Arguments Against Determinism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Arguments Against Determinism » Arguments Against Determinism

Arguments Against Determinism

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: 8 minutes from the sun

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 2014

Posted 11/07/09 - 06:27 AM: Subject: Arguments Against Determinism	#1
I often hear the following types of arguments against a belief in determinism: 1) If the world was deterministic then we would not have free will. But if we genuinely believed that we did not have free will then we would behave in some very strange ways (possibly going around being perpetually fatalistic, pessimistic, etc etc). The fact that people (even determinists) do not behave in such strange ways shows that people (including so-called determinists) do believe in free will (and hence actually disbelieve in determinism). 2) If the world was deterministic then we could never justifiably hold anyone to be morally responsible for their actions (since they were determined to do what they did by forces outside of their control), and the entire justice system (based on punishing wrongdoers) would be morally wrong. Since we do not hold the justice system to be morally wrong, it follows that we must believe determinism to be false. Notes: For purposes of this thread I define free will as the metaphysical libertarian variety of free will; I define determinism as “same past = same future” (ie no alternate possibilities) I believe that both (1) and (2) are fallacious, for the following reasons: 1) There is no reason why a determinist would in practice act or behave any differently to someone who believes in free will. The notion that they would behave differently is based on a misconception. Both determinists and free will believers are ignorant of the future, and it is this ignorance (and not their belief or disbelief in determinism) which fundamentally determines their behavior in the present. 2) Moral responsibility is no more and no less than understanding right from wrong and acting accordingly (there is no incompatibility with determinsim here). When we punish wrongdoers we are simply sending a signal to them, and to other potential wrongdoers, which acts as a disincentive to (future) doing wrong – again completely compatible with determinism. There is in fact no feature of the justice system which cannot be reconciled with determinism or explained on a deterministic basis. Comments? Are there any other arguments against determinism? Edited by reincarnated on 11/07/09 - 07:14 AM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 367

Posted 11/07/09 - 06:40 AM:	#2
1) People believe and act in ways which are contrary to reality all of the time. Our beliefs don't determine what is true or not. Some people believe and act as if they are going to be raptured up to Heaven before their lifetime is up; it doesn't render that belief true. 2) This is an argument from adverse consequences, similar to, "Well, God must be real because if he weren't then people would have no incentive to act morally, and that would lead to societal collapse." If determinism's being true invalidates moral responsibility, then so be it. The justice system may well be morally wrong for that very reason, whether or not we actually believe it to be.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: 8 minutes from the sun

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 2014

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:13 AM:	#3
Arkady wrote: 1) People believe and act in ways which are contrary to reality all of the time. Our beliefs don't determine what is true or not. Some people believe and act as if they are going to be raptured up to Heaven before their lifetime is up; it doesn't render that belief true. I am not suggesting that one's beliefs renders things true - rather that IF one believed in determinism THEN it follows that one would behave differently (compared to someone who believes in free will). Since such people do not behave differently (so the argument goes), it follows that they don't really believe in determinism. Arkady wrote: 2) This is an argument from adverse consequences, similar to, "Well, God must be real because if he weren't then people would have no incentive to act morally, and that would lead to societal collapse." This also seems false to me. I choose to act morally (most of the time) not because I believe in (or fear the vengence of) God, but simply because I wish (and expect) others to behave towards me in broadly the same way that I behave towards them. There is of course another theistic argument against determinism (one which implies that one cannot rationally be both a theist and a determinist) - which is basically that the "final judgement" makes absolutely no rational sense, and indeed would be grossly wrong and immoral, if humans did not have free will. Arkady wrote: If determinism's being true invalidates moral responsibility, then so be it. The justice system may well be morally wrong for that very reason, whether or not we actually believe it to be. Actually I believe people still have moral responsibility, even under determinism. To me, moral responsisbility does not entail ultimate responsibility, only an understanding of right and wrong and acting accordingly. There is nothing in the way that we implement justice which is incompatible with this deterministic view.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

