Joined: Mar 18, 2011
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 21
Posted Jun 4, 2012 - 8:39 AM:
jedaisoul wrote:And what kind of free will is compatible with determinism? Determinism and pre-destination necessitate that one particular future (a set series of events) is unavoidable. Even if we avoid events, we can't say it was an act of our will. Just because we have freedom to act (aka, the will of natural law wills us to do something, anything) doesn't mean we have free will (aka, the freedom to change, through our actions, what events we will eventually [dare I say, inevitably] face). The only way to show that avoided events were a result of your will is to prove that it is self-contradictory to suppose that avoiding them was a result of the "will of nature".
Nothing needs to change that. He chose the only option he could choose, as was nomologically necessitated. If you deny that, you are defining a version of free will that is not compatible with determinism.
It seems there is also no good way to prove that the burden of proof falls upon the metaphysical libertarians, so it only seems fair to let them think as they wish.
I'm surprised no one has discussed Dennett (ex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utai74HjPJE), or Michio Kaku (ex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM).
The Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics is deterministic, and so we've agreed provisionally that this possibility would do away with free will, but I'm willing to admit that it ought to bear the burden of proof for now, and that, for example, the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds interpretations seem more credible. The evidence we have doesn't yet falsify any of the three possibilities, and we might still be unaware of possible interpretations. The problem with taking this somewhat rudimentary line of attack is that indeterminancy is only necessary, not sufficient, for free will. Even if we prove that atoms and potentially the brain behave stochastically, we still have to prove that we, as human beings, act as a source or agency of influence which lies outside of causality. A pretty daunting task. Libertarians will need to bring a much stronger argument to the table, if we are to agree that the burden of proof rightfully falls upon libertarians.
Joined: Aug 01, 2011
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 670
Posted Jun 4, 2012 - 8:46 AM:
Many Worlds is deterministic as well, for the record. Though, to a conscious being inside a many-worlds universe, it may be fundamentally undifferentiable from a copenhagen universe (some interesting explanations for that).
|Recent Internal Replies|
|On Dec 22, 2011 - 7:47 PM, prothero replied internally to dasheenster's Just because the sci....|
|On Dec 21, 2011 - 7:02 PM, prothero replied internally to dasheenster's Science can surely p....|
|On Dec 21, 2011 - 7:01 PM, prothero replied internally to Kingt2's I'm not saying i....|
|On Dec 21, 2011 - 5:31 PM, prothero replied internally to dasheenster's I think the metaphys....|
|On Dec 21, 2011 - 2:53 PM, prothero replied internally to Nando's Uh you tell me w....|
|On Dec 21, 2011 - 10:52 AM, prothero replied internally to Nando's I think what you....|
|On Dec 20, 2011 - 12:18 PM, prothero replied internally to stephnlawrnce's On 12/19/11 - 6:19 A....|
|On Dec 19, 2011 - 6:19 AM, prothero replied internally to stephnlawrnce's This process lea....|
|On Dec 17, 2011 - 12:24 PM, prothero replied internally to stephnlawrnce's It's harmful....|
|On Dec 16, 2011 - 12:30 PM, prothero replied internally to stephnlawrnce's oops edited by mista....|