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

[BSilvEsq]

It seems a common misperception is that free will requires the ability to change something. It does not. It just means you play your small part in freely making the past, present and future be what it was, what it is, and what will be.

I can well imagine that the future is as fixed as the past under the Minkowski block world. If so, it just means my future temporal parts are freely doing their bit to instantiate the future.

Free Will does not require the ability to "change" something. Rather, and as I have written before:

As I understand the notion of Free Will, it posits that a human being, when presented with more than one course of action, has the freedom or agency to choose between or among the alternatives, and that the state of affairs that exists in the universe immediately prior to the putative exercise of that freedom of choice does not eliminate all but one option and compel the selection of only one of the available options.

Stated differently, the existence of Free Will in its pure form depends upon (a) the existence of true “options” or “alternatives,” and (b) humans being capable of thinking (and acting) in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside their control.

By contrast, if the universe is truly and entirely deterministic (which is unknown), then (a) there are no such thing as true “options” or “alternatives” because there is one, and only one, activity that can ever occur at any given instant, and (b) humans lack the ability to think in a manner that is not 100% caused by prior activity that is outside of their control, as human cognition is simply a form of activity that is governed by Determinism.

Accepting the paradigm of Determinism as true (which is may well not be), Free Will would be impossible, because the pre-determined act of seeming to choose between illusory alternatives is not an exercise of will. It is simply a programmed response.

 

[steve_bank]

Pood

I was responding to your assertion interpretation of of QM is that all is 'indeterminate' That requires son qualification if you invoke QM in detbae on free will vs determinism.

Free will and determinism are arbitrary definitions that people try to shoehorn reality into.

The question becomes what is the evidence for either view? Without evidence the debate is academic, so to speak.

In technology there has always been debate over what random means. It is a practical issue. Knuth wrote random is a definition, anything that meets the definition is theretofore random.

That is true of language in general.

Free will and determinism are definitions.

What would be the manifestations in our human existence? If it can not be articulated then it remains the never ending philosophical debate over definitions.

One of Peacegirl's arguments was that knowing which it is and knowing it is her definition would affect humanity for the better. It would change our behavior.

Either way we make choices.


Din;t see where Lincoln or AE comes into the debate.

 

[BSilvEsq]

The universe at bottom is quantum indeterministic, so there is that.

In an interview published at https://www.scientificamerican.com/...d-t-hooft-says-quantum-mechanics-is-nonsense/, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft offers a compelling critique of the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

't Hooft argues that accepting the theory as inherently probabilistic and ultimately mysterious is a limiting mindset. According to 't Hooft, the belief that quantum mechanics can never provide more than statistical answers has led science down a narrow path.

Instead, 't Hooft urges researchers to take a philosophical and intellectual step back—to question the assumptions underlying modern physics and imagine what the fundamental laws of nature might look like without starting from quantum mechanics. "We will understand," he insists, rejecting the idea that the quantum world is forever beyond our full comprehension. In that regard, 't Hooft calls for a deeper reexamination of what quantum mechanics actually is, rather than treating it as an unshakable foundation.

This is consistent with the fact that Quantum Theory, like every other attempt to explain the working if the universe is a metaphysical paradigm -- a modern version of Greek and Roman mythology, which similarly were believed to reflect a grand and true understanding of the universe until they were no longer viewed that way.

 

[pood]

This is consistent with the fact that Quantum Theory, like every other attempt to explain the working if the universe is a metaphysical paradigm -- a modern version of Greek and Roman mythology, which similarly were believed to reflect a grand and true understanding of the universe until they were no longer viewed that way.

Well, of course. This is the pessimistic meta-induction.

Yet you say this, but at the same time, you specify your basic beliefs as determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism. Why believe in any of that? Aren’t they just as likely to be wrong or misleading as anything else?

 

[BSilvEsq]

This is consistent with the fact that Quantum Theory, like every other attempt to explain the working if the universe is a metaphysical paradigm -- a modern version of Greek and Roman mythology, which similarly were believed to reflect a grand and true understanding of the universe until they were no longer viewed that way.

Well, of course. This is the pessimistic meta-induction.

Yet you say this, but at the same time, you specify your basic beliefs as determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism. Why believe in any of that? Aren’t they just as likely to be wrong or misleading as anything else?

Of course determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism "are just as likely to be wring or misleading as anything else."

I do not profess to have placed my faith in these "beliefs" based upon logic or any probability of truth.

If the universe is truly and entirely deterministic, I have placed my faith in these beliefs because that is what I was determined to do (unless and until I may be determined to do otherwise).

And, if I do have Free Will, I have placed my faith in these beliefs because doing so provides me with great serenity and peace -- both of which feel good to me.

