Thread: Free will and determinism

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I meant that situation is different because instead of it being everything that lead up to that instant, it is now all of that plus the all of the events that include replacing yourself with someone else.

I think that in bringing those events into it, you are circumventing the very thing that makes this a thought experiment but so be it. At any rate, I think that we fundamentally agree on "what is actually going on" and are debating the definitions. I like your definition of determinism a lot:

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Determinism says that all of the events and processes at base are what form the universe, and that everything else is an arbitrary way of grouping events together to make the universe manageable for a thinking entity.

IMO, that's the base of Taoism. By that definition, the self is an illusion but to the extent that we consider the self real, we must consider free will as being real as well. Determined or not, you make choices uniquely and there is no chain of causality that leads to a decision on your part that is stronger than your own will or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

IMO, that's the base of Taoism. By that definition, the self is an illusion but to the extent that we consider the self real, we must consider free will as being real as well. Determined or not, you make choices uniquely and there is no chain of causality that leads to a decision on your part that is stronger than your own will or lack thereof.

Hehe, I don't think A Roxxor means it quite like that. The viewpoint he's putting forward is hard, Newtonian Determinism, based on the assumption that the universe is composed of finite variables which, if known in their entirety (even though there's no Knower, no way ) would reliably predict any future state in the slightest minutae, including the precise firing of synaptic pathways involved in any human decision. While most ridicule the notion of a watchmaker, Newtonian Determinists remain convinced that they are part of a watch.

Taoism, on the other hand, treats conditions as fluid and organic, and if you look at a work like The Art of War, Sun Tzu clearly presupposes we can have extensive (if ideally invisible) impacts on the course of events.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hehe, I don't think A Roxxor means it quite like that. The viewpoint he's putting forward is hard, Newtonian Determinism, based on the assumption that the universe is composed of finite variables which, if known in their entirety (even though there's no Knower, no way ) would reliably predict any future state in the slightest minutae, including the precise firing of synaptic pathways involved in any human decision. While most ridicule the notion of a watchmaker, Newtonian Determinists remain convinced that they are part of a watch.

I'm aware of this. I'm trying to persuade him that he's a Taoist and I suppose that now I'm trying to persuade you that you're a Newtonian Determinist

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Taoism, on the other hand, treats conditions as fluid and organic, and if you look at a work like The Art of War, Sun Tzu clearly presupposes we can have extensive (if ideally invisible) impacts on the course of events.

I see no difference between saying that we are all part of the Universal Being or Tao and saying that we are all part of a watch other than that the watch analogy breaks down in its simplicity. Roxxors definition of determinism, in my estimation at least, overcomes that limitation. Determinism (regardless of if we go with the traditional Laplacian formulation or the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of QM[*]) allows all times to exist now (boundless present in your words) and all agents and objects to be dissolved as illusory. That is, in 'reality', there is nothing but the whole. That last sentence sounds a little like Taoism does it not? I'd say that it's a key feature of it. That's only possible with determinism. Is there something left to be determined? Then the whole must not be whole yet. I also think that if we honestly evaluate it, we see that determinism forces this view on us.

But I'm just insane so I could be way off.

At any rate, none of this contradicts free will because we are nothing but a collection of causes. The very act of separating us from the whole brings with it a choice to disregard the causal connections that make the notion of free will meaningless in the first place. Otherwise I haven't really separated myself from the whole.

[*] It's not normally presented this way but the whole point of MWI is that it restores determinism by interpreting the probabilities of a given state being measured as the percentage of the different universes in which that state occurs. It's not yet specified how we determine which universe 'we' ('we' are really in all of them) measure until we do a measurement of course but the 'multiverse' as a whole is deterministic.

I mainly disagree that the perpetual existence of all possibilities as facets of an unchanging total Being is equivalent to a rigidly fixed course of manifestation for our avenue of realization. Indeed, there is no single outcome of events, only the realization local to an individual's awareness. Also, it's generally not accepted by hardline determinists that past, present, future and alternate iterations of our reality are perpetually extant, but instead that events are in fact playing out in sequence, all the billiard balls bouncing off one another in this moment only, despite being rigidly fixed.

It's a perspective that simultaneously requires and denies an observer outside of time: the ontology of medieval Christendom with nobody at home.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I mainly disagree that the perpetual existence of all possibilities as facets of an unchanging total Being is equivalent to a rigidly fixed course of manifestation for our avenue of realization. Indeed, there is no single outcome of events, only the realization local to an individual's awareness.

I guess that we're just looking at it two different ways. I would say that every course of manifestation is equally fixed by virtue of "presently" existing and that they all occur. The presence (or abstraction) of fluidity is what is local to a given individual's awareness when we pick out just one "copy" of that individual. But doing so is imposing a (useful!) abstraction on ourselves anyways. I view the whole thing as being in "fixed" existence and when we separate a single copy of ourselves from it, the fluidity emerges from doing so.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Also, it's generally not accepted by hardline determinists that past, present, future and alternate iterations of our reality are perpetually extant, but instead that events are in fact playing out in sequence, all the billiard balls bouncing off one another in this moment only, despite being rigidly fixed.

