Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

That's the nature of "quanta". It is a duality between two superposed states. Determinism is the symmetry breaking in the superposition and the collapse into a single "preferred" state.

The preference being a result of the law of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no universal momentary order. An interval of time - chosen to abet the prediction desired - is necessary. For some predictions, that interval of time is one of many millions of years.
And step by step causation does not involve anything analogous to a script - a script describes an extension into the future, not what will happen now, and such a script has been proven to be theoretically as well as pragmatically impossible. The attempted analogy misleads.

I was using whirlpools, earlier - a tamer illustration, I thought.
Yep. That's how the universe establishes a "self", and the self is the means by which the universe determines the events determined by that self.
Illustration: By establishing human beings - complete with a will, etc, as we observe - the universe establishes a way to create traffic lights and decide whether or not to stop a car at them.

You are claiming the universe does things but denying the existence of the means by which it does them.
These means are observed - their existence is established as well as the existence of anything can be established.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no dualism between determinism and free-will. If something "will" then that is determined by definition. The question is a trick. There is no such thing a "free" will. All will is determined.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Write4U

The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible.

Not sure that would be the case except for the next domino only

At the next falling domino you have a new situation and would need to recalculate from the new data

unerring knowledge ??? - only in tiny tiny segments

Without knowing the future number of dominoes, unerring knowledge fails

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A moment is an interval of time. A momentary analysis of all universal elements would yield successive past and future moments from a given moment. If each moment determines the next in a deterministic system, then the earlier moments determined the action for all subsequent moments. It’s analogous to the entire universe being a domino effect composition, where a momentary analysis of the universe would show a collection of standing and fallen dominos. The fallen dominos represent the accumulated information of the past, and the standing ones the information necessary to discern the future. It’s a simplistic example, but if the dominos are representative of the most basic universal elements, the proposition exemplifies the capacity of complete knowledge to plot all moments from any given moment.

A momentary analysis of the universe is a reading of all the information contained in it. When all of that information is relationally plotted, it defines what the previous moment was, and what the next moment will be. It then becomes a matter of applying the same analysis to each preceeding or successive moments to plot any past or future moment. Just like turning the pages of a script.

Regardless of the descriptive labels we put on the behavior of given universal elemental effects, they remain just that, determined universal elemental effects. Whether it’s water circling into a drain, or a figure skater spinning on ice, it’s the same collective of determined universal elements at play that dictate the entirety of their routines. If the universe can will a skater to spin, it can also will the same for a whirlpool.

What I claim the the universe does, is what we observe from a human perspective. We don’t observe determined chemistry and physics to be different inside and outside of the human body, so we can rightly conclude that in either case the resulting behaviors will both be governed accordingly. There’s no need to delude oneself into believing that human matter chooses its path, while non human matter has its path chosen, because objective observation informs us that all matter must follow a determined path of universal design.

 

Self determination is not observable, since it requires (telepathically) knowing what's going on in someone's head and concluding what drives it. You cannot empirically say that a person is acting per free will.

Does an amoeba self animate? Does that give it free will?
Does a bacteria self animate? Does that give it free will?
Does a protein? An atom?

What you have done there is make a foregone conclusion. If, according to you, free will exists and is undeniable, then you have no reason to participate in a discussion about whether or not it exists, other than to say "It does. Full stop."

 

Again, you are equating self determination with freewill.
Why?
There has been no concrete definition given for "Free" nor "Will". Nor has there been any acknowledgement of the distinction between that which is living and that which is not.
The reason I am focused on self determination is because at least the idea of determinism is relatively well defined. ( cause and effect with inherent predictability)
Also it is imperative to the debate about freewill that the issue of self determination be resolved before taking on even more nebulous concepts such as "freedom"and "will".
Cause and effect...ultimately evolving a human capable of learning how to manage, alter and manipulate that which has been predetermined by the universe.
All very deterministic, no material freedom present. Easy to evidence empirically.


Man drops ball and says
"Oh , look at that, we have gravity to play with!".
"Just think about what we can do with Gravity".
Next thing you know he has planted a flag on the surface of the moon.

 

no ... not at all...
However I am still waiting for someone to provide rational and logical reason to consider self determination as being impossible. So far no one has done so. Until then I can only acknowledge observable evidence of self determination and continue to wait.

 

There are a number of solid arguments against the proposition that freewill is impossible in a deterministic universe.
A few that come to mind:

1. There is no logical reason to limit the capacity of universal determinism to predetermine the evolution of human self determination.
2. For man kind to theorize about cause and effect, in a genuine manner, he must be able to objectively self-determine whether that theorizing is true or false. No self-determination means no objective theorizing.
   
3. The philosophy of Determinism is entirely dependent on self-determination to be genuine and valid.

If any one can provide a sound refutation then all other other arguments of logic are moot.

