Free will and determinism

[Mark Quayle]

I remember when I was a kid reading somewhere about the possibility of an infinite universe. And the argument against the possibilty was that in an infinite universe anthing that is possible must be actual. An infinite number of times.

Wonder what they meant by 'infinite'. Do they mean infinite in longevity (time or distance/scope)? Or infinite as in infinite permutations of possibilities? If they meant infinite in distance, I don't see that statement as relevant.

Words certainly do throw us around! I think most people don't even know quite what they mean, by, "possible". We have no way to prove that anything but what is actual even had been possible. Infinite universe or not. But we plow right on down the row without seeing if it lines up with the other rows, because we are transfixed on the blade.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

I'm done arguing about it, ya'll have fun ok.

Take Care/God Bless.

P.S. I still think the reason for some if not most people (or a lot of a lot of people actually) rejecting the idea of determinism as an obvious truth is just because they can't accept it due to an inner rebellion that is also deterministic in their case, etc. So there's no point or sense in me trying to "kick against the goads", and that's why I'm going to quit arguing about it, etc.

But I'd also just like to ask you what God maybe thinks about that inner rebellion being the only reason, if it is, etc, and what you think he might think about it though? In my opinion it really is just you insisting on your own way, and not wanting to confront or accept/tackle difficult truths probably because of some other things besides this that was just mentioned that are in you right now currently, that is currently still wrong with you, etc.

Anyway, ya'll have fun.

I'm done arguing endlessly with rebellious toddlers throwing fits cause they don't want to see the truth, etc. And this is going to be beginning to other things I have been arguing as well, so you might not see me on here very much any longer for awhile. If you didn't get it when I already said it the first thousand times, then, "good luck!", I guess, see you at the judgement, etc. (And then you'll find out I was right and had the truth all along, etc) (and was one of the only one's who did, all along, etc).

Take Care/God Bless.

Sorry, I was only answering the original post. I didn't read the 230+ pages of discussion.

I disagree with your view. I think it can be used to justify evil, so it can't be right. But if you don't want to argue, then have a good day.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

Then can we agree that if nothing determined any given decision, if there was no cause, then it was arbitrary?

It's a hypothetical. Not an actual experiment. Like a brain in a vat or creating an exact copy of yourself. It's a thought experiment. Many people in this forum can't seem to grasp the concept. I think you just joined the club.

It would fail. Because It's not 'the closest' to what I want. It's utterly different. In the thought experiment, everything is either exactly the same...or it isn't. If something is subtly different (as it would be in a 'similar trial') then you've introduced variables that could change the result. Which is an important point you've made And one which you need to consider. A tiny variable can cause a different result. It might cause you to change your mind about something. Or, putting it another way, the change determined your choice.

What you then have to explain is what reason was there that caused the person to become a Democrat, or an atheist. People don't randomly become Democrats (or atheists) for no reason. So what do you think determined their decision? Can you offer some suggestions?

Then it's truly arbitrary. Like spinning a coin. As I've said, free will isn't involved with random decisions. That's the very opposite of free will.

But you said that decision making wasn't deterministic. Now you're saying that a revelation or a dream determines your choices.

I completely agree. They become part of what is described in the thread as antecedent conditions.

It's not hypothetical if it can never happen, and it's powerless if it has no effect. Either show me your logic is infallible, or show me real life examples that prove it. Debate must lead to a useful conclusion. Otherwise I'm gonna ignore you.

I've already presented real observations that show it's not real in my last post. It's not 100% infallible proof, but it's very good proof. If you can show me better proof I'm not opposed to believing it.

And a note: determinism is actually sick, if you didn't know.

People since thousands of years ago have used it as an excuse to do evil. Since the world is deterministic, then whatever they do, they shouldn't be punished for; it's not their fault. That's their logic, and I think if you believe in it long enough, you'll become the same.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sorry, I was only answering the original post. I didn't read the 230+ pages of discussion.

I disagree with your view. I think it can be used to justify evil, so it can't be right. But if you don't want to argue, then have a good day.

It's poor logic to say that something that CAN be used to justify evil can't be right. Bad people will use truth to justify themselves all day long.

 

[Bradskii]

Wonder what they meant by 'infinite'. Do they mean infinite in longevity (time or distance/scope)? Or infinite as in infinite permutations of possibilities? If they meant infinite in distance, I don't see that statement as relevant.

Words certainly do throw us around! I think most people don't even know quite what they mean, by, "possible". We have no way to prove that anything but what is actual even had been possible. Infinite universe or not. But we plow right on down the row without seeing if it lines up with the other rows, because we are transfixed on the blade.

For some inexplicable reason I thought about that concept of infinite possibilities being actual a couple of days ago. I was sitting in my car waiting for the lights to change and a leaf landed on the windscreen. And I wondered if there were an infinite number of worlds somewhere where everything was exactly the same except that the leaf didn't fall.

Maybe I need some help...

 

[Bradskii]

It's not hypothetical if it can never happen, and it's powerless if it has no effect.

I think you should skip the hypotheticals. We can do without them and it'll save me time explaining the difference between thought experiments and actual experiments.

I've already presented real observations that show it's not real in my last post.

Then let's address one of them once again. The one where someone decides to become a Democrat rather than a Republican compared to someone else brought up in the same circumstances. Or an atheist or a theist. I asked you what you might think caused them to make their decisions. You didn't respond, so let's try again: What do you think could be an explanation for their decisions? OR...and this is extremely important....was there no reason for their choice.

I can't emphasise how important that question is. I've used your example so let's investigate it. If you're interested in knowing why I have reached my conclusion and why a not insignificant people have reached the same one, then...let's go.

People since thousands of years ago have used it as an excuse to do evil. Since the world is deterministic, then whatever they do, they shouldn't be punished for; it's not their fault. That's their logic...

It's pretty poor logic. Tell them from me that they can indeed expect some sort of punishment. Let's take an example:

Someone robs a bank. They know it's wrong because they know the money belongs to other people and they know, as a fact, that they will be punished if they are caught. If they are caught and found guilty then telling the judge that they couldn't help it because it was determined won't help them. The judge will simply ask them if they knew it was wrong. If they have a mental problem when they truly didn't think they were doing wrong then they'll need medical help. Otherwise their best bet would be to say that yes, they knew it was wrong and they are very sorry for what they did.

IF there is genuine remorse and the judge thinks there is very little chance for a repeat offence then they'll probably get a more lenient sentence then the person who shows no remorse and is an habitual criminal. I'm sure you're aware of situations like that. But they will get punished. They made decisions that were determined by an infinite number of factors. But they made the wrong ones. So what we have to do is introduce a factor that will help them make a better decisions next time. That factor will be a punishment if they are caught. If you have kids then you'll know this. They may not be old enough to understand the consequences of some actions but if they know they did wrong then you can help them make better decisions by some sort of punishment. Grounded for a few days, sent to their room, no access to the laptop etc.

If the guy shows every sign or reoffending then there's an additional reason for punishment: protecting the public from him.

So...having decisions determined by our good friends 'antecedent conditions' will not save you from punishment. And people trying to use it as an excuse doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist in any case.

If you can, please address the Republican/Democrat question I asked earlier. Let's make this a conversation and not two guys simply saying 'oh yes it is, oh no it's not'.

 

[Neogaia777]

Sorry, I was only answering the original post. I didn't read the 230+ pages of discussion.

I disagree with your view. I think it can be used to justify evil, so it can't be right. But if you don't want to argue, then have a good day.

I really don't anymore, not after so many pages. Anyway, you have a good day as well.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

We're talking about a near infinite number of factors here, and everyone from birth, or even from before the sperm even met the egg in womb, is already different, and there is no single one exactly alike, or that already starts out exactly alike, and so that, along with everything else that follows, is going to affect their decisions, so that those are not ever going to be exactly alike either, etc. I'm certainly not one to deny each one's very own unique uniqueness, because with the number of factors we are talking about here, there's way more than enough room for that, etc.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

I think you should skip the hypotheticals. We can do without them and it'll save me time explaining the difference between thought experiments and actual experiments.

Then let's address one of them once again. The one where someone decides to become a Democrat rather than a Republican compared to someone else brought up in the same circumstances. Or an atheist or a theist. I asked you what you might think caused them to make their decisions. You didn't respond, so let's try again: What do you think could be an explanation for their decisions? OR...and this is extremely important....was there no reason for their choice.

I can't emphasise how important that question is. I've used your example so let's investigate it. If you're interested in knowing why I have reached my conclusion and why a not insignificant people have reached the same one, then...let's go.

It's pretty poor logic. Tell them from me that they can indeed expect some sort of punishment. Let's take an example:

Someone robs a bank. They know it's wrong because they know the money belongs to other people and they know, as a fact, that they will be punished if they are caught. If they are caught and found guilty then telling the judge that they couldn't help it because it was determined won't help them. The judge will simply ask them if they knew it was wrong. If they have a mental problem when they truly didn't think they were doing wrong then they'll need medical help. Otherwise their best bet would be to say that yes, they knew it was wrong and they are very sorry for what they did.

IF there is genuine remorse and the judge thinks there is very little chance for a repeat offence then they'll probably get a more lenient sentence then the person who shows no remorse and is an habitual criminal. I'm sure you're aware of situations like that. But they will get punished. They made decisions that were determined by an infinite number of factors. But they made the wrong ones. So what we have to do is introduce a factor that will help them make a better decisions next time. That factor will be a punishment if they are caught. If you have kids then you'll know this. They may not be old enough to understand the consequences of some actions but if they know they did wrong then you can help them make better decisions by some sort of punishment. Grounded for a few days, sent to their room, no access to the laptop etc.

If the guy shows every sign or reoffending then there's an additional reason for punishment: protecting the public from him.

So...having decisions determined by our good friends 'antecedent conditions' will not save you from punishment. And people trying to use it as an excuse doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist in any case.

If you can, please address the Republican/Democrat question I asked earlier. Let's make this a conversation and not two guys simply saying 'oh yes it is, oh no it's not'.

About the question I didn't respond to: whether there was a cause or no cause for them to become Dems/Cons.

I don't know. It could be natural disposition, it could be inspiration, it could be some unobservable factor, it could be completely random, it could even be some incomprehensible concept.

But no matter what it is, we can't ever find out, it's way beyond us. And it doesn't matter. Knowing from observations is enough.

As for continuing the argument... No thanks. It won't be productive.