Either way, I believe what I believe, and I respect the beliefs of others -- whether they are consistent or inconsistent with my beliefs. The only time I have difficulty with the beliefs of others is when they are subject to internal contradiction -- although even that does not necessarily rule out a belief as being consistent with reality, as we simply believe in the utility if logic without truly knowing if it is of value or something that prevents us from understanding reality. After all, we are all prisoners in Palto's cave.

 

[pood]

How about having no beliefs at all?

 

[pood]

This is consistent with the fact that Quantum Theory, like every other attempt to explain the working if the universe is a metaphysical paradigm -- a modern version of Greek and Roman mythology, which similarly were believed to reflect a grand and true understanding of the universe until they were no longer viewed that way.

Well, of course. This is the pessimistic meta-induction.

Yet you say this, but at the same time, you specify your basic beliefs as determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism. Why believe in any of that? Aren’t they just as likely to be wrong or misleading as anything else?

Of course determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism "are just as likely to be wring or misleading as anything else."

I do not profess to have placed my faith in these "beliefs" based upon logic or any probability of truth.

Then what do you base then on? Evidence? What’s the evidence? The world certainly appears at the classical scale to be deterministic — except evidently it is not at the foundational scale. As to stoicism and Buddhism, those are just personal preferences.

So what is left?

 

[pood]

Maybe there is no mind-independent objective reality?

 

[BSilvEsq]

How about having no beliefs at all?

As a practical matter, I doubt that it is humanly possible to have no beliefs at all. To lack any beliefs at all would require that someone be in a catatonic state with no internal thought activity.

When we take a breath, we do so based on a belief that the air is breathable. When we take a step, we do so based on the belief that gravity will preclude our flying into the air and that the solidity of the surface will preclude our falling to our death. These things may all be illusory, but we do believe them, nonetheless -- consciously or unconsciously.

Leaving the mundane and largely unrecognized beliefs to the deliberate and super-mundane philosophical and theological beliefs about the nature and operation of reality, there is no reason to select one belief over another, and not having any such belief it is a choice (illusory or real) that can be made. I simply choose (actually or illusorily) to select a belief that helps my psyche.

I can honestly say that I feel better about my life since adopting the beliefs that I have, and that is all the reason I need to maintain them -- unless and until I no longer do so.

 

[BSilvEsq]

This is consistent with the fact that Quantum Theory, like every other attempt to explain the working if the universe is a metaphysical paradigm -- a modern version of Greek and Roman mythology, which similarly were believed to reflect a grand and true understanding of the universe until they were no longer viewed that way.

Well, of course. This is the pessimistic meta-induction.

Yet you say this, but at the same time, you specify your basic beliefs as determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism. Why believe in any of that? Aren’t they just as likely to be wrong or misleading as anything else?

Of course determinism, stoicism, and Buddhism "are just as likely to be wring or misleading as anything else."

I do not profess to have placed my faith in these "beliefs" based upon logic or any probability of truth.

Then what do you base then on? Evidence? What’s the evidence? The world certainly appears at the classical scale to be deterministic — except evidently it is not at the foundational scale. As to stoicism and Buddhism, those are just personal preferences.

So what is left?

As I wrote (and you omitted from your quote of my post): "And, if I do have Free Will, I have placed my faith in these beliefs because doing so provides me with great serenity and peace -- both of which feel good to me." I suppose you could say that is Epicurean hedonism or possibly a form of utilitarianism -- both of which also are simply beliefs about the proper way to live.

 

[pood]

I can honestly say that I feel better about my life since adopting the beliefs that I have, and that is all the reason I need to maintain them -- unless and until I no longer do so.

So it’s all just wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and making feel-good chemicals pump into your brain.

 

[pood]

Anyhoo, if we are going down yet again the rabbit hole of free will/determinism, I suggest @BSilvEsq start a new thread. We are all over the map right now.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Maybe there is no mind-independent objective reality?

Something akin to Subjective idealism.

It is theoretically possible that there is no objective reality that is separate and apart from any observer’s perception -- a notion that has support within Quantum Theory, which posits, among other things, that the observer's observations are a component of the reality of the object of the observation.

Personally, I tend to believe that there is a reality — without regard to how it is observed. If that is the case, the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic without regard to any observer’s perception of the universe. The same would be true of processes within the universe.

As I see it, if the universe is deterministic, an observer’s perception that the universe is probabilistic does alter the deterministic nature of the universe. If the universe is deterministic, an observer’s perception that the universe is probabilistic is, itself, a perception that is determined by prior causes and could not be any other perception. Indeed, if the universe is deterministic, all “perceptions” are nothing more than illusory effects of prior causes.

By the same token, if the universe is merely probabilistic (and not fully deterministic), an observer’s perception that the universe is deterministic does not alter the probabilistic nature of the universe. It simply means that the observer is mistaken.