oldandrew
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 421

Last Blog: Negative Correlations in Teaching

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:20 AM:	#4
reincarnated wrote: I often hear the following types of arguments against a belief in determinism: 1) If the world was deterministic then we would not have free will. But if we genuinely believed that we did not have free will then we would behave in some very strange ways (possibly going around being perpetually fatalistic, pessimistic, etc etc). The fact that people (even determinists) do not behave in such strange ways shows that people (including so-called determinists) do believe in free will (and hence actually disbelieve in determinism). 2) If the world was deterministic then we could never justifiably hold anyone to be morally responsible for their actions (since they were determined to do what they did by forces outside of their control), and the entire justice system (based on punishing wrongdoers) would be morally wrong. Since we do not hold the justice system to be morally wrong, it follows that determinism must be false. Notes: For purposes of this thread I define free will as the metaphysical libertarian variety of free will; I define determinism as “same past = same future” (ie no alternate possibilities) I don't like this whole "metaphysical libertarian variety of free will" guff we always get into on here. Either we have free will or we don't. Can't we just discuss that? Why do opponents of free will demand that everybody declare themselves to be either libertarian or compatibilist and then try and argue about determinism instead? Arguing against X by saying "you must believe in (X and Y) or (X and not-Y); justify one or other of those positions" strikes me as a fair indicator that somebody has no actual arguments for not-X, and no interest in the arguments for X, and just wants to complicate matters. Are there any other arguments against determinism? Well if you do want to discuss determinism rather than free will I think a good starting point is to have a better look at what "determined" means. We often talk as if we have a clear idea of what it means, however, while I find it easy to see what it means in a mathematical system, I find it very difficult to see what it actually means in real life if it doesn't just mean "predictable". (Yes, I acknowledge that this is not an argument against determinism, just doubt about whether determinism actually means something.)

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 367

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:20 AM:	#5
reincarnated wrote: I am not suggesting that one's beliefs renders things true - rather that IF one believed in determinism THEN it follows that one woule behave differently (compared to someoen who believes in free will). Since such people do not behave differently (so the argument goes), it follows that they don't really believe in determinism. I know you weren't suggesting this. I merely offered it as a refutation of your hypothetical argument #1. Most people probably don't believe in determinism (or, more likely, are totally ignorant of it, and have no real opinion on it at all). But, my response to your hypothetical anti-determinist would be to tell them that even if everyone in the world believed and acted as if determinism were false, it could still be true. reincarnated wrote: This also seems false to me. I choose to act morally (most of the time) not because I believe in (or fear the vengence of) God, but simply because I wish (and expect) others to behave towards me in broadly the same way that I behave towards them. I totally agree. That's why arguments from adverse consequences are fallacious. I was offering it up as the sort of (bad) argument people sometimes give; I wasn't making the argument myself.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: 8 minutes from the sun

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 2014

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:23 AM:	#6
oldandrew wrote: I don't like this whole "metaphysical libertarian variety of free will" guff we always get into on here. Either we have free will or we don't. Can't we just discuss that? Why do opponents of free will demand that everybody declare themselves to be either libertarian or compatibilist and then try and argue about determinism instead? I'm sorry that you consider it "guff" (whatever that means). I'm simply trying to improve communication by defining my terms. For example, I believe that I possess free will, I'm certainly not an "opponent of free will", I just don't believe in the metaphysical libertarian variety. I simply wanted to make sure that this ambiguity in meaning of "free will" was removed from the thread, that's all. Is that so bad? oldandrew wrote: Arguing against X by saying "you must believe in (X and Y) or (X and not-Y); justify one or other of those positions" strikes me as a fair indicator that somebody has no actual arguments for not-X, and no interest in the arguments for X, and just wants to complicate matters. Sorry, I don't follow you here. Could you kindly explain what it is you are referring to? oldandrew wrote: Well if you do want to discuss determinism rather than free will I think a good starting point is to have a better look at what "determined" means. We often talk as if we have a clear idea of what it means, however, while I find it easy to see what it means in a mathematical system, That's why I tried to define what it means (to me) in the OP. Deterministic simply means "same past = same future", and as such it means that (given the past is what it is) there are no "alternate possibilities" for the future (which renders determinism incompatible with free will as here defined). oldandrew wrote: I find it very difficult to see what it actually means in real life if it doesn't just mean "predictable". (Yes, I acknowledge that this is not an argument against determinism, just doubt about whether determinism actually means something.) A system can be deterministic, but stil unpredictable. Whilst an indeterministic system is by definition unpredictable, it does not follow that all deterministic systems are predictable. Predictability is an epistemic quality, whilst determinism is ontic. Examples of deterministic systems which are unpredictable in principle would be (a) chaotic systems and (b) certain self-referential systems (where the prediction is being made from inside the system) - such as trying to predict whether a deterministic machine will choose heads or tails and telling the machine in advance what its choice will be. Plus of course any deterministic system is in practice unpredictable if we simply have insufficient information to carry out an accurate prediction.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

