Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Amperage,

Amperage;150924 wrote:

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.

Why "destined"? What makes you think that? Couldn't you have decided not to wear a blue shirt, and wear a purple shirt, Of course, in that case I suppose you would have said you were destined to wear a purple shirt. So, apparently, it is not that you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt, but rather you were "destined" to wear a blue shirt because you wore a blue shirt. Isn't that true?

False statements need not be lies, and it isn't even true that lies have to be false statements (if you think about it, you can lie, and tell the truth by accident).

@Amperage,

Amperage;150924 wrote:

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.

The reason I say that is because, it seems to me, that that principle is saying(I think) that, upon saying something like that, it's true or it's false.....absolutely and before the fact.

It's the before the fact that worries me. How can something be true before the fact if the statement involves acts of the will?

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:57 PM ----------

kennethamy;150929 wrote:

Why "destined"? What makes you think that? Couldn't you have decided not to wear a blue shirt, and wear a purple shirt, Of course, in that case I suppose you would have said you were destined to wear a purple shirt. So, apparently, it is not that you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt, but rather you were "destined" to wear a blue shirt because you wore a blue shirt. Isn't that true?

False statements need not be lies, and it isn't even true that lies have to be false statements (if you think about it, you can lie, and tell the truth by accident).

I guess the reason I use "destined" is because in a purely deterministic world we are simply dominoes in the chain.....everything we say or do is done because nothing else could be done.

"So, apparently, it is not that you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt, but rather you were "destined" to wear a blue shirt because you wore a blue shirt. Isn't that true?"

I would say deterministically speaking it would be that "you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt" not the other way around. It's only looking back that one says "well I must have been destined to wear a blue shirt since that's what I wore".

"False statements need not be lies, and it isn't even true that lies have to be false statements (if you think about it, you can lie, and tell the truth by accident)."

True. I shouldn't have added the lie part in retrospect. You are correct about that.

Here's something I just thought about......why would someone who believes in determinism argue for a multiverse? I don't see them as compatible IMO. I'm looking at you Fil. :bigsmile:

What would be the need? In pure determinism there would be only 1 verse. THIS ONE. Everything happening is what must happen and nothing else could happen.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150929 wrote:

Why "destined"? What makes you think that? Couldn't you have decided not to wear a blue shirt, and wear a purple shirt, Of course, in that case I suppose you would have said you were destined to wear a purple shirt. So, apparently, it is not that you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt, but rather you were "destined" to wear a blue shirt because you wore a blue shirt. Isn't that true?

False statements need not be lies, and it isn't even true that lies have to be false statements (if you think about it, you can lie, and tell the truth by accident).

Either he was caused to chose to wear a blue shirt or he was not...
If he chooses to wear a blue shirt, the choice he takes is caused by whatever makes him prefer one to another...so his preference is caused, and, as such, it may well be said that he was in fact destined to meet such conditions...

@Amperage,

Amperage;150924 wrote:

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

1. Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that (1) is true. Does the truth of (1) force you to wear a blue shirt? No, (1) is true only because you do wear a blue shirt. If you chose to wear a yellow shirt then (1) would be false. But we're asserting that it's true and therefore also implying all such statements contrary to (1) are false.

In the same way as above, let's assume the following statement is true.

2. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

Even if (2) is true then it's not that mass is prevented from accelerating faster than the speed of light, anymore than you are prevented from wearing a yellow shirt by (1). Mass could accelerate faster than the speed of light but it doesn't and that's why (2) is true and therefore a law of nature.

This all goes back to answering the following.

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?

As shown above, that (1) is true doesn't force you to wear a blue shirt and that (2) is true doesn't force mass to limit its speed. These are just things that happen and (1) and (2) are true only because they reflect the facts. They don't control the facts.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150936 wrote:

1. Amperage will wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that (1) is true. Does the truth of (1) force you to wear a blue shirt? No, (1) is true only because you do wear a blue shirt. If you chose to wear a yellow shirt then (1) would be false. But we're asserting that it's true and therefore also implying all such statements contrary to (1) are false.

In the same way as above, let's assume the following statement is true.

2. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

Even if (2) is true then it's not that mass is prevented from accelerating faster than the speed of light, anymore than you are prevented from wearing a yellow shirt by (1). Mass could accelerate faster than the speed of light but it doesn't and that's why (2) is true and therefore a law of nature.

This all goes back to answering the following.

As shown above, that (1) is true doesn't force you to wear a blue shirt and that (2) is true doesn't force mass to limit its speed. These are just things that happen and (1) and (2) are true only because they reflect the facts. They don't control the facts.

check out my posts #820 and #822. IMO you are NOT arguing for the principle of bivalence.

If (1) is a true statement then I WILL wear a blue shirt and vice versa

This is excluding acts of the will IMO.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:07 PM ----------

such statements cannot be true or false before the fact.

If you think they can then you are making an argument for determinism IMO

@Amperage,

Amperage;150930 wrote:

The reason I say that is because, it seems to me, that that principle is saying(I think) that, upon saying something like that, it's true or it's false.....absolutely and before the fact.

