"Free Will" Belief/Disbelief Poll

[Watson]

Things can already be predicted, it is already known, in this world even if this is an indeterministic one. But not 100% otherwise how would it be indeterministic? For things to be 100% predictable it would require a determinsitic world. And I am a hard incompatiblist not a hard determinist.

I don't deny determinism though. I don't know if ultimately, when it comes down to it, the quantum world is really deterministic. I don't know either way.... I don't commit belief to determinism or indeterminism I just see 'free will' as impossible either way.

I'm kind of lost here...I don't know the definition of compatibilist or determinist, so could you please, in your own words define them for me? I feel like it would un-muddy the waters quite a bit for the purpose of this discussion.

And furthermore, what if the Police are determined to fail at preventing the criminal from committing his crime?

An interesting proposition, of course! 'What, then?' certainly is the question. Perhaps they still have a choice on how they handle the situation, but are destined to completely fail regardless of what method they choose to go about it? Who knows?


----------

Not to 'some extent'. Given sufficient knowledge and processing power it can be predicted entirely. Your omnipotent friend would be able to do this (which he shouldn't be able to given free will).

Being able to predict actions and reactions is not the same as directing them to happen a certain way, only directing them to happen in the first place. Imagine a scientist performing an experiment in which he mixes two chemicals. He is a super-being, intelligent on a level that he is capable of predicting every single result that could occur from mixing the two chemicals, ad infinitum.

Does he control what happens to the chemicals? Not past the original mixing of the chemicals themselves; he knows what will happen and what could, but he does not control the outcome. He does, however, have plans for what to do in the event that any of the infinite results occurs. And the capability of executing his response perfectly.

Oh wait. We're not talking about a scientist anymore, are we?

If we could be certain that someone will commit a crime should we prevent it? i'm sure we already do than whenever we have sufficient reason to believe they will.

Why would we not want to act? The risk is too great not to.

But suppose we are not certain. We are unaware of all the variables. Any number of things could happen to change the course of events leading to the crime, and possibly unwind the crime completely to it's end. Are we not going to allow people their right to act freely upon these variables? That is infringing upon freedom, regardless of the safety it brings. And I'd rather be free than safe.

1. If they had the ability there would be no deterministic certainty, so your other example can't quite be applied. We could say they are likely to commit this act, and that would be all. That is what we currently do in numerous circumstances.

a.) What is deterministic certainty?

b.)When we are talking about people, however, this is not what we do. Scienctific experiments/theories, yes. We go with what is most likely because we have no way of proving without a smidgen of doubt that what we are positing is true. However, when the number of variables is as great as it is with something like time and it's many possibilities, we cannot be even close to 'certain.' We don't know that a potential murderer absolutely will murder someone.

You are supposing that conspiracy to commit murder and murder are one in the same. Yes, someone who has set things up so that another will die and failed can be arrested for conspiracy. But what about someone who has planned a murder, set everything up for murder...and then decided last minute not to go through with it, deconstructing their plans? Should they, too, be arrested? And what about crimes of passion? If someone is predicted to kill someone else in a blind fury, then stops at the last second...should they be arrested and tried for murder?

2. Is it worth the risk, letting the bomber get all the way to the train station and then waiting just to make sure he doesn't change his mind? The risks are unacceptable, even more so than allowing the potential criminal to change his mind at the last minuet.

This type of crime is completely different, though. It isn't comparable to something like murder(although murder is still commited.)

3. Conspiring to commit crime is still a crime, and they are still guilty of that even if they were to change their minds. If it was a spontaneous act then it would be more difficult to judge, but then again if we knew of some impending causal action than the person themselves are not currently aware of then we need only discourage them sufficiently.

See above.

Given we don't have the ability to predict these things and likely never will i see little point in worrying about it too much. It's certainly an interesting question.

I'm arguing for free will here, though. So my point is, if there is no free will, then predicting that crimes will happen and then apprehending their perpetrator's before they have even commited said crime is permissable. And as I've demonstrated, it simply isn't fair, just, and violates human rights. Which is teh exact opposite of the law.

How is it a violation of human rights? Conspiring to commit crime is a crime. Do i have the right to walk up to your front door with a gun and threaten you as long as I change my mind before it gets too serious?

If I was not attacked or hurt in any way, yes. You don't have the right, per se, but you have the ability to do so without fear of the law. Unless I decided to press charges for mental anguish.

What if it was known for certain that i would kill you tomorrow, would it be a violation of my rights to stop me, or a violation to your rights to protection?

Who could know for absolute certain that you would kill me?

It would be more immoral for society to allow your death than it would to prevent my action.

In the time between the day before my death, and the day you kill me, there are an infinite number of variables or events that could occur which might lead you to change your mind about killing me. Should you still be arrested, even if halfway through the day you are suppsoed to kill me, you change your mind and don't do it? I'd feel safer living in a country where I am allowed to freely choose whether or not to commit a crime, than in a country where I am arrested for a crime I haven't even commited yet.

Freedom>safety.

Also, predicting and preventing crime in a deterministic universe has a much lower change of wrongfully convicting people. If we are serious about preventing crime then determinism works in our favor.

Again, please defin for me in your own words what determinism is. I'm not savvy on there things, and once you have, I can respond appropriately.

Your miracles never existed, science just put a damper on ignoranance.

Bullshit. You don't know what a miracle is.