• Freewill VS Determinism
    67 replies, posted
Determinism, always. Cause and effect dictates this.
[QUOTE=Chrille;34933450]Without any kind of prior knowledge of the subject, doesn't quantum physics dictate that the behavior of particles becomes impossible to predict (because there is no determined way that they will act) at a certain atomic or sub-atomic level? If so, doesn't that rule out any kind of set future?[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (if thats the one your referring to). And to be honest, the whole debate is kind of a moot point. Yes it may seem to devalue our lives if it was in fact fate that controlled them; but at the end of the day, if it is fate governing it, then we can never change that. I'd prefer to sit on the fence and believe I had free will, even if the world was a hard deterministic place.
Free will is bullshit. We act entirely according to the laws of nature and free will is an illusion. There is absolutely no reason to believe in free will aside from religion (and that has problems too without even involving science). The fact that we can't accurately predict the future with certainty does not prove free will exists. All it proves is that we don't (yet?) have the ability to make those calculations. Everything is the way it is because that is what the laws of nature dictated. Thinking that you can change that and act otherwise is just illusory.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35032059]Actually many of the leading scientists in the founding of quantum theory had anti-realist interpretations i.e. particles do not actually have properties until they are observed.[/QUOTE] because they were doing the scientific equivalent of blindly groping an elephant
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;35031566]just because we can't predict the future, doesn't mean it isn't determined. We can't know the exact location of any particle, thanks to the Uncertainty Principle, but every particle still has one specific location. We just don't know it.[/QUOTE] (because there is no determined way that they will act)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35036679]because they were doing the scientific equivalent of blindly groping an elephant[/QUOTE] It really has almost nothing to do with how refined their science was, you really can't say we're doing much more when it comes to QM now, and I wish you'd stop pushing your personal beliefs about interpretation of QM as fact. As much as I agree with Einstein and hate the idea that something could not have properties until it's observed, the evidence makes problems for that and offers no way to prove either realist or anti-realist interpretations so far. [editline]7th March 2012[/editline] Also, back to this post: [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;35031566]just because we can't predict the future, doesn't mean it isn't determined. We can't know the exact location of any particle, thanks to the Uncertainty Principle, but every particle still has one specific location. We just don't know it.[/QUOTE] My response earlier didn't even give the whole story. As far as the uncertainty principle is concerned, you're definitely wrong. The uncertainty in measurements dictated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not just our inability to measure certain properties exactly of particles exactly, the property itself actually becomes poorly-defined because of how the Fourier transform between reciprocal spaces works. If you consider, for instance, a short, sharp sound like a clap, and you ask "When does it occur," and "What frequency is it," the questions cannot be answered well simultaneously. It occurs at a reasonably definite time but if you consider, say, if it were made up of only part of a single period of a sound wave, the concept of measuring its frequency barely even makes sense. The same applies the other way around: If you have someone sing a single note for a minute, you can easily find the average frequency by averaging over many periods of the note, but it no longer occurs at a definite time. It is spread out over a minute.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35041301]It really has almost nothing to do with how refined their science was, you really can't say we're doing much more when it comes to QM now, and I wish you'd stop pushing your personal beliefs about interpretation of QM as fact. As much as I agree with Einstein and hate the idea that something could not have properties until it's observed, the evidence makes problems for that and offers no way to prove either realist or anti-realist interpretations so far.[/QUOTE] I wasn't talking specifically about how refined their science was (that's a whole other topic), just that since they were just starting out and many of them came up with some [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse]really fucking weird interpretations despite being geniuses[/url], we shouldn't really trust anything they said unless it was "shut up and calculate". [editline]7th March 2012[/editline] Either way, even if QM is nondeterministic that says nothing about whether we have free will. It just shifts the causal factors of decision making from "the combined interactions of deterministic processes occurring within the human brain" to "the combined interactions of random processes occurring within the human brain."
