A Refutation of Determinism
 

It seems clear that there are two distinct possibilities when considering how the world and its inhabitants operate. Either

A) All actions are fully predetermined by the laws of physics, etc., and an omniscient being with full information could give you the complete state of the universe at any point in space-time; thus, free will does not exist

or

B) Humans, and potentially other beings, living or otherwise, have some degree of free will and volition, and thus have the power to affect the future state of the world to the extent that it cannot be predicted fully, even with full information.

Quantum mechanics and the like may provide us with a situation in which the state of the world is predetermined but with certain probabilities, but let's set that aside for the moment (I don't think it makes much difference in any case). Clearly, one of the two possibilities is the actual state of nature. If we are to assume that A is correct, then it seems as if our traditional standards of morality go out the window. After all, morality is about choices: murdering an innocent is presumed to be "wrong" because one could have had refrained from this action, yet chose not to. If a crazy , humongous serial killer grabs my arm and uses it to beat a little old lady to death, most people would not say that I did anything wrong: while it's technically true that I beat Grandma to her grave, I had absolutely no choice in the matter; the serial killer was entirely responsible for my actions, for better or for worse. It is difficult to see where morality can fit into a purely determinate world.

Thus, again consider the state of your own personal mentality if situation A is indeed correct. If you were to believe in choice B, you would be incorrect - but is there anything "wrong" with being incorrect here? After all, you have no say in the matter, and in fact you're not right or wrong at all, you're just carrying out the thought process that you must carry out, with no appeal to logic or reason. Your wrongness has no consequences since it has no alternative.

Let's say, however, that situation B is correct. Now, if you believe in situation A, you are again incorrect. However, this time there may be consequences; in a world where we are free to make decisions, maintaining an invalid belief may prove costly. Believing in determinism may lead to choices that are practically irrational (drawing to a the low end of a straight), as well as morally deplorable (socking the dealer when your straight hits and you lose to the high end).

Therefore, it appears as if determinism is in fact correct, it does you no good to "believe" in it, but if it is not, it may do you much harm. Therefore, you should do your best not to believe in (or at least not to act in accord with) determinism, as this decision seems to leave you with the highest possible EV. Note that this analysis is not analogous with the "better believe in God in case he actually exists" argument - in that case, there may be negative consequences to believing in a higher power if in fact there is none. Here, however, it's not even clear what it would mean to be a determinist if that were the reality, since your belief would have no meaning or importance (nor would any other action or happening).

In conclusion, it is the nut best belief to trust in free will, whether or not it actually exists. Make sense?

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

No, no, no, no, no.

First off, if determinism is true, we have to rethink our position on justice. Perhaps the correct thing to do to a criminal in some situations is try to correct him (imagine that!) rather than brutally punish him.

Morality, as you point it out, is archaic and useless. As a useful tool, morality provides a few guidelines which, if followed by each social member, enable all of them to live a happier life. That's the only useful purpose it has. Morality has to be based on determinism (or its more correct alternative); not the other way around. The physical theory is more fundamental.

I believe in determinism, yet you don't see me socking the dealer. That will get me thrown out of the casino or worse. I'm aware of that, and that awareness helps cause me not to do something stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in determinism may lead to choices that are practically irrational (drawing to a the low end of a straight), as well as morally deplorable (socking the dealer when your straight hits and you lose to the high end).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, did you pull that right out of your ass? DETERMINISTS DON'T DO THIS! It DOESN'T make you insane or angry or deadly or nihilistic or any of that. I don't know why people think determinism is dangerous, and I think it's because they can't think about reality clearly.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, no, no, no, no.

