Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Sarkus, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    “Substance” as in something of merit, something substantial, something worth responding to.
    No, all you have, or at least all you have provided thus far, is an appeal to complexity that the nature of the freedom within such complex processes is any different to that found in orbiting Teslas.
    Bizarre, in that I have never assumed that, and I certainly haven’t asked you to assume it.
    I certainly conclude it, but I don’t assume it.
    So I’m struggling to understand what agreement you think we have in that regard?
    This is where you continue to lose any sympathy that you may have had, in that it doesn’t require a moratorium.
    It simply requires you to state what you think free will is, and post an argument in support of the conclusion you reach.
    Instead you do nothing but complain and whinge about the conclusion I have reached regarding the notion of free will I am using.
    And more than that you try to rebut it but do so with nothing but fallacious and ridiculous claims regarding the supernatural.
    As stated long ago, you clearly have zero interest in the notion I have used, yet you can not turn your focus to the notion you clearly want to speak about, as if I have some hold over you.
    Even now, you could be spending your energy on discussing the notion of free will that you want to discuss.
    But no, you return to me.
    I’d honestly feel honoured if I wasn’t laughing so hard with how pathetic it is.
    If you have assumed it then that is your mistake, no one else’s.
    I certainly haven’t assumed it, although you and your fallacious cries of “supernatural” seem to have permanently obscured your vision.
    Since no one is talking about any “supernatural free will”, your entire line of reasoning here is fallacious, and can be ignored as the red herring it is.
    Three things:
    First, I am not assuming the conclusion in any way, as explained to you ad nauseam.
    You thinking I am doing so is akin to you thinking that concluding Socrates to be mortal is to assume the conclusion.
    Second, assuming the conclusion in a deductive argument is not an invalid argument: it is actually valid, just not necessarily of any value.
    Third, you are the one guilty of assuming your conclusion with regard this question.
    Explicitly so.
    You have explicitly assumed that any freedom of will that doesn’t exist in a deterministic universe is supernatural and can be dismissed from consideration, thus leaving you with only those that do exist.
    That, ironically, is begging the question.
    Then move on.
    Move away from what you see as being “supernatural free will” and start discussing what you see as natural free will.
    No one is stopping you.
    You don’t need my permission!
    But in however many threads you have participated in on this topic, you have failed to move on, instead gravitating around what I post, and then complaining about it.
    It’s like you’re complaining that you’re always cooped up in your room, but too afraid to venture out, more content with blaming other people for your predicament.
    You’re pathetic.
    We could, but then with regard this thread question, you’d be begging the question.
    To wit, let us assume that free will exists in a deterministic universe, then ask whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe...?
    You seem to agree that question begging is not a great argument (I’ll leave your confusion re: validity or not to one side), yet you want to explicitly beg the question in answering the question of this thread.
    Further, no one, other than you, has introduced the matter of the supernatural
    It is crippling your entire approach here, your entire effort at rebuttal, dragging this same strawman to the table every time.

    I genuinely look forward to when you move on to discuss what you claim to want to discuss, and when you stop fixating on what I have written.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Unfortunately you have demonstrated an inability to grasp very simple refutations but I shall try again...
    What if all available alternatives were genuinely equal in priority from a universe perspective ( a neutral universe)?
    What if all available alternatives ( infinite including timing) were a 50/50 chance of occurring?

    So Joe is confronted with a blank piece of paper and asked nicely if he could place a dot any where on the paper.
    Evey pixel of space has an equal chance of being dotted. The only one doing the choosing is the self determiner who has learned how to choose for himself.
    How is a neutral piece of paper determining where and when he puts his dot?

