Is the future already written?

[Cavebear]

No, I do not believe in a higher power. I'm an atheist. I could argue back by saying that you must be a theist because no "real atheist" would say that the future can be something that isn't in the future... because no "real atheist" is that illogical... but unlike yourself I don't wish to invent my own re-definition of the word "atheist". So I'm happy to simply accept that you're an atheist, like myself, but you're an atheist who is being less logical than I am.

Once again, to say that the future isn't inevitable or that it is avoidable... is to say that what will happen won't necessarily happen. That's like saying that a square can have five sides.

Okay... first question: Do you accept my definition that the future is what will happen?

Second question: Do you accept that even if you don't accept that definition, that is the definition I am using, and the definition many people use, and the definition that I have said that I am using?

Third question: Do you accept that once we start from the premise that the definition of the future is what will happen... then to say that it won't necessarily happen is to say that what will happen might not happen?

Fourth question: Do you accept that saying that what will happen might not happen is a contradiction in terms?

Fifth question: Do you accept that something can only be avoided or not be inevitable if such a thing won't necessarily happen no matter what?

Quibbles.

1.  The future does not yet exist.

2.  I accept that what you said is the definition you are using.

3. 'Que sera, sera' is innaccurate.  There will be a "future".  But I can change it now by present actions.  A coin flip now how to respond to you. And I have both yet flipped the coin and not so far as you know.

4.  No.

5.  Your "or" makes no specific answer possible.

[luckswallowsall]

1.  The future does not yet exist.

Yes. The future does not exist. The future will exist. That was not my question.

My question was: Do you accept my definition that the future is what will happen?

2.  I accept that what you said is the definition you are using.

Good. So the follow up on that is... how did you get from that definition to a conclusion that I believe in religious pre-determination or that I'm not a "real atheist"?

3. 'Que sera, sera' is innaccurate.  There will be a "future".  But I can change it now by present actions.  A coin flip now how to respond to you. And I have both yet flipped the coin and not so far as you know.

My question was: If we define the future as "what will happen" then do you accept that saying that the future might not happen is to say that what will happen might not happen?

And to follow up on your response, what do you mean that 'Que sera, sera' is inaccurate? You are aware that the meaning of 'Que, sera, sera' is "whatever will be will be", yes? And, if so, are you aware that saying that whatever will be won't be is a contradiction in terms?

My knowledge of your flipping or not flipping the coin is irrelevant. One thing I do know is that you either have or haven't.

4.  No.

Okay, so my question here was "do you accept that saying that whatever will happen might not happen is a contradiction in terms?"... your response was "no".

Okay, so to follow up on that... do you realize that this means you are saying that something that will necessarily happen won't necessarily happen? And will you accept that that is a contradiction in terms?

5.  Your "or" makes no specific answer possible.

Okay, so my question was, "do you accept that it's only possible to avoid something if it isn't necessarily going to happen?"... your response is to say that no specific answer is possible. I have four follow up questions on that matter.

First question: Why do you think that that question can't be answered?

Second question: Doesn't it make a lot more sense to answer that question with "yes"?

Third question: Doesn't answering the question with "yes" make more sense because it's impossible to avoid something that is necessarily going to happen?

Fourth question: The alternative is that it's possible to avoid something that is necessarily going to happen, in which case I put it to you: How can you avoid something that is going to happen no matter what?

[the_antithesis]

deterministism vs. "free will."

I was thinking about this recently and I think the problem with this dichotomy is that it is uneven because of scale. I used to play roleplaying games and there was one game called Mekton II by Mike Pondsmith-- I haven't played the game in twenty years so this is all from memory. The game was based on Japanese giant robot cartoons, like Mobile Suit Gundam if that means anything to you. It had two scales of  damage for combat. Humans used Hits, which operated essentially like any other RPG where taking damage reduces the Hits number if hit points drops to zero, the character dies. Anyone familiar with roleplaying games is already aware of this. Then there were Kills were functioned the same as Hits but were at giant robot or "mech" scale. The rules helpfully give a conversion between these two systems where 10 Hits = 1 Kill, but-- and this is the important bit-- had a section explaining that it's not as simple as that. They give the example of a person with a two hit pistol shooting at a three kill tank enough times to destroy it, right? Wrong! That makes no sense. In truth, Hit-level weapons don't do anything to Kill-level mechs and Kill-level weapons instantly vaporize Hit-level humans. It is best to treat the two damage scales as separate.