oldandrew
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 421

Last Blog: Negative Correlations in Teaching

Posted 11/07/09 - 09:24 AM:	#7
reincarnated wrote: I'm sorry that you consider it "guff" (whatever that means). I'm simply trying to improve communication by defining my terms. For example, I believe that I possess free will, I'm certainly not an "opponent of free will", Pedantry is not helpful. It seems like evasion. I just don't believe in the metaphysical libertarian variety. I simply wanted to make sure that this ambiguity in meaning of "free will" was removed from the thread, that's all. Is that so bad? Yes. What you are saying is "if you believe in free will I will assume you reject determinism, and discuss determinism instead of free will". This is not simply establishing a particular type of free will, it is demanding people argue for something difficult ("determinism is false") not something easy ("free will exists") and pretending they are both the same argument. Sorry, I don't follow you here. Could you kindly explain what it is you are referring to? Oh for pity's sake. Your argument is of this structure: "you must believe in (X and Y) or (X and not-Y); justify one or other of those positions" You are saying: "You must believe in determinism and free will (compatibilism) or free will without determinism (libertarian free will)". You are then suggesting that people discuss free will without determinism (libertarian free will) rather than free will itself. The obvious explanation for this is that you have no decent arguments about free will so you are relying on arguing about determinism instead. That's why I tried to define what it means (to me) in the OP. Deterministic simply means "same past = same future", and as such it means that (given the past is what it is) there are no "alternate possibilities" for the future (which renders determinism incompatible with free will as here defined). My point was that this is as clear as mud. The obvious understanding of there being no "alternative possibilities" for the future is that your actions don't affect the future. Alternatively, it might mean that the future is predictable. Or it might mean that only one future will occur. What does it mean? How would we distinguish between a world with alternative possibilities for the future and one without? A system can be deterministic, but stil unpredictable. Whilst an indeterministic system is by definition unpredictable, it does not follow that all deterministic systems are predictable. Predictability is an epistemic quality, whilst determinism is ontic. I know. My issue here is not that I think you are using "determined" to mean "predictable", but that outside of mathematics, I can't see any other coherent meaning for "determined" other than "predictable".

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: 8 minutes from the sun

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 2014

Posted 11/07/09 - 10:02 AM:	#8
oldandrew wrote: Pedantry is not helpful. It seems like evasion. My my, we are being aggressive, aren’t we? In what way do you think I am being evasive? I am simply trying to be fair and honest. If you interpret that as “evasion” then could it be (shock, horror) there might be something wrong with your interpretation? oldandrew wrote: What you are saying is "if you believe in free will I will assume you reject determinism, and discuss determinism instead of free will". In case you hadn’t noticed, this thread is about determinism. oldandrew wrote: This is not simply establishing a particular type of free will, it is demanding people argue for something difficult ("determinism is false") not something easy ("free will exists") and pretending they are both the same argument. You are the one who insisted there IS only one type of free will – and then criticized me for differentiating between libertarian and compatibilist versions - and now you complain that I try to establish a particular type of free will? Please! I am simply presenting arguments that I have heard against beliefs in determinism. Most metaphysical libertarians would assert that determinism is false (because it is incompatible with their version of free will) – if you do not happen to agree with this then I am very sorry, but that’s hardly my problem. oldandrew wrote: You are saying: "You must believe in determinism and free will (compatibilism) or free will without determinism (libertarian free will)". If there is a different kind of free will that you are aware of (apart from the compatibilist and the metaphysical libertarian varieties) then I would be very pleased to hear about it. Could you elaborate? oldandrew wrote: You are then suggesting that people discuss free will without determinism (libertarian free will) rather than free will itself. The obvious explanation for this is that you have no decent arguments about free will so you are relying on arguing about determinism instead. Again, I am not trying to “argue about free will”. This thread is about determinism. oldandrew wrote: The obvious understanding of there being no "alternative possibilities" for the future is that your actions don't affect the future. Sorry, but your suggestion is ludicrous. In a deterministic universe, my actions are part of the chain of deterministic events which determine the future. Eliminate my actions from this chain, and the future would be different. Thus suggesting that my actions don’t affect the future is nonsense whether determinism is true or not. oldandrew wrote: Alternatively, it might mean that the future is predictable. Why would it? Ontic determinism does not entail epistemic predictability. oldandrew wrote: Or it might mean that only one future will occur. Hardly. Even in a random universe “only one future will occur” – there are not multiple futures playing themselves out in parallel. Deterministic is no different to random in this particular respect. oldandrew wrote: What does it mean? It means that, given the past, there is one and only one (nomologically) possible future. oldandrew wrote: How would we distinguish between a world with alternative possibilities for the future and one without? I have no idea. Do you? oldandrew wrote: My issue here is not that I think you are using "determined" to mean "predictable", but that outside of mathematics, I can't see any other coherent meaning for "determined" other than "predictable". I’ve just explained it to you. Did you not understand? Would you like me to elaborate?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

