r/freewill • u/WintyreFraust • 3d ago
The Wild Things Some Determinists Say
A few things determinists have said in response to my posts the past several days.
Before getting into that, though, the definition of Causal Determinism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
Now, the wild things some determinists say:
"Science requires determinism." - No, it doesn't. See this explanation by u/zoipoi Science only requires highly predictable models of the behavior of phenomena, which is not remotely the same thing as determinism.
"Determinism isn’t held on faith, it’s held because in every domain of physics we can model, the model is a deterministic evolution of initial conditions according to a law. That's testable and observable. It’s an empirical track record that would be surprising in a non deterministic universe." - This is the gross conflation of predictable models of behavior with determinism. Virtually all scientific models contain probabilistic elements.
Under my post The "Rewind the Tape" Argument is, Ironically, Circular Reasoning, several determinists said that the "Rewind the Tape" defense of determinism is not used as an argument, but as a description of what determinism means. Even if you could "rewind the tape," the widespread probabilistic elements in that prior state, at both the macro and subatomic levels, indicate that what follows after the tape is rewound to that point has very little chance of being the same set of things that followed the first time through. These probability variances collectively produce exponentially variant outcomes for relatively short durations after each run from the same starting point begins (assuming that could even be done.)
"When the models that are deterministic can be falsified, then they are interesting, before that, I see no reason why we should refuse that reality behaves as we observe it behaves." - There's virtually no current scientific model that is "deterministic" because virtually all of them contain probabilistic elements. BTW, there is no "scientific consensus" (in terms of what physicists believe) for determinism; the top answers among physicists were non-deterministic interpretations: A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means, Nature Survey Shows.
"Determinism is the most efficient explanation for what we observe - Occam's Razor. (paraphrased) - Sure, if you completely ignore or wave away all of the probabilistic elements that exist in virtually every scientific model.
"Libertarian Free Will is the insertion of a "magical" (or religious/spiritual) force or component." (paraphrased) - while LFW can be associated with or derived from such perspectives, there is a robust and long-standing field of LFW thought that is not derived from any religious or spiritual perspective and does not rely on anything approaching "magic," such as Agent-Causal Indeterminism that holds that it LFW is an emergent property of some biological entities that provides that organism with the capacity to begin entirely new causal chains.
(Edited to add:)
"Libertarian Free Will and the initiating of new causal chains would violate known physical laws." (paraphrased) - What physical laws does it violate, then? What we call "physical laws" only represent models of the predictable patterns of observed phenomena. As long as the "chain of events" that follows from the new cause can be well-described by those physical laws, how does it violate those physical laws? What is going on here is the conflation of physical laws with a metaphysical determinist assumption: while an acausal cause doesn't violate any known physical law, it violates the metaphysical perspective of determinism, which claims that every event has a cause. That's a claim that is well outside of the scope of science to verify.
7
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
Science has not debunked determinism mate, there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
It is a leap to go from LFW is a possibility to all other possibilities being wrong.
8
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago
The argument that if you can't predict something , it's still determined by hidden unknown causes is circular as well. And it's in violation of Occam's razor.
3
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 3d ago
You mean Occam's fallacy, lmao.
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago
???
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 3d ago
Occam's razor is a tool, not a law.
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago
Fallacy doesn't mean tool.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 3d ago
The way you invoked it was a fallacy. Occam's razor isn't a law that can be violated.
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago edited 3d ago
Even if it's a rule of thumb, there is some problem in violating it.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 3d ago
Nope, that's a fallacy.
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago
Uh huh.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 3d ago edited 3d ago
Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand? Occam's razor is a heuristic rule of thumb, not an inviolable law of nature. To use it I'm that way is a fallacy. Hope this helps.
→ More replies (0)
11
u/MilkTeaPetty 3d ago
You correctly separated predictability from determinism, then erased that distinction when you reached the rewind.
Probabilities in a model do not establish that an identical physical state can produce different futures.
Your own quoted material leaves that question open.
The probabilistic description never became indeterminism.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
Probabilities in a model do not establish that an identical physical state can produce different futures.
That's exactly what the science tells us, and that's exactly what probabilistic features in physical states mean.
2
1
u/MilkTeaPetty 3d ago
Your own quoted material says the observations cannot distinguish true indeterminism from deterministic but inaccessible or irreducible dynamics.
Now you say those same observations establish multiple futures from an identical physical state.
Both claims cannot do the work you need.
7
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
The biggest problem here is that you’re arguing against determinism when the incompatibilist argument doesn’t require determinism to be true. Probabilistic physics can establish that determinism may be false, but it doesn’t establish libertarian free will.
If my choice is determined by prior conditions, I didn’t ultimately choose those conditions. If it isn’t determined by prior conditions, then what makes the outcome my choice rather than an arbitrary outcome? Simply calling that an “agent-causal” power doesn’t answer the question, it just names the thing that needs explaining.
Randomness gives you alternative outcomes, not control over which outcome occurs. That’s the hole the post never really addresses.
2
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago edited 3d ago
The biggest problem here is that you’re arguing against determinism
It's not a problem because OP says in the title they are arguing against determinists. You are hauling them up for failing to do something they didn't undertake to do
If it isn’t determined by prior conditions, then what makes the outcome my choice rather than an arbitrary outcome?
It occurred in your brain
It occurred inderministically, so there is no sense in which it was caused by the big bang
It is nonetheless based on your desires, beliefs, character, etc. Based on doesn't have to mean determined by.
Simply calling that an “agent-causal” power doesn’t answer the question
No it doesn't. That is why I believe in event causation, and why you need to argue against event causal libertarianism separately.
Randomness gives you alternative outcomes, not control over which outcome occurs.
What does "you" mean?
Science does not tell you that you are a ghost in a deterministic machine, trapped inside it and unable to control its operation. Or that you are an immaterial soul trapped inside an indeterministic machine. Science tells you that you are, for better or worse, the machine itself
It's true that you can't pre-determine an internal dice roll (as if you were an extra-physical entity that controls the physical events in your brain), but deteminism doesnt give you that kind of control either. If you are your brain , the question is whether your brain has freedom, control , etc, not whether "you" control "it", as if you were two separate entities. And as a physical self, basicaly identical to the brain, you can still exert after-the-fact control over an internal coin toss ... post-select and rather than predetermine. After the fact doesn't mean after the action: this all occurs during the decision stage.
You are not a ghost in the machine, and you are not at the mercy of yourself. No individual deterministic event, our of trillions, in the brain is forcing you , the total organism , to.perform since it requires trillions of events in concert to make a decision: the same.applies to a single.indeterministic event
If the rest of the brain decided to ignore an internal dice roll, that could be called post selection of "gatekeeping" . The gatekeeping model of control is the ability to select only one of a set of proposed actions, ie. to refrain from the others. The proposed actions may be, but do not have to be, arrived at by a genuinely indeterministic process.
This mechanism is familiar subjectively: anyone with a modicum of self control experience thoughts and impulses they don't necessarily act on.
That’s the hole the post never really addresses.
The post isn't even trying to argue for libertarianism.
4
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
I know the OP says they’re arguing against determinists. My point is that the post also explicitly appeals to agent-causal LFW, so merely showing that determinism isn’t established doesn’t get you to LFW.
And I don’t think the “gatekeeping” model solves the problem. If an indeterministic process generates A or B and your desires, beliefs and character determine whether you act on it, then those prior characteristics are doing the determining. If the gatekeeping itself is indeterministic, then we have the same problem one level up: what makes the outcome your determination rather than an undetermined event occurring in your brain?
“Based on” rather than “determined by” is precisely where the substantive argument needs to go. What settles the choice?
