Does Free Will Exist?

[Gracchus]

You understand your sentence above is how I feel about determinists. Determinists seem to think they are not bound by the laws of physics as we understand them.

WHAT!?

"de·ter·min·ism (d-tûrm-nzm) n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
de·termin·ist n.
de·termin·istic adj.
de·termin·isti·cal·ly adv."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

What is your definition of "determinism"?

 

[Maxwell511]

What is your definition of "determinism"?

This one....

"de·ter·min·ism (d-tûrm-nzm) n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
de·termin·ist n.
de·termin·istic adj.
de·termin·isti·cal·ly adv."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The emphasized part is where determinist start their unscientific dogma. Especially the inevitable part.

Determinist have faith that through more scientific study we will return to determinism. Much in the same way that creationists believe that through more scientific study people shall be will lead to the truth of Genesis.

I'm a bit skeptical about those claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

Wiccan Child (quote) “Rationally, we can only believe something if we have reason to, not if we don't have reason not to.”

(reply) I agree! And I have reason to believe my thoughts control my actions. I don’t have reason to believe that stuff you are talking about.

(quote) “By your logic, I would be perfectly justified in believing in a tribe of invisible elephants living on a distant planet.”

(reply) Not if you don’t have a reason to believe it!

(quote) “Simple stating you have no reason not to believe it, neither substantiates your claim nor belies a healthy understanding of science.”

(reply) when I said “I have no reason to believe it” I was not substantiating my claim; I was dismissing yours!

Sandwiches (quote) “So, you're saying that the only way a traffic light would have free will is to do something that it is INCAPABLE of doing??”

(reply)Sorta; it must be capable of doing something different than what it was programmed to do.

Ken

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This one....

The emphasized part is where determinist start their unscientific dogma. Especially the inevitable part.

Determinist have faith that through more scientific study we will return to determinism. Much in the same way that creationists believe that through more scientific study people shall be will lead to the truth of Genesis.

I'm a bit skeptical about those claims.

That's not what it means. Determinism is the idea that all events are caused by prior ones, with no element of randomness or spontenaeity. In theory, if one knew everything about the universe, one could predict the future with 100% accuracy - everything is just a mathematical model.

This is a perfectly reasonable idea; in what way is it unscientific? And more interestingly in what way does that amount to a belief that "they are not bound by the laws of physics as we understand them"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree! And I have reason to believe my thoughts control my actions. I don’t have reason to believe that stuff you are talking about.

Ah! So what is that reason you have to believe your thoughts control your actions? Moreover, how does that tie in to free will, the ability to freely choose?

Not if you don’t have a reason to believe it!

No no my friend, you said: I believe it because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Since I have no reason not to believe in alien elephants, according to you, I can believe it! But now you're saying I do need a reason to believe it...

when I said “I have no reason to believe it” I was not substantiating my claim; I was dismissing yours!

Your dismissal only works if you substantiate yours - otherwise, with no evidence on either side, Occam's Razor favours my more simpler explanation.

 

[Maxwell511]

That's not what it means. Determinism is the idea that all events are caused by prior ones, with no element of randomness or spontenaeity. In theory, if one knew everything about the universe, one could predict the future with 100% accuracy - everything is just a mathematical model.

This is a perfectly reasonable idea; in what way is it unscientific?

It ignores pretty much all of quantum mechanics. Determinism cannot be true unless we believe QM is wrong as it currently is, which there is no evidence for.

And more interestingly in what way does that amount to a belief that "they are not bound by the laws of physics as we understand them"?

Not bound by QM. They shrug it off as something that causes indeterminism in the small world and place a magical barrier on it having effects in the macroscopic world. This is sort of like microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It ignores pretty much all of quantum mechanics. Determinism cannot be true unless we believe QM is wrong as it currently is, which there is no evidence for.

Sure there is: gravity. Dark matter. Dark energy. Inflation. These things, while extant, aren't accounted for by quantum mechanics. Who's to say that the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics won't be thrown out by its successor?

Not bound by QM. They shrug it off as something that causes indeterminism in the small world and place a magical barrier on it having effects in the macroscopic world. This is sort of like microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not.

There's nothing inherently invalid about hard determinism. It seems your only objection is that it requires an overhaul of modern particle physics - improbable, sure, but that by no means makes it unscientific or faith-based.

 

[Ken-1122]

Wiccan Child (quote) "So what is that reason you have to believe your thoughts control your actions? Moreover, how does that tie in to free will, the ability to freely choose?"
　
(reply) Because I am conscience I am aware of my thoughts; and when I think about something, I decide via free will to put those thoughts into action.
　
(quote) "No no my friend, you said: I believe it because I have no reason to believe otherwise."
　
(reply) Yes! I believe my thoughts control my actions because it make sence. I don't believe those other scenerio's you keep coming up with, so I dismiss them. thus I have no reason to believe any other explanation than the one that makes sense to me. (I have no reason to believe otherwise)
　
(quote) "Since I have no reason not to believe in alien elephants"
　
(reply) Really? I could come up with a thousand reasons to not believe in alien elephants!
　
(quote) "according to you, I can believe it!"
　
(reply) I'm afraid you've got it upside down and backwards; according to me, because you have no reason to believe it, you should NOT believe it.
　
(quote) "Your dismissal only works if you substantiate yours - otherwise, with no evidence on either side, Occam's Razor favours my more simpler explanation."
　
(reply) I've substantiated my position a hundred times already; you have yet to substantiate yours. And if Occam Razor (whoever he is) takes your position, then IMO His position lacks credibility as well.

K