Is the future already written?

[trdsf]

I think the point that luckswallowsall is trying to get at is that our conception of the future as multiple, possible futures is incorrect.

Put it this way, it's the night before Christmas and you pick up a wrapped gift.  You don't know what's in it - you can guess and some guesses are more probable than others - but you ultimately don't know what you're holding.  Would it be correct to say that the wrapped Christmas gift is any of a number of potential gifts?  Maybe on a logical level, it might.  But in reality, there are no potential Christmas gifts - there's a single, actual gift in there and it's there with 100% certainty.  The future is like that - there's a definite future, we just don't know what.

Time often analogized to a river - timestream, the flow of time, etc.  The future is like whatever's upstream from us.  We don't know what it is, but we'll know when it comes to us.  It's already there, it's just not in sight yet.

I would disagree that there is a definite future; there are only probabilities until the events actually happen.  There is a broad-stroke way of discussing the future, and there are many futures that are more probable than others, but looking even a few seconds into the future is fraught with uncertainty.  For example, while I know that I'm going to type this sentence, I don't know ahead of time how many typos I'm going to make along the way to this period here.

Only now that the typing of that sentence is in the past can I say that I corrected two typographical errors along the way â€" and it is in no way distinguishable from having had to correct one, or three, or seven... or none at all.

Yes, I do incline towards the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and think that identical worlds probably can be considered to have merged, although of course I Am Not A Quantum Physicist.

[Cavebear]

I think the point that luckswallowsall is trying to get at is that our conception of the future as multiple, possible futures is incorrect.

Put it this way, it's the night before Christmas and you pick up a wrapped gift.  You don't know what's in it - you can guess and some guesses are more probable than others - but you ultimately don't know what you're holding.  Would it be correct to say that the wrapped Christmas gift is any of a number of potential gifts?  Maybe on a logical level, it might.  But in reality, there are no potential Christmas gifts - there's a single, actual gift in there and it's there with 100% certainty.  The future is like that - there's a definite future, we just don't know what.

Time often analogized to a river - timestream, the flow of time, etc.  The future is like whatever's upstream from us.  We don't know what it is, but we'll know when it comes to us.  It's already there, it's just not in sight yet.
I sometimes add the clarifying term subjective to that term.  Subjective sunrise.  Subjective sunset.  It really turns heads, but imo it's accurate.  The sun is only appears to rise from our vantage point - from our subjective experience.

I seriously doubt that the future is predetermined as actions in a flow of time.  Random events happen.  I can choose to shoot one deer or another, I can decide not to shoot, or I can shoot 2 (and get in trouble).  I am mentally "flipping a coin".  If you think that is predetermined, then you basically can't blame anyone for doing anything.

And choice gets more likely when 2 objects are involved.

Let's say I am sitting here typing a brilliant response that might change your mind on some subject. But my cat jumps on my lap and distracts me to the point where I forget my brilliant argument. 

Unless you ascribe the action of my cat to a requirement from a deity, how is my action possibly predetermined?

[Cavebear]

I would disagree that there is a definite future; there are only probabilities until the events actually happen.  There is a broad-stroke way of discussing the future, and there are many futures that are more probable than others, but looking even a few seconds into the future is fraught with uncertainty.  For example, while I know that I'm going to type this sentence, I don't know ahead of time how many typos I'm going to make along the way to this period here.

Only now that the typing of that sentence is in the past can I say that I corrected two typographical errors along the way â€" and it is in no way distinguishable from having had to correct one, or three, or seven... or none at all.

Yes, I do incline towards the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and think that identical worlds probably can be considered to have merged, although of course I Am Not A Quantum Physicist.

There will be a future, but the details of it are not predetermined.  Much as I generally dislike the suggestions of quantum theory, the flutter of a butterfly's wing is not deterministic of rain on my garden.

