4 ms·

I never understood why "nobody could be blamed for their actions" is some kind of argument against determinism. Neither the perpetrator of the act nor the punis

I never understood why "nobody could be blamed for their actions" is some kind of argument against determinism. Neither the perpetrator of the act nor the punisher can choose. Why does the punisher exist outside the deterministic system but the perpetrator does not? The perpetrator's logic is the same: if I do this, the punisher has no choice but to punish me. Everyone is along for the ride. The very desire to control the actions of others within some "moral" framework also exists within the system. As danbruc said elsewhere in this thread: Even in a deterministic universe you still have to deal with criminals in one way or another, and you have to make the rules and implement them A moral framework that this happens (deterministically) under doesn't exist to undermine the deterministic nature of the criminals, but in direct deterministic consequence of the existence of criminals. The state machine of the universe has led to my desire for a moral framework to punish criminals, the existence of criminals, the criminal acts, and the application of a moral framework to recognize and punish criminals. Under determinism, these are all intertwined. I see it as free will exists (if it does by some definition) at the time a decision is made based on the inputs (the state of the universe) at that point. "Doing something different in the same situation" (having choice) is impossible because "the same situation" is impossible because the universe continues to run. Given the same input (the universe), why would you "choose differently"? You have no reason to. If output is not based on input, the output is arbitrary and random, which also undermines the existence of free will.

sanitycheck 3y ago
I'm not just talking about criminals, I'm talking about normal human interaction. Game theory. How would societies form if not for cooperation? How is cooperation ensured without feedback mechanisms to enforce it? This can all emerge from deterministic processes, same as many other things in nature. In your final paragraph you seem to be saying (meaningful) free will doesn't exist? If so, I agree. The thing I really wonder about is why it seems that it does.
- thwarted 3y ago
  Oh, sorry, I'm not trying to contradict what you said, rather support and offer a (perhaps different) angle or detail. Dealing with criminals is just an example. The same applies for the desire to form or not form a society. As for "why it it seems that [free will exists]", I want to say that a combination of the Incompleteness Theorem, the fact that we don't know enough to grok the entire state of the universe, that we don't know what the future holds, and that we have the ability to reflect upon the past that gives the "illusion" of choice. But even asking that question seems to assume that we are discussing the illusion of free will from a perspective _outside of the universe_. Just like we must assume the universe exists, we must also assume that free will _seems_ like it exists.

sanitycheck 3y ago

I'm not just talking about criminals, I'm talking about normal human interaction. Game theory. How would societies form if not for cooperation? How is cooperation ensured without feedback mechanisms to enforce it? This can all emerge from deterministic processes, same as many other things in nature. In your final paragraph you seem to be saying (meaningful) free will doesn't exist? If so, I agree. The thing I really wonder about is why it seems that it does.

thwarted 3y ago
Oh, sorry, I'm not trying to contradict what you said, rather support and offer a (perhaps different) angle or detail. Dealing with criminals is just an example. The same applies for the desire to form or not form a society. As for "why it it seems that [free will exists]", I want to say that a combination of the Incompleteness Theorem, the fact that we don't know enough to grok the entire state of the universe, that we don't know what the future holds, and that we have the ability to reflect upon the past that gives the "illusion" of choice. But even asking that question seems to assume that we are discussing the illusion of free will from a perspective _outside of the universe_. Just like we must assume the universe exists, we must also assume that free will _seems_ like it exists.