Why you don't really have free will

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
It's dishonest when played off as truth while dismissing counter-positions as false.
Can you point out where I did this? If you're referring to free will, well, sorry to say, but it's pretty cut and dried.
When someone dismisses the (stupid/idiotic) argument that free will does not exist, you claim they are dishonest.
You just admitted that you dismiss counter-positions to the existence of free will as false, and then claim that it is not dishonest.
But hey, you're not stupid/obtuse, its everyone else that is stupid/obtuse.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
If choice is an illusion then what?



I've argued for both. And I've stated we cannot know either. I think I'm the only one here who's attempted a tangible view of compatibilism as well and have been prepared to compromise my position more than once. But you guys are collectivists, you eat compromise up and spit at it with your own agenda - I'm dishonest and desperate if I recall correctly and I haven't learned anything. pffft yeah right, I will only "learn" something if it's your ideology 1000% of the way and damn anyone who disagrees. Prove me wrong.
If choice is an illusion then what?
Stop being stupid!!!

"...compromise..."
What the hell are you talking about.
What is this "compromise", huh?

"...I haven't learned anything..."
Name one thing you have learned.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,002
If choice is an illusion then what?
Stop being stupid!!!

"...compromise..."
What the hell are you talking about.
What is this "compromise", huh?

"...I haven't learned anything..."
Name one thing you have learned.
Like I said.. collectivist. You play ignorance to anything that challenges your agenda. Again I'm called stupid, I'm made out to seem unreasonable and my character is tested rather than the debate itself.

I'm sure the ideological enemy you've literally created out of thin air, the so called priests of atheism and them evil scientists, will happily entertain your shenanigans. But not me ;)
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
23,841
Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Unfortunately I don't understand your analog/computer analogy so you're going to have to explain the difference between indeterminate and acausal before I can agree/disagree. And considering our track record I will likely disagree. But let's see. Maybe you have some profound understanding to reveal that you've been withholding all this time.
So you've defined it to support your position. Does not change that there are other positions and it's possible for something to be indeterminate and still have a cause, i.e. not random. Excluding such a possibility would be like saying there's no such thing as an analog computer because you've only worked with digital ones.

lol not really. There's at least 13-14 major interpretations. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics), Pilot Wave theory (De Broglie–Bohm theory), Many-Worlds, Ensemble Interpretation and then the old-school Copenhagen Interpretation to name a few.
Very broad sweep. Not all of them have to do with the subject and from those that do not all of them refutes indeterminism, the many worlds interpretation for instance.

It's dishonest when played off as truth while dismissing counter-positions as false.
Don't see anybody this side doing that. Only pointing out false arguments.
 

Arksun

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,547
"...THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!!!! .... A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND THIS FFS"
A child easily understands the concept of free will.
You don't.
What does that say about your intellect, huh?
FFS
Or.... your understanding of free will is at the level of a child.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,002
So you've defined it to support your position. Does not change that there are other positions and it's possible for something to be indeterminate and still have a cause, i.e. not random. Excluding such a possibility would be like saying there's no such thing as an analog computer because you've only worked with digital ones.
What you're essentially telling me is that black is possible to be white as well and excluding such a possibility is like saying there's no such thing as elephants because I've never seen one.

That's how it genuinely reads to me :) haha

Okay well I don't exclude the possibility of absurdism either so I suppose I will have to agree anyway. Anythings possible. Literally anything.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,925
What you're essentially telling me is that black is possible to be white as well and excluding such a possibility is like saying there's no such thing as elephants because I've never seen one.

That's how it genuinely reads to me :) haha

Okay well I don't exclude the possibility of absurdism either so I suppose I will have to agree anyway. Anythings possible. Literally anything.
Except free will :p - Couldn't resist.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
23,841
What you're essentially telling me is that black is possible to be white as well and excluding such a possibility is like saying there's no such thing as elephants because I've never seen one.

