Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:05 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:21 pm
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:15 pm
davidm wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:03 pm
The information isn't there because of quantum mechanics -- unless one wants to hold that past, present and future all exist (thesis of eternalism) In that case the information is all there, qm and all. But even in that case, for us entities stuck inside of the universe, no computer even in principle could predict the future; it could only assess probabilities of such and such happening.
Well yeah, but the quantum field producing (seemingly) random energy is another point entirely; Inability to access information doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. It's logically impossible to predict your own future, but that doesn't mean it's logically impossible to predict your own future specifically because the future isn't pre-set.
Or it is all completely determined, but there isn't one future that is specifically yours, so the information about your future, even if all 'there' under eternalism, is not knowable even outside the system.
I don't know if it's actually 'all completely determined' then.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Noax » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:43 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:03 pm
It sounded to me as though "No, the (Godel) theorem acts more as a rebuttal to deterministic arguments. "If determinism, the future is, in principle at least, computable." Gödel showed that it is not possible even in principle." is an anti-determinism statement, perhaps implying that the determinism philosophers speak of isn't true for this reason.
No. It isn't an anti-determinism statement. It says that certain kinds of predictions cannot be made from within certain temporal systems, whether they are determined or not.
Yes, just because we can't predict our own future for the logical reasons that we've discussed, doesn't mean we don't have a precedented future. The future of the entire universe could still be predicted outside our system, is the thing.
No on the second one. If it is outside the system, it is not a prediction, but rather just knowledge. I can know how the Harry Potter story ends because I'm not in it and have access to the last page even though that's not where my current point is in reading the story. That is knowledge of the future relative to the point of the dynamic system (a story book) at which I am reading, but does not constitute my having made a prediction.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Noax » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:47 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:05 pm
Noax wrote:Or it is all completely determined, but there isn't one future that is specifically yours, so the information about your future, even if all 'there' under eternalism, is not knowable even outside the system.
I don't know if it's actually 'all completely determined' then.
It is. You're holding a Harry Potter book again with two alternate endings, both in the book. Armed with that completely determined knowledge (there is no information not contained in the book), it is impossible to know the actual fate of Harry Potter since there are two endings, neither more actual than the other.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:40 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:43 pm
No on the second one. If it is outside the system, it is not a prediction, but rather just knowledge. I can know how the Harry Potter story ends because I'm not in it and have access to the last page even though that's not where my current point is in reading the story. That is knowledge of the future relative to the point of the dynamic system (a story book) at which I am reading, but does not constitute my having made a prediction.
I think I see what you're saying, but I don't think time actually works like that. Time isn't relative to a dynamic system in reality.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:41 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:47 pm
It is. You're holding a Harry Potter book again with two alternate endings, both in the book. Armed with that completely determined knowledge (there is no information not contained in the book), it is impossible to know the actual fate of Harry Potter since there are two endings, neither more actual than the other.
I'm imaging it in a sort of multiverse way. Not word to word from a literal book. If harry potter was an actual universe governed by its own laws, I think someone could deduce exactly what happens to the very end with full knowledge of how those laws work.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4114
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:41 am

davidm wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:11 pm
On a search, I can't find anything remotely resembling my saying this, or anyone else saying it ... :?
But did you not write:
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:52 pm
Yes! Compatibilists are determinists! Not closet determinists! -- full, out-of-the-closet, pro-determinist marriage determinists! Hooray for your staggering insight!
"Compatibilists are Determinists."

I expected you to say, "Compatibilists are both Determinists and Libertarians at the same time," but of course that would have been incorrect.

At the time, I was surprised you so easily conceded that Compatibilists were just a subspecies of Determinist -- but, of course, that's what the dichotomous chart you recommended said too.

So I'm now uncertain of your position: are Compatibilists just another kind of undeclared (what I meant by "closet") Determinists, as you see it, or not? :shock:

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4114
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:43 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:44 pm
I have no way of putting my money where my mouth is.
So there are no "comforts" of the kind of which you spoke? At least, none of which you are aware? None you can explain?

Pity. :( I actually thought it would be interesting to see what you'd have to say about that.

davidm
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm » Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:44 am

Yes. I wrote that compatibilists are determinists. And?

That is just what compatibilism means. That determinism is true, and free will is true, and they are compatible.

Do you really not get this?

davidm
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm » Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:41 am

I expected you to say, "Compatibilists are both Determinists and Libertarians at the same time," but of course that would have been incorrect.
WTF? :lol: Are you really this dense? No, of course not. You are just a dishonest purveyor of Christian apologetics.
At the time, I was surprised you so easily conceded that Compatibilists were just a subspecies of Determinist -- but, of course, that's what the dichotomous chart you recommended said too
Of course compatibilism is a subspecies of determinism. That is what compatibilism means. Are you stupid?

davidm
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm » Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:57 am

I suggest you deal with the following. But, given your evident dishonesty and/or mental disability, I doubt you will be able to. So I will soldier on without you,
davidm wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:11 pm
Let’s see if the Christian God can accommodate free will. First some definitions.

God: He exists necessarily. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect.

Necessity: He exists at all possible worlds (modal heuristic). He cannot not exist.

Omnipotent: He can do anything that it is logically possible to do. This means he cannot square a circle or make rock so heavy he cannot lift it. He cannot commit suicide because he is a necessary being. Omnipotence does not entail violating the laws of logic.

Omniscience: He knows everything, past, present and future. Moreover he knows all counterfactual truths: Exactly how all things would have gone, had things gone differently. The set of things he knows, actual and counterfactual, is almost surely infinite.

Omnipresent: He exists at all times and all places, now and forever. He also transcends time and space.

Moral perfection: I suppose we can treat this one as self-evident for the time being.

Free will: This one’s tricker because there are so many variant definitions of free will, but I will adopt a straightforward one on the Principle of Alternative Possibilities: Individuals are free only insofar as they have genuinely available options open to them; and, having done x, they could have done y instead. This also grounds people in moral desert: They truly deserve praise if they do good, and blame if they do badly. Moreover we will stipulate that God is the objective source of good on which people are free (or not) to ground their behavior.

The question then is how do these properties of God track with free will on PAP? Are they consistent with it? Inconsistent? Neutral? Supportive? Destructive? Something else? None of the above?

Before moving on I would first like to ask I Can whether my descriptions of God and free will agree with his and if he would like to answer the questions just posed.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Noax » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:43 am
So there are no "comforts" of the kind of which you spoke? At least, none of which you are aware? None you can explain?
The third one only. I've not been able to get off the ground explaining anything. There's no getting to the end if you insist on what I must believe.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4114
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:25 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:50 am
WTF? :lol: Are you really this dense? No, of course not. You are just a dishonest purveyor of Christian apologetics.
Ad hominem again.

I note that once again, when you're caught saying what you said you never said, (and this is at least the second time I've caught you out doing that) you don't stop to recognize you were wrong.

Interesting.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4114
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:28 am

Noax wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:01 am
There's no getting to the end if you insist on what I must believe.
I don't tell you what you must believe, because some people believe irrational things. I can't tell you you cannot be irrational.

I can only tell you what you ought to believe if you wish to be rationally consistent with what you have already declared that you believe. And that's what we do in philosophy. We follow claims to their logical conclusions, and see what they are. If you don't like that, then I would have to say you're in the wrong place,and are likely to find yourself very unhappy with everyone.

But as you wish.

Belinda
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda » Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:46 am

Davidm thank you for your lucid and thoughtful explanation of what William James meant by "bondage to the highest".
But James mooted this thought experiment:
Imagine that I first walk through Divinity Avenue, and then imagine that the powers governing the universe annihilate ten minutes of time with all that it contained, and set me back at the door of this hall just as I was before the choice was made. Imagine then that, everything else being the same, I now make a different choice and traverse Oxford Street. You, as passive spectators, look on and see the two alternative universes,--one of them with me walking through Divinity Avenue in it, the other with the same me walking through Oxford Street. Now, if you are determinists you believe one of these universes to have been from eternity impossible: you believe it to have been impossible because of the intrinsic irrationality or accidentality somewhere involved in it. But looking outwardly at these universes, can you say which is the impossible and accidental one, and which the rational and necessary one? I doubt if the most ironclad determinist among you could have the slightest glimmer of light on this point. In other words, either universe after the fact and once there would, to our means of observation and understanding, appear just as rational as the other.
I copied this because I believe it endorses my hard determinism, although I am sure James would not agree! How the thought experiment endorses my hard determinism is that, whichever universe is the case(and this we can never possibly know) ,James on his walk through the city would be the more free the more he knew the causes that could be brought to bear upon his choice, whatever that was . Neutrinos are not free . Freedom increases with knowledge of causes . Dogs are less free than humans. The sheep are less free than the sheepdog who in turn is less free than the shepherd who in turn is less free than the landowner who owns the pasture. There are socialist ramifications for hard determinism. So, although metaphysicians cannot solve the problem moral pragmatists can.

True, sheep may have more freedom of their basic instincts than the trained sheepdog or the shepherd or the landowner; but we are not sheepdogs far less are we neutrinos.Our freedom inheres in knowledge and reason more than in basic instincts or the chance that governs neutrinos.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Noax » Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:16 pm

davidmOnJames wrote: Now, if you are determinists you believe one of these universes to have been from eternity impossible: you believe it to have been impossible because of the intrinsic irrationality or accidentality somewhere involved in it. But looking outwardly at these universes, can you say which is the impossible and accidental one, and which the rational and necessary one? I doubt if the most ironclad determinist among you could have the slightest glimmer of light on this point. In other words, either universe after the fact and once there would, to our means of observation and understanding, appear just as rational as the other.
But the argument falls apart easily at the end. Looking from outward, the impossible one is fairly trivially tracked down similar to the way they spot new moving objects in the sky (new comets, asteroids and such). You take two images and subtract them from each other. If there is a difference, you'd identified where the change is. Track that difference back to its source (prior to which there is no difference). At that point, one of the two universes will contain an example of a violation of the deterministic physics.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests