Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[henry quirk]

Freedom occurs through being.

Non being is an absence of freedom as it is nothing, not even being.

All being in contrast to Nothingness is free as freedom exists as part of this being. It exists as part of this being given the totality of being, in contrast to nothing, contains within it an element of freedom.

This element of freedom is the ability to move, an absence of being is an absence of the ability to move thus is absent of freedom.

I'm confused. You equate freedom of movement with free will? Or are you sayin' motion is necessary for free will? Can you give me a definition for free will? Havin' a definition might clear up my confusion.

Free will is the manifestation of movements through the "I".

Yeah, you'll have to dumb it down for me cuz I ain't gettin' it.

Movement, thru the I, is free will? You mean self-direction? If so, determinism, as I understand, sez self-direction is hooey. And if self-direction is hooey then there is no free will (libertarian agent causation) which means you and me and him and her, we're all just events (or clusters of events) with no more autonomy than a stone (or that amoeba I referred to up-thread). But, if we can, as agents, self-direct then determinism is wrong entirely or there's sumthin' unique about the human animal, sumthin' that sets him apart from a universe of dumb matter/events. Since cause & effect seems to hold all the time, everywhere, I have to say causal determinism is right on the money, but -- at the same tine -- I seem to be a causal agent (so, there must be a lil metaphysical sumthin'-sumthin' mixed into my substance).

[Eodnhoj7]

If there is one situation in the entire universe that is not determined, then by definition, Determinism is no longer true. I'm afraid you just don't know what Determinism actually says. Terrapin Station does, I think: but you think it's optional.

It's not. It's either the comprehensive explanation of how things work, or it's a failure on its own terms. One counter case defeats Determinism.

It is not an either/or scenario...*this is a false dichotomy as determinism is an interpretation of events and as an interpretation exists through further grades of this interpretation given interpretations result in further interpretations thus grades.

Partial determinism can occur. It may not be the case that I touch a hot stove but if I do then I am burned. Now whether or not me touching the stove may not be determined what results if I do touch it is determined.

The negation of determinism, as in all things are determined, does not negate that some things are determined. We know some things are determined because the cause and effect repeat.

*This is news to me. Determinism, cause & effect, I've always thought of as, to borrow your example, I'm gonna touch that hot stove (or not) cuz that's how the dominos line up, not becuz of any choice I make. More accurately: my choice is a fiction and I'm gonna get burned (or not) entirely becuz of precedin' events (unbroken causal chains stretchin' back to the beginning of time and space). My interpretation of events, in determinism as I understand it, are irrelevant and fictional too.

If interpretation is an illusion this requires a degree of free will given one must choose between truth and falsity if one is to be decieved.

[Eodnhoj7]

Of course. But that's not a correct understanding of the term "Determinism." You think you know what it means, but clearly, you don't.

Here's a short definition:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. (Stanford)

What you are failing to grasp is that some things are determined still necessitates that some things are determined.

If it's just "some things," then by definition, Determinism is false.

For Determinism, it has to be ALL things, and ALWAYS.

Determinism may be false but the fact that some things are determined exists.

[henry quirk]

It is not an either/or scenario...*this is a false dichotomy as determinism is an interpretation of events and as an interpretation exists through further grades of this interpretation given interpretations result in further interpretations thus grades.

Partial determinism can occur. It may not be the case that I touch a hot stove but if I do then I am burned. Now whether or not me touching the stove may not be determined what results if I do touch it is determined.

The negation of determinism, as in all things are determined, does not negate that some things are determined. We know some things are determined because the cause and effect repeat.

*This is news to me. Determinism, cause & effect, I've always thought of as, to borrow your example, I'm gonna touch that hot stove (or not) cuz that's how the dominos line up, not becuz of any choice I make. More accurately: my choice is a fiction and I'm gonna get burned (or not) entirely becuz of precedin' events (unbroken causal chains stretchin' back to the beginning of time and space). My interpretation of events, in determinism as I understand it, are irrelevant and fictional too.

If interpretation is an illusion this requires a degree of free will given one must choose between truth and falsity if one is to be decieved.

Determinism, as I understand it, sez I choose nuthin'. My sense of choosin' itself is just a fiction, accordin' to causal determinism.

[Eodnhoj7]

I'm confused. You equate freedom of movement with free will? Or are you sayin' motion is necessary for free will? Can you give me a definition for free will? Havin' a definition might clear up my confusion.

Free will is the manifestation of movements through the "I".

Yeah, you'll have to dumb it down for me cuz I ain't gettin' it.

Movement, thru the I, is free will? You mean self-direction? If so, determinism, as I understand, sez self-direction is hooey. And if self-direction is hooey then there is no free will (libertarian agent causation) which means you and me and him and her, we're all just events (or clusters of events) with no more autonomy than a stone (or that amoeba I referred to up-thread). But, if we can, as agents, self-direct then determinism is wrong entirely or there's sumthin' unique about the human animal, sumthin' that sets him apart from a universe of dumb matter/events. Since cause & effect seems to hold all the time, everywhere, I have to say causal determinism is right on the money, but -- at the same tine -- I seem to be a causal agent (so, there must be a lil metaphysical sumthin'-sumthin' mixed into my substance).

Every choice you make results in a cause and effect chain.

Determinable actions stem from free will.

[Eodnhoj7]

*This is news to me. Determinism, cause & effect, I've always thought of as, to borrow your example, I'm gonna touch that hot stove (or not) cuz that's how the dominos line up, not becuz of any choice I make. More accurately: my choice is a fiction and I'm gonna get burned (or not) entirely becuz of precedin' events (unbroken causal chains stretchin' back to the beginning of time and space). My interpretation of events, in determinism as I understand it, are irrelevant and fictional too.

If interpretation is an illusion this requires a degree of free will given one must choose between truth and falsity if one is to be decieved.

Determinism, as I understand it, sez I choose nuthin'. My sense of choosin' itself is just a fiction, accordin' to causal determinism.

Yet if all is determined then free will, as an observed phenomenon, is determined to exist through this conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

Determinism may be false but the fact that some things are determined exists.

Again, you don't know the difference between "determined" (i.e. "cause and effect) and Determinism. But Stanford does. And so does any proper definition.

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"

And on, and on, and on. Every source points out that Determinism is an absolute doctrine.

[henry quirk]

If interpretation is an illusion this requires a degree of free will given one must choose between truth and falsity if one is to be decieved.

Determinism, as I understand it, sez I choose nuthin'. My sense of choosin' itself is just a fiction, accordin' to causal determinism.

Yet if all is determined then free will, as an observed phenomenon, is determined to exist through this conversation.

If you and me are entirely determined, then this conversation is too, as is the sense that we each of have of bein' in control of our ends of the conversation. Terrapin sez determinism isn't the pervailin' view nowadays which, I guess, means he accepts some form of indeterminism (which, best I can tell, offers no foundation for free will). Any way you look at it -- determinism, indeterminism, some queer mix of the two -- it doesn't seem free will is possible (we're all bio-robots runnin' crappy programs).

And yet, here we are, sure as hell actin' and interactin' just as I'd expect free wills to, consciously, self-consciously, with intent.

As I say: cause & effect seems to hold all the time, everywhere (includin' within us most of the time) so I can only conclude there's, as I say, sumthin' unique about the human animal.

[henry quirk]

Free will is the manifestation of movements through the "I".

Yeah, you'll have to dumb it down for me cuz I ain't gettin' it.

Movement, thru the I, is free will? You mean self-direction? If so, determinism, as I understand, sez self-direction is hooey. And if self-direction is hooey then there is no free will (libertarian agent causation) which means you and me and him and her, we're all just events (or clusters of events) with no more autonomy than a stone (or that amoeba I referred to up-thread). But, if we can, as agents, self-direct then determinism is wrong entirely or there's sumthin' unique about the human animal, sumthin' that sets him apart from a universe of dumb matter/events. Since cause & effect seems to hold all the time, everywhere, I have to say causal determinism is right on the money, but -- at the same tine -- I seem to be a causal agent (so, there must be a lil metaphysical sumthin'-sumthin' mixed into my substance).

Every choice you make results in a cause and effect chain.

Determinable actions stem from free will.

Yes, exactly. I'm an agent, a rare thing in a universe of events.

[Terrapin Station]

But now we have to substitute, "Everything is determined by quantum events."

Not at all. Just because one thing is one way, it doesn't mean that everything else is the same way.

You'll have to explain that. The way I understand them, both Materialism and quantum theory are supposed to be explanations of basic principles governing the very physics of the universe and everything in it, rather than optional phenomena.

Let's go over one thing at a time, because I'm having to repeat stuff:

So first, again, materialism/physicalism doesn't amount to realism on physical laws ("basic principles governing the very physics of the universe").

Materialism/physicalism also isn't simply a cheerleading section for or subservience to physics.

Materialism/physicalism simply posits that everything is material/matter or that everything is physical, or at least everything supervenes on material/matter/physical things. (For example, (dynamic) relations of matter.)

There's no requirement that one is a realist on physical laws, or that one agrees with particular claims made under the guise of physics.

[Immanuel Can]

The way I understand them, both Materialism and quantum theory are supposed to be explanations of basic principles governing the very physics of the universe and everything in it, rather than optional phenomena.

Materialism/physicalism simply posits that everything is material/matter or that everything is physical, or at least everything supervenes on material/matter/physical things. (For example, (dynamic) relations of matter.)

That would make it exactly what I said it is: an attempt to describe "everything," -- the word I used once and you used three times, above. In other words, those theories purport to be universal explanations.

If that's right, then there's no place for free will in either system. "Quantum events predetermine" is really no advance over "material forces predetermine," in that particular respect: neither allows any possibility or place for human volition as a genuine causal factor, since the ultimate "right" explanation for everything is said to be either "materials and laws" or "quantum physics," and never "volition."

[Terrapin Station]

The way I understand them, both Materialism and quantum theory are supposed to be explanations of basic principles governing the very physics of the universe and everything in it, rather than optional phenomena.

Materialism/physicalism simply posits that everything is material/matter or that everything is physical, or at least everything supervenes on material/matter/physical things. (For example, (dynamic) relations of matter.)

That would make it exactly what I said it is: an attempt to describe "everything," -- the word I used once and you used three times, above. In other words, those theories purport to be universal explanations.

If that's right, then there's no place for free will in either system. "Quantum events predetermine" is really no advance over "material forces predetermine," in that particular respect: neither allows any possibility or place for human volition as a genuine causal factor, since the ultimate "right" explanation for everything is said to be either "materials and laws" or "quantum physics," and never "volition."

Please don't ignore the first part. I don't want to have to repeat it again. Do you understand that materialism/physicalism doesn't amount to physical law realism?

[Terrapin Station]

Well, that's interesting.

Now, here is my question about that. I can claim no great originality, but this seems to me to be the right response. (The video is only 3 min. or so long.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4arOKZvuZK4

"Random swerving in a chaotic system," he says.

So how would you respond to that?

So, the first thing he's missing is this:

If it's a fact that quantum phenomena are not deterministic, then "Determinism is the case/everything is determined by physical laws" is false, and we can't use "determinism is the case/everything is determined by physical laws" either as an argument against free will or as a general world view (even outside of the context of free will discussions).

We can move to how free will might work later, but the first thing to realize here is that science does NOT in fact suggest that determinism is true. So we should stop pretending that it does suggest that.

That's step one.

Hey, brother, count me in. *Causal determinism is for the birds (that's what you're sayin', yeah?).

Step one: done.

Let's get to how free will might work in this undetermined world (which, to my mind, means random).




*cause & effect is a pain and I'm glad to be done with it...with C & E gone I can smoke my cigarette without strikin' a match, have a hot cuppa joe without brewin' it, have cash in my pocket without workin' for it (or stealin' it)

as I say: count me in, brother!

So the second thing to understand is that "Either determinism is true or there are (at least) some things where all of the options are equiprobably random" is false.

In other words, if an antecedent state A has possible immediately consequent states B and C, so that we're talking about ontological freedom in that situation, it's NOT necessarily the case that B and C each have a equal, 50% chance of occurring.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you understand that materialism/physicalism doesn't amount to physical law realism?

You seem to see more in that statement than I do, so maybe you'd be so kind as to unpack it a bit for me.

Let me explain where I am at present on that. So far as I can tell, at present, you don't even presuppose that Materialism/Physicalism is even true, and you prefer to appeal to quantum fluctuations and probability, no?

[Terrapin Station]

Do you understand that materialism/physicalism doesn't amount to physical law realism?

You seem to see more in that statement than I do, so maybe you'd be so kind as to unpack it a bit for me.

Let me explain where I am at present on that. So far as I can tell, at present, you don't even presuppose that Materialism/Physicalism is even true, and you prefer to appeal to quantum fluctuations and probability, no?

I don't understand what you mean by "presupposing that materialism/physicalism is true." In my view, materialism/physicalism is clearly the case.

Re "appealing to quantum fluctuations etc." the point there is SOLELY that the standard view in the sciences doesn't support that determinism is the case. That's it. Nothing more than that. The whole point is that one can't appeal to the (standard view of the) sciences in claiming that determinism is the case. A claim for determinism would have to be fueled by something other than the standard view of the sciences.