[Mr.Obvious]

I seriously doubt that the future is predetermined as actions in a flow of time.  Random events happen.  I can choose to shoot one deer or another, I can decide not to shoot, or I can shoot 2 (and get in trouble).  I am mentally "flipping a coin".  If you think that is predetermined, then you basically can't blame anyone for doing anything.

And choice gets more likely when 2 objects are involved.

Let's say I am sitting here typing a brilliant response that might change your mind on some subject. But my cat jumps on my lap and distracts me to the point where I forget my brilliant argument. 

Unless you ascribe the action of my cat to a requirement from a deity, how is my action possibly predetermined?

Because the reason why your cat jumped on your lap is also determined by everything that came before. Your cat has been getting cold and bored over the past few hours. The moment it 'chooses' to jump on your lap, is determined by exactly which moment (s)he awoke, all that she saw that day, how hungry and thirsty she's been getting since then. Predetermined by all the cuddles she's received before. Predetermined by the entire life she's lead.
I know this won't convince you, but you stating you feel like you have a real choice or that  'random' things happen, doesn't obstruct predeterminism. Because as a predeterminist I believe that there are no random things, only things that 'seem' random because we lack sufficient data.
Concider it like throwing a dice. It can turn out any of the six options. And your nor I can predict how it will land. But if we did know the force with which it was thrown, the temperature, the humidity, the consistency and hardness of the surface it landed on, the angle, the air-pressure, ... And all the miniscule data that might seem irrelevant. If we could collect all that data, could we not calculate and explain how whatever side of the die came on top, exactly came on top?
Same thing with a billion more variables we couldn't even think of, would similarly 'explain' why you our your cat 'act' the way they do. And that past and present is set; thus fixating the future.
To me, the idea that you can have an actual choice, rather than the illusion of a choice, means you are somehow a soul of sorts; seperate from your brain and this world. If not, you are your brain. And if you are your brain, anything you think and anything you choose belongs to the material world. And the material, natural world is hypothetically explainable to the smallest detail. Practically impossible. But subject to pyshics none the less.

[Cavebear]

Because the reason why your cat jumped on your lap is also determined by everything that came before. Your cat has been getting cold and bored over the past few hours. The moment it 'chooses' to jump on your lap, is determined by exactly which moment (s)he awoke, all that she saw that day, how hungry and thirsty she's been getting since then. Predetermined by all the cuddles she's received before. Predetermined by the entire life she's lead.
I know this won't convince you, but you stating you feel like you have a real choice or that  'random' things happen, doesn't obstruct predeterminism. Because as a predeterminist I believe that there are no random things, only things that 'seem' random because we lack sufficient data.
Concider it like throwing a dice. It can turn out any of the six options. And your nor I can predict how it will land. But if we did know the force with which it was thrown, the temperature, the humidity, the consistency and hardness of the surface it landed on, the angle, the air-pressure, ... And all the miniscule data that might seem irrelevant. If we could collect all that data, could we not calculate and explain how whatever side of the die came on top, exactly came on top?
Same thing with a billion more variables we couldn't even think of, would similarly 'explain' why you our your cat 'act' the way they do. And that past and present is set; thus fixating the future.
To me, the idea that you can have an actual choice, rather than the illusion of a choice, means you are somehow a soul of sorts; seperate from your brain and this world. If not, you are your brain. And if you are your brain, anything you think and anything you choose belongs to the material world. And the material, natural world is hypothetically explainable to the smallest detail. Practically impossible. But subject to pyshics none the less.

Amazing.  It seems to me that only a deity could force that level of determinism.  OK, lets say the cat was in a box.  It doesn't know anything about the universe outside at the moment.  The top of the box is removed so quickly that the cat can't detect it (cats have sensory limitations).  It jumps "somewhere".  Why to where?

[Mr.Obvious]

Amazing.  It seems to me that only a deity could force that level of determinism.  OK, lets say the cat was in a box.  It doesn't know anything about the universe outside at the moment.  The top of the box is removed so quickly that the cat can't detect it (cats have sensory limitations).  It jumps "somewhere".  Why to where?

