Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 23, 2024, 3:49 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
determinism versus indeterminism
#21
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
(December 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Mutation is random but natural selection isn't. A human being is made up of about 100 trillion cells. And all these cells are unconscious, unintelligent biological robots. Yet when put together by evolution you get a human being which is conscious and can be capable of many amazing things (although they're only amazing to us humans as far as we know).
I agree with Dan Dennett that whether the future is determined or indetermined, its still going to happen. There's going to be a future. We don't know what that future is - there could be many many possibilities in fact - but there's still a future. We can't change the future either way so even if you believe the future is determined that doesn't mean you don't have free will. In the sense that you can still avoid bad things or try to reach the good things, etc. You can still have free will whether you believed the future is determined or not. Either way A future is still inevitable but what that future is we do not know. So you still have free will. It doesn't make sense to think "If the future is determined that mean is inevitable so there's nothing you can do about it". Yes, the future is going to happen regardless of what you do. Whatever happens, that is the future. You still have free will in the sense there's still evitability. It doesn't mean you can "change the future" whatever you do the future's still going to happen.
So the point is that predetermined does not mean you don't have free will. You are just as free as you've always been! Whether the future is determined or not. Its still going to happen and you still have free will in the same sense you've always had.

So, as you say, mutation is random but natural selection isn't.
To be more accurate mutation is essentially considered as deterministic,
only a certain mutation called "Genetic drift "is not.
Now let's look at the natural selection in a little bit more wider view.
The evolution of species is comparable to a tree.Each branch, representing a certain species, is born from a previous branch ,lives as such for a certain amount of time,and then undergoes a short time change and gives birth to other branches i.e.to other species.
The natural selection begins actually when the surroundig living conditions of the species are changing dramatically and then the struggle for life begins and the fittest survive.
The species stressed by the changing of living conditions might sometimes not give birth to other species at all.
Now,what determines the relative stable living conditions of a certain species to change suddenly ?
The causes are multiples ones, as for instance, changes of climate ,changes of the relief of habitat,disappearing of food ,diseases and alike.
In my opinion most of those factors, changing the living conditons of species are of an indeterministic character.
Here are two examples.
The extinction of dinosaurs is believed to be caused by a giant meteorite which fell in the area of the golf of Mexico.
Is it possible to think that some genius could formulate a system of mathematical equations which shall point to the fall of the meteorite in a certain date in the live of Earth ? Of course not.The fall of the meteorite can be only considered as pure random.
Now why should we consider an event which took place some 100 millions of years ago.
Let's look at the almost dayly extinction of species under our very eyes.
Do we know exactly the causes of this phenomenon? The answer is that only vaguely with a lot of guessing.
We are putting the blame on CO2 emmissions ,on the rise of temperature ,on the destruction of rain forrests,on polution,on urbanism, etc...
Each one of those factors for it's self or in any combination of them are
practically unpredictable ,meaning in fact random.
We have all the reasons to consider that the changing factors in the past of the Earth which gave born to new species where all but random.
Following, if the proper natural selection was deterministic,as you say, the evolution of new species viewed as a whole was in fact random.

Now about the free will ,the future happens allright ,no doubt about it
(read my post about "shit happens) but our free will influences it's course,also not doubt about it.
Only believers in Fate consider that the future is immuable but not we as atheists.
The belief in Fate which affects even secular minded people is just the problem which I consider we shall combate and the tool for it is ,in my opinion, the recognition of random as a law of mother Natutre.
Reply
#22
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
Oh. Thats interesting....I don't know much about genetic drift. I want to get some books on evolution.
But about the free will...
Our free will influences the future's course? What do you mean by that? Couldn't the future be determined but we don't know what the determined future IS?
And its not inevitable, because we don't know what the future is. So there is still evitability.
Because what I don't get is....
If we do things with our free will...did we change the future? Did we influence the future's course?
Or were we determined to do that - yet we still had evitability, we still had free will -? And if INSTEAD we had done something else...then in that reality...perhaps we were determined to do that?
Evf
Reply
#23
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
(December 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: Is it possible to think that some genius could formulate a system of mathematical equations which shall point to the fall of the meteorite in a certain date in the live of Earth ?
That's precisely the claim of determinists. In fact it has been called Laplace's Demon. While since Laplace several small and big 'refinements' to the Newtonian laws have been made, it doesn't change the argument. Still all causation is subject to strict laws of nature. Whether quantummechanical uncertainty spoils the argument remains to be seen. So without quantum mechanics the fall of the meteorite is subject to strict and arbitrarily precise laws. Given those laws and a specific start situation with all its variables determined, the fall of the meteorite can be predicted by Laplace's Demon with millimeter and nanosecond precision. Bottomline: the fall of the meteorite is not random at all but follows from the strict nature of the laws of nature. There is no room for free will.

Also observe that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may add fuzzyness to the picture, the fuzzyness in itself does not give room for intelligent intervention in the laws of nature.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#24
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
(December 27, 2008 at 3:04 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:
(December 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: Is it possible to think that some genius could formulate a system of mathematical equations which shall point to the fall of the meteorite in a certain date in the live of Earth ?
That's precisely the claim of determinists. In fact it has been called Laplace's Demon. While since Laplace several small and big 'refinements' to the Newtonian laws have been made, it doesn't change the argument. Still all causation is subject to strict laws of nature. Whether quantummechanical uncertainty spoils the argument remains to be seen. So without quantum mechanics the fall of the meteorite is subject to strict and arbitrarily precise laws. Given those laws and a specific start situation with all its variables determined, the fall of the meteorite can be predicted by Laplace's Demon with millimeter and nanosecond precision. Bottomline: the fall of the meteorite is not random at all but follows from the strict nature of the laws of nature. There is no room for free will.

Also observe that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may add fuzzyness to the picture, the fuzzyness in itself does not give room for intelligent intervention in the laws of nature.

There is a most essential difference between our both views about the problem.
You exclude random based on ,I would say,hypotetical presumption that all laws of nature are causal linked between them.You affirm contrary to every ones deep feelings that there is no free will. Only that you can by no means present a complete system of equations which shall demonstrate ,not the fall of the meteorite or the free will which are most complicated things, but even a more simpler task as for instance the correct meteo prediction which no one, even with the most sophisticated computers, is able to solve.
I don't deny the objective existence of the laws of nature but I say the following:
1) The Heisenberg uncertainity principle ,which was extended by Stephen Hawking from the sub atomic domain to that of Black holes,add to that the "genetic drift" and other examples, could be marginalized from the general picture of laws of nature or on the contrary could be located in the center of it.Scientist are still debating about it without a final conclusion.
2)The famous physicist Lord Kelvin said that if you have a theory which you can express in measurable units and numbers then you know something about it but if not then your knowledge of the problem is poor and unsatisfactory.
I say, as paraphrase to it,that if you have a finite number of equations to solve a physical existing parameter then you can demonstrate it's causality.But if you are not able to compound such a system due to an indefinable number of parameters,of an indefinable multitude, then your causal proof is poor and unsatisfactory.
3) I have brought in other posts examples of indefinite numbers used as concrete definitions in basical mathemathics.
4)Every physical law expressed as a mathemathic formula has its conventional limits so that if you try to deepen the law beyond those
limits you most probable will be trapped in uncertainity .
5) Every statistical law has by definition two areas : one at the core which expresses a certain law and the other at it's margins where the law becommes more and more blurred till to indefinition i.e.indeterminism.
Reply
#25
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: There is a most essential difference between our both views about the problem.
You exclude random based on ,I would say,hypotetical presumption that all laws of nature are causal linked between them.You affirm contrary to every ones deep feelings that there is no free will.
I didn't exclude randomness from nature. I gave an example (Casimir) of a phenomenon that to the best of current scientifc knowledge is purely random in nature. It is not clear to me what you mean by "that all laws of nature are causal linked between them", and I don't recognize it as any presumption I would have made. Do you mean that I presume that gravity is causally linked to for instance to the electromagnetic force? Please elaborate on this.

Furthermore I also regret that from deterministic laws of nature it follows that free will, in the sense that man can intervene in causality and decide which action to take, does not exist. But that is the dilemma caused by deterministic laws. It is known as the problem of free will. Neurophysiological experiments done by (among others) Libet indicate that the brain activity associated with the preparation for movement starts a quarter of a second before the person being tested reports having decided to move (see for instance Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett, p 230).

(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: Only that you can by no means present a complete system of equations which shall demonstrate ,not the fall of the meteorite or the free will which are most complicated things, but even a more simpler task as for instance the correct meteo prediction which no one, even with the most sophisticated computers, is able to solve.
Imho and if I understand you correctly, you are confusing 1) the laws of nature and 2) the ability of man to capture the laws of nature in arbitrarily precise prediction models. (2) is not what the philosophical issue on determinism versus indeterminism is about. At hand is the question whether free will exists given the deterministic nature of the laws of nature. The question is a philosophical one that abstracts from the abilities of man to construct precise models.


(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: I don't deny the objective existence of the laws of nature but I say the following:
1) The Heisenberg uncertainity principle ,which was extended by Stephen Hawking from the sub atomic domain to that of Black holes,add to that the "genetic drift" and other examples, could be marginalized from the general picture of laws of nature or on the contrary could be located in the center of it.Scientist are still debating about it without a final conclusion.
Quantummechanical uncertainty does not provide a mechanism to intervene in causality. You can place it at the center of things or not, that does not change the outcome: uncertainty forms no basis for causal intervention by intelligent agents.

(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: 2)The famous physicist Lord Kelvin said that if you have a theory which you can express in measurable units and numbers then you know something about it but if not then your knowledge of the problem is poor and unsatisfactory.
I say, as paraphrase to it,that if you have a finite number of equations to solve a physical existing parameter then you can demonstrate it's causality.But if you are not able to compound such a system due to an indefinable number of parameters,of an indefinable multitude, then your causal proof is poor and unsatisfactory.
What is your point with this? This is about the ability of man to construct precise models. It is not about the fundamental issue of determinism.