So this concept of scale go me thinking on the determinism/free will problem and I think the scale here is we have free will within a deterministic world. I think when you look at the world at a cosmic level, you can see that the random movement of matter has led to everything happening the way they did, including your choice to have eggs instead of waffles for breakfast. But when you come down to human scale, you totally had free will when deciding to have eggs. The free will engine run on and is composed of determinism.

Of course, this isn't enough for some who may say that their choices don't really matter if they were predictable from before the Earth was formed. My response to that is, was it really predictable? To whom? The future being pre-determined is not the same as it being known. Any stock broker can tell you that. Pre-determined* is not the same a predictable. Predictable is known in the present and we can make plans accordingly. It is therefore a useful tool, like a flint and steel. If it isn't predictable, then pre-determined looks exactly the same as non-determined. The difference is the way it makes you feel, which counts for nothing when you get right down to it.


* for some reason, my spell checker says "pre-determined" is incorrect but when I click, a suggested correction is "pee-determined." I hope this spawns a meme on DeviantArt.

[luckswallowsall]

On the matter of "Determinism versus Free Will" my first question would be: How is "free will" being defined?

[SGOS]

On the matter of "Determinism versus Free Will" my first question would be: How is "free will" being defined?

I have always suspected that the whole silly debate, revolves around that issue.  But it's never defined.  As best I can remember, a few proponents of determinism have said, "Free will is not about choosing between chocolate and vanilla," but I'll be damned if I can remember any explanation beyond that.  So I can make trivial choices, but not choices like to murder or not to murder?  I usually try to avoid the debate, because I simply don't understand exactly where free will begins or ends.  Is everything predetermined, except for the things that aren't?  I just get lost.  I think it's one of those things where you believe it or you don't, and don't worry about reasoning it out.

[Cavebear]

I was thinking about this recently and I think the problem with this dichotomy is that it is uneven because of scale. I used to play roleplaying games and there was one game called Mekton II by Mike Pondsmith-- I haven't played the game in twenty years so this is all from memory. The game was based on Japanese giant robot cartoons, like Mobile Suit Gundam if that means anything to you. It had two scales of  damage for combat. Humans used Hits, which operated essentially like any other RPG where taking damage reduces the Hits number if hit points drops to zero, the character dies. Anyone familiar with roleplaying games is already aware of this. Then there were Kills were functioned the same as Hits but were at giant robot or "mech" scale. The rules helpfully give a conversion between these two systems where 10 Hits = 1 Kill, but-- and this is the important bit-- had a section explaining that it's not as simple as that. They give the example of a person with a two hit pistol shooting at a three kill tank enough times to destroy it, right? Wrong! That makes no sense. In truth, Hit-level weapons don't do anything to Kill-level mechs and Kill-level weapons instantly vaporize Hit-level humans. It is best to treat the two damage scales as separate.



So this concept of scale go me thinking on the determinism/free will problem and I think the scale here is we have free will within a deterministic world. I think when you look at the world at a cosmic level, you can see that the random movement of matter has led to everything happening the way they did, including your choice to have eggs instead of waffles for breakfast. But when you come down to human scale, you totally had free will when deciding to have eggs. The free will engine run on and is composed of determinism.

Of course, this isn't enough for some who may say that their choices don't really matter if they were predictable from before the Earth was formed. My response to that is, was it really predictable? To whom? The future being pre-determined is not the same as it being known. Any stock broker can tell you that. Pre-determined* is not the same a predictable. Predictable is known in the present and we can make plans accordingly. It is therefore a useful tool, like a flint and steel. If it isn't predictable, then pre-determined looks exactly the same as non-determined. The difference is the way it makes you feel, which counts for nothing when you get right down to it.


* for some reason, my spell checker says "pre-determined" is incorrect but when I click, a suggested correction is "pee-determined." I hope this spawns a meme on DeviantArt.

I recognize your references.   I'm not so sure about the "pre-determined" stuff though.  But seriously,  understanding the references did help.

[Cavebear]

Yes. The future does not exist. The future will exist. That was not my question.

My question was: Do you accept my definition that the future is what will happen?

Good. So the follow up on that is... how did you get from that definition to a conclusion that I believe in religious pre-determination or that I'm not a "real atheist"?

My question was: If we define the future as "what will happen" then do you accept that saying that the future might not happen is to say that what will happen might not happen?

And to follow up on your response, what do you mean that 'Que sera, sera' is inaccurate? You are aware that the meaning of 'Que, sera, sera' is "whatever will be will be", yes? And, if so, are you aware that saying that whatever will be won't be is a contradiction in terms?