You are missing the point. The 'determinism' isn't forced. It just is. Not forced. Its how reality works; with or without a deity.  At least if you subscribe to this paradigm.

And the factors as to why to where would be infinitely huge. The smells in the air. The temperatur The air pressure. The humidity. The light. The exact time of day. The exact amount of time it had spent inside of the box. Every single chemical reaction it has experienced in it's body since conception. It's DNA. The amount and position of the holes in the box. Every temperature it has ever experienced. Every sound it has ever experienced. Every touch it has ever experienced. Every previous though it has ever experienced.
All of it's experience have left the smallest of imprint's on it, even inside that box, which allong with it's entire make-up and the conditions outside of itself at the moment of 'choice', play into this.

[Cavebear]

You are missing the point. The 'determinism' isn't forced. It just is. Not forced. Its how reality works; with or without a deity.  At least if you subscribe to this paradigm.

And the factors as to why to where would be infinitely huge. The smells in the air. The temperatur The air pressure. The humidity. The light. The exact time of day. The exact amount of time it had spent inside of the box. Every single chemical reaction it has experienced in it's body since conception. It's DNA. The amount and position of the holes in the box. Every temperature it has ever experienced. Every sound it has ever experienced. Every touch it has ever experienced. Every previous though it has ever experienced.
All of it's experience have left the smallest of imprint's on it, even inside that box, which allong with it's entire make-up and the conditions outside of itself at the moment of 'choice', play into this.

I understand the point you are making, Mr Obvious, but it still has a lot of "Goddidit" in there.  I think there is true randomness in the universe.  One might suggest that there couldn't be non-uniformity in the universe without some element of randomness.  And if it exists there, where does it stop?

And to suggest a point we can both relate to, how can 1. P-K4 lead to multiple endings?

[Mr.Obvious]

I understand the point you are making, Mr Obvious, but it still has a lot of "Goddidit" in there.  I think there is true randomness in the universe.  One might suggest that there couldn't be non-uniformity in the universe without some element of randomness.  And if it exists there, where does it stop?

And to suggest a point we can both relate to, how can 1. P-K4 lead to multiple endings?

It doesn't have any goddidit in there at all, though, I feel. If anything, from my point of view, your view on the world is more likely to have a 'goddidit' in there. Because somehow, it seems to me, you seem to believe that there are 'random' events that are somehow not subject to the laws of physics and that there are thoughts that you have that are not 'bound' to your brain. It seems like saying that the natural world isn't enough to  explain all that is. I don't know how else you would classify these things but supernatural, if they are not subject to the natural world and the mechanics by which it operates.
And of course 1. P-K4 is going to lead to different endings, because there are never two players at the same point in time playing the same game under the same conditions, with the same experiences.

[Baruch]

Determinists choose that position for a reason.  Don't know if it is random or predetermined ;-)

[Cavebear]

It doesn't have any goddidit in there at all, though, I feel. If anything, from my point of view, your view on the world is more likely to have a 'goddidit' in there. Because somehow, it seems to me, you seem to believe that there are 'random' events that are somehow not subject to the laws of physics and that there are thoughts that you have that are not 'bound' to your brain. It seems like saying that the natural world isn't enough to  explain all that is. I don't know how else you would classify these things but supernatural, if they are not subject to the natural world and the mechanics by which it operates.
And of course 1. P-K4 is going to lead to different endings, because there are never two players at the same point in time playing the same game under the same conditions, with the same experiences.

There are laws of physics and they permit random events.  And none involve deities.

Let's create in our minds 2 identically programmed computers to play chess with each other.  Would every game end in a draw?  In the same way?

[Baruch]

There are laws of physics and they permit random events.  And none involve deities.

Let's create in our minds 2 identically programmed computers to play chess with each other.  Would every game end in a draw?  In the same way?

