Determinism vs Free-Will; Mutually incompatable or not?

[peter]

On the one side we have determinism that says everything - everything - we do is pre-determined by the events that have gone before, such that the apparent 'freedom of choice' we seem to have in our decisions and actions is in fact illusory, and on the other we have 'free-will' [beloved of Christian philosophers in the arguments pertaining to the 'problem of evil'as well as many others] that holds that we are responsible for our own actions [unless judged mentally incapacitated beyond a point where such resposibility can be expected] and thus must stand or fall on the basis of what we do or do not do in life.

These two opposing viewpoints represent a significant problem in what can be expected of us as individuals and how a just society will deal with transgressors of the laws it lays down for the protection of it's citizens. As such it is of clear importance as to where society will stand in relation to these two opposing positions - and in respect of this such ideas as 'compatabalism' have been put forward which attempt to reconcile this dilema. Compatabalism puts forward a sort of 'soft-determinism' that runs as follows. The world is deterministic, but only to a degree. If there is nothing to impede my following of the 'determined motivations' that biology, psychology, anatomy, culture or whatever impose upon me, then I am free to follow those motivations. Thus I have free-will in following what is deterministically pre-determined as the path that I will follow.

Correct me if I'm wrong [and I probably am ] but doesn't this smack of sophistry, of constucting an argument to accomodate the facts that you have already pre-determined need accomodating. I happen to believe that we have free-will [although like most people there are a few things I'd like to kick my parents up the metaphorical arse for] - but I'm not in the blame game and take my own actions and failures in life squarely on my own shoulders. But even if we do accept the arguments of compatabalism as valid, does that not effectively but the kybosh on determinism as a belief system - and does that in itself not move us away from Dawkins on a sliding scale and toward Plato [perhaps no bad thing?]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Human beings have Free Will--we are able to make choices for ourselves and our choices are not predetermined in any way. I can send an e-mail to my boss right now saying that I am sick, get in the car, and go home...as long as I also choose to accept the consequences of that action but there is nothing which determined that action before I chose it. In fact, as an option it didn't even exist until I thought of it. Reality for humans can give the appearance of pre-determinism, though. If your marriage is disintegrating and your wife is cheating on you, if you choose to do nothing and she eventually leaves then it wasn't a case of "she was always going to leave you"; rather, it was a case of "choosing nothing results in the default option" or "you didn't make a choice so she did".

Physical objects without Free Will are subject to causality alone. The red pen on my desk will stay put until some external force acts on it, giving it a little momentum, and causing it to move to a new location. Even quantum objects are subject to causality even though causality at that level is weird and sometimes happens in reverse order--check the Loresraat.

[wayfriend]

Leibniz believed that free will and predestination were reconcilable. I don't have a brief synopsis handy, but here is a longer one.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Incompatible.

——————————————————————

Leibniz believed that free will and predestination were reconcilable.

FWIW (and I'm not hereby championing Leibniz uncritically), Predestination does not equate to Determinism in classically orthodox (pre-Reformation) Christian doctrine.

[Fist and Faith]

If we do not have free will, then X had no choice but to commit murder. And we cannot choose whether or not to punish X, or what form any punishment might take. X is "programmed" to kill, and we are programmed to come to whatever decision we come to regarding punishment.

If we have free will, then X freely chose to kill, and our debates regarding punishment are not a sham, but true decisions.

I'm not overly concerned with which way things really are. As somebody's sig says: If you can't tell the difference, then what difference does it make? But I find the notion that the free will I, and I assume most of you, feel is an illusion to be preposterous.

[Vraith]

+JMJ+

Incompatible.

——————————————————————

Leibniz believed that free will and predestination were reconcilable.

FWIW (and I'm not hereby championing Leibniz uncritically), Predestination does not equate to Determinism in classically orthodox (pre-Reformation) Christian doctrine.

Huh...I agree with the first. You can't have strict determinism and free will.
I disagree with the second and all the doctrines/arguments---predestination and determinism have precisely the same outcomes. No free will.

But I think we have bounded free will.
One has many, many---maybe even infinite, depending on the person and their history---possible choices that can be made. But an even larger infinity of choices that literally cannot be made...that are beyond us physically/materially and/or conceptually/intellectually, etc.
We may be able to pick anything between 0 and 1, [an infinite array of choices] but NOT be able to choose anything outside that range.

Those boundaries, however, will almost certainly continue to expand as we tinker with/expand ourselves.

Someone somewhere said something like "It is determined that we will feel like we have choices. Even when we understand that we don't, we have no choice but to act as if we do."

[Avatar]

I'm on the free will side too. I do think that certain things (like environmental factors) pre-dispose you toward certain actions or choices.

