "negative reinforcement."

Again, Lewis has already provided an able response to your entire theory.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yes, but I don't think you need to get rid of the justice system before you can open a charity. In fact the meaning of charity presupposes an understanding of justice. Confusing justice and charity will not do, but justice does need to be counterbalanced by pity.

I agree 100%. The hope is that by increasing the granting of one, you decrease the need for the other.

 

[partinobodycular]

(The difficulty is that our culture constantly confuses justice and charity, and even attempts to redefine 'justice' entirely.)

I often wonder, how hard would it really be, in situations like the one below to just show a little compassion. To look beyond you and yours and some perceived injustice, and simply put someone else before yourself. Forget about what's the "just" thing to do, and think about what's the Christian thing to do. Even if you're not a Christian. But for so many people that name seems to be nothing more than a word, which is why you don't see it to the left of my posts, and that's a shame, both for me and for them.

Even so, they deserve my compassion just as much as anyone else does, I just get the feeling that they don't think they need it.

Baby Formula located--much is being sent to illegal immigrants at the border

 

[zippy2006]

I often wonder, how hard would it really be, in situations like the one below to just show a little compassion. To look beyond you and yours and some perceived injustice, and simply put someone else before yourself. Forget about what's the "just" thing to do, and think about what's the Christian thing to do. Even if you're not a Christian. But for so many people that name seems to be nothing more than a word, which is why you don't see it to the left of my posts, and that's a shame, both for me and for them.

Even so, they deserve my compassion just as much as anyone else does, I just get the feeling that they don't think they need it.

I don't think such complex matters are solved so easily, nor do I think it is a matter of Christian values. So I don't agree.

Note, too, that conservatives are not necessarily putting themselves before foreigners. More often they are putting their fellow citizens before foreigners, and despite progressive taboos, that is a very rational thing to do. After all, one's primary responsibility is for their own children rather than the children of others. Resources are not infinite.

 

[partinobodycular]

Note, too, that conservatives are not necessarily putting themselves before foreigners. More often they are putting their fellow citizens before foreigners, and despite progressive taboos, that is a very rational thing to do. After all, one's primary responsibility is for their own children rather than the children of others. Resources are not infinite.

I agree, it can be a perfectly rational thing to do, and I agree that it's not really a matter of Christian values, just human values. And I understand that it's not easy, but still I wonder how much of a difference compassion could make...if we tried. But that's an awfully big if, then again, if not us, then who?

 

[zippy2006]

I agree, it can be a perfectly rational thing to do, and I agree that it's not really a matter of Christian values, just human values. And I understand that it's not easy, but still I wonder how much of a difference compassion could make...if we tried. But that's an awfully big if, then again, if not us, then who?

I think those who lead with their head need to demonstrate to others that they have not abandoned their heart, and those who lead with their heart need to demonstrate to others that they have not abandoned their head. Ironically, then, the way to induce others to pity is by showing them that your own pity is not leading you astray.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Would still like you to also in that same kind of way that you did just now also, also answer or give your opinion to the whole issue of "choice" and/or free will also though, etc...?

I think making a 'choice' is what we call the experience of evaluating the options we perceive and selecting one that matches our requirements - it's deterministic but doesn't feel that way because we don't usually know what the outcome will be in advance, and even if we do, we don't have a detailed insight into why we have a particular preference.

I find standard libertarian free will to be incoherent - besides the claim of transcending physics and logic, e.g. neither deterministic nor random, it seems to me that choices are made for reasons, and reasons have reasons, i.e. they have antecedent causal events. Without reasons, choices are random.

For the sake of argument, I can accept versions of compatibilist free will as high-level descriptions of how we feel about making choices, but that seems to be describing the illusion of free will.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Word games. Please be more honest and stick to real definitions. I don't have time for folks who just redefine words wholesale and then pretend they've made an argument. You are piggybacking on the positive associations of the word 'justice' while at the same time redefining it, hijacking the word. This is enormously dishonest, irrational, and societally problematic.

This is just a variation on coercive rehabilitation, and whether you are willing to admit it or not, ejecting people from society is a punishment and a "negative reinforcement."

Again, Lewis has already provided an able response to your entire theory.

OK; the way I see this is that I'm trying to present an idea for discussion; I'm prepared to discuss the implications, including whether providing optional rehabilitation might somehow be coercive, and so on, but you seem to be focusing not on the idea but on the presentation, e.g. the wording.

If isolating someone from society is intended for the good of both, I don't think it is a punishment, whether the individual is happy about it or not, any more than making a child sit in a classroom to be educated when they'd rather be playing outside is a punishment.

If someone would like to discuss the ideas, I'm happy to continue; if you don't understand what I'm talking about, I'm happy to explain or clarify; but I don't want to keep arguing about whether, for example, 'justice' is the right word for what I'm suggesting (particularly if I've been explicit about the intended meaning of the word for this context).

 

[Neogaia777]

*bump*

 

[Halbhh]

It seems as if most people believe that if reality is deterministic then there's no such thing as free will, which seems like a fairly straight forward assumption, but is it in fact true?

Does determinism mean that under the same circumstances you couldn't have made any other choice or does it simply mean that under the same circumstances you wouldn't have made any other choice? You would still have free will, it's just that given the same circumstances you would freely make the same choice, and this would hold true in every set of circumstances. So deterministic or not, you would always make the same choice.

To argue that determinism negates free will seems to suggest that there's some neurotic form of you that's never sure what it's going to do. That's totally unpredictable. Would you rather that that's the case, that your will is totally neurotic? Or would you prefer that determinism simply means that what you choose to do, would always be what you would choose to do.

So, then the question becomes even harder, how do you tell the difference between a reality in which you're forced to always make the same choice, and one in which you would always freely make the same choice, wouldn't they look the same?

We (humans) don't fully understand consciousness. There are many theories of course.