I will say up front that determinism is abhorrent to me
because it seems disproof of human initiative and
human responsibility.
I do not take seriously theological pleas for the retention
of free will under the aegis of an omnipotent God.
The scientific angle does interest me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
2. Determinism. The laws of physics are absolute. All causes have one effect and one effect only. The future has only one possible outcome because there is no such thing as randomness. Our bodies are made of atoms and are wholey subject to the laws of physics. So we have no more choice than a rock has a choice to fall in a parabola.
No Free Will.
|
Neither Classical Mechanics or General Reativity
are hospitable ground for determinism according
to the best philosophical source that I know of
on the internet, the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(from link, emphasis added):
Quote:
Despite the common belief that Classical Mechanics (the theory that inspired Laplace in his articulation of determinism) is perfectly deterministic, in fact the theory is rife with possibilities for determinism to break down...
Defining an appropriate form of determinism for the context of General Relativity is extremely difficult, due to both foundational interpretive issues and the plethora of weirdly-shaped space-time models allowed by the theory's field equations. The simplest way of treating the issue of determinism in GR would be to state flatly: determinism fails, frequently, and in some of the most interesting models...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
3. Quantum. Quantum theory suggest (they haven't really proven anything yet) that there is a such thing as randomness on the sub-atomic level. That to a small degree there are no cause and effect absolutes. There are two ways to debunk that this signifies free will.
|
Here is the SEP on QM:
Quote:
As indicated above, QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory. Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are...
...So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times! Even more than in the case of GTR and the hole argument, everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts.
|
I am a bit repelled by SEP's offhand dismissal of the views
of most practicing physicists, and by the unbalanced preference
it shows for deterministic QM interpretations such as the Bohmian
when QM most theories are in fact INdeterministic:
(scroll to table near end of article)
Interpretation of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
A. Randomness does not constitute as 'free will' anyway, If all your choices were 100% based on flipping a coin, what 'choice' do you have?
No Free Will
|
I do not follow here. Of course all probablilities add up
to 100%. The fact that there are ANY probablilties is
what mitigates against determinism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
B. Randomness dissipates at the atomic level and above. Even if there is randomness at that level, it doesn't change anything at the level we exist on. The laws of physics (and Determinism) is completely uneffected by any randomness that may exist on the quantum level.
No Free Will
|
I am not sure this is true. In the course of one human life
the mind is usually conscious for well over 500k hours.
That is 500
trillion hours per one billion people.
A number that huge will I think include a significant
set of random events, even if randomness is present
only at subatomic frequency.
Giving due weight to all the people who have ever
been alive for ca. 150k years and I think randomness
may be assumed to have intruded on the lives of all.
Finally, the scientific knowledge of consciousness may
be fairly described as not even rudimentary. Even if the
whole shebang of physics is proven to be deterministic,
that would not necessarily say anything about the status
of determinism vis a vis the human mind. That status might
have to be sorted out independently and autonomously,
and we are not now even on square one.