But to me the very essence of free will is that we have the ability to overcome those pre-dispositions, if we simply take the time to analyse our behaviour and intentions.

Following them simply because they are our "natural" (inculcated/pre-disposed) inclination is a form of determinism. But free will is possible. It only needs to be exercised.

--A

[wayfriend]

Just to take this down a rat-hole less traveled by ...

What do people mean by "free will" when they claim it is incompatible with predestination?

Do they mean an action without a logical cause? A random action? But Free will is not random, there is a purpose (and hence a cause) behind it, no?

Is it an action which cannot be forseen? If so, aren't we [mis]construing free will as ignorance?

If someone had knowledge of the future, and so knew what choice you would make (non-ignorance), does this really mean you had no choice? Or is it possible that a choice foreseen can yet be unconstrained and free?

After all, the knowledge (from the future) about what you would choose was learned from what you chose. The choice informed the knowledge, not the other way around. Therefore the knowledge could not have constrained the choice.

[Vraith]

What do people mean by "free will" when they claim it is incompatible with predestination?

I don't know what everyone means by it, just what I mean by it:
If anyone/thing/being knows, with absolute certainty, what the future will be, then that future is strictly predetermined, predestined, not-alterable by any means. Therefore no choice is possible at any point by anyone.

The "known future" wasn't determined by the choice---it was determined long before anyone/thing capable of choices [even theoretically/in principle capable] existed. [[even god had no choice---or chose not to take advantage of it. To really give people free will, s/he'd have had to make future unknowable even for self.]]

The choice didn't create the future--the "choice" was created/explicitly determined in advance by the past.

It isn't so much ignorance [especially in the more derogatory senses] as it is uncertainty and complexity interacting with OTHER peoples free-will. And it isn't that the future is unknowable because of our/other beings knowledge/limits---it is unknowable because it doesn't exist yet, even in theory/principle. That's the only kind of universe in which free will exits.
It's possible our universe is a different kind---for instance, one in which the future would be knowable if we weren't so stupid and/or had the right tools. [a fair number of physics peeps think that is so].

[Fist and Faith]

This is from Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind:

Although chemistry is theoretically based on physics and could be derived entirely from physics, this would be unwieldy and infeasible in practice, so chemistry has established its own rules and models. Similarly, we should be able to deduce the laws of thermodynamics from physics, but once we have a sufficient number of particles to call them a gas rather than simply a bunch of particles, solving equations for the physics of each particle interaction becomes hopeless, whereas the laws of thermodynamics work quite well. Biology likewise has its own rules and models. A single pancreatic islet cell is enormously complicated, especially if we model it at the level of molecules; modeling what a pancreas actually does in terms of regulating levels of insulin and digestive enzymes is considerably less complex.

Keeping that in mind, by determinism, I mean no choice we make is truly a choice. It's all physics. Atoms, molecules, subatomic particles, energy, etc, all interact in certain ways, and that's all there is to all of existence. There's nothing to our decisions other than that. Particle Group X and Particle Group Y bump into each other in a certain way, which sets off a chain reaction, and we "make a decision". But there's no possible outcome of the interaction of X and Y in those circumstances other than the one that comes about, because that's the only way those particles and groups of particles can interact in those circumstances.

By Free Will, I mean the mind, which is a grouping of particles under certain circumstances, is not ruled by the laws of particle physics.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

What do people mean by "free will" when they claim it is incompatible with predestination?

I don't know what everyone means by it, just what I mean by it:
If anyone/thing/being knows, with absolute certainty, what the future will be, then that future is strictly predetermined, predestined, not-alterable by any means. Therefore no choice is possible at any point by anyone.

The "known future" wasn't determined by the choice---it was determined long before anyone/thing capable of choices [even theoretically/in principle capable] existed. [[even god had no choice---or chose not to take advantage of it. To really give people free will, s/he'd have had to make future unknowable even for self.]]

The choice didn't create the future--the "choice" was created/explicitly determined in advance by the past.

That's classically Calvinist thinking; a framework which makes God a thing amongst things — a being amongst beings – a cause amongst causes.

[wayfriend]

Vraith: I can't see what you think Free Will is, in that post. I can only see what you think Determinism/Predestination is, and why Free Will can't be possible. But that's not what you think Free Will is. See?

Fist and Faith: Free Will is something not ruled by Particle Physics. What might it be ruled by? Is it unruled? What is 'ruled' here? Saying one thing that Free Will isn't is not the same as saying what it is.

- - - - - -

We're all familiar with the concept of knowing someone, and knowing what they will do in a certain situation. However, I think we all agree that by knowing this, nothing constrains that person to that choice. This doesn't rob the person you know of free will.

