No Free Will? Is this a viable philosophy?

[Divine Insight]

Most people dismiss solipsism as simply being unworthy of consideration. Solipsism holds that only one person is having an experience and everything else (including all other people) are just an illusion in the mind of the one single person who is imagining life to exist.

Solipsism can't be disproved. We have no way to determine whether other people are actually having an experience. Yet, dispute the fact that it can't be disproved most people dismiss it as simply being a highly unlikely hypothesis. It just seems more rational to believe that all humans and even animals are actually having an experience just like us.

And this is a very rational position to take.

~~~~~

So now, what about the question of "Free Will"?

Is it rational to dismiss the concept and demand that there can be no such thing as "Free Will"?

Well, we can ask what that would mean.

If there is no such thing as "Free Will", then J.R.R. Tolkien had no choice but to write "The Lord of the Rings" precisely as he wrote it. He could not be credited with having any creativity because ultimately he didn't even come up with it. He was just doing what he deterministic had no choice but to do. Frodo Baggins and Gollum were determined to be characters in this fantasy billions of years ago. Potentially it was carved in stone at the Big Bang according to hardcore determinism.

Not only that, but the same it true of everything, including the Christian Bible. Every jot and tittle of the Bible would have needed to have been determined by the universe long before humans (who have no free will of their own) would be determined to write it out precisely as we see it today, including all of disagreeing versions.

Same is true of Greek mythology too, of course, and everything else that any human has ever done. Every song, comedy act, you name it. Everything would have needed to be predetermined from the dawn of time.

Question for debate, "Does this make any more sense than solipsism?"

Is it even remotely reasonable to hypothesize that humans have no free will, meaning that everything they do has already been determined ahead of time?

[Divine Insight]

I always just assume that people want to make logical arguments.

Well, most people would argue that dismissing solipsism is "logical". Although I'm not sure if they could actually provide any formal logic to back that up. Sometimes human "logic" is based simply on what seems to be the more reasonable conclusion. For most people it seems more reasonable to assume that all humans are actually having an experience, than it is to assume that only one person is having an experience.

You might even say that this is actually a very strong part of any logical system. Before you can even begin to apply logical reasoning to anything, you must always first accept some unproven foundational premises with which to begin building your logical reasoning upon.

Choosing whether to believe in solipsism or not is basically a choice of which unproved premise you would like to begin your logical reasoning with.

All I'm saying is that the very same thing applies to the concept of free will. The concept of free will is precisely like solipsism. You can't prove or disprove whether or not it exists. Therefore you have no choice but to accept one or the other as an unproved premise.

The mere fact that people are attempting to draw a "conclusion" about free will using logical reasoning is already a misguided notion.

What logical reasoning are you going to apply? Remember, no matter what logical reasoning you apply, that logical reasoning necessarily is itself standing upon unproved premises.

In fact, this is Miles greatest error in logic. He assumes as a premise that our reality is purely mechanical and that everything must be explained solely on the basis of atoms bouncing around via the laws of physics, therefore all of his logical reasoning is going to be dictated by his previous choice of unproved premises.

Change those original unproved premises and the entire chain of "logical reasoning" also changes dramatically.

This is why "pure logic" will never get you anywhere.

This is why people like Stephen Hawking and others have proclaimed that "Philosophy is Dead".

We already have prime historical examples of this:

In pure philosophy it as "logical" to assume that the universe is eternal, static in size and basically unchanging in any major way. There was nothing "illogical" about that guess. It was a perfectly logical reasoning.

Yet it turns out that it's all wrong. There are many similar historical examples, a heliocentric versus Earth-centered solar system is yet another popular example.

Pure logic has already been demonstrated to be useless. All logical reasoning is totally dependent upon the unproved premises with which you chose to begin with.

Therefore it's meaningless to even speak of a "logical argument" until you have first AGREED on what the foundational unproved premises should be.

They really should teach this important truth in logic 101 classes more clearly. Many people get very deep into logic without even realizing that their entire logical reasoning is resting on the quicksand of the unproved premises that they had first accepted without any proof at all.

So don't lecture me on "logic" until you are prepared to acknowledge the truth of what I have just stated above.

My arguments are as logical as "can be". I simply understand the limitations of logical reasoning itself. Apparently you do not.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

I always just assume that people want to make logical arguments.

Well, most people would argue that dismissing solipsism is "logical".

