That's exactly the dilemma. You need to be able to define free will, which of itself is a difficulty, ie every action is preceded by thought, which itself may be a result of unconscious desires unknown to us. Unless we can separate the action from the thought can we determine free will? But lets think of it as a game of chess. Paradigm one would be the rules of the game, the pieces, the board all the variables and sets which are already defined. In that case, paradigm two would be the infinite combinations of unpredictable moves possible (without thought). However, in isolation neither is feasible and the probability of completing a game would be much more complicated. A combination of the two (with thought involved in the placement of pieces) on both sides, would reflect both the pattern (paradigm 1) and the free will (the moves would still be unpredictable and infinite to some extent). Again it depends on the definition of free will; one can separate freedom of action and freedom of will (they could, theoretically be mutually excusive, if our success in an action is determined by causes beyond our control, biological, social, psychological, etc). For example, the most common example of free will is moral responsibility. Do we have a choice where our moral actions are concerned? Those who advocate free will say yes, but what about causal sequences beyond our control? There is a true story about a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp who is raped by a guard. Fearful of discovery (since the Nazi regime was homophobic), the guard took the prisoner's cap. Knowing full well that coming to roll call without a cap means certain death with a bullet in the brain, the prisoner stole the cap of another prisoner. The next day, during roll call, the second prisoner was shot dead. Was the first prisoner moral? Did he make a choice to take the cap? Is this free will? What would you define as "moral" in such a case?
Well said. I'll add this though for sam: How you define concepts, and how they are in your mind are irrelevant. The whole point of scientific theory is to approach objectivity; to eliminate personal definitions, etc. If non-randomness indicates predictability to you, then you have to account for this: Predictability of random systems. Say, rolling a die. If determinism as defined by you [see above..] means actions 'belonging to' or 'taking part in' causal sequences, then what event would you exclude here? That is to say, describe an event that is a-historical, having no history and leaving no legacy. And you'll also have to explain how such an oddity could ever be known, as it could not, by definition, be observed.
Ah, but WHY the particle is where it is, is not part of the discusssion. That it was caused to be there is the question/issue. I think I addressed the uncertainty principle as it applies to predictability in my previous post.
Can you calculate this probability? Does it follow a pattern? Is it useful in a paradigm? What is your definition of determinism? PS I get the idea that we are on different wavelengths here.
???? Calculate what probability???? Given finite parameters, any probability can be calculated. p.s.: Paradigms are useless fictions... stay far away. I'm sure you've heard of oh, say, Christianity?? You cannot be serious. Within the past 15 minutes both myself and superluminal have provided nearly identical accurate definitions for you. Are you actually reading the posts or just tossing out your theories??
Well, I agree that it is a dilemma. One that has occupied philosophers for millenia. My personal opinion is that determinism as we've defined it here is correct. Everything is caused by something. But the cause ultimately can be traced back to fundamentally unpredictable quantum events. This fact, coupled with the nearly infinite number of interactions of cause and effect occurring all of the time, for all practical purposes, leaves free will intact. The fundamental unpredictability of the most basic elements of the universe should seal the argument. IMHO.
Of course it does. Did I somehow imply that it wouldn't? I'm just making the seemingly obvious statement that a particle (in the presence of as many variables as you care to choose) is where it is due to some combination of those variables. The "event" or future position/momentum of the particle is certainly related to the variables, but unpredictable in a well defined way (he he!) based on which particle attribute you are trying to quantify (position or momentum).
LOL Ooooh.. ad hominem, the crutch of those whose logic is weak. In any case, you seem to be confusing determinism, which is an epistemological concept, with free-will, which is an ethical concept. No doubt, the one affects the other. The key to understanding determinism in its proper, non-inevitabilist sense is to recognize this: causality is not bivalent. While you can, after the fact, say with confidence that D was caused by A and B and C, you cannot with any confidence say upon noting A, B and C that D. Predictability and patterns are entirely caused by our theoretical system. By organizing and observing, we create the pattern, the cause. Similarly, the seeming opposite, randomness, is also our creation. The opposite of light is not dark. Outside of our conceptual system there is no causality, nor is there randomness; there is just chaos.