In fact, our knowledge of that person is imperfect, and they might defy our expectations. However, that's only a matter of degree. If we know the person better, this does not rob them of free will. If we know them even BETTER, this still does not rob them of free will. When we know them one miniscule iota better, and reach perfect understanding, are they then robbed of free will?

I don't see how.

[Vraith]

That's classically Calvinist thinking; a framework which makes God a thing amongst things — a being amongst beings – a cause amongst causes.

Heh...then maybe I'm and Atheo-Calvinist.
But I don't care WHAT god is---if my [and everyone's] choices are known in advance, then my free will is at best an illusion and at worst and intentional falsehood foisted upon me.

WF: free will is a conscious act/decision that is not wholly determined/destined by the past or present "state." [even some non-conscious MIGHT qualify---but conscious definitely would].
And that act creates the future.
There's only a little room for it in the rules of the universe as we understand them right now.
There's no room for it at all if there is any being---even in principle---that can know the future with certainty.

If you somehow "saw" the future, or went there and back...and in that future Vraith went to hell because he wrote this post...and you told me that, and I believed you, and I really, really, really didn't want to go to hell---IF there is strict determinism, if there is predestination, I would STILL write this post and go to hell no matter how well I knew that would happen and didn't want it too. I would have no choice, no free will---because the future exists, is known, is set.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

WF: free will is a conscious act/decision that is not wholly determined/destined by the past or present "state." [even some non-conscious MIGHT qualify---but conscious definitely would].
And that act creates the future.
There's only a little room for it in the rules of the universe as we understand them right now.
There's no room for it at all if there is any being---even in principle---that can know the future with certainty.

You've just successfully demonstrated why, if you're going to be Free, God cannot be a being amongst beings or a cause amongst causes.

[Fist and Faith]

Fist and Faith: Free Will is something not ruled by Particle Physics. What might it be ruled by? Is it unruled? What is 'ruled' here? Saying one thing that Free Will isn't is not the same as saying what it is.

Get off my back! What are you, my mother?

Yeah, very busy day (one sister had a party, and the other is driving up from NC so we're getting the house ready for guests), so I didn't answer very fully.

Maybe everything within the universe is ruled by cause & effect. All is just billiard balls bouncing around on the table. Knowing: how the interactions work; the arrangement of the balls at any given time; and the speed, direction of motion, and spin of every ball - you can calculate where every ball will be at any point in the future. Yeah, things are obviously much more complicated than that. A 3D setting. And much more than simply physical impacts. But you get the idea. So knowing: the position of every particle that makes up a person; the systems that the particles are grouped into; the rules for how all these particles and systems interact; etc - one can, as you go on to describe, know someone well enough to know what they will do in all situations.

Yes, that does rob the person of free will. If you can say, "Based on my absolute knowledge of this person, which includes: past experiences of this situation, both the experiences and the consequences, and how it all affected and was stored within the person's brain; experiences of every other type, all of which have helped make this person what s/he is; what was eaten today and for the past few days, which effect mood and alertness; how much sleep s/he has had...; etc; etc - I know that this person will now choose to ___." All that is billiard balls bouncing around. There are no choices being made.

Free will is the ability to truly choose. Being outside of simple (even when it's extremely complex) cause & effect, so that we cannot know each choice someone will make no matter how perfectly we know the person. Under certain circumstances, particles group together, and take on certain characteristics. One of those groups is the human brain. One of those characteristics is self-awareness. Another is being outside of cause & effect.

Exactly how much free will - how many things and types of things we actually choose - is an interesting topic. I love chocolate ice cream, but you can keep the strawberry. I love Bach, but most of Mozart's compositions don't do much for me. Blue is far and away my favorite color. These things are not under my control. They differ from person to person, but they feel like absolute truths for me. I cannot choose to prefer strawberry, Mozart, or red. (Or, at the risk of derailing the thread, to be homosexual.) It's not under my control.

But I will not believe that all the variables I mentioned above, and the millions more I don't mention, made it inevitable that I would pick Bach's Passacaglia & Fugue instead of BWV 540 last week. Or that, with three choices of breakfast cereal, all of which I like, I could not have chosen other than the one I did this morning. Or the exact moment I would get up and pour the coffee.

How can this be? How can we be other than billiard balls? It's just how things are. Every square millimeter of the universe operates - or is set up/has the potential to operate - outside of the law of cause & effect. How do we calculate when a specific radioactive particle will decay? To my knowledge, we don't. It's truly random. A radioactive substance has a half-life of ten minutes. Some particles decay within moments, and others are still radioactive centuries later. And nobody can calculate which will go when. Quantum physics is like that, right? Random. Chaotic. Uncertain. Things happen without cause. I haven't the slightest idea how it all works, but there's lots of room for unforced decisions.