The Galileo demi-god, the Newton demi-god etc.

The determinist position depends on knowing everything about the prior condition, Heisenberg prevents this.

[Cavebear]

The Galileo demi-god, the Newton demi-god etc.

The determinist position depends on knowing everything about the prior condition, Heisenberg prevents this.

Heisenberg "prevents" nothing.  And I would rescue the cat.

[luckswallowsall]

You are unaware that the law of excluded middle isn't always true.  In any given circumstance, it can't be assumed, it needs to be demonstrated first as being reasonable under the circumstances.

Something is either true or not true because something either corresponds with reality or it doesn't.

For example in Mahayana Buddhist logic/polemic .. you have 4 state logic, not 2 state, and they did tis 1700 years before George Boole.

There are problems with both Aristolian and Boolian logic.

For example in Boolian logic if all reptiles are animals and all lizards are reptiles then it doesn't follow that some lizards are animals. But of course if all of X is Y then certainly at least some of X must be Y because all entails some. Boolian logic is absurd and nonsensical in its making sense of the terms in arguments because you can't have all of X and not also have some of X. Again, all implies some.

Aristotlian logic makes a little more sense because Aristotilian logic at least says that if X exists then the conclusion is valid.

But even for Aristotle if all reptiles are animals and all lizards are reptiles then it doesn't even follow that some lizards are reptiles. But again if it's already accepted that all lizards are reptiles then certainly it must be accepted that some lizards are reptiles... because, once again, all entails some. If literally the whole totality of something exists then certainly some of it must of... because all of it is certainly some of it. Both Boole and Aristotle have incorrect interpretations of universals.

But the point here is that something either is or isn't the case. Either X or not X. The idea that something can be both true and untrue is absurd. Some have said that this leads to paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox, but the Liar's Paradox only seemingly comes about due to a mistake that has already been solved in at least two ways. To say that a sentence is true is identical to saying that it is... so to speak of a sentence being not true isn't to actually say anything if we haven't added any content yet. So one way of looking at it is the only reason it's not true nor false to say that the sentence is not true is because there is no sentence to speak of that is actually complete.

Another way of looking at it is that to say that "This sentence is true" is equivalent to saying "This whole sentence is true and" so "This sentence is not true" would mean "This whole sentence is true and not true" which is just a contradiction.

And the point is that already explained you are either in group (a), (b), (c) or (d). Those options are indeed logically exhaustive but even if you try to wriggle out of it with alternative definitions of logic and truth... you still haven't given any good reason for how it can even make sense to say that it isn't the case that free will is compatible or incompatible in any deterministic or indeterministic universe. What on earth are you even supposed to be saying if you think that free will is neither compatible nor incompatible with a deterministic or indeterministic universe?

It's very simple... either you think that free will can exist in both a deterministic universe and indeterministic universe, or you think that it can exist in one but not the other, or you don't think that it can exist in either. Trying to wriggle out of all of these options is just completely absurd.

 

[luckswallowsall]

Without having knowledge of the history of thought (synchrony) we can't fully grasp the real.  You have to also look at it sequentially (diachrony).

Again, having knowledge of something and having a definition of it is a separate question. Whether we can have knowledge of whether we live in a deterministic or indeterministic universe is a completely separate question to what philosophical determinism actually is. And again, philosophical determinism has absolutely nothing to do with religious predestinationism. Philosophical determinism is simply to say that there is only one possible future but religious predestinationism also says that a being that created the universe exists and already foresaw what that future will be. I said nothing of the sort.

[luckswallowsall]

In my case logic is irrelevant

I don't see reality as being rational in general

I think I see the problem here  then. . .

I'll just leave this here:



And yeah, I get it, you didn't see that you saw no value in logic at all... but if you are willing to say that in your case "logic is irrelevant" and that you don't see reality as being rational then you certainly don't value logic as much as you ought to and no wonder I can't get even basic logic through to you.