Why determinism is false, come challenge me

[Mistavega]

For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

[Eodnhoj7]

For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

Do you really want that?

[jayjacobus]

In physics there is a causal chain of events. Nothing internal to the object can change the chain of events. So every physical object is bound to it's past chain and the chain of other objects it contacts.

Many animals are bound to their physical organs but they are also controllled by their minds, Their minds are in the present, always. A human does what he does because he wants to. Even when he continues with an activity, he does so because he wants to continue. This is true because he will stop, when he wants to stop. If I am driving to the store, I do so not because I was compelled to go to the store but because I still want to go to the store. This is true because I will stop going to the store, if I decide to change my mind.

It is the mind in the present that confirms an activity or chooses a different activity. Past activities are an influence on the mind but do not bind the present mind.

[A_Seagull]

In physics there is a causal chain of events. Nothing internal to the object can change the chain of events. So every physical object is bound to it's past chain and the chain of other objects it contacts.

In physics there is a model for the interaction of particles which assumes a certain amount of causality. But it is only a model. To extrapolate that causality to an infinite degree is both unjustified, unnecessary and perhaps naïve.

[creativesoul]

For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

I think that the notions of logical necessity and possibility do not have a god-damned thing to do with the determinism/free will debate. It's outdated anyway.

The will is influenced. That which is influenced is not free from influence. The closest anyone can get to exercising 'free will' is to acknowledge and recognize that this is true, learn what that entails, and then intentionally choose one's own influences whenever one can.

[Age]

For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

I think that the notions of logical necessity and possibility do not have a god-damned thing to do with the determinism/free will debate. It's outdated anyway.

Is the determinism/free will debate really outdated? I still see some people, like your self TRYING TO debate this topic right up to to this very day, in 2018.

The will is influenced.

Are you 100% absolutely certain of this?

How can you be so sure of this?

By the way, WHAT is the 'will' exactly?

That which is influenced is not free from influence.

Well, that makes sense, since it sort of speaks for itself, does it not?

But just because you SAY "the will is influenced" does that mean that that is 100% True, Right, and Correct?

Only after you have shown WHAT the 'will' IS, and, shown how THAT can not NOT be influenced, then some/all 'WILL' accept that, what you say here, as being True, Right, and Correct. Until then I see the topic is still OPEN for discussion.

The closest anyone can get to exercising 'free will' is to acknowledge and recognize that this is true,

If, and only IF, I acknowledge that, which you are wanting to influence me to acknowledge, would mean that I am NOT exercising 'free will', correct?

By the very act of ACKNOWLEDGING 'that', what you are TRYING TO influence me to, I say would mean that I am NOT exercising what you call 'free will'.

learn what that entails, and then intentionally choose one's own influences whenever one can.

So, IF I intentionally choose NOT to be influenced by your interpretation of 'free will' does that mean I have 'free will' and I am exercising 'free will' or not?

I KNOW there is nothing to debate regarding the determinism/free will topic, as this has already been settled, but I think you will find some people still want to TRY TO debate it, so it is not outdated. I think you will find some people will even TRY TO debate this into and past this date. We will just have to wait and see if this is correct though.

[creativesoul]

I think that the notions of logical necessity and possibility do not have a god-damned thing to do with the determinism/free will debate. It's outdated anyway.

Is the determinism/free will debate really outdated? I still see some people, like your self TRYING TO debate this topic right up to to this very day, in 2018.

I'm not trying to debate the determinism/free will debacle. I love debate, but there's nothing to debate regarding that. The notion of "free will" was invented solely as a means for exonerating the God of Abraham from the existence of evil(as a response to Epicurus' argument). The truth of that doesn't require anyone's belief. That's just the way it happened.

That which is influenced is not free from influence.

Well, that makes sense, since it sort of speaks for itself, does it not?

But just because you SAY "the will is influenced" does that mean that that is 100% True, Right, and Correct?

Well, of course not. I've never suggested otherwise. One can say whatever one wants to say. That statement is true because it corresponds to the way things are. Because I believe it to be true, it is a statement of my belief. Because it is true, my belief is true. My believing it does not make it true. The way things are does.

[surreptitious57]

The sub conscious makes decisions before the conscious is aware of it and
so this negates the very concept of free will which is therefore an illusion

[Dalek Prime]

You seem very determined to prove yourself correct.

[Greta]

For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way.

... if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

If you conceive of "not B" then casual events of the past may have created the conditions where you would trickily try to outsmart fate.

However, the easiest challenge to you is that you cannot possibly know for sure. Nobody can know for sure; we simply don't have enough knowledge. Another impossible notion: the size of the universe. Any notion where you need an overview knowledge of the universe/reality is necessarily uncertain for us.

[Eodnhoj7]

For the longest I’ve been a determinist and I’ve seem to have liberated myself by reasoning in the following way. I’m going to be a bit redundant but I’m merely setting up the argument against determinism.

I guess you could say I was determined to be free.

So determinism is the view that there is no free will, basically everything is caused by antecedent conditions. Determinism states that choice is an illusion, basically if you knew the causal chain behind the choices you’ve made you would quickly see that your choices aren’t of your own violition, but merely a causal sequence of events that you did not create.

So, say I was confronted with choice B or choice not B. Determinism would say any choice I made between those two was already determined, it was not possible for me to pick anything other then what I was going to pick. If this is true, then it means it was not logically possible for me to pick anything other then what I did in fact pick. For if I could choose something other then what was determined then determinsm would be false.

So what’s the issue? I would say that determinism implies logical necessity. If there is only one way I can choose then, then it’s not logically possible for me to choose anything other then what I infact chose?

So what’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is if determinism is true, there’s no such thing as logical possibility, everything that comes from determinism is logically necessary. But that’s obviously false just based on the mere fact that I can conceive of choosing “Not B” means that it’s logically possible. If determinism is true how can you conceive of ANY logical possibilities if it’s logically necessary?

I think based on the fact we can conceive multiple possibilities makes us free and our world not logically necessary.

What do you think?

For logic not being necessary than providing a logical argument is contradictory.

This argument is an exercise in determinism as one axiom progresses to another, with this progression observing an inherent structure of cause and effect with the effect as a cause in itself and the effect being an approximation of original cause. In these terms the argument is not just a proof of determinism, with a proof being strucutre and hence a cause/effect, but observes itself as having an inherent element of randomness in the respect it is an approximate argument of determinism hence is not self sustaining.