agun Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I recently came across http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/19312.aspx and wondered why a place that rightfully prides itself as "The largest and most popular philosophical conversation in the world" would not want to discuss philosophy as a whole and disregards the ideas of determinism. I understand that at the end of the day it's Stefan who manages where the resources of this website go to, but when we censor or obstaculize the discussion of some ideas, however stupid me may think they may be, in favor of others I feel that maybe the motto should be changed to: "The largest and most popular conversation in the world. Choose to be a part of it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sensedata Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I don't claim to speak for Stef or any other person on this forum, nor claim to agree with its being "outlawed", but personally I find the freewill/determinism argument utterly pointless. Why spend time and effort arguing for or against something with no null hypothesis? There is nothing what-so-ever to be gained but for a perpetual circlejerk, and that is quite frankly all that the prior discussions inevitably devolved into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agun Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 I understand it may be a perpetual discussion that will come to no agreement but if we don't want to be part of it then we are free to not post in that thread. If everyone belived it was a pointless discussion then the thread would have just died. I feel that closing a topic is forcing everyone to adopt the idea that the topic is a pointless discussion instead of letting the community decide by letting the topic die or keeping it alive. I don't think it's consistent with the ideas of the free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen C Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Listen to the podcasts and find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 If there is some philosophical validity to determinism, the proponents have yet to advance it. It's "The largest and most popular philosophical conversation in the world" not "Let's all argue about the invalidity of argumentation". At the end of the day, no one has, to this point, advanced an argument for determinism which does not negate the possibility of rational argumentation (either by excluding choice or by making idealized alternatives impossible). Until that happens, there's no ground left to cover on the subject. Stef closed the topic because the discussion lacks any possible resolution. If you're genuinely interested, you might consider exploring the extensive history of the subject on the forum (via the search function). It has been discussed to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I recently came across http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/19312.aspx and wondered why a place that rightfully prides itself as "The largest and most popular philosophical conversation in the world" would not want to discuss philosophy as a whole and disregards the ideas of determinism. I understand that at the end of the day it's Stefan who manages where the resources of this website go to, but when we censor or obstaculize the discussion of some ideas, however stupid me may think they may be, in favor of others I feel that maybe the motto should be changed to: "The largest and most popular conversation in the world. Choose to be a part of it". The topic was re-opened a long time ago -- a couple years ago iirc. IMO, the real issue is that most of us have a philosophy where "individual decisions" are the big player, and so it bothers some of us that the universe seems to enshrine deterministic evolution as a primary component, regardless of the philosophy we support. I am perpetually on the edge of putting together something to describe why this isn't a problem for individualist philosophy (individual decisions still happen, etc.), but for the fact that no one wants to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agun Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 Listen to the podcasts and find out. You want me to listen to over 2000 podcasts to find out in more depth what was the reasoning behind the decission to close a specific thread? Please be reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen C Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Listen to the podcasts and find out. You want me to listen to over 2000 podcasts to find out in more depth what was the reasoning behind the decission to close a specific thread? Please be reasonable. Ahh, you pulled one of those on me. A whatchamacallit. [surrender]I never suggested you listen to over 2000 podcasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agun Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 I never suggested you listen to over 2000 podcasts. Then how do you suggest I find the exact podcast where Stefan talks about the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen C Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I never suggested you listen to over 2000 podcasts. Then how do you suggest I find the exact podcast where Stefan talks about the topic? Search bar, scroll/scan through, picking around have done me justice. You're right, it can be daunting, there are a lot of podcasts... but, not over 9000. Sorry, I'll respect this topic from here on out too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 It may be possible to find what you're looking for by using Google with the following syntax: site:freedomainradio.com <search term> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agun Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 Either way I don't think you can justify closing a thread on determinism when you believe in the free market. Shouldn't the free market let the thread die by not posting in it? After all, nobody was forced into posting into it so closing the thread was the initiation of force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agun Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion. I