My knowledge of your flipping or not flipping the coin is irrelevant. One thing I do know is that you either have or haven't.



Okay, so my question here was "do you accept that saying that whatever will happen might not happen is a contradiction in terms?"... your response was "no".

Okay, so to follow up on that... do you realize that this means you are saying that something that will necessarily happen won't necessarily happen? And will you accept that that is a contradiction in terms?

Okay, so my question was, "do you accept that it's only possible to avoid something if it isn't necessarily going to happen?"... your response is to say that no specific answer is possible. I have four follow up questions on that matter.

First question: Why do you think that that question can't be answered?

Second question: Doesn't it make a lot more sense to answer that question with "yes"?

Third question: Doesn't answering the question with "yes" make more sense because it's impossible to avoid something that is necessarily going to happen?

Fourth question: The alternative is that it's possible to avoid something that is necessarily going to happen, in which case I put it to you: How can you avoid something that is going to happen no matter what?

Broken up quotes get too complicated for response,  Sorry.  I have better things to unravel.

[Cavebear]

On the matter of "Determinism versus Free Will" my first question would be: How is "free will" being defined?

Choice,

Damn that was tricky, heh?

[luckswallowsall]

I have always suspected that the whole silly debate, revolves around that issue.  But it's never defined.  As best I can remember, a few proponents of determinism have said, "Free will is not about choosing between chocolate and vanilla," but I'll be damned if I can remember any explanation beyond that.  So I can make trivial choices, but not choices like to murder or not to murder?  I usually try to avoid the debate, because I simply don't understand exactly where free will begins or ends.  Is everything predetermined, except for the things that aren't?  I just get lost.  I think it's one of those things where you believe it or you don't, and don't worry about reasoning it out.

I agree with you that the debate revolves around the issue of definition. It's not never defined but it rarely is and that tends to be what causes the most confusion.

One definition of free will is compatible with determinism and another isn't. So no wonder people are going to be confused over whether determinism is true or free will is true if some people don't even have a problem with free will existing regardless of the truth of determinism but others do. Some think that "Free will versus determinism" is fair match up and others doesn't.

And to make matters even more confusing, some people believe that determinism isn't compatible with free will but indeterminism isn't compatible with free will either.

So you've got the people who see it as simply a matter of free will versus determinism.

And then you've got two different groups of people who both think that determinism shouldn't be placed against free will but for opposite reasons. One group thinks that it shouldn't be free will versus determinism because they think that you can still have free will even if determinism is true.... and another group thinks that it shouldn't be free will versus determinism because they think that we still can't have free will even if determinism is false.

[luckswallowsall]

Choice,

Damn that was tricky, heh?

It's not tricky... it's ambiguous.

Would you still consider yourself to have a choice even if your choice was the only possible option? Do you consider a choice between A and A a choice? Or is only a choice between A and B or a choice between A and not A a choice?

It seems like a silly question but you get some people distinguishing between a choice and a free choice. The idea being that even if our choices are illusory, we still make decisions or 'choices' even if they're not free.

And then you've got those who say we make decisions, but not free decisions, and a choice is a free decision, and there's no such thing as an "unfree choice".

Then you've got those who say that there's choices on the one hand and free choices on the other hand. We have choices no matter what... but the question is if they're free.

So what do you mean by "choice"? Do you mean "free choice"?

Then we've got the problem where even if you say that free will is free choice... that is still ambiguous because many people think choices are free even if they're determined and there's only one possible future. Many people would say that choices are still partly free even if they're not absolutely free... because even if all our choices are inevitable, there's still a big difference between being coerced and not being coerced when we make a choice. And so they define free will in a way that is compatible with the legal sense of free will. So basically, to them, free will is nothing more than the sense of free will used when someone asks you, when you're signing a contract, "Are you signing this contract of your own free will?".

So, no, not tricky, ambiguous.

[Cavebear]

I agree with you that the debate revolves around the issue of definition. It's not never defined but it rarely is and that tends to be what causes the most confusion.

One definition of free will is compatible with determinism and another isn't. So no wonder people are going to be confused over whether determinism is true or free will is true if some people don't even have a problem with free will existing regardless of the truth of determinism but others do. Some think that "Free will versus determinism" is fair match up and others doesn't.

And to make matters even more confusing, some people believe that determinism isn't compatible with free will but indeterminism isn't compatible with free will either.

So you've got the people who see it as simply a matter of free will versus determinism.