That's how it genuinely reads to me :) haha

Okay well I don't exclude the possibility of absurdism either so I suppose I will have to agree anyway. Anythings possible. Literally anything.
You are literally the only one seeing that in the arguments. You are making up arbitrary conditions that exclude real possibilities and you're not even capable of seeing that then you resort to "but if I have to entertain notions I can't imagine I have to entertain absurd notions either". It's no use debating with you if that is your stance.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,002
You are literally the only one seeing that in the arguments. You are making up arbitrary conditions that exclude real possibilities and you're not even capable of seeing that then you resort to "but if I have to entertain notions I can't imagine I have to entertain absurd notions either". It's no use debating with you if that is your stance.
You are the one making things up my dude.

You are literally saying to me (translated) that causality need not necessarily be causal. And hell, I was prepared to break all rules I know about and accept even that! And you still have an issue with "my stance". :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

Jissus I just can't get a break can I. hahaha. What more do you want??!?! :laugh:
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,925
You are literally the only one seeing that in the arguments. You are making up arbitrary conditions that exclude real possibilities and you're not even capable of seeing that then you resort to "but if I have to entertain notions I can't imagine I have to entertain absurd notions either". It's no use debating with you if that is your stance.
Indeterminism simply means that not all events that happen have a cause. Some events simply happen without anything leading to them. Those events are sometimes called uncaused, acausal, non-caused, or not caused events. The term I prefer is “acausal”, but any of these will do the trick.

I don’t like to use certain terms such as random or spontaneous unless they are absolutely necessary. Such terms have ambiguous meanings, some of which don’t mean the same thing as being “acausal”. For example, some might consider a roll of dice to be “random” simply because we don’t know what the outcome will be. Such, however, isn’t truly random in the acausal sense. Technically the dice being thrown a specific way, the air, the gravity, the ground it lands on, the weight of the dice themselves, and so on… are all causal factors that output the results of the dice. If you’ve read the article on determinism you’d see that determinism doesn’t imply predictability. The use of the word “random” in the sense of dice being rolled can happen in an entirely deterministic (causal) universe. A word like “acausal”, however, is clear. There is no confusing such a word. If an event is acausal, there is no cause for the event.

If we were to say “The Universe is Indeterministic”, it would mean that at least some of the events that happen in the universe just happen with no other existing factor forcing them. Indeterminism does not mean all events are like this – another common confusion people make. A mix of causal events and acausal events would be considered “indeterministic”. In fact, if there are just one or two acausal events in the universe, such possibilities means that the universe is “indeterministic”. It simply means that the universe is not entirely causal.

It’s important to note that we simply don’t know if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. Some people who quote Quantum Mechanics make the claim that such proves the universe is indeterministic. They are wrong. It all depends on the Quantum Interpretation the person is subscribing to. Some interpretations, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, are indeterministic, others, such as Bohmian Mechanics or a Many Worlds Interpretation are deterministic. There are a whole bunch of interpretations. The important thing to note about each of the interpretations is that they are not the science of Quantum Mechanics (though some such as the ensemble interpretation tend to make fewer assumptions) . They are “interpretations” OF the science. Think of them more as the philosophy of why things are the way they are within the mathematics and experiments of Quantum Mechanics.

Each of the interpretations have parts that are very counter-intuitive. An indeterministic interpretation that assumes acausal events happen, have to contend with what it means to say that an event has no cause. I go much deeper into this within my book, but there are problems that need to be addressed when an event simply cannot have any spacial or temporal determinacy (which means it could happen anywhere, at anytime, or never). That’s not to say that a deterministic universe wouldn’t have troubling counter-intuitiveness built in as well (e.g. non-local hidden variables, decoherence, etc.).

What’s important, and what I stress, is that even if such an indeterministic universe existed, any acausal events that occur could not help free will. They would be every bit incompatible, and in fact, it is more likely to make things much worse to any creature in which an acausal event happens for the process of a decision. At best, if the acausal event just happens to produces the same results a causal event would, such would be benign.
---
There are not my words, but rather those of Trick Slattery: I'd suggest checking his stuff out: https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,002
I suppose another way of looking at it...

You roll a 6 sided die:

In a causal/deterministic framework you can only roll 1;2;3;4;5 or 6.
In an acausal/indeterminate framework you could roll 1076 (miracles can happen, water into wine), but you could also roll 1;2;3;4;5 or 6 with unknown probability (miracles can happen here too).
In a random framework you could roll an elephant, and maybe not even see it. Maybe it rolls you :p

Shoh, actually had to think about that one and edit a bit.
 
Last edited:

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
17,949
Indeterminism simply means that not all events that happen have a cause. Some events simply happen without anything leading to them. Those events are sometimes called uncaused, acausal, non-caused, or not caused events. The term I prefer is “acausal”, but any of these will do the trick.

I don’t like to use certain terms such as random or spontaneous unless they are absolutely necessary. Such terms have ambiguous meanings, some of which don’t mean the same thing as being “acausal”. For example, some might consider a roll of dice to be “random” simply because we don’t know what the outcome will be. Such, however, isn’t truly random in the acausal sense. Technically the dice being thrown a specific way, the air, the gravity, the ground it lands on, the weight of the dice themselves, and so on… are all causal factors that output the results of the dice. If you’ve read the article on determinism you’d see that determinism doesn’t imply predictability. The use of the word “random” in the sense of dice being rolled can happen in an entirely deterministic (causal) universe. A word like “acausal”, however, is clear. There is no confusing such a word. If an event is acausal, there is no cause for the event.

If we were to say “The Universe is Indeterministic”, it would mean that at least some of the events that happen in the universe just happen with no other existing factor forcing them. Indeterminism does not mean all events are like this – another common confusion people make. A mix of causal events and acausal events would be considered “indeterministic”. In fact, if there are just one or two acausal events in the universe, such possibilities means that the universe is “indeterministic”. It simply means that the universe is not entirely causal.

It’s important to note that we simply don’t know if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. Some people who quote Quantum Mechanics make the claim that such proves the universe is indeterministic. They are wrong. It all depends on the Quantum Interpretation the person is subscribing to. Some interpretations, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, are indeterministic, others, such as Bohmian Mechanics or a Many Worlds Interpretation are deterministic. There are a whole bunch of interpretations. The important thing to note about each of the interpretations is that they are not the science of Quantum Mechanics (though some such as the ensemble interpretation tend to make fewer assumptions) . They are “interpretations” OF the science. Think of them more as the philosophy of why things are the way they are within the mathematics and experiments of Quantum Mechanics.

Each of the interpretations have parts that are very counter-intuitive. An indeterministic interpretation that assumes acausal events happen, have to contend with what it means to say that an event has no cause. I go much deeper into this within my book, but there are problems that need to be addressed when an event simply cannot have any spacial or temporal determinacy (which means it could happen anywhere, at anytime, or never). That’s not to say that a deterministic universe wouldn’t have troubling counter-intuitiveness built in as well (e.g. non-local hidden variables, decoherence, etc.).

What’s important, and what I stress, is that even if such an indeterministic universe existed, any acausal events that occur could not help free will. They would be every bit incompatible, and in fact, it is more likely to make things much worse to any creature in which an acausal event happens for the process of a decision. At best, if the acausal event just happens to produces the same results a causal event would, such would be benign.
---
There are not my words, but rather those of Trick Slattery: I'd suggest checking his stuff out: https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/
Lol ya lets use breakingthefreewillillusion for definitions. What can go wrong. Someone should probably tell them that their entire existence is an oxymoron


indeterminism

/ɪndɪˈtəːmɪnɪz(ə)m/

noun

1.

PHILOSOPHY

the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
17,949
Indeterminism simply means that not all events that happen have a cause. Some events simply happen without anything leading to them. Those events are sometimes called uncaused, acausal, non-caused, or not caused events. The term I prefer is “acausal”, but any of these will do the trick.

I don’t like to use certain terms such as random or spontaneous unless they are absolutely necessary. Such terms have ambiguous meanings, some of which don’t mean the same thing as being “acausal”. For example, some might consider a roll of dice to be “random” simply because we don’t know what the outcome will be. Such, however, isn’t truly random in the acausal sense. Technically the dice being thrown a specific way, the air, the gravity, the ground it lands on, the weight of the dice themselves, and so on… are all causal factors that output the results of the dice. If you’ve read the article on determinism you’d see that determinism doesn’t imply predictability. The use of the word “random” in the sense of dice being rolled can happen in an entirely deterministic (causal) universe. A word like “acausal”, however, is clear. There is no confusing such a word. If an event is acausal, there is no cause for the event.