I am speaking for myself, and not for most people. I will allow most people to argue for themselves instead of speaking for all of them.

I dismiss solipsism as a useless hypothesis because it cannot be tested in any way. I don't just invoke the word "logic" in order to make a point.

If I want to PROVE a point logically, I make a logical argument. Assertions don't prove a thing. So far, you assert without backing anything up. And I certainly do not see any evidence that your premises are true.

Although I'm not sure if they could actually provide any formal logic to back that up.

I am not interested in these hypothetical people.

Sometimes human "logic" is based simply on what seems to be the more reasonable conclusion.

What you describe is a fallacious use of logic. I think we can do better than that.

I am only concerned about what I can know to be true. If I can't follow an argument to it's conclusion, or if the premises are false or unknowable, then the argument fails. And the conclusion is unreliable, and hence, worthless.

Putting the cart ( conclusion ) before the horse ( argument ) is simply bad logic. Lot's of things are REASONABLE, and yet, may be completely false.

I really don't care about conclusions that may be false.

For most people it seems more reasonable to assume that all humans are actually having an experience, than it is to assume that only one person is having an experience.

Do you have a way for me to verify that you know what most people assume?
Maybe you would do better if you spoke for yourself. I could verify that YOU assume something if you tell me that you do. I don't know how you arrived at the knowledge concerning "most people".

Maybe you mean to say that YOU think that you are having :

1) A personal experience, and that
2) Only you are having your personal experience.

I would agree with both, if that's what you mean. If it's not, then please clarify.

You might even say that this is actually a very strong part of any logical system.

Not having the slightest clue as to what the above means, I would not say so.
Perhaps you can clarify.

Before you can even begin to apply logical reasoning to anything, you must always first accept some unproven foundational premises with which to begin building your logical reasoning upon.

Could you name some foundational premises that are pertinent?
I don't disagree, it's just that I have no idea what foundational premises you are talking about.

I really like lists, you see... I find them very clear.

Choosing whether to believe in solipsism or not is basically a choice of which unproved premise you would like to begin your logical reasoning with.

I'm not sure that I ever USED the word "believe" in context of solipsism.
And I certainly don't CHOOSE what to believe about reality as if I were choosing ice cream flavors. I will only believe what is true.

Prove to me that free will is true, and I will believe it. Don't prove that free will is true, and I will not.

I just said that solipsism as well as free will are useless hypotheses. Of course, I don't go around believing useless and untestable hypotheses. I feel the same way about string theory, for the time being. I haven't heard that it was currently possible to test it, so, I find it rather meaningless for me to say I BELIEVE it or not. I don't have an opinion, I don't care about speculations nobody can prove. If the theoretical physicists somehow prove the theory correct, I will notice the Nobel prize for that, and all of the news headlines.

I only want to believe in things I can know to be TRUE.

All I'm saying is that the very same thing applies to the concept of free will. The concept of free will is precisely like solipsism. You can't prove or disprove whether or not it exists. Therefore you have no choice but to accept one or the other as an unproved premise.

No, there is another more rational choice. When we don't know something is true or not, we can simply admit that we don't know. We don't have to pick sides... this isn't football, after all.

Reality is what it is. If we don't know about something about reality, we just don't know. We don't go around inventing possibilities and then pretend that they are true, when we really don't know. At least, I don't. And a fair number of critical thinkers also don't.

The mere fact that people are attempting to draw a "conclusion" about free will using logical reasoning is already a misguided notion.

Right, I agree with that, so, why pretend to have a sound conclusion when we really don't have one? The concept of free will is rather meaningless. I don't see any evidence to support it. Solipsism is the same, so are gods.

We should NOT believe in any of these concepts UNTIL we can provide some evidence that they are are a part of reality. So far, we have none.

What logical reasoning are you going to apply? Remember, no matter what logical reasoning you apply, that logical reasoning necessarily is itself standing upon unproved premises.

If there is a claim without evidence, I will dismiss the claim without evidence. I would therefore be using Hitchen's Razor. This method does not rest upon unproved premises.

In fact, this is Miles greatest error in logic. He assumes as a premise that our reality is purely mechanical and that everything must be explained solely on the basis of atoms bouncing around via the laws of physics, therefore all of his logical reasoning is going to be dictated by his previous choice of unproved premises.

I am not convinced that this is Miles's position. I would have to verify with Miles that what you present here is an accurate description of his thoughts. Maybe a quote or two from Miles would help me accept your interpretation.

