Does Anyone Practice Determinism?

[Willamena]

When we make a decision we know the choices, therefore we know it whether or not it happens.

The options (as opposed to 'choices') are rarely known, as in the case of acting on preferences or out of habit.

I disagree.

 

[idav]

The options (as opposed to 'choices') are rarely known, as in the case of acting on preferences or out of habit.

I disagree.

Granted ignorance won't make for very good decisions. Choices are limited to physical laws but take the game billiards. Whether a ball can go in the left or right pocket, as a choice, would both be mathematical deterministic certainties.

 

[Willamena]

Choices are limited to physical laws but take the game billiards.

Ah! The example David Hume used to debunk determinism. Well done.

Whether a ball can go in the left or right pocket, as a choice, would both be mathematical deterministic certainties.

That's not a choice, but an option of "whether...." left or right pocket.

A choice would be, "Watch me sink..." left or right pocket.

Mathematical certainties are made by symbols, like 1, 2 or 3, not by probability.

 

[idav]

Ah! The example David Hume used to debunk determinism. Well done.


That's not a choice, but an option of "whether...." left or right pocket.

A choice would be, "Watch me sink..." left or right pocket.

Mathematical certainties are made by symbols, like 1, 2 or 3, not by probability.

Even with probability, the ball going into any given pocket is mathematically certain, given the exact proper hit. The knowledge of the non-chosen pocket would be known even if it didn't happen. That's not like gambling, it's a choice pending the proper shot, with full knowledge of how it could have occurred otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

Even with probability, the ball going into any given pocket is mathematically certain, given the exact proper hit. The knowledge of the non-chosen pocket would be known even if it didn't happen. That's not like gambling, it's a choice pending the proper shot, with full knowledge of how it could have occurred otherwise.

I am not skilled at maths, but even I can see that probability and certainty are contrasts.

What you describe as "the exact proper hit," I call luck.

 

[Nakosis]

A choice isn't actually synonymous with an option. Being a choice implies that you are already made. You're a has-been. People are talking about you in the past tense. Options, on the other hand, have the whole world of possibility in front of them. They are here, in the present.

Free will is the ability to choose among two or more options.

I disagree, not strongly though. As I read the definition of "choice" of itself there is no tense. For example "I made a choice" or "I will make a choice". Tense is determined by other words in the sentence. However, I've no objections to using options.

That's not technically correct. Determinism doesn't involve will, but it doesn't eliminate options or choosing. The "will" that is removed from the picture is, to put it plainly, action attributed to conscious agency: you (and me). A computer program, for instance, can choose among two or more options. But it doesn't do so willfully. And a person choosing out of habit, preferences, or randomness also doesn't employ will.

I'm referring to free will...
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Again, that's not quite right: indeterminism isn't about choices. Determinism is the idea that each event is caused by what came before, indeterminism says that not all things are caused in that way. Understand that causes are not synonymous with choices.

I never implied causes were synonymous with choices. Otherwise I don't understand your point. Except maybe if it makes more sense to you I suppose it could be reworded to use option instead of choice.

Indeterminism is evidenced by elusive precise measurements ("We assume that reality itself is exact but that we are just not capable of measuring it exactly.") and unpredictability.

This is the definition I'm using for indeterminism...

Definition of indeterminism 1a : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes

 

[Willamena]

I disagree, not strongly though.

I wasn't strongly convinced by my argument there, either.

 

[Skwim]

This is the definition I'm using for indeterminism...

Definition of indeterminism 1a : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes

But if, as you say, there are antecedent causes then how can the will not be determined by and be free of them?

.

 

[Nakosis]

But if, as you say, there are antecedent causes then how can the will not be determined by and be free of them?
.

Abstract thought and imperfect recall and perception.

For example say I thought the light was green but it was actually red. So I made a choice based on something that hadn't actually happen previously.

I would probably add not cause by antecedent external causes. Maybe that's cheating...

Free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

The ability of the self to decide as to what action to take.

So free will is not free "will" but the ability for the self to consciously make a choice free of external antecedent causes. So our choices can be cause by external antecedent causes but is not necessitated by them.

That's my argument. I don't like to equivocate the terms but, depending on how free will and determinism are meant, neither are necessarily problems for this.

 

[Skwim]

Abstract thought and imperfect recall and perception.

For example say I thought the light was green but it was actually red. So I made a choice based on something that hadn't actually happen previously.

But your particular thought process upon seeing the light determined (caused) your reaction. That the color of the light wasn't what you thought it was is immaterial.

Free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I think that's far better, although one's own discretion must have had a reason for being what it was, and not something else, and whatever the reason is functions as its cause. You act the way you do because. . . .

The ability of the self to decide as to what action to take.

Sorry, but just because the cause, your "self to decide," resides in you doesn't mean such deciding isn't caused to be what it is and not something else. It is!

.

 

[Nakosis]

But your particular thought process upon seeing the light determined (caused) your reaction. That the color of the light wasn't what you thought it was is immaterial.

The point was that it was internally caused.

I think that's far better, although one's own discretion must have had a reason for being what it was, and not something else, and whatever the reason is functions as its cause. You act the way you do because. . . .

Of an internal cause. Basically implying that the cause of action need not be a prior external cause. One could even imagine a light being there when there was none. So no prior external cause is necessary, the action was caused entirely internally.

