Free Will Or Determinism

My belief on the subject is that the universe (as far as we can observer it) is truly a static 4-Dimensional space. Time would be the 4th dimension in this case. As Biological organisms with brains, we perceive the 4th dimension as a continuum, rather than a static unmoving dimension. The ramifications of this of course means that the universe past, present, and future are already "set in stone".

Granted, I am still but a student of physics, and these beliefs are subject to change. But, one must also keep in mind that nothing can ever be completely proven or disproven.

Well, some things can be completely proven in my opinion. 2 + 2 is always 4. Bachelors are always male. Tautologies are necessarily true. Valid deductive arguments (purely) are infallible:

1. If A, then B
2. A
----------------
3. Therefore, B.

Now, I have a feeling this isn't what you meant. But, I do think that some things involving time might fall under this category (such as time travel).

BTW, a little off topic, but was it you Dav, who I heard was from Bremerton, WA? Or lives there now, or whatever?

Yes I am why?

lol, you probably don't like them, but I am a huge MxPx fan.

Because, if true, string theory would explain/resolve why quantum physics works differently on the macro and micro scales pretty much perfectly, and there really hasn't been much evidence against it, as far as I know.

In regards to determinism and free will, any responses to that question are nothing more than hypotheses at this point, although pragmatism (the philosophical stance) can give us a temporary answer. Since we perceive our own free will, regardless of its actual existence in the real world, the most reasonable thing is to act under the assumption that we do have free will, and re-adjust this assumption as more information presents itself. It's even somewhat of a silly question for that standpoint, as this information won't even impact how we perceive the causality of our own actions.

The only thing that is actually provable in the most absolute sense is the sense of "I". All that anyone could know that exist, ever, is there mind, from arguing something as simple as we're in a matrix (ie like the movie in an attempt to disprove reality or objects in front of you) to arguing reality is as its seen, that one thing is the only certain thing that "is".

math and logic are both constructs which are only "true" because that is how they have been defined, thus they do not need to be "proven" per se.

Well there's been a lot of good theories that have promised good things, but we didn't hold onto to them simply because of what they would do if they were true. I mean we shouldn't go back to believing in a "life force" for example because it would solve our origin of the life scenario.

That's the point I was trying to make, thanks for helping me make it clearer.

Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.

I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:

1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do

From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).

I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.

This is the old DesCarte argument. But more than that, I think that we can prove that math is infallible... logic is infallible... we can use proofs to basically prove that from nothing. Though I do think that DesCarte had a point... "I think, therefore I am" is something I hold to be true. We can still know other things... another example... the law of the excluded middle... either A or not A. I think those things can be proven as well.

Mind trip right there.

A good example of why string theory sucks is dark matter. In science we hope that when we have a theory, and we make a discovery, that theory will have predicted it, meaning, the problem or hole in that current theory, will be filled with this new discovery, kind of like a missing piece of a puzzle and then we can see the picture for what it is, and be affirmed and happy that we were on the right path.

Dark matter is the most prevelant thing in the universe, string theory did not predict dark matter, in any sense (and its our theory of EVERYTHING), and now scientist are trying to wrap string theory around dark matter as another means of patchwork....like I said...i just dont get it.

Except when you predict what will happen if you did it right you included in it would be what would happen if you knew what was going to happen. So in a way you did actually "change" it repeatidly until an equalibrium was acheived or some such

yeah but we can't even detect dark matter. In a way it's just a theory

Constructs of what? The statement "either A or not A" seems much less of a construct than a necessary truth. I once took a class on truth, and my professor (David Detmer) gave the following example to explain why math isn't about observation or social constructs:

Let's say that we have two pens. One holds 10 cows and one holds 9 cows. We filter them all into one pen. When we count them after, we get 18. Nobody will conclude that in this particular case 10 + 9 = 18. We are going to look at other possibilities. Maybe we miscounted, or maybe one cow got loose. But we will NEVER conclude that 10 + 9 = 18.

Never heard of them

Hmmm...not sure which of your choices my opinion will fall under, but, I believe our thoughts create our reality. Would that be free will, or determinism, I wonder?

My response to this is that it is absolutely true. If you had absolute knowledge, you would be able to predict what you are going to do. The reason you can't change it is because you wouldn't change it.

lol, so I assume you REALLY don't like MxPx then Das.


EDIT: didn't see your post.. but really? They started there and were huge there from like 1993ish to 2000ish.

Think the point he is getting at is. 2 + 2 only =4 because of the value we have arbitarily placed on 2 and 4.

Yea if you can find it it sounds like it might be interesting. Cause from this it sounds wrong just based on the simple fact that we're not consciously or completely aware of all areas of our brain, so this argument would be philosophical it seems, but then shot down by science.

You are most likely right... but my point is and was that even stripping that away, math is infallible. Regardless of the words or symbols we use for 2 or 4, if you have 2 things and you add 2 more to it, you have 4... use 8 to represent 4 for arguments sake. The idea is true, regardless of how we want to label things.

Moved here in 2005ish

Right, because I think science might argue that humans could never have absolute knowledge. I think that the point of the argument is that determinism (if true) is universally true, while absolute knowledge isn't... therefore determinism cannot be proven absolutely true... Like I said, I go back and forth because it seems to have merit, but I cannot dismiss how deterministic the world obviously is.

That would mean that anything could be possible wouldn't it? If we monkey around with our thoughts just enough I mean. I hear people talk about the power of prayer in this manner. Some people would even call it the holy ghost or Gods active force harnessed by man.

makes sense then... still a bit surprised that anyone living there hasn't heard of them, but I don't live there, so how could I know lol. Have you heard of Arthur or Tumbledown?

in a way, yes. What I'm trying to say is that math and logic do not "exist", they are simply methods that we as humans have come up with to describe and better understand existance. "existance" itself may not be what we perceive it as. Thus math and logic are only truths as we have defined them to be in our realm of reality. If our conception of reality is wrong, then math and logic may also be wrong.

Well, this gets into the debate of whether truth is objective or relative. My firm stance is that it is objective whether or not we realize it. Now some truths, such as moral truths, might be relative... but I still think I would take the stance that morality is man-made, and so any truth about it has to be relative.