Why you don't really have free will

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,043
in your opinion I demean your character...

and even if I did, so what, people demean my character on this forum on a regular basis, I don't recall expressing interest in violence directed at anyone
But I never insulted you or treated you that way prior. If you have something to say I will listen, I don't require your credentials to do so. I am not those people. Why do I deserve that? And why should I tolerate it?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,995
Sorry, if you are going to claim that you're unable to show when something is deterministic or indeterministic then no-one is going to make any good argument for determinism or indeterminism and thus no good argument for or against the view that free will is true. The only odds that are good is that everyone can only ever be full of nonsense without ever being able to demonstrate anything. A consequence of materialism and a "poisoning the well" tactic.
That all depends on your definition of free will. If it is "the ability to have done otherwise", as most philosophy scholars would agree, then by the very nature of not being able to determine whether something is determinate or indeterminate, in neither case do you get libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise). That is really the only definition I care about.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,943
But I never insulted you or treated you that way prior. If you have something to say I will listen, I don't require your credentials to do so. I am not those people. Why do I deserve that? And why should I tolerate it?
so you want to learn by discarding the academic process, makes sense...
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
That all depends on your definition of free will. If it is "the ability to have done otherwise", as most philosophy scholars would agree, then by the very nature of not being able to determine whether something is determinate or indeterminate, in neither case do you get libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise). That is really the only definition I care about.
Nobody can be so utterly stupid to argue that free will (the ability to choose) does not exist.
Unless of course ....
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,043
That all depends on your definition of free will. If it is "the ability to have done otherwise", as most philosophy scholars would agree, then by the very nature of not being able to determine whether something is determinate or indeterminate, in neither case do you get libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise). That is really the only definition I care about.
I can understand determinism not arriving at free-will but one possibility I thought of that indeterminism might arrive at free-will is if all of reality is indeterministic but follows an "illusory" causal pattern say 99% of the time. Thus you can make allowance for any absurd event at any time without necessarily requiring a rational pattern of information flow.

Would you agree on that as plausible?

For lack of a better term, it is simply magic. But I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. Literally real magic.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,995
I can understand determinism not arriving at free-will but one possibility I thought of that indeterminism might arrive at free-will is if all of reality is indeterministic but follows an "illusory" causal pattern say 99% of the time. Thus you can make allowance for any absurd event at any time without necessarily requiring a rational pattern of information flow.

Would you agree on that as plausible?

For lack of a better term, it is simply magic. But I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. Literally real magic.
It's plausible, but you would still have no way of knowing whether an event was determinate or indeterminate. If events are truly acausal / indeterminate then anything goes at any time and you wouldn't be responsible for your actions in any case. For example, I drop a pen to the ground, and we all agree the pen falls to the ground. To our best understanding this is a determinate affect thanks to gravity, etc. However, it is also likely the laws of nature were suspended at that moment the pen left our hands and the pen magically changed from the pen we were holding to some supernatural pen that spawned into the universe ex-nihilo and without our knowledge. We still wouldn't know whether that was the real pen or the real event or the magical pen or magical event.

We don't have a test to determine which events are causal and which are acausal, so we just assume they are causal thanks to our current knowledge and understanding. This obviously poses an issue for those who assert libertarian free will as true and real. If a magical pen (read - your thoughts) spawned into the universe ex-nililo, it wouldn't have been caused by you. However, if you think it did, the onus is on you to prove it.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
It's plausible, but you would still have no way of knowing whether an event was determinate or indeterminate. If events are truly acausal / indeterminate then anything goes at any time and you wouldn't be responsible for your actions in any case. For example, I drop a pen to the ground, and we all agree the pen falls to the ground. To our best understanding this is a determinate affect thanks to gravity, etc. However, it is also likely the laws of nature were suspended at that moment the pen left our hands and the pen magically changed from the pen we were holding to some supernatural pen that spawned into the universe ex-nihilo and without our knowledge. We still wouldn't know whether that was the real pen or the real event or the magical pen or magical event.

We don't have a test to determine which events are causal and which are acausal, so we just assume they are causal thanks to our current knowledge and understanding. This obviously poses an issue for those who assert libertarian free will as true and real. If a magical pen (read - your thoughts) spawned into the universe ex-nililo, it wouldn't have been caused by you. However, if you think it did, the onus is on you to prove it.
Ladies and Gentleman - Elvis has left the building.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,043
It's plausible, but you would still have no way of knowing whether an event was determinate or indeterminate. If events are truly acausal / indeterminate then anything goes at any time and you wouldn't be responsible for your actions in any case. For example, I drop a pen to the ground, and we all agree the pen falls to the ground. To our best understanding this is a determinate affect thanks to gravity, etc. However, it is also likely the laws of nature were suspended at that moment the pen left our hands and the pen magically changed from the pen we were holding to some supernatural pen that spawned into the universe ex-nihilo and without our knowledge. We still wouldn't know whether that was the real pen or the real event or the magical pen or magical event.

We don't have a test to determine which events are causal and which are acausal, so we just assume they are causal thanks to our current knowledge and understanding. This obviously poses an issue for those who assert libertarian free will as true and real. If a magical pen (read - your thoughts) spawned into the universe ex-nililo, it wouldn't have been caused by you. However, if you think it did, the onus is on you to prove it.
"and you wouldn't be responsible for your actions in any case." - hmmm... except maybe if the 99% of illusory causality subsequent to your action is the "pretend" consequence being left to unfold. i.e. rules have been created, you play by those rules, the creator can break those rules but requires you to play it and see it through - and the creator attributes the impact you make to the game to you regardless of the absence of true causality. Responsibility is therefore divinely instituted and judged. Hopefully I'm still on a plausible train of thought there :laugh:

"However, if you think it did, the onus is on you to prove it." - Yes agree. I think hence the heavy emphasis on absolute faith as far as this goes.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,995
Ladies and Gentleman - Elvis has left the building.
lol, can you not differentiate between a hypothetical and reality?

"and you wouldn't be responsible for your actions in any case." - hmmm... except maybe if the 99% of illusory causality subsequent to your action is the "pretend" consequence being left to unfold. i.e. rules have been created, you play by those rules, the creator can break those rules but requires you to play it and see it through - and the creator attributes the impact you make to the game to you regardless of the absence of true causality. Responsibility is therefore divinely instituted and judged. Hopefully I'm still on a plausible train of thought there :laugh:
Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but that's not an entity / deity / creator I would want to serve or believe in. Sounds more like an arse-hole than an "all good" entity. Either give me absolute free will, or none at all :p

I think hence the heavy emphasis on absolute faith as far as this goes.
Yep, faith will get one to free will.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,775
That all depends on your definition of free will. If it is "the ability to have done otherwise", as most philosophy scholars would agree, then by the very nature of not being able to determine whether something is determinate or indeterminate, in neither case do you get libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise). That is really the only definition I care about.
Your "most philosophy scholars would agree" definition is not empirically testable.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,043
You "only recall that you I espoused teleology quite a lot".? Really, that is all you have? The only thing you recall? Honestly?
Yes, as far as our interaction goes it's only been about teleology or the electron experiment. But I have poor recall so maybe I'm spacing out.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,043
Duh. Philosophy, by definition, is not something that can be "empirically testable". It be a musing of the mind.
Tell that to whatshisface. @saturnz

Every word must be tested, verified, cited, referenced and can only come out the mouth of a 10 year veteran who's credentials are internationally recognized before it is even uttered here, even as a mere musing, idea or common discussion. :sneaky: Hell one can't even ask questions without his credibility criteria verified. My credibility for using the English language is surely so bad that every one of these words probably mean nothing to him, they're just meaningless shapes because I don't have a PhD in typing, or comprehension or stringing words together. Oh I don't have a PhD in thinking either. Don't mind me. I don't exit. :laugh:

Edit: Funny story, I do have an internationally recognized degree, majored in marketing and business management + economics, stats, accounting, industrial psych etc... - and I wasn't allowed to comment on capitalism. Go figure. :p
 
Last edited:

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,943
Edit: Funny story, I do have an internationally recognized degree, majored in marketing and business management + economics, stats, accounting, industrial psych etc... - and I wasn't allowed to comment on capitalism. Go figure. :p

It is rather funny you had over six majors in your internationally recognised degree
 
Top