3 ms·

If the universe was as deterministic and predetermined as to exclude free-will, then all debate itself, including one as to whether "luck determines everything"

by fargle 5y ago

If the universe was as deterministic and predetermined as to exclude free-will, then all debate itself, including one as to whether "luck determines everything", would be pointless. Whether you were right or wrong would be both absolute and predetermined. And so pointless to argue about. I'm not sure there's even room for concepts as "true" or "false", just "is". So I cannot prove whether free-will exists or does not. But I believe it's quite logical to say that to argue otherwise would be pointless and irrational. And I do understand that the downvoters feel that they were clearly forced to do it by a complex and indelible series of events going back at least billions of years. :)

alecst 5y ago
I’ve heard this argument before but it’s always felt like a non-sequitur. Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? Case A: no free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exists. We conclude it does not. Case B: free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exist. We conclude it does. Do you think society A and society B march on exactly the same?
- fargle 5y ago
  > Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? because everything is pointless then - it's already happened, it's known. done. You are a puppet on a string and have no free-will. As I said, to argue that free will does not exist is a pointless waste of time. Disingenuous. If you are right, then it's obviously true - but why argue because you know that you'll change nothing. The truth is the same a million years ago and a million years hence. So to argue the point implies you are just not honestly debating and not considering the merits and arguments or trying to convince. You must acede that you are not in a fair debate. If you are wrong, well, then I can accept that. You may be wrong and there could be change! To argue, even reason, is either (free-will) to effect change, or (no-free-will) a waste of time. The later of which is illogical and irrational - simply a belief and an action with nothing more. It's a tautological falsehood to debate or question free will. The mere action of debate and reason implies will. Again, this doesn't prove that free-will exists, but to me it proves illogical to argue against it.
  - alan-hn 5y ago
    Why is everything pointless without free will?
    - fargle 5y ago
      EXACTLY! that's really the definition! But I do not need to win the point "pointless to do anything", sufficient is "pointless to debate". If it is predestined, then it is simply not really a debate.
      - alan-hn 5y ago
        I don't agree about debate. Debate is an important interaction between two humans in which a consensus is reached (generally) to guide a course of action. The debate is important for altering the likely course of action. If you decide that debate is unimportant, you don't get these I redactions and miss out on important I formation Such as we are doing here Debate is simply an exchange of information between two entities, its our perception of what debate is that's incorrect
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Because whatever you do, you'd have done anyway. Same for whatever you feel. If there's a deterministic universe, it includes your thoughts and feelings, not just "what happens" at large.
  - mgh2 5y ago
    Because false beliefs can affect everything in society https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf8095812 https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...
coldtea 5y ago
>Whether you were right or wrong would be both absolute and predetermined. And so pointless to argue about. Doesn't matter. The arguing would happen (or not happen) anyway, because it, too, would be absolute and predetermined. When people talk about predetermination and lack of free will, they always pause at some point, and talk as if you can have those together with some meta-discussion about them, or an handling (or at least appreciation) of them that's not affected by that predetermination and lack of free will. I don't blame them for that, of course: they're predetermined to do so. I could have blamed them, of course, but I'm predetermined not to.
- fargle 5y ago
  > Doesn't matter. The arguing would happen (or not happen) anyway, because it, too, would be absolute and predetermined. Of course! And this would make it a pointless and futile debate then. You might even be right, but you should not win a debate with "it's inevitable and predetermined".
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Of course! And this would make it a pointless and futile debate then. I'm not so sure about that (but then, I would say so, no matter what). For it to be pointless, something like a "thing having a point" / deeper meaning would have to exist, but none does in a predetermined universe. So, it's not pointless as opposed to pointful, it's in a universe devoid of point-ness altogether. And in a sense it's not futile: in a deterministic cause/effect universe, having that argument is going to affect all future futures. If that argument didn't happen, the universe would still be deterministic (assuming it is to begin with), but the flow of events concerning the people having the argument and anything they affected would have changed.

by fargle 5y ago

alecst 5y ago

I’ve heard this argument before but it’s always felt like a non-sequitur. Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? Case A: no free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exists. We conclude it does not. Case B: free will really exists. We reason about whether free will exist. We conclude it does. Do you think society A and society B march on exactly the same?

fargle 5y ago
> Why would it be pointless to reason out if free will exists? because everything is pointless then - it's already happened, it's known. done. You are a puppet on a string and have no free-will. As I said, to argue that free will does not exist is a pointless waste of time. Disingenuous. If you are right, then it's obviously true - but why argue because you know that you'll change nothing. The truth is the same a million years ago and a million years hence. So to argue the point implies you are just not honestly debating and not considering the merits and arguments or trying to convince. You must acede that you are not in a fair debate. If you are wrong, well, then I can accept that. You may be wrong and there could be change! To argue, even reason, is either (free-will) to effect change, or (no-free-will) a waste of time. The later of which is illogical and irrational - simply a belief and an action with nothing more. It's a tautological falsehood to debate or question free will. The mere action of debate and reason implies will. Again, this doesn't prove that free-will exists, but to me it proves illogical to argue against it.
- alan-hn 5y ago
  Why is everything pointless without free will?
  - fargle 5y ago
    EXACTLY! that's really the definition! But I do not need to win the point "pointless to do anything", sufficient is "pointless to debate". If it is predestined, then it is simply not really a debate.
    - alan-hn 5y ago
      I don't agree about debate. Debate is an important interaction between two humans in which a consensus is reached (generally) to guide a course of action. The debate is important for altering the likely course of action. If you decide that debate is unimportant, you don't get these I redactions and miss out on important I formation Such as we are doing here Debate is simply an exchange of information between two entities, its our perception of what debate is that's incorrect
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Because whatever you do, you'd have done anyway. Same for whatever you feel. If there's a deterministic universe, it includes your thoughts and feelings, not just "what happens" at large.
- mgh2 5y ago
  Because false beliefs can affect everything in society https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf8095812 https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...

coldtea 5y ago

>Whether you were right or wrong would be both absolute and predetermined. And so pointless to argue about. Doesn't matter. The arguing would happen (or not happen) anyway, because it, too, would be absolute and predetermined. When people talk about predetermination and lack of free will, they always pause at some point, and talk as if you can have those together with some meta-discussion about them, or an handling (or at least appreciation) of them that's not affected by that predetermination and lack of free will. I don't blame them for that, of course: they're predetermined to do so. I could have blamed them, of course, but I'm predetermined not to.

fargle 5y ago
> Doesn't matter. The arguing would happen (or not happen) anyway, because it, too, would be absolute and predetermined. Of course! And this would make it a pointless and futile debate then. You might even be right, but you should not win a debate with "it's inevitable and predetermined".
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Of course! And this would make it a pointless and futile debate then. I'm not so sure about that (but then, I would say so, no matter what). For it to be pointless, something like a "thing having a point" / deeper meaning would have to exist, but none does in a predetermined universe. So, it's not pointless as opposed to pointful, it's in a universe devoid of point-ness altogether. And in a sense it's not futile: in a deterministic cause/effect universe, having that argument is going to affect all future futures. If that argument didn't happen, the universe would still be deterministic (assuming it is to begin with), but the flow of events concerning the people having the argument and anything they affected would have changed.