compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Nature to iambiguous:

Why is it hard for you to just be up front with this information?

Like you, I am grappling to understand the human brain/consciousness/self-consciousness/"I" given what I am unable to fathom definitively about this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

I merely take it back further by noting the gap between this and what we are not privy to regarding the very existence of existence itself.

Yes, it is truly fascinating to think about these things. Philosophically. Scientifically. And the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe don't. Instead, they leave all this stuff to the ecclesiastics...to God and religion. To the theologians.

Me, I am no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding the Big Questions "out there" than I am conflicting goods "down here". It's objectivism that I take aim at.

And it's the objectivists that are often most inclined to make this all about me. My frame of mind threatens the comfort and the consolation they sustain in imaging that they are in sync with the Real me in sync further with The Right Thing To Do.

And the Right Way to think about things like this.

No, this time -- click -- really think about it.



Nature to iambiguous:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Flannel Jesus]

None of those words directly answers any of those questions. You're "grappling" to understand things, that doesn't mean you don't have an explicit position on any of those things, or things you think are likely true.

[Flannel Jesus]

Anyway, biggy, the first step towards understanding compatibilism is simply understanding why a compatibilist rejects the claim that free will comes from randomness. Once you understand that that, you're ready to move to the next step towards understanding compatibilism

[Belinda]

BigMike wrote:

In classical mechanics, the position, speed, and other properties of a particle can be determined and predicted with great accuracy using a set of equations. This leads to a view of the world that is deterministic. But in quantum mechanics, the fact that the position and momentum of a particle can't be known for sure means that the outcome of any given measurement can't be known for sure. This makes it seem like the world is more probabilistic than deterministic.

Determinism does not imply prediction, is true independent of quantum mechanics. I had worried that determinism does not imply prediction applies only to how we can know . In view of quantum mechanics and the probabilistic world it looks like determinism does not imply prediction is also ontically true.
Does this make sense?

[Belinda]

Anyway, biggy, the first step towards understanding compatibilism is simply understanding why a compatibilist rejects the claim that free will comes from randomness. Once you understand that that, you're ready to move to the next step towards understanding compatibilism

How do compatibilists reject that claim with reason?

[Flannel Jesus]

Anyway, biggy, the first step towards understanding compatibilism is simply understanding why a compatibilist rejects the claim that free will comes from randomness. Once you understand that that, you're ready to move to the next step towards understanding compatibilism

How do compatibilists reject that claim with reason?

By thinking about it in great detail.

Try thinking about how randomness might operate in the real world, in as fine detail as you can muster, and then ask yourself, is that what you mean by freedom?

[Belinda]

Anyway, biggy, the first step towards understanding compatibilism is simply understanding why a compatibilist rejects the claim that free will comes from randomness. Once you understand that that, you're ready to move to the next step towards understanding compatibilism

How do compatibilists reject that claim with reason?

By thinking about it in great detail.

Try thinking about how randomness might operate in the real world, in as fine detail as you can muster, and then ask yourself, is that what you mean by freedom?

No, randomness is not freedom. Freedom is actual power to predict and accomplish but randomness takes away that power. It's not Free Will, it's reason and knowledge that produce freedom.

I have never read a reasonable endorsement of Free Will belief, and I don't believe it can be done.

[BigMike]

BigMike wrote:

In classical mechanics, the position, speed, and other properties of a particle can be determined and predicted with great accuracy using a set of equations. This leads to a view of the world that is deterministic. But in quantum mechanics, the fact that the position and momentum of a particle can't be known for sure means that the outcome of any given measurement can't be known for sure. This makes it seem like the world is more probabilistic than deterministic.

Determinism does not imply prediction, is true independent of quantum mechanics. I had worried that determinism does not imply prediction applies only to how we can know . In view of quantum mechanics and the probabilistic world it looks like determinism does not imply prediction is also ontically true.
Does this make sense?