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35041301]It really has almost nothing to do with how refined their science was, you really can't say we're doing much more when it comes to QM now, and I wish you'd stop pushing your personal beliefs about interpretation of QM as fact. As much as I agree with Einstein and hate the idea that something could not have properties until it's observed, the evidence makes problems for that and offers no way to prove either realist or anti-realist interpretations so far. [editline]7th March 2012[/editline] Also, back to this post: My response earlier didn't even give the whole story. As far as the uncertainty principle is concerned, you're definitely wrong. The uncertainty in measurements dictated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not just our inability to measure certain properties exactly of particles exactly, the property itself actually becomes poorly-defined because of how the Fourier transform between reciprocal spaces works. If you consider, for instance, a short, sharp sound like a clap, and you ask "When does it occur," and "What frequency is it," the questions cannot be answered well simultaneously. It occurs at a reasonably definite time but if you consider, say, if it were made up of only part of a single period of a sound wave, the concept of measuring its frequency barely even makes sense. The same applies the other way around: If you have someone sing a single note for a minute, you can easily find the average frequency by averaging over many periods of the note, but it no longer occurs at a definite time. It is spread out over a minute.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to lie, I don't fully understand how that leads you to believe that a particles actions are non-determined. But if a particles actions are not pre-determined, what determines them? random chance?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35041489]I wasn't talking specifically about how refined their science was (that's a whole other topic), just that since they were just starting out and many of them came up with some [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse]really fucking weird interpretations despite being geniuses[/url], we shouldn't really trust anything they said unless it was "shut up and calculate". [editline]7th March 2012[/editline] Either way, even if QM is nondeterministic that says nothing about whether we have free will. It just shifts the causal factors of decision making from "the combined interactions of deterministic processes occurring within the human brain" to "the combined interactions of random processes occurring within the human brain."[/QUOTE] Yeah, Wigner was... a weirdo. Anyway I agree with everything you have to say in this post. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;35041874]I'm not going to lie, I don't fully understand how that leads you to believe that a particles actions are non-determined. But if a particles actions are not pre-determined, what determines them? random chance?[/QUOTE] The uncertainty principle doesn't really have anything to do with indeterminacy.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35042397]Yeah, Wigner was... a weirdo. Anyway I agree with everything you have to say in this post. The uncertainty principle doesn't really have anything to do with indeterminacy.[/QUOTE] Okay, that's what I thought. It seemed you had implied that though.
Why are you people still discussing free will in terms of thee determinacy of phenomenal reality? Even if phenomenal reality wasn't determined, we wouldn't have free will if you think of 'free will' as something that has to arise from it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35041301]My response earlier didn't even give the whole story. As far as the uncertainty principle is concerned, you're definitely wrong. The uncertainty in measurements dictated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not just our inability to measure certain properties exactly of particles exactly, the property itself actually becomes poorly-defined because of how the Fourier transform between reciprocal spaces works. If you consider, for instance, a short, sharp sound like a clap, and you ask "When does it occur," and "What frequency is it," the questions cannot be answered well simultaneously. It occurs at a reasonably definite time but if you consider, say, if it were made up of only part of a single period of a sound wave, the concept of measuring its frequency barely even makes sense. The same applies the other way around: If you have someone sing a single note for a minute, you can easily find the average frequency by averaging over many periods of the note, but it no longer occurs at a definite time. It is spread out over a minute.[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I've been doing quite a bit of Fourier Series/Transforms lately and in order to find the frequency averaged over many periods you must have limits of integration in time (for let's say one period) in order to find the transform for frequency. With those limits you can then find the total length of the sample which would tell you exactly when it started. Also, this discussion is completely pointless. If you believe in determinism then science is bunk anyway because any results were determined to be found, whether right or wrong, and people were determined to either accept or deny those results, whether right or wrong.
[QUOTE=sgman91;35051463]I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I've been doing quite a bit of Fourier Series/Transforms lately and in order to find the frequency averaged over many periods you must have limits of integration in time (for let's say one period) in order to find the transform for frequency. With those limits you can then find the total length of the sample which would tell you exactly when it started.[/QUOTE] My explanation was non-technical. The uncertainty principle is actually a statement about the product of the standard deviations of position and momentum of a particle and all the integrals involved are taken over all space. [QUOTE=sgman91;35051463]Also, this discussion is completely pointless. If you believe in determinism then science is bunk anyway because any results were determined to be found, whether right or wrong, and people were determined to either accept or deny those results, whether right or wrong.[/QUOTE] How does any of that imply science is bunk? It doesn't make it any less verifiable. The fact that people may be destined to accept inaccurate results does not make that good science just because they're forced to do it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;35051463]Also, this discussion is completely pointless. If you believe in determinism then science is bunk anyway because any results were determined to be found, whether right or wrong, and people were determined to either accept or deny those results, whether right or wrong.[/QUOTE] with that mindset you may as well kill yourself, since life would be "bunk" as well
[QUOTE=sgman91;35051463] Also, this discussion is completely pointless. If you believe in determinism then science is bunk anyway because any results were determined to be found, whether right or wrong, and people were determined to either accept or deny those results, whether right or wrong.[/QUOTE] That makes no sense. If things were non-determined, than people would choose whether to accept or deny results, whether right or wrong. And on a large scale, it looks that way in determinism too. So you are basically saying Science is bunk, no matter what.
I see that there are many references to quantum uncertainty, but in a philosophical debate the abstract mathematics involved with quantum theory cannot be used in this discussion, as this branch of maths doesn't prove anything. In several years we may be able to understand the quantum world better than we do now and find that we can predict activities at the quantum level.
