What do you think “predetermined” means?
I ask in all seriousness, and would appreciate an honest answer.
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I ask in all seriousness, and would appreciate an honest answer.
Seriously? Honestly?
First things first as they say.
When you can logically prove that hard determinism is valid with out a genuine actor to determine such then maybe your confusion will vanish and an answer will be unnecessary....
Last edited:
welcome to Sciforums...
First step is to google determinism and read about the large number of versions to the same basic theme Wiki is good....after which you will probably have more knowledge and understanding about the subject than most members here appear to have.
oh so now we are talking about just logic with nothing to do with reality?
but we are talking about reality...we assumed we are discussing logic in a reality premised paradigm.
but of course we can't discuss logic in any meaningful way unless we are genuine actors.
Example:
Baldex is faced with a dilemma.
He has to decide the validity, soundness etc. of the following logic string.
If A+B = C then C= B+A
- Baldex looks at it an looks at it and realizes that the only way he is gong to work this massive task out, is to do it himself, as the universe's predetermination can't help him.
- It has been predetermined that Baldex face this task and do the job for the universe perhaps?
- But it will be Baldex who has to do the work not the universe.
The result is co-determined by Baldex
His opinion has been decided by Baldex not the universes predetermination.
He finally yells out..."I can't do it, I haven't learned how to....it makes no sense"
and then asks some one to define predetermination?????
Last edited:
depends on whether you are referring to "universal reality" or not... please specify..
Also please include the words "universal reality" in your question when and if you re-post it...
So I can quote it and hold you to it, in my response...
Last edited:
so does it have "degrees of freedom " or not?
The contradiction is that on one hand there is absolutely no freedom in a deterministic universe and yet you talk of degrees of freedom?
We’re talking about a logical conclusion that starts from the given premises.
No, we are talking about the logic that starts from a premise of a deterministic universe.
Whether you think reality is deterministic or not is irrelevant to that.
You are again begging the question.
He isn’t separate to the universe.
The universe will progress in a manner that is predetermined, and that will include either Baldex doing it, or not, depending on what has been predetermined.
The universe’s predetermination doesn’t “help”, as that predetermination already includes everything Baldex does.
Just like the progress of the watch includes what the cog does.
There’s no “for the universe”.
The universe already includes everything Baldex does.
They are not separate entities.
Baldex is not separate from the universe, merely a specific condensed complex process within.
You speak of them as separate, and they are not.
There are of course subsystems of the universe that are not the subsystem called Baldex, but they are all part of the universe.
No, the result is simply determined.
One could identify the subsystem most responsible, where most of the processing for that task is carried out, of course, but that is just a cog in the watch.
Your understanding of predetermination is poor, if you think your sentence makes sense.
I’m asking what you understand the word to mean.
Can you do that, please, because every time you use the word I increasingly doubt you understand correctly.
oh ok...
Co-determinism is about the real universe... sorry I thought you would have realized...
Of course you don't need a genuine actor in a universe you fabricate....you can have anything you want in it...
Questions and claims so far unanswered.
(#1) For the logic of determinism to be valid it is essential that a genuine actor be present to make the genuine determination that that logic is indeed valid or not.
(#2) Why does determinism ( all current mainstream branches) arbitrarily limit the capacity of a deterministic universe to evolve a human that is capable of learning how to determine for him self?
(#3) If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?
(#1) For the logic of determinism to be valid it is essential that a genuine actor be present to make the genuine determination that that logic is indeed valid or not.
(#2) Why does determinism ( all current mainstream branches) arbitrarily limit the capacity of a deterministic universe to evolve a human that is capable of learning how to determine for him self?
(#3) If all alternative choices are predetermined to be genuine alternatives, is the choice of one of them genuine or an illusion?
Last edited:
Logically there is only one possible absolute.
Randomness isn't it.
you throw the contextual , cross purpose strategy every time...
Iceaura and I are discussing a real universe and you are merely discussing a logical abstraction.
