Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 05:41 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

perhaps you might elucidate the disctinction between causation and compulsion. I would have thought that compulsion was simply a sub-set, or special case, of causation.


All compulsion is a kind of causation, but the converse is not true. Why would the fact that my friend's suggestion caused me to to visit the restaurant compel me to visit the restaurant unless I somehow feared that if I did not follow his suggestion, that I would be harmed in some way. How could the fact that because I was caused to visit the restaurant be a case of compelling me to do so if I wanted to visit the restaurant? Could it be that I can be (in normal circumstances) forced to do what I want to do anyway? I should turn the question back on you and ask why you would think that just because I had reason that caused me to do something, I was, thereby, compelled to to that thing? That is certainly contrary to how we think and talk. Have you an argument to persuade me to change that way we think and talk?
 
tomr
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:04 pm
@jeeprs,

Quote:
But when this was shot to pieces by the discovery that atoms are essentially empty, then the argument switched sides: now what happens on the quantum scale is not really indicative of what happens 'in the real world'.


Determinism was not shot to pieces by quantum mechanics. The argument has always been centered around why we cannot accurately predict particles velocity and position. If you know light moves particles and you also know this is the only way to measure particles then you find out that you cannot predict particles from measurement should you jump to the conclusion that the particles do not follow rules? This is one interpretation. I do not think it is right.
I look at all the examples of rules that objects obey like gravity and laws of motion. I see that for any system the more information that I have of the forces involved and the materials present the more accurate my prediction becomes. I then follow this pattern to the conclusion that if I had complete knowledge of the system at a particular point in time I could completely predict the outcome of the system. What is wrong with this logic?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 06:53 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:


I look at all the examples of rules that objects obey like gravity and laws of motion. I see that for any system the more information that I have of the forces involved and the materials present the more accurate my prediction becomes. I then follow this pattern to the conclusion that if I had complete knowledge of the system at a particular point in time I could completely predict the outcome of the system. What is wrong with this logic?
Nothing. How does realizing this shape your experience? To realize that what happens next is inevitable?

Like in the morning with the whole day ahead of you.... do you walk through it knowing that whereever you find yourself... whatever is happening... there was no other possibility? Like you're in a movie you haven't seen, but the script is set in stone.

Or do you struggle... imagining that there's some right answer... some right thing to be, some right thing to say, some particular goal to achieve?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:16 pm
Sweet Surrender
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:25 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Sweet Surrender
Exactly. So you know... Wink
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:34 pm
@Arjuna,
PS Laughing SoaP Shocked PepS 2 Cents Drunk
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:36 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:


Quote:
But when this was shot to pieces by the discovery that atoms are essentially empty, then the argument switched sides: now what happens on the quantum scale is not really indicative of what happens 'in the real world'.


Determinism was not shot to pieces by quantum mechanics. The argument has always been centered around why we cannot accurately predict particles velocity and position. If you know light moves particles and you also know this is the only way to measure particles then you find out that you cannot predict particles from measurement should you jump to the conclusion that the particles do not follow rules? This is one interpretation. I do not think it is right.
I look at all the examples of rules that objects obey like gravity and laws of motion. I see that for any system the more information that I have of the forces involved and the materials present the more accurate my prediction becomes. I then follow this pattern to the conclusion that if I had complete knowledge of the system at a particular point in time I could completely predict the outcome of the system. What is wrong with this logic?


Objects can't obey anything. That is only a metaphor. Y0u don't think that falling stones say, "Yes, of course, my lord gravity. We obey you." Stones are not animate. For something to be obedient it has to have a will. Stones conform to the law of gravity, but they do not obey it. With your talk of desires as commands, and obedient stones you animate the world. The laws of nature describe the behavior of objects, they do not force or compel objects to do as the laws say they must. You are confusing laws of nature (descriptive laws) with legislation (man-made laws) which are either obeyed or disobeyed. You have a most peculiar picture of the natural world.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:37 pm
I COOK KELVIN
 
tomr
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:01 pm
@Arjuna,
Quote:
Like in the morning with the whole day ahead of you.... do you walk through it knowing that whereever you find yourself... whatever is happening... there was no other possibility? Like you're in a movie you haven't seen, but the script is set in stone.

Or do you struggle... imagining that there's some right answer... some right thing to be, some right thing to say, some particular goal to achieve?


I feel more the latter than the former. Being determined does not mean I have to stop the struggle.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:05 pm
@Zetherin,
Yes a discrete panorama is necessarily required...yet another problem to solve. (Finity or Infinity)

I can´t imagine any sort of causation mechanics with infinity´s in between...
 
tomr
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:12 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Objects can't obey anything. That is only a metaphor.


What I can't use a common metaphor. You obviously know what I mean. That the mathematical descriptions given for generalized events coincide with the observed behavior of those events.

Quote:
You have a most peculiar picture of the natural world.