    The only problem is your inability to get past Aristotelian limitations and allow for things like neutrality or equality. You are begging the problem and assuming it exists when in fact it doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Baldeee

    Compare:
    If all things are predetermined then Freewill is impossible. ( ancient Greek, Level one logic)
    with
    If all things are predetermined then the living will has and is predetermined to have freedom of choice in a neutral universe ( Level two logic)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Your “simple refutations” are neither simple nor refutations.
    It is also not me who is failing to grasp the basics, here, Quantum Quack, but you...
    In a deterministic universe there is no “50/50 chance of occurring” (other than from the perception of something without the necessary knowledge, but this perception is actually irrelevant to their being no 50/50 chance).
    Everything is set in stone to happen as it does.
    Once the system starts, nothing can stop it from the course it is on.
    There are no “available alternatives”, or at least you (nor anyone else for that matter) have not come up with any genuinely available alternatives, only alternatives that are perceived subjectively to be alternatives, and not actually genuine at all.
    So your entire effort at refutation is flawed from the very start.
    No one has ever disputed that the process of “choice” exists, which you will have realised had you paid any attention to any of the discussion on this matter over the past year or more.
    Yet still you hark back to the existence of the mere process as if that answers the question, and not whether the process is actually free, whether the process offers the ability to arrive at genuine alternatives.
    It doesn’t.
    But, hey, if you define your cat as “free will” then I guess you can say it exists.
    So adorable when you throw words around and think you’re making a point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    why not? explain the limitation you are placing..
    yep... so is the universes neutrality with regards to the human will.
    explain the limitation you are placing..
    yep... universal neutrality to the human will is inevitable, as predetermined by initial starting conditions.

    Explain how those starting conditions have somehow acquired a conditional state that forbids the above...


    There is no problem other than your use of inferior logic...
    Thus begging the problem .....
    You need to prove there is a problem first......( a problem other than humans projecting their intellectual limitations and fatalistic religious tendencies)
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, I haven't.
    Which is why you can't quote me, despite the supposed "explicit" nature of the assumption.
    What I have explicitly posted is my assumption that no supernatural freedom of will can exist in a deterministic universe. That was long ago, and explicitly in agreement with you among others.
    I have also posted examples of lost or blocked degrees of freedom in the wills of particular humans that it seems to me can easily exist, or even do exist, in other humans (drug addiction effects, obsessive/compulsive mental disorders, PTSD effects, etc).
    A recommendation is not a requirement - and that kind of muddled bs is why I recommend avoiding the term altogether.
    I haven't decided what I think "free will" should refer to, if anything. It's a topic that needs discussion, imho.
    For the fifth or sixth time: You have. You have declared the very existence of alternatives to be "illusion" - much less the process of decision and choice among them.
    ?
    The process of choice, decision, etc, involved in willful human behavior does not arrive at alternatives. It begins with them.

    Meanwhile: The words "actually", "genuine", etc have no meaning in your posts, except as synonyms for "supernatural" - remember: your definition of "free" is - still, after months - able to defy cause and effect, act against deterministic physical law, do other than the deterministic universe determines one "must" do.
    I have repeatedly quoted you defining, arguing, and concluding, "it"; I have directed your attention to your definitions, and to the exact place(s) in your "argument" where you use them - where you invoke the assumed defiance of physical law and cause/effect by anything "free", and so forth. It's a basic assumption of your posting here - all of it.

    Which - as noted - you deny to logical levels. You also deny it - by presumption, without argument - to degrees of freedom extrapolated from basic engineering and statistical analysis, and any other approach to freedom of will that does not assume a defiance of physical law and ability to act other than as the universe determines one "must".

    Logical levels don't go away because you don't understand them, refuse to acknowledge them, etc. Substance continues to exist regardless of your opinion of its merit or worth;

    and trying to dismiss consideration of mental events, refuse to consider their causes and effects, etc, without acknowledging the logical levels involved (assuming equivalence in degrees of freedom between a human mind making a decision and a car orbiting the planet, say), is kind of silly.
    ( Prediction: you will again end up denying the existence of certain mental capabilities and events altogether, describing them as "illusions" and so forth).
     