Change those original unproved premises and the entire chain of "logical reasoning" also changes dramatically.

This is why "pure logic" will never get you anywhere.

Those who question the validity of logic should not invoke logic in order to make a point. I am not quite sure what you mean by "pure" logic. I usually use impure, human logic as I am an impure human.

We should not change our foundational premises so cavalierly. They are not like ice cream flavors.

This is why people like Stephen Hawking and others have proclaimed that "Philosophy is Dead".

Oh well, if Stephen HAWKING says something, then of course, you might conclude that you have proved all of your points. But you would be wrong, of course, in that conclusion.

We already have prime historical examples of this:

In pure philosophy it as "logical" to assume that the universe is eternal, static in size and basically unchanging in any major way. There was nothing "illogical" about that guess. It was a perfectly logical reasoning.

Alas, there is good logic and bad logic, there are sound conclusions, and there are unsound conclusions. There are premises that are false, and premises that are true. There is one body of knowledge and then there are additions and revisions to the body of knowledge.

What we know now is greater than what we used to know then. This is called progress. Having premises that turn out to be falsified happens all the time in logic and in philosophy and in science.

We should then discard the false premises, brush up our faulty reasoning, if there is any , and try again. Just because we have made an error using a method one day does not invalidate the entire method.

Logic as a method is sound.
Math as a method is sound.
Science as a method is sound.

What other method do you propose to prove free will with?

Yet it turns out that it's all wrong. There are many similar historical examples, a heliocentric versus Earth-centered solar system is yet another popular example.

We didn't have the data then that we have now. The premises were false, but people back then didn't have any way to know. Once they DID have better data, they revised their arguments. Now we know. This is how science works. It's called "progress".

Pure logic has already been demonstrated to be useless. All logical reasoning is totally dependent upon the unproved premises with which you chose to begin with.

You assume that all premises are unproved. You might want to prove that.

Therefore it's meaningless to even speak of a "logical argument" until you have first AGREED on what the foundational unproved premises should be.

I dont follow your conclusion from your premises at all.. BUT I would agree with your conclusion. People need to agree that the premises are true before we can say any argument is sound.

They really should teach this important truth in logic 101 classes more clearly. Many people get very deep into logic without even realizing that their entire logical reasoning is resting on the quicksand of the unproved premises that they had first accepted without any proof at all.

Oh, they really should teach logic 101 and people really shouldn't accept unproven or unprovable premises, you are quite right.

So don't lecture me on "logic" until you are prepared to acknowledge the truth of what I have just stated above.

I'll just tell you what I think of your logical reasoning.
And so far, it's not much.

But I can see that you're making a big effort in that regard, and I applaud those efforts. As a student of critical thinking, I can appreciate the effort and the dedication that it entails. So kudos, my friend.

Prove me wrong.

My arguments are as logical as "can be". I simply understand the limitations of logical reasoning itself. Apparently you do not.

So, your entire logical reasoning is resting on the quicksand of the unproved premises that you had first accepted without any proof at all. You simply DO understand the limitations of logical reasoning itself.

I would agree with your there.

So, having said that, how do you propose to prove free will? ( or anything else, for that matter )

[Bust Nak]

What you suggest here sounds simple enough on the surface. But what if it's not as simple as it sounds? The brain is not a simple machine.

Are you familiar with Chaos Theory?...

Unpredictability in the chaos theory sense, is not indeterminism. Feed a chaos system the same initial conditions, and you would get the exact same result every time.

In other words, human thought patterns may not be anymore deterministic than long range weather patterns. If this is the case, then any hope of understanding "how the brain works" in terms of actual deterministic thought processes would be futile, because it's not deterministic.

Sure, another way of saying that is human thought patterns can be just as deterministic as long range weather patterns. If weather patterns and our brains are merely "not deterministic" in the chaos Theory sense, then it's just a matter of will and means before we can predict them with certainty with nothing more than simple pen and paper.

What you suggest about understanding how the brain works sounds like you are already presuming that it will work very mechanically deterministic and we can follow every logical path precisely. But that may simply not be possible.

We understand the double slits experiment well enough to conclude that the path of an electron is not deterministic. There is no reason to presume that our brain works mechanically deterministically to understand it.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all...

It's not that this is "good" or "bad", but rather it's highly improbable. In fact, established areas of Chaos Theory coupled with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, already tell us that this is not even possible.

