free will vs natural determinism

[FunctionalAtheist]

Free will the ability to act of ones own violation with out out side forces acting upon you.

Where as determinism is an out side force acting upon your ability to make decisions.

Ergo contradiction.

Then wouldn't it really depend on what the self is and how it develops?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That's a good formulation of the notion. But one might ask what is this "will" that is able to act of its own volition?

The more one examines the question, the more absurd the notion becomes.

It would be the same 'will' that puts one foot in front of the other when it wants to move, or pulls in oxygen to breath.

 

[Iti oj]

Then wouldn't it really depend on what the self is and how it develops?

Yes definitely.

 

[Skwim]

Are free will and natural determinism in contradiction?

Don't know what natural determinism is, but in the freewill v. determinism debate determinism, particularly hard determinism, is taken to mean that all actions are caused, in effect meaning that the will has to do what it is caused to do; ergo no free will. The best "definition" of freewill" I've seen is "the ability to have done differently." Determinism says that no such ability exists. So as far as being contradictions, both cannot be right. I side with determinism.

 

[Iti oj]

I would like say yes but it cant be. They have to be both remain true or it would be absurd. So then free will is you becoming the determniner.

Can you pull a singularity and expand .

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Determinism is about causes, not a force.

So many make that error. Especially those who believe in inevitability implied by determinism.

But if it's about cause, then free will is eliminated by paradox. Even if I have 100% free will, I have some cause for my decisions, actions, or behavior, even if it's nothing more than I felt like it. Therefore free will is an oxymoron.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Don't know what natural determinism is, but in the freewill v. determinism debate determinism, particularly hard determinism, is taken to mean that all actions are caused, in effect meaning that the will has to do what it is caused to do; ergo no free will. The best "definition" of freewill" I've seen is "the ability to have done differently." Determinism says that no such ability exists. So as far as being contradictions, both cannot be right. I side with determinism.

And how can that be tested?

 

[Iti oj]

Don't know what natural determinism is, but in the freewill v. determinism debate determinism, particularly hard determinism, is taken to mean that all actions are caused, in effect meaning that the will has to do what it is caused to do; ergo no free will. The best "definition" of freewill" I've seen is "the ability to have done differently." Determinism says that no such ability exists. So as far as being contradictions, both cannot be right. I side with determinism.

Well said.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

So as far as being contradictions, both cannot be right.

And yet two completely contradictory theories are required to explain 'light,' to the extent that combining particle and wave are now fundamental to quantum understanding.

 

[Willamena]

I would like say yes but it cant be. They have to be both remain true or it would be absurd. So then free will is you becoming the determniner.

All it takes is for there to be a "you."

Which is a debatable point.

 

[Willamena]

But if it's about cause, then free will is eliminated by paradox.

Not at all. Free will has you as the cause.

Even if I have 100% free will, I have some cause for my decisions, actions, or behavior, even if it's nothing more than I felt like it. Therefore free will is an oxymoron.

That's not free will, it's... uncausation, which isn't even a word.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you go to either extreme they are a contradiction, but when you realize that we genetic predispositions, we are culturally trained to think in a certain way, but also that we are mindless drones, it seems very easy to realize that what we are left will is some individual will and some determinism pressing down on us.

 

[idav]

Can you pull a singularity and expand .

Freewill is to say you "hard determined" your choice, opening us up to its associated ramifications.

 

[outhouse]

It is and will remain free will, unless you can posit who or what else determines ones will, with credibility.

It is a play on imagination at this point, with only free will standing at this point.

 

[Etritonakin]

Certain things must be determined so that the free will of all can be expressed.

As all have an equal right to expression of their free will, all must willingly submit to that which which necessarily supersedes their will or determines certain things for them in some circumstances, in order to ensure free will for all.

The expression of free will by all must be limited to things which benefit all or, at the very least, harm none.

In other words, free will should not be allowed to destroy its foundation.

Free will has the potential to destroy everything and everyone. Therefore, how it should and should not be used must be determined.

This does not hinder free will, it frees the will of all from conflict and time wasted in conflict.

 

[Skwim]

And how can that be tested?

