Free Will vs. Determinism

[Emyunoxious]

Determinism (specifically causal determinism) is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely, or at least to some large degree, determined by prior states. Hence "determinism" is the name of a broader philosophical view that conjectures that every type of event, including human cognition (behaviour, decision, and action) is causally determined by previous events.

Free will is the putative ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

Source: Wiki


UH PLAIN ENGLISH OR SOME SHIT I GUESS WE NEED THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE

"Free will is the idea that every person can decide what to do freely.
The opposite of free will is determinism. Determinism means that, if someone knew everything about someone else, they could work out exactly what that person would do."

Source: Simple.wiki

Well, that's baby talk.


So, uh, what do you think? Are you in control of your actions?

 

[Jquestionmark]

If you think your subconscious is part of you and that you in some way have control over it, then the free will argument makes sense.

If you think that your conscious is separate from your mind, is some kind of "spirit" or is a process which is required in order to consider something free will, then the determinist argument makes sense.

So there's no evidence for either one of these? If there's a force making it possible to make our own decisions (beyond what physics dictates the particles that form us would be doing of their own volition) shouldn't we have found some sign of it?

I think that might be what Emyu is really getting at: do we have any evidence to back up either of these ideas? Or does it have to be belief in which one is happening?

Or, I'm totally off, and you've already hit the nail on the head (like you said, that is how this discussion usually concludes). But even if it is, couldn't we take the discussion further: look for evidence of one of the two?

 

[Demon]

Human beings are generally weak in comparison to anything else.

So, free will probably isn't the most valid theory.

Certain amounts of free will have to exist, but that doesn't necessarily disprove that determinism might be the more valid theory.

 

[der Astronom]

Determinism is true only insofar as induction is true. Inductive logic basically relies on the fact that if the sun rises every day I wake up, it must rise tomorrow as well--it sounds reasonable, but the fact remains that nothing is preventing the sun from not rising tomorrow. We can reasonably predict how someone will act based on previous behavior, but they are not bound to it--there is no logical argument that prevents other possibilities from happening, so determinism doesn't determine for us what happens in the future.
In a recent discussion elsewhere, we seem to be so obsessed with the future that we'll even plan for it with present knowledge, but there isn't necessarily a correlation between the future and the present; the future is completely unknowable. We just find determinism useful because it provides us with a probability of how likely we can expect something, but by no means, is it absolutely true.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Determinism is true only insofar as induction is true. Inductive logic basically relies on the fact that if the sun rises every day I wake up, it must rise tomorrow as well--it sounds reasonable, but the fact remains that nothing is preventing the sun from not rising tomorrow. We can reasonably predict how someone will act based on previous behavior, but they are not bound to it--there is no logical argument that prevents other possibilities from happening, so determinism doesn't determine for us what happens in the future.
In a recent discussion elsewhere, we seem to be so obsessed with the future that we'll even plan for it with present knowledge, but there isn't necessarily a correlation between the future and the present; the future is completely unknowable. We just find determinism useful because it provides us with a probability of how likely we can expect something, but by no means, is it absolutely true.

Strictly speaking, aren't there different levels of inductive truth? The probability of the sun rising or an object falling is up there pretty high, while prediction of an individual's actions tend to be a lot lower.

Given a complete understanding of all the things involved (a person's past, brain chemistry, the particles that compose them, and all the surrounding events, people, and particles), wouldn't we be able to push the level of determinism's accuracy to the same as the likely-hood of the sun rising? To be more specific, wouldn't a force outside of the universe be required to change the events that the universe is already going to experience?

 

[der Astronom]

Strictly speaking, aren't there different levels of inductive truth? The probability of the sun rising or an object falling is up there pretty high, while prediction of an individual's actions tend to be a lot lower.

Well ja, I was aware of that, and that's precisely how science works. Most of it depends on inductive logic, which is also the same reason why we never say anything is true with absolute certainty in science; we can consider something as fact and still not be completely sure that it's true; but here's the thing: there is no logical argument that anyone can provide that shows we can ever reach a 100% truth through inductive logic alone. Not any I'm aware of anyways. There's always a possibility that what I seem to see and predict won't continue to behave the same way I've always seen it do, and unless you can provide an external logical argument that shows there is no other possibility, there's no reason to believe we'll reach a 100% truth.