If you want to appeal to Chaos Theory to argue that determinism is false, then stating them alone would be enough, it doesn't make the argument form Chaos Theory or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle any stronger, to know that if determinism is true then "every behavior of the universe would have been predetermined from the very beginning of time." It's simply irrelevant.

So as far as I can see, pure determinism has already been proven to be an outdated obsolete idea...

I would suggest that pure determinism is on the same level as the idea of a purely static eternal universe. We already know that this philosophical guess is wrong.

Only if quantum uncertainty translate to uncertainty in the macro sense. I don't think that's resolved. We can still "shut up and calculate." Surely the absurdity of "a cat being both dead and alive at the same time," is far above that of "every behavior of the universe would have been predetermined from the very beginning of time?"

Chaos Theory demands that it must...

I don't think chaos theory demands that at all. In fact it deals specifically with deterministic systems.

We can't view the functioning of the brain as being "removed" from the quantum world. That would be a mistake. Our brains are intimately connected with the quantum world. It could be said that within our brains we have one foot in the macro world, and one foot in the quantum world at all times.

That much I'd agree with.

I believe that it has already been resolved against pure determinism. For the reasons I outlined above.

From my perspective it would be as naive to philosophically propose that the universe is deterministic as it would be to philosophically propose that the universe is infinitely old and static.

We simply have information about the universe now that makes both of those philosophical guesses simply incorrect.

The concept of pure determinism was introduced after the OP. If quantum uncertainty does not translate to uncertainty in the macro sense, would that count as pure determinism? I would say that definitely counts as determinism.

In the OP I was attempting to appeal to a common sense layman approach. It should be enough to realize that if the world is deterministic then everything that happens would have needed to have been predetermined from the dawn of time. Surely you can see just how weird and spooky that would be?

Are you sure you are not appealing to consequence: It would be spooky if it is true, therefore it is false?

Surely you can see why I compared this with the idea of solipsism?
...

The thing is I don't think determinism is any where as spooky as strong solipsism.

[Divine Insight]

Unpredictability in the chaos theory sense, is not indeterminism. Feed a chaos system the same initial conditions, and you would get the exact same result every time.

You are ignoring quantum uncertainty. You can never produce precisely the same initial conditions. And even if you could it wouldn't do you any good. Because every moment the process unfolds is a brand new "initial condition".

This is true even in pure mathematical models, because even in pure mathematical models irrational numbers, which always come up in any simulation of any real-world event, must be rounded off, and therefore can never be precise.

So actually "Chaos" is the true nature of everything, even things that appear to be fairly stable.

Sure, another way of saying that is human thought patterns can be just as deterministic as long range weather patterns. If weather patterns and our brains are merely "not deterministic" in the chaos Theory sense, then it's just a matter of will and means before we can predict them with certainty with nothing more than simple pen and paper.

Whether patterns are not deterministic. They are ultimately chaotic.

You seem to be thinking that all Chaos Theory is saying is that we can't know the precise initial conditions. Or that if we did know them then we could determine how things will unfold. That's not what it's saying at all.

Chaos Theory reveals that our physical reality truly cannot be deterministic in detail. And this is true of all physical processes. Not just something like weather patterns. We, as humans, like to classify things so we classify whether patterns as being Chaotic whereas we view other systems that appear to be more stable as non-chaotic.

In fact, there may be non-Chaotic systems in the macro world. These would be systems whose initial conditions can be exactly determined, and the unfolding process can also be exactly determined. Putting this in a mathematical model it would be a model that simply uses all rational numbers the whole way through where no rounding is required. That kind of system would indeed be repeatable precisely every time because the numbers never change by rounding errors.

In the real world there may be macro systems that are so isolated from quantum effects that they too can then be totally deterministic. But overall, that's not going to apply to real-world systems in general.

What you suggest about understanding how the brain works sounds like you are already presuming that it will work very mechanically deterministic and we can follow every logical path precisely. But that may simply not be possible.

We understand the double slits experiment well enough to conclude that the path of an electron is not deterministic. There is no reason to presume that our brain works mechanically deterministically to understand it.

It's obvious, or at least should be obvious that our brains do have the ability for large scale determination. If that weren't true then our brains would be utterly useless. Clearly the very usefulness of a brain stems from its ability to be quite stable in how it operates. But it doesn't follow from this that it must then be purely deterministic in every detail.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all...

It's not that this is "good" or "bad", but rather it's highly improbable. In fact, established areas of Chaos Theory coupled with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, already tell us that this is not even possible.

If you want to appeal to Chaos Theory to argue that determinism is false, then stating them alone would be enough, it doesn't make the argument form Chaos Theory or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle any stronger, to know that if determinism is true then "every behavior of the universe would have been predetermined from the very beginning of time." It's simply irrelevant.

What I'm saying is the following:

It was clearly not determined from the dawn of time what humans would think or do after they have evolved. In fact, I hold that it was not even determined from the dawn of time that "humans" would even evolve at all. How the universe unfolds is far more dynamic and spontaneous than this, especially on the detailed level of precisely what evolves and how those evolved things might behave.

Clearly there is some "history" to why humans behave the way they do. For example, we today wouldn't even have heard of "witches" if someone in the past hadn't already invented the concept. Racism wouldn't be a problem in the USA had it not been for the history of white people making slaves of black people. Israel and Palestine wouldn't be bitter enemies if it hadn't been for their historical background. Clearly the bulk of human knowledge and behavior today has been shaped by our past history.

But at the same time we also see "rebels" who stand up against that kind of determinism. People who call for a stop to this kind of deterministic nonsense precisely because it doesn't need to be deterministic at all. They are the greatest expression of FREE WILL. They are blatantly acting against the tides of determinism.

So yes, many things are determined, especially in the "short-term" relative to the age of the universe. But they aren't carved in stone. Therefore they aren't even really deterministic at all. They only appear to be deterministic because they have a tenacious affect in the macro world. But it's not an effect that is so deterministic that it can't be rebelled against.

So as far as I can see, pure determinism has already been proven to be an outdated obsolete idea...

I would suggest that pure determinism is on the same level as the idea of a purely static eternal universe. We already know that this philosophical guess is wrong.

Only if quantum uncertainty translate to uncertainty in the macro sense. I don't think that's resolved. We can still "shut up and calculate." Surely the absurdity of "a cat being both dead and alive at the same time," is far above that of "every behavior of the universe would have been predetermined from the very beginning of time?"

It's odd that you bring up Schodinger's Cat here. I'm still at a loss as to why anyone thinks that Schodinger's Cat is problematic. It's not. The cat is never in a quantum superposition. And there's no reason to ever suspect that it would be.

We still have Entropy! Entropy is "deterministic". Schodinger's Cat can't die until a vial of poison is broken by a radio active decay detector. And therefore Schrodinger's Cat cannot die until a random 'quantum event' becomes an irreversible "macro event" made irreversible by the macro property of Entropy. Therefore Schodinger's Cat would never be in a quantum superposition at any time. And I'm actually at a loss as to why Schodinger himself could not see that.

Apparently the "shut up and salculate" mentality as been taken too seriously, because when we do that we "calculate" that Schrodinger's Cat should be in a quantum superposition, when it reality it never is.

So we should never just "shut up and calculate". Instead we should always be mindful of precisely what it is we are attempting to model in our mathematical equations.

Chaos Theory demands that it must...

I don't think chaos theory demands that at all. In fact it deals specifically with deterministic systems.

You can apply Chaos Theory to every process in the universe. And as I have pointed out earlier, you may even find where some physical processes are so "isolated" from quantum behavior that they turn out to not be affected by Chaos. In other words, there is nothing going on within that process that will lose information due to "rounding" or quantum effects.

In that case, you will have a perfectly determinable process. And such processes may exist. All that is required is that they be far enough isolate from quantum effects that the unfolding of their initial conditions is unaffected by quantum uncertainty.

Chaos Theory still applies, it just gives the result that in this particular system no Chaos will occur. But I seriously doubt that thought processes in the human brain would qualify as being totally isolated from the effects of Chaos.

We can't view the functioning of the brain as being "removed" from the quantum world. That would be a mistake. Our brains are intimately connected with the quantum world. It could be said that within our brains we have one foot in the macro world, and one foot in the quantum world at all times.

That much I'd agree with.

Super great.

The concept of pure determinism was introduced after the OP. If quantum uncertainty does not translate to uncertainty in the macro sense, would that count as pure determinism? I would say that definitely counts as determinism.

Yes, I agree. If a macro process could be shown to be totally isolated from any quantum effects, then that process would indeed count as being purely deterministic on the macro scale.