(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: 3) I have brought in other posts examples of indefinite numbers used as concrete definitions in basical mathemathics.
Again I feel this is about mathematical capabilities of man, ot about fundamental determinism of nature. Also indefinition in mathematical models does not add up to free will.

(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: 4)Every physical law expressed as a mathemathic formula has its conventional limits so that if you try to deepen the law beyond those
limits you most probable will be trapped in uncertainity .
ditto

(December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: 5) Every statistical law has by definition two areas : one at the core which expresses a certain law and the other at it's margins where the law becommes more and more blurred till to indefinition i.e.indeterminism.
Question: is a statistical law causal or correlative in nature?
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#26
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
The thing is I think if we have 'no free will' we are no less free than if we believe we do have free will. Unless we are confusing 'free will' with evitability. Even though we may not be able to consciously 'choose' with 'free will' to do or not do something - that doesn't mean there is not evitability. Or that we shouldn't take responsibility for our actions. Whether we believe in 'free will' or not, we have just as much 'free will' as we ever did, whether we have it or not.
Believing in free will doesn't give us any more free will than not believing in it. If we believe there is no evitability like we aren't free to do anything about anything. That's a different matter. I can still 'choose' to do or not do things whether I believe that its me doing the choosing or that I am doing it deliberately - or not.
If I am not doing this 'on purpose' using 'free will' it doesn't really make any difference. I don't feel 'trapped' or powerless. Because I know I am just as free as I ever have been whether I believe in free will or not. I still have evitability (or avoidability) either way. Because I always have. Whether I have a choice in the matter or not...
I'm just as free as I've always been.
Evf
Reply
#27
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
(December 29, 2008 at 5:09 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The thing is I think if we have 'no free will' we are no less free than if we believe we do have free will. Unless we are confusing 'free will' with evitability. Even though we may not be able to consciously 'choose' with 'free will' to do or not do something - that doesn't mean there is not evitability. Or that we shouldn't take responsibility for our actions. Whether we believe in 'free will' or not, we have just as much 'free will' as we ever did, whether we have it or not.
Believing in free will doesn't give us any more free will than not believing in it. If we believe there is no evitability like we aren't free to do anything about anything. That's a different matter. I can still 'choose' to do or not do things whether I believe that its me doing the choosing or that I am doing it deliberately - or not.
If I am not doing this 'on purpose' using 'free will' it doesn't really make any difference. I don't feel 'trapped' or powerless. Because I know I am just as free as I ever have been whether I believe in free will or not. I still have evitability (or avoidability) either way. Because I always have. Whether I have a choice in the matter or not...
I'm just as free as I've always been.
Evf
How can you avoid shooting someone when the movement of your finger on the trigger starts before you are consciously aware that it is moving?
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#28
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
I'm not talking about avoiding your own movements. What I mean is avoiding situations you don't want to get in etc. The example Dannett gave was that if someone throws a brick at you, you can duck. You might succeed you might fail. Because we don't know the future. And if its determined then its determined. Its still the same for us as its always been because its either always been determined or always not - I believe?
I mean if its about avoiding anything you might as well talk about 'thought dodging' lol Tongue Dodging your own thoughts. Not really possible! lol.
Reply
#29
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
(December 29, 2008 at 6:41 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Its still the same for us as its always been because its either always been determined or always not - I believe?
Hmmm, you seem a little unsure of yourself here. Are you a dualist who hopes to unite determinism with free will?
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#30
RE: determinism versus indeterminism
As Dennett says free will is compatible with determinism. As I have said this is if the future is not known.
Whether I believe in free will or not I'm still just as free unless I think that means I have to just lie down on the floor because I can't do anything. That of course is not what free will means. I am just as free if I don't believe in free will as if I do. The belief doesn't change the reality! People who believe in free will aren't any freer than those who don't.
Why would I hope to unite something when my whole point is it makes no real difference in a practical sense either way. We still live in the same world we always have.
I'm interested in whats true. If there's no free will then thats fine by me. If there is that's also fine by me. Either way my change in belief in free will - either way - doesn't change my free will whether I have it or not. Right?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge LadyForCamus 471 67526 February 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  Cartoons: propaganda versus the giant gorilla Deepthunk 4 1852 October 19, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Last Post: Deepthunk
  Jerry Coyne's new book: Faith Versus Fact Mudhammam 17 5919 August 13, 2015 at 12:22 am
Last Post: smsavage32
  Dawkins' Necker Cube, Physical Determinism, Cosmic Design, and Human Intelligence Mudhammam 0 1683 August 28, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Dawkins and Determinism naimless 48 17699 February 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Last Post: naimless
  Determinism mem 34 11026 June 29, 2010 at 6:58 am
Last Post: Caecilian
  Determinism Tabby 18 7097 August 10, 2009 at 1:57 am
Last Post: Kyuuketsuki
  Atheism versus Destiny josef rosenkranz 2 5013 September 7, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Last Post: Jason Jarred



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)