Yes, what you said is correct. Determinism is the idea that a system's future can be completely set by its current state and the rules that govern how it acts. In other words, if we know the exact state of a system at a given time and the rules that govern how it works, we can, in theory, predict what its state will be in the future. But that doesn't mean that we can always make accurate predictions in real life.

In the classical world, determinism usually means that you can predict what will happen, but in the quantum world, things are not as simple. In quantum mechanics, the way particles behave is inherently probabilistic. This means that you can't say for sure what their future state will be, but you can say how likely it is to be this or that. Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities, which means that even though a quantum system's future may be known in theory, we can't say for sure what it will do.

So, to sum up, determinism and prediction are not always the same thing, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics. In the classical world, determinism usually means that you can predict what will happen, but in the quantum world, where things are more complicated, determinism only tells you what the chances are, not what will definitely happen.

So, I don't think we should use the word "determinism" when we talk about free will and related ideas, because it doesn't mean anything. We should instead talk about "following conservation laws," because that makes sense even in a weird quantum mechanics world.

[Belinda]

BigMike wrote:

In classical mechanics, the position, speed, and other properties of a particle can be determined and predicted with great accuracy using a set of equations. This leads to a view of the world that is deterministic. But in quantum mechanics, the fact that the position and momentum of a particle can't be known for sure means that the outcome of any given measurement can't be known for sure. This makes it seem like the world is more probabilistic than deterministic.

Determinism does not imply prediction, is true independent of quantum mechanics. I had worried that determinism does not imply prediction applies only to how we can know . In view of quantum mechanics and the probabilistic world it looks like determinism does not imply prediction is also ontically true.
Does this make sense?

Yes, what you said is correct. Determinism is the idea that a system's future can be completely set by its current state and the rules that govern how it acts. In other words, if we know the exact state of a system at a given time and the rules that govern how it works, we can, in theory, predict what its state will be in the future. But that doesn't mean that we can always make accurate predictions in real life.

In the classical world, determinism usually means that you can predict what will happen, but in the quantum world, things are not as simple. In quantum mechanics, the way particles behave is inherently probabilistic. This means that you can't say for sure what their future state will be, but you can say how likely it is to be this or that. Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities, which means that even though a quantum system's future may be known in theory, we can't say for sure what it will do.

So, to sum up, determinism and prediction are not always the same thing, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics. In the classical world, determinism usually means that you can predict what will happen, but in the quantum world, where things are more complicated, determinism only tells you what the chances are, not what will definitely happen.

So, I don't think we should use the word "determinism" when we talk about free will and related ideas, because it doesn't mean anything. We should instead talk about "following conservation laws," because that makes sense even in a weird quantum mechanics world.

You wrote: " In quantum mechanics, the way particles behave is inherently probabilistic. This means that you can't say for sure what their future state will be, but you can say how likely it is to be this or that. "
A correlation however significant does not necessarily imply a causal relation. Logic is not tensed. However when a physicist talks about states particles/waves is he always referring to states in the past tense, or is he also predicting probabilistic future states of particles/waves ? In other words, is there some law of nature or science that says it's ontically true of particles/waves states that they are probabilistic?
In other other words, do experiments in quantum physics take place in time or are they timeless?
I am with you on "following conservation laws" instead of "determinism".

[BigMike]

BigMike wrote:



Determinism does not imply prediction, is true independent of quantum mechanics. I had worried that determinism does not imply prediction applies only to how we can know . In view of quantum mechanics and the probabilistic world it looks like determinism does not imply prediction is also ontically true.
Does this make sense?

Yes, what you said is correct. Determinism is the idea that a system's future can be completely set by its current state and the rules that govern how it acts. In other words, if we know the exact state of a system at a given time and the rules that govern how it works, we can, in theory, predict what its state will be in the future. But that doesn't mean that we can always make accurate predictions in real life.

In the classical world, determinism usually means that you can predict what will happen, but in the quantum world, things are not as simple. In quantum mechanics, the way particles behave is inherently probabilistic. This means that you can't say for sure what their future state will be, but you can say how likely it is to be this or that. Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities, which means that even though a quantum system's future may be known in theory, we can't say for sure what it will do.

