Free Will vs. Determinism

Post Reply New Topic

The philosophy of determinism is that every event is caused by a previous event, there is no such thing as chance, and there is one determinable futures based on the physical laws of the universe. Essentially, the universe is like a domino effect, the future determined since the beginning.

As a natural consequence, determinists believe that free will (the ability of humans to make decisions), as a logical consequence, cannot exist in a deterministic universe. A libertarian (not the political party) believes that humans have free will and therefore determinism is wrong. A way to try to prove free will exists is answering the question:"could we have done otherwise"?

Compatibilists believe that free will can exist in a deterministic universe, somehow.

This is a topic to take seriously if we understand the implications. If we don't have free will, then this means that we cannot choose. And if we cannot make choices, and everything is decided by fate, how can we hold criminals accountable for their actions, or anyone accountable for bad actions?

Free will must be compatiblist in some way. Even if it is not a deterministic universe it would then be a random one. Why is chance any more compatible with free will than law?

I am not a compatibilist. I believe compatibilists are wrong because they claim we have free will just by manipulating definitions.

If not a deterministic one, I agree, it would be random. But the concept of random is false.

well no matter what you will always have the accumulative effects of the chaos theory so nothing will ever be completely deterministic.

i do agree with the basic concept of determinism, but i dont see it as black and white as that, due to chaos theory you would always have some random events and some entirely unpredictable events, where even the laws of physics as we know them today, wont give you an accurate answer.

I don't believe there exists aone thing called will. Where do I fall?

I'm a believer in free will. The way I see it is that the b***h about free will isn't that you are free to make good or bad choice, but that inertia makes it so that it takes more effort to go from making a bad choice to a good choice and vice versa. The past determines the future to some extent since doing more of the same thing will reinforce it further, but it doesn't guarantee it. There will be more resistance to getting an inactive ball in motion than to keep a ball rolling which is already in motion, but you always have the ability to change the road you're on.

that is a very interesting post,
it would agree with how i look at it, that the past influence us so we can influence the future.

Compatibilism is really the only reasonable position; the Universe is probabodeterministic, yet we have the illusion of Free Will. Any theory of Free Will has to account for the fact that although there may be a master stochastic/differential equation behind existence, we still have subjective free will.



Not really, they just account for the subjective free will too.

For example, here are my definitions

A, Objective Free Will; the idea that human agency is free from, at least in part, the semi - deterministic interactions of all matter in the universe.

B, Subjective Free Will; the subjective feeling of agency.

A being false does not imply B is false; I DO have an illusion of agency that I claim to be "mine", and the actions performed by it are also "mine". In that sense, I am a Compatibilist. I don't believe A is true, however, that isn't what I call Compatibilism ; that is special pleading.

Chaos theory is deterministic. It is just highly sensitive to starting conditions.

I think he was referring to the accumulation of random quantum events messing drastically altering events in the future.



The idea that quantum physics is really deterministic at the core died with Einstein. Randomness is.

You cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails.
To put it another way, if the Universe hands you 2X4s, your not gonna build a brick wall with them, but you CAN build anything that 2x4s are capable of building.
So, i guess i'm a compatabilist.

So do you believe semideterministic processes govern human agency. The first line makes me think you are implying that they don't.

Compatibilism is refuted by Newcomb's paradox. Absent a redefinition of "free will" out of any meaning, it cannot be reconciled with determinism.

Not sure what you mean, but then again, my major was Physics instead of Philosophy. The Universe provides materials and energy, we draw up the plans and create our life from such.

A physics major is more than enough, the philosophy part is self explanatory.

Basically, the processes that govern the interactions of particles (for example, vot - 1/2at^2) are mathematical laws, and given a certain input (t = 3), you get a certain output necessarily. The laws which govern the brain are similar mathematical laws, and given a certain environmental input (which is almost infinitely complex, but is reducible to the mathematical interaction of particles is the same vein as above) as certain output is guaranteed. In that respect, Free Will does not exist.

However, people feel like they have free will. When I want to lift my arm, I can. Because a cascade of mathematical interactions lead me to want to do this. To actually live, we have to act as though we do have Free Will, although this does not mean that we are actually free of the mathematical laws governing the universe.

When I say "semideterministic" I am refering to how quantum physics adds an element of probability into the mix.



Does a recognition of the fact that people's subjective sensation of Free Will is not negated by the objective way in which the universe is like an equation changing through time fall under the category of Compatibilism?

I feel your explanation is closest to my own feelings on the matter.