In the OP I was attempting to appeal to a common sense layman approach. It should be enough to realize that if the world is deterministic then everything that happens would have needed to have been predetermined from the dawn of time. Surely you can see just how weird and spooky that would be?

Are you sure you are not appealing to consequence: It would be spooky if it is true, therefore it is false?

But I wasn't attempting to claim that this is a logical argument that proves a specific conclusion. I was simply appealing to "common sense".

Sometimes we have no choice to appeal to common sense because we can't nail something down with perfect formal logic. I think solipsism is a great example. There is absolutely no way to "prove" that solipsism can't be true. Therefore, the only think we have left to do is to reject it simply because it doesn't seem right to us.

It's seems absurd to think that, as an individual, we are the only entity that truly exists and all other people and animals are just a figment of our imagination. So we reject that idea. But we can't "prove" that it's false.

I think the same type of reasoning applies here. We can't prove that every jot and tittle of human history wasn't predetermined before the Big Bang. But it would be a real stretch to assume that it was. And it wouldn't matter what that history was. No matter what unfolded, ever jot and tittle of that process would have needed to have been predetermined. This seems pretty problematic for me.

Yet that's what would necessarily need to be true if we wish to claim that the universe is purely deterministic. Change on jot or tittle that wasn't predetermined and we've got a massive problem. How did that undetermined jot or tittle change on its own without having been determined?

In a purely deterministic universe no one could be born so much as a second earlier or later than they were, for to do so would violate determinism. The same goes for their deaths. No one could live or die for so much as a second beyond what had been determined.

Just think about how precisely determined everything would need to be. If there is a plane crash that kills hundreds of people, everything about that event would have been predetermined. From the time of the Wright Brothers to the manufacturing errors that created the defective part that would fail precisely at the point in time when it did killing precisely the people who it needed to kill at that point in time.

It just seem to me that a philosophy of pure determinism is simply absurd. Far more so than even Solipsism. Or at least it's equally absurd.

Surely you can see why I compared this with the idea of solipsism?
...

The thing is I don't think determinism is any where as spooky as strong solipsism.[/quote]

Actually I would think that Solipsism, as a philosophy, would be more reasonable than a purely deterministic mechanical universes. But that's clearly a personal view.

And besides, we already know that the universe is not purely deterministic on all levels. Quantum mechanics has settled the question on that for sure. A purely determinism clockwork universe when out with Classical physics.

[Bust Nak]

You are ignoring quantum uncertainty. You can never produce precisely the same initial conditions. And even if you could it wouldn't do you any good. Because every moment the process unfolds is a brand new "initial condition".

Of course I am ignoring quantum uncertainty - chaos theory deals specifically with deterministic systems. If you want to appeal to quantum uncertainty, then focus on that.

This is true even in pure mathematical models, because even in pure mathematical models irrational numbers, which always come up in any simulation of any real-world event, must be rounded off, and therefore can never be precise.

That doesn't matter, because the system is deterministic - it is imprecise with the same imprecision every time.

Whether patterns are not deterministic. They are ultimately chaotic.

Chaotic in the chaotic theory sense, sure. Chaotic in the indeterminate sense, that hasn't been resolved yet.

You seem to be thinking that all Chaos Theory is saying is that we can't know the precise initial conditions. Or that if we did know them then we could determine how things will unfold. That's not what it's saying at all.

This I disagree strongly: Chaos theory says that if we did know initial conditions then we could determine how things will unfold, the problem is that we don't know the precise initial conditions. Edward Lorenz, who coined the term butterfly effect said "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."

Now, I see you point about quantum uncertainty, if it means we can never know the precise initial conditions, then sure, it then follows that determinism is false, but the mere fact that quantum uncertainty translates to the macro world, is enough to prove determinism false. Deterministic initial conditions plus Chaos theory means determinism; indeterministic initial conditions plus Chaos theory means indeterminism. The deciding factor here, is whether the initial conditions is deterministic or not. Chaos theory does not change the result.

In fact, there may be non-Chaotic systems in the macro world. These would be systems whose initial conditions can be exactly determined, and the unfolding process can also be exactly determined. Putting this in a mathematical model it would be a model that simply uses all rational numbers the whole way through where no rounding is required. That kind of system would indeed be repeatable precisely every time because the numbers never change by rounding errors.

I don't see why you keep bringing up rounding errors. As long as a system round the same way every time, the end result would be the same every time. Trivially, we can write emulators to run programs designed for another computer - we can predict the outcome of a system with rounding error, using system that that have different rounding errors.