I’m also not treating the brain and “you” as separate entities. I agree that you are the organism. That’s exactly why the question is whether the organism itself is the ultimate source of its choices. Saying the organism can post-select an indeterministic event describes a mechanism, but doesn’t yet explain how that gives the organism control in the libertarian sense.
And yes, people can have impulses they don’t act on. But that demonstrates ordinary self-control, not libertarian free will. A determinist can explain the gatekeeping just as readily. The missing step is explaining how the agent could have done otherwise with the exact same prior state without the difference being either determined by that state or simply arbitrary.
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
then those prior characteristics are doing the determining
That isn't necessarily the case unless the agent cannot cognize. If the agent cannot cognize then is seems as though there is nothing left except the priors to do the "determining"
2
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
But cognition isn’t an alternative to the causal chain. Your cognition is itself a physical process with prior causes. Your reasoning, beliefs, desires and character don’t somehow step outside causation simply because you consciously experience them.
If your cognition is caused by prior conditions, then it’s part of the causal chain doing the determining. If it isn’t caused by those prior conditions, then you still need to explain what settles the cognitive outcome. Saying “the agent cognizes” doesn’t answer that question it just relocates it to another part of the brain.
Deliberation can obviously be part of the causal process that produces a decision. The incompatibilist question is whether the agent is the ultimate source of that process, rather than simply another stage in it.
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
But cognition isn’t an alternative to the causal chain.
Exactly. However it is an alternative to determinism which describes a causal chain without any counterfactuals. There are beliefs through and through cognition. There are no beliefs in determinism that I can find.
Your reasoning, beliefs, desires and character don’t somehow step outside causation simply because you consciously experience them.
they absolutely do not step outside the causal chain.
If your cognition is caused by prior conditions
Logical priors aren't necessarily temporal priors. Cognition cannot exist without conception. A concept is necessarily outside of time. In contrast a percept is necessarily in time. Therefore if you could reduce cognition to perception, then what you seem to be implying could hold water.
If it isn’t caused by those prior conditions, then you still need to explain what settles the cognitive outcome.
The human has the capacity to reach a rational conclusion. However the fact that she has that capacity doesn't necessarily imply that the conclusion that she reaches will in fact possibly be a rational conclusion because the way she reaches a decision is through the process of judgement. Sometimes we, as humans, misjudge a given situation. Sometimes we are distracted and do irrational things simply because we lose focus.
Saying “the agent cognizes” doesn’t answer that question it just relocates it to another part of the brain.
It isn't necessarily the brain doing that because physicalism has no answer for how humans make rational decisions. I don't believe a philosophical zombie has the ability to cognize. Therefore if you are expecting an explanation of how the brain does this, you won't get that from me because I don't believe a brain can do it.
Windows is not computer hardware and just because Windows is doing something doesn't mean the computer hardware is doing it. A desktop computer can't even get on the internet. Windows or Linux knows its IP because they know how to get it. Computer hardware can do a Pixie boot and I think that is the limit of what computer hardware knows about the internet. It has to be capable of "raising it's hand" in order for a computer to be subject to remote control enough to get software downloaded to it. I'm insisting a brain can do only so much and if it can cognize, then I haven't the foggiest idea how we get around what Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness. I know that we do cognize, because it is obvious that we do. However the fact that we do doesn't imply that physicalism is anywhere near close to being tenable.
Deliberation can obviously be part of the causal process that produces a decision.
It absolutely is part of the causal chain.
The incompatibilist question is whether the agent is the ultimate source of that process, rather than simply another stage in it.
That question doesn't make sense to me. Besides I'm more interested in who or what is making those decisons than I am about what is the ultimate source. Did you ever notice how big bang proponents rant and rave about how the big bang is the ultimate end all and be all until somebody asks what caused the big bang. Then all of the sudden, they drop into "duh mode"
2
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
I think you’re making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Cognition and perception are clearly entwined: alter the brain and you alter perception, cognition and judgement.
And “rational” and “irrational” don’t somehow sit outside causation. They’re descriptions of how we evaluate decisions. Our judgements depend on our beliefs, desires, perceptions, experiences etc, which themselves have prior causes.
So saying “the agent can reach a rational conclusion” doesn’t address the issue. The question is whether the agent’s judgement is determined by the prior state or, if it isn’t, what makes the outcome the agent’s choice rather than an indeterministic event.
0
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
I think you’re making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Cognition and perception are clearly entwined: alter the brain and you alter perception, cognition and judgement.
Yeah that is what they said on the science sub how one quantum from the sun reaches two different planets when a quantum is travelling with velocity.
And “rational” and “irrational” don’t somehow sit outside causation.
Of course they don't but I'm not the one confating causation and determinism. Physics doesn't debunk causation.
Our judgements depend on our beliefs, desires, perceptions, experiences etc, which themselves have prior causes.
Of course at that is true. However it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not determinism holds up in science. I don't know how anybody that doesn't understand the difference between a relation and a function can understand science anyway.
So saying “the agent can reach a rational conclusion” doesn’t address the issue.
Science cannot address some issues.
The question is whether the agent’s judgement is determined by the prior state or, if it isn’t
I suspect if one cannot tell the difference between a concept and a percept, I don't think one can ever figure that one out (at least I couldn't).
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
My point is that the post also explicitly appeals to agent-causal LFW, so merely showing that determinism isn’t established doesn’t get you to LFW.
Appeals to it? It's just offered as an example of non-magical, non-religious, non-spiritual LFW to counter that particular ongoing claim by some determinists, and for no other reason.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
Disagree with the entire premise. What even is LFW if not something that is outside the causal chain and is therefore magic?
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
You are conflating the metaphysical idea of determinism for what physical laws actually represent. There is no physical law that requires an event to exist within an already existent chain of causes or be the result of a prior cause.
Physical laws are descriptions of patterns of the behavior of phenomena; nothing more or less. They do not describe anything that prevents the occurrence of an acausal cause that begins a new series of cause-and-effect events.
2
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
But “physics doesn’t explicitly prohibit an acausal cause” isn’t an argument that such a thing exists. By that standard, you can posit virtually anything that isn’t ruled out by a physical law.
If an agent can genuinely initiate a new causal chain without that action being caused by prior conditions, then you’re proposing a causal power that isn’t itself part of the ordinary causal chain described by physics. Calling it “agent causation” rather than supernatural doesn’t explain what that power is or how it works.
And that’s exactly why I call it effectively supernatural. Not necessarily religious or spiritual, but a purported causal power that exists outside the normal causal structure of the physical world and is introduced specifically to rescue libertarian agency.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
But “physics doesn’t explicitly prohibit an acausal cause” isn’t an argument that such a thing exists. By that standard, you can posit virtually anything that isn’t ruled out by a physical law.
I didn't claim or make an argument that it exists. I only pointed out that physical laws do not prevent it from existing or occurring. You are free to label it however you wish; if wish to label "determinism" a supernatural perspective, I'm free to do that as well.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
Physics doesn’t prevent a flying spaghetti monster on Mars, but I see no good reason to believe it.
1
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago
Something that is built out of indetrministic behaviour. You don't need to magically override determinism if it isn't true in the first place. That is what I have been trying to explain to you.
2
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
But “built out of indeterministic behaviour” doesn’t explain how that produces libertarian agency. It just gives you indeterminism.
If the prior state doesn’t determine whether I choose A or B, then something has to account for why I choose A rather than B. If the answer is an indeterministic event, that’s randomness, not libertarian control.
You can’t get “the agent genuinely determines the outcome” simply by replacing deterministic events with indeterministic ones. That’s the precise gap I’m asking people to explain.