So, to sum up, determinism and prediction are not always the same thing, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics. In the classical world, determinism usually means that you can predict what will happen, but in the quantum world, where things are more complicated, determinism only tells you what the chances are, not what will definitely happen.

So, I don't think we should use the word "determinism" when we talk about free will and related ideas, because it doesn't mean anything. We should instead talk about "following conservation laws," because that makes sense even in a weird quantum mechanics world.

You wrote: " In quantum mechanics, the way particles behave is inherently probabilistic. This means that you can't say for sure what their future state will be, but you can say how likely it is to be this or that. "
A correlation however significant does not necessarily imply a causal relation. Logic is not tensed. However when a physicist talks about states particles/waves is he always referring to states in the past tense, or is he also predicting probabilistic future states of particles/waves ? In other words, is there some law of nature or science that says it's ontically true of particles/waves states that they are probabilistic?
In other other words, do experiments in quantum physics take place in time or are they timeless?
I am with you on "following conservation laws" instead of "determinism".

Yes, there is a natural law in quantum mechanics known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states that particles and wave states are probabilistic. According to this principle, the more precisely you know a particle's position, the less precisely you can know its momentum, and vice versa. As a result, quantum states are probabilistic.

In terms of whether quantum physics experiments occur in time or are timeless, it is possible to say that they occur in time. Quantum mechanics is a theory that describes the behavior of particles and waves in space and time, and experiments are carried out in real-world situations where time is a factor. However, some quantum mechanics interpretations, such as the Many-Worlds interpretation, suggest that all possible outcomes of a quantum event exist in parallel and thus can be considered timeless.

[Belinda]

Thanks BigMike. I think I get the picture and I hope I wont forget it. I will try to remember the Many Worlds interpretation.

[phyllo]

There seems to be some confusion.

Mary decides to have an abortion because she wants to have a career rather than to be a housewife raising children.

This is caused by her experiences, her upbringing, the messages she gets from her society and her culture.

Express this in terms of "following conservation laws". Express it in terms of quantum mechanics.

You can't because it makes no sense to do so.

Determinism is not some strange mind control by subatomic particles.

We live in a physical reality so somewhere under experience, motivation and attitude, there are some atoms moving around. But that's not what defines determinism.

Determinism is simply a person responding to his/her environment. Much of that environment is out of our control. Therefore, as Schopenhauer says "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

"What he wills" is a product of the environment rather than something of his own choosing.

But Schopenhauer isn't talking about atoms or physical laws. He's talking about motivation and attitude.

This is why a purely physical or materialistic approach is not required for determinism. And why focusing on the physical leads nowhere.

[Iwannaplato]

Determinism is simply a person responding to his/her environment. Much of that environment is out of our control. Therefore, as Schopenhauer says "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

"What he wills" is a product of the environment rather than something of his own choosing.

And his or her nature. (and to be as clear as I can, when I introduce one's nature, I am not making an argument for free will.) We are not simply tabula rasa organisms. We have tendecies and proclivities. So nature + nurture. Of course we don't choose out own nature either. Once we are in motion, we can aim for certain experiences, but our aiming will be, once again, in determinism, caused by our natures + our nurtures.

IOW when some fatalists look at determinism they may think they are not involved. They are just like pinball balls. But their nature has led to their experiences and influences their choices (or perhaps something like 'directions'). I think you've pointed all this out before. We're a part of both the causes and effects.

[iambiguous]

ME:

What does it mean for something to be random in our interactions with others? Out of the blue? For no causal/material/empirical reason? Just -- poof! -- it happens?

Or in the either/or world does that come down to the profound mystery between matter in the realm of the very, very small and matter in the realm of the very, very large. Quantum reality and all the rest of it?

Or is quantum reality only that which science has just begun to scratch the surface regarding. QM understood a hundred years from now...a thousand years from now? What of randomness then?

