Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
And once again you slip, this time from the discussion being of genuine alternatives to you now talking about observed physical capabilities.
To clarify for you yet again: no one disputes that if you alter the inputs you can get different outputs.
The capabilities of a system is the multitude of outputs it can give, the actual output dependent upon the inputs.
But at no point are those separately observed capabilities evidence, proof, or even an observation of, genuine alternatives.
It is simply as stated previously: you lack the ability to understand.
No one denies that if you alter the inputs you get different outputs.
That is all you are describing by calling something a capability.
It doesn’t, though, address the issue in any way of whether or not there are genuine alternatives.
But you can’t get your head round that concept, can you?
You consider it “vague” or “essentially meaningless”.
Well, to you it might be, but then that speaks to your lack of understanding than it does to those “deluded materialists” who do understand it.
So as far as your thinking goes, if a thread asks the question of whether X is compatible with Y, or whether X is possible in an environment of Y, then if one concludes “no” they are effectively excluded from the debate, because you think this violates the understanding that we are not discussing the supernatural?
Seriously?
And you call others deluded!
So let me ask: if we exclude the supernatural, and I ask you if it is possible for something to not be what it is, you think the only answer to give is “yes”?
If you say no, it is not possible, then you are assuming that it must be supernatural for something to not be what it is, but we are not talking about the supernatural and have assumed the exclusion of the supernatural, therefore that answer is excluded from consideration!
See, you have wound yourself up in a Möbius strip of nonsense that you can’t extricate yourself from, in your effort to cling to this fallacious claim that people are assuming the supernatural.
You have limited the answer to only those that conclude “yes”, to the compatibilist side.
The exclusion of the supernatural, or at least your interpretation of that what that exclusion entails, simply results in you begging the question being asked in this thread.
It may well have been written: “assuming that any answer that is no is assuming the supernatural, and we have excluded the supernatural from consideration, is free will possible in a deterministic universe?”
See how pathetic that sounds?
Or maybe “If we only consider the compatibilist position, is free will compatible with a deterministic universe?”
Yet that is the position you have taken.
Is your understanding so poor that you can not fathom that one is not discussing the supernatural to say that something does not, or can not exist.
Only if one is saying that it does exist in an environment in which it has been concluded it can’t is one possibly discussing the supernatural, but to simply say that it does not exist....?
Okay, given that you are excluding, or at least want to exclude, anyone who concludes free will to be impossible in a deterministic universe, please feel free to set up your own thread: “Is a compatibilist notion of free will compatible with a deterministic universe?”
That’s clearly what you want.
You can then end your nonsense in this thread.
I’m not sure how many times it needs to be explained to you that there is only one “version” of a deterministic universe.
As for this sidetrack in to the matter of objectivity, please can you explain why you think it relevant, before I spend any time answering you?
I guess that means you do not understand the logical contradiction your version of determinism generates.
Perhaps you could consider the logical form of the Liars paradox as a good example.
Objectively is impossible in a universe that forbids objectivity.
BTW Objectivity is a attribute of human psychology that you claim to be an illusion. ( or supernatural )
Your claim that your version only permits one outcome and no genuine choices exist, then you immediately prohibit any form of objectivity.
The objectivity needed to form the philosophy of causal determinism is not present so there fore causal determinism is a purely subjective philosophy ( a fiction).
Your starting premises of objective casual determinism is invalid so therefore any outcome or logic subsequent, is also invalid.
As such Causal determinism in the form you are devoted to is fundamentally flawed.
I seriously doubt you have the capacity to understand this very important point.
After all you have had many opportunities to do so...
If freewill is non-existent and not possible then neither is objectivity, as you can not have one with out the other.
The ability to say genuinely "true or false" or "neither" or "both" is fundamental to objective assessment and observation.
Your form of determinism prohibits the minimum required, binary set of genuine alternatives.
Try writing any logical statement with out an If or Then binary or any logical statement that is forbidden to be untrue or invalid.
For causal determinism to be objectively valid the capacity to objectively self determine the cause and effect relationships must be present.
For determinism to be objectively valid, self determination ( aka freewill) is absolutely essential.
For the laws of physics to be real and not an illusion self determination is essential.
For 1+1 =2 to be valid it must be determined to be not invalid. (genuine binary alternatives)
now remember this post
#604
as I will quote it any time you attempt to obfuscate, deflect, avoid dealing with or deny the reality of the very immature, naive and limited version of what you call causal determinism.
Last edited:
nonsense!
There is none, but this should be worth a look...
If the first word was meant to be “Objectivity” then you would be correct.
Your task is then to show how a deterministic universe forbids objectivity, when the deterministic universe we are discussing is an abstraction, and we play God with the objective nature of it.
I.e. if we premise something as being deterministic we are stating that it is objectively deterministic.
It doesn’t matter what else we place inside it, the nature of the universe is objective for the abstraction we are considering.
That is in the sense when applied to a person or their judgement, sure.
It also means that it is not dependent upon the mind for existence.
E.g. it is what exists once you strip away all perspective, emotion, judgement, interpretation, etc.
And if you set up a universe with its deterministic nature as being objective....
Bold claim.
Please support it.
The holding it as true is purely subjective, yes.
The philosophy itself is neither objective nor subjective.
It is simply a notion, a possible truth of the universe that we do not know relates to our own or not (although evidence is that it does not).
But if we set up an abstract universe for consideration, and premise that that universe is deterministic, then that determinism is true for that universe, it is its objective truth.
Strip away everything else within or about that universe and you still have a deterministic universe.
The premises are not invalid, they are simply premises.
They are either true or false.
As far as the abstracted universe we are considering, we have made determinism its objective truth through premising that universe to be deterministic.
All you are doing now is to look for (fallacious) reasons to negate that premise.
There is only one form of causal determinism, and it is where every effect is completely determined by the cause.
This is pretty much its definition, to be found in most places where it is discussed.
You have yet to provide any support for any other “version” that retains its determinism.
Furthermore, this is a logical exercise, in as much as premises have been established, and the idea is to follow through to a conclusion.
As such, the scope, or universe, described by the premises are the objective truth of that universe.
E.g. if we premise that all ducks are white, and that Bob is a duck, then in the universe abstracted by those premises it is an objective truth that all ducks are white, and that Bob is a duck.
We can then lead to a valid conclusion about that universe, that, being valid, is also an objective truth about that abstracted universe, that Bob is white.
I look forward to you supporting that claim.
Ah, so you are thinking of objectivity only as it applies to human thought and assessment.
Then even in the sense you are using it you are incorrect, in that those who lack free will, such as computers, machines, are the most objective (i.e. lacking emotion, thought etc) things we have.
A logic gate will operate without bias, as objectively as is possible.
An AND gate will only output a 1 if both inputs are a 1, for example.
Your argument, perversely, is actually more an argument against freewill: you are trying to say that freewill is needed for us to be able to assess thing objectively, so you are saying that since we can assess things objectively there must be free will, right?
Well, given that the more objective one is the less “free will” one exhibits, absolute objectivity can only surely exist in the absence of free will?
You say that we can assess objectively, ergo you are saying that we lack free will.
Bravo.
Well, at least you have cottoned on to the fact that determinism (of which there is only one form when describing a universe as deterministic) offers no genuine alternatives.
So we’re getting somewhere.
It now seems that your argument ignores what determinism is, identifies that freewill requires genuine alternatives, and thus requires the universe to be such that it allows genuine alternatives.
Thus you want determinism to provide genuine alternatives.
Without recognising that there is but one form of causal determinism.
You mean like “X is X”?
No, it doesn’t.
We merely need to set up the universe with causal determinism as the objective truth for that universe.
Once we have done that for our abstracted universe we can now peer in to it, examine it, play with it, while sitting outside of it.
And we can state with certainty that the objective truth of that universe that we are considering is causal determinism.
You keep saying it yet nothing you have said here suggests it.
Bricks are just as susceptible to the same laws as we are.
They do fine as part of the universe without any analysis, without any sense of illusion.
Do you think the laws do not apply to them?
I assure you that 1+1=2 whether any life existed in the universe or not.
Does it take a person (or other sentient form) to comprehend it, to work it out for themselves?
Of course.
Does that comprehension require genuine alternatives?
No, it can be done just as well with imagined counterfactual alternatives.
I’m trembling at the he very prospect of it.
Until then, however, I await you supporting your notions here, especially this one you keep repeating that there is more than one version of causal determinism.
The quality of your rebuttal really hasn’t improved over the years, has it.
you are going to have to sort this mess out first before I bother to respond.
lol
but only if there is a genuine possibility that x is not x.
With out objectivity there is no way of knowing.....
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is not a logical statement. This is not a subjective assumption, it is a universal law of mathematics. There can be no other symbolic representation that would validate the "equation".
Its like saying there is no way of knowing, E = Mc^2 is questionable without objectivity. Objectively, E = Mc^2 is a universal "constant". There is NO question about it's logical validity. Again it is an equation of relative values.
1 = 1, x = x, cat = cat, are logical and valid equations
Sorry but....objectivity is as much an illusion as free will is.
Is objectivity possible in deterministic universe that forbids objectivity?
Validity is impossible to determine if there is no genuine ability to invalidate if needed.
You could benefit by reading up on the history and restricted application of E=Mc^2
There is a lot of history you may find useful next time you use it in a discussion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
You might be surprised to find out that Lorentz 1914 published the basic form, placing the e on the left, perhaps 30 odd years before Einstein did.
It's actually quite a facinating read...
Last edited:
Why do you laugh, and out loud, at your own ignorance?
Premises are just statements upon which logic is applied to reach a conclusion.
Validity (and invalidity) is a matter of the logical form of the overall argument, not the premises.
Validity does not apply to premises, but to the argument as a whole.
Hence: premises are not invalid, they are just premises.
They can be judged as true or false, which leads one to conclude that a valid argument is sound (I.e. valid form and true premises) or unsound (valid form but at least one untrue premise).
I await your considered response to my previous post.
You asked for, and I quote: “Try writing any logical statement with out an If or Then binary or any logical statement that is forbidden to be untrue or invalid.”
The logical statement I wrote satisfies those requirements.
There needs to be no genuine possibility that x is not x.
There is no genuine possibility that x is not x.
It can not be untrue or invalid.
X is X.
Logic is objective.
And we do know.
But knowledge is irrelevant to what is or is not objective.
You don’t need to know things for them to exist.
I don’t need to know that there is an objective reality for it to exist: if it exists it necessarily exists whether I know it or not, and if it doesn’t exist then that non-existence is irrespective of me as well.
And in the universe we have abstracted, determinism is the objective reality, by definition (since we have premised it to be that way).
Not “my version” of determinism, but determinism: the notion that any effect is completely determined by the causes.
I still await your considered response to my earlier post.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Any true equation is reversible. This is no surprise. It is logical. It is the inherent objective neutrality of mathematics.
Just because humans have had occasional trouble finding the correct mathematics, the fact that all relative values and functions are mathematical in essence assures their objective neutrality.
As one Astrophysicist said; "when I formulate an equation and I do it correctly, I get a distinct impression that the equation was there long before I presented it.
And another Astrophysicist said: "If you ask the Universe a question and you ask it nicely (mathematically correct), the Universe will give you the answer." To me that is powerful evidence witnessed by the Universe itself.
But all proofs and falsifications serve to ensure "objectivity" of the calculations.
When we use a mathematical model for some real application, we believe that the axioms give an objective approximation to reality. Technically it is still subjective, but over time a functional model becomes accepted as "objective proof" or a "functional constant".
If something is demonstrably true, why question its objective validity?
I see subjectivity as an aspect of GR, clearly a variable model.
I still see subjectivity as an aspect of QM,
Which will resolve the question.
Last edited:
(deliberate declaration of invalidity)
no it isn't...
X is X and everything it isn't.
Why do you think it is?
Prove it to be valid...
My bet is you can't unless you dump your version of limited causal determinism that forbids genuine alternative choices.
Your form of determinism prohibits the minimum required, binary set of genuine alternatives.
With all the reading (and talking) I have done into Hard determinism I have only found one argument that comes close to refuting my point.
You will have to do the reading your self to find it...
Last edited:
Yet all proofs are predetermined by starting conditions so there fore they are not proofs but merely reaction to the puppet master as Capracus mentioned earlier...and according to Baldeee.
The version of causal determinism that forbids genuine alternative choices ie. Yes and no renders all mathematics as unable to to be falsified. Thus purely subjective.
This means that the mere thought of causality itself is only an illusion of objectivity perpetrated by the puppet master of starting conditions.
Thus the version of fatalist hard determinism being espoused at this forum is nonsense, due to it's inherent self contradiction.
Last edited:
and that is the point...
You can't have an objective reality if the logic prohibits objectivity.
it is a state of self contradiction.
A liars type of paradox (x-x) = 0 =/= (x-x)
A flawed abstraction
What is?
and You honestly consider this to be a meaningful position to take?
Stop for a moment and think about what you have just said.
In mathematical terms you would be saying that 1 = 1 + something else.
You would be saying that a leaf is a brick, a car is a bird, or a pen.
No, everything is what it is, no more, no less.
If you disagree, please provide me an example of one thing that is not what it is?
Because it is (or should be) self-evident.
It is not an argument (as such “valid” and “invalid” do not apply) but is a statement of an objective truth, and in fact it is an axiom of rational thought, known as the Law of Identity.
If you honestly think it false, put your case forward.
And in doing so I guarantee that you will in fact rely on the law you think is false.
It does.
But as stated previously in the post you have chosen to ignore, it is good that you understand and accept that your notion of freedom of will requires genuine alternatives.
And since “my form” of determinism is the only one that is determinism (i.e. an effect is completely determined by the cause etc), and you have yet to offer any support to your assertion that there other “versions” to consider, I guess that leaves you with either trying to support your claim that there are other versions that allow genuine alternatives, or you conclude that free will (understood as requiring genuine alternatives) is incompatible with determinism.
Over to you, Quantum Quack.
I await your valued input.