[Guille]

One of the questions we discussed in the last chat session was whether the universe is determined, fix, caused always, or there are events not caused, or free actions, or randomness. I give here a list of the five main theories about this problem, so that you can vote the one that you agree with in the poll. If you do not agree with any or have one of yours, vote other, please.

Hard Determinism: A hard determinist believes that the past completely determines the future. Since all future events are caused by past events, the future is causally determined. it is not within our power to shape the future. Free will is an illusion.

Indeterminism: An indeterminist denies that the past has a strong effect on the future. According to indeterminism, at least some events in the future are not caused by events in the past. The future is somewhat random and unpredictable. This avoids the threat of determinism.

Soft Determinism: A soft determinist holds that we can have free will even if the future is determined. We are free and responsible for our actions as long as these actions are caused in the right way. We can distinguish two different forms of soft determinism;

Traditional Compatibilism: A traditional compatibilist holds that actions are free if and only if: a. They are caused by the will of the agent. b. They are not forced.

Deep Self-Compatibilism: A deep self-combatibilist holds that actions are free if they are caused by desires that are truly our own (authentic desires).

Libertarianism: A libertarian insists that human beings are agents and that agents have special causal powers. They can initiate (cause) events on their own account and are therefore free to shape the future.

I will post the arguments in favor and against each of these theories in future posts. The poll doesn't have mutiple choice, but if you have a mixture of several theories, vote other and explain, or vote the one which is more central. Votes are public. I hope this thread gives a lot to think about to each of you, and good luck (or I should say “have a good determined time”?). For further readings, wikipages about philosophy and "The BIG Questions" by Nils Ch. Rauhut, the best introductory book to philosophical problems ever.

[QuantumGhost]

I believe that free will definitely exists, but if something was meant to happen it will happen no matter what. That basically means that if you are a good person, then you will live a good life, but if you were meant to be great, then you WILL be great. But if you are a good person living a good life, but you were meant to live in harsh conditions, then that is how it will be. Also, if you live "a life of sin," and then win the lottery, this is an example of living a bad life, but you were meant to live a wealthy life. This theory works with my belief of destiny because one might ask, "What happens to a person after he has completed his goal or 'mission' in life? Why do they keep living?" The answer is that if you are/were a good person during your life, then after you've finished you objective or reached your destination, then you are rewarded with long life (or whatever amount of time you are given). If you lived a bad life, then you will die after reaching your destination. The free will comes in when you decide to live a good or bad life.


-QuantumGhost

[michellemfry]

Some might say the destination is it's own reward. Imagine having a goal and never reaching it. That would be a tragedy. This person never is rewarded by destination.

As for me, I voted in favor of authentic desires, because they are inevitable, if one is truly honest about one's inner self. Denial serves no great purpose ever.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by QuantumGhost

I believe that free will definitely exists, but if something was meant to happen it will happen no matter what. That basically means that if you are a good person, then you will live a good life, but if you were meant to be great, then you WILL be great. But if you are a good person living a good life, but you were meant to live in harsh conditions, then that is how it will be. Also, if you live "a life of sin," and then win the lottery, this is an example of living a bad life, but you were meant to live a wealthy life. This theory works with my belief of destiny because one might ask, "What happens to a person after he has completed his goal or 'mission' in life? Why do they keep living?" The answer is that if you are/were a good person during your life, then after you've finished you objective or reached your destination, then you are rewarded with long life (or whatever amount of time you are given). If you lived a bad life, then you will die after reaching your destination. The free will comes in when you decide to live a good or bad life.


-QuantumGhost

I agree this is a very plausible explenation. But how do you fight this problem:

John P. decides at 11:00 AM to buy a hot dog for lunch. Let us suppose that John's decision is caused by his awareness that he has a desire for a hot dog. This awareness manifests itself in John's mind prior to his 11:00 AM decision at 10:59 AM. Since John's desire for a hot dog is the cause of his decision to buy a hot dog, the following conclusion seems inevitable: John's 11:00 AM decision to buy a hot dog was already determined to happen when he became aware at 10:59 AM that he had a desire for a hot dog. This means that at 11:00 AM when John actually makes the decision to buy a hot dog, it was not in his power to do anything else. Given how the world was at 10:59 A, John was causally determined to buy a hot dog at 11:00 AM.

What this analysis shows is that Deep Self-Compatibilism can’t solve the problem of free will.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

Some might say the destination is it's own reward. Imagine having a goal and never reaching it. That would be a tragedy. This person never is rewarded by destination.

As for me, I voted in favor of authentic desires, because they are inevitable, if one is truly honest about one's inner self. Denial serves no great purpose ever.

This is true. But read my reply to QuantumGhost, it will show that the theory fails, if you have a solution to it, please let me know. The difference between a decision mayde by one's own will and not forces, to one made by an authentic dessire is very will explained in the book I mention. I will post about each theory soon.

[subversion]

We all perform a role in life. The story stays the same, only the players change. This is a time honored procession. The TOE has been discovered a million times before in a million other places. Does this mean the TOE is a thing destined? In short, it sure seems that way.

I would argue that free/will=determinism. In other words, anything you do may have been set in stone, and if not, it will be by the fact that you did it. Time is concrete in this fashion. If you accept this true definition of destiny, it means that everything that happens becomes (or already was) destiny by default. However, time is only a pretense so whether an event was always destined to occurr or whether it only becomes destiny after happening is a non-applicable question. Time is irrelevant according to destiny, because our entire universe has already happened in a sense, and in another sense nothing has even occurred at all and the big bang is still yet to happen.

To be sure, destiny is more than just our conscious thoughts. Imagine the scenario you posited about the hotdog, Guille, in which destiny is only the chain reaction of our natural tendencies. Consider if you will, however, that right as the subject is about to buy his hotdog, a giant comet comes and smashes into the earth and kills every human being on the planet. Now this was obviously not dictated by a desire for heavily nitrated meats on the part of the comet. But, was it an act of destiny nonetheless?

Let us consider this question in a historical context. Comets have smashed into the earth plenty of times before. Comets can be seen as an edict from higher powers if we want to be fanciful. I like being fanciful sometimes. Anyway, comets help spur on evolution whenever it reaches a "stailmate." For example, when dinosaurs ruled the earth they kept all the other creatures down, but dinosaur's adaptive strategy was not intelligence. Without a comet/asteroid to kill off the dinosaurs, evolution would have never been given a rebirth and humans would not be around today. Thus the collision of the earth with a comet is a very VERY fateful event. Without the comet that killed the dinosaurs, we would not be here and the evolution of the TOE would have never reached it's "destiny." So it seems like a comet is definitely a sort of act of destiny. So what happens if a comet really does come and smash our hotdog craving subject along with all of us? Well, I guess that means we weren't destined to garner the TOE afterall. Once ever we become technologically prowess enough to deflect an approaching comet, then we ourselves will become the act of destiny. By acquiring the theory of everything, we will understand destiny and how to control it with absolute power.

That is, how do they say? IMHO


hmmm, wanna read a poem I wrote? It's not that good but the last verse has to do a little bit with destiny being contiguous with free will

the arrow of time >>----------->
caught in the arrow of time
sometimes life seems to rewind
as telepathic events unfold,
life's stories are again retold

struck by the arrow of time
a "unidirectional," infinite line
it ushers us into another age
it urges us to turn the page

awash in this "arrow" of time
as your CHOICE, with DESTINY, seems to entwine
and like the things that have passed before
so too the future, forever more

[Fartan]

Is there any noticeable difference between "indetermined" and "determined but unpredictable"?

[Mr. Nobody]

I don't believe in any pre-determinism. I believe in evolution. If you can reverse the increase of entropy within your local domain, then you will be able to pass on this information to create and shape your future within the evolved and established rules

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Fartan

Is there any noticeable difference between "indetermined" and "determined but unpredictable"?

Yes. But we, humans, are as stupid as to say there isn't. The first impplies that the future is not fix, the second, that we can't know how the future will be fixed up.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

I don't believe in any pre-determinism. I believe in evolution. If you can reverse the increase of entropy within your local domain, then you will be able to pass on this information to create and shape your future within the evolved and established rules

But isn't how the future wil be in the next second simply determined absolutelly by the world right now? Please read my reply to QuantumGhost.