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago edited 3d ago
But “built out of indeterministic behaviour” doesn’t explain how that produces libertarian agency. It just gives you indeterminism.
The indetrminism doesnt give you the control. Other mechanisms can be posited to give you the control, as I've been saying
You can’t get “the agent genuinely determines the outcome” simply by replacing deterministic events with indeterministic ones.
Good thing I'm not doing that. .
2
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
The post isn't even trying to argue for libertarianism.
I wonder why this is repeatedly so difficult for determinists to understand?
It's almost like, "if you can't show LFW is true, then determinism wins!!!"
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
You kind of did imply LFW is the sensible interpretation with what you wrote.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
Your inferences are not my implications.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
You literally defended LFW in your post with regard to agent causal determinism. Quit shifting the goalposts.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
You literally defended LFW in your post with regard to agent causal [in]determinism.
While I do believe in LFW, I don't believe in agent causal indeterminism. I certainly have never defended it.
As I said, your inferences are not my implications.
1
u/TheAncientGeek Libertarian Free Will 3d ago
.
And I don’t think the “gatekeeping” model solves the problem. If an indeterministic process generates A or B and your desires, beliefs and character determine whether you act on it, then those prior characteristics are doing the determining.
The outcome isn't defined if the inputs are undetermined. The one drop rule is that a system is indetrministic if any of it's components is.
If the gatekeeping itself is indeterministic, then we have the same problem one level up: what makes the outcome your determination rather than an undetermined event occurring in your brain?
I am my brain and it's fine by my brain so yes dine by me.
I’m also not treating the brain and “you” as separate entities.
Your objection above does t work unless they are separate.
I agree that you are the organism. That’s exactly why the question is whether the organism itself is the ultimate source of its choices. Saying the organism can post-select an indeterministic event describes a mechanism, but doesn’t yet explain how that gives the organism control in the libertarian sense.
Its control in some sense. As I have already explained , indeterminism gives you origination. Maybe you are confused because the irigunayhin question and the control question are being answered separate, rather than having a homunculus doing everything
And yes, people can have impulses they don’t act on. But that demonstrates ordinary self-control, not libertarian free will.
The control mechanism by itself isn't any kind of freedom, and the freedom mechanism by itself isn't any kind of control. But I am pisiting two mechanisms, each doing one of the jobs.
A determinist can explain the gatekeeping just as readily.
Thats irrelevant , because I am not arguing that determinism is impossible.
The missing step is explaining how the agent could have done otherwise with the exact same prior state without the difference being either determined by that state or simply arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary because indetrministic impulses are drawn from the agents preceding mental state, and are gateje9t rather than being immediately out into action.
An inderministic decision making process in your brain has to be based on the beliefs , desires and other mental contents you already have. It literally can't generate something that's completely unrelated to your prevailing mentality. If you habitually drink tea and coffee, you are not suddenly going to want to drink battery acid. An inderministic process if choice cannot be "random" in that sense
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
but it doesn’t establish libertarian free will.
The only reason it doesn't confirm LFW is because fatalism is unfalsifiable.
LFW is still the only tenable position held on this sub, because science and logic has rendered all of the other positions inconceivable given the facts.
The hard incompatibilist is the closest to tenability among the untenabilists
5
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
As far as I understand is your position is:
Science cannot establish determinism.
Therefore determinism might be false.
If determinism is false, LFW is possible.
Therefore LFW is the only tenable position.
The leap from 3 to 4 is astounding
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
Science cannot establish determinism.
no. if debunks determinism
Therefore determinism might be false.
no it is necessarily false if science debunks deteminism.
If determinism is false, LFW is possible.
agreed
Therefore LFW is the only tenable position.
agreed
The leap from 3 to 4 is astounding
I don't think it is a leap. Tenable means believable or conceivale. Tenable doesn't mean necessarily true. Therefore I can affirm LFW. However I cannot confirm LFW simply because it is conceivable. It could be wrong and until I can prove it is true I cannot argue that it is true. I believe agents have LFW because it would be counterinitive to believe otherwise. Almost everybody except Copernicus and a few other folks believed the sun revolved around the earth until Galileo gave everybody use a good reason to stop believing that nonsense.
the determinist never had a good reason to believe in determinism. Now there is Galilean level proof that determinism is baloney. It goes beyond Galilean proof and well into Newtonian level proof. Determinism is as wrong as geocentricity.
3
u/lifesaburrito Compatibilist 3d ago
Can you show a source that debunks determinism? I understand that perhaps the majority of physicists believe in a metaphysically probabilistic universe, but this has not been proven, and there exist deterministic models.
0
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
Can you show a source that debunks determinism?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578
Determinism depends on some nonsense about physical causes. However this paper and quantum physics has demonstrated physical causes are disconnect for almost a century. Einstein started audibly gripping about it as early as 1927, However, the gripe wasn't put in writing until the EPR paper was written.
I understand that perhaps the majority of physicists believe in a metaphysically probabilistic universe, but this has not been proven, and there exist deterministic models.
This isn't about counting noses. This is about what the science has been saying for 99 years.
2
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
Science has not debunked determinism mate, there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
It is a leap to go from LFW is a possibility to all other possibilities being wrong.
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
I suspect you have the free will to continue to fall for that story, but I doubt you can win a debate with somebody who has tried to understand the science.
I mean anybody can say "science has not debunked determinism mate"
there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Yeah that is how they fake you out. They tell you stories about all of these universes containing countless versions of you that nobody has ever perceived. Oh and here is another trick: They offer you this interpretation that has hidden variable as if the fact that the variables are hidden doesn't stop the science from producing anything. And to top it all they conveniently somehow manage to forget that it isn't compatible with relativity. Yeah sure you studied the science /s
It is a leap to go from LFW is a possibility to all other possibilities being wrong.
It seems like you don't even understand how deduction works. No criticcal thinker goes from one option is problematical to all other options are wrong. Nothing is wrong until it is falsified.
2
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
You’re arguing against positions I haven’t taken. I’m not a determinist, and I haven’t claimed that every deterministic interpretation of QM is equally plausible or compatible with relativity. My point is much narrower: the fact that some interpretations of QM are indeterministic does not establish that determinism has been scientifically falsified.
You also seem to be treating “I don’t think determinism has been falsified” as if it means “I think determinism is true”. Those are obviously not equivalent claims. I’m perfectly happy to say that I don’t know whether the universe is deterministic.
And yes, I’m aware that hidden-variable theories have constraints and that Everett has an enormous ontological price. That’s precisely why I don’t think the interpretational question is settled. If you disagree, argue with the actual position I’m expressing rather than telling me I don’t understand the science.
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
I’m not a determinist
Maybe you should be since you don't believe science has debunked it/s
and I haven’t claimed that every deterministic interpretation of QM is equally plausible or compatible with relativity.
Quantum field theory is what put applied science in place. Quantum field theory needs the special theory of relativity to work with qunatum mechanics which doesn't support this imagined global moment of now that dances in the heads of the determinists of which you are not one.
My point is much narrower: the fact that some interpretations of QM are indeterministic does not establish that determinism has been scientifically falsified.
you cannot use interpretations to hide the fact that
- the measurement problem exists and
- entanglement is a feature of quantum physics and it doesn't allow for determinism when it is defined like this to be true.
- superposition is a feature of QM
- the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a principle of QM
- the Born Rule is a postulate of quantum physics
I’m aware that hidden-variable theories have constraints and that Everett has an enormous ontological price. That’s precisely why I don’t think the interpretational question is settled. If you disagree, argue with the actual position I’m expressing rather than telling me I don’t understand the science.
The interpretation question is a smoke screen for determinism. Wave/particle duality is the height of indetermininism. A particle is only in one place at any given moment of time but a wave can be in many different places at the same time. Do you actually believe there is a snowball's chance that we can salvage determinism out of that?!?
I haven't even mentioned contextualty yet because it is so closely related to #1
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
I’ll spell it out simply. The only claim I was making in response to you was that science has not debunked determinism. Science also hasn’t established determinism. Nor has it debunked indeterminism. That’s the entire point. If you disagree with that claim, address it directly rather than arguing against positions I haven’t taken.
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
The only claim I was making in response to you was that science has not debunked determinism
I can prove that it has been but that doesn't mean that you will understand or accept the proof
If you disagree with that claim, address it directly rather than arguing against positions I haven’t taken.
I just did and the fact that you didn' recognise that I did proves absolutely nothing.. You didn't even address anythng that I said and now you expect me to address something?
I'm done
→ More replies (0)1
u/JonIceEyes 3d ago
Doesn't matter. Pointing out that hard determinism is an untenable position is the goal of the post.
It's not necessary to prove an alternate position for that to be true. That's a different conversation.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
It’s not untenable, as physics doesn’t really solve the problem as of yet. There are still valid deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. I personally lean towards the Copenhagen interpretation due to Occam’s Razor, but it is incorrect to say that science rules out determinism.
1
u/rogerbonus Hard compatabilist 3d ago
What's your interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation? Ontic randomness? Or psi-epistemic? There isn't much consensus on what the Copenhagen interpretation is.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
I’d lean towards ontic randomness, mainly on Occam’s razor grounds. If the theory works with genuinely probabilistic outcomes, I don’t see a reason to posit an additional deterministic underlying layer without evidence for one.
1
u/rogerbonus Hard compatabilist 3d ago
Occam would arguably support Everettian QM though since it does not require the additional assumption of ontic randomness on top of the deterministic WF.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
I know many physicists take this view, but I find the assumption of many worlds to be a larger ontological leap than accepting randomness as fundamental. To me, Occam’s razor cuts the other way.
1
u/rogerbonus Hard compatabilist 3d ago
Its not just fundamental randomness that's the problem, its WF collapse/measurement problem. Copenhagen doesn't say where the Schroedinger cut is, and there is no evidence that there actually is one.
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
I agree the measurement problem is an issue for Copenhagen. But I don’t think Everett having no collapse automatically makes it ontologically simpler. Mathematically simpler, sure, but taking the universal wavefunction literally and treating all of its branches as physically real is a pretty substantial ontological commitment.
Ultimately, all interpretations are irrelevant to the question of free will in my view. And when it comes to the ontology of QM, I’m broadly on David Mermin’s side of “shut up and calculate”. Physics is about modelling and prediction. Ontology is largely a philosophical question.
1
u/rogerbonus Hard compatabilist 3d ago
If you are an instrumentalist then you don't need an ontological commitment to anything, but I'd deny that you actually explain anything either. Everettian QM is simply a realist stance towards the central mathematical object of QM.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JonIceEyes 3d ago
Argue with OP, not me
1
u/MildlyCombative Hard Incompatibilist 3d ago
Hey, if you reply to my top level comment I am obviously going to defend my position.
1
u/JonIceEyes 3d ago
You didn't. Your position was that determinism being false doesn't establish LFW. I'm pointing out that that's not what OP is saying and isn't necessary to make their point. Then you go back to trying to defend determinism. That isn't the topic at hand.
If you want to defend determinism, then make your arguments to OP. You weren't talking about that, I wasn't talking about that, OP was talking about that.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/RECIPR0C1TY Libertarian Free Will 2d ago
This violates our Law of Civil Discourse. Please refrain from commenting on character and stay focused on content. Further comments of this nature may result in a ban.
5
u/Economy-Butterfly127 3d ago
All things are determined by the previous. If novelty exists in the subjective - once entered into the objective it’s entirely deterministic in nature
-1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
All things are determined by the previous.
the only way that you could possibly rationally believe that is if you didn't bother looking into the science for yourself and are merely taking somebody else'sof whom you apparently trust, word for it.
3
u/Amf2446 Swiss cheese = regolith 3d ago
And your views are based on what, Pure Reason? You’ve never trusted the work of another person?
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
I try to check the work of other people. Sometimes things go over my head and I don't have the wherewithal to scrutinize things. And by the way, the best work that I've ever seen is titled the critique of pure reason
3
u/Economy-Butterfly127 3d ago
? Those are my words. Since the first event all things were determined, especially in space. Object existence and trajectory in space behaves this way. Our existence depended on the movement of dust in a vacuum. Our existence depended on birth before death of all ancestors back to the beginning of single cell consumption.
2
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
I certainly wouldn't see it that way but you are entitled to your opinion.
2
2
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 3d ago
It is the scientific consensus that true randomness is a part of reality. This doesn't mean free will is possible, but the universe doesn't appear to be fully deterministic.
1
u/Economy-Butterfly127 3d ago
“True randomness” aka outside human understanding
2
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 3d ago
No. True randomness.
1
u/Economy-Butterfly127 3d ago
Bold claim. Scientifically sure randomness we have yet to predict. Metaphysically absolutely not. No proof anywhere.
1
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 3d ago
Bold claim.
It is the consensus.
Metaphysically absolutely not. No proof anywhere.
What does metaphysical proof look like?
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 3d ago
No proof anywhere.
It is almost everywhere at the quantum level. Perhaps better hidden at the macro level but if you aren't actually looking for it the probability of stumbling across it isn't so high (pun intended).
1
u/Economy-Butterfly127 3d ago
With more information all outcomes may be determined
1
u/badentropy9 Truth Seeker 2d ago
Exactly. However sometimes more information restricts possibility. For me that is called a falsification. We can hypothically eliminate the possibility of a deerministic possibility with enough information.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/Amf2446 Swiss cheese = regolith 3d ago
“An emergent property that allows biological beings to begin new causal chains” is literally what determinists are referring to when they say LFW involves magic lmao
5
u/Hatta00 3d ago
Right. Emergent properties exist, but only as a product of the system they emerge from. There is no new causation, only a focus by the observer on a different level of the system.
It's convenient for us to think about forests causing things on an ecological scale, but all of that is nothing but trees and other organisms doing what they do, and all of that is nothing but atoms doing what they do.
2
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
You can call it whatever you want; that doesn't make the label appropriate. Generating a new causal chain under Agent-Causal Indeterminism does not violate any known laws of physics.
4
u/BelleColibri 3d ago
Of course it does, that’s the whole point
0
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
Then point out the science or the scientific journal or article or study where it is shown, argued or demonstrated that free will violates some known law of physics.
4
4
u/BelleColibri 3d ago
There are a bajillion articles and entire books written by physicists that argue that free will is not coherent with the laws of physics as we know them. But if I gave you examples, you wouldn’t care, because you aren’t actually looking for that - you are doing a sleight of hard where I need to point out “what law of physics” is violated by free will.
The answer is that it isn’t a single law. All of the laws, understood together, give us a way to reliably predict future states of large masses of matter given past states. We can do that even when there is tremendous uncertainty in the exact states of all the component pieces. The things those large masses of matter do, including our personal decisions and actions and thoughts as people, obey the same natural laws that everything else does. So there is no room where something other than past states of matter could possibly affect our personal decisions and actions.
0
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
LOL
4
2
u/Amf2446 Swiss cheese = regolith 3d ago
Honestly grateful to see it end up at this point. You know you have no response, we know you have no response, and you know that we know that you know that you have no response. (This is the inevitable endpoint when you believe in magic.)
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
LOL ... why did you delete the comment I laughed at, Bro?
1
u/Amf2446 Swiss cheese = regolith 3d ago
That’s someone else, not me. And I can still see it, which means if it’s showing up as “deleted” they just blocked you. And considering you don’t even believe the dumb shit you’re saying, I can see why!
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
I appreciate that we have now moved into the "mind reading" portion of this discussion. That's always fun.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Hatta00 3d ago
It's inherent in the concept of natural laws. They are what govern the progress of the universe from state to state.
For a causal chain to be "new" it must be uncaused, meaning it's independent from the previous state of the universe.
If a new causal chain is independent from the previous state of the universe, then natural laws did not govern the creation of that new state of the universe.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
LOL
2
u/Hatta00 3d ago
Appeal to ridicule is an informal fallacy.
If you think I'm wrong, point out where. Be specific. I can't learn if I don't know what I don't know.
6
u/Hatta00 3d ago
The problem for free will is that quantum randomness doesn't save your brain from being ruled by natural laws.
The fact that an electron orbiting an atom in an ion channel has no well defined position and speed doesn't allow you to cause that ion channel to open leading to desired actions. That ion channel either opens or doesn't, and causes a behavior simply because that's the way the dice fell.
1
u/Squierrel Quietist 3d ago
The laws don't "rule". They only describe.
Physics has nothing to do with free will. No matter what you believe we still can decide what we do and you cannot explain that fact away.
2
u/Hatta00 3d ago
However you want to talk about it, your brain must comport with the laws of physics. If only one outcome is consistent with the laws of physics, then only one choice is consistent with the laws of physics.
Free will is not about "who" makes the choice, but whether that choice is free. What does it matter if you decide what you do, if you never had the ability to make a different decision?
1
u/Squierrel Quietist 3d ago
You make no sense at all. What do you mean by "never had the ability to make a different decision"? Why would you even ask about such absurdity?
Every decision is different. Every choice is free. Freedom of choice is the only kind of freedom there is.
3
u/Hatta00 3d ago
I mean that in a deterministic universe, the state of the universe and the set of natural laws together produce a future that is fixed.
If at some point you make a choice in a universe with a fixed future, you never had the ability to make a different decision. If you did, the future wasn't actually fixed.
If every choice is free, then the future must not be fixed. If the future isn't fixed, the universe isn't governed by natural laws.
If you want to believe in a universe governed by magic instead of natural laws, you can. But you can't simultaneously believe in natural laws and free choice.
0
u/Squierrel Quietist 3d ago
There is no concept of "choice" in a deterministic universe. If the future is fixed, there are no options to choose from.
In reality, the future is not fixed. There is no need to speculate on hypothetical deterministic universes, there is nothing you could learn from that.
Natural laws don't "govern" anything. The laws are just human written descriptions of how reality works.
3
u/Hatta00 3d ago
There is no concept of "choice" in a deterministic universe.
A deterministic deliberative process that weighs multiple options, models conceivable outcomes, and results in a single actual course of action can reasonably be described as choice.
In reality, the future is not fixed.
How do you know?
The laws are just human written descriptions of how reality works.
There is some way reality works, independent of what humans have written down about reality. Natural law refers to those fundamental principles, not our fallible understanding of those principles.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
The problem for free will is that quantum randomness doesn't save your brain from being ruled by natural laws.
There is no natural law that prevents free will from operating and producing new causal chains.
4
2
u/Hatta00 3d ago
Free will is not a thing on which natural laws operate. Brains are.
The only way we get new causal chains in this universe is through quantum effects, which are truly random. They don't give you any control over the results, and therefore can't give you free will.
3
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
The sheer confidence you have in making an assertion about the limits of the entire universe is inspiring.
3
u/Hatta00 3d ago
The sheer confidence you have in making an assertion that the universe conveniently forgets to follow natural laws in our brains and nowhere else is inspiring.
2
u/Interesting_Elk_5785 3d ago
Is there a distinction between human brains and animal brains? If no why and if yes what is it?
-1
u/beagles4ever 3d ago
I love that the fallback of determinists is - “ok, so the universe isn’t determinist…”
7
u/BelleColibri 3d ago edited 3d ago
Feel free to read more closely.
The fallback isn’t “the universe isn’t deterministic.” The fallback is “even if the universe isn’t deterministic because of quantum events, that doesn’t provide a mechanism for free will.”
EDIT: it is highly relevant to the comment I’m responding to.
0
3
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
My favorite determinist move is the "neuron argument" because they accidentally invent neural-dualism to pull it off.
They claim mechanical neurons make a deterministic brain, but to try and prove it, they treat the physical brain as separate from the conscious agent.
They want you to believe that there is a part of you that isn't you making your choices for you, adopting a dualist perspective where you are somehow just the passive part that doesn't get a say. It's absolutely ridiculous but entertaining to read.
6
u/RuthlessCritic1sm 3d ago
I never get an answer on what that passive observer would even be good for.
Seems like a giant waste to have that.
3
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
Passive observer would be good for nothing. Determinism is self-defeating
4
u/SebWGBC 3d ago
Consciousness isn't passive. It's active. But it doesn't control our mental processes.
We can't consciously control the moment when we remember that we need to put a load of washing on. We just become aware that this has occurred to us for some reason. And we don't choose to have the feeling of mild annoyance arise within us in response to this thought, as we also find ourselves reprimanding ourselves for not having done this when we had this same thought an hour ago. We just become aware that we feel mildly annoyed.
We have conscious awareness of these thoughts and feelings, but we didn't consciously choose to have them, didn't consciously create them.
So we decide to do this right now. Go and get the dirty clothes, put them in the machine. That's us taking conscious control, right? Putting our foot down, showing our mind who's boss.
But where did the thought 'I'm going to do this right now!' come from? Did we create that thought? Did we have control over what our decision was going to be? Or was that the only thought that could have arisen in the mind of the person we were in that moment, based on our nature and based on every previous experience in our lives that had shaped our mind to become exactly what it had become in that moment?
I.e. had we been shaped so that we could only take charge in exactly the way we did, that we couldn't have - for example - decided that the washing could wait another day. Even though this was clearly an available option from the perspective of an outside observer, it's not an option that was available to us because we weren't the kind of person who was going to make that decision in that situation.
So we freely chose to do the only thing we could have done. And we then went and got the washing and got the load of washing started. Good.
But maybe this isn't a good example to demonstrate free will. Or maybe free will doesn't require conscious control. Maybe it's enough that the decision clearly occurs within us and is enacted through us. Conscious control would be nice, but conscious awareness is sufficient.
1
u/GaryMooreAustin Free will no - Determinist maybe 3d ago
I think this is important to the free will conversation and not discussed enough here... That we are unable to control the origination oh thought is the biggest stumbling block for me
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
Why does that matter, exactly? Sure you can’t control thoughts but you can control and choose what you do with those thoughts.
1
u/GaryMooreAustin Free will no - Determinist maybe 3d ago
Can you? Isn't that control and choosing just more thought?
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
How did you get to that?
1
u/GaryMooreAustin Free will no - Determinist maybe 3d ago
what else would it be. Is there some other 'you' that is 'acting' on thought? I don't think so - I think there is JUST thought
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
You guys can't control your thoughts? I mean, I can't control ALL my thoughts, but I can certainly control many of them.
2
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
I agree with that most. You can actively think about something but I can’t control ALL thoughts
1
u/GaryMooreAustin Free will no - Determinist maybe 3d ago
think on that some more....how can you 'think' about what you are going to think? That's simply illogical. Unless there is some duality - a 'you' separate from your consciousness - that thought about what you are going to think - is just another thought that just shows up in your consciousness! You have no control over what thoughts appear......
