“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

 

[peacegirl]

I hope I can get some interest, as the knowledge I am presenting is novel. It's important to mention that the author used the word God throughout his books but was clear that this word only meant the laws that govern our universe. If he was still living (he passed away in 1991), he may have changed how he expressed himself, but this does not change the value of his words. I want to reiterate that this is not a religious work. I know people's time is valuable and they don't want to read something they know nothing about. Maybe they will make an exception. This knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism, but please don't jump to premature conclusions. The author was a philosopher but was forced to self-publish. He was not a part of a university and held no distinguishing titles. As a result, he was unable to reach those who could have been instrumental in passing along his work. His entire adult life was dedicated to sharing his findings in a way that others could comprehend. He wrote 6 books in all and thanks to technology, they have been reproduced online. The book I am sharing today is my compilation. Some people have said it's too longwinded. Maybe that's true, but it's important to remember that form is less important than what is being conveyed. Please keep this in mind if you decide to read it.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

 

[pood]

Take it easy, you’re new. Also people are busy blathering about politics.

How do you define determinism and free will?

 

[peacegirl]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors. Determinism is the opposite. It is choosing A because B is impossible or choosing B because A is impossible under one’s particular circumstances. I know this is simplified but I wanted to offer you a quick response.

 

[DBT]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

 

[Politesse]

Ah, language learning algorithms.

 

[DBT]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

 

[DBT]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

 

[pood]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

I can certainly accept that as a starting point. It is very close to a Buddhistic conception of time, There is an interesting discussion of Buddhistic time here.

The discussion begins with reference to a hypothesis put forward about 25 years ago by the physicist Julian Barbour, that time does not exist. Rather, only “time capsules” exist, separate and distinct universal “moments” that are causally unrelated. The discussion moves on to time in Buddhism, and the idea that change and motion are illusions. The discussion invokes the metaphor of a film strip. Everything seems to be change and motion in a film, time flowing along and one thing causing another, but actually the film is made up of still images — Barbour’s time capsules.

Now there is another way to look at it — not that “just the present exists,” but that all present moments exist. This is called Minkowski spacetime, a mathematical formalization of the implications of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It’s also known as the block universe. The past, present, and future are simply all THERE — but we experience only the present. It’s interesting how the Barbour/Buddhist conception of “time does not exist” and the Minkowski conception of ALL times exist collapse to the same idea. Indeed, the block universe proponents ALSO use the film strip metaphor to point to what they call the ILLUSION of “time passing.”

On both conceptions — time does not exist, and all times exist — the present moment turns out to be an indexical — a subjective point of view. This is exaclty the same thing with space. WHENEVER we are, is always NOW, and WHERE EVER we are, is always HERE. All we ever have is NOW and HERE.

All of this is in accord with longstanding idealist positions, such as that of Kant and Schopenhauer, who maintained that space and time do not exist independently but are in fact mental constructs, an idea quite compatible with modern physics.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

I can certainly accept that as a starting point. It is very close to a Buddhistic conception of time, There is an interesting discussion of Buddhistic time here.

The discussion begins with reference to a hypothesis put forward about 25 years ago by the physicist Julian Barbour, that time does not exist. Rather, only “time capsules” exist, separate and distinct universal “moments” that are causally unrelated. The discussion moves on to time in Buddhism, and the idea that change and motion are illusions. The discussion invokes the metaphor of a film strip. Everything seems to be change and motion in a film, time flowing along and one thing causing another, but actually the film is made up of still images — Barbour’s time capsules.

Now there is another way to look at it — not that “just the present exists,” but that all present moments exist. This is called Minkowski spacetime, a mathematical formalization of the implications of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It’s also known as the block universe. The past, present, and future are simply all THERE — but we experience only the present. It’s interesting how the Barbour/Buddhist conception of “time does not exist” and the Minkowski conception of ALL times exist collapse to the same idea. Indeed, the block universe proponents ALSO use the film strip metaphor to point to what they call the ILLUSION of “time passing.”

On both conceptions — time does not exist, and all times exist — the present moment turns out to be an indexical — a subjective point of view. This is exaclty the same thing with space. WHENEVER we are, is always NOW, and WHERE EVER we are, is always HERE. All we ever have is NOW and HERE.

All of this is in accord with longstanding idealist positions, such as that of Kant and Schopenhauer, who maintained that space and time do not exist independently but are in fact mental constructs, an idea quite compatible with modern physics.

I know there are a lot of theories out there, and I appreciate the time you took to explain each one, but at this point I only want to focus on the author's observations. It is so easy to get off onto tangents which will prevent me from demonstrating these principles. Like I said, if you completely disagree that the present is all that exists (and you can't accept this premise even temporarily), then there will be no basis for communication which is absolutely necessary in order to move forward. Here is small excerpt that relates to what we're talking about.

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course … yesterday is the past, today is the present, and tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

“It is true that yesterday was Thursday and the day before was Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does the present become the past? I want you to demonstrate how the present slips into the past. That cannot be done by God Himself. The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction of a second ago, and that I am still talking. The word ‘past’ is obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do something and because you are also conscious of space, you perceive that as you traverse a point from here to there what is left behind as you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates never lived in the past — he lived in the present, although our recollection of him allows us to think back to this time period. The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible for you to say that God existed in the past? Does anyone ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, you would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I deconfuse the mind of man so we can communicate.