oldandrew
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 421

Last Blog: Negative Correlations in Teaching

Posted 11/07/09 - 10:34 AM:	#9
reincarnated wrote: My my, we are being aggressive, aren’t we? In what way do you think I am being evasive? I am simply trying to be fair and honest. If you interpret that as “evasion” then could it be (shock, horror) there might be something wrong with your interpretation? I think it is pedantry because you were arguing that my words were incorrect, without there be any indication at all that anybody had understood them in any way other than the way I had intended. I mean we can check, was there anybody on here who thought that by "opponents of free will" I meant "people who believe in free will, but are against it and want to stamp it out" rather than "people who reject the concept of free will"? Anyone? reincarnated wrote: In case you hadn’t noticed, this thread is about determinism. Yes, I know, that's why I talked about determinism late in my post. However, my first point was that you talked about free will, but couldn't bring yourself to separate the two issues. reincarnated wrote: You are the one who insisted there IS only one type of free will – and then criticized me for differentiating between libertarian and compatibilist versions - and now you complain that I try to establish a particular type of free will? Please! Don't take it as personal criticism. I am pointing out what it wrong with your argument. You change the subject from free will to determinism and your only justification is to say "I was talking about the sort of free will that goes with particular beliefs about determinism, and so rather than justifying anything I have said about free will I am going to talk about those beliefs instead". This does suggest a lack of willingness to discuss free will itself. reincarnated wrote: I am simply presenting arguments that I have heard against beliefs in determinism. The point is that they were both arguments for free will, and you argued against them by assuming determinism. If there is a different kind of free will that you are aware of (apart from the compatibilist and the metaphysical libertarian varieties) then I would be very pleased to hear about it. Could you elaborate? How many more times? These are not types of free will, they are beliefs about determinism that somebody might have as well as believing in free will, and it doesn't say much about your arguments for free will that all you can do when faced with the issue is bring up determinism instead. Sorry, but your suggestion is ludicrous. In a deterministic universe, my actions are part of the chain of deterministic events which determine the future. Eliminate my actions from this chain, and the future would be different. Thus suggesting that my actions don’t affect the future is nonsense whether determinism is true or not. I never suggested that. Why would it? We often use those words that way. If I say that things are not possibilities, I am predicting they won't happen. Ontic determinism does not entail epistemic predictability. I don't need you to explain what your position isn't, but what it is. Hardly. Even in a random universe “only one future will occur” – there are not multiple futures playing themselves out in parallel. Deterministic is no different to random in this particular respect. I have no idea why you are talking about randomness. It means that, given the past, there is one and only one (nomologically) possible future. That appears to be the same words again but with "nomologically" added. Unfortunately, my understanding of "nomologically" involves rules used to predict, and you've already said that you aren't talking about prediction so that still leaves me baffled as to what you mean by "determined".

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.