Choice and freedom

@ughaibu,

Quote:

By assuming that the present state existed, to be "the same as", in the past, you have assumed the fixity of the future.

If it rained yesterday, according to libertarians that doesn't mean that it had to rain. If you say that it had to rain then that is pretty much determinism.

Quote:

The libertarian position about free will is not that the agent can perform both actions A and not-A, it's that the agent can perform either action A or not-A

I'd hope you didn't think that you could do both A and not A because A and not A is a contradiction.

Quote:

So it's not an objection to point out that at time one the agent performs a specific action

I'm not just saying that they made a specific decision, I'm saying they couldn't have made any other decision.

1 Reply

@mikeymojo,

l

Quote:

That's exactly what I mean. the only way there could be only one possible outcome is if you and I arent experiencing the first original go through. We must've somehow "went back" on the original and are "playing through it now, in which case, then yes, everything would be determined with only one possible outcome. But that is the only way there can be only a one possible outcome, or determined, reality. It must've already happened.

Why would a 'determined reality' require it to already have happened? A 'determined reality' means that what we're doing right now is shaping the future, but what we're doing right now has already been determined by previous events. (I feel like I've explained this before.)

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

I'm not just saying that they made a specific decision, I'm saying they couldn't have made any other decision.

But your argument doesn't even suggest that this is the case, and it doesn't get off the ground as far as demonstrating it goes.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not just saying that they made a specific decision, I'm saying they couldn't have made any other decision.
But your argument doesn't even suggest that

Yes it does. If no matter how many times redo the situation it turns out the same, then that means that it is the only possible outcome.

2 Replies

@AtheisticMaterialist,

Quote:

If no matter how many times redo the situation it turns out the same, then that means that it is the only possible outcome.

Another way of saying this, Mat, is that the more nearly we reproduce the conditions of an experiment, the more likely the same outcome. It's hard to deny

0 Replies

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not just saying that they made a specific decision, I'm saying they couldn't have made any other decision.
But your argument doesn't even suggest that
Yes it does. If no matter how many times redo the situation it turns out the same, then that means that it is the only possible outcome.

Of course it doesn't!

If I'm offered the choice of beer or whisky, I'll choose beer, every time. If I'm offered the choice of banana or pineapple, I'll choose banana every time. This is because I like beer but dislike whisky, and I like bananas but dislike pineapple. But it is quite obvious that the consistency of my choice does not suggest that the world is determined.

If you're following so far it should already be obvious to you that the stuff about winding back time is irrelevant; if I have reasons for choosing A rather than not-A, then I will choose A. That's basically what choosing is all about. The only thing achieved by winding back time is that it smuggles a fact into the future, in other words, it assumes the reality of determinism.

I am not going to continue this discussion until you acknowledge the flaws in your thought experiment, because it just isn't interesting to keep pointing out the same simple things.

1 Reply

@AtheisticMaterialist,

AtheisticMaterialist wrote:

l
Quote:
Why would a 'determined reality' require it to already have happened?

Because that's what you're describing it as. You say if you go back on an event it will come out the same every time, hence only one possible outcome. If we do exist where there was only one possible outcome for our choices and every other action ever in the universe, then that must mean it has all happened before. And it wll happen again. You killed your argument when you brought up one possible outcomes and going back on scenarios.

1 Reply

Sorry for screwing up the quote

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Quote:

If I'm offered the choice of beer or whisky, I'll choose beer, every time. If I'm offered the choice of banana or pineapple, I'll choose banana every time. This is because I like beer but dislike whisky, and I like bananas but dislike pineapple. But it is quite obvious that the consistency of my choice does not suggest that the world is determined.

The events leading up to the decision determine your decision. You can't help that you don't like pineapple, that's coded into your genetics. There is nothing you can do that hasn't been directly caused by something else. If you could then that would prove determinism wrong, but you can't.

Quote:

If you're following so far it should already be obvious to you that the stuff about winding back time is irrelevant; if I have reasons for choosing A rather than not-A, then I will choose A. That's basically what choosing is all about.

You do realize that if what your saying is true then every time your given that choice you must choose A. Oh, and pineapple is way better than banana.

0 Replies

@mikeymojo,

Quote:

You say if you go back on an event it will come out the same every time, hence only one possible outcome. If we do exist where there was only one possible outcome for our choices and every other action ever in the universe, then that must mean it has all happened before

I'm saying that IF you could go back it would turn out the same every time, I'm not saying that you can or do go back. Get it now?

0 Replies

@mikeymojo,

It's fine, I knew what you meant.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, we generally think of having a choice as a good thing.
But in this time we live in, we have 15 different packs of ham to make our choice from. We have to decide on nine million things that are more or less irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant, you're free to choose to stop choosing. For example, you could choose (once and for all) always to pick the alphabetically-first among all irrelevant options. This would immediately end all stress from having to choose.

0 Replies

Sci-fi films, TV shows and books sometimes explore the theme that HISTORY CANNOT BE CHANGED, no matter what a time-traveller to the past might do.
For example in one Twilight Zone episode a woman kills the newborn baby Hitler to prevent WW2, yet a man called Hitler does start WW2!
And in another TZ, a time-traveller accidentally kills Elvis Presley before Elvis became famous, yet a singer called Elvis Presley does go on to become the famous king of rock n' roll.. Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

You live in a sci-fi universe, don't you, Romelino? Ever try reality for a change?

0 Replies

Choice and freedom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know