    James R likes this.
  10. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    But you have gone the step further and assumed that any freedom of will that is concluded to not exist must therefore be supernatural, and thus excluded from the argument by default.
    Thus you are, with regard the question this thread poses, question-begging.
    And thus you cripple your entire criticism of anyone who might conclude "no" to the question posed.
    Noone disputes, has ever disputed, that the process exists, despite your protestations to the contrary.
    That some processes might be defective compared to a norm is irrelevant.
    A deterministic process remains a deterministic process irrespective of comparison to a norm.
    And it is the nature of the deterministic process that leads to the conclusion of "no" reached.
    No "supernatural" need apply.
    I never said your recommendation itself was a requirement, but I presume you are recommending one because you think it is required?
    If not, why recommend?
    So you do indeed think a moratorium is required!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And for the fifth or sixth time: calling something an illusion does not mean that the underlying process does not exist!
    You think that mirages don't exist?
    That the process by which we seem to see things that aren't there does not exist?
    Sure, what we think we see does not exist, but the process that creates that illusion is still there!
    So no, noone has ever disputed that the process of choice, of decision-making, exists.
    The question is, as it has always been, what is actually going on in that process, and whether anything is actually free.
    And the conclusion that I, and others reach, is that nothing in the process is free, but only appears to be free.
    Get it yet?
    No, it begins with the interpretation that there are genuine alternatives.
    But there aren't.
    Only counterfactual ones.
    This has been explained to you repeatedly.

    I once again am led to the conclusion that either you can't, or you just don't want to.
    Either way, conducive for further discussion it is not.

    That is the conclusion, not the definition, once the definition is applied to the deterministic universe.
    Again, this has been explained to you previously, many, many times.
    You are simply repeating yourself despite all the answers having been provided patiently and comprehensively in the past.
    No, you absolutely have not repeatedly quoted me defining it.
    You have repeatedly tried to fashion a version of the argument that you thinks shows it as an assumption, but all you have ever come up with, as shown at the time, are woeful strawmen with little bearing to what was actually argued.
    Lol.
    I'm sure you think that what you are saying here is true, but it simply isn't.
    You only have to read the rebuttals to it every time you have tried to raise the matter.
    But you still haven't grasped your error, and I have come to strongly doubt that you are capable of doing so.

    You wouldn't know if I do or not, because as yet we are still waiting for you to post an actual argument about them, rather than just rely on your appeals to complexity.
    Just shouting "logical levels" doesn't get you anywhere.
    You actually have to explain why they provide a difference in the nature of freedom compared to any Tesla that may be orbiting the sun.
    To date you have yet to provide anything.
    Still waiting.
    Utter nonsense that it is without argument.
    I'm not going to be held accountable for you being either unable or unwilling to read what I post.
    And yet again it is utter nonsense that I am assuming a defiance of physical law.
    Concluding, yes, but assuming, no.
    I'm not referring to any substance that there may be in the subject of what you raise, only in your argument about them.
    In that there isn't any.
    You're simply appealing to complexity.
    You have to put up more than just the appeal.
    Or do you think you shouting "logical levels!" is somehow supposed to wow me?
    Bless.
    For someone who clearly either doesn't want to, or simply can't, comprehend the issue being discussed, I guess they would find it kind of silly.
    Much like a toddler might find talk of the UK/EU relationship "kind of silly".
    Unfortunately for such people, their view of it doesn't change the issue.

    Prediction: rather than try to discuss that which you clearly want to, you will yet again gravitate to what I have posted, and in doing so will yet again misrepresent and misunderstand what has been stated and argued.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,357
    Do you miss me, QQ? I still lurk, and come out and throw balls at the coconuts every now and then. But alas I have have far more important and pressing matters these days than to spend with you as we rock backward and forward on the porch sipping beer and duelling banjos.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Ahh! Banjo dueling! Enjoy!
     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    That you don't even realize that my last two posts, the last one explicitly, addressed the issue is the clearest indication I could ask for that they, indeed, went completely over your head. Here's a hint, when in doubt, simply ask questions. It's sadly comical that when I directly address the issue you just claim you're frustrated and that I didn't. I have no doubt that you're frustrated. I would be too if I had hemmed and hawed for pages only to have my argument so easily thrashed.

    If you can't be bothered to simply agree on a theory of time, where you've stipulated many other odd things, I can only assume you have no real interest in an intellectually honest discussion. Thanks for wasting my time. Get back with me if you ever decide to argue on merit rather than just belief.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    "May be"? That inability, the blind spot that you create by assuming freedom requires violation of physical law and cause/effect sequence, is of course what I was referring to - invisibly, to you.

