Does determinism really negate free will?

[LeafByNiggle]

But is God truly above those laws? Or is He too constrained by them?

What I mean by this isn't that God is subject to the law of gravity for example, but rather that as the Creator of reality He's constrained to the laws that underpin reality.

What we think of as "reality" in gravity is only our perception of reality, which could very well be deficient. So it is not logical to go from "God is constrained by reality" to "God is constrained by our understanding of the what we call the laws of nature.

One of the arguments for God comes from idea of fine-tuning, that if the fundamental laws of nature were even slightly different then we wouldn't exist.

That argument is made by those with a vested interest in this particular reality. I am reminded of an episode of the Simpsons where an imminent catastrophe prompts discussion of who should be given priority in the shelters. Krusty the Clown says "Civilization is going to need laughter, so I'm in."

So God had no choice about how to create reality, only about if to create reality.

Those who make that argument have a limited imagination.

I recognize that this is in essence Euthypro's dilemma. But how is it incorrect?

The question does not make sense. It asks if A is because of B or is B because of A. We must admit the possibility of a third option: "It is unknowable in principle."

 

[partinobodycular]

What we think of as "reality" in gravity is only our perception of reality

This is true, we're limited by our own perceptions. But of course one could also ask, why should I assume that there's something beyond those perceptions?

As you yourself previously noted, (And I thought appropriately so):

The concept of randomness has also created problems for the human mind. In information theory we say that randomness can only be understood in the context of what one knows about the phenomenon. Since two people may know different things, it is possible that something is random to one person, but not to another person. Today this is best illustrated in the field of encryption. In really good encryption systems, the encrypted message appears totally random, if you do not know the decryption key. But to those who have the decryption key, the message makes perfect sense, and is obviously not random.

Perhaps the decryption key is the conscious mind itself. So it may be illogical to ask what lies outside of our perceptions because the answer may be nothing...except random noise.

Both sides of this argument, whether something lies outside of our perceptions, or whether nothing lies outside of our perceptions would seem to be equally unknowable. So while it's perfectly fair to raise either objection, it's far less reasonable to conclude that either position is more likely to be correct.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is true, we're limited by our own perceptions. But of course one could also ask, why should I assume that there's something beyond those perceptions?

That is a totally different question which I might address in a different thread. At the present time I am only engaged in refuting the claim that all is predetermined. To do that I do not need to assume anything beyond those perceptions, only the possibility of such a thing.

As you yourself previously noted, (And I thought appropriately so):



Perhaps the decryption key is the conscious mind itself. So it may be illogical to ask what lies outside of our perceptions because the answer may be nothing...except random noise.

But the claim of determinism is that the answer is (not "may be") "nothing...except random noise". So what I noted was not supporting determinism.

Both sides of this argument, whether something lies outside of our perceptions, or whether nothing lies outside of our perceptions would seem to be equally unknowable. So while it's perfectly fair to raise either objection, it's far less reasonable to conclude that either position is more likely to be correct.

Wouldn't you agree?

At the present time I am not judging between those two possibilities - only claiming that both are possibilities, and therefore determinism cannot be established, only hypothesized.

 

[SelfSim]

I agree we don't have access to other creature's subjective experience (even other people's), so we can only use behaviour as a guide. An expert might have observed that the behaviour is part of some social signalling (mating, dominance, etc), so is probably not a solitary 'just for the fun of it' behaviour. If not, it might be possible to monitor the physiological state of the bird to see whether it has a similar profile to ours when we're having fun; e.g. vertebrate brains share common reward neurotransmitters (dopamine, etc).

Possibly thanks to web-based AI bots, but it now seems 'Some Fish Can Count, but No-one Knows Why'.

I think we just have to agree on what we mean by 'mistake' in some context. Some people refuse to entertain any meaning that isn't consistent with their argument.

Yep .. agree.

The philosophy of truth is quite extensive (and contentious) - I rather like idea that science is associated with 'convergence truth', i.e. that ideal model or explanation that all unbiased, objective independent observers will eventually converge on, given unlimited time

Yeah .. the best I can come up with is that objective thinkers will come to agreement. Its by no means a silver bullet, but it surely is a way better alternative than using mass-murder via tanks and heavy artillery, eh?
(I also notice I used the 'silver bullet' analogy there too, for some strange reason .. )

I suspect a happy family dog reciprocates by seeing them as its pack. But judging by the unfortunate number of baby & child maulings, quite a few families have very little understanding of dog behaviour.