I am not sure what you mean by picture of the natural world. Do you mean I have a painting of trees. I am sorry I have to discount everything you just said because I do not what to take the time to understand.
 
north
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:17 pm

the quantum world is more for free-will than against , really

the quantum world is all about creativity , thats what the quantum world has always been about
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:18 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:

Quote:
Like in the morning with the whole day ahead of you.... do you walk through it knowing that whereever you find yourself... whatever is happening... there was no other possibility? Like you're in a movie you haven't seen, but the script is set in stone.

Or do you struggle... imagining that there's some right answer... some right thing to be, some right thing to say, some particular goal to achieve?


I feel more the latter than the former. Being determined does not mean I have to stop the struggle.


Not unless you are determined to stop the struggle, for then, how can you continue to struggle if you are determined to stop the struggle? Isn't that what you must hold to be consistent? In fact, you are consistent only if you are determined to be consistent. Isn't that right-according to you? It is not up to you whether you struggle, nor whether you are consistent. Nothing (according to you) is up to you. Including your belief that nothing is up to you. And of course, equally, since (according to you) nothing is up to me either, it is not up to me whether I think you are right. So, what is the point of arguing? Except, of course, it isn't up to us whether we argue, since that is also determined.

I would ask you whether you think that this is a coherent view you have, only of course, I cannot if I am determined not to ask you that question. And it would not matter even if I could ask you that question, since your answer is determined. So what would be the point?
 
north
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:35 pm
@tomr,
tomr wrote:


Quote:
But when this was shot to pieces by the discovery that atoms are essentially empty, then the argument switched sides: now what happens on the quantum scale is not really indicative of what happens 'in the real world'.


Determinism was not shot to pieces by quantum mechanics. The argument has always been centered around why we cannot accurately predict particles velocity and position. If you know light moves particles and you also know this is the only way to measure particles then you find out that you cannot predict particles from measurement should you jump to the conclusion that the particles do not follow rules? This is one interpretation. I do not think it is right.
I look at all the examples of rules that objects obey like gravity and laws of motion. I see that for any system the more information that I have of the forces involved and the materials present the more accurate my prediction becomes. I then follow this pattern to the conclusion that if I had complete knowledge of the system at a particular point in time I could completely predict the outcome of the system. What is wrong with this logic?


quantum mechanics is more than just predicting a particles position and velocity

quantum mechanics is also about the possible combinations of things
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:51 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
I see that for any system the more information that I have of the forces involved and the materials present the more accurate my prediction becomes. I then follow this pattern to the conclusion that if I had complete knowledge of the system at a particular point in time I could completely predict the outcome of the system. What is wrong with this logic?


The fact that it does not take into account the Uncertainty Principle.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:54 pm
@jeeprs,
U do not know how prae-dictionairy people live
 
tomr
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:57 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Not unless you are determined to stop the struggle, for then, how can you continue to struggle if you are determined to stop the struggle? Isn't that what you must hold to be consistent? In fact, you are consistent only if you are determined to be consistent. Isn't that right-according to you? It is not up to you whether you struggle, nor whether you are consistent. Nothing (according to you) is up to you. Including your belief that nothing is up to you. And of course, equally, since (according to you) nothing is up to me either, it is not up to me whether I think you are right. So, what is the point of arguing? Except, of course, it isn't up to us whether we argue, since that is also determined.


That is exactly how I think. Get out of my head.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:04 pm
@kennethamy,
I will go back the original quote that started this thread
Quote:
Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.


Now this was all based on "LaPlace's Demon", which the OP quoted, and I quoted again. The Stanford entry on determinism ends with the quote

Quote:
there is no support in physics for the idea that the past is “fixed” in some way that the present and future are not, or that it has some ontological power to constrain our actions that the present and future do not have. It is not hard to uncover the reasons why we naturally do tend to think of the past as special, and assume that both physical causation and physical explanation work only in the past present/future direction (see the entry on thermodynamic asymmetry in time). But these pragmatic matters have nothing to do with fundamental determinism. If we shake loose from the tendency to see the past as special, when it comes to the relationships of determinism, it may prove possible to think of a deterministic world as one in which each part bears a determining—or partial-determining—relation to other parts, but in which no particular part (i.e., region of space-time) has a special, stronger determining role than any other.
 
tomr
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:16 pm
@jeeprs,
The uncertainty principle is what I all ready talked about. The fact that position and momentum of a particle cannot be known does give any evidence that the particle is not determined. It is a complete assumption without any evidence to back it up that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the correct view. It is because light gives energy to a particle and that we must measure particles with light that we move the particle and cannot figure the exact position or momentum.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:21 pm
@tomr,
with respect Tom you are not grasping the principles involved. When the particle is not determined, there is no particle. The fundamental nature of matter cannot be said to consist of particles. It consists of statistical tendencies to exist. You don't realise how significant that is.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 11:35:21