Could you be the devil's advocate and argue for determinism?

Post Reply New Topic

I tried to do that here before from a brain-body perspective, but I'm sure many other arguments could be used.

I don't mean that you shouldn't argue *against* it, but it would be interesting if one's argument could be reversed, that is, instead of saying why the universe could never be deterministic, argue how it could *possibly* be and then finally state why opposing arguments are stronger, if you do have such.

Ok, just to get definitions straight:

Are we talking about

1. Determinism versus free will

or

2. Determinism versus quantum indeterminacy

... or both?

The link in your posts suggests (1) but the wording of your post suggests (2).

I'd be willing to, playing devil's advocate is an interesting exercise for me, and determinism is a topic I care about. I have things to learn on it too.

GGPViper, to be honest I'm approaching this from a philosophical point of view because I'm not exactly an expert on quantum mechanics, but I'd appreciate it if you elaborated on that as well.

Well, the concept of free will versus determinism is an age old philosophical topic. My question is: What *IS* free will? What is it made of? Where is it? And does it exist independently of the physical laws of the universe?

Quantum determinacy, on the other hand, is (as Wiki states it) an incompleteness in the description of a physical system. In essence, it means that we cannot (with the tools currently available to science) predict phenomena at certain levels below the atomic level with 100 percent certainty (trained physicists would probably kick my ass for this gross and erroneous simplification).

Smarter minds than mine have written on this subject, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

In the level of reality we play on, the world is, in fact, deterministic. Does this eliminate free will? I do not think so. I hold the position of Compatibilism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

If this is the old free will debate, then here's my take.

Every event or fact is either predictable based on other facts, or it is not.

If it is predictable then is determined: no free will is involved.

If it is not predictable then it's random, by definition.

Ergo, there is no room for free will.

Note that the cause may be hidden (e.g. in the unconscious brain). Also, complex decisions are made up of simpler decisions. Also, what we experience as making a decision is actually the uncertainty that precedes a decision (or the result that follows), not the decision itself. Also, our happiness may depend on making that effort, but that is not the same as having free will. As for what proportion of decisions is random and what is determined, I'm not sure it's possible to know? Because some causes may be unknowable to us.

I've got this simple question to ask, I think I've done it before but it is relevant. If an *exact* replica of our universe was made in this moment, if we waited for any amount of time, would the two universes be still the same?

Because putting free will into the equation makes things more complicated than need be. Nature + nurture explains human behavior quite well, I see no reason why an 'x-factor' must be introduced. Even identical twins have a different experience of life (nurture).

I'm not saying free will does or doesn't exist, but if you're going by Occam's Razor I'd say it favours determinism to explain behaviour. Our Christian and Capitalist culture of course, wants very much to believe free will exists since the ethical basis of both those ideologies rests upon free will.

I don't think indeterminacy is necessarily free will, I see it more as a 'wildcard' at most run by random choice and at least simply a realm that is in fact deterministic but simply unknowable.