What are the implications of free-will, vs. the implications of determinism?

[amorphous_constellation]

First of all, this not a debate about whether or not there is free-will. This is instead a debate about what the actual implications are, of either system, weighed against the other. So if free-will exists, whether it is god-given, or just math-given, what does that really mean for how things play out, versus 'what it means,' if everything does what it does, and that we act like we act, if everything is determined

Because obviously, if everything is determined, then no latitude exists for how things could have been, or will be, and essentially, basically everything is just a process in a sort of math equation, which is slowly solving an equation for everything via the hourglass of time. Choice and randomality are a mirage

Obviously the opposite situation is at work, if you believe the opposite of that. If free-will exists, then arguably, randomality is the only thing at play anywhere.

Many people seem to take a stand somewhere in all of this, and imagine that things are either determined, or that there is free-will. But how does your view on that populate the other parts of your worldview? Because it seems to me like it must give stability to other parts of one's view set, such that removing it might crumble away other important things.

So if you changed your view about free-will, how would that affect those other things that you believe about life and the world etc.?

 

[The Hammer]

Many people seem to take a stand somewhere in all of this, and imagine that things are either determined, or that there is free-will. But how does your view on that populate the other parts of your worldview? Because it seems to me like it must give stability to other parts of one's view set, such that removing it might crumble away other important things.

So if you changed your view about free-will, how would that affect those other things that you believe about life and the world etc.?

I straddle both sides.

So changing from one to the other would be me more choosing one or the other, which seems unproductive.

But, the only one that would have any effect really would be a sort of hard determinism, which completely removes ones control over their actions, and circumstances.

 

[Secret Chief]

Must... not... post... must... not... post...

 

[Nakosis]

First of all, this not a debate about whether or not there is free-will. This is instead a debate about what the actual implications are, of either system, weighed against the other. So if free-will exists, whether it is god-given, or just math-given, what does that really mean for how things play out, versus 'what it means,' if everything does what it does, and that we act like we act, if everything is determined

Because obviously, if everything is determined, then no latitude exists for how things could have been, or will be, and essentially, basically everything is just a process in a sort of math equation, which is slowly solving an equation for everything via the hourglass of time. Choice and randomality are a mirage

Obviously the opposite situation is at work, if you believe the opposite of that. If free-will exists, then arguably, randomality is the only thing at play anywhere.

Many people seem to take a stand somewhere in all of this, and imagine that things are either determined, or that there is free-will. But how does your view on that populate the other parts of your worldview? Because it seems to me like it must give stability to other parts of one's view set, such that removing it might crumble away other important things.

So if you changed your view about free-will, how would that affect those other things that you believe about life and the world etc.?

Why not both? I suspect some things are determined, some things involve freewill.

Although, I think the mechanics behind the scene doesn't really matter. Regardless, we experience reality the same so the implications of either, nothing changes from what it is.
What I mean if you believe in free will, it's the same reality. If you believe in determinism, it's the same reality.

If you didn't believe in free will, then I'd think you'd feel such a reality couldn't exist. Same from the deterministic POV.

As you can't prove one or the other, you can only infer one or the other from other beliefs you have.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I’ve met determinist but I don’t think I’ve really met anyone who lives life as though everything they did was 100% determined.

That said; even if all physical existence were determined (a complex unfolding of cause-and-effect), we would have been determined to experience it as though we had free-will. Why? Because that’s how we experience it.

That means that whether physical existence were determined or not, we wouldn’t know it.

Yet, were we truly to act as though our actions were determined; what would that actually look like? I can’t actually imagine it… can you?

Humbly
Hermit

 

[wellwisher]

I’ve met determinist but I don’t think I’ve really met anyone who lives life as though everything they did was 100% determined.

That said; even if all physical existence were determined (a complex unfolding of cause-and-effect), we would have been determined to experience it as though we had free-will. Why? Because that’s how we experience it.

That means that whether physical existence were determined or not, we wouldn’t know it.

Yet, were we truly to act as though our actions were determined; what would that actually look like? I can’t actually imagine it… can you?

Humbly
Hermit

Much of Science, such as biology and evolution, uses casino math; probability and odds. If you accept that math as valid for science, then nothing is 100% sure, according to science, but rather there is always a margin of error, even if very small.

This makes determinism less than 100% certain, especially since you cannot control the outside environment, even if your internal motivation was 100% determined. I can compulsively want to eat watermelon; determinism. However, it is not in season, so I cannot fulfill that determinism. Margins of error create cross roads for will and choice; where determinism is not 100%. Casino science and math proves, will and choice, based on the uncertainty of determinism; gaps in determinism for will to appear.

Rational science, based on cause and affect, instead of odds, better supports the notion of determinism. The apple will fall to the earth and never float up into space. This is 100% of the data. On the other hand, because of the large number of connected, cause and affects, that may be behind any complex action, modeling this complexity in cause and affect, can lead to the need to solve many simultaneous equations, that cannot be easily solved with direct math reductions to a simple solution. This is common to engineering. There are math approximation methods that can help. But these add they own practical uncertainty; can only approach asymptotes. This practical problem will also leave uncertainty and room for choice and will.

The original Bible definition of will and choice had to do with making choices apart from natural instinct. Natural human instinct was the original operating system of the human brain. As an analogy, this would be like the operating system of a super computer. In terms of the goal and dream of AI; artificial intelligence. If a supercomputer was to become conscious, and choose a path apart from its original program, would this be due to will and choice? Determinism to form the first AI is not part of the original program unless by programming errors.

In terms of humans, the human ego evolved as a secondary center of consciousness. It was able to chose unnatural behavior, with respect to the primary center; inner self; natural brain. It was an extra POV in the neural matrix could go against the inner self program; cause and affect of instinct. This created a wildcard, that gave natural determinism margins of error; will and choice.

 

[Quintessence]

I’ve met determinist but I don’t think I’ve really met anyone who lives life as though everything they did was 100% determined.

There's good reason for that - we can't. Humans are not omniscient or omnipresent. In order to know the fixed course of events one would basically have to be the classical monotheist god. We are not. So we live and behave under the illusion of "free will" because we don't have the ability to do otherwise.

This does connect to what you mention about the experiential nature of living, too. Being non-omnimax means having a limited frame of reference or experience, and being unable to trace and know of the full chain of causality leading to fixed outcomes.

Yet, were we truly to act as though our actions were determined; what would that actually look like? I can’t actually imagine it… can you?

Wouldn't it be precisely the way things are right now? Accepting that things are as they are and not pretending they somehow could have been different when clearly they have not been?

"Imagination is remembering things that never occurred."
--- an imagined NPC in a video game

Or is it?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Must... not... post... must... not... post...

You are determined to not post

 

[Secret Chief]

You are determined to not post

.






.







..


...



.
...




......



aaaaaaannngggggghhhhhhhhnnnnnnnn....
.





......









....



..



...

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I straddle both sides.

So changing from one to the other would be me more choosing one or the other, which seems unproductive.

But, the only one that would have any effect really would be a sort of hard determinism, which completely removes ones control over their actions, and circumstances.

But would you argue that there would be no way to know that - would you describe yourself as agnostic about the issue?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Although, I think the mechanics behind the scene doesn't really matter. Regardless, we experience reality the same so the implications of either, nothing changes from what it is.
What I mean if you believe in free will, it's the same reality. If you believe in determinism, it's the same reality.

Yeah. I mean, we don't seem to be evolved to know what the mechanics are, at least not outright, not without experience in math or philosophy, where you contemplate what the mechanics are, and try to see them. But I suppose that the fact is, that the mechanics probably operate in only one way, however it is that they do operate. And apparently, it might be such that if the mechanics were changed, even changed supernaturally, we might not even notice it then.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yet, were we truly to act as though our actions were determined; what would that actually look like? I can’t actually imagine it… can you?

We don't often appear to act in such a way, whether free-will exists or not. So I guess the thread question can start to be answered: as a deterministic universe, and a free-will universe, actually might not differ in observable implications.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Margins of error create cross roads for will and choice; where determinism is not 100%.

The apple will fall to the earth and never float up into space. This is 100% of the data.

I guess one thing though, is no matter how complex it appears to us, it maybe cannot be of itself that complex. In other words, our failure to track all of the math equations could just be a human problem. But compare an apple to a thought. The apple always falls to the ground, right. Let's say that thoughts start out at the top of the brain, and 'fall down' through it. Is the trajectory of an opening thought as predicable as a falling apple? If I think one thing, is there a causal chain, perhaps in my specific brain, that will lead to a concluding thought?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Being non-omnimax means having a limited frame of reference or experience, and being unable to trace and know of the full chain of causality leading to fixed outcomes.

Pretty good term, and observation

 

[The Hammer]

But would you argue that there would be no way to know that - would you describe yourself as agnostic about the issue?

Nope. I'm pretty sure of my position.