In the real world there may be macro systems that are so isolated from quantum effects that they too can then be totally deterministic. But overall, that's not going to apply to real-world systems in general.

If something can be isolated from quantum effects, doesn't that mean quantum uncertainty does not translate to the macro scale?

It's obvious, or at least should be obvious that our brains do have the ability for large scale determination. If that weren't true then our brains would be utterly useless. Clearly the very usefulness of a brain stems from its ability to be quite stable in how it operates. But it doesn't follow from this that it must then be purely deterministic in every detail.

Sure, what exactly does that have to do with what I said about understanding the brain without presuming it is deterministic?

It was clearly not determined from the dawn of time what humans would think or do after they have evolved. In fact, I hold that it was not even determined from the dawn of time that "humans" would even evolve at all. How the universe unfolds is far more dynamic and spontaneous than this, especially on the detailed level of precisely what evolves and how those evolved things might behave.

Clearly there is some "history" to why humans behave the way they do. For example, we today wouldn't even have heard of "witches" if someone in the past hadn't already invented the concept. Racism wouldn't be a problem in the USA had it not been for the history of white people making slaves of black people. Israel and Palestine wouldn't be bitter enemies if it hadn't been for their historical background. Clearly the bulk of human knowledge and behavior today has been shaped by our past history.

But at the same time we also see "rebels" who stand up against that kind of determinism. People who call for a stop to this kind of deterministic nonsense precisely because it doesn't need to be deterministic at all. They are the greatest expression of FREE WILL. They are blatantly acting against the tides of determinism.

So yes, many things are determined, especially in the "short-term" relative to the age of the universe. But they aren't carved in stone. Therefore they aren't even really deterministic at all. They only appear to be deterministic because they have a tenacious affect in the macro world. But it's not an effect that is so deterministic that it can't be rebelled against.

I am surprise how closely you associate social events into this debate, where as I think I look at it as a detached academic exercise. You are not suggesting that determinism is some sort of ideology?

It's odd that you bring up Schodinger's Cat here. I'm still at a loss as to why anyone thinks that Schodinger's Cat is problematic. It's not. The cat is never in a quantum superposition. And there's no reason to ever suspect that it would be...

Right, and hence my objection - it's clear quantum uncertainty does not translate to the macro world in all cases, no reason to think uncertainty would translate in some cases.

You can apply Chaos Theory to every process in the universe. And as I have pointed out earlier, you may even find where some physical processes are so "isolated" from quantum behavior that they turn out to not be affected by Chaos...

Chaos Theory still applies, it just gives the result that in this particular system no Chaos will occur. But I seriously doubt that thought processes in the human brain would qualify as being totally isolated from the effects of Chaos.

You doubt it in the common sense way, as you described below? I too doubt it, just no where the same as I doubt strong Solipsism.

Yes, I agree. If a macro process could be shown to be totally isolated from any quantum effects, then that process would indeed count as being purely deterministic on the macro scale.

Isolated from quantum effects, or just isolated from quantum uncertainty? Photosynthesis relies of quantum effects, yet the result is far from chaotic, you get an efficient transfer from light to usable energy every time in the macro scale. Is it deterministic in the macro scale?

But I wasn't attempting to claim that this is a logical argument that proves a specific conclusion. I was simply appealing to "common sense"....

It's seems absurd to think that, as an individual, we are the only entity that truly exists and all other people and animals are just a figment of our imagination. So we reject that idea. But we can't "prove" that it's false.

I see. In this sense, it is logical to go with the most pragmatic option. I literally cannot operate consistently with the belief that I am the only 'self' in existence, so logically I don't treat as if I am not the only self in existence.

I think the same type of reasoning applies here...

Actually I would think that Solipsism, as a philosophy, would be more reasonable than a purely deterministic mechanical universes. But that's clearly a personal view.

I personally feel otherwise. I can more readily accept that we are self aware clockwork computers, than to accept that I am the only self.

And besides, we already know that the universe is not purely deterministic on all levels. Quantum mechanics has settled the question on that for sure. A purely determinism clockwork universe when out with Classical physics.

Again, that much I can agree with, but I think deterministism is still maintainable on the macro scale.

[Paprika]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum
It's odd that you bring up Schodinger's Cat here. I'm still at a loss as to why anyone thinks that Schodinger's Cat is problematic. It's not. The cat is never in a quantum superposition. And there's no reason to ever suspect that it would be.

