Correct me if I’m wrong but determinism doesn’t show that either are true. Both are possible but in reality neither are true unless you actually replicate the scenario in real life. Also couldn’t both of these hypothetical outcomes be consistent with the theory of self determination?

Correct me if I’m wrong but determinism doesn’t show that either are true. Both are possible but in reality neither are true unless you actually replicate the scenario in real life. Also couldn’t both of these hypothetical outcomes be consistent with the theory of self determination? — Average

Yes. The free will/determinism argument is pointless. I can say I have freedom, but my freedom is limited by many things. My point is that determinism in science is false. Randomness influences events.

Fair enough. I’d like to discuss the notion of randomness but if you’re not interested I completely understand.

Fair enough. I’d like to discuss the notion of randomness but if you’re not interested I completely understand. — Average

I brought it up.

I don't think Newton and others invented determinism, i think they discovered an aspect of nature. It is at least true under certain constrained conditions. Others have also discovered indeterminism such as in quantum physics, and this is also true. We tend to always want to through the baby out with the bathwater.

I have reason to believe that nature is both indeterminate and determinate, both have been shown to be true in one or some other aspect of nature. Complex systems like the ones we are familiar with operate in the range between chaos and order (indeterminism and determinism respectively), generally termed "edge of chaos". You need both for complexity to evolve. Chaos (indeterminism) produces variations in the environment, while order (determinism) selects from the environment. This is the nature of evolution.

I should say that i'm not very concerned about social constructs because a social construct may be true or false like anything else. There is no reason why a social construct must be true or false exclusively. In fact social constructs are part of evolution, where human ideas undergo variation in individual minds, and then are selected out of the environments of minds (memetics) those ideas that confer some kind of advantage to the system in question. Then further variation and further selection ad infinitum.

Like i've already stated in prior posts, my point is that in any case (determinism or indeterminism) the possibility (not the probability) of free will is absurd and illogical. What i have been consistently asking here is for someone to provide me with at least a concept that does not violate what we already know to be true, and that can in principle show that free will is in fact possible and consistent with logic.

I also want to say that our ideas and models of the world do not have to match exactly with the way nature "really" works, it need only be sufficiently true for our purposes. Science is evolving like everything else and it is not in some already perfect state. The better our models get the better we know to make better models, etc..

I don't think Newton and others invented determinism, — punos

Newton said God made physical laws.

I brought it up — Jackson

I’ll assume that means you’re on board with some more discussion. My first question would be what constitutes randomness? What would need to be true or what would be necessary for something to be considered random?

Like i've already stated in prior posts, my point is that in any case (determinism or indeterminism) the possibility (not the probability) of free will is absurd and illogical. — punos

How is free will illogical? You would have to show the concept is inconsistent with itself.

What would need to be true or what would be necessary for something to be considered random? — Average

By random I mean the absence of necessity. So the first state of the Big Bang is there, but we see no necessity for it being so. Nor is life necessary since it exists no where else in the universe.

Newton said God made physical laws. — Jackson

This is irrelevant. Newton was also a virgin when he died, and had dreams or desires of burning his mother. But this brings up a point i've been pondering...

Does it unsettle you in any way to consider that free will might not exist. Do you have a personal preference? Like i said in a previous post, it's important to examine oneself before one examines problems or issues outside oneself. I can easily see why some people may be disturbed by the notion. Especially if one believes in God, or is seeking to believe in God. Do you believe in God?

Does it unsettle you in any way to consider that free will might not exist. — punos

It does not matter to me one way or the other. I make my decisions without reference to free will or determinism.

How is free will illogical? You would have to show the concept is inconsistent with itself. — Jackson

Tell me first if you are a determinist, an indeterminist, or both (like me). I think i can logically show it's impossible with any one you pick. I'm not sure that you can show that it is possible regardless of the one you pick. Which one is it?

Tell me first if you are a determinist, an indeterminist, or both (like me). I think i can logically show it's impossible with any one you pick. I'm not sure that you can show that it is possible regardless of the one you pick. Which one is it? — punos

I find the dichotomy of free will/determinism to be false.

It does not matter to me one way or the other. I make my decisions without reference to free will or determinism. — Jackson

This is also the way i operate. I never wonder about my free will when making decisions, because it's pretty much settled as far as i'm concerned. I'm open to being proven wrong of course or i wouldn't be sincere.

By random I mean the absence of necessity. So the first state of the Big Bang is there, but we see no necessity for it being so. Nor is life necessary since it exists no where else in the universe. — Jackson

I’m not sure I follow but I’ll try to ask some probing questions that might enable me to discern your meaning. Wouldn’t it still be possible for life to be necessary but just under very unique and specific conditions? I’ve heard that the notion of necessity is almost as ancient as philosophy itself. It supposedly stretches back all the way to the pre-Socratics but I’ve never been able to completely understand it. The only thing I can claim to have some grasp on is the idea that a notion is necessarily false but that might be completely irrelevant and unrelated to the idea of necessity in science.

Wouldn’t it still be possible for life to be necessary but just under very unique and specific conditions? — Average

The universe does not make life necessary or it would be everywhere. Thus, random.

I

I find the dichotomy of free will/determinism to be false. — Jackson

I've already stated that the dichotomy is not between free will and determinism. It is about determinism and indeterminism. Free will is simply something thought to be contingent depending on which one is considered to be true.

I don’t think that there is anything in the universe that is everywhere in the universe. If I’m correct wouldn’t that mean that everything is random and also that nothing is necessary?

I don’t think that there is anything in the universe that is everywhere in the universe. If I’m correct wouldn’t that mean that everything is random and also that nothing is necessary? — Average

That is my view. I think it the view of quantum mechanics.

If things are indeterminate are you able to determine your own choice?
If things are determinate are you able to determine your own choice?

Ok, but just tell me how the distinction helps us answer the question of free will?

If things are indeterminate are you able to determine your own choice?
If things are determinate are you able to determine your own choice? — punos

Not sure the logic here. I see nothing meaningful in questioning whether I have freedom to choose. I can't choose to fly off a mountain top, for example.

And thus free will is negated, because you can't choose to fly, just like you can't take short cuts by walking through walls, or any such thing.

And thus free will is negated, because you can't choose to fly, just like you can't take short cuts by walking through walls, or any such thing. — punos

Not negated, conditioned.

That is my view. I think it the view of quantum mechanics. — Jackson

It seems like you use the word necessary as a synonym for ubiquitous. That strikes me as problematic because it does appear to be a radical departure from traditional usage. Either way I have one more question. Is there anything in the universe that is inevitable? Inevitability and necessity seem like siblings or even identical twins.

What is conditioned are the possibilities, then there is random selection from the possibilities (probability). In no sense is free will present in that situation.

Either way I have one more question is there anything in the universe that is inevitable? Inevitability and necessity seem like siblings or even identical twins. — Average

Death is inevitable. So, I suppose I would agree with that.

Change is inevitable, it's a constant in the universe.

Change is inevitable, it's a constant in the universe. — punos

Agree.

:up: