4 ms·

I’m probably missing something (and would gladly welcome correction), but this only seems to address a limited form of determinism. I’m not sure how the existen

I’m probably missing something (and would gladly welcome correction), but this only seems to address a limited form of determinism. I’m not sure how the existence of randomness at the molecular level or the fact that psychological experience can influence human biology challenges determinism at large, much less proves the existence of free will.

cmpb 6y ago
I would appreciate a response to this as well, from the author or someone knowledgeable on this subject
- adjkant 6y ago
  I've spent a good deal of time on this subject. In my opinion, this article did little to nothing and the parent here is a very valid critique. The argument it made is basically "We can't accept determinism, but hey, it's not true because there might be quantum randomness." I think it's important to highlight something here - history is fraught with people on both sides of "this is random" and "this is predictable in this way" being wrong. I would not be surprised to find that further research in physics over centuries ends up showing what we currently see as "randomness" is simply a very complicated system. Even if you are able to rest bigger arguments on top of quantum randomness, it's not exactly a sturdy base coming from the bleeding edge of physics. It's also very common among in the community of this debate to get bogged down in the theoretical and not look back to the very real applications of free will concepts in the world. Many of the distinctions they make are not really useful for humans, and they haven't realized even the most basic parts of the arguments can have radical societal effects.
  - dkn775 6y ago
    Similar to the butterfly effect in a way. Looking at a regression model as an example in equation form: Y = a + bX + e Some "proportion" of a phenomenon is understood. However, many things are not immediately understood but only seen to be a factor in explaining a phenomena if looking at things from a very complete, long term perspective. Something which we are unlikely be able to do. Many people can feel when an action produces a ripple effect. Now think of tons of ripple effects interacting, some influential, some not, etc. Anyway, back to the equation - we have +e the error term, which is the uncertainty that any such explanation will fully predict how something plays out. I think what you're getting at is the error term also has characteristics. One of those properties could be that certain things advance all, others are bad for all. Just to tie it back to your other comments.
ReactiveJelly 6y ago
I sure don't feel convinced that free will exists. What do non-determinists think would be the testable or observable difference between a universe with and without free will?
- jes5199 6y ago
  I don’t think it is possible to test the difference. Any situation that looks like free will can also be explained by determinism. The only evidence is the subjective experience of choice, which is invisible to science
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jariel 6y ago
I think that this is a good point, and maybe the thesis is stretched a little bit. That said, lack of real determinism does two things at least 1) it possibly changes our almost 'fundamentalist' view of the universe as being deterministic, which is I think our 'default instinct' these days and 2) opens the door to other possibilities. The 'gap' to consciousness/free will and other things, as you point out, remains.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Determinism doesn't guarantee easy intuitive understanding. Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is deterministic, but even educated people easily fail to understand it, because it's still not intuitive.

cmpb 6y ago

I would appreciate a response to this as well, from the author or someone knowledgeable on this subject

adjkant 6y ago
I've spent a good deal of time on this subject. In my opinion, this article did little to nothing and the parent here is a very valid critique. The argument it made is basically "We can't accept determinism, but hey, it's not true because there might be quantum randomness." I think it's important to highlight something here - history is fraught with people on both sides of "this is random" and "this is predictable in this way" being wrong. I would not be surprised to find that further research in physics over centuries ends up showing what we currently see as "randomness" is simply a very complicated system. Even if you are able to rest bigger arguments on top of quantum randomness, it's not exactly a sturdy base coming from the bleeding edge of physics. It's also very common among in the community of this debate to get bogged down in the theoretical and not look back to the very real applications of free will concepts in the world. Many of the distinctions they make are not really useful for humans, and they haven't realized even the most basic parts of the arguments can have radical societal effects.
- dkn775 6y ago
  Similar to the butterfly effect in a way. Looking at a regression model as an example in equation form: Y = a + bX + e Some "proportion" of a phenomenon is understood. However, many things are not immediately understood but only seen to be a factor in explaining a phenomena if looking at things from a very complete, long term perspective. Something which we are unlikely be able to do. Many people can feel when an action produces a ripple effect. Now think of tons of ripple effects interacting, some influential, some not, etc. Anyway, back to the equation - we have +e the error term, which is the uncertainty that any such explanation will fully predict how something plays out. I think what you're getting at is the error term also has characteristics. One of those properties could be that certain things advance all, others are bad for all. Just to tie it back to your other comments.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago

I sure don't feel convinced that free will exists. What do non-determinists think would be the testable or observable difference between a universe with and without free will?

jes5199 6y ago
I don’t think it is possible to test the difference. Any situation that looks like free will can also be explained by determinism. The only evidence is the subjective experience of choice, which is invisible to science
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jariel 6y ago

I think that this is a good point, and maybe the thesis is stretched a little bit. That said, lack of real determinism does two things at least 1) it possibly changes our almost 'fundamentalist' view of the universe as being deterministic, which is I think our 'default instinct' these days and 2) opens the door to other possibilities. The 'gap' to consciousness/free will and other things, as you point out, remains.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Determinism doesn't guarantee easy intuitive understanding. Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is deterministic, but even educated people easily fail to understand it, because it's still not intuitive.