Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

[Quantum Quack]

Capracus
Do people have the freedom to answer the question posed by the thread title:
"Is freewill possible in a deterministic universe?"

 

[Capracus]

Nobody is ignoring anything.

When you disregard the effects of the whole to highlight the effects of the local, you’re essentially practicing ignorance.

Causality is limited by the speed of light. Quantum entanglement demonstrates nothing otherwise. The entire matter is irrelevant to this discussion, anyway.

Entanglement is an example of the unity of action between non local universal elements, which is what is presumed in a deterministic system, where the action of the whole is responsible for the action of the one. When the state of one entangled element instantly determines the state of other, how is this not considered an example of cause and effect, i.e., causality?

Choice is among the features of determined reality. That is observed fact. There is nothing supernatural about it.

The observed fact is that humans execute universally determined actions that insufficiently informed humans imagine as the theory of choice. The theory of choice can not operate in a determined reality.

And you were wrong (it won't).
But that isn't the important point. The important point is that the observation is irrelevant, even if it were accurate (which it isn't). You were trying to deny the knowledge you had of the "other states" - you were trying to claim that capabilities did not exist if they were not going to be employed in the future, and choices were not made if you knew what they would be in the future.
Causality does not work backwards in time. Stop trying - you will only confuse yourself.

Complete knowledge in the universal sense implies having all of the information that is in existence for a given complete universal state, which includes not only spacial information of all elements, but their relational information as well. This information would allow for the revelation of all past or future events in a determined universe.

We are all agreed about prior events and causality. We have all stipulated to a deterministic universe, in particular a causally deterministic universe, throughout this thread, forum, and website. You can stop repeating yourself any time, and turn your attention to the content of the posts you pretend to be considering.

Then stop trying to impose qualities on a determined system that are inconsistent with its definition.

For example, a matter you still refuse to recognize: You have been attributing causality to future events

No, I haven’t. The ability to know the future by way of complete knowledge of the present in a determined universe doesn’t imply backwards causality. In a determined universe the past, present and future are all predetermined states, the sequential evolution of those states appears to be causal, but the actual causality is the inherent determined nature of the universal whole.

such as trying to declare current capabilities to be illusions etc because in the future they will not be employed.

The only way I can hope to correct your errors in regards to qualities of a determined system is to continue to illustrate them. No one is disputing that capabilities exist, only that any that do must be consistent with the requirements of a determined system. For example you can’t claim that humans have the capability to practice choice when such a practice violates the tenets of a determined universe.

That is a confusion, and adding adjectives does not help - "universally determined" doesn't get you anywhere that "determined" has not already, "causally unified" does not help you with your timeline and sequence problem, etc.

For someone who habitually confuses the contextual meaning of determine, you should be grateful for the assistance provided by such adjectives.

While it’s true that entangled particles react simultaneously seemingly irrespective of distance between them, and thus seem to defy light-speed, there is no actual information being passed FTL, and no thus no causal ability FTL.
If you had entangled particles a light year apart, the fastest the other end could be affected by anything done to/with/by the particle this end is one year from instigating things this end.

We may not currently be able to manipulate entangled particles to exchange information, but like I mentioned to iceaura above, when the state of one entangled element determines the state of the other, how is this not considered an example of cause and effect, i.e., causality? And then you could also argue that If all action is determined by the whole, is there any actual causation at the elemental level?

Further, I’d avoid trying to example anything relating to QM as this would be out of scope, given that it seems to be inherently indeterministic.
And we are, after all, trying to discuss the deterministic universe.

Some interpretations of QM are considered to be indeterministic, while others are not. You can’t logically make a case for a deterministic universe if a reasonable theoretical basis for it doesn’t also exist. Since such a reasonable theoretical basis does exist, I’ll continue to feel justified to promote it.

Capracus
Do people have the freedom to answer the question posed by the thread title:
"Is freewill possible in a deterministic universe?"

No. All answers to any questions are a consequence of universal determination. If you do address questions posed in this thread, you are never free to do otherwise. Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. All answers to any questions are a consequence of universal determination. If you do address questions posed in this thread, you are never free to do otherwise. Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

so therefore the answer you have given (no) is irrelevant to a false and fraudulent question.

A non-answer.

It means that your version of determinism is utterly meaningless...

It is nothing more than the gibbering of a demented robot...

All your questions are invalid as a question that has only one possible choice is not a question.
So why ask a question when it is not a question?

Example:
Q: Is freewill possible in a deterministic universe ?
A: Cup of tea.
the answer to the question is now a cup of tea and is valid until it becomes a cloud or an elephant or a mosquito. or simply the number 42...or anything else that pops into your head.
Example:
Your answer is No.
My answer is 42.
Which one is correct when both are predetermined to be answers?


It takes genuine freedom to determine true or false, yes or no etc...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The law of identity
X is X only because it isn't anything else.
( a binary statement)
thus X is X is proved to be valid.
With out the ability to determine it's validity by proving it a such it is meaningless to state it.

It could also be stated as X is X because X- X = 0.
If X-X = anything else other than zero, X isn't X

 

[Baldeee]

We may not currently be able to manipulate entangled particles to exchange information, but like I mentioned to iceaura above, when the state of one entangled element determines the state of the other, how is this not considered an example of cause and effect, i.e., causality? And then you could also argue that If all action is determined by the whole, is there any actual causation at the elemental level?

But we only know that we can determine the state of one element from the state of the other, not that there is actually any causal relationship.
If I fire two streams of identical streams of 1s and 0s to two separate places, does that mean me looking at one bit in one place is a cause for the same bit in the other stream being determined?
E.g. if I look at a bit and see it as a "1" does that mean I have determined the same bit in the other stream to also be a "1"?
Determined as in known it to be the case, yes, but not as in caused it to be.
i.e. there is no causal relationship between the two streams, but both streams are the result of the same cause.

Some interpretations of QM are considered to be indeterministic, while others are not. You can’t logically make a case for a deterministic universe if a reasonable theoretical basis for it doesn’t also exist.

We're not making a case for a deterministic universe, though.
We have simply stipulated it to be the case in the abstracted universe.
Once we have done that, and analysed whether freedom of will is compatible with that, we can start to look at whether, for the incompatibilist, indeterminism creates conditions that could then allow freedom.

 

[Baldeee]

The law of identity
X is X only because it isn't anything else.

You are simply stating a tautological tautology.
You are saying that X is X because X is X.
I.e. something isn't anything else because it is only what it is.

thus X is X is proved to be valid.

"X is X" is already valid.
You have simply added redundancy to the argument.

With out the ability to determine it's validity by proving it a such it is meaningless to state it.

It is valid without the redundant tautology you have added.

It could also be stated as X is X because X- X = 0.

Ah, once again I get to call you hypocrit.
Thanks.
You have stated claimed a difference between "is" and "=", yet if "X is X because X-X=0" then "X is X because X=X" - which merely a rearrangement of the maths.
Thus you are saying here that X is X because X = X.
So you are, undeniably, a hypocrit.
And this is also more evidence that you seem incapable of comprehending the implications of your own posts.
Unless of course you were deliberate in your hypocrisy, and are thus dishonest.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are simply stating a tautological tautology.
You are saying that X is X because X is X.
I.e. something isn't anything else because it is only what it is.

well.... I am in good company:

When A belongs to the whole of B and to C and is affirmed of nothing else, and B also belongs to all C, it is necessary that A and B should be convertible: for since A is said of B and C only, and B is affirmed both of itself and of C, it is clear that B will be said of everything of which A is said, except A itself.

— Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Book II, Part 22, 68a​

.....ain't nothing wrong with a good ole tautology
and in the context of this discussion very relevant and necessary...

"X is X" is already valid.
You have simply added redundancy to the argument.

Nothing is valid unless it is provably so....
There is no "given" in philosophy that is not able to be disputed, argued , debated or subject to validation etc... you should know that...
X is X is testable and provable thus the Law of Identity is a law and not something else.
X is X because X isn't anything else but X.
In your version of determinism X is unable to be tested thus there is no genuine identity.

"It is the difference between people and sheeple that is in discussion. The blind acceptance of authority with out adequate reason or rational."

Is vs Equal to, are hotly debated topics and far from resolved.
X=X is a more formal rendition of X is X
"Is" means something different to what "Equivalence" means however they do share certain attributes and properties.
example:

1+1 =2 (X)
1+9-10+2 = 2 (X')
X is not X'
but X = X'

Ah, once again I get to call you hypocrit.
Thanks.
You have stated claimed a difference between "is" and "=", yet if "X is X because X-X=0" then "X is X because X=X" - which merely a rearrangement of the maths.
Thus you are saying here that X is X because X = X.
So you are, undeniably, a hypocrit.
And this is also more evidence that you seem incapable of comprehending the implications of your own posts.
Unless of course you were deliberate in your hypocrisy, and are thus dishonest.

no .. all you are saying is that your inferior understanding has misled you to an erroneous belief.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ah, once again I get to call you hypocrit.
Thanks.
You have stated claimed a difference between "is" and "=", yet if "X is X because X-X=0" then "X is X because X=X" - which merely a rearrangement of the maths.
Thus you are saying here that X is X because X = X.
So you are, undeniably, a hypocrit.
And this is also more evidence that you seem incapable of comprehending the implications of your own posts.
Unless of course you were deliberate in your hypocrisy, and are thus dishonest.

It could also be stated as X is X because X- X = 0.
If X-X = anything else other than zero, X isn't X

and there is nothing wrong with my quoted statement.

Based on the principle that existence is relative to non-existence.
"All values are relative to zero ( nothing )" ~another tautology....

X is only X and exists as such because if we remove X from X we are left with nothing.
If anything remains existent after removal of X from X then X was never X to begin with.

 

[Baldeee]

well.... I am in good company:

.....ain't nothing wrong with a good ole tautology
and in the context of this discussion very relevant and necessary...

My point, that you have clearly missed, is that you are saying that X is X because X is X.
You accept this is tautological and that this is what you are saying, and yet you disagree with the Law of identity: X is X.

Nothing is valid unless it is provably so....

Recall: validity is an argument where it is impossible for the premises to be true yet the conclusion false.
X is X: the premise is X, and the conclusion is X.
Please indicate why you think this is thus not valid.
Please also indicate one example where X is not X.

There is no "given" in philosophy that is not able to be disputed, argued , debated or subject to validation etc... you should know that...

Fine, dispute the axiom of the Law of identity, and in doing so you are continually proving it true.
To argue for the sake of arguing, as you are doing, is pointless.

X is X is testable and provable thus the Law of Identity is a law and not something else.

So now you're no longer disputing it????
Me (post #615): X is X.
You (post #617): "no it isn't...
X is X and everything it isn't."

So, for clarification: are you disputing the Law of Identify?
Do you think there are occasions when the Law breaks down, when X is not X?
If so, please give examples.

X is X because X isn't anything else but X.

You can restate it however you want, but all you're saying is that X is X.
If you dispute the Law of Identity, put forward something that is not what it is.
Otherwise, for Pete's sake be quiet on the matter before you further display your ignorance and stupidity.

In your version of determinism X is unable to be tested thus there is no genuine identity.

???
Given that you have created a strawman "your version" of determinism that you have attributed to me, and have not only absolved yourself from needing to support any claim you make about it, but also created your own "version" for yourself, sans support,

"It is the difference between people and sheeple that is in discussion. The blind acceptance of authority with out adequate reason or rational."

So continue to dispute the Law of Identity if you want.
Try to think of anything that is not what it is.
Anything at all.

Is vs Equal to, are hotly debated topics and far from resolved.
X=X is a more formal rendition of X is X
"Is" means something different to what "Equivalence" means however they do share certain attributes and properties.
example:

1+1 =2 (X)
1+9-10+2 = 2 (X')
X is not X'
but X = X'

This is your argument?
Seriously?
You think X is not X' when both are the number 2?
Ooooookay.
Time for me to let you enjoy your delusion in peace, methinks.
You have chosen an appropriate moniker for yourself, because you are undoubtedly a quack.

and there is nothing wrong with my quoted statement.

There isn't, but it is hypocritical of you to rely on something that you have claimed incorrect when used by me.
It is hypocritical, and because intentional on your part, it is dishonest.

Based on the principle that existence is relative to non-existence.
"All values are relative to zero ( nothing )" ~another tautology....

How is that tautological???
Do you even understand the term?
I ask because you continue to struggle with other important terms in this debate, most notably what "determinism" means.

X is only X and exists as such because if we remove X from X we are left with nothing.
If anything remains existent after removal of X from X then X was never X to begin with.

Thus X is X, something you have disputed for the past number of pages.
No doubt you have understood how ridiculously stupid you have been and are trying to wriggle out of admitting your error, when a simple "Oh, yes, you're right, X is X, and I was honestly wrong to dispute it" would have sufficed.

What little value there was in discussing with you, Quantum Quack, has now disappeared.

 

[Quantum Quack]

My point, that you have clearly missed, is that you are saying that X is X because X is X.
You accept this is tautological and that this is what you are saying, and yet you disagree with the Law of identity: X is X.
Recall: validity is an argument where it is impossible for the premises to be true yet the conclusion false.
X is X: the premise is X, and the conclusion is X.
Please indicate why you think this is thus not valid.
Please also indicate one example where X is not X.
Fine, dispute the axiom of the Law of identity, and in doing so you are continually proving it true.
To argue for the sake of arguing, as you are doing, is pointless.
So now you're no longer disputing it????
Me (post #615): X is X.
You (post #617): "no it isn't...
X is X and everything it isn't."

So, for clarification: are you disputing the Law of Identify?
Do you think there are occasions when the Law breaks down, when X is not X?
If so, please give examples.
You can restate it however you want, but all you're saying is that X is X.
If you dispute the Law of Identity, put forward something that is not what it is.
Otherwise, for Pete's sake be quiet on the matter before you further display your ignorance and stupidity.
???
Given that you have created a strawman "your version" of determinism that you have attributed to me, and have not only absolved yourself from needing to support any claim you make about it, but also created your own "version" for yourself, sans support,

So continue to dispute the Law of Identity if you want.
Try to think of anything that is not what it is.
Anything at all.
This is your argument?
Seriously?
You think X is not X' when both are the number 2?
Ooooookay.
Time for me to let you enjoy your delusion in peace, methinks.
You have chosen an appropriate moniker for yourself, because you are undoubtedly a quack.
There isn't, but it is hypocritical of you to rely on something that you have claimed incorrect when used by me.
It is hypocritical, and because intentional on your part, it is dishonest.
How is that tautological???
Do you even understand the term?
I ask because you continue to struggle with other important terms in this debate, most notably what "determinism" means.
Thus X is X, something you have disputed for the past number of pages.
No doubt you have understood how ridiculously stupid you have been and are trying to wriggle out of admitting your error, when a simple "Oh, yes, you're right, X is X, and I was honestly wrong to dispute it" would have sufficed.

What little value there was in discussing with you, Quantum Quack, has now disappeared.

I haven't disputed the law of identity...
I am merely stating that it must be provable and not taken as a given.
It is indeed provable and as such it is valid.
Your version of determinism disallows such proof thus X can be any thing the universe determines it to be with out having to prove it logically.
Remember your version allows only one outcome, that is predetermined by starting conditions.

(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...

so you rip the context out of the quote just to do what?
prove you are incapable of showing why my deliberate invalidity can not be shown for what it is?
Disingenuous much... I did wonder why you didn't quote what i posted just like another member has the propensity to do.

The point I was attempting to make is that if i deliberately claim X is X as invalid it is up to you to show why I am wrong.
I apologize if I have confused you and I must remember always that it is easy to confuse you.
In your limited version of determinism X could be anything that the universe starting conditions predetermines it to be.
In my more inclusive version of determinism X is X and is logically provably so. See my quote from Aristotle. It takes a minimum of two genuine choices to allow an objective assessment.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Baldeee
say for example
You give 10 people the task to solve the following simple math problem:

20-10 = ?

real easy ok?

say
6 people return the value 10
2 people return the value 8
2 people return the value 42
according to your version of determinism they are all correct, simply because they have no choice but to return what is predetermined for them to return and there is no way you can check correctness any how with out contradicting the predetermination at play. They and you are just cogs in a machine...

The very premise of Cause and effect is meaningless unless it has logical support.
Your limited version of determinism disallows such logical support thus is self defeating of it's primary premise.
There fore for Cause and Effect to have meaning, the capacity to determine it as such is essential...and this requires self determination.

 

[Baldeee]

I haven't disputed the law of identity...

No, of course you haven't, Quantum Quack.
The entire dispute is because you actually agree with it.
It's been raised many times about you, Quantum Quack, but you are notoriously contradictory in your posts, evidenced yet again here.
You really need to sort your thoughts out before you commit them to this forum.

The point I was attempting to make is that if i deliberately claim X is X as invalid it is up to you to show why I am wrong.

No, it is up to me to consider you a quack for disputing the Law of Identity, the self-evident axiom upon which all thought is built, all understanding is made.
Disputing such things is simply time-wasting and irrelevant.

I apologize if I have confused you and I must remember always that it is easy to confuse you.

The way you post with your contradictions, and your woeful understanding of the terms you throw around, you do confuse most people, even those who are willing to try to wade through it and put effort in to sorting out what you mean from what you say.
You just don't help them, predominantly from your own confusion of what is being discussed.

In your limited version of determinism X could be anything that the universe starting conditions predetermines it to be.

Case in point: you are confused about what "X is X" means.
Just because things are predetermined does not mean that X could be something other than X.
Why on earth would you think it does?
What ever X is, it is still X.
It isn't something else, and it can't be X and non-X at the same time.

In my more inclusive version of determinism X is X and is logically provably so.

There is only one version of determinism, Quantum Quack.
Your refusal to accept that is to misunderstand what determinism is.

It takes a minimum of two genuine choices to allow an objective assessment.

If there are genuine choices then it is not determinism.
Every effect (e.g. outcome of the process we call "choice") is completely determined by the cause/inputs - i.e. no genuine choice.
All predetermined.
"Your version" of determinism is, it seems, indeterminism.
Your eager desire to continue to call it determinism only serves to confuse not only you but everyone else.

 

[Baldeee]

...
according to your version of determinism they are all correct, simply because they have no choice but to return what is predetermined for them to return and there is no way you can check correctness any how with out contradicting the predetermination at play. They and you are just cogs in a machine...

As I have suspected for a long time, your understanding of "my version" is just wrong, and you have been arguing a strawman.
I might as well say that in "your version" of determinism England is the capital of France, X is not X, and everything you say is necessarily correct.
Of course, arguing a straw man like that would be pointless because I wouldn't be discussing what the other person has actually said.
So you really should give up the straw man you're peddling.
It's tiresome, boring, and a waste of everyone's time other than your own, presumably.

 

[Michael 345]

It's tiresome, boring, and a waste of everyone's time

He's been Iggied long time in this neck of the woods

 

[Quantum Quack]

As I have suspected for a long time, your understanding of "my version" is just wrong, and you have been arguing a strawman.
I might as well say that in "your version" of determinism England is the capital of France, X is not X, and everything you say is necessarily correct.
Of course, arguing a straw man like that would be pointless because I wouldn't be discussing what the other person has actually said.
So you really should give up the straw man you're peddling.
It's tiresome, boring, and a waste of everyone's time other than your own, presumably.

So...uhm...what prevents the universe from predetermining and supporting the capacity for humans to have genuine choices to self determine?
anything?
Every possible genuine choice is predetermined to be available and genuine...including the predetermined learned ability to choose freely.
Everything including the freedom is predetermined.

Is there a rule laid down at the start that says
"Thou shall not evolve a human that learns to self determine?"
if so, where is it written..... link please?

He's been Iggied long time in this neck of the woods

and I guess you think that means something... lol

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, it is up to me to consider you a quack for disputing the Law of Identity

Apart from never disputing the law of identity, and only explaining why it is indeed a law and not something less, all you have left is an argumentum ad hominem...to defend you own incompetence.

He's been Iggied long time in this neck of the woods

and I guess you think that means something... lol

 

[TheFrogger]

All will is determined. The moment the decision is made, the result becomes. "This will, that will" is determined because you're stating that it will. There is a difference between choice and will.

 

[Vociferous]

The question is not what kind of freedom but what kind of determinism. Classical domain determinism doesn't really speak to mental or quantum states. Considering Libet has been debunked, there is no longer even that paltry evidence for deterministic decision making. So what domains, other than the classical, may be deterministic is still up for speculation (barring ideological presumption).

 

[TheFrogger]

ALL forms of will are deterministic, since something will: the moment the decision is made, the will becomes. There is a difference between choice and will.

 

[Quantum Quack]

ALL forms of will are deterministic, since something will: the moment the decision is made, the will becomes. There is a difference between choice and will.

Try
I will choose...