free will and determinism compatibility: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » free will and determinism compatibility » free will and determinism compatibility

free will and determinism compatibility

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

free will and determinism compatibility

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 03/01/09 - 07:04 AM: Subject: free will and determinism compatibility	#1
For the regular compatibilits, this isn't a problem, but I'm not out to play word games here, but actually trying to reconsile the traditional metaphysical libertarian free will with determinism. Given the ambiguity of both "free will" and "determinism" I'm going to give the exact definitions here: 1. Free will: The ability to choose to do X and to not to do X (for some X) independently of circumstances i.e. an uncaused choice. 2. Determinism: The proposition that every event is caused. Note that there are alternative definitions to both free will and determinism out there, some biased toward incompatibilism, others not. I'm not going argue whether those are compatible or not, only those I have defined here. Examples of compliant definitions: Stanford encyclopedia: "The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law." Sci-Tech Encyclopedia: "The principle that nature follows exact laws, so that what will happen in the future is a necessary consequence of the state of the world at any given moment in the past." Philosophy Dictionary: "The doctrine that every event has a cause." Examples of non compliant definitions: Wikipedia: "every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences." Answers.com "every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: "all events, including human decisions, are completely determined by previously existing causes." Merriam-Webster "acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws" I just want to note a quite common pattern with the latter definitions, namely that they are somewhat ad hoc in including human acts as events, making determinism a more complex proposition. Note that the Britannica one makes a mistake at the very end. It should have said "by preceding events and natural laws" since nothing is determined by events alone nor natural law alone. The natural law determine the future events based on past events, so both are required. To put it in terms of logic: NL ^ E(x1,t1) ^ E(x2,t1) ^.. E(xn,t1) => E(x,t2) Another way of putting it would be: NL ^ S1 => S2 Where NL is Natural law and S2 is a preceding state of the universe while S2 is following state. Anyways laying it out like this, we see that the proposition NL does not in itself have causes, nor is it temporal. It applies strictly to the events/states. What is constant throughout time is not necessarily affected. We can from this deduce that Free will is not an event/state if determinism is true. If free will exists, and determinism is true, it would alongside NL be an influence on world events: NL ^ FW ^ S1 => S2 To express the Free will - determinism complex in a single proposition: Ax,y: Uxy => (NL ^ FW ^ x => y) where Uxy means x is a state of the universe preceding a state of the universe y. Since FW is now excluded from the states of the universe, it no longer suffers from incompatibility with the causal determination of all states of the universe. Note that NL is insufficient to determine exactly what the states are, only states of the future given the past, so that a different universe operating on the same laws is conceivable, and leaves room for free will to determine which of the different possibilities to choose. This constitutes my defense of compatibility between free will and determinism against this type of accusation of incompatibiliy, and I have not really seen any other types of attacks. If there are any, I would appreciate if you could present them here. Otherwise I would also appreciate if you could point out any flaws in my argument.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: only a day away

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 1873

Posted 03/01/09 - 07:32 AM:	#2
That’s an interesting perspective. Basically you’re suggesting that free will is akin to the natural laws of the universe, this free will “acts on” states of the universe in a similar fashion to natural law, and natural law does not act on (specifically does not determine) free will. Unfortunately I don’t believe your definition of determinism is adequate when compared to the concept of causal determinism generally used by determinists. To simply say that “every event is caused” does not lead to the necessary conclusion that “same past entails same future”, and I would argue that “same past entails same future” is in fact a basic tenet of determinism. “Same past entails same future” follows from the immutability of natural law – that the rules (natural law) which govern the relationship between past and future states of the universe are fixed, such that specifying the state of the universe at any time t also serves (in conjunction with natural law) to specify the state of the universe at all other times. I would argue that this is the real “meaning” of determinism to most determinists (determinists – please feel free to contradict me!). (note - such an interpretation follows from the Stanford Encyclopedia definition referred to in the OP, but the Stanford definition is not entailed by the much simpler definition "every event is caused"). But if we accept the above, then your “free will” is clearly incompatible with determinism – because free will very clearly means that “same past entails same future” is most definitely false.
Be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out (Jim Al-Khalili)

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 03/01/09 - 08:18 AM:	#3
reincarnated wrote: But if we accept the above, then your “free will” is clearly incompatible with determinism – because free will very clearly means that “same past entails same future” is most definitely false. How so? Note I'm not saying natural law doesn't determine the future given past events.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: only a day away

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 1873

Posted 03/01/09 - 08:31 AM:	#4
keda wrote: How so? Note I'm not saying natural law doesn't determine the future given past events. Then I guess I need to ask you to explain what you mean by: keda wrote: independently of circumstances In your definition of free will. To me, this means "same past does not entail same future". What does it mean to you?
Be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out (Jim Al-Khalili)

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 03/01/09 - 09:16 AM:	#5
reincarnated wrote: In your definition of free will. To me, this means "same past does not entail same future". What does it mean to you? Depdendent is here caused, so indepdendent is uncaused, in other words uncaused by circumstances. I don't see how you get from there to "same past does not entail same future."
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 667

