/lit/ - Literature

determinist as opposed to what? most contemporary philosophers of mind can be interpreted as determinist

>>6168705
Kripke and co

Alexander Rosenberg

>>6168705

As opposed to indeterminist.

Indeterminist as thinking that:

> There are genuine possibilities concerning contingent future events.
> There is more than one possible outcome from a particular situation (using possible in a meaningful sense, not just an epistemic sense).
> Facts about the future have not already been settled.

>>6168726
If you're implying that any commitment to possible worlds is a rejection of determinism, that's not what I mean at all. Some of the best definitions of determinism define a deterministic world in terms of which worlds are accessible to it.

>>6168726
kripke is skeptical, but still determinist. where did you get the sense he wasn't? would you mind extrapolating what you mean by determinist? it's a word that carries too many connotations. heck, even /lit/'s favorite meme philosopher is a determinist

>>6168738
>There are genuine possibilities concerning contingent future events.
From our point of view, yes.
>in a meaningful sense
What's that?
>Facts about the future have not already been settled.
Only if you appeal to "There are genuine possibilities concerning contingent future events.". But then again, it is only so from our point of view. It is not written in stone.

>>6168749
OP here, that guy wasn't me. And where specifically does Kripke make any allegiance to determinism?

By determinism I mean that

> A: There is a specific way that the universe is at a point in time, t.
> B: The way the universe is at a time t is sufficient to determine how the universe will be at all points following t.

>>6168749
"I don't have the prejudices many have today, I don't believe in a naturalist world view. I don't base my thinking on prejudices or a worldview and do not believe in materialism."
Basically, he's a Jew first and a philosopher second, I don't really see how you fit idealist theism and determinism together. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Saul Smilansky

>>6168759
>What's that?

Genuine as in not purely epistemic. To an indeterminist, if I say "It will rain in New York tomorrow", there isn't a fact of the matter right now as to whether it will rain or not.

Your claim that "From our point of view, yes." you seem to be saying that there is a fact of the matter, but that we cannot know what that fact is until it has actually happened. You are using epistemic possibility, and this is entirely reconcilable with determinism.

>>6168761
Materialism is not determinism nor is naturalism. Hegel, for example, is an idealistic determinist.

>>6168779
Right, but you still haven't shown anywhere that Kripke actually endorses determinism, or hints that he thinks the universe is deterministic.

>>6168760
Who the fuck is stupid enough to try to reject determinism?

>not understanding the laws of physics
>not understanding cause and effect

>>6168705
John Macfarlane, Nuel Belnap, Mitchell Green, to name a few. All of them make semantic arguments for the coherence of indeterminism.

Also, the majority of contemporary scientists reject determinism considering facts about quantum physics and the random decay of atoms etc.

>inb4 /lit/ tries its hand at quantum mechanics

>>6168870
The poster above you.

What is important to understand is that the question "Is causal determinism true?" is a question for SCIENTISTS to answer. The question "Are free will and moral responsibility able to exist in a causally determined universe?" is a question for PHILOSOPHERS to answer.

>>6168806

causality is a mythic relation
physics is a discourse in the natural sciences

why are you such a retard

>>6168821
please stop

>>6168806
Determinism doesn't apply at the microscopic level. The more accurately you can measure the position of an atom, the less accurately you can measure it's momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

From this it follows that there is seemingly a degree of randomness to the universe, or atleast from our perspective.

>>6168971
Oh, we have a Humean among us? How the fuck would you even deny causality? It's obvious to us from the moment we are born to the day that we die. We can't even live our day to day lives without some sort of understanding of cause and effect.

>>6169090
Why does randomness follow from uncertainty? >Protip: It doesn't.

And even if the universe has an element of randomness at the subatomic level, that doesn't necessarily translate into the realm of regular physics. Have you heard about the master theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything_)? Because it sure as shit hasn't been realised yet, and even if it were it wouldn't change the behaviour of medium sized objects.

Try again once you have a grasp on the things that you're talking about.

>>6169126

>How the fuck would you even deny god? It's obvious to us from the moment we are born to the day that we die. We can't even live our day to day lives without some sort of understanding of god.

>>6169126
>Why does randomness follow from uncertainty?
Uncertainty means future events are unpredictable, which means that an element of randomness exists.

>>6169126

>medium sized objects

stupidest poster on /lit/ discovered

>>6169126
>And even if the universe has an element of randomness at the subatomic level,

Technically at every level, but it has been demonstrate even at the molecular level.