Sorry, but just because the cause, your "self to decide," resides in you doesn't mean such deciding isn't caused to be what it is and not something else. It is!

The point is that the cause can be internal. We still need to be able to consciously influence that cause. Which we may disagree on but I think we can. It's something we can learn to do. That is one of the basic points of Buddhism. Learning to take control of your thoughts and desires. Once we learn to manipulate these, we can consciously influence the choices we make.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am so sorry for this late reply, it never showed in the alerts though.

I didn't say there was no beginning. I said it is impossible to explain matter and energy without a cause. If there is no God, what is the cause?

Now of course there is a cause for matter and energy, it is just not a known thing. Why must you assert that a god is the cause though? It can be any number of things or just remain an absolute unknowable.

Again, you must assume a time line for matter and energy.

I also do not need to assume a time line, since time is a vector when analyzed through physics. It is a product if not necessary extent of the cosmos. The cosmos had a beginning and that is all there is to it, making a god claim about it is just nonsensical since it requires proof along with a definition of a god.

There is no evidence for the universe not having a beginning.

I am very sure you have misread my earlier statements.

It is pure logic, if there is a beginning, there must be an explanation.

That is not logic at all. If there is a beginning there may never be an explanation, if this was the case then murder mysteries would not exist. You are also using the word "explanation" in a dualistic since as you are also claiming that you know what the explanation must lead to.

Because science can't explain how something comes from nothing, the only explanation is God, the creator of everything, created matter and energy.

God of the gaps. You are obviously ignorant of the sciences.

We did not know how all of nature worked and ascribed it to gods and now we do. Just because somebody does not know anything it does not mean a god.

On top of this is that it is easier to argue that there are multiple gods that created the universe or that it is merely a natural causation. All you have done is choose the most unlikeliest answer in the bunch.

 

[idav]

But if, as you say, there are antecedent causes then how can the will not be determined by and be free of them?

.

By having an option of futures influencing the past.

 

[Skwim]

By having an option of futures influencing the past.

Just what is this "option of the futures" that's able to influence the past?

.

 

[idav]

Just what is this "option of the futures" that's able to influence the past?

.

The quantum eraser.
"Some have interpreted this result to mean that the delayed choice to observe or not observe the path of the idler photon changes the outcome of an event in the past.[better source needed] [18] Note in particular that an interference pattern may only be pulled out for observation after the idlers have been detected (i.e., at D1 or D2).[clarification needed]"
Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia

 

[Repox]

Now of course there is a cause for matter and energy, it is just not a known thing. Why must you assert that a god is the cause though? It can be any number of things or just remain an absolute unknowable..[/QUOTE]

If you analyze nature, you conclude, based on natural laws, there was a beginning. Laws of entropy in particular demonstrate there is a progression of events forward. A time line goes forward from the big bang. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing. God is the only explanation.

 

[idav]

Now of course there is a cause for matter and energy, it is just not a known thing. Why must you assert that a god is the cause though? It can be any number of things or just remain an absolute unknowable..

If you analyze nature, you conclude, based on natural laws, there was a beginning. Laws of entropy in particular demonstrate there is a progression of events forward. A time line goes forward from the big bang. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing. God is the only explanation.

Saying god did it doesn't really explain anything either. Pantheism is the only explanation.

 

[Repox]

Saying god did it doesn't really explain anything either. Pantheism is the only explanation.

Saying god did it doesn't really explain anything either. Pantheism is the only explanation.

It is an old argument which cannot be won by either side. Science cannot provide a theory with evidence for the beginning of the universe. People keep forgetting there is a time line to the universe and there is no scientific explanation for the beginning. How does something come from nothing? If God didn't do it, what is the explanation? This has been going on a very long time! Not even the most famous or accomplished scientist has a theory with evidence.

 

[JustWondering]

To me more than instinct, because unless damaged, people are born with a built-in conscience.

You contradict yourself. You first say self preservation is more then instinct (something in the brain) then contradict yourself saying it can be damaged.

We can freely choose to listen to one's conscience or not.

Multiple studies have shown that peoples decisions can be detected by a brain scanner before the person is conscious of making the decision. Research has also shown that some people are sociopaths and don't have what you call a conscience. Our sense of self and our choices are the product of biochemical reactions taking place in our brain in response to stimuli from our environment. Everything in our universe functions according to physical laws that cannot be ignored/broken. Since we are physical beings in this physical universe that functions by set rules, we could predict the future with the right knowledge. We could predict what someone would think and what choices they would make in the future if we had all the right data.

I also find Ecclesiastes 7:17 to be of interest because it mentions Not to be foolish and die before your time.
If pre-determined then one could die prematurely, so to me that leaves us with un-determined choices to make.

I do not recognize the bible as a credible source of information for anything.

 

[idav]

It is an old argument which cannot be won by either side. Science cannot provide a theory with evidence for the beginning of the universe. People keep forgetting there is a time line to the universe and there is no scientific explanation for the beginning. How does something come from nothing? If God didn't do it, what is the explanation? This has been going on a very long time! Not even the most famous or accomplished scientist has a theory with evidence.

It's theoriz d that the laws were different at the point of the singularity. Speculatively the singularity would be an environment in which creation is a natural law.