Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

It would include among an almost infinite number of things the fact that he learned how to count to 9 as a child in school.
Learning to play golf came later

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If humans are composed of the same atoms and molecules as everything else in the universe that acts on the golf ball, and all of those non human atom and molecules are not considered self determined, then what reason is there assume that the human variety are? If human matter walks and quacks like a non self determined duck, then there's no reason to assume that it’s not. It’s not up to me to prove that human matter is somehow special, that’s your task.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now that you have admitted that you have no logical reason to limit universal determinism we can have confidence that our actions are as they appear to be... our own. There is no logical reason to believe other wise.
What WE have achieved here is to take a limited philosophy that excludes the obvious and work out how to include it... well done every one...and determinism remains entirely valid to boot...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that's a big If. Dead humans may very well be equated with a golf ball but living ones...hmmm... now that's a tad different don't you think?

 

No, that does not answer the question. The question is what made him decide to play golf in the first place. I don't care how well he can play. Why does he play? Motive? Causality!

Therein lies the determinism......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That’s exactly what determinism is, a process that is limited to a specific outcome. There is no wiggle room for any element or entity that exists in a universal determined system. The golf ball has a destiny, the human has a destiny, they both will only act as the whole of the universe dictates, no ifs, ands, or buts. That’s the limits placed on all elements in a universal determined system, to introduce any exceptions would violate the premise of such a system.

The material behavior of an entity is irrelevant to the issue of universal determinism. Live human, dead human, teed golf ball or flying one, are all destined to adhere to a set of specific predetermined behaviors based on universal composition, that’s the aspect of the entities behaviors that are all the same.

 

and the destiny of the human is to learn how to self determine because if he doesn't he is as dead as the golf ball..no ifs no buts. How is that so hard to understand...?

You need to explain how you can limit the deterministic universe to your limited paradigm. Once you do or once you accept that you can not, your understanding of determinism will be closer to the mark...

so go ahead, let's learn something...

 

If cell phones are composed of the same atoms and molecules as everything else in the universe, and none of those atoms and molecules can themselves receive phone calls, then how can cell phones can cell phone calls?

 

Does causality necessarily imply determinism?

I'm inclined to think that you might be misconceiving the metaphysics.

 

I may be reading this wrong but I don't see you two as having opposing views.
It seems to me you both feel that the human are subsumed by a determined universe - that the human acting on the ball is determined, like any other event.

 

Exactly!....
The only distinction is that the human is predetermined by the universe to predetermine for himself..in a way that does not violate universal pre-determinism.
Which then leads on to the notion of co-determinism, human ( proactive) & universe (passive)
Where by the destiny of the golf ball and the human are co-dependent, and co-determined. ( as per the example given earlier)

 

The destiny of humans is to do what humans have been observed doing, which is acting according to the universal order that determines their destiny. There is no reason to assume that humans or any other universal entity are free to opt out of that universal order.

The simple answer is that the reason that everything we observe is the way it is, is because the determined nature of the universe has a limit as to the order, behavior, and composition of everything we experience. Get use to it, the universe has limits.

Because the properties of various atoms and molecules when properly configured by universal order allow for communication with cell phones. The same can be said for any material composition and associated behavior.

A universal determined reality treats the behavior of the human and the ball as a unified action, that is further unified with all other universal action. Mr. Quack seems to think that humans have the option of ignoring that unity and putting their own spin on what’s been universally determined.

 

Er no.

I go back to my original computer program analogy. You are essentially saying that a regular deterministic program - if given orders to make itself non-deterministic - will (somehow, magically) just do so. That giving it orders to do something it cannot do imbues it with the ability to do it.

 

So why not say that properly configured neural systems allow for weighing evidence, making decisions and displaying "willful" behavior?

I sense that where we disagree is in how we would interpret your words "universal order". I don't necessarily conceive of those words implying a precise one-to-one mapping of past states (especially distant ones) onto present and future states. I'm not convinced that the universe really operates that way.

 

Noone has an issue with "willful" behaviour being a manifestation of the universe, though.
The only thing at issue is whether, and to what degree, that behaviour is "free".

Nor am I, but then we are not discussing the universe as it really is, but rather the deterministic universe that has been premised / assumed in the thread title.
This necessitates cutting out from discussion and consideration any indeterministic mechanism that may be part of our reality.

In a causally deterministic universe things are predetermined, and if the same starting conditions were applied then the life of the universe would play out exactly as they have done.

 

While it might be an argument against determinacy, it is an irrelevancy for the discussion at hand, which assumes the universe is deterministic.

 

I can't see why: predetermination means that it is set in stone from the moment is it predetermined.
With a causally deterministic universe that moment is the initial starting conditions.

Because all human activity is already part of the predetermined course of events, at best humans can come to a hypothesised scenario of an outcome should they opt not to act in a certain way.
But this hypothesised scenario is, as has been mentioned numerous times in other threads, by more than one person, merely a counterfactual alternative to that which has been predetermined.
We are limited in what we know of sufficiently complex systems, so we can not know in advance what is predetermined for those systems.
But our lack of knowledge of that does not negate it being predetermined, nor our actions being part of that predetermination.

No, the decision is already predetermined.
The starting conditions of the system (human + golf ball, in this scenario), if deterministic, would result in only one possible predetermined course of events.
The human decision, whether to leave the golf ball or not, would be predetermined from the start.
The human "self-determination" is just a subset of the overall mechanism at play.