And that does not even contend with observable evidence.

Edit: If interested, research "Metacognition" and how that may apply to self determination.

 

Ah. OK, the thread has evolved a little since I last participated. I didn't see that you had made a working definition for 'self determination'.

I guess one can say that any entity that can take independent action without some other entity controlling it can be said to have self determination. It is observable that a man bouncing a ball is doing it discretely (not discreetly) - even if you have no idea what the mechanism is internally that is doing it.

 

On what basis do you assert that such a script has been proven to be theoretically impossible?
Pragmatically impossible, yes, I grant you that, but where has it been proven that it is theoretically impossible?
Are we to take your word on it?
Are you denying that a causally deterministic universe is one in which everything is predetermined?
Are you still erroneously thinking, per chance, that such matters as quantum mechanics are deterministic?

 

The issue some may have with your focus and use of the term “self-determination” is precisely because the term “determinism” is relatively well defined and understood.
In a deterministic universe, self-determination is really only a subjective assessment of what the major cause of an event is, or where it is seen to originate from - I.e. from the self.
It ignores all the subjectively unknown micro-causes that have led up to the act of self-determination.
But because it is subjective, and “determinism” is an objective assumption, there is a category difference between the two, despite the same root word (determine).
This thus causes issues when one slips between using the subjective term in an objective sense of the word “determine”.

And an example of such slippage can be seen here:

Self determination does not, nor can not, provide a means to alter and manipulate that which has been predetermined.
If something “predetermined” can be altered away from that predetermined course then it was not predetermined.
The whole thing about predetermination is that it is unalterable, unmanipulatable.
So here you are trying to say that the subjective viewpoint overrides the objective reality.
It doesn’t.
It can’t.
Self-determination is, as a subjective matter, part of the predetermined objective reality.
It is simply wrong to speak of the self-determined human being capable of altering or manipulating that which has been predetermined.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Question; Considering that determinism does not allow for uncertainty of any kind, how can both principles be reconciled in reality?

 

Both?
Or do you just mean determinism?
Simple answer on that one: it can't (at least not with respect to the local universe), hence the view that the universe is not deterministic, but actually indeterministic.
Thus premising a deterministic universe removes the discussion from being about reality and places it firmly in the realm of a simplified version.
The premise of a deterministic universe is usually the first step in the question of free will in that it means we can ignore the realities of quantum indeterminacy etc, and look at the far simpler deterministic model.
Using this we can immediately split out participants between those who think free will is compatible with the deterministic universe, and those who think it incompatible.
For those who think it incompatible in a deterministic universe, there is then the question of whether the introduction of indeterminism (e.g. from quantum mechanics) can lead to free will.
Some incompatibilists think it can, others do not.

But for purposes of this thread, we are still looking at the first question: is free will possible in a deterministic universe.
In other words, quantum mechanics, in as much as it offers indeterminate mechanisms, is a red herring, and (should be) irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Well, if quantum indeterminacy is somehow connected with thought itself, i.e. thought is a quantum function, how would this affect the argument of determinacy?

There is some evidence that brainfunction has an quantum element to it. If so, would or could quantum uncertainty become a factor?

I mention quantum specifically as part of "thought" which might not impede free will if it exists, but it would make free will itself an uncertain exercise.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I get this picture of an "uncertain determinism"........which is weird. Or is it?

Are things uncertain until they are determined? That would argue against pre-determinism, no?

 

Thanks for taking my argument seriously enough to clarify your position.
I will write more later but for now I wanted to post that the notion of predetermination being fixed and rigid is needed to be debated.
Given that the only moment that exists is the present and that all predetermined events are yet to occur it is not so far fetch to suggest that Humans can evolve the capacity to recognize those predetermined events and manipulate them to their own end.
Self determination is essentially about self predetermination.

Take a golf ball and have it float in deep space.
It's position and vector etc all predetermined.
Then along come a human who decides to capture the ball and take it home and play 9 holes with it...
or alternatively he could just fly by and think, "Isn't that odd, a golf ball all the way out here", and decides to leave it to it's somewhat obvious predetermination.
The human has the potential to change what is predetermined for that golf ball only because he was pre-deteremined to learn how to.

 

What makes him decide?

 

The predetermined vector of the golf ball in a universal determined system isn’t what you subjectively assume it to be, it’s what ultimately happens to it. When you state that it was determined to follow trajectory X, and a human causes it to take trajectory Y, then the universal determined outcome for the ball was always going to be Y, otherwise you remove the action of the human from the assumed control of universal determinism.

 

no not at all....
It is utterly predetermined by the universe that the human predetermine whether to act on the golf ball or not...and then when he does act that too is utterly predetermined to be the case...
Self determination for a human is predetermined by the universe to be real and genuine.

Do you have a refutation or are you just going to repeat your unsupportable claim of universal limitations again ?