Determinism vs Free Will

[benhur]

So far, I haven't heard any logical arguments proving free will. On the other hand, determinism seems to be self-evident.:cool: If we drop a ball, it's gonna hit the ground. The latter is determined by the former. All actions and events are predetermined by factors stretching indefinitely into the past.

So it appears as if determinism is so obvious that more 'evidence' would be superfluous.

What do others think? Let this be a friendly debate. No flaming.:)

[apathy maybe]

GAH! LET IT DIE ALREADY!

This topic has been done to death! There are at least five, probably more, threads in the Philosophy forum on this very topic! (I don't know why you posted in OI.)

Basically it works like this:
Free Will: Physics exist, everything that happens can (theoretically) be traced down to the lowest level, humans are not exempt from physics, humans have no free will. Anyone who says that humans have free will is probably anti-science, or at least doesn't understand what they are talking about.

Determinism: My understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that "randomness" exists, and therefore determinism doesn't. However, it is plausible to think that maybe randomness doesn't actually exist, and that there is some underlying order to the entire universe. We don't know, we probably never will.

Both: This is a fucking stupid position held by fucking stupid people. It is basically saying that either, humans are exempt from physics, or that free will doesn't mean anything.

Neither: There are two main options, indeterminism (randomness exists), and Rosa's opinion, which she will let you know all about in short order.

---

To sum up, this is a boring discussion after it's been posted for the 10th time.

[danyboy27]

GAH! LET IT DIE ALREADY!

This topic has been done to death! There are at least five, probably more, threads in the Philosophy forum on this very topic! (I don't know why you posted in OI.)

Basically it works like this:
Free Will: Physics exist, everything that happens can (theoretically) be traced down to the lowest level, humans are not exempt from physics, humans have no free will. Anyone who says that humans have free will is probably anti-science, or at least doesn't understand what they are talking about.

Determinism: My understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that "randomness" exists, and therefore determinism doesn't. However, it is plausible to think that maybe randomness doesn't actually exist, and that there is some underlying order to the entire universe. We don't know, we probably never will.

Both: This is a fucking stupid position held by fucking stupid people. It is basically saying that either, humans are exempt from physics, or that free will doesn't mean anything.

Neither: There are two main options, indeterminism (randomness exists), and Rosa's opinion, which she will let you know all about in short order.

---

To sum up, this is a boring discussion after it's been posted for the 10th time.

weird, you didnt seem to say that for the abortion topic round 2.

[apathy maybe]

weird, you didnt seem to say that for the abortion topic round 2.

That's abortion round 456, and I just don't even read them any more.

But I have, in the past, outlined the various positions in brief, in a similar manner as I did here.

[danyboy27]

That's abortion round 456, and I just don't even read them any more.

But I have, in the past, outlined the various positions in brief, in a similar manner as I did here.

i know, you asked jazratt to kill one of my topic recently, calling it a piece of shit.

[apathy maybe]

i know, you asked jazratt to kill one of my topic recently, calling it a piece of shit.

This is way off topic and should be split and trashed.

The thread you started (I'm assuming you are talking about the "pool" one), was a waste of time. It also wasn't about abortion.

You had a single line asking people what they thought about "the state". That is such a broad question, with nothing to guide the discussion.

And because there was nothing to guide the discussion, there was no discussion, just a bunch more single line posts.

That's why it got trashed.

[Trystan]

Determinism: My understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that "randomness" exists, and therefore determinism doesn't.

Only on a subatomic level.

[apathy maybe]

Determinism: My understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that "randomness" exists, and therefore determinism doesn't.Only on a subatomic level.

So? Are you trying to imply that the subatomic level doesn't affect everything else?

If you are, you would be wrong. Subatomic merely means at a level smaller than an atom. Considering that alpha radiation (protons) and beta radiation (electrons) are both subatomic, and they both certainly do affect other things, then we can say that events on the subatomic level affects everything else.

Uranium decays randomly, for example, that is, at any given moment, you don't know whether it will emit a proton or not. But that can certainly cause trouble to someone who eats the uranium.

[Annie K.]

Uranium decays randomly, for example, that is, at any given moment, you don't know whether it will emit a proton or not. But that can certainly cause trouble to someone who eats the uranium. Exactly. Doesn't matter when one of the uranium atoms breaks. The uranium eater is still in trouble.

Remember schrodinger's cat. If we can't determine if the cat is dead or alive, it is because we can't know when the atom split. But we can know if the cat is dead or alive, when we open the box. In others words, the link between the latter and the former is still existing : we just have to wait until the latter exists.
Randomness on a quantic level is not the same as randomness on a spiritual level.

[EqualityandFreedom]

I agree with Apathy Maybe there are really only at most two options Hard Deteminism or Pessimistic Incompatablism either way we have no real control. Free will (Metaphysical Libertarianism) is physically impossible not to mention creates a number of paradoxes as it would require us to be "Unmoved Movers" and create our own causal chains ex nihilo.

[scarletghoul]

I think both are true and as reccurring results of eachother. There is free will within the confines of what is predetermined and this free will becomes part of the predetermination process and it keeps going round. Yes, if you drop a ball it is going to hit the ground, but the ball hitting the ground is predetermined not only by the laws of physics but your decision to drop the ball also.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think both are true and as reccurring results of eachother. There is free will within the confines of what is predetermined and this free will becomes part of the predetermination process and it keeps going round. Yes, if you drop a ball it is going to hit the ground, but the ball hitting the ground is predetermined not only by the laws of physics but your decision to drop the ball also.

I believe that you do not understand the term 'determinism.'

Determinism means that all events are determined by all previous events. Hence: the ball could not have hit the ground if you had not dropped it - you could not have dropped it if you had not chosen to do so - BUT you could not have chosen to do so had you not been exactly as you were exactly before you chose to drop it - and this could not have happened if all other things had not happened as they did. (You can see here how your 'choice' was determined.)

NOTE: I voted 'neither.'

- August

[Drace]

My understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that "randomness" exists, and therefore determinism doesn't.A point I'd argue on, but even so, who said humans are in control of this randomness? Rather, it would just be what controls us. Instead of a clear one way formula that determines our actions, it would just be a random one.

[RGacky3]

Quantum Mechanics and the such, is'nt talking about free will perse, what free will is about is deciding of there is a "mind" that is seperate, a "mind" or a "self" that makes desicions.

The argument for free will is'nt nessesarily that of randomness existing, its the existance of a "mind" or "self."

That is more of a philisophical question as I really doubt science could ever answer that.

[apathy maybe]

Quantum Mechanics and the such, is'nt talking about free will perse, what free will is about is deciding of there is a "mind" that is seperate, a "mind" or a "self" that makes desicions.

The argument for free will is'nt nessesarily that of randomness existing, its the existance of a "mind" or "self."

That is more of a philisophical question as I really doubt science could ever answer that.

No, science can't say if something that can't be detected exists or not.

Dualism, however, is a crock of shit, and I don't need "science" to tell me that.

[RGacky3]

Dualism, however, is a crock of shit, and I don't need "science" to tell me that.

Based on what? I'm not saying I believe in Dualism, I don't know. But whats your reasoning behind that?

Some concepts that I can think of that shows there MIGHT be an independent mind would the the imagination, that the mind creates new things out of existing things without being prompted, the difference between experiencing things and knowing them, subjective experiences.

The existance of aesthetics and ethics. But what is the other side?

[apathy maybe]

Dualism is based on the assumption that not everything is physical.

That's shit.

[RGacky3]

Thats it huh? just "Thats shit".

Ok.

[Publius]

GAH! LET IT DIE ALREADY!

This topic has been done to death!

Indeed it has.



Basically it works like this:
Free Will: Physics exist, everything that happens can (theoretically) be traced down to the lowest level, humans are not exempt from physics, humans have no free will. Anyone who says that humans have free will is probably anti-science, or at least doesn't understand what they are talking about.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that.

For example:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2A800505A30B2809

and especially: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6z1rTBfuEQ&feature=PlayList&p=2A800505A30B2809&index=6

Now I think he's ultimately wrong here, because the Hodgkin-Huxley equation is indeterministic only because we don't understand exactly what causes ion channels to open and close exactly as they do in reaction to action potentials, thus their opening and closing has to be represented stochastically, making it seem as if they're indeterminate when, in reality, they're probably determined by some underlying biochemistry we don't yet understand.

But notice this hasn't been demonstrated yet, and so it's still an open possibility that's at least scientifically plausible.

Some philosophers also give some defenses of free couched in QM, to various degrees of success.

I don't think we actually have free will, but it's not a ridiculous position.



Determinism: My understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that "randomness" exists, and therefore determinism doesn't.

Same.

But notice something: just like in the action of ion channels, this randomness might only be an artifact of us not understanding the underlying mechanism.

I know that there are interpretations of QM that remove this randomness, though I don't know enough physics to say or know much about them.



However, it is plausible to think that maybe randomness doesn't actually exist, and that there is some underlying order to the entire universe. We don't know, we probably never will.

Probably, because randomness could always (it seems) in principle have some causes we just don't understand.



Both: This is a fucking stupid position held by fucking stupid people. It is basically saying that either, humans are exempt from physics, or that free will doesn't mean anything.

Sort of.

But a lot of compatiblists think that we can get what we really want out of 'free will' in a determinstic (or random) world.