    (Meanwhile: "The subject of what you raise" is hash - the more closely read, the less sense it makes. That is - as noted before - a further step toward the apparently inevitable syntax collapse - "them" disagrees in number, and "substance" does not inhabit "the subject", which you have not figured out in the first place. Do you realize how revealing that kind of muddle has become?)

    But to return: None you can recognize, given your assumptions, of course. The degrees of freedom I reference apparently cannot be seen by someone assuming all freedom rests in abrogation of determining cause and determining physical law - you can't even acknowledge logical levels, as if cause and effect at the substrate level could determine pattern.

    Whenever you get around to dropping the supernatural assumption you will find more substance appearing - as if by magic.
    You did. I quoted one of those instances right there in the post. Notice the word "require".
    Or cause/effect sequence, etc.
    You define freedom in a deterministic universe as that capability. That's what allows you to "conclude" that it doesn't exist.
    I have quoted the exact place in your argument where you do that - several times now. It isn't even always hidden as implicit, but is explicit in your definition of free will - doing other than one must, doing other than what the universe has determined (via cause/effect, physical law, etc), is your definition of "free". Explicitly. In those words. Your posting, and posting you endorsed, both. Several times.
    You also assumed it, implicitly, many times, in "concluding" the impossibility of free will in a deterministic universe - which is of course perfectly aligned with your definition, and not surprising. I have quoted all of this, from your posts.
    ? You have my posting, which is a layout of your argument, backwards.
    You have me posting that if something does not exist, it is supernatural.
    My actual posting - which was not my argument, but a layout of your argument - was that if something is supernatural, it does not exist.
    (in a universe determined by physical law, cause/effect, etc , as we have assumed here.)
    I agreed with that argument - I think you were and are correct about the mutual exclusion of the deterministic universe we assumed and the existence of the supernatural you concluded was impossible.
    I recall even diagramming that for you, with little arrows showing the direction of implication, one time - to no avail, apparently.
    Shouting? That exclamation point is yours, not mine - you are unable to even quote without screwing up, apparently.

    You have referred to logical levels as "handwaving", denied their existence (the Tesla posts), and claimed the patterns of behavior resident within higher ones have no degrees of freedom different in kind from a thermostat. No, I don't think logical levels are going to wow you. I think you have no idea what they are. How else could you overlook the mental processes involved in a driver's choosing from among alternatives as they approach a traffic light? How else could you prove unable to recognize the nature of the degrees of freedom involved in the cascading and feedback looped influence of dreams and memories on physical behavior?

    So my original estimate of mere months in getting past the supernatural assumption and tackling the subject of freedom in the real world was optimistic. But the situation is not hopeless -
    not as long as that kind of frail amnesia is the major support of the supernatural assumption. That's not going to survive even incremental progress in comprehension.
    But pointing to your Tesla posting, thermostat comparison, continued and willful and bizarre inability to address the driver/light illustration, and similar examples of stubbornly maintained obliviousness, does bring the matter closer to a focus. In particular: one can see that what is missing is your argument about such matters - your addressing of the driver/light example, for example. The central role of logical levels - the fact that the arenas of action, the causes and effects, the behaviors and consequences of the decision, are in the driver's mind at various levels and kinds of pattern and feedback and degrees of freedom - will be unavoidable if and when you get around to it. And it's not far away.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2020
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    At least a half dozen times, in this thread alone - twice each in posts 87 and 90, for example. Again - with a fairly thorough presentation of your argument, in particular - in post 319. Numerous times before and after and in between.
    You and the others denied that the alternatives exist, the capabilities among which the driver chooses. You denied that "genuine" or "actual" choice exists. (Synonyms for supernatural, a fact you also deny).
    And you alternately denied the existence (in even numbered posts?) or the significance (in odd numbered posts?) of the degrees of freedom present in the making of a decision. (Sometimes both in one post, in typical obliviousness)

    So there is little validity in a claim that you did not dispute the "process", after one notices you have denied the reality of every acting component of it and every action taken by them.
    I read your posts, in which you deny the significance of logical levels - even, ludicrously, asserting an equivalence in degrees of freedom between human mental processes and simple machines. That's how I know.
    Only for the supernatural. But you deny that you are assuming the supernatural - so the claim there is simply false (as well as gibberish, btw - as the arguments break down, so does the language).
    It is. Look at post 319, for example.
    You have repeatedly defined freedom as the ability to do other than the universe determines via natural law and cause/effect- that defines freedom as supernatural.
    Definitions are assumptions, as you make clear in your arguments.
    Again: 319 illustrates. Look at the premises (premises are assumptions).
     
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    I don't assume it requires violation at all!
    That is your miscomprehension of the logic.
    The assumption is that freedom is the ability to do other than one must.
    If there is no "must" in the assumed universe, if physical law and cause/effect does not create a "must", then there is no issue, and freedom can be concluded to (possibly) exist.
    It is only when one introduces that second assumption, the deterministic universe, and what that entails, one can conclude that there is no such freedom in such a universe.
    That's it.
    The rest of your flight of fancy as to what has been said, your crippling effort as seeing that as assuming the supernatural, is all down to you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "The subject of what you raise" is not "hash" but quite acceptable English.
    You do know what "subject" means, I take it?
    I accept that "them" disagrees in number, but who would be so obnoxious as to raise issue over a missing "s"?
    And substance, at least one meaning of it, very much does inhabit the subject.
    Again, you do know that "substance" has more than one use: a literal and a metaphorical one, I take it?
    Oh, I have no doubt you have some arguments waiting in the wings.
    It is just that, to date, they are conspicuous by their absence, other than the odd appeal to them.
    Whenever you get round to actually providing the substance, maybe you'll stop wasting everyone's time with your fallacious claims regarding the supernatural.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Yet another example of your muddled thinking, and your own inaccurate comprehension of what has been posted.
    I define freedom simply as being devoid of a "must".
    If the universe in question (in this case the deterministic one) necessitates a "must" then you do the math.
    Can you conclude differently?
    Note the assumptions, though: one is a definition of freedom - with no mention or reference to a nature of universe; the second is the nature of the universe.
    Now, where is the "supernatural" you are so obsessed with?
    And where you do quote it, as has been explained to you before, you are quoting supplementary arguments, but you are misrepresenting them as primary.
    Ah, yes, the implicit assumption in the same way that one implicitly assumes that Socrates is mortal, because, well, after all, we all know men are mortal, so defining socrates as a man we are already assuming him mortal, right?
    I am not referring to that, but to the implication in your complaints of "supernatural".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You think I used the term "shouting" because of the exclaimation mark, rather than your cries whenever those appeals don't take hold???
    How sad are you?
    No, really?
    No, I have referred to your appeals to them as handwaving.
    There is a difference.
    Wrong again: I have simply denied that the nature of the freedom is any different to that found in an orbiting Tesla.
    And I'm waiting for you to provide, you know, an actual argument as to why they should be considered different.
    To date... nada.
    And again you show your lack of comprehension of what is being argued.
    They can be as complex and as important to human operation as you want, but they are ultimately irrelevant to the argument presented, simply because they operate within the deterministic universe.
    It doesn't mean they don't exist, that they aren't important to the way we perceive ourselves operating, only that it makes no difference to the answer reached of the question asked.
    Processes can be as complex as you want, but while they are deterministic, the answer has been reached.
    And unless you can show how the complexity somehow enables us to conclude differently... well, you're just being irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
    Certainly just appealing to them, as you have thus far done, is a waste of effort.
    And while you continue to claim you have done one thing while remaining willfully ignorant of every effort to correct you of your (deliberate) misrepresentation, you will be continually arguing against your own strawmen.
    And still not getting anywhere.
    As I believe I said from the outset, and which we can presumably add to the list of your own amnesia, I'm not interested in what I consider to be trivial notions of freedom that I don't see addressing the question asked.

    Yet still, as predicted, you are but a moth to my flame.
    And the world spins uninterrupted.
     
  17. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    They are not the original argument, but are instead supplementary arguments that begin with a premise that is already the conclusion of the previous/original argument.
    This is what Sarkus pointed out to you in post #326.
    Yet still here you are peddling your dishonesty.