>>6168777
>Your claim that "From our point of view, yes." you seem to be saying that there is a fact of the matter, but that we cannot know what that fact is until it has actually happened. You are using epistemic possibility, and this is entirely reconcilable with determinism.
I interpreted your "There are genuine possibilities concerning contingent future events." as saying "There is MORE THAN ONE future possibility with respect to ANY current states of affairs". Meaning, one must remain agnostic, since we cannot rule out the possibility that everything (i.e. any future states of affairs) might be already set in stone some time ago by an omnipotent being that had set to compute our Universe.

>To an indeterminist, if I say "It will rain in New York tomorrow", there isn't a fact of the matter right now as to whether it will rain or not.
There might be a fact of the matter if you read it in the aforementioned context.

>>6169134
Except for the fact that future events being unpredictable doesn't follow at all from uncertainty about the location of subatomic particles.

>>6169137
So Plato and Aristotle are stupid now? Sorry, I forgot I was on /lit/ where the cream of the intellectual crop come to share their knowledge.

>>6169149
How at every level? The very fact that we can't unify quantum physics with classical physics undermines everything you retards are saying.

>>6169197

>Plato and Aristotle are stupid now?

yes. they literally believed that flying anthropomorphic dieties control the universe

>>6169197
>How at every level? The very fact that we can't unify quantum physics with classical physics
What the hell are you talking about? The correspondence principle holds extremely well.

>>6169174
>There is MORE THAN ONE future possibility with respect to ANY current states of affairs

That is exactly what I meant. However, I fail to see how

>one must remain agnostic, since we cannot rule out the possibility that everything (i.e. any future states of affairs) might be already set in stone some time ago by an omnipotent being that had set to compute our Universe.

follows. If you are agnostic about whether or not there is a fact of the matter concerning future contingents then you are simply agnostic about whether or not the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. If you think there is a fact of the matter you are a determinist. If you think there isn't a fact of the matter, you are an indeterminist. If you can't make up your mind, you are neither.

Although, believing that some future events are determined by the present state of affairs, but that others are not, would still place you firmly in the indeterminist camp. A determinist cannot allow for any ambiguity.

>>6169207
It was perfectly reasonable for the time, but teh enlightenment atheist must be right.

>>6169321

>the alleged greatest thinkers of all time couldn't even transcend their petty historical contingency

yawn

>>6169207
And you literally believe in a bunch of shit that's going to be proved wrong in a couple of years. By your logic, everyone who hasn't had a contemporary education is stupid, including the people who allowed us to have that contemporary education.

>>6169228
>I fail to see how [..] follows.
It does not need to follow. It hinges on the proposition that <>Future events are deterministic or <>Future events are indeterministic. On this background, I brush off any probabilistic argument with regard to determinism/indeterminism, although I won't pretend that I am not applying probabilistic arguments in my day-to-day life or when debating different matters.

>believing that some future events are determined by the present state of affairs, but that others are not, would still place you firmly in the indeterminist camp
ALL future events are determined by the present state of affairs. Claiming that does not make you an indeterminist. It's true in either case, the determinist or indeterminist (e.g. "some electron e wouldn't acquire its spatiotemporal configuration c at t`, if that electron did not exist at t." likewise with macroscopic entities). What we're trying to know, is whether or not ANY current state of affairs have MULTIPLE possible future states of affairs, and not just one.

>>6169370

I'm not so stupid as to 'believe' in any specific ideological framework, much less one that could be 'proven' wrong historically

>>6168692
You should do your own research Daniel.

>>6169448
...

>>6169416
But you have beliefs, correct? You believe things about how the world is, how things happen, how the laws that govern our universe operate etc?

>>6169652

I experience phenomena
i don't believe any semiotic referent corresponds with any transcendent signified i.e. telos, truth, god, man, world

>>6169126
>Why does randomness follow from uncertainty? >Protip: It doesn't.

Even more protip: it kinda does.
You misunderstand uncertainty principle I think. It doesn't just state we can't measure a momentum/position of a particle - this principle basicly means a particle doesn't have a fixed momentum/posiiton untill measured. Measurment causes a wave function to collapse which gives particle defined position/momentum - but this process is strictly random.

To those claiming that to deny determinism would be to deny physics.

I laugh.

Quantum mechanics suggest that the most simple and basic forms of matter behave indeterministically. This is troubling to some. As Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the world."

However a lot of physics is based on the concept of cause and effect.

We have the dilemma of one very strict and precise science provides evidence for both.