Given a complete understanding of all the things involved (a person's past, brain chemistry, the particles that compose them, and all the surrounding events, people, and particles), wouldn't we be able to push the level of determinism's accuracy to the same as the likely-hood of the sun rising? To be more specific, wouldn't a force outside of the universe be required to change the events that the universe is already going to experience?

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to say it has to be a force outside of the universe; maybe our model of the universe is simply wrong, so we might be compelled to think nothing can change it unless there's some unknown X-factor outside of our universe that changes it. And even if you had past knowledge of something, it can be different from knowledge you have of something in the present, and if everything you know now becomes past knowledge, what replaces the knowledge you have now? Can you know what it will be replaced by? How about simplifying it by predicting the roll of a dice?

 

[Jquestionmark]

Well ja, I was aware of that, and that's precisely how science works. Most of it depends on inductive logic, which is also the same reason why we never say anything is true with absolute certainty in science; we can consider something as fact and still not be completely sure that it's true; but here's the thing: there is no logical argument that anyone can provide that shows we can ever reach a 100% truth through inductive logic alone. Not any I'm aware of anyways. There's always a possibility that what I seem to see and predict won't continue to behave the same way I've always seen it do, and unless you can provide an external logical argument that shows there is no other possibility, there's no reason to believe we'll reach a 100% truth.

I agree with this entirely. To make an argument that something can ever be 100% sure is a foolish undertaking if you ask me.

That being said, is our inability to know something with 100% accuracy a problem with our observations, or a function of the way the universe works. Can we not know what will happen in the universe because it is not guaranteed, or because we are unable to know every involved factor?

If events in the universe are guaranteed (regardless of our ability to know them), then we are in a determinist setting. If events in the universe are not guaranteed, then free will isn't just a must, Lady Luck herself is a goddess capable of swaying events at every turn (okay, maybe not, that's a bit hyperbolic). For a more clear explanation: if we are actually dealing with a closed system with set rules, wouldn't everything that will happen be necessitated by everything that has happened (since the rules and objects are guarantees)?

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to say it has to be a force outside of the universe; maybe our model of the universe is simply wrong, so we might be compelled to think nothing can change it unless there's some unknown X-factor outside of our universe that changes it. And even if you had past knowledge of something, it can be different from knowledge you have of something in the present, and if everything you know now becomes past knowledge, what replaces the knowledge you have now? Can you know what it will be replaced by? How about simplifying it by predicting the roll of a dice?

My bad, I should have clarified. In a hypothetical situation, where our knowledge of the universe is complete (and correct). In reality, yeah, if the sun were to not rise, then ultimately the two explanations (force outside of the universe or our understanding of the universe being wrong) are equally valid.

Granted, in the end, it's all a moot point, because it's all hypothetical situations, we don't actually know all the rules of the universe, so it's all pure conjecture. But, I dunno, I find it fun to conjecture about (particularly the social/moral/ethical ramifications of free will existing or not).

 

[der Astronom]

If events in the universe are guaranteed (regardless of our ability to know them), then we are in a determinist setting. If events in the universe are not guaranteed, then free will isn't just a must, Lady Luck herself is a goddess capable of swaying events at every turn (okay, maybe not, that's a bit hyperbolic). For a more clear explanation: if we are actually dealing with a closed system with set rules, wouldn't everything that will happen be necessitated by everything that has happened (since the rules and objects are guarantees)?

And why do you believe that to be the case? Is there a logical reason to believe that previous events are the only things that can determine what will happen? I agree it can have an effect on what will happen, but I guess because our view of time is also inductive, I don't know if you can ever consider an event that can occur spontaneously without requiring a previous event to drive it.

 

[Jquestionmark]

And why do you believe that to be the case? Is there a logical reason to believe that previous events are the only things that can determine what will happen? I agree it can have an effect on what will happen, but I guess because our view of time is also inductive, I don't know if you can ever consider an event that can occur spontaneously without requiring a previous event to drive it.

The rules would be the clincher. In the hypothetical situation I'm talking about, all of the matter in the universe would be following specific rules. If the rules are set, the prior and current states of all the objects in the universe would lead directly to the next state via the rules.

