Does determinism really negate free will?

[partinobodycular]

Causality is assumed as a constraint in your hypothetical:

I can accept this, because to assume otherwise would be to assume that I can act as an uncaused cause. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Mountainmike]

Is any physical process truly deterministic? At the bottom are quantum processes which are modelled as truly random. So even those who believe consciousness is a chemical process cannot be assured of determinism.

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?

 

[Chesterton]

But if we're talking about a mind/body dualism, then the lack of physical restrictions doesn't necessarily imply that the mind doesn't have its own restrictions.

That's true, there could be non-physical restrictions. But science can't study the non-physical, and philosophy can only speculate.

You wouldn't randomly kill someone for example, which means that your mind must be operating under some form of restrictions.

From outward appearances, many people do do seemingly random things. Despite intensive investigation, there's never been a motive discovered for that otherwise normal guy who shot up that country music festival in Las Vegas some years ago.

So the question is, given the same set of circumstances, would you always make the same choice? If the answer is yes then isn't that simply another form of determinism? If the answer is no, then aren't your actions merely random?

Depends on the circumstances. If I'm hungry and have no money, and you offer me a sandwich, I'll probably always make the same choice to accept the sandwich. But that's not determinism. I'd always still have the choice not to accept, for whatever reason, or lack of reason.

But now you've introduced a restriction, while your actions may be unpredictable they will not be irrational nor neurotic. If you can introduce one restriction, then why not more? Just how unpredictable are you?

What restriction did I introduce?

 

[SelfSim]

I can accept this, because to assume otherwise would be to assume that I can act as an uncaused cause. Is that what you're suggesting?

Causality is demonstrably (objectively) an inference formed by our minds. You are assuming it is 'a something' independent from our minds and that can be demonstrated (objectively) as being just another belief.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is any physical process truly deterministic? At the bottom are quantum processes which are modelled as truly random. So even those who believe consciousness is a chemical process cannot be assured of determinism.

I think the assumption is that probability results in multiple random events on a tiny quantum scale adding up to a predictable event on a macro scale .

In any case it doesn't matter. The concept of free will suggests that we can exert some control over the outcome of physics. It doesn't matter if that outcome is randomly generated or fixed.

OB

 

[enoob57]

Could anybody really understand tulip?

yes a good work in this is
SOTERIOLOGY 101 – A Professor and former 5-Point Calvinist Discussing the Doctrines of Salvation, Election, Predestination, and God's Amazing Grace.
I really wanted to know and this gave me the ability to see clearly what the bible teaches of Soteriology.

 

[NxNW]

As I always explain, it is impossible to reconcile the two explanations.

And Jesus having looked on them, said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Your second sentence is not convincing.

 

[enoob57]

Could you specify who you’re writing to, @enoob57? I mentioned Calvinism, so I suspect it might be me.

No it was to the quote that I responded... but I am a traditionalist or provisionist by soteriological study... Be glad to discuss with you on it!

 

[NxNW]

While I can understand this viewpoint, I don't buy it at all. For an omnipresent God existing outside of time all knowledge can be considered as existing after the fact.

There is no evidence of a being existing outside time, is there? If God interacts with our world, as Christians claim, then he's interacting within time and not outside it. You can't have it both ways.

In other words, the fact that you know that Donald Trump chose to run for president in 2016 doesn't negate the fact that he exercised free will in doing so. Your knowledge concerning the outcome of that choice didn't predetermine that choice.

If God created the atoms that would later form Donald Trump, and knew in advance how these atoms would interact and arrive at the decision to run, then it was predetermined and not Trump's choice.

For God everything has already happened, but that knowledge didn't predetermine what happened.

There is no evidence to suggest that such a frame of reference actually exists.

 

[NxNW]

Duplicate

 

[enoob57]

Yes. It’s a thoroughly explained view.

It is illogical at it's core as the tulip teaches God does not wish everyone to be saved and yet it is written

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 John 2:2 (KJV)
[2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Because yes and no cannot be to the one thing Calvinist dismiss this to mystery, however, of all subjects of the Bible God picks soteriology to be reasoned with Him

Isaiah 1:18 (KJV)
[18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

So clearly God expects us to reason with Him in matters of salvation (soteriology) so to dismiss it to mystery is saying God wants us to reason with Him but prevents that very thing to occur!

 

[enoob57]

There is no evidence of a being existing outside time, is there?

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
As God began that which begins~ so by Him it is naturally known that He was before that which He began... the Bible say He exists in a plurality of Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Their substance of eternality is Spirit...

 

[NxNW]

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
As God began that which begins~ so by Him it is naturally known that He was before that which He began... the Bible say He exists in a plurality of Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Their substance of eternality is Spirit...

That's not evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

That's not evidence.

More like its evidence of a belief .. so it is evidence .. just not evidence of what you're (understandably) looking for and not evidence for someone who doesn't distinguish beliefs by using the objective method.

 

[enoob57]

That's not evidence.

For those who call God a liar I suppose not...

 

[SkyWriting]

Your second sentence is not convincing.

Only experiences ever convinced me as well. I was never sold by evangelism. Too many charlatans.

 

[SkyWriting]

Determinism and free will together is a flat out contradiction.

While both true, they are not possible to comprehend as true.

 

[SkyWriting]

The argument is that the free will experience we have is illusory or mistaken. IOW, however we feel about them, the choices we make are determined by prior events (and if that wasn't the case, they'd be random).

Fortunately, the brain considers the imagination as a valid event, so you just practice what you desire, and each imagined cycle becomes a past event. We know this works.

 

[SkyWriting]

You couldn’t argue if Calvinism was this unknowable thing..

I've never studied it. I know that people argue about it constantly.

 

[Chesterton]

While both true, they are not possible to comprehend as true.

Your sentence is also self-contradictory.