As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into compartments and in the memory section are innumerable word slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday, last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are slides in our brain projector through which we see the number of times, or what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis, but if we were not able to remember (store away these slides), the word past would never have come into existence because we are born, grow old, and die all in the present. In reality, everything that we can possibly do from the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even our sleep, is done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.”

“Are you saying that if man wasn’t able to remember what he did, there would be no such thing as the past?”

“If I said to you, ‘What did you do yesterday?’, and you were unable to understand my words, only the present would exist for you. The recollection of the various things we did in our life, or to put it another way, the recollection of our past is just as good as our memory, but if we were not able to remember (store away these word slides that contain every conceivable kind of relation), the word past would never have come into existence. Animals cannot think in terms of past and future because they don’t have the ability to store away these word slides. We use words like beginning and end, apply this to the universe, and think we perceive mathematical relations. We say God is the first cause, and we reason from here as if we are discussing reality. Yet there are innumerable relations that cannot be denied once they are understood. The actual reason it isn’t strange to me that you are alive at this moment and conscious of your existence with the earth as old as it is, is because there is no such thing as the past or future. Consciousness, like the sun, can only exist in the present and it is absolutely impossible for any consciousness to exist but your very own. By perceiving things that are born and die, and by not understanding the underlying substance, a fallacious relation develops which can easily be clarified once the word symbols are understood.”

 

[pood]

My point, of course, is that all of the above is perfectly consistent with the Buddhistic conception of time and also modern spacetime physics. “How is it humanely possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future when in reality all we ever have is the present?” is Buddhist thought. In Minkowski spacetime thought, Socrates exists, but he is distant from us in the time, in the same way Jupiter exists, but is distant from us in space. You should welcome this help because it firming uo the idea that we can certainly accept your thesis as a starting point for discussion. It makes sense, and is supported by philosophy and theory both past and present. What your author may go on to say night indeed be completely novel, but what he is saying here has precedent and historical context.

 

[peacegirl]

My point, of course, is that all of the above is perfectly consistent with the Buddhistic conception of time and also modern spacetime physics. “How is it humanely possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future when in reality all we ever have is the present?” is Buddhist thought. In Minkowski spacetime thought, Socrates exists, but he is distant from us in the time, in the same way Jupiter exists, but is distant from us in space. You should welcome this help because it firming uo the idea that we can certainly accept your thesis as a starting point for discussion. It makes sense, and is supported by philosophy and theory both past and present. What your author may go on to say night indeed be completely novel, but what he is saying here has precedent and historical context.

I'm glad that you can accept the "thesis" that we live in the present, regardless of where the idea came from. This is not the novel part of his work, but it is important because it clears up a lot of misleading information regarding determinism and what it actually means to have no free will.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't know if anyone has read the first three chapters, but if not, I wanted to go through why man's will is not free. This, according to the author, does not mean we are forced to do what we don't want or have no say in. This is why so many people dislike the thought of determinism, because it implies that their choices are written in stone before they are even made. That is not what this author is suggesting. The author begins by stating that every move we make throughout life is in the direction of greater satisfaction. This does not mean that we are always satisfied. It only means that given the options available at any given moment, we are compelled to choose what we believe is the most preferable. We could be choosing between two or more goods, a good over an evil, or the lesser of two or more evils. We may not be happy with the outcome of our choice; in which case we use that knowledge that we gained to choose another option if a similar situation presents itself. As long as there are meaningful differences between the options we are contemplating, we cannot move in the direction that gives us less satisfaction when an option that gives us greater satisfaction is available. He writes:

Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”

Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.

 

[peacegirl]

I can see that the topic of determinism has been discussed quite a bit. Maybe adding another thread on this topic is unappealing, but I promise you that this knowledge is novel and will change our world for the better once it is confirmed by science to be sound. There are many opinions and definitions as to what "free will" means. It's no wonder there has been very little progress. A definition means nothing where reality is concerned unless it is reflective of reality. The term "free will" can be used in a colloquial sense: "I did this of my own free will (of my own desire because I wanted to; nothing forced me to do it against my will)" which is perfectly fine. The author said he uses this phrase often in his own life. But it does not mean that we actually have freedom of the will when it comes to the determinism/free will argument. We cannot have both free will and determinism existing together. They are polar opposites. If one is true, the other must be false. To offer an analogy, a person can't be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. She is either one or the other. Determinism has gotten a bad rap due to the way it's defined. The fact that will is not free does not take away our freedom; it increases it, as you will see if you stick with me. I don't know if I can hold anyone's interest. I hope so. This knowledge is truly mind blowing if you follow his reasoning and the extension of these principles into all areas of human relations. Please understand that the fact that man's will is not free is not the discovery; It is the gateway that opens the door to the discovery, which we haven't yet touched upon.

 

[pood]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

 

[peacegirl]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?