Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Amperage,

Amperage;150872 wrote:

my confusion comes in because he is intending "contingent" to mean "possible to happen but not certain to happen", so I'm not sure how that works in that sentence correctly. Obviously I'm not an English major but it helps to understand the sentence as he's intending it, if I"m going to be able to follow properly.

"Possible" may mean only, "epistemically possible", which means, "for all I know, it is true". Epistemic possibility is very different from logical or physical possibility. Epistemic possibility has to do with our knowledge (if any) of what is happening, and not with what is happening. So if someone says, "it is possible that someone may not die if he goes without food", and he means, "for all I know someone may not die if he goes without food" that is false. Everyone knows you will die if you go without food. On the other hand, if someone says, "It is possible that someone will not die if he goes without food", and that means it is logically possible, then that is true. (And that is what Night Ripper seems to mean). But, again, if someone says, "It is possible for someone to go without food and not die", he means it is physically possible to do that, then, of course, he has said something false. (And, of course, that is what you mean). So, as I said before, it depends.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150891 wrote:

No, I disagree but this disagreement is the absolute core of this argument. So, at least you understand what we are disagreeing about. You are taking the Necessitarian position and I am taking the Regularist position. You think that the laws of nature control the facts. I think the opposite. Here's my favorite quote against your view:

Source: Laws of Nature[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I haven't really thought about it but as long as future events aren't necessitated then it's not really relevant to my argument.

I'm in the process of reading the quoted material but I wanted to pose another question...

You have stated that you do NOT deny the existence of the laws of nature, but you HAVE denied that these laws necessitate the future, and you have chosen not to answer my question about what you think they DO necessitate. So my follow up question is just what do you think the laws of nature do do?

I will respond further after I read the quoted material you posted because I have a few things I'd like to comment on...

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150891 wrote:

No, I disagree but this disagreement is the absolute core of this argument. So, at least you understand what we are disagreeing about. You are taking the Necessitarian position and I am taking the Regularist position. You think that the laws of nature control the facts. I think the opposite. Here's my favorite quote against your view:

Source: Laws of Nature[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I haven't really thought about it but as long as future events aren't necessitated then it's not really relevant to my argument.

Night Reaper my view does not imply that Law imposes itself to Nature but rather that reflects Nature in a Super Deterministic way, and still is different from yours...would you be kind and polite enough to address my questions ?

@Amperage,

Amperage;150894 wrote:

So my follow up question is just do you think the laws of nature do do?

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
2. No two electrons ever share the same quantum state.
3. All electrons have identical charges.

The laws of nature are universally true descriptions. They accurately describe the world because they correspond to reality.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150896 wrote:

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
2. No two electrons ever share the same quantum state.
3. All electrons have identical charges.

The laws of nature are universally true descriptions. They accurately describe the world because they correspond to reality.

What do you mean with the word ever

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;150898 wrote:

What do you mean with the word ever

The laws of nature are timeless. It's either true or false that all electrons have identical charges at all places and times, past, present and future. If it's true then it's a law of nature.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150896 wrote:

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
2. No two electrons ever share the same quantum state.
3. All electrons have identical charges.

The laws of nature are universally true descriptions. They accurately describe the world because they correspond to reality.

if this is true then doesn't it necessarily follow that one cannot go faster than light? And can I not predict that no one will in the future accelerate faster than the speed of light?

I guess what I'm getting at is if the laws are true, wouldn't certain things occur (or not occur) by necessity?

Also I'd like to clarify your position a bit based upon the quoted material you posted. The position of the article seems to be that there aren't physical laws of nature; that we just make them up based upon data collected purely after-the-fact. Is this your position as well?

If so, would you not agree that it's more likely that some physical laws exist vs. pure luck that ALL data is converging to the same points?

Also I don't think it follows whatsoever that the necessitarian position eliminates God from the picture. The article then goes on to say are we to believe these laws were set mysteriously or something to that effect to which I can only say......you know that God you just eliminated.....yeah.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150899 wrote:

The laws of nature are timeless. It's either true or false that all electrons have identical charges at all places and times, past, present and future. If it's true then it's a law of nature.

Obviously, so where in the hell do we disagree ???

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:00 PM ----------

Do you simply mean Laws are non-computable ?

@Amperage,

Amperage;150900 wrote:

I guess what I'm getting at is if the laws are true, wouldn't certain things occur (or not occur) by necessity?

This was actually covered in my first post so I'll just repost the relevant part.

If it's true now that..

3. Tomorrow I will wear a yellow shirt.

...then it seems like I have no choice but to wear a yellow shirt. I can't change my mind. That's false though. The solution to the problem is that (3) is only true because I don't change my mind. If I do change my mind then (3) won't be true. By saying (3) is true we're also implying "I will change my mind and wear blue instead" is false.

If we take this further and make it a law-like statement...

4. Night Ripper only wears yellow shirts.

...then (4) is true only if I never decide to wear a different color of shirt. If one day I decide to wear blue then (4) is false. However, we're already taking (4) as true now. Therefore, I don't (not that I can't) ever change my mind.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:01 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;150901 wrote:

Obviously, so where in the hell do we disagree ???

I never said you and I disagree. I've been talking to Amperage and others but this is our first exchange I think.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150904 wrote:

This was actually covered in my first post so I'll just repost the relevant part.

If it's true now that..

3. Tomorrow I will wear a yellow shirt.

...then it seems like I have no choice but to wear a yellow shirt. I can't change my mind. That's false though. The solution to the problem is that (3) is only true because I don't change my mind. If I do change my mind then (3) won't be true. By saying (3) is true we're also implying "I will change my mind and wear blue instead" is false.

If we take this further and make it a law-like statement...

4. Night Ripper only wears yellow shirts.

...then (4) is true only if I never decide to wear a different color of shirt. If one day I decide to wear blue then (4) is false. However, we're already taking (4) as true now. Therefore, I don't (not that I can't) ever change my mind.

I haven't read this whole thing yet. But I want to stop you real quick.................before we start dealing with sentient beings....can we stick with things which cannot make choices?

I don't deny free will but I do deny that free will exists for my domino set when I knock the first one over......

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:05 PM ----------

just because we may have free will does not mean the rest of existence is not being governed deterministically. So I'd like to stick with non-humans for now

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:07 PM ----------

I'm not sure why determinism has to be an all or nothing thing anyway. But if we could agree that for non-choice making objects/beings/things, determinism seems much more likely to govern, then we could move the discussion on to you and I......people, choice making things, sentient beings, whatever.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150907 wrote:

I haven't read this whole thing yet. But I want to stop you real quick.................before we start dealing with sentient beings....can we stick with things which cannot make choices?

I don't deny free will but I do deny that free will exists for my domino set when I knock the first one over......

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:05 PM ----------

just because we may have free will does not mean the rest of existence is not being governed deterministically. So I'd like to stick with non-humans for now

I'd prefer you to just address what I said.

The fact I'm talking about humans doesn't matter. It's only to get your intuitions in the right place. If you can't address my argument that's fine but there's nothing fallacious about it.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150910 wrote:

I'd prefer you to just address what I said.

The fact I'm talking about humans doesn't matter. It's only to get your intuitions in the right place. If you can't address my argument that's fine but there's nothing fallacious about it.

I can and will address your argument but I would like to get it on record that even if your argument is 100% correct, this does not mean that determinism is false for all other things......can you agree with that?

@Amperage,

Amperage;150911 wrote:

I can and will address your argument but I would like to get it on record that even if your argument is 100% correct, this does not mean that determinism is false for all other things......can you agree with that?

I agree but I don't see why you would be concerned with that. I'm just trying to establish that true statements don't force anything to happen and I'm giving you an example of a true statement that doesn't force something. You can even assume that humans don't have free will and you'll still agree with me that the truth of the statement itself isn't making anything happen. My argument is meant to appeal to both free will skeptics and believers alike.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150911 wrote:

I can and will address your argument but I would like to get it on record that even if your argument is 100% correct, this does not mean that determinism is false for all other things......can you agree with that?

Unless free will is a metaphor for a compatiblistic perspective in which what I choose is caused to be chosen by me given what causes me to choose it, one has to stick with one or another...either Determinism is True or False...

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150912 wrote:

I agree but I don't see why you would be concerned with that. I'm just trying to establish that true statements don't force anything to happen and I'm giving you an example of a true statement that doesn't force something. You can even assume that humans don't have free will and you'll still agree with me that the truth of the statement itself isn't making anything happen. My argument is meant to appeal to both free will skeptics and believers alike.

The reason I'm concerned with that is because if we establish determinism for everything else, well then we have to explain why we are special which could be bit of an uphill battle. Not that I think it's a problem necessarily. I mean it is obviously but at least an argument can be made.

Also I think what you are calling a true statement is in no way a true statement.....for me to say I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow is not a true or false statement....I guess I would classify it as a contingent statement. Contingent upon whether I do or do not follow through.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150915 wrote:

for me to say I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow is not a true or false statement

Quote:

In logic, the semantic principle of bivalence states that every meaningful proposition is either true or false.

Source: Principle of bivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we accept this principle (and I do) then the only way the statement "Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" could be neither true nor false is if it were a meaningless statement. It seems meaningful to me.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;150913 wrote:

Unless free will is a metaphor for a compatiblistic perspective in which what I choose is caused to be chosen by me given what causes me to choose it, one has to stick with one or another...either Determinism is True or False...

I think the best argument for the existence of free will is the existence of God.

Other than that. I'd say it's just some emergent property of consciousness. Where we can have an uninfluenced view of all the options.

Of course, unless our consciousness exists in some non-material manner, it seems difficult to get away from physical determinism, doesn't it? So I guess the argument for free will would be the same argument for duality

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:25 PM ----------

Night Ripper;150917 wrote:

Source: Principle of bivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we accept this principle (and I do) then the only way the statement "Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" could be neither true nor false is if it wear a meaningless statement. It seems meaningful to me.

what do they mean by meaningful?

Statements made before the fact would seem, to me, to only be able to be assessed as having been true or false after-the-fact.

I'll have to read the link... I'm not formally trained on any of this stuff, so I guess my statement was wrong.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:32 PM ----------

actually the article has a section called" Problem of future contingents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " which seems pertinent

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150917 wrote:

Source: Principle of bivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we accept this principle (and I do) then the only way the statement "Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" could be neither true nor false is if it were a meaningless statement. It seems meaningful to me.

(1) Necessarily, Amperage will either wear a blue shirt tomorrow, or Amperage will not wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

(2) Necessarily, Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow or necessarily, Amperage will not wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

A. (1) and (2) are different statements.
B. (1) is true, but (2) is false,
C. (2) does not follow from (1).
D. To think that (2) follows from (1) is to commit the modal fallacy.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150921 wrote:

(1) Necessarily, Amperage will either wear a blue shirt tomorrow, or Amperage will not wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

(2) Necessarily, Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow or necessarily, Amperage will not wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

A. (1) and (2) are different statements.
B. (1) is true, but (2) is false,
C. (2) does not follow from (1).
D. To think that (2) follows from (1) is to commit the modal fallacy.

This reports to prediction and computability but not to the facts that will happen tomorrow...as only one of them will become true. (at least in our Universe)

@Amperage,

Amperage;150918 wrote:

Statements made before the fact would seem, to me, to only be able to be assessed as having been true or false after-the-fact.

Ok so let me re-phrase this in a more deterministic manner.

Yes, saying "I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" is either a true statement or it's not.

However, I will not be privy to the it's truth or false-ness until that time.

Deterministically though, I don't see a problem. Obviously if I don't wear a blue shirt then it was simply a false statement; a lie. I must have been destined, if you will, not to wear a blue shirt despite what I did or did not say.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:47 PM ----------

In fact Night Ripper, I think if you accept The Principle of bivalence(which you said you do), then you are, in some ways, IMO, moving closer to determinism.

I'm not so sure I accept that principle outright myself.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know