agree, but without a discussion aren't we making the journey of a determinist towards truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue harder? I myself have contradictory ideas that support both free-will and determinism. I am leaning towards free will because I am typing this message, but I also think about the Poincaré recurrence theorem and how a scientist claims to have calculated the recurrence time for our causal patch and our universe. It means that the number of events possible is finite and they repeat, so in the amount of time calculated by the scientist (named Don Page) we will be having this discussion again, thus there is no free will, but I am pretty sure I'm deciding to write this message. As you can see I am not 100% sure that we have free-will. I think the best way I can advance in my path towards the truth of the subject is through the discussion of it with other people. I am confused as to why you would close the topic and obstaculize such discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David L Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion. Regarding the pursuit of truth, for someone to pursue truth impiies that truth is one thing and the pursuer of it is another. Which further implies that there is no truth to the pursuer at all---he is merely a made up mental fiction, like the state. Fully realizing this pierces the illusion of free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heath Long Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 The determinism discussions are so much fun. Circle jerk? Sure. Minds changed? No. oN ? degnahc sdniM .eruS ?krej elcriC .nuf hcum os era snoissucsid msinmreted ehT bet no one saw that coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen C Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I just fell onto the ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion. It distresses me to see you basically attach a self-destruct bomb to your philosophy, and program it to go off if the laws of physics take a certain, very likely form. This is not necessary -- the nature and needs of humans aren't going to suddenly shift, depending on the form of the most successful theory of physics. All that changes is your understanding, which means, at most, that you have to generalize your definitions. This is analogous to a bridge builder who decides to burn all his bridge designs after learning about quantum mechanics, because all his bridge designs were based on the "non-existent" classical laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 There's a big difference between "the universe is more subtle than first imagined" and "there are no possible alternate states of existence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 There's a big difference between "the universe is more subtle than first imagined" and "there are no possible alternate states of existence". Coming to terms with counter-intuitive truths about nature is always a case of the former. Are you saying there is some kind exception in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Additional, yet previously unnoticed, physical laws do not make building bridges impossible. A lack of possible alternate states of existence invalidates the validity of argumentation. No one who claims to be a determinist acts in a manner consistent with their arguments. Instead, they argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Additional, yet previously unnoticed, physical laws do not make building bridges impossible. A lack of possible alternate states of existence invalidates the validity of argumentation. No one who claims to be a determinist acts in a manner consistent with their arguments. Instead, they argue. What we know for sure is that argumentation is essential for the normal operation of humans (i.e. the future depends crucially on the outcome of logical arguments), and this remains true regardless of the form physical law takes. Whether or not you deem it to be "valid" is a different issue. BTW, QM is not "additional" -- QM means that nature does not behave according to classical mechanics. Yet classical mechanics still perfectly useful as an approximation for bridge builders -- we know, because it works. Classical mechanics isn't fragile, though you can always accuse it of being wrong from a fundamental point of view. I suggest that good and useful philosophy should be crafted in a similar way -- you don't want it to be fragile, but remain useful as an excellent approximation even with a limited knowledge of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Future events only depend on the quality (validity) of arguments if there are different possible arguments and more than one possible future. Humans can only have "normal" operations by comparing alternate possible states of existence. Don't worry though, determinism is unprovable. The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist. The is only the right now. Since claims about determinism require close examination of both past and future, I think we'll be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Future events only depend on the quality (validity) of arguments if there are different possible arguments and more than one possible future. Humans can only have "normal" operations by comparing alternate possible states of existence. This is just what you do when examining any scenario with incomplete information -- it doesn't require the context of discussing the future or time evolution. When you have incomplete information about the state of a system existing in the present, you describe all the "possibilities" which are consistent with the information you have, even if you know there is only one reality at present. Describing the future is really no different -- we describe many possible futures because of uncertainty. Where uncertainty is less, you imagine fewer possible futures. Where uncertainty is greater, you imagine more. This will continue to be the case even if there is a violent upheaval in fundamental physics. It's not fragile. Don't worry though, determinism is