Thread 18117432

Are there any good arguments against hard determinism?

>>18117432 (OP)
Yes, a couple.

1) Quantum mechanics
You saw this coming. Physics have abandoned determinism decades ago and it is only maintained in the simplest calculations of mechanics and the like. On the most fundamental level that we currently know of, reality is decidedly not determinist. So it becomes borderline impossible to argue that reality built on a non-deterministic fundament is deterministic.
2) Predictability doesn't imply determinism
This is an argument I found only this week. Predictable outcomes are actually conceivable in both deterministic and non-deterministic outcomes. If you play monopoly and you magically make sure the dice roll is genuinely metaphysically random, the games will still end up the same way - one player will amass more capital than the rest and will win within a normal-distributed interval of rounds. Predictability isn't a function of determinism, but of limitations imposed upon a system.
3) Breaking the fortune teller machine
This is more or less just a game and cannot be considered a legitimate argument, but imagine that we not only prove determinism, but that we actually crack it. We construct a machine that can predict what will happen. You then ask the machine which hand you will lift in 10 seconds. The machine gives an answer. But here's the kicker - you are determined to do the opposite of what the machine tells you. It's essentially a mental experiment checkmate, but the implications of this one are far larger than mere determinism, it challenges the idea of a subject-object divide in general and introduces mutually constituted existence. Which isn't the question you asked, so this is a good place to stop.

>>18117432 (OP)
Outside of religious ones no not really

Indeterminism is incompatible with free will by the way.

>>18117497
Materialists define free will in a way that it's incompatible with both determinism and randomness so either way it doesn't really matter to them. Secularizing the free will debate was a mistake.

>>18117432 (OP)
No one seems to be able to define what it even means to have "free will" to begin with.

>>18117462
But what good is randomness if the only thing that matters is the outcome, which is determined by the collision of two atoms billions of years ago?
The third point however seems solid and I cannot come up with anything against it at the moment. Maybe that this would only prove that the machine is actually not perfect at predicting the reality

>>18117562
Theology defines it as your nature expressing itself through you without obstacle.

>>18117567
Your first question doesn't make sense to me. What good is randomness if stuff is determined? As in... what good is randomness if there is no randomness? Well... no good at all, since it doesn't exist. But what the model shows is that even if randomness does exist (and hence even if determinism is false), we can still expect predictability. Meaning that determinists who point to predictable outcomes don't actually have a case. Predictability is a function of system limitations, not a function of things being determined by the past.

>>18117432 (OP)
No, the US have secret AIs that can predict the future

>>18117562
It's the magic phrase that absolves God of responsibility for whatever happens so he can be perfectly good despite his creation being kinda meh.

>>18117579
I may be retarded. I created this thread after experiencing baby's first existential dilemma and thought this would be a good place for me to find comfort in arguments against determinism.

>>18117568
So what would it mean not to have free will?

>>18117590
Everyone is retarded in here, you came to the right place. If determinism bothers you then I'd just go with quantum physics - we have experimentally proved that reality is not physically deterministic. The rest of >>18117462 are philosophical points that either show that determinists are making an unjustified leap (concluding determinism from predictability) or an unsustainable model.

>>18117596
The expression of your nature being hijacked by foreign agency, such as addiction, sicknesses, corrupt desires and so on. If your nature tells you to greet a person with love, but you instead rob them for crack money or insult them due to the fragility of your ego, the will of your nature was suppressed by disregulated faculties of your mind. Your will was not your own, but your addiction's or your ego's.

>>18117647
Can it be applied to humans? So much about us it pre-determined - our genes, our upbringing up to a certain age, the hormones that make us do things we wouldn't otherwise, and so on.

>>18117647
>we have experimentally proved that reality is not physically deterministic

How exactly did we prove something that's impossible to prove?

>>18117664
It can be applied to anything physical.
If you're trying to see it from a human perspective, then it becomes a little more existential because when you tell me that your genes and hormones make you do stuff then ... what is the "you"? If your genes are a separate thing, your hormones are a separate thing, your emotions, your brain, your memories, your mind... where is the "you" that is being forced by these factors? There is none left. This is actually the biggest mistake determinism makes - it explains away not freedom, but the human being that could have that freedom.

But you exist. You ARE the multi-layered and self-organizing system of your genes, your hormones, experiences, ideas, education etc. When your genes prompt you towards a decision, it's your choice, because you are your genes. And your body also re-arranges and modifies your genes based on your experiences, so it's not like the agency is in the genes. It's in you, the system that includes the genes.


