Free Will versus Determinism ( A Third Option)

[Epcious]

There are those who argue for free will, those for determinism, and others for a mixture. I argue that there is no free will or determinism. Is such a ground of mine possible?

 

[Grogs]

There are those who argue for free will, those for determinism, and others for a mixture. I argue that there is no free will or determinism. Is such a ground of mine possible?

I'm not sure it is. I have to decide what I'm going to have for dinner tonight. I'll make my choice because either *something* has preordained what I will choose -or- because it's what I decide. Either I make the decision or something else makes the decision for me. What's the middle ground?

 

[hypnagogue]

There are those who argue for free will, those for determinism, and others for a mixture. I argue that there is no free will or determinism. Is such a ground of mine possible?

It's impossible to evaluate your argument if you don't tell us what it is.

 

[StatusX]

If by determined you mean your actions could have been predicted, then yes, it is possible for a middle ground: the way it is. Because of quantum uncertainty, we can't precisely predict the future states of the universe, even with perfect knowledge of the present state. But you still aren't free, because the actual path the universe takes is completely random, within the proper constraints.

 

[Epcious]

hypnagogue,

The argument does not determine the truth or falsity of the belieif, it always serves as a pathetic excuse for the scholarly types who are not true philosophers to justify their beliefs. These scholarly types spend all their days dispensing clever arguments while refuting others and the nature of the beleifs literally becomes dependent on their ability to argue not on the truth or falsenesss of their beliefs. Of course their are other individuals who are the pathological sort and will stop at nothing to argue a certain position whether it is false or true in nature.

There is two accords in which we can judge a position correctly. The first is having a metaphysical basis, to form a ground in which is universal and categorical. Categorical inplies a division and order of which to demonstrate two universals sections of which all can be placed into and a demonstation of causality between the divisions. Of course there could be more than 2 divisions. Secondly, is the logic that arises is based in and from the metaphysical basis of which is to be considered granted the correctness of the metaphysical ground and the correctness of the logic from there. The metaphysical ground must be correct, the logic must be based correctly in relation to the ground and must be conducted correctly as to be representative of reality. If such is provided then a measure can be achieved provided any problem or datum given. This is the true methodology of a philosopher.

A scholarly man or intellectual will throw endless amounts of arguments to proof and justify their positions and egos in the process and as well spend endless amounts of time refuting and aruging among arguments. The scientific methodology simply does not work for the abstract handlings and dealings of philosophy. I suggest you rethink your methodism and adopt a true philosophical method.

 

[Epcious]

Statusx,

Just because science is incapable of prediction does not mean their is no order. It just indicates that their methodology is incapable of prediction. It simple means that physics fails to understand reality and its nature because the science is based on incorrect grounds and follow an incorrect system.

You probably do not notice that science is destroying itself. It is having to resort to ideas that are really contradicting and putting into challenge the foundations and systematics that scienc stands upon. Hell, Hume already knew of the errors and provided some grounds that destroyed the basis of causality, probability, and induction.

Science will eventually find out point in which the problems lead to a neccesity of choosing explanations that contradict and therefore destroy the foundations of science itself. It is already occurring and has been occurring since the influx of relativist ideas naturally adopted from Kant and his contemparies. Einstein himself got his relativism from Kant.

 

[hypnagogue]

Epcious, you said yourself that you 'argue' against both free will and determinism, but you do not present an argument. You present a premise. Whichever it is-- argument or premise-- it would be helpful if you could reveal some sort of reasoning or observation or intuition behind it. If you believe in your stance, you must think grounds for it are possible. At the very least, you must have some substantive thoughts on the matter. This discussion will be more fruitful if you divulge them.

 

[StatusX]

Statusx,

Just because science is incapable of prediction does not mean their is no order. It just indicates that their methodology is incapable of prediction. It simple means that physics fails to understand reality and its nature because the science is based on incorrect grounds and follow an incorrect system.

You probably do not notice that science is destroying itself. It is having to resort to ideas that are really contradicting and putting into challenge the foundations and systematics that scienc stands upon. Hell, Hume already knew of the errors and provided some grounds that destroyed the basis of causality, probability, and induction.

Science will eventually find out point in which the problems lead to a neccesity of choosing explanations that contradict and therefore destroy the foundations of science itself. It is already occurring and has been occurring since the influx of relativist ideas naturally adopted from Kant and his contemparies. Einstein himself got his relativism from Kant.

How exactly is science contradicting itself? It's going beyond common sense, but it's still perfectly consistent and making more accurate predictions than ever. And what does this have to do with anything?