    Further, despite every effort to show you the error of your ways, which you yet again commit in this very post, you continue your banality.
    To wit: at no point is the freedom defined as being "the ability to do other than the universe determines via natural law and cause/effect".
    It is simply defined defined as the ability to do other than one must.
    If we consider a universe where there is no "must" then that negates your entire rebuttal, and such freedom might well exist.
    It is only when we link it, via the second premise of the deterministic universe, that we conclude that such freedom can not exist in the deterministic universe.
    Note the combination of the assumptions to reach the conclusion.
    It really isn't that complicated, and as you can see, no mention of the supernatural, no need for the supernatural to even be equated to anything: if something doesn't exist then it doesn't exist.
    Unless, of course, one considers concluding Socrates to be mortal as assuming it in the premises.
    Which you surely do, given your fallacious thinking here.
    Yes, we have denied that genuine alternatives exist.
    They don't, for the reasons already given.
    But we do not deny the process by which the results is reached.
    It just isn't a genuine alternative, no matter our subjective view of it.
    There is nothing synonymous about "genuine" and "supernatural" in this regard, despite your apparent obsession with the term.
    Unless you want to equate anything that is concluded not to exist as being supernatural.
    Oh, wait, but that is what you're doing, isn't it.
    I have not denied the existence, so please stop lying, if you can, for one second.
    I have denied that the nature of the freedom is any different than that found in an orbiting Tesla.
    And you have yet to show how they are, let alone how they are significant.
    One only needs to read what I have posted, and not simply respond to what you think I have posted.
    And you have yet to show how they are different.
    Go figure.
    Or are you simply going to continue your appeals to complexity?
    I do deny it, because it is true that I am denying it.
    So the claim remains true, and not gibberish, and nor does the argument break down, let alone the language.
    On the contrary, it is you who is introducing efforts at equivocation that aren't there, and it is you who is misrepresenting what is said.
    Your interpretation of what I have said may well be gibberish, but that would be your interpration at fault.
    I suggest you work on that.

    Further prediction: the moth will return, unwilling/unable to move on.
    I'll help you by putting you back on ignore.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2020
  18. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    The frustration is that you are raising matters without explaining why even you think they are actually important to the issue.
    If you honestly think that what you wrote directly addresses the issue, you need to send me the Rosetta stone.
    Lay it out clearly - not just what the theories are, which you have done, but what any of them have to do with the importance of the initial conditions to the issue of the existence of free will in a deterministic universe?
    Can you answer that?
    Please?
    Then we can actually see if what you have to offer on the matter is worth discussing.
    Don't expect me to waste my time with you if you really are going to throw up what, to me, are just price lists for eggs.
    No doubt you'll continue to try to stroke your ego and fallaciously see my unwillingness to engage with you on matters of the theory of time as being that I don't understand them sufficiently.
    But sometimes an egg is just an egg, a cigar is just a cigar.
    You show how they're relevant to the claim you made, then we can discuss.
    If you can't, then you can put the eggs back on the shelf, and perhaps you can more directly answer the question of why you think the initial conditions are important to the issue of the existence of free will in a deterministic universe.
    I have no interest on agreeing to anything where I can not see its relevance, and where you are avoiding expressing why you consider them relevant to the matter of the importance of the initial conditions to the issue of the existence of free will in a deterministic universe.
    You raised them as being relevant, so the onus is on you to set out why you think they are.
    And so far you haven't.

    Your call.
     
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    It should be fairly obvious why time is a critical factor in any causation, as cause and effect are defined by their order in time. Sorry I overestimated you.
    Yep, way over your head.
    If you bothered to look up the theories of time for yourself, it should have been obvious that these were not just their definitions. The theories themselves do not make any inferences to free will. They're just the different theories of how time works.
    • Presentism - According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all.
    • Growing block universe - the past and present exist while the future does not. ... By the passage of time more of the world comes into being
    • Eternalism - all existence in time is equally real
    Again, there's no accounting for you not understanding that time is crucial to any causality, so much so that you see it as a price list.
    And again, if what I've already told you is forever beyond your grasp, so be it. I'm not here to give you a basic education in causation and time. If you're not intellectually lazy, you can use Google and Wiki just like anyone else.