Its over the top, (IMO), how many people suffer because of owner misperceptions about the reality of their dog's behaviours (and their potential behaviours under atypical circumstances).
Also, I've noticed some bird types (seagulls mainly) being irresistably attracted to rc model gliders and mimicking human initiated manoeuvres for a period. This appears to me as being a display of their flocking instinct .. (there is never any aggresive attack posturing, for example, interestingly) .. not so for 'the evil' magpies or crows though ..

 

[Kylie]

So you're discounting the possibility that the will itself can be "biased" in some manner. Such that given the same options it would make the same choice. For example it would always choose pizza over a bowl of live worms. The fact that you would always make the same choice doesn't mean that you don't have free will. It just means that the will itself can somehow be biased.

On the other hand, if free will isn't biased in some manner then aren't its choices simply random? And if its choices are random then it's not really free will at all. It can't freely "choose" anything.

Thus it would seem that free will requires biases? The only difference being that with free will those biases must somehow be internally generated and not externally generated. Thus you can have free will yet theoretically always make the same choice given the same circumstances.

Another option would be that the will itself is indeterminate and unpredictable, thus the idea that it's neurotic, you never know what it's going to do. It still has biases, but they change.

Doesn't free will require biases, because without them one's choices are simply random. And if one has biases then isn't it possible that given the same circumstances one would always make the same choice?

I don't see that bias equates to always has the same outcome.

I mean, if you're going to be asking, "If the sequence of events plays out exactly the same every time, will you make the same free choice at the end of it?" I don't see how that is functionally any different to predeterminism anyway.

 

[zippy2006]

And I have agreed that it's only possible to avoid some behavioural contradictions. But, as I said, failure to always live up to one's beliefs about how the world is or should be is not uncommon - I suspect it is universal.

You're just failing at logic, constantly equivocating with wild abandon. You are literally incapable of considering whether it is possible for determinists to avoid (all) self-contradiction. That second sentence is completely irrelevant, and it has been completely irrelevant each time you have uttered it.

This basic inability to consider arguments and the meaning of words signifies to me that you are not actually interested in examining the question, and it doesn't strike me as a good use of my time to examine questions with such people.

I think it is absurd to countenance the position that rats make mistakes, but you seem to be committed to the even more absurd claim that <grass makes mistakes> (for plants that evolve are inevitably involved in "disadvantageous actions," which is your definition of a mistake).

So yeah... good luck with your position and the mental gymnastics required to sustain it. If you are so committed to the denial of free will that you are prepared to engage in absurdities such as attributing mistakes to grass, then I don't think I need to spend any more time beating a dead horse.

 

[Chesterton]

That second sentence is completely irrelevant, and it has been completely irrelevant each time you have uttered it.

And he uses the word "failure" in that sentence. That word would have to be meaningless to a determinist, and to an atheist for that matter. I'm reminded of the words of C. S. Lewis: "My idea is that sometimes they do forget. That is their glory. Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human."

 

[SelfSim]

You're just failing at logic, constantly equivocating with wild abandon. You are literally incapable of considering whether it is possible for determinists to avoid (all) self-contradiction. That second sentence is completely irrelevant, and it has been completely irrelevant each time you have uttered it.

This basic inability to consider arguments and the meaning of words signifies to me that you are not actually interested in examining the question, and it doesn't strike me as a good use of my time to examine questions with such people.

I think it is absurd to countenance the position that rats make mistakes, but you seem to be committed to the even more absurd claim that <grass makes mistakes> (for plants that evolve are inevitably involved in "disadvantageous actions," which is your definition of a mistake).

So yeah... good luck with your position and the mental gymnastics required to sustain it. If you are so committed to the denial of free will that you are prepared to engage in absurdities such as attributing mistakes to grass, then I don't think I need to spend any more time beating a dead horse.

Thanks goodness I live in a universe where I don't know whether determinism, or free will, exist independently from the way I perceive what I have those terms mean, at any given time.