unprovable. The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist. The is only the right now. Since claims about determinism require close examination of both past and future, I think we'll be ok. This is all just standard science -- you don't need to carve out an exception. Science isn't so much about proof (in the mathematical sense of ending all debate) so much as it is about the most powerful and accurate theory consistent with the data. And that includes deterministic time evolution, after centuries of putting such theories to the test. It's not "proof" but it's about as good as humans get with such ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Informational completeness and accuracy depend on possible alternate states of the amount and quality of information possessed. You cannot make claims, which fall in the realm of possibility, about alternate states if no alternate states are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agun Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 I think the fact that intelligent people are debating about free-will vs determinism is enough evidence that the solution to the problem is not obvious. If such solution is not obvious then I think the discussion should have a place in a forum about the discussion of philosophy. Even if such solution where obvious I think that we should allow the discussion for the sake of the journey towards truth of those who do not yet grasp the obvious solution. I also think that debating improves our debating skills, which is always useful. However, as Stefan is the owner and has expressed his dislike towards the discussion of such topic I think that, as guests, we should respect his preferences and discuss determinism vs free-will elsewhere. Or at least until he changes his mind, if he ever does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I think the fact that intelligent people are debating about free-will vs determinism is enough evidence that the solution to the problem is not obvious. If such solution is not obvious then I think the discussion should have a place in a forum about the discussion of philosophy. Even if such solution where obvious I think that we should allow the discussion for the sake of the journey towards truth of those who do not yet grasp the obvious solution. I also think that debating improves our debating skills, which is always useful. However, as Stefan is the owner and has expressed his dislike towards the discussion of such topic I think that, as guests, we should respect his preferences and discuss determinism vs free-will elsewhere. Or at least until he changes his mind, if he ever does. As was noted before, Stefan did change the board policy on this subject something like two years ago. Of course I do agree with you that people should discuss this issue if they are having problems processing the implications for philosophy, and this includes Stefan. No one needs a philosophy of life, ethics, psychology etc. that is vulnerable to falling completely apart, depending on some small detail of the final form of the laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Informational completeness and accuracy depend on possible alternate states of the amount and quality of information possessed. You cannot make claims, which fall in the realm of possibility, about alternate states if no alternate states are possible. This line of thinking has nothing to do with determinism -- if the present is described by a single state, then it cannot possibly be another state. So you have already run into your philosophical problems before we even get to talking about the future and deterministic time evolution. Of course I think that once you have resolved the issue for the description of the present (incomplete information about the present results in many alternate descriptions of the present, regardless of the fact that only one can be correct), you will have also resolved it for the description of the future with a little bit more thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 "Correctness" is dependent on possible alternate states of an argument which vary in degree of similarity to reality. If there are no other possible states, there is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect". The only position which is compatible with argumentation is: there is more than one possible future state of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 "Correctness" is dependent on possible alternate states of an argument which vary in degree of similarity to reality. If there are no other possible states, there is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect". The only position which is compatible with argumentation is: there is more than one possible future state of reality. You're again jumping to a description of the future before you've resolved the same problem for the present. I have a coin, which has been flipped, but I'm not telling you whether it's heads or tails. So you have to guess -- let's say you write your guess down on a napkin. Whether or not your guess is "correct" does not depend at all on the details of time evolution -- your correctness (or lack of it) is a property of the present time only, since it can be revealed by examining only one snapshot of the world at the present time, e.g. comparing the state of the coin to the state of the napkin. Thus, "correctness" does not depend on the details of time evolution -- it can be defined in a robust way. From a technical point of view, I think you are confusing "the state" with the "state space." The state space is the space of descriptions of a thing -- these can be compared one to another. Some of them may include napkins with correct answers, and some with incorrect answers. The actual state is just one of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 That is only true if there was more than one possible guess for me to make. If there are no alternate possible future states, there was not more than one possible guess. This coin argument assumes multiple possible future states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 That is only true if there was