“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[pood]

... part of the deterministic stream are humans determining choices.

The cited expression is not compatible with determinism. In order for any action to be "determining", it must be the case that there was some not-yet-determined matter for that action to determine and, hence, effect a determined condition out of a not-yet-determined condition. Determinism asserts that there never is a (human level) not-yet-determined condition to be determined by humans or by anything else for that matter.

No, HARD determinism asserts that.

 

[pood]

... part of the deterministic stream are humans determining choices.

The cited expression is not compatible with determinism. In order for any action to be "determining", it must be the case that there was some not-yet-determined matter for that action to determine and, hence, effect a determined condition out of a not-yet-determined condition. Determinism asserts that there never is a (human level) not-yet-determined condition to be determined by humans or by anything else for that matter.

One reason why determinism is not (necessarily) coercion-ism is because determine is (or can/should) always be appreciated as intended to convey more of a passive voice condition. It could be said that determinism is not concerned with how/why utter determinateness is. Per determinism, humans (and their actions) happen to be constituents of the utterly determinate context referred to as the universe.

Also, here, in addition to simply taking “determinism” to mean “hard determinism,” which is not correct, you are actually espousing pre-determinism, which is also not the same thing as determinism. Finally, it must be noted again, though this is not germane to compatibilism, that the universe is NOT utterly determinate or determined. This Laplacean clockwork model of reality is disconfirmed by quantum mechanics.

 

[pood]

Maybe Michael can help Pood see the light in regard to the truth of no free will which does not allow for free will without a complete contradiction. Free will is just an artifact of an ancient thought system that dishes out rewards and punishment along with the belief that there are superior people who should take the controls. This is the most dangerous thinking of all and has gotten us to where we are now. Don’t you think it’s time for a change in the approach toward a system of blame and punishment that is failing us?

Appeal to consequences fallacy.

And, as noted many times, futilely in your case, the opposite of determinism is indeterminism, not free will.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I suppose it should be noted at this point that determinism is not actually true, under Copenhagen quantum mechanics.

The determinism context would be the macrophysical domain in conjunction with the holding that quantum level indeterminateness never attains macrophysical effect. For that determinism, the only indeterminateness that would be relevant is macrophysical indeterminateness, and it is that indeterminateness which determinism denies.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

No, HARD determinism asserts that.

If you are correct, if you have expressed your meaning accurately, then that suggests that compatibilism does not deny the actuality of macrophysical indeterminateness. Okay. But, in that case, how is compatibilism compatible with determinism simpliciter?

 

[peacegirl]

“I am a central participant in what I accomplish or don’t.” Exactly! I am the efficient and final cause of my acts, and I need determinism (distinct from hard determinism) to ensure that my choices are causally effectuated by me (as opposed to the big bang).

You're misconstruing what it means to have no free will. Yes, looking back, everything that happened had to happen going back to when this universe began.

No, it did not have to happen. It just did happen.

Nah, looking back it had to have happened exactly as it did unless you are pretending that there is another world where the laws of this world don't apply.

Laws don’t govern the world, they describe it.

Laws that describe govern as well. We cannot move against the laws that we are part of. That does not mean the laws tell us what to do; but we are bound by them with absolutely no choice of our own.

Funny then that I am “bound” by the “law” of gravity, but that didn’t stop us from landing on the moon or sending spacecraft to distant planets and even beyond the solar system. But there is a sense in which reality constrains us — how we are constrained, for example, to send spacecraft to distant worlds based on the fact of delayed-time seeing.

We are bound by the "law" of gravity "on Earth" and there is no contradiction using measurements of light to get us to the moon or any other celestial body and the fact that we see in real time. Good try.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Maybe Michael can help Pood see the light

Nah. That's not what this is about. I've known pood for years. Just not as pood. Plenty of folks think this kind of discussion is fruitless. That's not what I see. It's good exercise. Good mental exercise. Good exercise for logical and semantics imagination.

 

[pood]

I suppose it should be noted at this point that determinism is not actually true, under Copenhagen quantum mechanics.

The determinism context would be the macrophysical domain in conjunction with the holding that quantum level indeterminateness never attains macrophysical effect.

But it does. Quantum indeterministic spontaneous decay of unstable atoms causes mutations which help drive evolution. There is now strong evidence that plants use QM to make photosynthesis more efficient. Quantum events in microtubules have been applied to the mind. Quantum computers work in superposition. I am sure many more examples can or will be adduced.

 

[pood]

No, HARD determinism asserts that.

If you are correct, if you have expressed your meaning accurately, then that suggests that compatibilism does not deny the actuality of macrophysical indeterminateness. Okay. But, in that case, how is compatibilism compatible with determinism simpliciter?

As noted above, quantum indeterminacy does amplify to the macro realm. But as I have also stated, the compatibilist position does not depend on QM.

 

[peacegirl]

The claim that the world had to happen just as it did conflicts not just with logic, but with quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does not affect human nature on a macro level; therefore, it has no relevance in the causes and prevention of "immoral" behavior or behavior that harms others.

 

[pood]

“I am a central participant in what I accomplish or don’t.” Exactly! I am the efficient and final cause of my acts, and I need determinism (distinct from hard determinism) to ensure that my choices are causally effectuated by me (as opposed to the big bang).

You're misconstruing what it means to have no free will. Yes, looking back, everything that happened had to happen going back to when this universe began.

No, it did not have to happen. It just did happen.

Nah, looking back it had to have happened exactly as it did unless you are pretending that there is another world where the laws of this world don't apply.

Laws don’t govern the world, they describe it.

Laws that describe govern as well. We cannot move against the laws that we are part of. That does not mean the laws tell us what to do; but we are bound by them with absolutely no choice of our own.

Funny then that I am “bound” by the “law” of gravity, but that didn’t stop us from landing on the moon or sending spacecraft to distant planets and even beyond the solar system. But there is a sense in which reality constrains us — how we are constrained, for example, to send spacecraft to distant worlds based on the fact of delayed-time seeing.

We are bound by the "law" of gravity "on Earth" and there is no contradiction using measurements of light to get us to the moon or any other celestial body and the fact that we see in real time. Good try.

Yes, how we go to the moon and other celestial bodies completely contradicts real-time seeing. This has been explained to you repeatedly but you prefer to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[pood]

The claim that the world had to happen just as it did conflicts not just with logic, but with quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does not affect human nature on a macro level; therefore, it has no relevance in the causes and prevention of "immoral" behavior or behavior that harms others.

QM has macro effects and may even play a key role in thinking. See above. The whole world is quantum mechanical.

 

[pood]

Computers and other high-tech must take into account quantum indeterminacy, such as quantum tunneling. However, again, the compatitibilist position does not depend on QM.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I suppose it should be noted at this point that determinism is not actually true, under Copenhagen quantum mechanics.

The determinism context would be the macrophysical domain in conjunction with the holding that quantum level indeterminateness never attains macrophysical effect.

But it does. Quantum indeterministic spontaneous decay of unstable atoms causes mutations which help drive evolution. There is now strong evidence that plants use QM to make photosynthesis more efficient. Quantum events in microtubules have been applied to the mind. Quantum computers work in superposition. I am sure many more examples can or will be adduced.

Well, it is actually the emitted radiation (energy) which can effect mutation; it is not the apparent associated indeterminateness. But that's not germane to our discussion. Does compatibilism hold that there is actual, (meta)physical, indeterminateness with regards to what a person does? Specifically, when a person has the experience of it not being a determinate matter with regards to alternative actions which that person experiences as being available for that person to do, is the indeterminateness which the person perceives ever actual (meta)physical indeterminateness or is it asserted that the indeterminateness experienced does not at all accurately represent the (meta)physics of the situation?

 

[The AntiChris]

Computers and other high-tech must take into account quantum indeterminacy, such as quantum tunneling. However, again, the compatitibilist position does not depend on QM.

Then why bring it up?

You're just confusing the issue.

 

[pood]

Computers and other high-tech must take into account quantum indeterminacy, such as quantum tunneling. However, again, the compatitibilist position does not depend on QM.

Then why bring it up?

You're just confusing the issue.

I didn’t bring it up. Peacegirl did, when she stated that the world had to be, exactly the way that it is. And that is disproven by quantum indeterminacy. ETA: But again, even without quantum indeterminacy, the world did not have to be, exactly the way that it is. It is built on a series of contingencies that may or may not have anything to do with QM, though QM does definitely affect the macro realm.

 

[peacegirl]

As these discussion always go, we are chasing our tails round the mulberry bush, so to say. Just because I do not do that which is within my physical power to do, does not mean that I CANNOT do that thing. Certainly I CAN reach for the Pepsi, instead of the Coke, in a way that I CANNOT sprout wings and fly. It is both logically and physically possible for me to do that, even if I NEVER do so. This seems so obvious to me that it borders on being self-evident. The fact, if it is a fact, that I will ALWAYS choose Coke, based on genetics, upbringing, or anything else, does not obviate the fact that it is within my power, logically and physically, to choose Pepsi instead.