[wayfriend]

Yes, that does rob the person of free will. If you can say, "Based on my absolute knowledge of this person, which includes: past experiences of this situation, both the experiences and the consequences, and how it all affected and was stored within the person's brain; experiences of every other type, all of which have helped make this person what s/he is; what was eaten today and for the past few days, which effect mood and alertness; how much sleep s/he has had...; etc; etc - I know that this person will now choose to ___." All that is billiard balls bouncing around. There are no choices being made.

You are missing something here, which, not being able to guess what it is, I cannot see how one follows from the other.

How precisely does knowing what someone will choose cause them to not have a choice? I do not see how; it's not clear from statements that affirm this without explaining it. It seems to me that what someone chooses is a necessary antecedent to knowing it (by which I mean, you can't know something until you have something to know), whereas you would have knowing it be an antecedent to choosing (the knowledge interferes with the choice before it is made). The latter seems quite illogical to me.

Leibniz's ideas of harmony apply here. His basic idea is, just as two different people can arrive at the same conclusion independently, choosing and knowing can be independent paths that reach the same place. It doesn't have to be that one arrives there first and then prevents the other.

[Fist and Faith]

The billiard balls on the table do not choose where to go. They go where the properties of the universe - laws of motion, inertia, angles at impact, etc - send them. It's all cause & effect. Simple rules, even if it's very complex due to many rules interacting at every moment. If we are nothing more than extremely complicated systems that work entirely under simple interacting rules of cause & effect, even if it looks much more complicated because of a greater number of rules, then there is no actual choosing. My choice of breakfast cereals and musical compositions is nothing more than arrangements of billiard balls when they stop moving.

[Vraith]

How precisely does knowing what someone will choose cause them to not have a choice?

It's not that knowing CAUSES the absence of choice.
A choicelessness/lack of free will/ certainty of the future is the EFFECT of determinism.
Determinism/predestination essentially means, by definition, that there is/cannot be even a "will," let alone a free one.
There isn't even knowledge or anyone to know, really, at the extreme...there are certain "fields" or "processes/events/interactions" that events and laws from the beginning of the universe determined would arise from certain [predetermined] arrangements of matter that would "call" "itself" "conscious" and "intelligent" and such [usually using a thing "they" would call "language," in which "words" would have "meaning."] These "conscious beings" would have [predetermined] processes and events affect them, and "attempt" to "prove" assumptions, causes, effects related to them, or at least "explain". "Inventing" or "discovering" "facts" and "knowledge" and "reason" [which "they" would "think" and "feel" were different from "emotions"]. But really just an effect [predetermined] of matter and energy following the paths it must.

[wayfriend]

Vraith, I believe in free will. I just don't see how an omniscient being who knows everything that I will do means that I don't have any.

I am disagreeing with the statement that predestination MUST mean that there cannot be free will.

I know what predestination means, and what it implies. Please assume so. I'm looking for an explanation of why it MUST mean free will is impossible. Stating over and over that it MUST mean that, without the reason WHY it means that, is just chasing tails.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Maybe everything within the universe is ruled by cause & effect. All is just billiard balls bouncing around on the table.

For objects which do not have a mind capable of making decisions this is completely accurate.

There is a slight difference in between having absolute knowledge about a person and extrapolating this into being able to predict what they will do and informing that person of your prediction. Informing them of your prediction is likely to cause them to choose differently, thus making your prediction false and your knowledge of them non-absolute. If, on the other hand, you write your prediction down and don't show them they may follow your prediction....or they may not.
This has always been the problem in many stories where the character(s) consult an Oracle archetype who knows all, sees all, and predicts the future with perfect accuracy. By telling the questioner then answers to their questions they risk changing what the person will do, which is why such characters usually have to answer only in vague generalities or bounce questions back onto the petitioner.

Quantum physics is like that, right? Random. Chaotic. Uncertain. Things happen without cause. I haven't the slightest idea how it all works, but there's lots of room for unforced decisions.

Chaos is merely order without any recognizable pattern. There is still a pattern underneath, guiding what is going on, but you may not be able to figure it out. It is possible for causality to be reversed and/or broken at the quantum level, though.

As far as events being set or determined...well, that is impossible even if you were somehow able to travel backwards in time. Think back on yesterday then suppose you could travel backwards 24 hours in time. Would yesterday go exactly like it did? For the most part probably so, but little things might change--the random dice rolls that led to events happening the way you remember them might not happen the same way again.