If we were to say “The Universe is Indeterministic”, it would mean that at least some of the events that happen in the universe just happen with no other existing factor forcing them. Indeterminism does not mean all events are like this – another common confusion people make. A mix of causal events and acausal events would be considered “indeterministic”. In fact, if there are just one or two acausal events in the universe, such possibilities means that the universe is “indeterministic”. It simply means that the universe is not entirely causal.

It’s important to note that we simply don’t know if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. Some people who quote Quantum Mechanics make the claim that such proves the universe is indeterministic. They are wrong. It all depends on the Quantum Interpretation the person is subscribing to. Some interpretations, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, are indeterministic, others, such as Bohmian Mechanics or a Many Worlds Interpretation are deterministic. There are a whole bunch of interpretations. The important thing to note about each of the interpretations is that they are not the science of Quantum Mechanics (though some such as the ensemble interpretation tend to make fewer assumptions) . They are “interpretations” OF the science. Think of them more as the philosophy of why things are the way they are within the mathematics and experiments of Quantum Mechanics.

Each of the interpretations have parts that are very counter-intuitive. An indeterministic interpretation that assumes acausal events happen, have to contend with what it means to say that an event has no cause. I go much deeper into this within my book, but there are problems that need to be addressed when an event simply cannot have any spacial or temporal determinacy (which means it could happen anywhere, at anytime, or never). That’s not to say that a deterministic universe wouldn’t have troubling counter-intuitiveness built in as well (e.g. non-local hidden variables, decoherence, etc.).

What’s important, and what I stress, is that even if such an indeterministic universe existed, any acausal events that occur could not help free will. They would be every bit incompatible, and in fact, it is more likely to make things much worse to any creature in which an acausal event happens for the process of a decision. At best, if the acausal event just happens to produces the same results a causal event would, such would be benign.
---
There are not my words, but rather those of Trick Slattery: I'd suggest checking his stuff out: https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/
According to your own definitions we have a indeterminate universe. This is self defeating nonsense.

Explain how we have any order at all and not complete randomness without indeterminism. Were did order start? What caused it.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,925
Lol ya lets use breakingthefreewillillusion for definitions. What can go wrong. Someone should probably tell them that their entire existence is an oxymoron
Did you even read the piece? Your google definition is also covered.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,925
According to your own definitions we have a indeterminate universe. This is self defeating nonsense.

Explain how we have any order at all and not complete randomness without indeterminism. Were did order start? What caused it.
We don't know.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
17,949
We don't know.
What an ridiculous cop-out. That means your entire world view, everything that you think you know is just left hangings in the air.

At the very least you should subscribe to the idea that there was no beginning. No intial cause. No big bang. Otherwise you believe in miracles and that would upset Bobbin.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,925
What an ridiculous cop-out. That means your entire world view, everything that you think you know is just left hangings in the air.

At the very least you should subscribe to the idea that there was no beginning. No intial cause. No big bang. Otherwise you believe in miracles and that would upset Bobbin.
I do subscribe to the big bang, of course I do. If you rewind time, the universe was in a hot, dense state and it's been expanding ever since, but I don't claim to know what caused the universe to exist. For all we know, its existed forever.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,002
What an ridiculous cop-out. That means your entire world view, everything that you think you know is just left hangings in the air.

At the very least you should subscribe to the idea that there was no beginning. No intial cause. No big bang. Otherwise you believe in miracles and that would upset Bobbin.
Who says believing in miracles would upset me? I'm the one who posed it :) It was those who challenged me on this that upset me lol. They damn near tried to claim God and miracles and free will don't coexist. I was completely dumbfounded. Like they actually broke their own worldview and all they stand for to simply argue with me. And then called me desperate to boot. I really felt like I woke up in the twilight zone :ROFL:

I even once recall stating that one's belief may rest on usefulness, where proof or conviction is absent, as a justification to consider Christianity. Hoping that would gain some traction it was instead shot down completely, by the same proponents. I just can't win man :/
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,002
According to your own definitions we have a indeterminate universe. This is self defeating nonsense.

Explain how we have any order at all and not complete randomness without indeterminism. Were did order start? What caused it.
The alternative to a first cause or mover is of course infinity. I suppose this works with the whole something can't come from nothing prospect as well.

In infinity, there is infinite chance of order and chaos.
 
Last edited:
Top