First off, if determinism is true, we have to rethink our position on justice. Perhaps the correct thing to do to a criminal in some situations is try to correct him (imagine that!) rather than brutally punish him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If determinism is true, we don't need to (nor can we) rethink our position on anything. What are you correcting the criminal for? What did he do wrong? And how can you "try" to correct him? You'll either do it or you won't, but you certainly won't have any say in the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in determinism may lead to choices that are practically irrational (drawing to a the low end of a straight), as well as morally deplorable (socking the dealer when your straight hits and you lose to the high end).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, did you pull that right out of your ass? DETERMINISTS DON'T DO THIS! It DOESN'T make you insane or angry or deadly or nihilistic or any of that. I don't know why people think determinism is dangerous, and I think it's because they can't think about reality clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say determinists would do that - I said they might. I also didn't say determinism makes you insane or angry or deadly or nihilist, but if you believe in determinism, what difference does it make anyway? It doesn't make any sense to be angry or nihilist because it doesn't make any sense to be anything; nothing matters because everything is what it will be, and that's it.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
nothing matters because everything is what it will be, and that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's think of it this way:

Let's say I develop a robot that looks and behaves remarkably like a human being. I program this robot to become successful. The robot has the intelligence and motivation to pursue a path of success. It goes to school, invests wisely, works hard, and eventually becomes very successful.

As I see it, humans are much the same way, except that our "programming" is a little more abstract. Some people have developed different motivations than others, as a result of experience/environment. Some people have been conditioned with defeatist attitudes, and believe that their efforts are worthless, so as a result they don't try. Some people have been conditioned with more aggressive approaches to life, so they believe they have to work hard to get what they want, and as a result, they do.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

I believe a number of religions take he 'determinist' view, though rather than relying on physics (heaven forbid) they assume that anything that happens is the 'will of G-d'.

However, even in societies which have adopted such religions as the 'state religion' or which are effective theocracies, governed by such religions, those who transgress aren't off the hook because their actions were 'the will of G-d.'

I guess it comes down to this -- whether free will is real or an illusion, every society treats it as free will. To follow through on another poster in this thread. If I sock a dealer at a casino, it may well be the inevitable workings of the laws of physics. However, those same laws of physics inevitably result in a$$ will getting thrown out of the Casino, and most likely getting it thrown into jail.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

First, your post is not a refutation of anything.

Second,

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say determinists would do that - I said they might. I also didn't say determinism makes you insane or angry or deadly or nihilist, but if you believe in determinism, what difference does it make anyway? It doesn't make any sense to be angry or nihilist<u> because it doesn't make any sense to be</u> anything; nothing matters because everything is what it will be, and that's it.


[/ QUOTE ]

is why I am fond of pointing out that one cannot be entirely rational.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

you have a much too broad understanding of what the term refutation means

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
you have a much too broad understanding of what the term refutation means

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

OK, then, I will. Perhaps I used the word in too narrow a sense.

Refute:
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

You haven't shown determinism to be wrong. You have just shown it is foolish to use it to guide your life. The argument concerning LaPlace's Demon in this thread does a better job of refuting determinism

Stu

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, you should do your best not to believe in (or at least not to act in accord with) determinism, as this decision seems to leave you with the highest possible EV.

[/ QUOTE ] Whether or not you believe in it doesn't affect your EV, but, as you correctly point out, whether or not you act in accord with it does.

Good post.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
The argument concerning LaPlace's Demon in this thread does a better job of refuting determinism

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this refutes determinism. Laplace was one of the first ardent determinists. Your statement
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I could abstain from eating that bowl of ice cream.

[/ QUOTE ]
amounts essentially to saying "Determinism is false."

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

I suggest you read the book
Elbow Room , it may settle your worries.

D.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, it is the nut best belief to trust in free will, whether or not it actually exists. Make sense?


[/ QUOTE ]

The real issue seems to be how can we escape determinism on a non-theistic basis. The only option is pure randomness which doesn't appear any more attractive than pure determinism. The core difficulty is that it's impossible for a non-theistic metaphysic to provide rational justification to the idea that human life has any significance whatsover.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
The core difficulty is that it's impossible for a non-theistic metaphysic to provide rational justification to the idea that human life has any significance whatsover.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rational Justification:

P1) Humans determine significance
P2) I am a human
P3) My life is signficant to me
C) Human life is significant

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
A) All actions are fully predetermined by the laws of physics, etc., and an omniscient being with full information could give you the complete state of the universe at any point in space-time; thus, free will does not exist

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't follow at all. "Free will" means doing what you want. It doesn't mean acting randomly. Free will and determinism are compatible.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you read the book
Elbow Room , it may settle your worries.