All I do know there, is that we are capable of inventing such concepts for the purpose of using them to make reasonably consistent, practically useful predictions, and then testing them out.

The absolutism, (or black and whiteness), being invoked in the above discussion, has been attributed, (in a previous post), to the way logic works, but I also know that, (just like conceptualisation), logic is a contributing, fundamental way our minds make sense of our perceptions. If logic is also a major contributor to the sense of assuredness derived from determinism, I wonder how an often an illogically thinking person would share in that sense?

Either way, I know we 'own' all of this .. and there is no evidence that any of it 'exists' independently from our minds (including: logically, or illogically, thinking ones).

 

[zippy2006]

I'm reminded of the words of C. S. Lewis: "My idea is that sometimes they do forget. That is their glory. Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human."

That's an excellent quote.

Thanks goodness I live in a universe where I don't know whether determinism, or free will, exist independently from the way I perceive what I have those terms mean, at any given time.

All I do know there, is that we are capable of inventing such concepts for the purpose of using them to make reasonably consistent, practically useful predictions, and then testing them out.

The absolutism, (or black and whiteness), being invoked in the above discussion, has been attributed, (in a previous post), to the way logic works, but I also know that, (just like conceptualisation), logic is a contributing, fundamental way our minds make sense of our perceptions. If logic is also a major contributor to the sense of assuredness derived from determinism, I wonder how an often an illogically thinking person would share in that sense?

Either way, I know we 'own' all of this .. and there is no evidence that any of it 'exists' independently from our minds (including: logically, or illogically, thinking ones).

I would say that holding a belief which necessarily and unavoidably involves you in self-contradiction is not rational. Determinism is one such belief.

It is also worth noting that determinism is a neat and tidy explanation of all of reality. The whole approach is reminiscent of the Logical Positivists. But the thing is, reality is not neat and tidy. Ignoring all of the complexities and paradoxes of reality in favor of a simple scientistic theory is not in accord with truth, or love of truth.

 

[SelfSim]

But the thing is, reality is not neat and tidy. Ignoring all of the complexities and paradoxes of reality in favor of a simple scientistic theory is not in accord with truth, or love of truth.

I have no idea what you mean by 'truth' there .. but I note that you observe reality as not having a 'neat and tidy' meaning.

 

[Vap841]

.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, to the first, the quantum world/realm/level is the "building blocks" (basically) of atoms, correct?

And if atoms (always) behave deterministically, then how cannot what makes it/them (up) also be so also, to some degree, etc, or perhaps at every degree, etc?

And as to the last, having only one possible way things can ever happen or go, etc, "ever", etc, makes causing things/determining things/predetermining things, predicting/foretelling things, etc, much more simpler, and far, far easier to see/ and/or understand to the finite mind, correct?

I see you liked my post #203, but in it, I did not just mean the things that atoms make on the larger levels, etc, but also what they are made up of or from on the smaller ones also, etc...

Do you think it is all deterministic? and that there ever was/is/is still, etc, only one way things ever could, or can, or do always, etc, "go", etc, at all ever, or from the very beginning at all ever...?

Do you think there is only one path...? or that there are multiple different possibilities, etc...?

I don't know if it is fundamentally deterministic or not, but I suspect it may be. But knowing that would make little difference at human scales, where the world behaves predominantly causally, but there is also unpredictability, whether chaotic, pseudo-random, or truly random.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

Because, as far as quantum entanglement goes, if we ever get there one day, I think we will discover, eventually, that the way that everything becomes "entangled", was already predisposed, or was already determined/predetermined already, deterministically.

Entanglement appears to be a deterministic process.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Zippy writes about the problem of the contradictions, and you reply with contradictions. I have to admit, you're very good at choosing your words carefully, but not good enough to hide the fact that you're saying the knowledge that the world is deterministic is not enough to make people behave deterministically, which is a non-sensical contradiction.

It seems I'm not choosing my words carefully enough... I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I meant that what people do is deterministic, but the knowledge that the world is deterministic is not sufficient to change their behaviour to completely reflect that knowledge, e.g. they still behave as if they and others have free will, moral responsibility, and so on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're just failing at logic, constantly equivocating with wild abandon.

So you say. OTOH, you may be misconstruing me, or I may be failing to express myself clearly. You seem unwilling to find out.

You are literally incapable of considering whether it is possible for determinists to avoid (all) self-contradiction.

Well, no - because I literally did consider it, and said it isn't possible

This basic inability to consider arguments and the meaning of words signifies to me that you are not actually interested in examining the question, and it doesn't strike me as a good use of my time to examine questions with such people.

OK. But ISTM that one of the requirements of a productive discussion is a willingness to establish what people mean if their usages don't correspond to your own.

If you are so committed to the denial of free will that you are prepared to engage in absurdities such as attributing mistakes to grass, then I don't think I need to spend any more time beating a dead horse.

I'm pretty sure I didn't attribute mistakes to grass, so I'll take that as fanciful hyperbole.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And he uses the word "failure" in that sentence. That word would have to be meaningless to a determinist, and to an atheist for that matter.

It was just a use of a common phrase, meaning, in this context, that determinists, for the most part, don't behave in ways that reflect that belief - but a moment's thought should tell you that, under determinism, you shouldn't expect them to.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, no - because I literally did consider it, and said it isn't possible

So you admit that it is impossible (in principle) for determinists to avoid all self-contradiction?

OK. But ISTM that one of the requirements of a productive discussion is a willingness to establish what people mean if their usages don't correspond to your own.

But also to use words honestly and according to colloquial definitions. If that doesn't happen then adjudicating the meaning of words will ultimately be impossible, and this seems to be the case at hand.

I'm pretty sure I didn't attribute mistakes to grass, so I'll take that as fanciful hyperbole.

Again, given your definition of a mistake grass makes mistakes. You can either accept that absurd conclusion, revise your definition, or explain how the definition avoids the absurd conclusion. As usual, I offered an argument and you didn't respond with an argument.

 

[zippy2006]

And he uses the word "failure" in that sentence. That word would have to be meaningless to a determinist, and to an atheist for that matter.

It was just a use of a common phrase, meaning, in this context, that determinists, for the most part, don't behave in ways that reflect that belief - but a moment's thought should tell you that, under determinism, you shouldn't expect them to.

But this just underwrites the very point Chesterton was making. If determinists do not and should not be expected to behave in ways that reflect the belief in 'failure', then why in Heaven's name are they so often using that word to describe reality?! Using words as objective descriptions of reality is, after all, behavior that reflects the belief in the realities that those words stand for.

 

[durangodawood]

So you admit that it is impossible (in principle) for determinists to avoid all self-contradiction?....

Can you direct me to a post where one of these self contradictions was mentioned.... or provide one here?

 

[zippy2006]

Can you direct me to a post where one of these self contradictions was mentioned.... or provide one here?

Here is one of the lines that I gave, and the third quote is most concise and concrete:

Building off of this notion of a (true) mistake, knowledge itself presupposes the ability to make mistakes, the ability to be correct or incorrect, and the ability to assert things truly or falsely. It presupposes the (free) ability to have one's thesis correspond or not correspond to what is true. If we can't fail, then we can't succeed, and if we can't succeed, then we can't have knowledge, and if we can't have knowledge, then determinism cannot be known, nor can it even be "true" in a real epistemic sense. This is because the proposition that we use to represent its meaning cannot have the crucial quality of truth-indeterminateness that propositions are required to have (what the Medieval logicians termed 'enuntiabilia').

The meaning of determinism. The idea that we can have a truth-indeterminate abstract representation/proposition that is then assessed for truth is not possible on determinism. Such a notion presupposes that we be able to step outside of the causal world, pose a question, survey the causal world which we are at that moment standing over, and then draw a conclusion based on our assessment. The very ability to conceive of determinism implies an ability to stand over and transcend the causal order. Rats can't do any of this, but they still manage to fulfill some of their desires. ...So either we can truly conceive of determinism, in which case it is false (for it did not determine our conception of determinism) or else we are rats and the conception we have of "determinism" isn't determinism at all.

There are a few ideas, but I will focus on the easiest. We have an abstract conception of the causal world. If that abstract conception is to be complete, then can it be deterministically caused itself? That is, can the complete, abstract conception include within it the deterministic causes which directly bring it into being?

(Note that determinism is an abstract conception of the causal world which purports to be complete)

(See context for more information)