[QUOTE=sintwins;35068605]I see that there are many references to quantum uncertainty, but in a philosophical debate the abstract mathematics involved with quantum theory cannot be used in this discussion, as this branch of maths doesn't prove anything. In several years we may be able to understand the quantum world better than we do now and find that we can predict activities at the quantum level.[/QUOTE] um we can predict quantum effects pretty well already. in fact we've been able to do so for the better part of the last century. that's what quantum theory is [I]for[/I], it [I]is[/I] the predictive framework. if QM didn't make predictions then [I]nobody would take it seriously[/I] [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] also if your philosophy isn't reducible to mathematics even in principle then it's bunk
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35055358]with that mindset you may as well kill yourself, since life would be "bunk" as well[/QUOTE] Good thing I don't believe in determinism, but if I did... I would probably agree with that. (of course it would have been determined that I kill myself) [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;35060959]That makes no sense. If things were non-determined, than people would choose whether to accept or deny results, whether right or wrong. And on a large scale, it looks that way in determinism too. So you are basically saying Science is bunk, no matter what.[/QUOTE] The choice of whether to accept or deny the results would be based on logic. One would be able to look at the methodology, sample size, etc. and determine whether the likelihood of truth is high. If we were to accept determinism than the act of accepting or denying the science is completely disconnected from the actual quality of the results. It would be based on the chain of events starting from the big bang (or even before). [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35051893]How does any of that imply science is bunk? It doesn't make it any less verifiable. The fact that people may be destined to accept inaccurate results does not make that good science just because they're forced to do it.[/QUOTE] The methodology of the science was determined beforehand and wasn't based on logic or even the scientific method (which is also just applied logic). Basically, science depends upon accurate analysis and logic which both are only consistently possible with free will. The only way around this would be to say that nature itself causes accurate science to happen with no guided processes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;35071861]The methodology of the science was determined beforehand and wasn't based on logic or even the scientific method (which is also just applied logic).[/QUOTE] Woah woah, determinism doesn't invalidate the existence of logic or the scientific method. Where did you get that idea? Nothing about determinism says that everything that happens is completely arbitrary as you seem to be implying. [QUOTE=sgman91;35071861]Basically, science depends upon accurate analysis and logic which both are only consistently possible with free will. The only way around this would be to say that nature itself causes accurate science to happen with no guided processes.[/QUOTE] You're making a lot of ill-justified conclusions here.
Okay, so, first of all, I am a firm believer of determinism. That being said, a lot of the "but if the universe is determinist then..." arguments seem really flimsy to me, and I have a hard time understanding how anyone could ever think that they can operate as any real argument against determinism. Like, for example, the morality argument that was posed on the previous page: [QUOTE=blubafoon;35011477]The main issue is the implications of determinism, i.e. how can we have morality and punishments without free will? "You should have known better." "I couldn't have known better because my knowledge and actions were causally determined by a long string of events spanning far before my birth." "Still though."[/QUOTE] This doesn't make sense to me. If, indeed, the universe is deterministic, then yes, he was predetermined to do the deed he did. But he was [b]also[/b] predetermined to be [b]punished[/b] for it. That's the whole point of determinism. [b]Everything[/b] is predetermined. Doers of misdeeds are predetermined to do their misdeeds, and the punishers of the doers are [redetermined to punish those doers. In a deterministic universe, saying that morals can't exist doesn't make sense. Assuming the universe is deterministic, then if we were to have morals, that would mean that our having morals was predetermined. The fact that we have morals does not disprove determinism at all - it simply proves that, if the universe [b]was[/b] deterministic, then we were predetermined to have morals. Can someone please explain to me how exactly these sorts of arguments are supposed to really have any strength against determinism?
[QUOTE=sgman91;35071861]Basically, science depends upon accurate analysis and logic which both are only consistently possible with free will. The only way around this would be to say that nature itself causes accurate science to happen with no guided processes.[/QUOTE] What we say about any-thing isn't right or wrong because we were or we weren't meant to say it, it is right or wrong because that 'thing' reflects the properties we attributed to it. Example: I might say all brown dogs are brown, surely, you can't say I can be wrong because I was [I]meant[/I] to say that. The correctness of a predicate isn't to be analysed in terms of free will. Free will doesn't even matter in things like that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;35071861]Basically, science depends upon accurate analysis and logic which both are only consistently possible with free will.[/QUOTE] This is another argument against determinism I don't understand! Science relies on accurate analysis and logic, yes. Are you trying to say that since there can be inaccurate analyses and illogicality, that presupposes free will? If the universe was deterministic, and someone made an inaccurate analysis or performed and illogicality, then all that proves is that said person was determined to make said inaccuracy or illogicality. Nothing more, nothing less.