It's the before the fact that worries me. How can something be true before the fact if the statement involves acts of the will?

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 12:57 PM ----------

I guess the reason I use "destined" is because in a purely deterministic world we are simply dominoes in the chain.....everything we say or do is done because nothing else could be done.

"So, apparently, it is not that you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt, but rather you were "destined" to wear a blue shirt because you wore a blue shirt. Isn't that true?"

I would say deterministically speaking it would be that "you wore a blue shirt because you were destined to wear a blue shirt" not the other way around. It's only looking back that one says "well I must have been destined to wear a blue shirt since that's what I wore".

.

Could it be that a statement is be true before the fact just because the statement's truth is caused by the person's decision to do something? Because of his acts of will?

Why would you think that if I do X, that I could not have done Y if I had chosen to do Y? If that is the only reason you use the term "destined" that you believe that we could not have done otherwise than we do, that seems to be a bad reason, since it is false. I often could have chosen to do something different from what I did. For instance, suppose I decide on vanilla ice-cream. Why would you think I could not have chosen chocolate ice-cream instead? What was stopping me, do you think?

I suppose that you mean by "deterministically speaking" "supposing the truth of determinism". But all determinism means is that what I do has a cause, and part of the cause of what I do is often my choice to do that thing, and since I could have chosen not to do that thing, I was not "destined" to do that thing. "Destiny" is, I suppose, like fate, isn't it? But to say that I was fated (destined) to do something, is to say that it would have happened no matter what I did to avoid it. But do you really think that I was fated to eat vanilla ice-cream, and that I could not have done anything to avoid it? For example, like ordering chocolate? You don't suppose that if I had ordered vanilla, the waiter would have inevitably brought me chocolate, and force me to eat it, do you?

@Amperage,

Amperage;150930 wrote:

Here's something I just thought about......why would someone who believes in determinism argue for a multiverse? I don't see them as compatible IMO. I'm looking at you Fil. :bigsmile:

What would be the need? In pure determinism there would be only 1 verse. THIS ONE. Everything happening is what must happen and nothing else could happen.

Multiverse hypothesis as I perceive it would imply that all logical possibility's are a priori truths...each Universe would be Deterministic in itself, and all of them Determined a priori, through the set of all possible conditions there is in BEING...

All logically possible initial conditions would coexist in Multiverse set, of sets Universes...

All conditions exist would be true...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150941 wrote:

Could it be that a statement could be true before the fact because the statement's truth is caused by the person's decision to do something?

I want to say yes, but I think in order for me to claim free will I ought to argue, no, such a statement cannot be true or false before the fact. How could it? It becomes true by happening. And only after the fact.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:13 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;150943 wrote:

Multiverse hypothesis as I perceive it would imply that all logical possibility's are a priori truths...each Universe would be Deterministic in itself, and all of them Determined a priori, through the set of all possible conditions there is in BEING...

All logically possible initial conditions would coexist in Multiverse set, of sets Universes...

All conditions exist would be true...

Ah, I think i see, so it's not like a divergent thing in the sense that a new universe crops up based on an opposite choice.....it's more like all conditions exist such that a universe would exist such that I was deterministically destined to choose B in world X whereas I would choose ~B in world Z

@Amperage,

Amperage;150944 wrote:

I want to say yes, but I think in order for me to claim free will I ought to argue, no, such a statement cannot be true or false before the fact. How could it? It becomes true by happening. And only after the fact.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:13 PM ----------

Ah, I think i see, so it's not like a divergent thing in the sense that a new universe crops up based on an opposite choice.....it's more like all conditions exist such that a universe would exist such that I was deterministically destined to choose B in world X whereas I would choose ~B in world Z

I guess "THE MACHINE" is full with all that is Logically possible...an ingenious way of simulating freedom by making you aware by induction of all logical possibility's in other Universes...And there we have Omnipotence ! Just brilliant !!!

@Amperage,

Amperage;150939 wrote:

check out my posts #820 and #822. IMO you are NOT arguing for the principle of bivalence.

If (1) is a true statement then I WILL wear a blue shirt and vice versa

This is excluding acts of the will IMO.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:07 PM ----------

such statements cannot be true or false before the fact.

If you think they can then you are making an argument for determinism IMO

No, even statements about unpredictable events are true or false before they happen.

1. The next time I flip this fair coin it will land heads.

Even though (1) is true, it's only because the next time I do flip the coin it lands heads. Obviously, I can't know if (1) is true or false until it happens but that only deals with my knowledge of the truth.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;150948 wrote:

I guess "THE MACHINE" is full with all that is Logically possible...a brilliant way of simulating freedom by making you aware by induction of all logical possibility's in other Universes...And there we have Omnipotence ! Just brilliant !!!

yes, it's certainly interesting. Though I'm not sure if I'm convinced of the need for all sets of initial conditions to exist.