>>6169871
>We have the dilemma of one very strict and precise science provides evidence for both.
But it doesn't. Einstein was wrong in that regard.

>I'm struggling to find many contemporary philosophers who regard themselves as determinists.

That's because their are very few. The most "reputable" is Sam Harris, and he is a laughing stock.

>>6168692
Its 2015, people stopped taking determinism seriously around the 1920s.

>>6169871
There is cause and effect, but the effect is random in a degree. It's not contradictory.
Also Einstein wasn't rly a quantum physics authority,

>>6169341
They did transcend time. But not absolutely.

>>6169880
>>6170031
No but that's what I'm saying. Einstein went against Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, however, provides proof for indeterminism. An example of this is the uncertainty principle. Although this does not support free will in the traditional sense, it can be argued that it supports the two stage model for free will.

Einstein was troubled by the fact that quantum mechanics seemed to provide a more indeterminist description of the universe as Einstein, himself, was a determinist.

I mean these are some of the main problems with the grand unifying theory to begin with. Contradictory conclusions are made by viewing quantum systems and larger systems. Indeterminsim and determinism is an example of contradictory conclusions made by the analysis of each system.

>>6170642
Not rly, there are no contradictions between quantum and newtonian mechanics. If you apply quantum mechanics to large enough objects you will get ~same results as with newtonian. Determinism that we percieve is an effect of size - billions ob billions of billions random occurences will in effect give almost 100% deterministic outcome (look up law of great numbers).
We have problem with quantum gravity - finding how quantum mechanics and Einsteins relativity work together. That's because gravity is weary weak force nd very hard to observe in such a small scale, but we work on this.
Grand unifying theory is not about merging quantum and newtonian or Einsteins physics, but about finding a common theory for two kinds of fundamental forces - electroweak force (already theoreticaly merged electrostatic, magnetic and weak force) and a strong force (the one that holds atoms together).

>>6168806
If you had thought about it for more than thirty seconds you would realize that the "laws of physics" (that is to say, a systematic appproximation made by scientists that allow us to make predictions that may or may not turn out to be accurate) have no bearing on wether our universe is actually deterministic. Physics is a convenient tool, as far as determining future possibilities is concerned, it isn't the repository of a definitive truth about the universe.

>>6169126
Actually, even a Kantian would disagree with you. Causality being obvious from the moment we are born (can you prove that, by the way ? do you have data on how newborn babies perceive causality ? the best thing you have is your personal distorted memories of when you were 5) doesn't mean the universe is fundamentally causal, simply that we need causality to make the chaos that is perception into an experience.

There's no reason, say, a scientist could only describe phenomena as causal in his work.

Note also that a weak causality doesn't necessarily implies determinism.

>>6172724
Well, it definitely has more bearing than continental brainfarting. It's hard to disregard observations without going full MUH REAL.

>>6172733
Bullshit. There are phenomena that don't follow casuality and somehow scientists manage to describe them.

>>6172759
>Bullshit
>I agree with what you said

You're a bright one. Reread:

>There's no reason, say, a scientist could only describe phenomena as causal in his work.

Emphasis on "no reason" and "only".

>>6172737
You seem to be in the wrong thread, seeing as your post has nothing to do with my point, or with anything posted here for that matter.

>>6172761
>You seem to be in the wrong thread, seeing as your post has nothing to do with my point, or with anything posted here for that matter.
Anon, you are trying to disregard scientific view on determinism. As far as i'm concerned there are only two sources of knowledge about universe - science and muh real. Unless you have third.

>>6168971
>>6169126
Hume didn't say that causality doesn't exist, just that we don't have evidence about it and so it's basically metaphysical hoobla so he won't talk about it.

>>6169207
>>6169321
Philosophy constantly returns to Plato as it unfolds and then departs from him, just ebbing and flowing.

>>6168806
Our instruments of measurement only measure deterministic phenomena.

So: a determinist frame of mind allows only determinism. Circular logic much?

>>6169673
>not subscribing to a gay science
>this level of self-flagellation
Brek-kek-kekkek-kek-kek!

>>6172773

read more

>>6172773
>Anon, you are trying to disregard scientific view on determinism.
Science can only describe deterministic phenomena. It's a limitation of science as a tool and mental model. That doesn't mean non-deterministic phenomena don't exist, it merely means that these non-deterministic phenomena cannot be described by science.

>>6172773
>Anon, you are trying to disregard scientific view on determinism

I'm not. Re-read my post. I'm only trying to undermine a retard's view on science and determinism. I think that science deserves better than idiot who elevate it to an ontology without understanding what the practice relies upon.

>As far as i'm concerned there are only two sources of knowledge about universe - science and muh real.

Okay good one, 5/10, back to bed now.

>>6172773
So mathematics isn't a source of knowledge now?

>>6172798
Honestly wether mathematics bring knowledge or is simply a mental game with practical applications (among other possibilities) is still a problem in philosophy of maths right now.

A mathematician would perhaps imagine that he's gaining insight on mathematical objects, while a physicist might disagree? It's a difficult problem, if you're realy into it.

>>6172789
Give a proof of that since you just denied existance of quantum mechanics.

>>6172798
Not about world. Without observations to fuel it mathematics is a source of knowledge only about itself.

>>6172791
Ok, so where does your ontological knowledge come from? Did god spoke to you? What can you figure about the world that isn't either science or lingustical masturbation?

>>6172812
No, the ontology and epistemology of mathematics is definitely something I'm into. What I'm saying is, you're using knowledge in such a restricted sense that it's counterproductive.

If I asked you whether you know what 65540 * 33429 is, and you told me the answer, would you honestly say that that isn't knowledge? Or are you trying to claim that all real knowledge is of the physical world?

>>6172816
>Ok, so where does your ontological knowledge come from?

I never said I had ontological knowledge, but claiming 'muh real' is a source of knowledge, when anything that begins with 'muh' is a meme and when "real" is actually a word that means radically different things depending on the speaker is a bit ridiculous. It's on the same level as saying that knowledge comes from 'muh forms', excepts forms is at least rather easy to pin down as a reference to Plato.

>>6172816
> Not about world. Without observations to fuel it mathematics is a source of knowledge only about itself.

Right, mathematics is an apriori source of knowledge about itself. Similarly, we take that knowledge and apply it to the world to give us knowledge about the world. This is essentially what science and philosophy both do. I find it ridiculous that people can't see that science is simply philosophy with given assumptions.

>>6172819
> What I'm saying is, you're using knowledge in such a restricted sense that it's counterproductive.

I'm not using knowledge in a restricted sense since I'm actually arguing that there are various ways of understanding knowledge, and that the answer to "is math knowledge" will be different in each case.

>If I asked you whether you know what 65540 * 33429 is, and you told me the answer, would you honestly say that that isn't knowledge?

I don't know. I really depends what you consider those numbers to be. What do I learn by stating that the product of those numbers is such and such, and how is it different from knowing that it takes a pawn five moves to go through the other farther side of the chess board ?

>>6172819
If i told you that "hur dur hur" means "cat" in my secret language that only i know would that be knowledge? It would, but it would have no meaning by itself. Same with maths, it can bring a meaningful knowledge only if you tie mathematical objects to something, without it its just a mind games.
tl dr - not all knowledge actually give you more knowledge.

>>6172823
>Similarly, we take that knowledge and apply it to the world to give us knowledge about the world.

You're oversimplifying things here. How we can (and do) apply maths to the world, and wether applying math to the world is actually a way to discover things or simply an efficient way to handle already available data (not to mention wether those two options are the same thing) is indeed one of the cores of the problem.

Saying "we apply math to the world and BAM ! knowledge" is really swiping the whole problem under the carpet.

>This is essentially what science and philosophy both do. I find it ridiculous that people can't see that science is simply philosophy with given assumptions.

That's a matter of how you define philosophy, but beware that your definition doesn't make philosophy useless as a word, or as a field. There is currently a difference between what philosophers do and what scientists do. You can wrap them up under a common name, or point at what causes that distinction, but in both cases you need to account for what is the philosophical reflexion nowadays and how it evolved from "philosophy" as it used to be.

The question "Is philosophy still useful when we have science ?" is probably poorly formulated, but it hints at something.

>>6172823
> Similarly, we take that knowledge and apply it to the world to give us knowledge about the world

Indeed, but what is the cource of knowledge in this case? Observations or math that lets you extrapolate them?
I'd say observations, since math is merely a language of physics. I guess a different thesis could be defensible too.
> I find it ridiculous that people can't see that science is simply philosophy with given assumptions.

Well, if you define philosophy broad enough you can argue that physics is a part of it. What divides them are their methods and purposes. though, so their similarity is pretty theoretical.

honestly is seems to me that the majority (or most) of people denying determinism are doing so because of >muh free will
and the only way they try to refute determinism is by >muh uncertainty principle
randomness does not follow from uncertainty, but it seems these people didn't take logic classes.

>>6172908
>randomness does not follow from uncertainty, but it seems these people didn't take logic classes.
It seems you didn't take any physics classes.

>>6172948
>oh boy, I can't tell exactly where all the billiard balls go
>therefore, they are completely random!

>>6172955
If that is how you understand Heisenberg's Principle you understand it bad. It has much deeper implications than just measurment limitations.
Pr0 tip - read more before you start being smartass.

>>6172955
so you're claiming that the only we reason we can't measure the particles is insufficient tools of measurement, but given the right hypothetical tools we would be able to, right?

>>6172978
>It has much deeper implications
which are?

>>6173000
>given the right hypothetical tools we would be able to, right?
I don't see why not.

>>6173007
>I don't see why not.
Take physics 101

>which are?
read >>6169774

>>6173007
you cannot explain quantum mechanics by saying particles have "hidden" properties that can't be measured directly - the only way would be to deny the mathematics of principle itself

>>6173024
>Take physics 101
care to explain real quick?

>>6169774
>a particle doesn't have a fixed momentum/posiiton untill measured
and you know that how?

>Measurment causes a wave function to collapse which gives particle defined position/momentum - but this process is strictly random.
so basically you don't know the exact position/momentum of the particle until you measure it? what's "random" about it? you don't know the exact position/momentum of anything until you measure it. Is there something I'm missing?

I think determinism is true because you don't have control over either your genes or your environment, and all of your behaviors result from those two things.

I mean, you're free to move to a new place or something like that, but once you get to this new place then you are obliged to live by its rules. You can move from New York City to Beijing, but you're just trading being ruled by one government/society to being ruled by another government/society.

You can train yourself to become better at something, like being a better runner, but at some point you will reach your physical limitations and will no longer be able to progress.

The best any person can hope to do is figure out what it is they are naturally best at and then put themselves in an environment that will encourage the development of that trait.

>>6168821

>Also, the majority of contemporary scientists reject determinism considering facts about quantum physics and the random decay of atoms etc.

totally dropped

holy shit

>>6172844
>beware that your definition doesn't make philosophy useless as a word, or as a field. There is currently a difference between what philosophers do and what scientists do. You can wrap them up under a common name, or point at what causes that distinction, but in both cases you need to account for what is the philosophical reflexion nowadays and how it evolved from "philosophy" as it used to be.

That's actually a really good point. I'll have to reconsider some of my views. I still think that philosophy and science are remarkably similar enterprises, but the main difference I see is in the methodology and not in the aim of either practice.

>come to /lit/ after a long break

>realize that everybody is a tryhard stupid wannabe that read arguments from stupid sources

How the fuck you think that quantum physics means that the world is random holy shit, and what is funny is that you think you are intellectual with such bullshit as base.

If you can't measure something it doesn't mean that it's random. Quantum physics doesn't speak about the limitations of the universe, it says about the limitation of our technology. If anything quantum physics with the right technology would be more deterministic than ever

>>6173042
>care to explain real quick?
Simplification: Measurment changes state of observed object i.e if i want to look at your face i have to put a beam of light on it first and fotons will react with your face making you a little more tan.

>and you know that how?
Most widely known is a double slit experiment
for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

> Is there something I'm missing?
Yea - you are missing quantum mechanics ;)
In quantum worls particles don't have positions and momentums but wave functions which describe propabilities of their behaviour.

>>6173069
People thinking the opposite of you doesn't make them "tryhard wannabes". I personally fall in the deterministic camp, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made for indeterminism, or that this stuff isn't extremely controversial.

There are very convincing arguments on both sides. You should attempt to engage in the dialogue before ignorantly flinging shit.

>>6173042
Yes, you're missing what most people do when it comes to the uncertainty principle - it's a mathemathic truth because of the bell theorem. There is no position, it's not about knowledge or lack of it regarding the position, the position is uncertain. There is no additional measurements that are missing, no extra variables that can explain the uncertainty (and make it strictly determined). Do you see the problem now? Einstein tried to argue your point, and failed miserably.

>>6173069
No. Learn more. Become physics major. Come back and apologize.

>>6173069
>>6173070

:^)

Thinking double split experiment is because consciousness makes the particle change, and that wave function is because the "particle is a wave bro" and not just the statistical wave created by the errors in measurement of the position vs velocity

please go and read a book of physics and stop viewing youtube videos for uneducated people about illuminatis and shit

>>6173077

> There is no position, it's not about knowledge or lack of it regarding the position, the position is uncertain.

holy shit, there is position it's just that we can't measure it if the velocity is too high, can't you fucking understand something so simple?

>>6173075
IMO determinism is indefesible in physical sense. Things are random and the further in time you move the more random they get. What is open to dispute is free will (though i think there is none) and psychological determinism maybe.

>>6173094

>Things are random and the further in time you move the more random they get

How come?

>>6173070

lel using a video like that to prove something in physics is cringe as fuck

i dont understand why quantumn physics is always invoked in free will vs determinism arguments

i agree with others who are saying randomness is irrelevant. let's take another example: the digits of pi. random, or unpredictable, but how is that relevant in this argument? there is an assumption here that our understanding of pi is perfect/complete. what if pi is predictable, but we just aren't able to understand why

same goes for the random behavior of other things

this is just one issue. i also have an issue with going into the quantumn scale, then saying this information explains everything else up the scale. newton's laws, while untrue at the quantum level, remain true at largers scales. so why should quantum mechanics apply to issues of the human mind like free will?

>>6173081
Ofc, you don't understand what measurment is...
Its not consciousness that makes a difference but particles reaction to measuring medium i.e. photon scattering. It doesn't even matter if you actually measure anything - collisions with photons by themself will casue wave function to collapse.
>statistical wave created by the errors in measurement of the position vs velocity
Yea, electrons go through 2 slits at the same time and create interference patterns cause of measurment errors... Do you even Bell's theorem bro?
I don't need to read physics books, i'm finishing my PhD in astrophysics and i'm pretty sure im not an illuminati.

>>6173100
Chaos Theory. If you make two identical deterministic nonlinear systems, they will behave in the same way. But if you put a tiny tiny difference at the begining this difference will get exponentialy bigger and bigger with time

>>6173102
I'm not proving anythink, im educating ignorant /lit/izens with children videos. The sole fact tht it's necessary makes me cringe though.

>>6173136

>But if you put a tiny tiny difference at the begining this difference will get exponentialy bigger and bigger with time

But where does this possibility of a "difference" in any given situation enter into our universe? When you say that to argue against determinism you're assuming that in any given event x there is more than one possibility in how it could happen.

>>6173116
>newton's laws, while untrue at the quantum level, remain true at largers scales

They are only aproximately true to be honest. Newtonian physics is an aproximation of quantum mechanics for large objects - for our everyday scale its an almost perfect aproximation though so it doesn't make a difference if we use it.

>i agree with others who are saying randomness is irrelevant. let's take another example: the digits of pi. random, or unpredictable, but how is that relevant in this argument? there is an assumption here that our understanding of pi is perfect/complete. what if pi is predictable, but we just aren't able to understand why

Bell's theorem.
We for sure don't understand quantum physics fully, hell, we don't even know how gravity works in such a scale, but one thing we can prove for sure - its not deterministic.

>>6173147
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

Why is /lit/ so scientifically chalanged?

>Kripke
>a determinist
top ignorance

>>6168971
holy shit it's you again

I'm still baffled by how many people there are who still don't understand compatibilism

>>6173967
>lets redefine "free will" and act like we resolved the problem
>muh compatibilism

>>6174034
This might be a convincing argument if there was an accepted definition of free will in the first place.

>>6173150
Bell's theorem rejects local hidden variables but not non-local ones. Ridiculous idea: a universal seed (a la computing) which like computing makes pseudorandom but still deterministic phenomena.

>>6174048
It's not really that hard: metaphysical free will is the ability for a consciousness to freely (not deterministically nor randomly) choose between multiple options. There is nothing in the world supporting the existence of metaphysical free will. All conpatiblism does is make the obvious annotation that political free will is different from metaphysical free will. It by no means provides a middle ground between free will and determinism that its name hints at, it is firmly encamped in determinism.

>>6174068
>metaphysical free will is the ability for a consciousness to freely (not deterministically nor randomly) choose between multiple options
What else could it possibly be? This definition of free will is incoherent; it's literally meaningless. You may as well pose the problem as determinism vs. booligumbla. If your definition of free will has no meaning then you can't define determinism as something in contrast to it, and so is also meaningless. So the problem is now higgdleboo vs booligumbla. Neither can be true or false so the distinction must be rejected. This is compatibilism.

>>6174090
Either our consciousness is only an effect of physics of our brains and we just watch our thougts like a movie OR our consciousness is something more and it can affect physics of our brains. Simple as that imo.

>>6174054
Matrix is real!
It's not ridiculous, it's awesome