Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 1:47 am
Huffington post...Leftie central, versus the CIA Fact Book. Yes, I know which we have reason to take seriously.
Well most of that data came from National Geographic but maybe they're also "leftie central" and all that BS.

It's obvious to everyone by now that you'll completely discount, by any and all means, everything which counters your views on God and the Bible which has long been transcribed into a secular context by scholars. Even an institution that lasted for 2000 years is not guaranteed to last!

If religion is on the rise, and it very well could be, it's mainly because of expanding Muslim populations but that's not what you had in mind since their view of Jesus doesn't conform to the christian view.

Anyways enjoy your god. His followers are getting fewer especially among those trained to think!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Arising_uk »

thedoc wrote:
How far in advance doesn't matter and the O doesn't even need to know that there will be a choice or what the choices are. There is a subtle difference between "must do" and "will do" that seems to be lost on you.
As far as I can tell the two of you mean it to mean that in the case of "must" there is no choice and with "will" there is. Now what I'd like you to explain is how a choice is possible if the event is going to happen regardless of any other possible event occurring? For eample, changing one's mind after the OA has made its prediction.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Furthermore, the suggestion that evidence "pollutes" faith is just untrue. Faith always has to be IN something in particular. Absent evidence, what you've got there is fantasy only. And no Christian is enjoined to believe in fantasy. Rather, they are invited to have faith IN Christ, a historical person, and in the teaching which he gave.
No. Without evidence you have either fantasy or vision. There is inadequate evidence for aliens here from outer space but there is vision of a better world.
Immanuel's agenda regarding The Bible as historiography lacks the substance of some other agenda which seeks to identify the source of good. The source of good either transcends men or it is within men. Reasoning about the source of good will reveal more than dull acceptance that The Bible is equivalent to modern academic historiography.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 amAs far as I can tell the two of you mean it to mean that in the case of "must" there is no choice and with "will" there is.
That’s correct. “Will” is different from “must,” obviously.

All human acts are contingent, by definition. The accounts of epistemic and logical determinism illicitly ascribe necessity to actions that are contingent. That just is the modal fallacy in a nutshell.

As to causal determinism, even if our acts are causally determined, they remain contingent. Causal determinism is the thesis that the laws of nature, in concert with the prior states of the universe, entail what we do at a given time.

Even if this is correct, human acts are still contingent — they could have gone otherwise. An act at a time could have gone differently if the prior states of the universe were different, or if the laws of nature were different, or both.

For an act or an event to be necessary, it must fulfill the modal heuristic that it be true at all possible worlds. That is, it must be true regardless of the laws of nature or the past state of the world, or independent of any other reason. That triangles have three sides is necessarily true (true at all possible worlds) and is a truth independent of the prior state of the world, the laws of nature, or any other reason, including the existence or non-existence of an omniscient agent.

It follows from this that if an omniscient agent infallibly knows in advance what I will do, my act is still contingent. That is, I could do otherwise. However, if I do otherwise, then the OA will know this fact instead — if I do x he will know in advance that I will do x; if I do y he will know in advance that I will do y.

This is why the possible worlds heuristic is so useful in sorting this out. If a necessary truth is true at all possible worlds, as it is, the converse holds as well — that a logically impossible (necessarily false) proposition obtains at no possible world.

What is logically impossible (necessarily false) in the omniscient agent scenario is NOT that a human do either x or y; he can do that. What’s logically impossible (false at all possible worlds) is that an infallible agent will make a mistaken prediction. So while a person can do either x or y of his own free will, there is no possible world at which the infallible predictor makes a mistake.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:56 pmMy apologies my English appears unclear. What I think is that all you can infer from you remembering that I have had eggs or pancakes is that I have to have had eggs or pancakes.
We should sort this out. If I accurately recall that you had pancakes yesterday, it is certainly true that I can't change this fact. It is fixed. The past is fixed.

But the fixity of the past in no way implies the necessity of the past. They are two entirely different concepts. The past could have gone differently -- and if it had done so, then I would have different memories of the past.