I can't speak for most hardline determinists but I can speak for this one. The mathematical formalism from which it derives (GR as the culmination of classical mechanics or the MWI version of QM) seems to be dependent upon all times being perpetually extant. Indeed in GR, one cannot even speak of the universe at a given time but only of an individual clock's reading at a given event. There is a very real and weird fluidity between space and time. In MWI, we take the multiverse to be composed of discrete three dimensional universes, each in a fixed state, with one for each time of each timeline. In both cases, one could say that that's letting the formalism dictate reality but how is this not the case for determinism to begin with? It seems to me that determinism and perpetual existence of all times come together in the same way that the "self" and "free will" do. It seems contradictory to imagine one but not the other.

EDIT: In retrospect, the case for MWI isn't as solid as for GR as it's open to more interpretations, but I think for GR, it's pretty solid. I'm sure that you could find physicists that agree and disagree with me on both counts though.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's a perspective that simultaneously requires and denies an observer outside of time: the ontology of medieval Christendom with nobody at home.

I like that sentence so much that I wish I could agree with it. I would say that it only requires the hypothetical possibility of one. I could postulate that all reality is a a computer simulation. It requires far less than the ontology of medieval christendom in that respect. I do agree partly though. One of the major undercurrents of non string theoretic physics at this point is a theory that is based "inside" the universe. Such a theory may break determinism all together or it may reinforce it. Who knows?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I guess that we're just looking at it two different ways. I would say that every course of manifestation is equally fixed by virtue of "presently" existing and that they all occur. The presence (or abstraction) of fluidity is what is local to a given individual's awareness when we pick out just one "copy" of that individual. But doing so is imposing a (useful!) abstraction on ourselves anyways. I view the whole thing as being in "fixed" existence and when we separate a single copy of ourselves from it, the fluidity emerges from doing so.

I agree with your last statement, if the "fluidity" you refer to is temporal continuity, but I don't see how that view can be meaningfully reconciled with Determinism in regard to our local manifestation. Determinism does not require that future events be literally extant, and does require that the present state of material reality can yield one and only one future state, with the corollary that any prior state could have lead only to our precise present state. To accept that possible outcomes are infinite and all are equally present runs directly counter to Determinism.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I can't speak for most hardline determinists but I can speak for this one. The mathematical formalism from which it derives (GR as the culmination of classical mechanics or the MWI version of QM) seems to be dependent upon all times being perpetually extant. Indeed in GR, one cannot even speak of the universe at a given time but only of an individual clock's reading at a given event. There is a very real and weird fluidity between space and time. In MWI, we take the multiverse to be composed of discrete three dimensional universes, each in a fixed state, with one for each time of each timeline. In both cases, one could say that that's letting the formalism dictate reality but how is this not the case for determinism to begin with? It seems to me that determinism and perpetual existence of all times come together in the same way that the "self" and "free will" do. It seems contradictory to imagine one but not the other.

While I won't pretend to know the math, I believe your statement bolded above misconstrues the fundamental claim of MWI. From Wikipedia: Many-worlds asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse. Because wavefunction collapse does not actually occur, there are not many material universes nor one, but zero, equal to infinity. All possibilities exist equally and perpetually without adherence to any timeline, but none actually occur. Within any illusory system of waveform collapse, no fixed form is ever attained and the potential translations along the waveform/s are infinite, though conditioned to varying degrees on varying scales. In other words, from the perspective that everything is accomplished and all realizations equally present, nothing at all is happening, whereas from the perspective that anything is happening, possibilities are infinite(which is not to say that anything is possible, only that permutations of the possible are infinite).

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I like that sentence so much that I wish I could agree with it. I would say that it only requires the hypothetical possibility of one. I could postulate that all reality is a a computer simulation. It requires far less than the ontology of medieval christendom in that respect. I do agree partly though. One of the major undercurrents of non string theoretic physics at this point is a theory that is based "inside" the universe. Such a theory may break determinism all together or it may reinforce it. Who knows?

That sounds like qualified agreement to me

free will

–noun

1.free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

2.Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will

It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for, maybe not exclusively, but centrally, is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.

@Taosaur.

I'm contemplating your post. As for the the notion of MWI from wiki, it is accurate but essentially identical to the one that I gave. The key is understanding that the wave function is defined on a phase space which is itself defined so that each point corresponds to an entire state of a three dimensional universe (for the 'universal wave function'). The idea of wave function collapse is that the value of the wave function squared at a point gives the probability of the 'actual' universe being in the state described by that point. In MWI, the collapse is denied and all possibilities are taken to occur( or not occur as you pointed out). It is in eliminating the wave function collapse that determinism is restored because that is the only non-deterministic feature of quantum physics. In the non-deterministic ontologies, the probabilities themselves still evolve through time in a deterministic manner.