>>18117665
The basics of quantum physics were proven and reviewed already in the 20th century, there's nothing impossible about it.

determinism makes perfect sense if you accept God

>>18117717
Why did God determined me to sin?

>>18117691
>The basics of quantum physics were proven and reviewed already in the 20th century, there's nothing impossible about it.

We can't prove or disprove anything, much less something like determinism.

>>18117432 (OP)
The hard determinism you're referring to is really a combination of causality (continuous chain of events) and desire for power. There are no good arguments against causality because a non-causal world makes no sense. Nothing would correspond to anything else. However that alone isn't enough for hard determinism because causality created everything, it led to the world we live in. In order to go further and say freedom doesn't exist, humans can't possibly exist as described. We can't be big, strong, or intelligent because those concepts have no meaning under hard determinism. In fact, nothing would exist except the continuous stream of reactions. Nothing at all. This isn't really a worldview, it's a conterfactual -- a null hypothesis. It's philosophically necessary, but only invoked to gain power over the whole in a new way, by revealing its "true nature". When you encounter it in real life, the argument always belongs to someone disillusioned with life but still prideful.

>>18117432 (OP)
Yes, on a cultural/anthropological level. The condemnation of free will kills artistic expression and growth. If everything is pre-determined, there is literally no point. Also wondering if many of these repeat threads are being engineered by JIDF to instill hopelessness.

>>18117691
There are deterministic interpretations of quantum physics

>>18117432 (OP)
>>18117462
this anon's 3rd point is basically saying determinism can never exist technically, if God exists he can't just bestow omniscience because nothing makes sense with causality disrupted.

>>18117758
I am not a kike, just had a bad day and ran into this whole idea and it made me paranoid.

>>18117755
Let the scientists know asap.

>>18117759
Yes, such as "superdeterminism" that copes by arguing that even the measurement choices were predetermined and that hidden variables are there somewhere. It's a dying out cope. Determinism has nothing going for it besides cognitive convenience.

>>18117775
When will the mainstream science, aka normalfags, catch up to the idea? Or is it never going to happen?

>>18117462
>>18117759
>>18117775
quantum uncertainty is tiny and doesn't decide anything. A person willing to deny the existence of everything observable is within their rights to say determinism exists, most people just aren't that rigorous and/or think determinism means people are robots.

>>18117775
>Let the scientists know asap.

Show me these scientists and their findings which are apparently proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Also interesting that you talk about cope when non-deterministic stances tend to revolve entirely around it.

>>18117792
t. believes humans don't exist

>>18117773
Why is this thread up constantly though?

>>18117784
That proving stuff doesn't happen? Never.

>>18117785
It's tiny each time, but there are billions of it every second on every inch of your hot body, baby. To me, both legs on which determinism stood are removed: physics and predictability.

>>18117792
>Show me these scientists and their findings which are apparently proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Where's the mystery in that?
On a serious note, if you want to doubt a century of quantum physics consensus, I'm not going to stop you. Doubt away.
>Also interesting that you talk about cope when non-deterministic stances tend to revolve entirely around it.
My bad. Determinism is true.

>>18117792
too many anons these days accuse others of coping for defending views that don't seem to be copes at all

>>18117799
>To me, both legs on which determinism stood are removed: physics and predictability.
they aren't though. Anything above atom size is predictable with a classical model. A non-causal world is not necessary for free will.

>>18117753
Someone has to sin

>>18117816
Why?

never refuted

>>18117824
OK rabbi

>>18117826
why would The Jews want you to believe in free will?

Do you have free will if someone or something can influence your actions? Are you predestined to be influenced by the aforementioned someone or something from the beginning of time?

>>18117831
Yes. No.
Free will is exactly what it says on the tin. The physical human body is a site of many important events taking place in the world, and insofar as "you" exist those are "your" events. Determinism is saying nobody really exists, because if they do, they do things.

>>18117841
My mom had me at 40, which predetermined me to develop autism. She had her reasons to have a child so late in life, and so on and so forth.

>>18117841
Are you aware of compatibilist determinism? Because it sounds like you're describing that except maybe you don't accept determinism at the quantum level.
>>18117801
Not everyone is strong enough to tolerate the harsh reality that Santa Claus exists and he gives me better presents than them because I'm a good boy.

>>18117812
>Anything above atom size
Is made of non-deterministic stuff. Leg 1 gone.
>is predictable
Which doesn't mean deterministic. Leg 2 gone. (>>18117462)

>A non-causal world is not necessary for free will.
This world definitely has causality in it. In fact, it has so much causality in so many unimaginably complex ways that the usual cause >>> effect scheme fails to capture most of it. Reality is relational and mutually constitutive, not a set of discrete moments and vectors producing another set at a separate discrete moment. It works for machines, but even if you were trying to argue for liquid dynamics, it already fails. Each atom influences each other, there is no set of vectors, their movement is mutually constitutive.

>>18117850
You're intellectually whole, people aren't an exact science. There are successful and happy people who are much worse off than you genetically.

I would say it's not determinism if it doesn't exist. The rock God can't lift doesn't exist either.

>>18117870
God is allowed to be paradoxical because he's outside of limitations. I wasn't trying to get pity points with the autism declaration, it was just a push to the idea of things being predetermined in some way or another. The more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that only God is truly free from determinism because he is free from causality

>>18117462
>Physics have abandoned determinism decades ago and it is only maintained in the simplest calculations of mechanics and the like. On the most fundamental level that we currently know of, reality is decidedly not determinist.
This is simply ignorant of deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics like Everett and pilot wave, which are very much live. There's no scientific consensus on whether quantum phenomena are deterministic.

>>18117868
Atoms and physical reality are enormous compared to quantum forces, the reactions taking place dwarf quantum instability, even physical water splashing. Besides, even if the splash pattern which becomes a rogue wave which kills a GMOH isn't determined until that moment, it's still triggered by cause and effect. There's no discrete wave or discrete person, those are structures of great enormity compared to quantum interactions, and they're linked by a chain reaction back to the beginning of the universe. People are fundamentally born from other free will havers and the path of free will influence is a massive web almost impossible to parse, but that part makes no sense without some free will left for yourself. Then being the strongest and smartest animal, it must be admitted that we have superlative free will.

>>18117868
>It works for machines, but even if you were trying to argue for liquid dynamics, it already fails. Each atom influences each other, there is no set of vectors, their movement is mutually constitutive.
Please stop talking about science lol

>>18117878
I wasn't trying to comfort you, the responsibility is still on because you're still a complete human capable of a wide range of actions, designed to excel in many different diverse circumstances. Cause and effect are merely part of the background structure that created such an entity, like quantum uncertainty. The human is built to dominate and exercise free will specifically in a causal world.

>>18117935
What sets us apart from other products of causality?

>>18117896
Addressed in >>18117775. Deterministic theories of quantum physics have been a minority view for quite some time. Where are the hidden variables? Show me the money.

>>18117906
No. Though I might talk more simply for present company. Skepticism over simple cause-effect models and determinism have been growing for some time and there is no shortage of sources upon which to draw, from Russel to contemporary quantum physics.

>>18117942
Causality is not determinism. Determinism is based on causality like everything else, but only theorized to exist. It can never be proven in real life because that implies temporal control over the future, a paradox. Usually what people mean when they say 'determinism' is they want to figure out how to make others obey using crude social controls, or they're unhappy about feeling so controlled. No one wants to talk about real determinism which disproves the entire corpus of human knowledge about the world. If everything is predetermined, nothing is as it appears to be, and none of the ways of gathering knowledge have been based on correct assumptions. The only real knowledge is nonexistence in a continuous stream of events, everything else should be called prose instead. Nobody talks about that because it's nothing, not really an interesting viewpoint or real in any way. They all want to talk about predestination to become Hitler.

>>18117942
What sets us apart from other products of randomness? Causality and randomness are two poles of the same complex reality. Neither can claim the totality of being. Not in our experience, not in physics, not in philosophy.

>>18118017
So we have free will just because?

>>18117960
>Deterministic theories of quantum physics have been a minority view for quite some time.
Being a minority view isn't the same as being disproved. Sometimes the minority view is right! Anyway, most physicists don't seem to care about interpretations of QM insofar as it makes no difference. But to say that quantum physics has ruled out determinism is just incorrect, in that case there would be very few or no physicists defending those deterministic theories.

>>18118027
We have free will because it's part of the definition of a human. There's no reason for humans to have big brains other than to practice free will in a way incomparably superior to other animals. People who say free will isn't free enough are just looking for a way to violate causality and perform magic.

>>18117432 (OP)
In a meta manner of speaking, humans dislike consequences. By believing in hard determinism, mfers can be comfortable that all of their actions were engineered by fate, removing human agency and responsability. Free will is not real, sorry theists, but sure as hell determinism isn't either, advocates for both are stupid, lack sight, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

>>18118645
>magic is not real
ftfy
you can be free just don't do anything that breaks reality

>18118679
do not (you) me ever again, schizo, your type hangs here
>>>/x/
go there

>>18118690
concession accepted