An attempt at a rewrite of OP for the sake of clarity (we shall see) :D

This is a thought experiment. Two quick caveats

1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality.

2) The above statement becomes prevalent as we reach the point of contemplation.


The scenario:

- The world is populated with people whose choices are real.

- By ‘real’ this means the choices they make are (at least in some part) free from the dictates of apparent physical causality.

- In this world people have two differing sets of beliefs.

Group A believe that causality is ‘real’ and their lives are completely predetermined (a false belief).

Groups B believe that their choices are ‘real’ and that they can alter their futures independent of apparent causal factors (a true belief).

Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False.


The question is what Group belief is better?

In answering this open question maybe try considering the following:

- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe their is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice.
- Would person A and person B faced with the same scenarios act in the same manner assuming they were biologically identical BUT possessing the opposite beliefs as outlined?
- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate?
- If person A and person B live out their beliefs and then believed they were wrong and took on the opposing belief how would this effect them?



Original Post:

The question of free will has been one of contention for some time. This investigation sets the task of looking into the consequences surrounding the ideas of determinism and non-determinism.

First, we need to outline what is meant by these terms.

Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real).

The question now is not about what is true because we have no current way of unraveling this question in any simple manner. The question posed here is what is better to believe.

To start, if determinism is true, it makes no difference what we believe as what we believe is preordained. If non-determinism is false, then it makes no difference as determinism would be true - the same situation as stated with determinism.

The issue is the effects of a belief in determinism and non-determinism if non-determinism is true. If humans have choices and believe in determinism, this is a choice they have willingly made (which is false). While if humans believe in non-determinism, they have willingly chosen to believe that they can choose and do so (because it is true).

Now comes the harder problem. Which is ‘better’ to believe in the case that non-determinism is true? We can see clearly which is true, but truth does not tell us what is better. Some may be quick to argue that it is better to believe in what is true than in what is false. How can this be said with any certainty, though? It may just be that to believe in a determined world provides comfort and allows a kind of passive freedom, where a belief in non-determinism brings with it the stresses and strains of personal responsibility as the choices humans (rightly) perceive they make would bear the heavy weight of real consequences.

Before elaborating on further nuances, it is time to introduce Nozick’s thought experiment, the “Experience Machine”. This was created as a means of disproving a certain kind of hedonism, but it will serve a good purpose here in developing the problems of choice in a non-determinist human life (a life of choice). Nozick’s experiment revealed that people would generally refuse the perfect lived experience if they knew such an experience was disconnected from reality (in a Matrix movie fashion). Here there is a parallel with the idea of believing in determinism - entering the ‘experience machine’ - in a non-determinist human world. The human choice of entering this machine is effectively a denial of reality in favor of a world where human experiences are determined by the machine rather than chosen directly by the human.

What Nozick’s thought experiment was trying to reveal was that there is more to human life than the pursuit of pleasure. The pleasures of human life are not really considered of higher value if they deny reality and effectively ‘unplug’ from reality (or plug into a false one). If the simple hedonistic pleasures he outlines are of no value over reality, then humans adhere to authentic experiences of reality even if they possess stresses and strains.

To look back at a problem of non-determinism for a human life. What needs to be considered here is the degree of choice and the degree of impact it has on the future, while for determinism there are no consequences to choices because the choices are illusions. From here, another potential layer of disillusionment can be placed on non-determinism for human life as they are stuck not knowing how significant their choices are and so under a different level of strain because of this.

So, are we really better off believing we are free or not? Or does it come down to the makeup of the individual and how best suited they are to coping with reality as to whether or not, in various instances of their lives, to believe or disbelieve in choice to placate overwhelming strains they would otherwise be victims to?

Then humans see that they are victims of life’s stresses and strains and confine themselves accordingly as a matter of personal survival and pain avoidance. Does this then mean that humans in a non-deterministic universe (with real choices) generally choose not to choose by being effectively dictated to by their need to refrain from too much stress and strain in life? by their need to refrain from too much stress and strain in life?