And then in the world we interact in from day to day there is randomness as explored here: https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc

Things happening all around us that might have a profound impact on our lives...but things we are not even consciously aware of.

But what interests me above all else is that, in assuming free will, moral responsibility is embedded in the profoundly problematic nature of dasein...and in assuming determinism how can moral responsibility have any practical meaning at all?

Like you, I am grappling to understand the human brain/consciousness/self-consciousness/"I" given what I am unable to fathom definitively about this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

I merely take it back further by noting the gap between this and what we are not privy to regarding the very existence of existence itself.

Yes, it is truly fascinating to think about these things. Philosophically. Scientifically. And the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe don't. Instead, they leave all this stuff to the ecclesiastics...to God and religion. To the theologians.

Me, I am no less "fractured and fragmented" regarding the Big Questions "out there" than I am conflicting goods "down here". It's objectivism that I take aim at.

And it's the objectivists that are often most inclined to make this all about me. My frame of mind threatens the comfort and the consolation they sustain in imaging that they are in sync with the Real me in sync further with The Right Thing To Do.

And the Right Way to think about things like this.

YOU:

None of those words directly answers any of those questions. You're "grappling" to understand things, that doesn't mean you don't have an explicit position on any of those things, or things you think are likely true.

Anyway, biggy, the first step towards understanding compatibilism is simply understanding why a compatibilist rejects the claim that free will comes from randomness. Once you understand that that, you're ready to move to the next step towards understanding compatibilism

Mother Nature willing, one of these days she'll compel you to stop wiggling and bring all of your conclusions about compatibilism down to Earth. And explore them with Mary.

Or -- click -- if the human species did "somehow" acquire autonomy you'll finally get around to doing it yourself.

In the interim, I suggest that we just move on to others. You "up there" with your "serious philosophy" ilk and me "down here" with the "existentialists" ilk.

[Belinda]

There seems to be some confusion.

Mary decides to have an abortion because she wants to have a career rather than to be a housewife raising children.

This is caused by her experiences, her upbringing, the messages she gets from her society and her culture.

Express this in terms of "following conservation laws". Express it in terms of quantum mechanics.

You can't because it makes no sense to do so.

Determinism is not some strange mind control by subatomic particles.

We live in a physical reality so somewhere under experience, motivation and attitude, there are some atoms moving around. But that's not what defines determinism.

Determinism is simply a person responding to his/her environment. Much of that environment is out of our control. Therefore, as Schopenhauer says "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

"What he wills" is a product of the environment rather than something of his own choosing.

But Schopenhauer isn't talking about atoms or physical laws. He's talking about motivation and attitude.

This is why a purely physical or materialistic approach is not required for determinism. And why focusing on the physical leads nowhere.

Subatomic particles/waves show that what we call "determinism" is at least at the
subatomic level probabilistic. If 'determinism' is probabilistic at the subatomic level then maybe it's probabilistic at our level. What is a probable outcome of Mary's decision is therefore based on Mary's choice based partly on reason and knowledge and partly on chance, (fortune, or a gamble, or a guess).
The classic billiard balls prediction is 100% reasoned as the rule stipulates "If you could know everything that bears on the billiard ball's next movement then you could predict 100%." The hypothesis is constructed to omit any variables ( such as the player is unskilled, or maybe a mouse has nibbled holes in the table cover) except the ones you can control. In real life you don't get to add on hypotheses except in wishful thinking. You are right that much of that environment in which choosing happens is out of our control.All choices are compounded of reasoned choice and unreasoned chance, and that's the same as probabilistic.

Our freedom to choose with power to accomplish is based on reason and knowledge, it's not based on random chance. No sane gambler is silly enough to stake her money when the odds are heavily stacked against her, unless she is desperate. There is no evidence that humans have Free Will such as can alter actual circumstances. There is evidence that the doctrine of Free Will is for the punitive strategy for maintaining law and order.



The more the choice is reasoneed