In a system that includes humans (or any other self-determined system) it is wrong to consider the activity of the golf-ball as being predetermined if you are not considering every influence on that golf-ball.
I.e. one can not look at a free-floating golf-ball and consider it continuing along its current trajectory as being the predetermined course of events if the human then comes along and alters that trajectory.
The predetermined course of events is the one that happens, not the ones that could have happened but didn't.
And to consider those alternatives as being predetermined leads to your confusion.
So in your example it is wrong to say that the human has the potential to change what is predetermined for that golf ball.
If something is predetermined it can not be changed.
If something can be changed then it is not predetermined.
And the causally deterministic universe is predetermined.
Determinism is the idea that a given input leads to a given output.
An input can not lead to one of many possible outputs, but just one possible.
I.e. no probability functions, no quantum mechanics, no randomness.
If you apply the laws of the universe to input X you get output Y, always get output Y, and can get nothing but output Y.
So if you start with conditions X you are predetermined to get Y.

 

I understand and I see now my error. I was trying to explore the part which asks if free will might be possible in a deterministic world.

Of course then the answer is that if free will exists it suggests a non-deterministic aspect to determinism? But then of course the question itself makes no sense. Might as well just ask if the world is deterministic or not. The free will part is irrelevant altogether, no?

 

Good grief, is this thread still going? I'm submitting from the reply box at the bottom as if it were to the general topic itself, even if the Machine should instead assign it as if addressing a specific poster or the last poster or whatever labyrinth mess the protocol follows.

Incompatibilism pre-conditionally entails selecting or formulating understandings of free will that are antagonistic to determinism.

The category of incompatibilism outputs or subsumes at least three conflicting views: (1) There is determinism, but no free will. (2) There is free will, but no determinism. (3) There is nether determinism nor free will.

That the concept of incompatibilism harbors such internal incoherence is an indicator that its function is to generate endless controversy which can never resolve itself. Incompatilism is not a thought-orientation territory for pursuing a resolution to a problem since it is the very source of the problem. ("Just remove the thorn, idiot, instead of treasuring it like a holy relic. The thorn is what's causing the pain, distress.")

On the flip side, compatibilism becomes an unnecessary label once the folly of incompatibilism is dismissed. You don't need the fix-it tool of "no incongruity" if "incongruity" was an invented and garbled fabrication from the outset.

Free will does not refer to being liberated from your own identity or the regulating constraints of your own psychological and bodily characteristics which make you a distinct entity. You wouldn't exist to begin with if you were that free from (devoid) of such organization, of governing form.

Free will does not mean being unfettered from the historical sequence of your own past states and how each limits the next in terms of possibility. You would have no set of traits/properties persisting over time constituting a developing personality and a human being to begin with if you were anarchic.

The "free" adjective simply denotes NOT being under the control of, coerced, or obstructed by other (usually) rational agents in terms of what otherwise would be decisions and actions outputted by you according to your own current nature. But free will is not absolute (always applicable and immune to relationships) -- it is contingent upon the circumstances. (Like a loonie holding a gun to your head and demanding that you eat a raw snail you don't realize is infested with Angiostrongylus cantonensis.)

Free will does not designate unpredictability. If you deviate from your norm in the context of choice and behavior, that's still falling out of the nature of who you currently are -- in response to either internal or external events (or both). What's key is that the caprice wasn't forced upon you by a deliberating or random-affecting outsider -- that you could voluntarily accept or reject the influence.

You are autonomous: Generating your own thoughts, conclusions, and behavior. You are not a puppet dependent upon an overarching puppet-master (universe) to externally, specifically provide your physiological and psychological movements. The principles abstracted from general cosmic tendencies are not puppeteering you; and some godlike plan from the outset which later events are algorithmically or deterministically obeying is not puppeteering you. "Something bigger than you" is not locally dropping down from its indifferent grandeur to precisely manipulate you as if it was intentional, conscious, and intelligent itself. Your body actually contains all the collaborating "components" it needs to be autonomous.

Indeterminism does not support or facilitate free will since "randomness" would just be another external intruder compromising the tendencies and values of your orderly system as an autonomous being. However, "identity" for a complex organism entails changes over time, especially as it matures physiologically and mentally. The latter expectedly unfolds as part of the inherent nature of the living thing. Whereas a programmable organism like a human additionally entails the potential of acquiring unexpected alterations in the future. Such applies to gradual or even sudden modifications of identity due to extrinsic happenings, where you could pursue interests and make judgements you would not have in an earlier era. Thus, if there was legitimate "chance", it could contribute unpredictability to your overall life. But what decisions fall out of your biological processes (will) pertain to who you are during the general time period in which they were generated. (Your identity is arguably stable and non-mutable for significant intervals -- barring substance abuse, insanity, etc creating a roller coaster ride or sudden, radical shifts.)

A belief that prior evolution and matter interactions across the world produced what/who you are (homo sapiens sapiens, born with this body, acquiring this type personality, etc) and that such accordingly deprives you of free will is exuberantly nonsensical. If you could be someone or something else then you would not exist. The very assertion of "you could have been someone or something else" rides either unknowingly or covertly on the notion that you have an essence prior to and independent of this specific body and its psychological characteristics. For you to exist at all means being THIS _X_ and what happened beforehand in the world establishing and "setting" who you are, THIS _X_.

"Will" is you having the capacity to be reflective, intentional and having the power to "bring about" once you exist, and "free" does not concern you lacking an origin anymore than you could be free of a regulating and constrictive form and still exist.

Once you exist you operate according to your own template when you are not coerced to do otherwise. (As astonishing as it may seem, if you decide not to cross a stream of hot lava that is actually your brain producing such a choice according to your inherent and current nature -- not the mystical deterministic bogeyman which pervades the cosmos taking an interest in you and yielding the judgement for you.)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Love the Avatar!