We still have Entropy! Entropy is "deterministic". Schodinger's Cat can't die until a vial of poison is broken by a radio active decay detector. And therefore Schrodinger's Cat cannot die until a random 'quantum event' becomes an irreversible "macro event" made irreversible by the macro property of Entropy. Therefore Schodinger's Cat would never be in a quantum superposition at any time. And I'm actually at a loss as to why Schodinger himself could not see that.

What does irreversibility due to Entropy have to with anything here?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]

We understand the double slits experiment well enough to conclude that the path of an electron is not deterministic. There is no reason to presume that our brain works mechanically deterministically to understand it.

Light particles travel in waves in the same way as water particles travel in waves. Waves and particles represent two different ways to measure what's happening when we see "light" or "water".

There is no reason to presume that both states are representative of some undetermanism. What we actually have is two ways to measure things that happen in reality.

[Bust Nak]

Light particles travel in waves in the same way as water particles travel in waves. Waves and particles represent two different ways to measure what's happening when we see "light" or "water".

There is no reason to presume that both states are representative of some undetermanism. What we actually have is two ways to measure things that happen in reality.

It does when a single particle can travel through both slits and interfere with itself.

[FinalEnigma]

I realize this quote is a bit old, but I'd like to address it

There is no well-defined logical argument against solipsism. You either accept it on faith or reject it on faith. Pure and simple.

If I may, I will present your argument in the form of a logical argument so that I can address it in that way. Here is my attempt:

Premesis:
P1) You cannot logically prove or disprove solipsism.
P2) (unstated) if you cannot logically prove or disprove an idea, then you cannot logically reject or accept it
P3) (unstated) the only possible metrics by which to accept or reject a proposition are logic and faith
Conclusions:
C1) Solipsism must be either accepted on faith or rejected on faith.


I disagree with both premises P2 and P3

Let's look at P3 first:
P3) (unstated) the only possible metrics by which to accept or reject a proposition are logic and faith

I dispute this premise, because I believe that it is a false dilemma. Human beings do not require logical proofs to accept a premise. I will agree that Logic and faith are two metrics by which you can accept a proposition, but I would argue that there are more than those two.

For example:
Evidentiary (scientific):
In science, a new proposition is not accepted or rejected based on either of the above criteria. It is rejected so long as there is insufficient evidence to support it, or if there is evidence to the contrary. A proposition is accepted when it has been tried multiple times, has predictive capability, and no evidence has been found to disprove it.

Legal:
In the court of law in the united stated, a proposition "X person Is guilty", is accepted if and only if it can be established to be true beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

Probabilistic:
Many premises can be, and are, accepted or rejected based on a probability of truth or falsity, without a logical proof.


And all of these metrics fall under my dispute for premise P2, which is as follows:
P2) (unstated) if you cannot logically prove or disprove an idea, then you cannot logically reject or accept it
In many situations, logical proof is not possible to attain when considering a proposition. In some of these cases however, one must take a stance regardless.
In these situations, while it is not possible to logically prove or disprove the proposition, it can be logical to accept or reject the proposition based on other metrics.
For instance, say someone were to inform me that there is a benevolent alien species that exists on earth, which is invisible and undetectable by any means, and some of these aliens will die horribly if the humidity in my front yard drops too low, and that I therefore should constantly run my sprinklers.
Can I logically disprove this claim? No, because these aliens are undetectable by any means. Can I logically prove this claim? No.
However, I CAN logically reject this claim because there is no evidence for it, and because it is highly unlikely. It would extremely illogical for me to accept this claim.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 38 by Bust Nak]

There is no reason to presume that both states are representative of some undetermanism. What we actually have is two ways to measure things that happen in reality.

It does when a single particle can travel through both slits and interfere with itself.

I am not aware that a single particle can travel through both slits and interfere with itself.

As far as I know, a photon is not a wave of photons.
As far as I know, a drop of water isn't a wave of water droplets.

The fact that a photon can be nonlocalized has nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't have a varying proper time Ï„. When we observe interference, it's because two different parts of the wave coincide at the same coordinates (t,x,y,z) in some frame such as the lab, and not at all because the part of the wave we may call a PART or a PARTICLE or a PHOTON is interfering with itself.

Alas, a particle of a wave is not a wave, as the part of the whole is not the whole itself.