    Reread the bolded bits above. Maybe repetition will elucidate.

    Hey, if that's how you really want to beg off, so be it. But if you are genuinely curious, albeit thick, ask questions. We can take the theories one by one if you need to. We can even start with whatever definitions of them you find and understand.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Baldeee

    Vociferous response ;

    Yes .

    But Time is not the cause and effect ; of cause and effect ; of anything . Time in and of its self is not a factor in neither action .
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  21. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    I’ve removed what you have failed to show is actually relevant to the discussion, but felt it worth putting in at least the first and last word as a minimum, so that you can keep tabs of where the relevancy seems to be lacking.

    Seriously, despite being asked repeatedly, are you so unable to show why any of this is relevant to the claim you made, of the importance of the initial conditions in a deterministic system to the question of free will?
    Or is just unwilling on your part?
    ‘Cos despite your continuing bluster, there is no relevance so far posted.

    Yes, yes you’ve posted some theories of time, and yes, time is important to causality, or at least the perception of time is important to the perception of causality.
    But nowhere have you actually provided details of why any of it is actually relevant.
    So is it that you are unable, or just unwilling?
    Explain how you think the theory of time one adopts impacts how one might answer the question of freewill within a deterministic universe.
    Can you do that?

    Let’s make it easier for you: how does whether one declares the initial conditions now or at the start of a growing block of time have any bearing on the question of free will, if it is the fact that the outcome of any input (initial conditions or otherwise) in a deterministic system is necessarily fixed by those conditions and the system.
    I.e. (and I really don’t know how many different ways to ask this but let’s try again...) how is what you have posted about the theories of time relevant to the issue?
    You can set up another thread if you’re so keen to discuss the theories of time, but until you show why it is relevant here... :shrug:

    ‘Cos all you’ve done so far is introduce some theories of time, and walked away as if that is in itself sufficient to answer any question asked of you in this regard.
    It isn’t.
    It merely raises the one additional question that I have been asking, and you have been refusing to answer: what do you think is the relevance of the theories of time to the question(s) at hand.
    You can waffle on and fallaciously assume it all goes above my head, just as it would be similarly the case that the price of eggs is clearly above your head, such is your apparent unwillingness to discuss that.

    Explain why you think what you have raised is relevant to the issue of free will in a deterministic universe, specifically how it is relevant to the importance of the initial conditions to the question of free will, or stop wasting everyone’s time.
    When you have shown them to be relevant, then we can discuss them.
    The onus is on you.
    Your choice.
    Show why you think what you have raised is more than just a price list.

    Or is this all beyond you?
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They are the original arguments. Those premises are the original premises.
    That is the supernatural assumption. You keep making it.
    That was agreed to by everyone here as the ground of the entire discussion on this forum. It predates this thread. And it makes no difference.

    Assuming a deterministic universe has no necessary effect on the existence of natural freedom of will - only supernatural.
     
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    I've removed all the justifications for you not comprehending the very simple theories of time and what they mean for the determining power of initial conditions. I even repeated my post and emphasized exactly where I made explicit references to the relevancy to free will in a deterministic system.

    I can only assume that it's all just that far over your head that you can't even manage to minimally engage with it, which yeesh, or that you have some unknown objection that you have yet to successfully articulate. Just blithely saying it's irrelevant isn't going to cut it. But that's your choice. You're perfectly free to use this as an excuse to beg off.
    Hey, you finally managed to ask a relevant question. Good for you. Maybe you can engage after all.

    I would think it would be obvious that, if the initial conditions are now, now is the primary determining input. That puts no limitations at all on the efficacy of free will. And even at the start of a growing block universe, the uncertainty of the future would be due to a determining input from the present, again putting fewer limitations on free will. These are why I presumed you would what to stipulate eternalism, where past, present, and future are all equally real and set in stone.

    But if you can't follow that simple reasoning enough to pick one, meh. I certainly can't lead you by the nose to somewhere you refuse to go.
     

Share This Page