[QUOTE=sgman91;35071861]If we were to accept determinism than the act of accepting or denying the science is completely disconnected from the actual quality of the results.[/quote] That is not true at all. [QUOTE=sgman91;35071861]Basically, science depends upon accurate analysis and logic which both are only consistently possible with free will.[/quote] nope
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35072433]Okay, so, first of all, I am a firm believer of determinism. That being said, a lot of the "but if the universe is determinist then..." arguments seem really flimsy to me, and I have a hard time understanding how anyone could ever think that they can operate as any real argument against determinism. Like, for example, the morality argument that was posed on the previous page: This doesn't make sense to me. If, indeed, the universe is deterministic, then yes, he was predetermined to do the deed he did. But he was [b]also[/b] predetermined to be [b]punished[/b] for it. That's the whole point of determinism. [b]Everything[/b] is predetermined. Doers of misdeeds are predetermined to do their misdeeds, and the punishers of the doers are [redetermined to punish those doers. In a deterministic universe, saying that morals can't exist doesn't make sense. Assuming the universe is deterministic, then if we were to have morals, that would mean that our having morals was predetermined. The fact that we have morals does not disprove determinism at all - it simply proves that, if the universe [b]was[/b] deterministic, then we were predetermined to have morals. Can someone please explain to me how exactly these sorts of arguments are supposed to really have any strength against determinism?[/QUOTE] Determinism is really something that can affect morals. Mainly because the purpose of morals is telling us what [I]we should do[/I]. But if the universe is deterministic, then morals have no point at all, since no [I]should[/I] is going to change anything, [B]there are no shoulds ergo, there is no moral.[/B] That isn't, of course, an objection against determinism, just telling you that it does affect morals in some way. [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] An objection against determinism is that it is pitted against free will, when it really shouldn't.
[QUOTE=matsta;35072501]Determinism is really something that can affect morals. Mainly because the purpose of morals is telling us what [I]we should do[/I]. But if the universe is deterministic, then morals have no point at all, since no [I]should[/I] is going to change anything, [B]there are no shoulds ergo, there is no moral.[/B] That isn't, of course, an objection against determinism, just telling you that it does affect morals in some way.[/QUOTE] Maybe if you define morals in such a way. But what if I were to assert that morals were to tell us what we [b]think[/b] we should do? And even if you disagree with that definition, most probably from the argument that it's subjective to the individual, and that if that were the definition, then a person could commit a crime (such as murder) and still be "moral" because he [b]thought[/b] it was what he should do, then you'd kinda trip over your own reasoning, because [b]all[/b] morality is subjective. What a society deems moral or immoral is what said society, as a collective, believes to be right or wrong. But what is to say that the universe hasn't predetermined that society to think such things are right or wrong? What is to say that our morals aren't predetermined?
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35072586]Maybe if you define morals in such a way. But what if I were to assert that morals were to tell us what we [b]think[/b] we [I][B]should do[/I][/B]? And even if you disagree with that definition, most probably from the argument that it's subjective to the individual, and that if that were the definition, then a person could commit a crime (such as murder) and still be "moral" because he [b]thought[/b] it was what he should do, then you'd kinda trip over your own reasoning, because [b]all[/b] morality is subjective.[/QUOTE] Actually, I agree that morals are subjective to the individual, but saying that morals are what we think we should do is like saying morals are what we think they are. And of course, I think they are what I think they are, I just can't tell you what they are, I will tell you what [I]I think they are[/I], isn't that the same with anything? The point is that you just can't escape the should. Even If morals are what we think they are they still consist of [I]shoulds[/I], but, surely, we can't think of shoulds when everything is set.
Sure we can. It's really simple. We can be predetermined to think of shoulds.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;35072930]Sure we can. It's really simple. We can be predetermined to think of shoulds.[/QUOTE] That isn't the point. The point is that we can't think of should when [I]we know[/I] everything is set for us. There is no point of thinking what we should do if we know that it doesn't change anything. Morals would be absurd, and of course you would say they would be predetermined to be absurd, but that is just saying that morals don't serve for their purpose, and the discussion here is about determinism affecting morals. It does.
Morals wouldn't have to be absurd. You could argue that moral relativism is bullshit, and that our morals came about as part of our evolution as social animals.
[QUOTE=Noble;35073078]Morals wouldn't have to be absurd. You could argue that moral relativism is bullshit, and that our morals came about as part of our evolution as social animals.[/QUOTE] That would not be morals, the whole point of morals is that we do what we [I]should[/I] do, but nature doesn't tell you what you should do, only you do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.