more than one possible guess for me to make. If there are no alternate possible future states, there was not more than one possible guess. This coin argument assumes multiple possible future states. No, it really doesn't -- let me get a little more explicit. The state space of "you" includes many possible states (possible as in "arrangements not violating the laws of physics") -- some in which you have a "heads" answer, and some in which you have a "tails" answer. We can define correctness on the state space as a correlation between your answer and the coin. Note that this notion of correctness is defined on the state space. You have noted that we need some kind of space with more than one dimension in order to differentiate "correct" from "incorrect," and I am pointing out that the place to make the definition is in the state space, which is defined (in principle) for all physical systems, and has many dimensions. Now, once we have this notion of correct and incorrect, we may ask what is the actual state of the system, which has a single answer. Does it lie in the "correct" part of the state space, or the "incorrect" part (or perhaps some third, random part of the state space that contains all the atoms in an incoherent jumble)? And this has a well-defined answer, which is trivially easy to check in practice. This construction has good properties -- it is precise, it is practical, it matches well with intuition, it is ideally suited for philosophical discussions involving physics, and it doesn't involve time evolution at all. You can specify time evolution however you like (deterministic, probabilistic, non-deterministic, dictated by the whim of Jebus, whatever) and it will still be a perfectly well-defined construction. If at some time before the guess was made there was only one possible future, or there were many possible futures is just not relevant to this notion of correctness or truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arius Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (possible as in "arrangements not violating the laws of physics") Non-deterministically, there are multiple states of reality which do not violate the laws of physics. Deterministically, there is exactly one state of reality which does not violate the laws of physics. Constructing a conceptual model which does not represent an existent object or the behavior of existent objects will not mitigate this problem. Let me offer it to you this way: That I can know anything at all is a byproduct of the particular structure of reality at this moment. The arrangement of a collection of some real objects somehow constitutes the entirety of my knowledge. If there are no possible alternative states of reality, my knowledge cannot be any different from how it is now. I could not answer questions or provide arguments which differ from those I am presenting. I am, in a universe without alternate possibilities, just a very loud rock... Neither right nor wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (possible as in "arrangements not violating the laws of physics") Non-deterministically, there are multiple states of reality which do not violate the laws of physics. Deterministically, there is exactly one state of reality which does not violate the laws of physics. Constructing a conceptual model which does not represent an existent object or the behavior of existent objects will not mitigate this problem. No, the state space is not one-dimensional -- you snipped the part where I explicitly noted otherwise. It is typically enormous for all physical systems. This is something you can look up (google "phase space") -- I am using a standard definition which applies to all physical systems. Basically, you're trying to inject dynamics into something already well-defined without it, and this is why you are repetedly confusing the notions of "state" and "state space" and ending up with a fragile philosophy at the end. By "laws of physics" in the above, I mean the instantaneous laws of physics at a single time -- stuff you could tell by looking at a single snapshot of a situation. Let me offer it to you this way: That I can know anything at all is a byproduct of the particular structure of reality at this moment. The arrangement of a collection of some real objects somehow constitutes the entirety of my knowledge. If there are no possible alternative states of reality, my knowledge cannot be any different from how it is now. I could not answer questions or provide arguments which differ from those I am presenting. I am, in a universe without alternate possibilities, just a very loud rock... Neither right nor wrong. Poetic, but you're using a bunch of words in a vague way, with the consequence that you're driven to some weird kind of nihlism where you view yourself as a rock under the most scientifically likely scenarios. I suggest that just as an excercise, you start building a notion of truth, falsity etc. that will work well regardless of the form of time evolution, and then compare it to your old one (if the old one is even well-defined) to see if it is really lacking any essential qualities. I suspect you'll find that the new one is at least as good as the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I am, in a universe without alternate possibilities, just a very loud rock... Neither right nor wrong. I just have to note again how much this bothers me (I am sure this wasn't your intention) -- but I have to say that something feels very wrong, if you can be driven to this conclusion based on tiny, unnoticable details in the laws of physics. You are one of the universe's ultimate badasses -- seemingly tiny variations in your brain involving little electrical impulses we call your "thoughts, preferences, and will" are amplified in a magnificent process that shapes the future in a profound way, regardless of the details (whether or not there is an exact one-to-one correspondence between the "now" in your head and the shape of the future -- it still happens!). It seems tragic to build a pit for yourself based on an issue like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts