An Answer to the problem of "Choice or Determinism"

[Scott Mayers]

I don't know about multivalued logic. I am thinking pure 1 and 0. Even saying it is true or not true. Not even saying true or false. Saying something is false has a sense of condemnation, and two values of true or false are like 1 and -1, not 1 and 0. I am thinking pure 1 and 0 logic, as everyone knows how digital equipment have taken over all the industry.
That way being contrary or in contradiction, are the same.

No, you are attempting to use quantifiers implicitly from,

1- It is all Determinism.
2- It is all Choice.
3- It is some Choice and some Determinism.

...which implicitly is identical to...

1- "All Reality is Deterministic"
2- "No Reality is Deterministic" or...
3- "Some Reality is Deterministic" and "Some Reality is not Deterministic"

You haven't proven any two of these as false to rule out what remains. This is not an argument but the same as saying only one of these is exclusively true. As such, no conclusion can be drawn on mere logic. You need to prove 1 and 2 false for 3 to be true.

Even if you accepted 3, you'd have to point to some reality as deterministic AND some reality that is not. I know that we agree to the possibility of 3 but you'd have to show HOW both are possible. I offer the many worlds interpretation which accounts for a local reality as appearing 'freely chosen' but that is nevertheless still deterministic in parallel universes. But one can still be coming to this conclusion if one asserts God gives humans a special 'freedom' but that the rest of nature is strictly deterministic.

[K1Barin]

You haven't proven any two of these as false to rule out what remains. This is not an argument but the same as saying only one of these is exclusively true. As such, no conclusion can be drawn on mere logic. You need to prove 1 and 2 false for 3 to be true.

What I tried to do from the beginning was to prove 1 and 2 false. And I tried to do that by rejecting them as contradictory to themselves.

If I am not successful in this, the rest is not that important.

[Belinda]

Nevertheless, in spite of the limitations, people make choices when they are in various situations.

I agree. But I'm also curious. What do you find proves that, or at least makes you think it's the most reasonable conclusion? (I don't mind responding to the same question in return, of course. I just want to see if you've maybe got ahold of something I haven't thought of yet.)

My dog chooses and is obsessive about one of his choices which is his throw and fetch game. My dog has far less ability to choose than I have; for one thing I don't obsess. The more power one has the more choices one has and the fewer choices the less power. We educate the young so they can have more choices/ power.

[Scott Mayers]

You haven't proven any two of these as false to rule out what remains. This is not an argument but the same as saying only one of these is exclusively true. As such, no conclusion can be drawn on mere logic. You need to prove 1 and 2 false for 3 to be true.

What I tried to do from the beginning was to prove 1 and 2 false. And I tried to do that by rejecting them as contradictory to themselves.

If I am not successful in this, the rest is not that important.

Then perhaps begin by determining if everyone agrees to 'Determinism' as at least being certain. This suffices to begin with "Everything is Deterministic". Then to show that "Some things are not Deterministic" (the actual contradiction), you need to establish proof that some of nature is 'indeterminate' (like how the Slit experiment, perhaps, acts as potential proof of Indeterminate realities).

But to connect the human 'will' to this would still difficult given this can touch on people's religious beliefs. To be unbiased by external factors from things like religion and politics, one would need to show how the Indeterministic factors of Nature (after the proof of these existing) can permit real different outcomes based on human decisions. This is difficult because we cannot repeat experiments in the same identical time to prove that an alternative reality COULD have been the case.

I think an argument can be made but just disagree with your particular approach, though it is a good (and necessary) start to rational inspection of the subject.

[Belinda]

If all objects are really events then there are no spatial boundaries between events but there are temporal boundaries. If all events are really objects then there are spatial boundaries between objects but no temporal boundaries.

Apart from religious beliefs it's not reasonable to presume that some phenomena are events while other phenomena are objects that events happen to. What is the intuition that makes one decide whether a phenomenon is an event or an object that events happen to?
To take the case of billiard -ball determinism according to the theory that all is events, when the billiard balls collide both the billiard-balls and the collision are phenomena. Why we call the balls "objects" and the collision "an event" is because the game could not exist otherwise.Therefore it is not in nature that some phenomena are objects and some are events but it's we who decide which is to be which.
If the billiard-balls and their collision are both events then both are necessary events.

[Age]

We have three options in front of us:
1- It is all Determinism.
2- It is all Choice.
3- It is some Choice and some Determinism.

Unfortunately, this is a false trichotomy.

You can see that if you ask yourself if anybody believes that EVERYTHING has to be "choice." I don't know of a single human being who believes that, for example, the law of gravity pulls things down "by choice." I know of nobody who would argue that people are born "by their own choice." I don't think there's a human being silly enough to imagine that the day of his death will come "by choice," unless he's also silly enough to kill himself.

Here is ANOTHER example of the, so called, "christians" be some of the MOST judgement people. Which, VERY CONTRADICTORY, goes AGAINST their very teachings about not being judgmental.

Religious people continual SHOW "themselves" to be the MOST HYPOCRITICAL of all.

So nobody believes #2. Nobody.

Then, number 3 is also problematic. This is because Determinism, rightly understood, is an all-or-nothing claim. It's not merely a synonym for "materially caused," because even "choice" believers know full well that material causality sometimes is the right kind of explanation for a thing -- indeed, often is.

Your use of "rightly understood" is ANOTHER Wrongly used term, which is AGAIN, and ALSO, NOT well understood, by you.

The only real question is whether or not EVERYTHING is predetermined, or whether there is some space for human will in the universe. So there are really only two options, not three.

LOL "only real ...".

And they are as follows:

1. It is all Determinism
2. It is not all material causality; there are some choices.

AND, thee ANSWER is OBVIOUS.

[Age]

...for the two options you posted, the first option is in contradiction with itself, and second option is acceptable.

Well, there really are people who claim to believe in 1. And I have to admit that. But invariably, their actions (such as arguing, debating, trying to persuade, or just living their daily lives by making choices) make that claim incredible. At best, Determinism must be a mental imposture; it is certainly never a lived reality. Nobody "lives like" a Determinist.

How does/is a "determinist" live, or supposed to live?

I think the second option is the only one that reflects lived experience at all. We all know that the Law of Gravity or the various Laws of Entropy are fixed and irresistible. We should all admit that some aspects of life are predetermined by some force beyond us. Nobody's really "the master of their own fate and the captain of their own soul."

So, now you claim that really "God is NOT the master of Its own fate NOR the captain of Its own soul", which REALLY CONTRADICTS just about EVERY thing you have said and claimed previously.

That poem is hogwash. We are, at most, part owners of our situation, not total controllers of it. Total "masters" of our fate, we are not; but "meaningful participants," yes.

But nobody actually lives as if Determinism "makes all decisions for us," no matter what they say. So I agree with stroking 1 out.

[Age]

[Nobody "lives like" a Determinist.]
I agree.

How does a, so called, "determinist" live?

[Age]

I just want to point out that there are many ideas about choice and determinism. The thing that makes my original post different from others is the method of reasoning which is based on "rejecting the ideas that are in contradiction with themselves".

WHY, and WHEN, would ANY one accept or agree with an idea that was in contradiction with itself?

[Age]

"rejecting the ideas that are in contradiction with themselves".

That's a really good axiom, actually. Self-contradictory arguments are about as certain a case of something that's wrong as anybody can find.

The "argument" that God created EVERY thing, except Its 'self', is about as Self-contradictory an "argument" as ever been said.

That's a problem with arguing for Determinism: people do it all the time, but in arguing they're implying that they can change minds, and that a person's volition matters, and that they have the means to change their minds.

Talking about, and using the word, 'mind' but NEVER actually KNOWING what the 'mind' IS is about as Self-contradictory "arguing" as there can be.

All that would be impossible if Determinism were true: our minds would not be capable of being changed by our decisions, arguments could avail nothing, the mind would not be real (it would be no more than an odd expression of a causal chain of purely material elements), and so forth.

In the act of claiming he is believing Determinism, he proves himself contradictory...and wrong. He should say, "I"m a Determinist because I was predetermined by prior causal forces to be one; and you are a voluntarist because you were predetermined to be one. End of story."

Well you have just done a GREAT job of arguing for, and maybe even PROVING that, 'determinism' being REAL, as well as being VERY ALIVE and VERY True and Correct.

But he doesn't think that. He thinks he's believing Determinism because it's rational...and he thinks you can be convinced to change your mind, a mind he also claims you have no control over.

Who is "he" here?

[Age]

You haven't proven any two of these as false to rule out what remains. This is not an argument but the same as saying only one of these is exclusively true. As such, no conclusion can be drawn on mere logic. You need to prove 1 and 2 false for 3 to be true.

What I tried to do from the beginning was to prove 1 and 2 false. And I tried to do that by rejecting them as contradictory to themselves.

If I am not successful in this, the rest is not that important.

Then perhaps begin by determining if everyone agrees to 'Determinism' as at least being certain.

I suggest that if one begins by showing the definition of the words they use, then "others" can better 'choose' to agree or not.

This suffices to begin with "Everything is Deterministic". Then to show that "Some things are not Deterministic" (the actual contradiction), you need to establish proof that some of nature is 'indeterminate' (like how the Slit experiment, perhaps, acts as potential proof of Indeterminate realities).

But to connect the human 'will' to this would still difficult given this can touch on people's religious beliefs. To be unbiased by external factors from things like religion and politics, one would need to show how the Indeterministic factors of Nature (after the proof of these existing) can permit real different outcomes based on human decisions. This is difficult because we cannot repeat experiments in the same identical time to prove that an alternative reality COULD have been the case.

I think an argument can be made but just disagree with your particular approach, though it is a good (and necessary) start to rational inspection of the subject.

WHY NOT just LOOK AT what IS?

Which is; human beings HAVE 'the ability to choose', which can be just what the words 'free will' means or refers to.

But, what there is to choose from is determined solely from past experiences, which can be just what the word 'determinism' means or refers to. This is because although human beings ultimately end up choosing their own path or destiny, in Life, that destiny comes about because of or from pre-determined events.

'Determinism' AND 'free will' BOTH play a part in the life of human beings' past, present, and future.

As some have already said and noticed 'trying to' claim that there is only one, or the other, is absurd AND self-contradictory.

[Age]

If all objects are really events then there are no spatial boundaries between events but there are temporal boundaries. If all events are really objects then there are spatial boundaries between objects but no temporal boundaries.

In the Ultimate Truth there are NO ACTUAL spatial NOR temporal boundaries anywhere, but, in the days when this was being written, 'you', people, are still a considerable amount away from FULLY understanding this FACT.

Apart from religious beliefs it's not reasonable to presume that some phenomena are events while other phenomena are objects that events happen to. What is the intuition that makes one decide whether a phenomenon is an event or an object that events happen to?

'Intuition' does NOT make one decide either. Only 'thinking' either way makes one decide, either way.

To take the case of billiard -ball determinism according to the theory that all is events, when the billiard balls collide both the billiard-balls and the collision are phenomena. Why we call the balls "objects" and the collision "an event" is because the game could not exist otherwise.Therefore it is not in nature that some phenomena are objects and some are events but it's we who decide which is to be which.

The fact that matter, itself, is bumping into, bouncing off of, or just interacting with itself, is irrefutable. But, as you so rightly POINTED OUT here, is it 'you', human beings, decided, for "yourselves" "which is to be which" or "which IS which".

But, whatever way 'you' CHOOSE, this will NEVER affect what is ACTUALLY happening AND occurring.

If the billiard-balls and their collision are both events then both are necessary events.

'Events' ONLY exist because 'you', human beings, have CHOSEN to LOOK AT and SEE Reality/Life/Existence, Itself, not for how It ACTUALLY IS, but how you IMAGINE It is.

Once 'you' CHANGE the way 'you' LOOK AT "things", then thee ACTUAL Truth is extremely VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

[K1Barin]

Then perhaps begin by determining if everyone agrees to 'Determinism' as at least being certain. This suffices to begin with "Everything is Deterministic". Then to show that "Some things are not Deterministic" (the actual contradiction), you need to establish proof that some of nature is 'indeterminate' (like how the Slit experiment, perhaps, acts as potential proof of Indeterminate realities).

In my initial post, I indicated my reason:
If there is no choice between "it is all determinism" and "there is some choice", what is the point in discussing and trying to persuade each other.

[Belinda]

If all objects are really events then there are no spatial boundaries between events but there are temporal boundaries. If all events are really objects then there are spatial boundaries between objects but no temporal boundaries.

In the Ultimate Truth there are NO ACTUAL spatial NOR temporal boundaries anywhere, but, in the days when this was being written, 'you', people, are still a considerable amount away from FULLY understanding this FACT.

Apart from religious beliefs it's not reasonable to presume that some phenomena are events while other phenomena are objects that events happen to. What is the intuition that makes one decide whether a phenomenon is an event or an object that events happen to?

'Intuition' does NOT make one decide either. Only 'thinking' either way makes one decide, either way.

To take the case of billiard -ball determinism according to the theory that all is events, when the billiard balls collide both the billiard-balls and the collision are phenomena. Why we call the balls "objects" and the collision "an event" is because the game could not exist otherwise.Therefore it is not in nature that some phenomena are objects and some are events but it's we who decide which is to be which.

The fact that matter, itself, is bumping into, bouncing off of, or just interacting with itself, is irrefutable. But, as you so rightly POINTED OUT here, is it 'you', human beings, decided, for "yourselves" "which is to be which" or "which IS which".

But, whatever way 'you' CHOOSE, this will NEVER affect what is ACTUALLY happening AND occurring.

If the billiard-balls and their collision are both events then both are necessary events.

'Events' ONLY exist because 'you', human beings, have CHOSEN to LOOK AT and SEE Reality/Life/Existence, Itself, not for how It ACTUALLY IS, but how you IMAGINE It is.

Once 'you' CHANGE the way 'you' LOOK AT "things", then thee ACTUAL Truth is extremely VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

If I understand you, we think alike.

[K1Barin]

[Nobody "lives like" a Determinist.]
I agree.

How does a, so called, "determinist" live?

A Determinist lives like he does not have any other choice but to do anything he is doing.