Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

tomr
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:22 pm
@kennethamy,
I tried to respond to this in my discussion. I posted a new reply. My best answer is there.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 02:48 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
Perhaps he is referring to the Standard Model.

A friend of mine who doesn't believe humans have free will always uses that as the cornerstone for his argument. He says that according to the SM, all matter is reducible. That is, given the proper mathematics, every physical phenomena can be determined. And this, he says, leaves no room for any outside forces (like that proposed by free will). Matter interacts in a determined manner, and we have no influence over it.
Unfortunately for your friend, this view is inconsistent, as it requires a discrete ontology and the standard model is continuous.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 02:55 am
@Zetherin,
Quote:
A friend of mine who doesn't believe humans have free will always uses that as the cornerstone for his argument. He says that according to the SM, all matter is reducible. That is, given the proper mathematics, every physical phenomena can be determined. And this, he says, leaves no room for any outside forces (like that proposed by free will). Matter interacts in a determined manner, and we have no influence over it.


Indeed, many thought this was the case in 1850.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:30 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
A friend of mine who doesn't believe humans have free will always uses that as the cornerstone for his argument. He says that according to the SM, all matter is reducible. That is, given the proper mathematics, every physical phenomena can be determined. And this, he says, leaves no room for any outside forces (like that proposed by free will). Matter interacts in a determined manner, and we have no influence over it.


Indeed, many thought this was the case in 1850.


Yes, of course, so that the premise of this argument against free will is false. But to emphasize that, is to miss the more important philosophical point that the argument is invalid, so that even were the premise true, it would not follow that free will is false, since nothing about free will follows from the truth of determinism.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:39 am
Let's replace truce by Throth
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:31 am
@kennethamy,
Yes, this is how that woman I referred to earlier (Sandra Lafave) expresses this:

Lafava wrote:
It doesn’t seem right to the soft determinist, who says the hard determinist abuses ordinary language. A free act on the hard determinist view would have to be an uncaused act, and naturally the HD position looks strong because it is hard to imagine what an uncaused event might look like. Thus it follows trivially for the HD that no acts are free, since no acts are uncaused. But it is absurd and weird to claim (as the HD does) that when we say an act is “free”, we really mean it has no cause at all! This is the kernel of the soft determinist position.

Think again about “No act is free if it must occur”, particularly the “must occur” part. We always say an act “must occur” if the act is forced; but we don't mean to imply that unforced (voluntary) acts have no causes at all! If the bank robber says, “You must open the safe right now” while pointing a gun to your head, nobody would say that your subsequent opening the safe is a free act. You are forced to open the safe; and both the hard and soft determinist would agree that your act is not free. But does that mean that if you weren’t forced to open the safe, and you did anyway, that your voluntary act would have no cause? Not so either.The soft determinist agrees with the HD that all acts are caused; but points out that to say an act is caused is not the same as to say it’s forced. And when we say an act is “free”, we mean simply that it’s not forced.


tomr wrote:
Give one example of something you know is completely random. Something you know to be random that does not rely on timing to give the appearance of randomness like a random number generator or something that only appears to be truely random because we cannot follow the underlying determined process. And by completely random I am thinking of a process that is unpredictable because there are no underlying determined processes.


How about things dealing with Chaos Theory?

"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."

ughaibu wrote:
Unfortunately for your friend, this view is inconsistent, as it requires a discrete ontology and the standard model is continuous.


To be honest, I do not know the difference. What are some examples of discrete ontologies?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 10:23 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:



To be honest, I do not know the difference. What are some examples of discrete ontologies?


Well, for one thing you needn't worry about any of them giving away any of your secrets. And that is something to value in any ontology.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:07 am
@tomr,
tomr wrote:
Give one example of something you know is completely random.


If I'm right, everything is random. Unfortunately, you can't prove that everything is or isn't random because it's not a testable hypothesis.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:12 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

tomr wrote:
Give one example of something you know is completely random.


If I'm right, everything is random. Unfortunately, you can't prove that everything is or isn't random because it's not a testable hypothesis.
Roulette >spin Idea Drunk
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:20 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

tomr wrote:
Give one example of something you know is completely random.


If I'm right, everything is random. Unfortunately, you can't prove that everything is or isn't random because it's not a testable hypothesis.
Roulette >spin Idea Drunk


You clearly don't understand what the issue is.

We can only observe patterns. We can't observe that a pattern MUST happen. We can only observe that they DO happen. Any pattern can be produced by randomness or determinism alike. There's no special pattern that enables you to go, "Aha! It must be random/deterministic."
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:28 am
@kennethamy,
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you know of any examples?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:30 am
@Night Ripper,
Well, isn't that what the "Theory of everything" and all the psuedo-science backing that, is setting out to prove? That everything is deterministic and operates in a mathematically-reducible manner? There may indeed by that "special pattern".
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:32 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you know of any examples?


dis·creet (d-skrt)
adj.
1. Marked by, exercising, or showing prudence and wise self-restraint in speech and behavior; circumspect.
2. Free from ostentation or pretension; modest.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:33 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you know of any examples?


dis·creet (d-skrt)
adj.
1. Marked by, exercising, or showing prudence and wise self-restraint in speech and behavior; circumspect.
2. Free from ostentation or pre-tension; Drunk
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:35 am
@kennethamy,
Haha, but of course ughaibu was referring to the sense of the word "discrete" meaning "noncontinuous", as he compared this to the continuous ontology (SM).
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:40 am
@Zetherin,
What means ontology ?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:44 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Haha, but of course ughaibu was referring to the sense of the word "discrete" meaning "noncontinuous", as he compared this to the continuous ontology (SM).


Was he? I must have been misinformed. If he did not mean by a discrete ontology, one that could be trusted with secrets (but was misspelling the word) then I haven't a clue as to what he might have meant. But then, that is a common occurrence with ughaibu. The peculiar thing is that tosses out a term like "discreet ontology" and although it is not something that anyone but him ever encountered even if it exists, he simply expects you to know what it means, or rather, since that makes an unsupported assumption, he expects you to know what meaning he has given to it.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:46 am
@kennethamy,
U want MHO ?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:50 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Well, isn't that what the "Theory of everything" and all the psuedo-science backing that, is setting out to prove? That everything is deterministic and operates in a mathematically-reducible manner? There may indeed by that "special pattern".


This is where it helps to have knowledge of finite state machines, which is what the universe is basically. Any non-deterministic finite state machine has an equivalent albeit more complex deterministic counterpart. Any thing one view can capture, the other can as well. It's impossible to determine which is the "correct" view. That's because the difference is untestable.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 11:53 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

Zetherin wrote:



This is where it helps to have knowledge of finite state machines, which is what the universe is basically.


When anyone says, so-and-so is X, and then adds "basically", you can be pretty sure that so-and-so is not X at all.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 12:56:53