Posted 03/01/09 - 12:12 PM:	#6
Is an Event (the Es) a localized (finite, isolated, observable) State..? If so, I'd say Natural Law maps Events to Events, at least as per what we know and observe. Anyway, word games and semantics aside, I'm reading your examination as saying: There are no Naturals Laws that pertains to Free Will. This seems to indicate that Free Will decisions have qualities similar to "randomness", well, with the difference that an agent is involved actively. Let me ask, though, can Free Will break Natural Laws? To me personally, "free will" can't be characterized as completely independently of circumstances, but that may just be me. Agreed, interesting perspective; will take me a while to understand (actually, I may already have horribly misunderstood).
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 03/01/09 - 01:00 PM:	#7
Btw reincarnated, I've listed the definition from Sci-Tech Encyclopedia as a compliant definition i.e. it is compatible with my argument. It is a "same past entails same future" definition and if you read my post you'll see that I'm taking about states of the universe, and "a past" could be said to be a state of the universe while "a future" could be said to be a latter state. I would agree that the event based determinism is weaker, but in any case, I've made a stronger argument to accomodate your definition. I would argue that any naturalistic notions of determinism fits the bill, while for supernatural definitions you could run into problems, but its not like I care about those as those are unnecessary for science not to mention dogmatic. Anyways, I think I see how you might be thinking here, and perhaps that is an unclarity in my original post. NL ^ FW ^ S1 => S2 While this is still true in my case, it is really a bad description of what I was trying to describe, since it is not like FW influences S2 beyond NL given the same S1. NL ^ S1 => S2 This is your particular case, in which NL forces S2 given S1. However there is still elbow room as to what exactly S1 and S2 are. This is something I've already mentioned. So, is it then possible that there is an uncaused cause that determines what S1 and S2 are, without breaking NL? If there is such elbow room yes. It is quite possible to imagine a universe working by the same laws as ours, yet is quite different. The distribution of matter and energy could be different yet work by the same laws. Perhaps this can be demonstrated even more vividly with an example called laplacian determinism, which is not just same past entails same future, but also that the same future entails same past. Imagine a model of a universe, and then pick a particular state of that universe, modify it, and it should from there be possible to calculate both past and future states of the universe. Now finally, to finish off the argument, imagine that there is an atemporal (constant througout time) factor which is able to influences all those states in accordance with the mentioned modification (which did not modify the laws, but merely a particular state, and let the changes ripple out to the past and to the future.) This is how free will may influence states of the universe without breaking NL's grip of necesary entailment between those states, consequently also entailment of former states to latter. Objections? jorndoe Is an Event (the Es) a localized (finite, isolated, observable) State..? An event is a state alteration. I'm using a more classic definition of event which does not include location, only time, but it shouldn't matter to the argument if all events happen to be local or are so by NL. Let me ask, though, can Free Will break Natural Laws? Read my added response to reincarnated in this post. To me personally, "free will" can't be characterized as completely independently of circumstances, but that may just be me. Maybe you use a Humean definition of free will. I consider its compatibility with determinism rather trivial.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2003

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 288

Posted 03/01/09 - 05:34 PM:	#8
keda wrote: 1. Free will: The ability to choose to do X and to not to do X (for some X) independently of circumstances i.e. an uncaused choice. I don't think this works. If the agent was entirely independent of circumstances, then it would not even know what the choices were. The definition needs to specify more details. Now finally, to finish off the argument, imagine that there is an atemporal (constant througout time) factor which is able to influences all those states in accordance with the mentioned modification (which did not modify the laws, but merely a particular state, and let the changes ripple out to the past and to the future.) But how do you maintain the consistency of the universe when two of these change waves interact? After all, the two uncaused causes are entirely inconsistent. ~~ Paul

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 03/01/09 - 06:34 PM:	#9
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos wrote: I don't think this works. If the agent was entirely independent of circumstances, then it would not even know what the choices were. The definition needs to specify more details. It is true that in many cases a decision can't be made without knowledge, but I suggest you may be making a hasty generalisation here in saying this applies to all choices. Free will, is only relevant to moral decisions, moral in the sense its worth cannot depend on circumstances, consequently cannot depend on there being prior knowledge. To illustrate this, consider two persons who would do the exact same thing in the exact same situation e.g. rob a bank if the bank has no guards. Now one of them faces the situation in which there is a bank that is guarded while the other faces the situation in which there is an unguarded bank. Consequently only the latter commits robbery, yet it should be obvious, at least those who are familiar with this sense of morality, that both are equally immoral. The other guy was just unlucky. So, in this case, facing a situation has got nothing to do with their moral choice. But how do you maintain the consistency of the universe when two of these change waves interact? After all, the two uncaused causes are entirely inconsistent. I'm not sure what you mean by "change waves" but if you mean the events that for instance my free will causes your free will causes, I don't see any inconsistency. If I push you and you push back, and we push equally hard, neither of us will move the other, but it doesn't change the fact that we are trying to move one another. The "change waves" interact like physical forces normally do, and if there are two forces applying on the same object in opposite direction it is not an inconsistency.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

reincarnated
searching

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: only a day away

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 1873

Posted 03/02/09 - 05:08 AM:	#10
keda wrote: The ability to choose to do X and to not to do X (for some X) independently of circumstances Does this mean you could have done otherwise (CHDO)? Certainly looks like it to me - if what I choose to do is "independent of circumstances" then it seems to me that if I could have exactly the same choice again (if circumstances were to to be replicated) then I could nevertheless choose to do something other than what I chose the first time around - which is CHDO
Be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out (Jim Al-Khalili)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

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