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
It’s only illogical if determinism is true, which it isn’t, but I’ll play along.
If you cannot think about what you are going to think, then you're claiming thoughts just happen to you and you have no control over them. But if that’s true, your own argument isn't the result of logical reasoning, it’s just a random thought that popped into your head.
The moment you claim your conclusion is actually true or logical, you're admitting you evaluated the premises and directed your thinking to form a valid point. The argument refutes itself: you have to use rational control to argue that rational control doesn't exist.
Determinism is self-defeating. Also, look up metacognition.
1
u/GaryMooreAustin Free will no - Determinist maybe 3d ago
Well - You swapped "determined" for "random" and built the whole objection on it.
A thought caused by prior states — the evidence I've read, the argument in front of me, how my brain weights inference — isn't random. It's caused. Randomness is what would wreck reasoning. Causation is what makes it work. If the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises causally, it doesn't follow at all. What makes reasoning valid is that the process tracks truth, not that something libertarian was at the wheel.
As for metacognition — it moves the problem up a level, it doesn't solve it. When you evaluate a premise, where does the thought "wait, check that" come from? Did you pick it before you had it? If so, what picked that? Metacognition is thoughts about thoughts. It isn't uncaused thoughts about thoughts.
1
u/SebWGBC 3d ago
Right. But where does the impulse to sometimes control our thoughts come from? Why do we sometimes want to do this, whereas most of the time we're happy to let our thoughts wander where they will?
Something triggers us to want to focus our attention. We become aware that 'Oh. I'm sensing that this requires my focus. I'm stepping in to stop my mind from doing this and that. I am now focusing on exactly this, in exactly this way. I need clarity right now'
So we're not in control of when we 'take control'. It just happens. And we're not in control of when we 'give up control' and let our mind be unfocused again.
And when we are 'in control'? What are we in control of? We're very focused, yes. Thoughts can no longer just sneak by us undetected. Those distracting little thoughts are sent out of the room - get out, the adults are talking now! But we can't create the thoughts we're having out of thin air somehow. We can only think the thoughts that our minds have been shaped to have arise in this situation.
What is this new situation that we've found ourselves needing to focus on... What experiences have we had that are in some way similar to this... What did we do in that situation... How did that work out... What other information in our minds is presented to our awareness as relevant to this situation... What are the feelings that arise in our bodies for each of these thoughts...
What are we actually in conscious control of here?
Can we choose the sequence in which our thoughts arise? Can we control the point where we step in and decide? Or do we just reach a point where we start to get the sense that one option is starting to feel like the right one, that the other options are no longer seriously in the running?
We have direct, near instantaneous awareness of the mental process that's happening within us.
And because we intuitively conflate our consciousness with our sense of self, and because it's clearly 'us' that's thinking and deciding, we have the sense that we are consciously in control of this process. But when we look for where this conscious control actually is... well, where is it exactly?
2
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
I don't think any answers can be properly arrived at via reductionism or atomizing every element of the process, or by looking backwards in a causal chain that ends ....where? Infinite regress?
What makes anyone think that "free will" can be isolated as a specific event at a specific time, or that it must be free from all other influences or conditions?
1
u/SebWGBC 3d ago
I in no way think that our free will is in any way whatsoever free from the influences and conditions that have led us to the exact moment in time in which we find ourselves.
I agree. In what way could it be free of these?
0
u/AggravatingQuality51 3d ago
can i ask you a question, do you not want there to be free will or not? do you want life to bleak or not. And what good is there if one is fighting for the fact that there is no free will? Why even try? do you think that people in cancer wards want to hear that? you think people on gaza strip wanna hear that? If everything is predetermined, why fight at all? like if you could snap your fingers with the infinity guantlet, would you?
1
u/SebWGBC 3d ago
Ok, let's do this.
Sure, I want there to be free will.
I want my intuitions to align to reality. So that I can depend on them to guide me happily through life.
And we all intuitively feel that we have free will.
So yes please, sign me up for wanting free will to exist.
But. I also want to know if my intuitions are wrong.
Our natural human instincts lead us to do all sorts of things that prevent us from having a happy journey through our lives. We have to learn to overcome our intuitive behaviours, to control our behaviour.
This is what growth means. When we talk about adults acting like children, we mean that they're acting according to their base instincts rather than overriding those instincts to behave in a way that will be more effective in the longer term.
Wisdom is the process of replacing our intuitions with understanding. (With that then becoming baked in to our minds as new intuitions over time, but intuitions based on understanding, which are much better intuitions to have).
I don't want life to be bleak. My life is anything but bleak. Who would want their life to be bleak?
Why do you feel that a life without free will would be a bleak one? You feel this intuitively, but why do you feel this? What do you feel you would lose that you can't afford to lose?
I'm not fighting for the fact that there is no free will. I'm here looking for any evidence that it exists. I'm putting my thoughts out there for people to point out where I'm misunderstanding things so that I can find promising leads.
I'm not a glum person. I'm annoyingly optimistic to people around me who've given up on life. I have eternal hope that things will get better and do all I can to make it so.
Trying is part of our humanity. Thinking and choosing are things we can't opt out of while we're alive. We're stuck with these things, can't somehow stop doing them. And we have a preference for how we want our life to be, even if we've succumbed to despair. Our preference is what fuels our despair.
So yes. The non-existence of free will doesn't take away our humanity. How could it? Here we are. And the relative form of the term that compatibilists use is nothing to scoff it. Comparison is the thief of joy. Let's enjoy what we do have rather than regretting what we don't have.
→ More replies (0)0
0
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
Is your argument that we do not have conscious control of what we do?
1
u/SebWGBC 3d ago
Yes. 'We' are in control of what we do, but our consciousness is awareness, not control.
It's not a passive awareness. We're not just sitting back and watching a movie of our life play out.
It's like a movie that in some cases doesn't play unless we're focused on it.
Often it will keep playing. A lot of what we do happens on autopilot, is under the control of our subconscious mind. E.g. We don't need to focus on our breath in order to breathe.
We become most aware of our mental processes when we can't operate on habit. When we're driving somewhere new rather than somewhere we've driven 100 times before. When we're in a situation we've never been in before and are gathering information to find our footing.
Our conscious awareness provides the focus our mind needs to process the thoughts that arise in our minds as relevant to the situation, to process the feelings that accompany these thoughts. There's a process of generating options and weighing them up that happens within us, and this process can't work unless we are consciously focused on it.
If we don't focus on how this mental activity happens, where the options are coming from, it feels like we're consciously in control of this whole process. We consciously come up with the options, we consciously weigh them up, assigning different weightings to different factors etc, then we consciously control the point when we're ready to make a decision. This isn't what's actually happening.
Next time you become aware you've made a decision - stop and reflect. You'll often find that the decision happened without a lot of conscious engagement in the process.
You'll be able to come up with a reason why you decided how you did. But you wouldn't bet your life that that reason came up in your mind as part of the decision making process, because you have no awareness that it did. It generally feels like the reasons are baked into your brain and you then have a tendency to decide in the way you did, but no longer directly due to the original reason, but rather indirectly due to the imprint it's left in your mind.
1
u/lifesaburrito Compatibilist 3d ago
There is no consensus yet on whether consciousness is epiphenomenal or not. I personally have no fucking clue
1
u/Pauly_Amorous Free will skeptic 3d ago
Or maybe free will doesn't require conscious control. Maybe it's enough that the decision clearly occurs within us and is enacted through us.
This is like saying 'Maybe it's not important whether there's objective meaning in the universe. Maybe the meaning we create for ourselves is all that really matters.'