If all possibilities happen, they were all determined. If one possibility happens, it was determined. Even if scientists like Heisenberg cannot find differing factors behind differing outcomes, the differing factors are still there. There are no uncaused events. Determinism is reality.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If all possibilities happen, they were all determined. If one possibility happens, it was determined. Even if scientists like Heisenberg cannot find differing factors behind differing outcomes, the differing factors are still there. There are no uncaused events. Determinism is reality.

This.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If all possibilities happen, they were all determined. If one possibility happens, it was determined. Even if scientists like Heisenberg cannot find differing factors behind differing outcomes, the differing factors are still there. There are no uncaused events. Determinism is reality.

This is theology That being said, I too believe it. My whole argument is that this does not contradict free will and that free will outside of the context of a deterministic universe is meaningless.

Freedom evolves.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is theology That being said, I too believe it. My whole argument is that this does not contradict free will and that free will outside of the context of a deterministic universe is meaningless.

Freedom evolves.

How is it theology? It's logic. The definitions of free will I posted are against determinism.

Again, that depends on whether or not you consider the mind to be a 'physical force'. I do, so there is no conflict with 'physical forces'.

Even your definition's doesn't rule out having free will and determinism at the same time. That is a silly argument.

Basically you are saying that a person makes a choice because they are the person they are. Thus since they are making a choice based on their personality they were predetermined to make that choice. Thus free will doesn't exist because things like your memories and personality are the controlling factor.

That doesn't make any sense at all though. If your memories and personality are the controlling factors, then you do indeed have free will. If you, the body that makes up you, is the causing factor that determines what you are doing, then you are the determining factor.

So free will and determinism can exist at the same time. You act like your body doesn't exist within the world or something. Because your body exist and because you got a brain everything you do is determined by your body and your brain, thus determinism can always be argued as existing. However, at the same time since it is your body and your brain you are actually controlling your own choices, thus you have free will.
free and independent choice
If you are making your own choices you have free will, if your choices are decided by your brain then your actions were determined by you having a brain, thus both exist at once.

voluntary decision
If you decide to do something voluntary you can, you have free will. If you were born however, your birth influenced your life, so determinism exist at the same time.

the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces

When they say this they are not referring to the human itself. The human can make personal choices, without being determined by outside physical and divine forces.

Does it bother you at all that your entire post collapses into "Free will and determinism can co-exist because free will is deterministic."?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

"Free will and determinism can co-exist because free will is deterministic."

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself

Then it isn't free, it is Determined Will^TM. Big difference.

No it's not, they can be the same thing. Free will is the ability to choose. Determined will is knowing what someone will choice ahead of time. Being able to predict what they will choose, doesn't remove the fact that the person is choosing.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Then it isn't free, it is Determined Will^TM. Big difference.

Unless someone can give me a way to tell the difference between the two, I must maintain that the difference is purely illusory.

Why call it something it's not?

What is a choice if it is determined?

If you are arguing that humans have cognitive abilities then yes, but that still isn't free will, that's just an emergent method of survival.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Why call it something it's not?

What is a choice if it is determined?

If you are arguing that humans have cognitive abilities then yes, but that still isn't free will, that's just an emergent method of survival.

I think that the confusion is over the meaning of the word determined in this context. The fact that it is known in advance what choice you are going to choose (determinism) does not mean that you do not make the decision.

Let's assume that the universe is deterministic (so that we can have meaningful free will) except for the human mind (so that we can have your version of free will)

In the context of the above assumptions, let's say I pick some annoyingly happy, perky life loving valley girl and I give her the choice to be tortured to death along with her entire family or to get one million dollars.

Am I assuming too much in saying that it is determined ahead of time what she is going to choose? Does that mean that her choice, though determined, is not free?

Determinism states that the universe as we see it is a predictable system that has no random elements. I.e. causal. Human cognition and decision making are a part of the universe and are governed by all of its laws, and therefore are determined, not free in the sense that you seem to suggest.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Determinism states that the universe as we see it is a predictable system that has no random elements. I.e. causal. Human cognition and decision making are a part of the universe and are governed by all of its laws, and therefore are determined, not free in the sense that you seem to suggest.

-10 See me after class

Think about that question I posed. The predictability of a decision does not detract from the freedom with which it is made.

Oh gosh, we do seem to be running in circles here.

It DOES detract from the freedom, because there is none. As I said, decisions are thoughts translating into actions of the body, etc. Which are all a part of the universe, not separate, and are all causal systems and determined, not free. There is no decision making process that you seem to be alluding to.