Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:22 pm You're saying that the standard view/the conventional wisdom in the sciences at present isn't that determinism isn't the case?
No, I'm saying your conclusion is unwarranted.

It does not square with the assumptions you assert. It appears to me that those presuppositions are that either Materialism/Physicalism is true, and/or quantum mechanics is true. I'm just pointing out that either (nor both) delivers you logically the reasons to believe Determinism is not true.

I know of no "conventional" science that shows that Determinism is not the case. But if you know of some, I'm ready for you to present it. I would just like to see a set of premises that justify your conclusion.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:16 pm There is no reason a machine could not be designed and programmed to make statements like, "I am not conscious and do not have volition," and of course the statement would be correct. Such a machine could be made even to simulate a human being like modern so-called sex-robots and be programmed to make any statement.
That explanation won't work, because the phrase "be programmed" requires a "programmer." So it, too, presupposes volition...not on the part of the automaton, now, but on the part of the creator or programmer of the automaton. Choice again.
Of course you and I know if the declaration is really being made by a living human being, it is not true, but there is not much point in arguing with someone who denies their own nature, is there?
Well, "programming" is of two types. Literally, as you point out, it refers to the sort of operation we do with computers -- mechanical, and without actual intelligence in the so-called 'dumb terminal'. But metaphorically, we use it of, say, members of a cult victims of propaganda; we speak of "deprogramming" them. Or "red pilling," if you prefer. It just means awakening their slumbering intelligence.

So long as the entity in question does think, at all, there is a window for such deprogramming. And all human beings think, even when they try not to, and even when they deny that they do. For it takes a thought to say such a thing.

So yes, I think there is merit in deprogramming or trying to deprogram a person who is denying his/her own nature. It may work, or it may not; I think it's still the right thing to do.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:22 pm You're saying that the standard view/the conventional wisdom in the sciences at present isn't that determinism isn't the case?
No, I'm saying your conclusion is unwarranted.

It does not square with the assumptions you assert. It appears to me that those presuppositions are that either Materialism/Physicalism is true, and/or quantum mechanics is true. I'm just pointing out that either (nor both) delivers you logically the reasons to believe Determinism is not true.

I know of no "conventional" science that shows that Determinism is not the case. But if you know of some, I'm ready for you to present it. I would just like to see a set of premises that justify your conclusion.
Wait a minute. "No," the first word in your response, supposedly an answer to the question I asked you, makes no sense in the context of the rest of your response.

If "No" is right as an answer to my question, that means that you agree that the standard view/conventional wisdom in the sciences is that determinism isn't the case.

But then that wouldn't square with you saying "I know of no 'conventional' science that shows that Determinism is not the case."

So does this mean that you're not reading my posts very closely?

And why do you have the word "conventional" in quotation marks? Aren't you familiar with the notion of a conventional view? Are you somehow implying that you don't believe that there are conventional views?

It's weird on these boards how it doesn't take much to crack the surface and find oddities re very common things that are alien to the folks posting.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:34 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:35 am

Well, let's look at another probabilistic event: the hurricane.

Here, in the gulf, conditions favor, but never guarantee, hurricane formation. Educated guesses are all we have in figurn' out if one will form and what the hell it'll do. About as probabilistic as you can get, yeah? And still casually determined.

Anyway: let's cut to the chase.

I take you accept some form of free will and I'm pretty sure it's not libertarian agent causation.

Let's talk about that.
Re the last part, that's what I'm talking about, but there are prerequisites to talking about it.

There are phenomena in physics (and not just quantum phenomena) where the standard view is that they are not deterministic, there are no hidden variables making them deterministic. They are really "just" probabilistic, and there's no way around that.

Whether that's correct or not is another issue, but regardless, *it's currently the standard view or the conventional wisdom.
*I'm gonna need some citations illustratin' this.

Determinism, at its root, is just cause and effect, and I know of no sea change among science folks wherein they deny cause and effect, or claim C & E doesn't hold across the board (not countin' the supposedly **spooky quantum interactions and notions like **retro-causality).

As it relates specifically to free will, determinism holds man and man's actions are merely effects, that man is nuthin' but a particular and peculiar link in some causal chain, and this seems to be the standard view or the conventional wisdom.




**has anyone actually recorded or demonstrated either?
First, because we need to agree on this to make citations not a waste of time, determinism isn't just the view that there are causes and effects. Determinism is the view that from an antecedent state of affairs, there's only one possible consequent state of affairs, and furthermore it's the view that this is the case for ALL phenomena. Do you agree with this?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by henry quirk »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:56 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:34 pm

Re the last part, that's what I'm talking about, but there are prerequisites to talking about it.

There are phenomena in physics (and not just quantum phenomena) where the standard view is that they are not deterministic, there are no hidden variables making them deterministic. They are really "just" probabilistic, and there's no way around that.

Whether that's correct or not is another issue, but regardless, *it's currently the standard view or the conventional wisdom.
*I'm gonna need some citations illustratin' this.

Determinism, at its root, is just cause and effect, and I know of no sea change among science folks wherein they deny cause and effect, or claim C & E doesn't hold across the board (not countin' the supposedly **spooky quantum interactions and notions like **retro-causality).

As it relates specifically to free will, determinism holds man and man's actions are merely effects, that man is nuthin' but a particular and peculiar link in some causal chain, and this seems to be the standard view or the conventional wisdom.




**has anyone actually recorded or demonstrated either?
First, because we need to agree on this to make citations not a waste of time, determinism isn't just the view that there are causes and effects. *Determinism is the view that from an antecedent state of affairs, there's only one possible consequent state of affairs, and furthermore it's the view that this is the case for ALL phenomena. **Do you agree with this?
*That's just fancy talk for cause and effect.

**I agree. What I don't agree with is your assertion science folks deny cause and effect, or claim C & E doesn't hold across the board.

Are we ever gonna get to your notion of free will? While I appreciate all the schoolin' (I understand you're just bein' thorough), it's not necessary. C'mon, spill the beans: gimme your definition.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:22 pm You're saying that the standard view/the conventional wisdom in the sciences at present isn't that determinism isn't the case?
No, I'm saying your conclusion is unwarranted.

It does not square with the assumptions you assert. It appears to me that those presuppositions are that either Materialism/Physicalism is true, and/or quantum mechanics is true. I'm just pointing out that either (nor both) delivers you logically the reasons to believe Determinism is not true.

I know of no "conventional" science that shows that Determinism is not the case. But if you know of some, I'm ready for you to present it. I would just like to see a set of premises that justify your conclusion.
Wait a minute. "No," the first word in your response, supposedly an answer to the question I asked you, makes no sense in the context of the rest of your response.
That's because your question was a loaded one. If uncontested, it would have required me to assume that "conventional wisdom in the sciences at present" backs the view that "determinism isn't the case." My "No," refers to that assumption.

It's false. That needed to be pointed out.

Both Materialism/Physicalism and quantum physics (if either is what you were bundling into your term "conventional wisdom in the sciences at present") would produce the conclusion that Determinism is inevitably true. So your very first assumption, the one you slid into your question (namely that "science" is on your side) just isn't the case.

The statement "Determinism is not true" needs proof from you, if you insist that Physicalism/ Materialism or quantum theory somehow backs it. I would like to see that line of reasoning from you. It would not be reasonable for me to assume it without you proving it.
...why do you have the word "conventional" in quotation marks?

Because I think it's highly suspect. It was your coinage, not mine, you will note. Thus, it got quotation marks.

I don't think there's any reason to regard things like Materialism as "conventional" or as required by science. In fact, I think there are very good reasons not to. I think Materialism is actually reductionistic, naive, and ultimately anti-science, because it pretends human cognition is nothing but the predetermined workings of an automaton...but science requires us to believe that our cognitions are informative.

Materialism makes that impossible. There is nothing left to "inform."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:28 pm *That's just fancy talk for cause and effect.
It's more specific than just cause and effect talk.

If either B or C can occur after A, where B has a 10% chance of occurring and C has a 90% chance of occurring, but they ONLY occur after A, then we could say that A caused the effect B or C--because B or C wouldn't have occurred without A obtaining, but that's a different idea than determinism. So it's important to understand the difference.
**I agree. What I don't agree with is your assertion science folks deny cause and effect,
Understanding the above difference, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a standard view in the sciences that some phenomena are probabilistic, and not just because of epistemic limitations. The view is that they're inherently (or ontologically in philosophy-talk) probabilistic. For example, this is an upshot of Bell's Theorem, which is considered proved. (Which is not to say that I agree with that, but it's the standard view.)
Are we ever gonna get to your notion of free will? While I appreciate all the schoolin' (I understand you're just bein' thorough), it's not necessary.
Yes, it is necessary. There's groundwork that needs to be done, which is obvious in that I have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over. If we don't understand the prerequisites, we can't understand the material built upon them. So first we have to understand what determinism even is, and then we have to sort out whether the sciences currently forward a deterministic view or not.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:39 pm ...first we have to understand what determinism even is, and then we have to sort out whether the sciences currently forward a deterministic view or not.
Oxford: "The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen."

Cambridge: "the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way."

Webster: "a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws"


So there's the conventional definition of Determinism, spelled out three ways. Let's go ahead with one of these.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:34 pm
That's because your question was a loaded one. If uncontested, it would have required me to assume that "conventional wisdom in the sciences at present" backs the view that "determinism isn't the case." My "No," refers to that assumption.
I asked you, "You're saying that the standard view/the conventional wisdom in the sciences at present isn't that determinism isn't the case?"

If you believe that the standard/conventional view in the sciences at the moment is that determinism is the case, then you'd answer "Yes."

If you believe that the standard/conventional view in the sciences at the moment is that determinism isn't the case, then you'd answer "No."

You appear to believe the former, so you should have answered "Yes."

If you believe that there isn't a standard/conventional view on this, at least, then you'd say as much.

Both Materialism/Physicalism and quantum physics (if either is what you were bundling into your term "conventional wisdom in the sciences at present") would produce the conclusion that Determinism is inevitably true.
I've already explained why this isn't the case. You need to specifically argue with the explanation if you disagree with it.

Here's the explanation again: materialism/physicalism merely requires that one endorses the view that the world is comprised solely of material/physical things and perhaps phenomena that supervene on material/physical things, such as relations of material/physical things. That's it.

The above doesn't include the view that "For all phenomena, it's the case that from any antecedent state, one and only one consequent state is possible." (Which is what determinism is.)

Now, if you disagree with the above explanation, forward specific objections to it, and then we'll hash those out.
So your very first assumption, the one you slid into your question (namely that "science" is on your side) just isn't the case.
I actually said nothing like that. What I said was that the standard present view in the sciences doesn't forward determinism, so that can't be appealed to on the "there is no free will" side. If you disagree with this, we can also hash this out.
The statement "Determinism is not true" needs proof from you,
That's a misreading of what I wrote. You need to read JUST WHAT I WRITE. Don't read stuff into what I write.
If you insist that Physicalism/ Materialism or quantum theory somehow backs it.
I wrote nothing like that. Again, just read what I write. If you keep reading other stuff into what I write, we'll get nowhere.
Because I think it's highly suspect.
So now you also don't believe that there are views that are held by the vast majority of some population (such as physicists or scientists or whatever)?

For example, don't you believe that force equals mass times acceleration is a view held by the vast majority of physicists? That would be a conventional view. (Surely you're familiar with the word "conventional" in general, no?)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:39 pm ...first we have to understand what determinism even is, and then we have to sort out whether the sciences currently forward a deterministic view or not.
Oxford: "The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen."

Cambridge: "the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way."

Webster: "a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws"


So there's the conventional definition of Determinism, spelled out three ways. Let's go ahead with one of these.
So would you say that all of those disagree with how I'm defining "determinism"?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:50 pm If you believe that there isn't a standard/conventional view on this, at least, then you'd say as much.
I believe two things are wrong with your claim: one is that the Materialist-Physicalist and quantum views do NOT make Determinism impossible; by themselves, they necessitate it. The second is that to make the Materialist-Physicalist the equivalent of "science" is wrong.

If the statement made its mistakes one at a time, I could deal with them more easily, and without confusion. But the best thing I could stay about a statement that was wrong in at least two dimensions was "No." Nobody should say "Yes" to it.

Both Materialism/Physicalism and quantum physics (if either is what you were bundling into your term "conventional wisdom in the sciences at present") would produce the conclusion that Determinism is inevitably true.
I've already explained why this isn't the case.
You have not, actually. Not "why." You just said it was the case. You gave no proof of that.

I am ready and eager to see your proof, but I wish you'd provide it.
You need to specifically argue with the explanation if you disagree with it.
I'd love to. But in order for me to do so, you'd actually have to make the argument. Gratuitous affirmation affords no such chance.
Here's the explanation again: materialism/physicalism merely requires that one endorses the view that the world is comprised solely of material/physical things and perhaps phenomena that supervene on material/physical things, such as relations of material/physical things.

That's a definition. But it does not prove that Determinism is not entailed. In fact, it would necessitate Determinism. For if all things are material/physical, then there is no volitional, personal aspect to causality. It is utterly excluded by that explanation.
The above doesn't include the view that "For all phenomena, it's the case that from any antecedent state, one and only one consequent state is possible." (Which is what determinism is.)
Actually, that's only one part of Determinism. It's not the whole, as the three definitions I gave to you clearly show. Determinism doesn't just refer to "one consequent state," but also to the mechanics that produce that alleged "one consequent state." Those are traditionally exactly the mechanics you list: Materialism or Physicalism.