In the real universe, spontaneous events are definitely a possibility (especially with all the strangeness that goes on with quantum mechanics). To be strictly realistic about it, there's absolutely no guarantee that all of the particles in the universe won't just fly off in random directions for no apparent reason, or stop existing, or keep doing what we'd expect them to do. Realistically, yeah, there's potentially not even anything holding the universe together right now beyond the purest of luck, and all past events are potentially irrelevant for predicting the future because they may have happened only through random chance (I'm not just talking human-scale events, I mean even on an atomic scale). Well, okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get what I mean.

 

[der Astronom]

The rules would be the clincher. In the hypothetical situation I'm talking about, all of the matter in the universe would be following specific rules. If the rules are set, the prior and current states of all the objects in the universe would lead directly to the next state via the rules.

In the real universe, spontaneous events are definitely a possibility (especially with all the strangeness that goes on with quantum mechanics). To be strictly realistic about it, there's absolutely no guarantee that all of the particles in the universe won't just fly off in random directions for no apparent reason, or stop existing, or keep doing what we'd expect them to do. Realistically, yeah, there's potentially not even anything holding the universe together right now beyond the purest of luck, and all past events are potentially irrelevant for predicting the future because they may have happened only through random chance (I'm not just talking human-scale events, I mean even on an atomic scale). Well, okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I'm sure you get what I mean.

Ja, that's the idea. The problem is also in distinguishing between past events we are aware of, or events simply being spontaneous--was the event caused by something else not from the past, or was there actually something in the past that caused it, but we were either incorrect in our attribution of the thing that caused it, or did not know what caused it? Since our knowledge of these things is pretty much inductive, it's pretty difficult to tell the difference.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Ja, that's the idea. The problem is also in distinguishing between past events we are aware of, or events simply being spontaneous--was the event caused by something else not from the past, or was there actually something in the past that caused it, but we were either incorrect in our attribution of the thing that caused it, or did not know what caused it? Since our knowledge of these things is pretty much inductive, it's pretty difficult to tell the difference.

That leaves us with the conclusion that there's no reliable way to tell if free will exists, or if determinism exists.

To assume determinism, we'd have to assume that forces outside the universe cannot act upon it (and if they can, that they follow set, unchanging rules), and forces in the universe follow set, unchanging rules.

To assume free will, we'd have to assume that such a force exists which could cause changes of its own will, be it external to the universe or a part of it.

What we've observed so far doesn't give us a whole lot to go on. Some observations support the unchanging rules, but other observations imply that things will happen regardless of the rules we think are in place. Either direction requires a pretty big leap to give good odds to. In this particular case, the only thing you can really believe in is that we currently have no way of really knowing.

Personally, though, I'd say unless we want to run the assumption that everything is pure chance at all times, we have to tip in the direction of determinism. Sure, it's all inductive, and there are no guarantees, but the odds have held pretty true so far (sun rising, objects falling down, etc.). If we're going to assume that the sun will rise, and dropped objects will fall, then wouldn't it make sense to extend that out to assuming a determinist setting? Ultimately, we don't have all the information, so we're left assuming regardless, but we might as well stick to the one that's been reliable so far.

 

[Daenoxiis]

I think that The Observer Effect is less limited to the laws of physics than we really realize. Cognition, and the development of Critical Thinking, are among the most definitive of what definitively make us different as a species, regardless of rather a person believes in spiritualism or evolution: We simply have these developed traits which lie dormant underneath the cardboard cutout of our social construct that we're supposed to be ignorant enough to believe and ignore the innate suggestion that we experience as individuals that this much advancement with the rise of our electrical technology and what it has done really mostly for itself, the mind can only comprehend what has already been processed regardless of the external world around us and that is what learning is.

Critical Thinking and the Cognitive skills give us the ability to "interrupt" the auto-pilot that we naturally exist in as social animals.

While determinism ties into grandiose theological concepts such as the eternal tapestry of life, or the grand design of life, free will gives us the ability to interrupt and/or do a manual override of that automated state.

Now if you consider the difference between a subjective and objective reality, our default auto-pilot state is a subjective reality, however keeping that safe requires objective structure. The objective reality is the egg carton that holds the egg of your subjective existence.

So the way that I personally experience it is that it's neither one nor the other, but is that it's both, but not at the same time, more like switching between the two.