 

[BSilvEsq]

I can honestly say that I feel better about my life since adopting the beliefs that I have, and that is all the reason I need to maintain them -- unless and until I no longer do so.

So it’s all just wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and making feel-good chemicals pump into your brain.

I believe that is deliberate distortion of what I wrote, and I have a difficult time believing you do not know that. If you want to have a serious discussion, that is great. If you just want to hurl insults, I suppose that is your prerogative, but it does nothing to advance the discussion, and it says much about the author.

 

[pood]

I can honestly say that I feel better about my life since adopting the beliefs that I have, and that is all the reason I need to maintain them -- unless and until I no longer do so.

So it’s all just wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and making feel-good chemicals pump into your brain.

I believe that is deliberate distortion of what I wrote, and I have a difficult time believing you do not know that. If you want to have a serious discussion, that is great. If you just want to hurl insults, I suppose that is your prerogative, but it does nothing to advance the discussion, and it says much about the author.

But if hard determinism is true I have no choice in what I write, right? So why get all worked up about it? Oh, right — you have no choice.

If you want to discuss this start a new thread.

 

[pood]

Your latest response to me reveals you don’t actually believe the position you advocate.

 

[pood]

Such utter, fatuous nonsense,

 

[BSilvEsq]

I can honestly say that I feel better about my life since adopting the beliefs that I have, and that is all the reason I need to maintain them -- unless and until I no longer do so.

So it’s all just wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and making feel-good chemicals pump into your brain.

I believe that is deliberate distortion of what I wrote, and I have a difficult time believing you do not know that. If you want to have a serious discussion, that is great. If you just want to hurl insults, I suppose that is your prerogative, but it does nothing to advance the discussion, and it says much about the author.

But if hard determinism is true I have no choice in what I write, right? So why get all worked up about it? Oh, right — you have no choice.

If you want to discuss this start a new thread.

There is a relatively famous parable about Zeno of Citium, the founder of Greek Stoicism. According to legend:

Zeno built his philosophy of apatheia on a determinism which a later Stoic, Chrysippus, found it hard to distinguish from Oriental iatalism. When Zeno, who did not believe in slavery, was beating his slave for some offense, his slave pleaded, in mitigation, that by his master’s own philosophy he had been destined from all eternity to commit this fault; to which Zeno replied, with the calm of a sage, that on the same philosophy he, Zeno, had been destined to beat him for it.​

Will Durant, “The History of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Great Philosophersof the Western World,” at 76 (1926) (First Simon & Schuster Paperback Ed. 2005).

So, yes, I get that if hard determinism is true, you had no choice but to be rude. And, I am not the least worked up about it. I am just making an observation about your comment that would have relevance if, as you seem to believe, you choose your words freely.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Your latest response to me reveals you don’t actually believe the position you advocate.

Again, that is either because you lack the ability to believe otherwise, or because you volitionally form your beliefs is a careless manner. The former is understandable. If the latter is true, one would think you would want to do better than that.

I do believe the position I advocate -- which is not a position of how the universe actually operates (as you and others seem to mistakenly believe), but a philosophical discourse about the logical ramifications of determinism being true.

I do not profess to know anything about the true nature of the universe. I am simply exploring the logical ramification of different beliefs.

Despite my lack of knowledge of how the universe truly operates (which I submit no human truly knows), I have a belief that it operates a certain way -- or, at least, I have a paradigm that is comforting to me.

Rather than focus your responses on insulting the poster, it would be more productive if you would address the substance of the posts.

Again, you may have no choice but to write the way you do. If you do have such a choice, however, then your choices leaving something to be desired.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Maybe there is no mind-independent objective reality?

Something akin to Subjective idealism.

It is theoretically possible that there is no objective reality that is separate and apart from any observer’s perception -- a notion that has support within Quantum Theory, which posits, among other things, that the observer's observations are a component of the reality of the object of the observation.

Personally, I tend to believe that there is a reality — without regard to how it is observed. If that is the case, the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic without regard to any observer’s perception of the universe. The same would be true of processes within the universe.

As I see it, if the universe is deterministic, an observer’s perception that the universe is probabilistic does alter the deterministic nature of the universe. If the universe is deterministic, an observer’s perception that the universe is probabilistic is, itself, a perception that is determined by prior causes and could not be any other perception. Indeed, if the universe is deterministic, all “perceptions” are nothing more than illusory effects of prior causes.

By the same token, if the universe is merely probabilistic (and not fully deterministic), an observer’s perception that the universe is deterministic does not alter the probabilistic nature of the universe. It simply means that the observer is mistaken.

By happenstance or fait (or maybe a big data algorith), the following popped up on my FB feed today:



It is worth reading.