It's a matter of elimination of operatives. Consider; things happen in one of two ways, either they're caused or they're uncaused, and happen for no reason at all and therefore are absolutely random. So far the only place where absolutely random events are thought to occur is at the quantum level. This means that everything that happens on the super atomic level, the one on which we function, is caused. And this leaves causation as the operating engine of our will. Our will does what it does because it's caused to do so; it is not free to do any differently. So the notion that it can do differently, an act of freewill, stands in opposition to the reality that it can't.

And yet two completely contradictory theories are required to explain 'light,' to the extent that combining particle and wave are now fundamental to quantum understanding.

So what? And actually, wave–particle duality is a single theory,

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It's a matter of elimination of operatives. Consider; things happen in one of two ways, either they're caused or they're uncaused, and happen for no reason at all and therefore are absolutely random. So far the only place where absolutely random events are thought to occur is at the quantum level. This means that everything that happens on the super atomic level, the one on which we function, is caused. And this leaves causation as the operating engine of our will. Our will does what it does because it's caused to do so; it is not free to do any differently. So the notion that it can do differently, an act of freewill, stands in opposition to the reality that it can't.

So what? And actually, wave–particle duality is a single theory,

1) So it's not a scientific conclusion. The idea that random events only occur at the quantum level PRESUMES that my decisions couldn't have been anything other than what they are. So again, how can this be tested?

2) Em, wave-particle duality is a single theory NOW. It is a synthesis of two completely separate AND mutually exclusive theories. The so-what is that the 'simplest' explanation for what appears to be mutual exclusion is often a reformulation of underlying concepts, rather than choosing between them. In other words, given our current understanding of free will and determinism, the two may seem to be mutually exclusive. But perhaps it's our current understanding of these concepts that are inaccurate. Concepts seldom represent reality 100%.

The development of the self may be 100% deterministic. I am what I am and could be nothing else. However, now that I am what I am, any choice I make is a result of ME, not something external. If multiverse is correct, it would be 100% in contradiction to the idea that I could not have chosen other than I did.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know what I'm talking about, just thinking and looking to learn.

 

[idav]

And how can that be tested?

My best guess is test for parallelism like entanglement within the brain. I think they already are with what they do with quantum computing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are free will and natural determinism in contradiction?

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but "natural determinism" is in contradiction with the central theory of nature within the physical sciences. The most accurate, successful, and vital theory of how things happen (more precisely, how they "move", but in the sense of mechanics and therefore causality, effects, interactions, results, etc., are all integral to this theory) is probabilistic, not deterministic. Determinism has been attacked/undermined mainly from two different areas of the sciences: quantum physics and complex systems. It is currently incompatible with modern physics and problematic for all sciences which seek to model natural phenomena.

But one might ask what is this "will" that is able to act of its own volition?

One might respond that "will" describes the ability of something else (e.g., a person) to act of that something else's volition. Humans (I'm leaving out other animals for simplicity) have a sense of self distinct from their physical existence even when they know that this "sense" is part of this existence. Unlike every other species on the planet, they also have language. The ability to speak in the first person and the ways in which different languages encode personhood (clitics, conjugation, pronouns, adfixation, etc.) are, despite their differences, universal in that there is no language in which a person is incapable of communicating a first-person perspective. Even more important, there is no languages which lacks the capacity to communicate the first-person perspective of epistemic states ("I think/believe/know/wonder", δήπου, εἰκότως, -laam, wellicht/allicht, etc.).

This reflects the impossibility of humans to conceptualize themselves apart from their sense of "self" ("I/me") such that they can e.g., reflect upon their current mental state and judge it to be faulty or flawed. This is perhaps somewhat notoriously stated by whom I forget with something like "no language has a present tense verb meaning "I think incorrectly". That is, while we may acknowledge we were (in the past) wrong, or doubt whether our current belief(s) are correct, we do not ever describe our current reasoning process as faulty because this would require us to reflect upon our current mental state. However, our current mental state encapsulates everything we could possibly reflect upon at any moment. If, for example, I were to react to some comment by some idiot on Fox News with the thought "what a moron" I can't simultaneously reflect upon the basis for that mental state which defined all that I have in mind (and in particular that the Fox News commentator is a moron) and have that mental state.

