Oh I love talking about Determinism! I recently took a university philosophy class which delved into determinism for awhile. It actually managed to change my views a bit, and I'm not sure if any of you have heard of this theory yet, but I'll lay it out as best I can here. This comes from a paper called "Compatibilism: Free Will is consistent with Determinism" by W.T. Stace.
One "problem" some have with determinism is that, quite literally, it was a poorly coined term given an even worse definition by philosophers back when it first popped up. Thinkers looked to their world and said that because their definition of free will (a ghost in the machine, if you will) was not seen in the world, that it did not exist, and so determinism was undeniable. It would seem so to many who agree with determinism (like Mr. ZGoten, for example) that because the universe is governed by cause-and-effect rules that not even biological entities are capable of evading fate; their brains are merely input-output machines, after all.
But this is where Compatibilism comes in, as Stace believes. Free will is not a question of whether or not we can freely control our own actions internally, but whether or not the action itself was
free. Let me explain.
You have two individuals; a man imprisoned in chains, and a man living at home. The man at home is free to eat his hamburger whenever he likes, while the chained man is force-fed a hamburger by his captors. One is an action of free will, while the other is not. Thus, free will is a question of whether or not the action was caused by a
immediate psychological state. If the action was carried out due to the individual's own psychological desire/need then it is a free action. If it was not, then it was not free. This allows free will to be compatible with determinism in an unbending, linear universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZGoten
It seems like quantum physics does not support the idea of determinism, since it disproves the possibility of a scenario in which one could proof the reality of determinism. To make it short: Quantum physics make it impossible for determinsm to be proven right.
|
But how does apparent randomness (or rather, uncertainty in quantum physics) fail to support determinism? Just because something cannot be contained within a cause-effect scenario does not mean that the human (for example) chooses freely. If an individual's actions were based on the results of a coin
I myself flipped, does that make them free even though its random?