And the same holds true for the future. If the future goes a certain way, then an infallible predictor will have one set of true predictions; but if if goes a different way, then he will have a different set of true predictions. His predictions do not make the future go the way that it will go -- rather, how the future will go, makes his predictions true.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

DavidM wrote:
Causal determinism is the thesis that the laws of nature, in concert with the prior states of the universe, entail what we do at a given time.
But one cannot know what one will do at a given time. One is in the situation of an inadequately experienced cook inventing a dish from novel ingredients.

True, we can reasonably trust certain probabilities.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Arising_uk »

davidm wrote:We should sort this out. If I accurately recall that you had pancakes yesterday, it is certainly true that I can't change this fact. It is fixed. The past is fixed.

But the fixity of the past in no way implies the necessity of the past. They are two entirely different concepts. The past could have gone differently -- and if it had done so, then I would have different memories of the past. ...
Agreed, apart from the necessity that it had to have necessarily have happened.
And the same holds true for the future. ...
Only if you think it exists in the same way as the past?
If the future goes a certain way, then an infallible predictor will have one set of true predictions; but if if goes a different way, then he will have a different set of true predictions.
Okay but when in its timeline will it be making these predictions, as once its made them and they then change it won't be infallible will it? Unless of course you are saying its just going to go up to the actual event happening and then say 'I knew that'.
His predictions do not make the future go the way that it will go -- rather, how the future will go, makes his predictions true.
Not what I say tho' is it. What I say is that if an OA can exist then the future must be immutable and if it is then it is determined by something and freewill or choice is a myth.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 9:44 pmAgreed, apart from the necessity that it had to have necessarily have happened.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. I think you mean that it is necessary that the past happened, but that you agree with me it is not necessary that it happened the way that it did — it could have been different. If this is what you mean, then we agree.
Only if you think it exists in the same way as the past?
I do think this. The special and general theories of relativity give us strong grounds to think this.
Okay but when in its timeline will it be making these predictions, as once its made them and they then change it won't be infallible will it? Unless of course you are saying its just going to go up to the actual event happening and then say 'I knew that'.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’m not following what you mean when you say, “and they then change.” Who is “they,” and what is changing?
Not what I say tho' is it. What I say is that if an OA can exist then the future must be immutable and if it is then it is determined by something and freewill or choice is a myth.
If an OA exists then the future is indeed immutable, for how else would an OA know the future? But the past and present are also immutable. Fortunately, free will does not require that we be able to change the past, present, or future. It merely means that we, by our free choices, have been able to make the past what it was; are able to make the present what it is, and will be able to make the future be, what it will be.

Here is a question: Suppose I wish to change the present. Tell me how I can do that?

Another question: if the past, present and future are immutable, in virtue of what are they immutable? Might it not be the case that they are immutable, at least in part, because of your free choices and mine?

It must be borne in mind that the fixity of the past, present, and future, does not imply — nor could it even logically imply — the necessity of the past, present, and future.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Walker »

davidm wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 5:10 pm
Arising_uk wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:56 pmMy apologies my English appears unclear. What I think is that all you can infer from you remembering that I have had eggs or pancakes is that I have to have had eggs or pancakes.
We should sort this out. If I accurately recall that you had pancakes yesterday, it is certainly true that I can't change this fact. It is fixed. The past is fixed.

But the fixity of the past in no way implies the necessity of the past. They are two entirely different concepts. The past could have gone differently -- and if it had done so, then I would have different memories of the past.

And the same holds true for the future. If the future goes a certain way, then an infallible predictor will have one set of true predictions; but if if goes a different way, then he will have a different set of true predictions. His predictions do not make the future go the way that it will go -- rather, how the future will go, makes his predictions true.
"But the fixity of the past in no way implies the necessity of the past. They are two entirely different concepts. The past could have gone differently -- and if it had done so, then I would have different memories of the past."

Only in your dreams.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm »

Walker wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 2:48 am Only in your dreams.
What a profound response.

Thanks so much for your attention to this matter.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Walker »

davidm wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 3:55 am
Walker wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 2:48 am Only in your dreams.
What a profound response.

Thanks so much for your attention to this matter.
No evidence exists to support your assertion. Quite the contrary.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda »

Davidm wrote:



But the fixity of the past in no way implies the necessity of the past. They are two entirely different concepts. The past could have gone differently -- and if it had done so, then I would have different memories of the past. ...
Events must be either caused or original.

Given: event A was the case, including all its different time and space frames. Event A, including all its different relative time and space frames , was a caused event.

If event A had been uncaused by any prequel but originated by event A then event A as potential and actual originator would be a singular cause common to other events .E.g.either 1. God or 2. nature.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 4:06 am If religion is on the rise, and it very well could be, it's mainly because of expanding Muslim populations but that's not what you had in mind since their view of Jesus doesn't conform to the christian view.
It's not just because of Islam, although its rise is certainly a problem -- on that we can agree -- but especially in the Developing World, conservative Christianity is growing rapidly as well.

Not that numbers matter a whit: were everyone a Nazi, that still wouldn't make Nazism right. Truth is a very different issue from numbers. But it does show that the Secularization Hypothesis, the idea that religion will die "naturally," was prematurely celebrated.

I think a better explanation is as follows: it's fair to say that in places where life is hard, people tend to be more thoughtful about religion. But (and here Nietzsche was right) when people get rich they can afford to get careless about their metaphysics as well, and can start to believe anything at all...even Atheism. It doesn't matter anymore, they think, because their needs are taken care of by modern means. Their health will be attended by doctors, their food supply by supermarkets, contingencies by insurance, security by the police, their anxieties by media distractions, their old age by pensions...so they start to wonder, "Is God dead," because they can't think of how to fit Him into anything they care about. Why do they need Him anymore, they wonder.

At the same time, they're left in a vacuum in regard to meaning, morality, purpose, significance and the afterlife. They have to distract themselves with the acquisition of yet one more material possession, or the having of one more experience, or the longing for one more thrill...and all the while, their bodies and minds run down through middle age and into old age. Eventually, they all die alone...and what's it all worth?

And that's the existential plight of the Western world today; once all "religion" is denied, what has Atheism got to offer in its place? Nothing. No guidance, no purpose, no meaning, no morals, and no hope.

Is this the alternative a rational person should wish to embrace? :shock: One would have to be shown why.
Anyways enjoy your god. His followers are getting fewer especially among those trained to think!
"Trained to think": :D that can be a synonym for "indoctrinated," which is a good description of anyone who imagines they can rationally sustain their Atheism. It's not a rational or evidentiary position: it's just a denial of belief. And when it comes down to the crunch, they've been "trained to think" that, maybe...but there's no rational warrant for their confidence.

And I'm sure they'd know that, if "trained to think" meant, "being self-critical," not merely gratuitously and smugly denying the existence of God.

But at the end of the day, as Pascal pointed out, the Theists have the ace on this question. If Atheists turn out to be right, they'll never find out. But if they're wrong, both the Theists and the Atheists will discover it eventually. But if that latter happens, then were will the Atheist be?

The Theist has nothing to fear, and the Atheist has nothing to win.

Better to rethink now than later.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by thedoc »

There is still some misunderstanding about "will do" and "must do", perhaps it would be more clear if it was stated that the foreknowledge of OA does not bind O's actions, but O's actions bind OA's foreknowledge. There is a subtle difference. O's actions may not be decided till the time of the action, but OA's foreknowledge can be far in advance, in fact the foreknowledge can be from the beginning of time but it still does not bind O's actions.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by thedoc »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 2:08 pm But at the end of the day, as Pascal pointed out, the Theists have the ace on this question. If Atheists turn out to be right, they'll never find out. But if they're wrong, both the Theists and the Atheists will discover it eventually. But if that latter happens, then were will the Atheist be?

The Theist has nothing to fear, and the Atheist has nothing to win.

Better to rethink now than later.
Pascal's wager is an interesting concept, but if it is the only reason for a person taking up a religion, I would think it is a bit insincere. In the end it only matters what you truly believe, not what you appear to believe.
Post Reply