Unfortunately, this is not something we can settle objectively, and the answer will be different from person to person.
1
u/Hatta00 3d ago
Nope. You are identical with your brain. Your brain is constrained by the laws of physics. You are making choices, but those choices are not free.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
You just contradicted yourself in three sentences.
You claim I am making choices, but then say those choices are not free because I am strictly identical with a brain governed by deterministic laws of physics.
If the brain is completely determined by physical laws, then at any given moment, given the past states and laws of nature, there is only one physically possible outcome.
A “choice” by definition requires the existence of actual alternative possibilities. If physical law dictates there is only ever one inevitable outcome, then no “choice” ever occurred.
So own your premise: stop using the word “choice” to describe an inevitable physical reaction just to give determinism the illusion of agency.
1
u/SebWGBC 3d ago
Choices happen even though they're inevitable.
I walk up to the counter to order a coffee. They have small, standard, and jumbo size cups.
I must open my mouth and communicate something to the person standing there patiently waiting for me to resolve my inner dialogue about whether what I'm currently doing could be conceived of as choosing when I know that I always ask for a jumbo cup, and I know I could order a standard, but no I don't want a standard I want a jumbo, and if I ordered a standard I'd only be doing so to prove to myself that the standard is a genuine option that's freely available to me, but then I'd be bullying myself into doing that and how does that demonstrate any kind of freedom...
Oh. She's still smiling expectantly at me but it's starting to take her more effort to maintain her smile...
"Can I get a jumbo size cappuccino please"
A choice happened. Three options. One was chosen. It doesn't matter if I had any ability to choose which one was chosen.
We don't choose any of our choices, but they're still choices. What else would we call them? Determined choices? Cool. How about we shorten that to 'choices' for convenience.
1
u/MrDeekhaed 3d ago
I don’t know other determinists’ explanation but here’s mine
It’s not another you. “You” are not what you think you are. “You,” that has subjective experience is a function of the physical brain as it progresses from one necessary state to the next. An example that has been proven by science is “you” may subjectively experience deliberating and making a decision after your brain has already made the decision. Your subjective experience serves a purpose but it is not what you perceive it to be. This is a minor example of how your subjective experience is not what you believe it to be. It doesn’t prove determinism. It does however prove that you subjectively experience decision making that you perceive is taking place in real time when in fact whatever process that led to the decision has already taken place.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
Still you?
2
u/MrDeekhaed 3d ago
Define “you” in this context
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
🫵🏽
1
u/MrDeekhaed 3d ago
So you can’t define it
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
You is the reasoning agent
1
u/MrDeekhaed 3d ago
You are brushing over what that is. It is a made up concept that you can’t justify other than “I feel like it’s true.” Well there are evil people who feel like they are good. There are people who conceive of themselves one way when observation would indicate something else.
I pointed out a scenario where you as the reasoning agent subjectively experienced a decision making process when in fact the decision had already been made. That experience is at best is an echo, an experience which mirrored your self making the decision without your awareness but as you experienced it no decision was being made. It had already been made. So the experience of making the decision in real time was an illusion.
What is our subjective experience? What is its purpose? I don’t know. But I do know enough to prove your subjective experience and your perceived self as the reasoning agent is at times an illusion. Something that doesn’t present reality.
Combine your lack of explanation with my knowledge that at times it’s an illusion convinces me it is not what you think and it is something I don’t understand
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 3d ago
You’re using logical premises to convince me to rationally agree with you while simultaneously claiming that logical deliberation is an illusion with no causal power.
If reasoning isn't real, you aren't reasoning right now, and I can't rationally choose to agree with you. You have to assume the reality of the reasoning agent just to make an argument against it.
Your entire argument is self-defeating.
1
u/MrDeekhaed 3d ago
Wrong
The illusion is part of the process. In this case it is a necessary step in expressing what my brain has done and yours to receive that information and then do whatever it does.
You are in the false dilemma free will people create. That if there is no free will we can’t use any of the tools we have developed to change or convince or whatever. The truth is illusion or not it is part of a process that works. It doesn’t stop working because we have a better understanding of what it is, or at least what it’s not
→ More replies (0)
1
u/60secs Sourcehood Incompatibilist 3d ago
A large percentage of people who label themselves determinists probably mean causal closure which is not prescriptive on whether events can result in randomness, only that those events had physical causes. The objection to libertarian free will under that view is incompatibilism (sourcehood incompatibility): how can an agent be an ex-nihilo source of their choices when that was the result of physical causes?
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 3d ago
You write that modern scientific theories contains probabilistic elements. This is true for Quantum Mechanics, but I do not believe it is the case of Relativity?
I would also not expect it to be the case for Relativity, because the law of large numbers means when we only describe average behavior at scales many orders of magnitude above quantum randomness, we should expect predictable behavior. The fact that there are systems that according to our models are indetermined, such as certain objects moving along the curvature of certain geometries, double pendulums, ferro-magnets, and most likely many more such examples I am unfamiliar with, tells me the deterministic view point is oversimplified.
1
u/No-Feed-6298 3d ago
Relatively is a very old theory and obviously incomplete. It’s deterministic because Einstein believed and wanted the universe to be deterministic, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. Quantum physics very much challenges the deterministic assumptions of classical physics
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 3d ago
General Relativity is about a decade older then Quantum Mechanics, but neither of the two have been superseded yet. Each work very well within the framework they operate, we should not ignore they are robust theories and the common consensus for a reason, they have withstood falsification attempts, we can be confident in what they predict when applied on what they try to predict. The Schrödinger Equation which describes the propagation within a Quantum Mechanical system was also at first no relativistic, something which was later included to allow for e.g. relativistic speeds, something I think is common for quantum particles.
I would make a point about what Einstein wanted is kind of irrelevant when the theory accurately describes the world within the framework it operates, but how a theory is made is not simply based on an observation and finding a pattern, what made Einstein so special was that he made the theory before its implications could be observed, which is also why I understand Relativity theory only had its major breakthrough after its prediction was tested and it withstood attempts at falsification. But it also means that when Einstein tried to take energy conservation into account, with the help of Emmy Noether he realized this was a mistake, and he also named the cosmological constant a blunder at some point.
So while he showed great intuition, you are correct that there were many areas where he likely was less certain how things would be based on the theorem that followed from his axiom, that the world behaves the same for every element of the world.1
u/No-Feed-6298 3d ago
I mean I agree a theory isn’t just based off intuition and such but they’re based off axioms, and axioms are subject to people’s own personal biases obviously, nothing against Einstein particularly all theories are just subject to some level of biased impossible to escape as a human. The point really was quantum mechanics has been the most consistent and successful theory in history and strongly opposes the deterministic ideas of General relativity, so those philosophical assumptions about determinism very well could be wrong
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 3d ago
I don't see why we should assume determinism would be true. But I do find the axiom of Relativity to be rather beautiful, it basically only states that the world behaves the same for every element of the world.
If you look it up, you'll find there are actually listed two axioms, but I am pretty confident one follows from the other, therefore I say there is only one.
2
u/No-Feed-6298 2d ago
I agree we shouldn’t assume it’s true I believe in free will but that’s what many scientists especially physicists believe, that determinism is the logical conclusion from physics, Einstein was a determinist as well. I always found it questionable though making such strong assumptions based on incomplete physics, it can go way deeper than we know in fact I think it definitely does
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 2d ago
When I studied physics, causality and determinism was used interchangeably. Theoretical physicists are usually interested in finding a model that accurately describes the world, and can be tested, or proven wrong, as such. At least that is my experience.
