It undermines the deterministic argument, I.e.: the universe is deterministic, all things happen strictly one way because of this determinism, therefore free will cannot exist because the chemical reactions that make us up can only occur one way due to the environment. We know the universe is on some level nondeterministic, so while one can argue that there are material consequences of past events, I think it is immaterial to state that means there is only one potential outcome to every situation. So free will is not inherently undermined by a materialistic outlook. This isn’t a fully formed argument in and of itself, just a rebuttal, but there are plenty of philosophers who present more sound logic towards this end.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 124
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 124
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
I come from a CS and math background so I apologize for misusing the terminology, it’s more in line with how I’d use it in a CS environment. By determinism I was definitely referring to Laplacian determinism by your definitions.
I do not understand the diatribe you included about religious cultists tricking me; I’m an atheist myself and these are arguments I’ve come to appreciate from the perspective of my own understanding of the science and physics, and reading the arguments published in the field of modern philosophy. And a lot of my perspective is informed by experience: it’s a separate argument, but I experience the act of decision making every day, and watch others do the same. Free will seems self evident from the perspective of exercising it day to day. But I digress. It was just a strange and rude inclusion that doesn’t actually make any point.
While we can model stochastic systems as probabilities, these are statistical models and are indeterminate, we know that there is uncertainty in our ability to predict quantum particles’ properties. I’m not a physicist so I can’t make strong claims about hidden variable theories, I’m only familiar with the more basic levels of quantum mechanics; I learned the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger equation, and the uncertainty principle, that level of knowledge. My only understanding of Bell’s theorem is that it disproves local hidden variables. I think the mathematical structure of these laws remains relevant to the debate though, because it negates the logical conclusion of our universe as a mechanical, pre-set system of events, at least by this level of understanding. If non local hidden variable theories pan out as better predictors and prove uncertainty to be irrelevant then I’ll shift my perspective, but I’ve not seen great arguments for pilot waves over the more standard quantum models.
I’d also like to point out that nomological determinism is not inherently at odds with free will. I think most modern philosophers are compatibilists on some level, having some type of deterministic view of the universe while simultaneously arguing for free will. I believe the perspective I’m coming from would meet this definition too, now that you’ve introduced me to more thorough terminology for what I’m actually arguing.
This is all well outside of my expertise as I’m not a physicist or a philosopher. I’m just sharing my perspective as a relative layman