1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Does determinism really negate free will?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by partinobodycular, Apr 17, 2022.

  1. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,662
    Atheist
    Nobody knows.

    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.

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

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,662
    Atheist
    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.
     
  3. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Old Soul Supporter

    +4,790
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    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!
     
  4. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,662
    Atheist
    I liked the video, very interesting - it's the only reasonably coherent description of superdeterminism I've heard so far.
     
  5. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,662
    Atheist
    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'.
     
  6. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Old Soul Supporter

    +4,790
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    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!
     
  7. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +2,841
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.)
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  8. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +2,841
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  9. partinobodycular

    partinobodycular Well-Known Member

    941
    +422
    United States
    Agnostic
    Single
    I agree 100%. The hope is that by increasing the granting of one, you decrease the need for the other.
     
  10. partinobodycular

    partinobodycular Well-Known Member

    941
    +422
    United States
    Agnostic
    Single
    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.

     
  11. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +2,841
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  12. partinobodycular

    partinobodycular Well-Known Member

    941
    +422
    United States
    Agnostic
    Single
    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?
     
  13. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +2,841
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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.
     
  14. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,662
    Atheist
    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.
     
  15. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,662
    Atheist
    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).
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2022
Loading...