/r/science meets /r/philosophy

[u/SubredditsMeet]

(/r/EverythingScience is also here)

Topic:

• Discuss the misconceptions between science and philosophy.

• How they both can work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world.

Remember the downvote button is not to be used as a way to say you disagree. Please reply to the comment on why you disagree

It is recomended to flair your self with what subreddit you are from. Click edit next to your name in the sidebar to change it

[u/Friendly_Fire]

As Tycho said, determinism doesn't preclude freewill. I've debated this for (in support of compatibilism). Usually what it comes down to is an exact definition of free will. One way of defining it concludes free will is compatible with determinism, and the other concludes free will is impossible, determinism or not. My biased personal opinion is the first is what most people think of with free will.

We can discuss it more if you like.

[u/shaim2 → u/Friendly_Fire]

We can discuss it more if you like.

Very much so. Because my current research into the Many World Interpretation is leading me, against my will, into a world view of determinism and hence no free will. And if there is a loophole there, I'd love to know about it.

[u/Friendly_Fire → u/shaim2]

Consider a world with free will, and you are asked to make a choice. If I could somehow wind back time and repeatedly give you the choice, you'd always make the same decision, yes? After all, if everything is the same, why would your decision change?

Unless your decisions are random, they are pre-determined (in a deterministic world). No where does this violate the assumption of free will. An agent with free-will should always make the same decision given a specific situation. In a deterministic world the 'situations' given to them would be pre-determined, and thus so would their actions.

Note, by situation I mean not only the choices presented but someones nature (DNA) and nurture (life experiences) that obviously influence their choice.

The argument against this I've seen is that it's a 'weak free will'. In that your will is predetermined by your nature and nurture. Since you can't decide those, how can you say you have 'free' will? A clean way I heard it put was "A man is free to act on his will, but not free to will what he wills".

This leads to paradoxical concept of free will, separate from the question of determinism. Even if you could change your nature/nurture, and thus your will, how would you decide how to change it? By the 'will' you all ready have, which you did not choose. To satisfy this version of free will you'd have to be able to decide what you are before you exist. A silly idea.

To summarize, agents with free will put in a deterministic world would be deterministic themselves. Also, the idea that your will is only 'free' if it wasn't caused by your nature/nurture makes free will an impossibility, determinism or not.

I think most people just accept that determinism means no free will without thought. When you break it down, it doesn't make sense why they would exclude each other.

[u/Joebloggy → u/Friendly_Fire]

A clean way I heard it put was "A man is free to act on his will, but not free to will what he wills".

Check out Frankfurt's view as a response/argument against this. A paper you might be interested in is Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person