D.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great book. So is Consciousness Explained by the same author.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

I hope I don't sound smug or anything. But determinism and free-will, indeterminism, fate or what have you are entirely irrelevant to justice and morality. I mean, come on. What if I didn't know I had free will? Would I be responsible then? Or what if I was wrong about having free will, would I no longer be resonsible? Plenty of people have played Nintendo and not known the source code, and knowing it would't have affected their play in the least.

Your argument really goes like this
"Responsibility must exist because I feel responsible"
"If I didn't have control over all of my actions then I wouldn't be responsible"
"Therefore I have control over all my actions"
It's a reductio ad absudum that proves it's own premise.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

You are born into life, and immediately breathe "air". So much for "free will": how is it that we are related in "free will" to our earthly state?

The difficulty is that in static thought it looks at "freedom" and "free will" as a present end state without mobility.

Another approach could be; does mankind display evidence of a "freer(?) will" in an evolutionary sense? Is this "freedom of will" the evolutionary work of man?

Man walks the earth and in the determinist sense he is "not free". I believe it was Spinosa who likened Man to a thrown rock who thinks he is free.

So what is this "free will" we talk about?

carlo

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]

C) Human life is significant


[/ QUOTE ]

What's significant about a cosmic accident that no one remembers when it's disappeared?

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

C) Human life is significant


[/ QUOTE ]

What's significant about a cosmic accident that no one remembers when it's disappeared?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's significant to me, right now. It makes me happy.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are born into life, and immediately breathe "air". So much for "free will": how is it that we are related in "free will" to our earthly state?

The difficulty is that in static thought it looks at "freedom" and "free will" as a present end state without mobility.

Another approach could be; does mankind display evidence of a "freer(?) will" in an evolutionary sense? Is this "freedom of will" the evolutionary work of man?

Man walks the earth and in the determinist sense he is "not free". I believe it was Spinosa who likened Man to a thrown rock who thinks he is free.

So what is this "free will" we talk about?

carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if we actually have the traditional conception (or any conception) of free will - that's my point. We should act as if we are 100% sure we do, however, because to do anything otherwise is a poor decision for the reaons mentioned.

BTW, good call to those who said that this post should not really be titled a "refutation." A better choice of words would have been, "An Argument Against the Relevance of Determinism."

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

C) Human life is significant


[/ QUOTE ]

What's significant about a cosmic accident that no one remembers when it's disappeared?

[/ QUOTE ]

Significance is relative. My life is the most significant thing to me.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

I have not read any replies and only half read the original post.

It is clearly better to believe in God than not (Pascals wager) but no one can actually (at least I could never be) influenced to believe in something for that reason.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have not read any replies and only half read the original post.

It is clearly better to believe in God than not (Pascals wager) but no one can actually (at least I could never be) influenced to believe in something for that reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
No no, we're rational chaps here and gamblers who like +ev. Pascal's wager isn't even +ev let alone clearly +ev.

Search the archives if that's your fate.

chez

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

If you believe in God and are right you get heaven. If you are wrong you get dirt.
If you don't believe in God and are right you get dirt.
If you don't believe in God and are wrong you get hell.

Clearly +EV to believe in God.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in God and are right you get heaven. If you are wrong you get dirt.
If you don't believe in God and are right you get dirt.
If you don't believe in God and are wrong you get hell.

Clearly +EV to believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly not. I don't want to be rude but this silly idea was killed off years ago and many times. I'm not doing it again so use the search function if you care.

chez

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in God and are right you get heaven. If you are wrong you get dirt.
If you don't believe in God and are right you get dirt.
If you don't believe in God and are wrong you get hell.