Which strategy are you going to use?
A real universe?
or
A logical abstraction?
which?
You and Baldeee have been deliberately running a cross purpose discussion for months now... why?
In the real universe it takes a genuine decision to determine whether causal determinism is valid logic or not.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Your POV is that decisions are always acts of FW. But most decisions are based on circumstantial external pressures and are not acts of free will even as it may appear so.
A reactive decision needs not be sentient or an act of will. It could also be a quantum threshold event. It could be a chemical reaction event. Everything that navigates makes decisions based on observed future obstacles. The point is that the decisions are always preceded by an Implicate result which determines the decision, apart from conscious decision making. That is not FW.
The Implicate is a potential in Bohm's Wholeness and is the mathematical prediction engine of the potential future result. A metaphysical mathematical pattern of the potential about to become realized as a physical phenomenon. Our FW choice will always be based in the "direction of greatest satisfaction", not really free is it?
Last edited:
Instinctive actions are reflexive. Reflexes can be trained but still remain reactive.
It is only necessary to demonstrate one single instance of genuine volition and the crusade against self determination has failed.
Only one.
So decide...
Is the following logic string valid?
If a+b=c
Then
c= a-b
When you reach your decision, was is reflexive or an act of self determination?
Then ask yourself where and when did you learn the basic rules of logic?
Square peg in a square hole, in kindagarten perhaps....
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yep, reflex is a deterministic imperative. It can only be trained to work better, which is allowed in a deterministic universe. If your reflexes fail that means you are becoming dysfuncional and have no ability to make any logical decisions.
No that is patently wrong. This is not a FW choice of any kind. It's not a logical choice at all. It is mathematically disallowed. If you decide to believe that pink unicorns exist, do you think that decision is made from FW or from knowing that your expressed belief in unicorns will undoubtedly raise the ire of many members, and you happen to be bored?
If a + b = c, then c - a = b, or c - b = a. But c = a - b is not mathematically allowable as part of the equation. If 1 + 2 = 3, then 3 - 1 = 2, or 3 - 2 = 1. But 3 = 1 - 2 = error.
This is not a matter of choice, unless you live in Orwell's 1984
Last edited:
Moderator note:
Some posts have been moved to a separate thread, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-free-will-possible-in-a-deterministic-universe.162128/
Specifically, the discussion about Baldeee's and Sarkus's "supernatural assumption" was not directly relevant to the matter of Quantum Quack's "co-determinism", so that discussion has been shifted out of the current thread.
There has also been some discussion of the universe being non-deterministic in one sense or another. That discussion similarly does not really fit the current thread, but nor is it relevant to any discussion about whether free will can exist in a deterministic universe. For that reason, I have left posts on the topic of determinism vs indeterminism where they are, for now.
Some posts have been moved to a separate thread, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-free-will-possible-in-a-deterministic-universe.162128/
Specifically, the discussion about Baldeee's and Sarkus's "supernatural assumption" was not directly relevant to the matter of Quantum Quack's "co-determinism", so that discussion has been shifted out of the current thread.
There has also been some discussion of the universe being non-deterministic in one sense or another. That discussion similarly does not really fit the current thread, but nor is it relevant to any discussion about whether free will can exist in a deterministic universe. For that reason, I have left posts on the topic of determinism vs indeterminism where they are, for now.
Rather disingenuous to refer to it as our “supernatural assumption” when it is actually your and iceaura’s claim that we, and others, are assuming it. But hey, you’re a mod and you can be as biased in your writing as you like, I guess.
And you are failing quite spectacularly.
You are the one who contradicted yourself, every time you tried to show how the conclusion is actually an assumption, when all you could actually do was reach it as a conclusion. Same with everyone else who has tried to show it as an assumption. Your claim was wrong the first time you posted it, and your repeating of it doesn’t make it any more correct. Maybe you’re working on the basis of simply flooding the threads with it so that it gains traction?