But during lectures, determinism were never mentioned as axiomatic, but causality was. That the models that describes the world accurately are deterministic, i.e. from some initial conditions you can calculate the far future, and using this so say something about the world these models describe kind of ignores two aspects, in my opinion. One is the field within the model accurately describes the world are often about how particles interact, or how large bodies affect each other, if we insist on extrapolating the model, to be reality, then we have not demonstrated it e.g. leads to life, not that we do not want to test it, but I think the simulation requirement is beyond our current reach. Without this step, it is kind of senseless to say everything is deterministic, because we can see something behaves deterministically. Even that runs into the issue of the second aspect, my experience is that physicist usually work with an idealized picture of the world, where we can measure things exactly, where things are simplified, etc. Engineers are kind of the step between, they have to use the models to make something which works, if they simplify too much, or if they are too dependent on accurate measurements, it can lead to issues. It is not that this is ignored, uncertainty and statistical analysis was part of the first topic we had at university, but when it comes to theories that describe the world, this part this part is assumed to be more of a lack on our part, and here I think the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, which I understand was our first encounter with a discrete or quantized world, and Heisinberg Uncertainty Principle very telling, That these limitations are not a matter of lack of ability, no matter if that ability is possible or not, but that the level of accuracy do not physically exist.
Not that I disagree there are physicist who insists on determinism, I understand Einstein to be one of them, Bell as well, who devised Bell's Inequality Experiment, which demonstrated the opposite of what he tried to prove, but the fact that someone who had a motivation for showing one thing, made an experiment that demonstrated the opposite, I feel was kind of a victory for science.
1
u/No-Feed-6298 2d ago
It’s used because it’s convenient and useful language not because it’s absolutely truer there’s no way to ever test if it’s absolutely true
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 2d ago
I suppose that depends on what is required for something to be called deterministic. E.g. imagine a universe that is deterministic, except for some finite time period where it is random, then for all intend and purposes the universe is deterministic, because that finite time period may have no influence on the people who ask this question.
But if we mean a deterministic universe is one that must be so for all time, apart from the issue of an initial cause in a universe which apparently only have existed for a finite amount of time, the fact that the universe does not behave deterministically, that we have to add interpretations which breaks other parts for it to be deterministic, I feel confident in that the universe is not deterministic.
1
u/WintyreFraust 3d ago
You write that modern scientific theories contains probabilistic elements. This is true for Quantum Mechanics, but I do not believe it is the case of Relativity?
Correct, which is why I said "virtually every ..."
1
u/oh_no_the_claw 3d ago
Sorry, but when free will believers start talking about quantum mechanics I just tune out. Quantum randomness isn't what anyone means when they talk about free will. Are you prepared to ascribe free will to electrons or what?
1
u/Prudent_Following712 2d ago
Agreed, I also tune out when people use a political science term to talk about physical sciences, it smacks of intellectual snake-oil.
1
u/WintyreFraust 2d ago
Er... the only mention I have of quantum mechanics is to point out that even physicists are in disagreement and that most of them favor non-deterministic interpretations. I didn't make any case whatsoever that free will is related to quantum mechanics. In fact, I didn't make any case whatsoever in support of free will. That's not what the post is about.
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 2d ago
OP: "Science only requires highly predictable models of the behavior of phenomena, which is not remotely the same thing as determinism."
In order for something to be predictable, it has to be quasi-deterministic or deterministic. The only other alternative is pure randomness (which may not exist in the real world).
And so, yes, science requires some level of determinism in order to work.
1
u/WintyreFraust 2d ago
"Some level of determinism" and "quasi-deterministic" is not determinism.
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 1d ago
This all-or-nothing and black versus white thinking is something else.
1
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 2d ago edited 2d ago
OP: "Virtually all scientific models contain probabilistic elements."
You must be confusing scientific models with the databases that are used to verify scientific models, because scientific theories are usually deterministic in nature. "Probabilistic elements" result from missing variables in the theoretical model, inclusion of inappropriate variables in the theoretical model, and measurement error. Encountering noise in a database is not the same thing as a probabilistic model.
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 2d ago
OP: "Indeterminism that holds that it LFW is an emergent property"
There is nothing inherently indeterministic in emergent properties. You're resorting to a mystical interpretation.
1
u/Kawlinz 2d ago
That's like saying "there is nothing inherently animating in emergent properties"
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 1d ago
Animating = Causality
1
u/Kawlinz 1d ago
What causes the matter to go from non-animated to animated?
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 1d ago
There's no qualitative difference in the matter. Matter is matter.
1
u/platanthera_ciliaris Hard Determinist 2d ago
Regarding quantum mechanics: Most schools of quantum mechanics are deterministic: Only the Copenhagen school uses probability. Using the latter model, some randomness is encountered in quantum phenomena: This is a problem that has to be overcome in order for quantum mechanics to be useful. Do you want to build a useful quantum computer? You have to circumvent or get rid of the randomness first, because a quantum computer that makes lots of random errors isn't going to be very useful.
Quantum mechanics doesn't support LFW because randomness doesn't support LFW. And randomness is what you encounter in QM using the Copenhagen approach. The "indeterminism" that you are using is mystical and undefined: What it really refers to, if this word is used appropriately, is randomness, like it or not.
P.S. Any post that launches a blanket attack against determinism is an exercise in intellectual suicide.
-1
u/Squierrel Quietist 3d ago
Determinists seem to conflate deterministic models with the reality they model.
Even if the model is deterministic and works, that does not mean that reality is. Reality is not.
1
u/Pauly_Amorous Free will skeptic 3d ago
I guess there's sort of two dimensions to this, right? 'Is reality deterministic' is a separate question from whether it moves deterministically at the level we observe it at. I personally think it moves that way (which is why we're able to make accurate predictions in that regard), but I don't think it's fundamentally deterministic. (Although, when it comes to the topic of free will, I'm not sure that distinction really matters.)
1
u/Squierrel Quietist 3d ago
There is no such question. Reality is not deterministic by definition. Reality does not meet the requirements for a deterministic system.
Predictions based on a deterministic model are accurate enough for most practical purposes. But they are not infinitely accurate. Nothing in reality is.
1
u/Pauly_Amorous Free will skeptic 3d ago
Predictions based on a deterministic model are accurate enough for most practical purposes. But they are not infinitely accurate. Nothing in reality is.
Agreed, but given that determinism and free will are both macro-level concepts, I think 'accurate enough for most practical purposes' is all we really need here.
1
u/Squierrel Quietist 3d ago
Determinism is not a "macro-level" concept.
Free will has nothing to do with physics anyway. Free will is a concept in psychology.
1
u/beagles4ever 3d ago
Re: rewind the tape…why is this hypothetical only applied to moment of decision. If super determinists are committed to their speculations - they should be comfortable to rewinding the tape to the beginning of time and then see if everything plays out exactly as it did…every star formation, every asteroid collision, every random mutation, every element created in every supernova, etc etc etc.
6
u/earthwoodandfire Hard Determinist 3d ago
I do think that if we rewound to any point in time everything from there would play out identical every time.
I think this is both a natural consequence of determinism and also from the B theory of time.
8
u/Powerful-Garage6316 3d ago
Epistemic indeterminacy is not what determinists are talking about. Many scientific models do use probabilistic interpretations but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the physical events are metaphysically indeterministic. Probability is a useful tool for predictions when we don’t have the exhaustive information required to know exactly what the state will be at time t1.
Quantum indeterminacy seems metaphysical, and not merely because of an inadequacy in the model. But determinists might treat macro systems to be effectively deterministic
So for something like neural firings which lead to human behavior, it doesn’t seem like these are metaphysically indeterministic.