Clearly +EV to believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly not. I don't want to be rude but this silly idea was killed off years ago and many times. I'm not doing it again so use the search function if you care.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I also explained how Pascal's wager is not analogous to the argument that I'm making here. It's not just that believing in free will is +EV - it's that believing in determinism is completely meaningless.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have not read any replies and only half read the original post.

It is clearly better to believe in God than not (Pascals wager) but no one can actually (at least I could never be) influenced to believe in something for that reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about the possibilty that there is a greater chance that you will be punished for believing in a false deity that a specific god existing... you would still have to come to the conclusion that there is a greater chance (above 50%)of the specific god you worship being real than the chance that there is a different god that would punish you for this... and that's not considering other factors that would make this figure requirement to be even higher.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

Are you saying that in a deterministic state(not talking about beliefs here) one can say "the devil made me do it" and that's that? This concept of determinism sounds like the sprockets on the bicycle wheel, rolling on.

Are you saying that free will is a matter of choosing or choice? Did you choose to breathe air,enter into your family, nation, race, religion, clan,etc.



[ QUOTE ]
t doesn't matter if we actually have the traditional conception (or any conception) of free will - that's my point. We should act as if we are 100% sure we do, however, because to do anything otherwise is a poor decision for the reaons mentioned.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're playing the "as if" game which states we cannot know of a matter(or anything in it's usual context) and therefore "act as if you know but really don't know". Very pragmatic(Dewey would be proud) but this offers nothing of the matter(free will or determinism). This is a get out of jail free card.

Since when does one worship before the alter of "free will" or "determinism" in everyday life. Does your mood of soul depend upon your belief in free will or determinism? What does "belief" have to do with it. It seems that to "believe" ina matter directly implies a diminished knowledge of that particular object.

carlo

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

"After all, morality is about choices: murdering an innocent is presumed to be "wrong" because one could have had refrained from this action, yet chose not to."

No, what you have stated is not why murdering an innocent is considered wrong--what you have stated is why one is considered responsible for the act (i.e., that one could have chosen to refrain from the act but did not).


"If a crazy , humongous serial killer grabs my arm and uses it to beat a little old lady to death, most people would not say that I did anything wrong: while it's technically true that I beat Grandma to her grave."

No, it's not even technically true that you beat grandma. The serial killer did it using your arm, and if you either resisted or did not in any way consent to what the serial killer did with your arm, then it's not much different than the serial killer using a hammer to kill grandma (we wouldn't say that it's technically true that the hammer killed grandma).

Why do you call what you say a "refutation of determinism"? It doesn't seem to me that what you've said bears on the truth or falsehood of determinism at all.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that in a deterministic state(not talking about beliefs here) one can say "the devil made me do it" and that's that? This concept of determinism sounds like the sprockets on the bicycle wheel, rolling on.

Are you saying that free will is a matter of choosing or choice? Did you choose to breathe air,enter into your family, nation, race, religion, clan,etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Free will simply means that the human mind is free to make SOME choices. Obviously certain things are not up to us - that's not equivalent to determinism.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
t doesn't matter if we actually have the traditional conception (or any conception) of free will - that's my point. We should act as if we are 100% sure we do, however, because to do anything otherwise is a poor decision for the reaons mentioned.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're playing the "as if" game which states we cannot know of a matter(or anything in it's usual context) and therefore "act as if you know but really don't know". Very pragmatic(Dewey would be proud) but this offers nothing of the matter(free will or determinism). This is a get out of jail free card.

Since when does one worship before the alter of "free will" or "determinism" in everyday life. Does your mood of soul depend upon your belief in free will or determinism? What does "belief" have to do with it. It seems that to "believe" ina matter directly implies a diminished knowledge of that particular object.

carlo



[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. Presumably, we don't know for sure whether or not the world is deterministic. My point is simply that leaning towards determinism is silly, and we should essentially not take it even as a possibility when deciding upon our actions.

Re: A Refutation of Determinism
 

Obviously if you change the conditions on which we make a statement it could be false.