 

[Epcious]

hynagoge,

I am asking is the position valid in the first place, if not then there is no use in arguing for or against it. We may have a position that "God is real" but if there is o reason to belief such a statement if its has no foundation in objective reality then there is no such arguing for or agianst it. I ask is the position valid? If not please tell me why such position is invalid.

A possibility is not to be concerned just because it is possibility for such is a waste of time and energy and obviously is irrational. Only possibilities which have ground or reason for which to make them considerable can we argue and investigate for.

StatusX,

I stated that it will contradict itself. What is occurring in physics for example is the attempt to bring unity to all theories but in doing so and plus the introduction of new theories in order to statisfy the conclusions made in the theories and in order for union to be made the fundamental laws of science will have to be challenged. It is already occurring with Stephan Wolframs "A New Kind of Science". He understands that given a simple pattern (determined by laws) upon continual repitition there can form very complex designs. Now, the laws are hypothetically invented but it may be possible given my works in philosophy to divulge geniune laws of nature and provide the correct context with in which to synthetically generate natures logical structure. This will provide a sort of genetic code for the universe of upon which we may someday given content to and come to understand the universe as it is in-itself separate from our subjective perception.

My statement was to put into question your scientific response to my adress which I belief to have no foundation in philosophy. Philosophical inquiry can ony be satisfied by philosophical response founded in metaphysical grounds and governed from logic based therefrom.

Science is line with perception of what we see not reality itself. We are able to based on perception experiment and come up with simple rules that form more complex ones that are governing our perception of reality. Therefore, based on our perception it is possible to predict what we perceive from past events. Science has never come close to revealing the laws of nature, only revealing the laws of what we perceive from reality. This obviously only so because of the hypothetical and inductive use of a priori ideas unto experience granted from perception and not unto reality itself.

 

[hypnagogue]

I am asking is the position valid in the first place, if not then there is no use in arguing for or against it.

So you are asking for arguments about your position's validity. You seem to think it's valid; tell us why.

 

[Philocrat]

There are those who argue for free will, those for determinism, and others for a mixture. I argue that there is no free will or determinism. Is such a ground of mine possible?

You should provide a satisfactory logically consistent argument for this sort of claim. You should start your deduction by universally declaring that 'THERE IS NO CONNECTION (OR CAUSAL RELATION) BETWEEN 'SOMETHING' AND 'NOTHINGNESS'. That is, one is irreducible to the other! This gives you a solid base or foundation for your deduction.

If that is true, then you have one known thing that is fully determined. Whenever you are asleep or awake or wherever you may be, you would always say to yourself: 'SOMETHING' IS IRREDUCIBLE TO 'NOTHINGNESS AND VICE VERSA'. You are now left free to consider the nature of 'SOMETHING' with regards to the notions of 'FREEDOM' (or FREE WIIL) and 'DETERMINISM'. You must then set out the conditions for the possibility or impossibility of free will or determinism in a world where there is only something without nothing. What is the nature of Something that is inadmissible to freedom or determinism as you so suspect or belief?

Your conditional statements would look something like this:

1. Something is preditermined if and only if:

(a) It has a unique form, structure and function.
(b) It never changes from one form, structure and function to the next

2. Something is free if and only if:

a) It has the capacity (potentiality) to be what it likes and act as it likes


After setting out these conditions, the next thing you must ask yourself is whether there is anything at all in the whole universe that is blessed with this capacity. Is there anything that can change into what it likes and can act freely as it likes in the strictest sense of the word?


NOTE: It is very important to remember that when enumerating or qauntifying what constitutes change or what type of change is being implied, the person who is doing this must unavoidable quantify the time scale of such change. Time Scales are problematic when it comes to logic in general and when it comes to the notions of 'being' and 'continuity'. For it is almost absurd to claim that a thing or an event held in an extremely brief microtime scale and a giagantic thing or event of a cosmological time scale, that often take millions of years to complete a single cycle of its action, are in our sense of understanding existing and continuing.

OUTSTANDING PROBLEM: First, it is not clear whether in proposition (2) something can structurally and functionally change for as many time as it likes to a point in future where it can no longer change (perhaps to where it become wholly structurally and functionally perfect). If it did, would such a thing not be returned to the same predetermined state as the thing in proposition (1)? Second, It is not clear whether as implied in (1) something that is predetermined and never changes constitutes a sense of 'STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL PERFECTION' or (2) whether something can change from one form to the next and does what it likes forever, and if so, whether this, in a comepletely different sense, constitutes 'STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL PERFECTION', because it seems as if such a thing is causally and relationally above all known and unknown laws of physics. Can we define the notion of 'PERFECTION' in these two different senses? That is the question of all questions!