Indeed, the existence of "one consequent state" isn't even the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Determinism; a situation could have a web of possible outcomes, and still be predetermined by another impersonal agency, probability. Quantum theory is thus also Deterministic.
What I said was that the standard present view in the sciences doesn't forward determinism,
Well, if by "standard present view" (you didn't say which you meant) you meant Materialism, Physicalism or quantum theory (did you?), then this was false.
Because I think it's highly suspect.
So now you also don't believe that there are views that are held by the vast majority of some population (such as physicists or scientists or whatever)?
Sure there are such views. But the allegation you made, that Determinism is not sponsored by Materialism/Physicalism or quantum theory, is no part of the views of the scientific establishment. That's your own view, clearly; but it needs proving.

And that's what I'd like to see: show me that Materialism/Physicalism or quantum theory DO NOT support the Determinism. Because Determinism doesn't just mean "one outcome": it means that the only things in the causal chain are impersonal forces, not personal agencies.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:51 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:50 pm If you believe that there isn't a standard/conventional view on this, at least, then you'd say as much.
I believe two things are wrong with your claim: one is that the Materialist-Physicalist and quantum views do NOT make Determinism impossible; by themselves, they necessitate it. The second is that to make the Materialist-Physicalist the equivalent of "science" is wrong.
How am I supposed to combat you making up shit that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying? I mean, just write me as a fictional character, write whatever dialogue you want for your fictional character and argue with that I guess.

I don't get what the point of me trying to participate in a conversation is if you're going to continually respond as if a malfunctioning Babel fish is telling you what I'm saying. It's as bad as trying to communicate with Arjand.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by henry quirk »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:39 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:28 pm *That's just fancy talk for cause and effect.
It's more specific than just cause and effect talk.

If either B or C can occur after A, where B has a 10% chance of occurring and C has a 90% chance of occurring, but they ONLY occur after A, then we could say that A caused the effect B or C--because B or C wouldn't have occurred without A obtaining, but that's a different idea than determinism. So it's important to understand the difference.
**I agree. What I don't agree with is your assertion science folks deny cause and effect,
Understanding the above difference, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a standard view in the sciences that some phenomena are probabilistic, and not just because of epistemic limitations. The view is that they're inherently (or ontologically in philosophy-talk) probabilistic. For example, this is an upshot of Bell's Theorem, which is considered proved. (Which is not to say that I agree with that, but it's the standard view.)
Are we ever gonna get to your notion of free will? While I appreciate all the schoolin' (I understand you're just bein' thorough), it's not necessary.
Yes, it is necessary. There's groundwork that needs to be done, which is obvious in that I have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over. If we don't understand the prerequisites, we can't understand the material built upon them. So first we have to understand what determinism even is, and then we have to sort out whether the sciences currently forward a deterministic view or not.
okay...

A deterministic model does not include elements of randomness. ... A probabilistic model includes elements of randomness. Every time you run the model, you are likely to get different results, even with the same initial conditions. (swiped from some site)

...I concede the point

Free will?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:39 pm ...first we have to understand what determinism even is, and then we have to sort out whether the sciences currently forward a deterministic view or not.
Oxford: "The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen."

Cambridge: "the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way."

Webster: "a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws"


So there's the conventional definition of Determinism, spelled out three ways. Let's go ahead with one of these.
So would you say that all of those disagree with how I'm defining "determinism"?
The Oxford one does. It includes claims about causality, not just outcome. So far, you've been saying that Determinism is just about outcome. Likewise, Cambridge deals with "how things happen," not merely what results. Again, different from your definition. Webster actually pairs the right terms "causally determined," not "outcome-determined." And all (quite rightly) emphasize that Determinism is a doctrine about cause primarily, and only secondarily a claim about outcome.

And all three definitions eliminate the human from any description of causality.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:51 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:50 pm If you believe that there isn't a standard/conventional view on this, at least, then you'd say as much.
I believe two things are wrong with your claim: one is that the Materialist-Physicalist and quantum views do NOT make Determinism impossible; by themselves, they necessitate it. The second is that to make the Materialist-Physicalist the equivalent of "science" is wrong.
How am I supposed to combat you making up shit that has nothing to do with anything I'm saying?
So you don't claim your view is "science"? And you don't think that the Materialist-Physicalist and quantum views make Determinism impossible?

Or have I understood you aright, and you're just miffed I won't let you bluff that MP/Q make Determinism impossible, when in fact, they necessitate it?
Post Reply