Then why are you bringing inherent probabilistic matters into the discussion? Such are mutually exclusive with a deterministic universe. Stick with the deterministic universe, as that is what we have assumed.
The assumption in the original argument, and subsequently assumed, was that the universe we are discussing is deterministic. At no point was it assumed that our world is deterministic. Not probabilistic. Deterministic. That means that any example you wish to bring that includes relies on a probabilistic nature is excluded.
Good. Then stick with it. Your subsequent claim that a probabilistic universe is deterministic makes me wonder whether you can.
There is no erosion of language. It is written as intended, and means as intended, and follows a chain of reasoning that is as clear as day. If you can’t follow it, just let me know and I’ll break it down for you. But once again you try and pass off your lack of comprehension of the ideas being discussed as my fault.
Heisenberg has no place in a deterministic universe! You keep saying we are discussing a deterministic universe, yet you keep bringing in QM that, within our local universe, is inherently indeterministic
Unsolvable equations are irrelevant, as we can model anything we want in mathematics whether the universe is deterministic or not. We can model things in 100 dimensions, and introduce inherent probability into the model without affecting reality. So that example is moot as well.
Chaos is also something you clearly don’t understand as well. It is about practical predictability when you don’t know the initial starting conditions sufficiently accurately. Again, a moot example.
But keep going: you haven’t hit one yet, but there still time in the game.
Oh, good grief. How many times do you need to be told: we are not discussing our universe but a deterministic universe! Deal with it! You claim above that we have explicitly agreed that we assuming a deterministic universe... yet here you are harking on about inherent indeterminism. You are fast becoming a joke.
There is no conflict between a perceived probability due to lack of subjective knowledge of the starting conditions and/or process. There is every conflict between an inherent probability within the universe and a deterministic universe.
Look, I’m truly sorry you don’t know what you’re talking about. We assumed determinism, not simply cause and effect with a bit of probability thrown in, but actual determinism. That is what it means when we say we are assuming a deterministic universe.
So stop joking around, please.
You haven’t put forward anything to address yet. An appeal to complexity is just an appeal. Until you can provide actual argument to support your appeal, I’ll put in as much effort in addressing it.
And remember, any argument you do eventually put forward needs to assume a deterministic, not probabilistic, universe.
You have both confirmed, at various times, that you are assuming a deterministic universe. The OP of this thread confirms as much, as already explained. That iceaura, and possibly you, think that this referred to our universe is your mistake, not mine.
If you wish to change the assumption of this thread away from a deterministic one, that is your prerogative, but you’d then have to be careful about recognising the context of posts.
So no, it is not a cross-purpose strategy, but one of you not following your own assumption, and one of iceaura not fully comprehending what he was assuming.
Previously, for simplicity we have assumed a deterministic universe, and if ever we got consensus on the matter in such a universe then we would move on to discuss what it is about an indeterministic (e.g. probabilistic) universe that might change the picture. We never got that far. And this thread claimed to be a resolution between the compatibilists and incompatibilists, which given they both start from the assumption of a deterministic universe....
Nonsense, QQ. A few of us have been continuing to assume a deterministic universe because that is what was agreed was assumed, even in the OP of this thread. That others have failed to live up to that, either deliberately (you) or through their ignorance of what it entailed (James R, iceaura) is wholly on you and them, not us. So stop your deflection, and put your own house in order.
When your OP asserts a deterministic universe, that is what is assumed.
To quote just sections:
“So much has been written over thousands of years about the conundrum invoked when considering a deterministic universe...”
“For the sake of brevity let us assume for the moment that the Human being is self deterministic. And that he has genuine freewill. A commonly held proposition by most humans.
How do we deal with the issue of in-determinism in a deterministic universe?”
“So on that basis free will does not violate the determinism of cause and effect as it is an active part of it.”
Rather than you accept your mistake, I await your inevitable efforts to squirm out of the mess you have created.