I guess the problem will just go back to why was it necessary for world A to have set Y initial conditions while world B has set Z

It might be easier to just deal with our laws as being set to what they are by necessity but once you add in other worlds with different sets, I start to think it looks less like necessity.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------

Night Ripper;150949 wrote:

No, even statements about unpredictable events are true or false before they happen.

1. The next time I flip this fair coin it will land heads.

Even though (1) is true, it's only because the next time I do flip the coin it lands heads. Obviously, I can't know if (1) is true or false until it happens but that only deals with my knowledge of the truth.

before you flipped the coin was the statement (1) true or false?

If a statement about a future contingent which directly deals with matters of the will is true beforehand or false beforehand then I DO NOT have free will because either implies that I cannot change my mind.

do you agree with that statement?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150949 wrote:

No, even statements about unpredictable events are true or false before they happen.

1. The next time I flip this fair coin it will land heads.

Even though (1) is true, it's only because the next time I do flip the coin it lands heads. Obviously, I can't know if (1) is true or false until it happens but that only deals with my knowledge of the truth.

But Determinism is not about knowing but about Being... Smile

@Amperage,

Amperage;150950 wrote:

before you flipped the coin was the statement (1) true or false?

It's the same before as after. There's no change.

Amperage;150950 wrote:

If a statement about a future contingent which directly deals with matters of the will is true beforehand or false beforehand then I DO NOT have free will because either implies that I cannot change my mind.

do you agree with that statement?

No. I disagree. That's what I've been trying to explain. The truth of a statement about your will depends on your will. Your will is not constrained by true statements about your will.

It implies that you do not change your mind.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150950 wrote:

yes, it's certainly interesting. Though I'm not sure if I'm convinced of the need for all sets of initial conditions to exist.

I guess the problem will just go back to why was it necessary for world A to have set Y initial conditions while world B has set Z

It might be easier to just deal with our laws as being set to what they are by necessity but once you add in other worlds with different sets, I start to think it looks less like necessity.

As I said before to Night reaper, Necessity to my view reports to what there is...against what there cannot be...Being against non-Being !

You cannot think of a line which is not straight or curved...therefore, are, necessary straight and curved lines...(of course they are not perfectly straight or perfectly curved)

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:36 PM ----------

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150955 wrote:

It's the same before as after. There's no change.

No. I disagree. That's what I've been trying to explain. The truth of a statement about your will depends on your will. Your will is not constrained by true statements about your will.

It implies that you do not change your mind.

either I'm misunderstanding the principle of bivalence or you are.

but is it not saying that before-the-fact a statement is true or it's false?

but they can only attest to its truth or falsity after-the fact....agreed?

therefore, why should I believe the statement was not null until the event took place at which time the statement either became true or it became false?

To think otherwise is to deny free will because the truth or falsity of the statement was not in your control but was assigned before-the-fact. Though you do not become aware of the truth or falsity of it until after the fact.

Am I missing something here?

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:41 PM ----------

From my perspective you are now arguing for determinism and I'm arguing for free will.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150959 wrote:

To think otherwise is to deny free will because the truth or falsity of the statement was not in your control but was assigned before-the-fact.

Am I missing something here?

Ys, because you fail to take account to the possibility that the statement is true because of what you decided. It was true yesterday that I would eat vanilla ice-cream today. Why is it true that I would eat vanilla ice-cream today? Well, because I decided to eat vanilla ice-cream today.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150963 wrote:

Ys, because you fail to take account to the possibility that the statement is true because of what you decided. It was true yesterday that I would eat vanilla ice-cream today. Why is it true that I would eat vanilla ice-cream today? Well, because I decided to eat vanilla ice-cream today.

OK, granted. But why did you decided so ? Were you aware of all the ensemble of causes that have lead you to such a choice ? Hardly !

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150963 wrote:

Ys, because you fail to take account to the possibility that the statement is true because of what you decided. It was true yesterday that I would eat vanilla ice-cream today. Why is it true that I would eat vanilla ice-cream today? Well, because I decided to eat vanilla ice-cream today.

yes, but until you did.....it was not true or false......if it was, then the truth or falsity was not in your control but was assigned before the fact thought you did know the value beforehand.

I'm arguing that the value beforehand was null.
and only became true or false upon you actually doing it.

just to clarify K, are you arguing that the statement had a value of either true or false before the fact?

@Amperage,

Amperage;150968 wrote:

yes, but until you did.....it was not true or false......if it was, then the truth or falsity was not in your control but was assigned before the fact thought you did know the value beforehand.

I'm arguing that the value beforehand was null.
and only became true or false upon you actually doing it.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;150970 wrote:

I know but for someone who believes in free will, the statement MUST be null. Otherwise the control does not lie with us but was strictly assigned before the fact though I am not aware of the value until after.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:57 PM ----------

please kenny or night ripper break me out of this funk because IMO the principle of bivalence is a great argument for determinism.

For a statement about my future to be true or false before the fact seems to preclude my being able to contradict this "before the fact" value. Does it not?

Of course if the value is NOT set before the fact(what I'm arguing), I don't see a problem.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know