This isn't even in question. For example, I can leave this forum and not post anymore. It's within my power to do this and is always there as an option. Does this mean I have free will? No. At this moment it gives me greater satisfaction to stay than to leave, thereby leaving this forum AT THIS MOMENT an impossibility under the circumstances. In five minutes, I may decide to leave because leaving is always a possibility (no one is saying it isn't), but whether I leave or stay depends on which is more preferable given the pros and cons. If will was free, we could pick what we don't prefer even when what we do prefer is available; nor do we have a choice in our everyday actions that don't require contemplation such as changing positions because it has grown uncomfortable. We are constantly moving away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers "greater" satisfaction and there are no exceptions Pood. You cannot outsmart this law of our nature.

 

[pood]

As these discussion always go, we are chasing our tails round the mulberry bush, so to say. Just because I do not do that which is within my physical power to do, does not mean that I CANNOT do that thing. Certainly I CAN reach for the Pepsi, instead of the Coke, in a way that I CANNOT sprout wings and fly. It is both logically and physically possible for me to do that, even if I NEVER do so. This seems so obvious to me that it borders on being self-evident. The fact, if it is a fact, that I will ALWAYS choose Coke, based on genetics, upbringing, or anything else, does not obviate the fact that it is within my power, logically and physically, to choose Pepsi instead.

This isn't even in question. For example, I can leave this forum and not post anymore. It's within my power to do this and is always there as an option. Does this mean I have free will? No. At this moment it gives me greater satisfaction to stay than to leave, thereby leaving this forum AT THIS MOMENT an impossibility under the circumstances. In five minutes, I may decide to leave because leaving is always a possibility (no one is saying it isn't), but whether I leave or stay depends on which is more preferable given the pros and cons. If will was free, we could pick what we don't prefer even when what we do prefer is available; nor do we have a choice in our everyday actions that don't require contemplation such as changing positions because it has grown uncomfortable. We are constantly moving away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers "greater" satisfaction and there are no exceptions Pood. You cannot outsmart this law of our nature.

There is no such “law” of our nature. As to free will, would I pick what I don’t prefer?

 

[peacegirl]

Computers and other high-tech must take into account quantum indeterminacy, such as quantum tunneling. However, again, the compatitibilist position does not depend on QM.

Then why bring it up?

You're just confusing the issue.

I didn’t bring it up. Peacegirl did, when she stated that the world had to be, exactly the way that it is.

That is true. We can only move in one direction. There are no parallel worlds where this law doesn't apply. Quantum indeterminacy does not grant us the free will to have created a different world than the world we now have. As a reminder, for the purposes of this debate and what philosophers use when defining terms, the opposite of determinism is free will (or the ability to otherwise), not indeterminism.

And that is disproven by quantum indeterminacy. ETA: But again, even without quantum indeterminacy, the world did not have to be, exactly the way that it is. It is built on a series of contingencies that may or may not have anything to do with QM, though QM does definitely affect the macro realm.

You are right back to your safety net, which proves nothing at all Pood. Could have, may have, might have, are imaginary IFs that did not occur, therefore they could not have occurred. The world could be anything you want it to be in imagination, but this makes it no more real than the man in the moon.

 

[pood]

Computers and other high-tech must take into account quantum indeterminacy, such as quantum tunneling. However, again, the compatitibilist position does not depend on QM.

Then why bring it up?

You're just confusing the issue.

I didn’t bring it up. Peacegirl did, when she stated that the world had to be, exactly the way that it is.

That is true. We can only move in one direction. There are no parallel worlds where this law doesn't apply. Quantum indeterminacy does not grant us the free will to have created a different world than the world we now have. As a reminder, for the purposes of this debate and what philosophers use when defining terms, the opposite of determinism is free will (or the ability to otherwise), not indeterminism.

No, philosophers do NOT define the opposite of determinism as “free will.” They define it as INdeterminism. You don’t get to declare victory by changing the definition of words, sorry.

And that is disproven by quantum indeterminacy. ETA: But again, even without quantum indeterminacy, the world did not have to be, exactly the way that it is. It is built on a series of contingencies that may or may not have anything to do with QM, though QM does definitely affect the macro realm.

You are right back to your safety net, which proves nothing at all Pood. Could have, may have, might have, are imaginary IFs that did not occur, therefore they could not have occurred.

Which again reveals you maintain willful ignorance on this as on so much else, like how the eye works and how we see in delayed time. The “ifs” that did not occur, COULD HAVE OCCURRED. That’s why they are called contingent.

The world could be anything you want it to be in imagination, but this makes it no more real than the man in the moon.

Just like real-time seeing and efferent vision are no more real than the man in the moon. Look in the mirror to see the true target of your accusations.