And then you've got two different groups of people who both think that determinism shouldn't be placed against free will but for opposite reasons. One group thinks that it shouldn't be free will versus determinism because they think that you can still have free will even if determinism is true.... and another group thinks that it shouldn't be free will versus determinism because they think that we still can't have free will even if determinism is false.

I went though a lot of that in set theory/logic classes.  You trying to set up a 4 grid of 2 determisms on one one side and 2 free wills on the top  which having a subset.  So I KNOW what you are talking about, I just don't agree with your construct. 

I argued with the Professor then, and got an A in the class anyway.  I just rejected the whole premise.

NOW are you happy?

[luckswallowsall]

I went though a lot of that in set theory/logic classes.  You trying to set up a 4 grid of 2 determisms on one one side and 2 free wills on the top  which having a subset.  So I KNOW what you are talking about, I just don't agree with your construct. 

I argued with the Professor then, and got an A in the class anyway.  I just rejected the whole premise.

NOW are you happy?

I was already happy. And your logical fallacy is irrelevant. Saying that you took a class on it and you know this stuff is not a counterargument to what I was saying.

What do you mean I'm "trying to set up a 4 grid of 2 determinisms on one side and 2 free wills on the top which having a sub set"?

Free will either is or isn't compatible with determinism.

Determinism is the view that there is only one possible future.

Indeterminism is the view that there's more than one possible future.

Free will is either (a)True with or without determinism (b)True without determinism, but not with determinism (c)False with or without determinism.

Technically, there is also (d)Free will is true with determinism but false without determinism.

But not many people follow that one.

So do you accept (a), (b), (c), or (d)?

Because those options are logically exhaustive. No other option can even be coherently described.

[Hydra009]

Some things we can guess at.

Absent actually traversing/viewing such alternative histories, they're all guesses.  Some plausible, some implausible, but all guesses.

Columbus sought support for his initial voyage from many competing kingdoms,  One was sure to support him eventually.  Edison created the light bulb, but others were working on it at the same time,  It was merely who first" not "if.

Precisely.  Generally speaking, inventions do not spring up out of nowhere, but are build on successive iterations that eventually become feasible/profitable.  We learn in school that so-and-so invented something, but that's almost always not the full story.

In some instances we can rewind the history clock and get the same results.  But sometimes not.

Maybe.  But my guess is that certain events are more or less fixed - the process of industrialization, the formation of colonial empires, various revolts by colonies, the rise of nationalism and the start of WWI, etc.  What may or may not be fixed is the fate of individual people - Napoleon could've held on to power until his death, Hitler could have been successfully assassinated, etc.

The details are fuzzy but the broad strokes of history seem very clear.

But again, it's impossible to know for sure what could have happened differently because we know of no situation where things turned out differently than they did.

[Cavebear]

I was already happy. And your logical fallacy is irrelevant. Saying that you took a class on it and you know this stuff is not a counterargument to what I was saying.

What do you mean I'm "trying to set up a 4 grid of 2 determinisms on one side and 2 free wills on the top which having a sub set"?

Free will either is or isn't compatible with determinism.

Determinism is the view that there is only one possible future.

Indeterminism is the view that there's more than one possible future.

Free will is either (a)True with or without determinism (b)True without determinism, but not with determinism (c)False with or without determinism.

Technically, there is also (d)Free will is true with determinism but false without determinism.

But not many people follow that one.

So do you accept (a), (b), (c), or (d)?

Because those options are logically exhaustive. No other option can even be coherently described.

But it does remove the fallacy you hold in your mind that no one understands what you are saying. 

a) is probably unprovable.  b) is unlikely, but possible.  c) seems likely.    d) seems contradictory.

[Cavebear]

Absent actually traversing/viewing such alternative histories, they're all guesses.  Some plausible, some implausible, but all guesses.
Precisely.  Generally speaking, inventions do not spring up out of nowhere, but are build on successive iterations that eventually become feasible/profitable.  We learn in school that so-and-so invented something, but that's almost always not the full story.
Maybe.  But my guess is that certain events are more or less fixed - the process of industrialization, the formation of colonial empires, various revolts by colonies, the rise of nationalism and the start of WWI, etc.  What may or may not be fixed is the fate of individual people - Napoleon could've held on to power until his death, Hitler could have been successfully assassinated, etc.

The details are fuzzy but the broad strokes of history seem very clear.

But again, it's impossible to know for sure what could have happened differently because we know of no situation where things turned out differently than they did.

I like Athenian democracy for a rel change not easily done elsewhere., but there could be others rather unique in history.  'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond makes some good arguments.   Like wheat...