The point is that while it is perhaps impossible to define things like consciousness or the "mind" (as these involve defining that which defines), this doesn't mean we can't assert things about the reality an nature of such phenomena. Free will is the ability for whatever it is we conceptualize automatically as "I/me" (and are incapable of not conceptualizing ourselves of or even being conscious of doing so, as this conceptualization is or is inseparable from consciousness) to "cause". Another way to phrase this is to refer to mental causation or the emergent property of "self" or "I"/me" from the brain to determine the brain's state (self-determination).

And how can that be tested?

One way would be to look at whether we live in a deterministic cosmos. It would appear we don't.

Even if I have 100% free will, I have some cause for my decisions, actions, or behavior, even if it's nothing more than I felt like it. Therefore free will is an oxymoron.

This is to argue that free will can't exist because we are capable of free will. In other words, free will involves (at the least) the ability to make decisions or perform actions such that we could have done otherwise. For any decision or action, the exercise of free will is to determine that, for whatever reasons, we should decide or act in a particular way. That there are reasons for our decisions/actions simply implies that, granted free will exists, we exercise it based upon a state of affairs in which we can exercise it. There is no free will without some capacity to weigh wants, desires, one's environment, etc., and "choose" some course of action or make some decision. You're conflating the context in which free will is exercised for its cause.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's a matter of elimination of operatives. Consider; things happen in one of two ways, either they're caused or they're uncaused

They're also either "slijge" or not "slijge". Without a model of causality, to assert anything about how causes determine what happens is simply to assert that things happen in some way or another.

Causality, in classical conceptions and many modern, requires spatiotemporal connection. When one knocks over a glass of milk and spills it upon the floor, one has to actually connect with the glass or with something that connects with the glass (like the table upon which it sits). This view of causality is inconsistent with physics. There are effects between quantum systems that cannot be explained by spatiotemporal connections and also do not unfold linearly (the "effects" of behavior of theses systems is caused at the same time as its "effects").

Likewise, just as it is always possible to assert that x causes y there always exist some (infinite) set of x1, x2,...xn causes that can also be said to cause why. As a simple example, consider sexual behavior as understood in the context of evolutionary theory. Animals have sex ultimately because the impetus to reproduce isn't just an evolutionary advantage it is practically the definition of evolutionary advantage (fitness functions are gauged on the basis of the production of offspring, thus any without the impetus to reproduce no evolutionary advantage matters). However, when people have sex they aren't motivated a thought like "this seems like a great opportunity to increase the chances my genetic code is passed on to feature generations rather than their removal from the gene pool". More likely, a person finds another person attractive and sexual proclivities, drives, and so forth combine with an opportunity to satisfy these. However, both evolutionary theory and the fact that e.g., an individual finds someone attractive at a party and ends up going home with them are causes for resultant sexual acts. Nor need we stop here: we could refer to the level of alcohol both individuals had at the party, the person who introduced the two, the fact that the party was held, and on and on. Even in a deterministic world there is no linear set of causes and resulting effects.

So far the only place where absolutely random events are thought to occur is at the quantum level.

Quantum physics is absolutely NOT random. It is quintessentially not random or it would be of no use to physicists. It has a very well-defined probabilistic, algebraic, and logical structure/formulation. It is simply not deterministic. To see the difference, imagine flipping a fair coin in a non-deterministic "world". There is no way of knowing whether or not you will get heads or tails. However, those are still the only two options. This is more random than is QM, because all outcomes aren't equally likely in QM as in the coin example.

This means that everything that happens on the super atomic level, the one on which we function, is caused.

Quantum mechanics is capable (as much as any theory of physics is, and certainly when it comes to classical physics) of explaining everything at the "super atomic level". Classical physics fails at the subatomic level, but quantum physics doesn't fail at super atomic level. Classical physics is a tool. It is flawed, we know it is flawed, and we use it because it tends to work pretty well for most applications. It's a bit like saying pi is 3.14. It isn't. However, we seldom need to use a better approximation.

So what? And actually, wave–particle duality is a single theory,

Rather, it's nonsense that borrows from classical physics terminology to combine two mutually exclusive concepts into one nonsensical notion. In truth, QM an extensions there of really tell us that there are neither waves nor particles.