Free-will and the self-refuting nature of determinism

[Jack04]

As mentioned in other threads by SigniferOne, an argument can be made for free-will because the nature of any proof for its counter-position (determinism) is self-refuting.

The argument as put forward by SigniferOne (and he is free to correct me if I misrepresent the argument at any time) goes something like this:

1) In order to determine the truth of a position, it is necessary to determine the truth value of the evidence for that position.
2) In a deterministic universe, all choices are pre-determined.
3) It follows from 2) that in a deterministic universe, your choice of evidence is pre-determined.
4) In order for evidence to be considered rational (for want of a better word), it must be chosen freely.
5) It follows from 3) & 4) that evidence for a position of determinism cannot be rational.
6) Therefore any argument for determinism is self-refuting.

Essentially then, this thread is intended as an open discussion of the nature of free-will and determinism, with consideration given to the above proof/disproof. As far as is possible, try to keep it away from the topic of religion (though I accept that the mention of deities may be required in order to explain some of the potentially counter-intuitive results of free-will).

Edit: I'll add that I do not agree with the position and am putting together a counter position, but thought I'd open the thread now to allow the discussion to get going.

[SigniferOne]

I rather prefer the premises in the way that you arranged them in your PM to me: they follow the structure of a syllogism and thus are structurally more sound:


1) In order to determine the truth of a position, it is necessary to determine the truth value of the evidence for that position.
2) In a deterministic universe, all choices are pre-determined.
3) It follows from 2) that in a deterministic universe, your choice of evidence is pre-determined.
4) In order for evidence to be considered rational (for want of a better word), it must be chosen freely.
5) It follows from 3) & 4) that evidence for a position of determinism cannot be rational.
6) Therefore any argument for determinism is self-refuting.

[Tankbuster]

4) In order for evidence to be considered rational (for want of a better word), it must be chosen freely.

Of course when you use the word "freely" with libertarian assumptions of free will already in one of your premises, then determinism is self-refuting.
What else could it be?
Your argument can be shortened by simply acknowledging the hidden premise "Libertarian free will exists and is the only kind of freedom". That will make it much faster.

[Epicurean]

"an argument can be made for free-will because the nature of any proof for its counter-position (determinism) is self-refuting"

Now this is a massive error. Just because the evidence for something is irrational, or for that matter non-existent, it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory if any alternative suffer and equal lack of evidence.

[Amorphos]

I don’t believe in determinism but I like to test arguments before accepting them…

2) In a deterministic universe, all choices are pre-determined.

There are no choices in determinsm, surely.

4) In order for evidence to be considered rational (for want of a better word), it must be chosen freely.

This only applies to theory and to human reasoning generally; for us to find evidence for determinism we have to use reason and rational etc, however the thing we are describing does not have to justify itself.
For determinism to be true we only need to ascertain that an exact cause will have and exact effect, then that there is nothing else out there e.g. human intellects that can make decisions, which deny causality.
I for one don’t believe in absolutes so we cannot even start with exact cause, equally the act of observation changes what we are observing, hence the method itself denies its proof.

I expect we can find many similar refutations [the effect of QM nature on things etc].

[Jack04]

1) In order to determine the truth of a position, it is necessary to determine the truth value of the evidence for that position.
2) In a deterministic universe, all choices are pre-determined.
3) It follows from 2) that in a deterministic universe, your choice of evidence is pre-determined.
4) In order for evidence to be considered rational (for want of a better word), it must be chosen freely.
5) It follows from 3) & 4) that evidence for a position of determinism cannot be rational.
6) Therefore any argument for determinism is self-refuting.

OK. So, my main area of contention with this argument is the nature of premise 4). I contend that a deterministic universe does not eliminate the autonomy of the decision making process. The evidence is considered without the influence of external constraints. In other words, despite being a pre-determined situation, the decision itself is made by the mind, free from any external influence. This allows for the rational selection of evidence.

I also question whether our will bears any role in our selection of evidence. Certainly to me, I never feel as if I am willfully making a selection of evidence. As I've seen it put elsewhere, if I see my cat on the sofa/couch, I am not sure I am making a willfull decision to deem my sight as a valid source of evidence.

... also, on a slightly different (less serious) note. If reality is deterministic, doesn't this argument also cease to be rational?

[SigniferOne]

OK. So, my main area of contention with this argument is the nature of premise 4). I contend that a deterministic universe does not eliminate the autonomy of the decision making process. The evidence is considered without the influence of external constraints. In other words, despite being a pre-determined situation, the decision itself is made by the mind, free from any external influence.

There are some core problems with this explanation.

The central fallacy is imagining a deterministic situation which does not have influences. If it doesn't have influences, it's not a deterministic situation. If deterministic, obviously something has to be present to forcefully exert the principles of causality; if X then Y; and if even one such principle is present, the freedom of decision-making is aborted.

[SigniferOne]

... also, on a slightly different (less serious) note. If reality is deterministic, doesn't this argument also cease to be rational?

All rational arguments as such cease to exist, you're right; just as all morals do, and every single other nugget of human contribution to this sad corner of the world. By proclaiming determinism, atheism unwittingly declares itself the enemy of every:

-scientific,
-rational,
-moral,
-and aesthetic

human endeavor ever conceived.

That's why Voltaire said that if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him.

But sorry, you wanted to keep all discussions of God out of this, so I'll stop there.

[Sphere]

I find it hard to believe the universe takes any notice of the systems of "rational evidence" we invent to try and understand it.

Its rather egocentric to think that the nature of a universe that has been around for 13.8 billion years is somehow linked to the way a species that is ~200,000 years old carries out its investigations.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I find it hard to believe the universe takes any notice of the systems of "rational evidence" we invent to try and understand it.

Its rather egocentric to think that the nature of a universe that has been around for 13.8 billion years is somehow linked to the way a species that is ~200,000 years old carries out its investigations.

1 Million Dollar answer.

[Diamat]

I don't get point 4:
"4) In order for evidence to be considered rational (for want of a better word), it must be chosen freely."

Why? Why is evidence only considered rational if chosen freely?

[Squiggle]

I find it hard to believe the universe takes any notice of the systems of "rational evidence" we invent to try and understand it.

Its rather egocentric to think that the nature of a universe that has been around for 13.8 billion years is somehow linked to the way a species that is ~200,000 years old carries out its investigations.

The argument doesnt end with "and therefore we have to be free" does it now? Rather that any argument to the contrary doesnt even get off the ground due to its very nature.

OK. So, my main area of contention with this argument is the nature of premise 4). I contend that a deterministic universe does not eliminate the autonomy of the decision making process.

Right off the bat I have a question, do you consider computer scripts to make decisions then?

The evidence is considered without the influence of external constraints. In other words, despite being a pre-determined situation, the decision itself is made by the mind, free from any external influence. This allows for the rational selection of evidence.

1) It also allows for the irrational selection of evidence as shown by...well our human experience.
2) Rational beliefs are [at least philosophically speaking] justified beliefs. I'd contend that there are no justified beliefs if our minds are determined.

jus·ti·fy (jst-f)v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
v.tr.1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.

As we have no will external to our body, all that [we would consider] justified is whatever our biological/environmental make up allows for, which as evidenced by crazy people, animals, ecetera ecetera, differ massively. The claim that our internal determined processes are capable of reaching truth or at least a reasonable facsimile of it- whereas the other determined processes of thousands of other types of organisms and millions of other people in that instance are not- is a claim who's burden of proof can never be met.

[SigniferOne]

I find it hard to believe the universe takes any notice of the systems of "rational evidence" we invent to try and understand it.

Its rather egocentric to think that the nature of a universe that has been around for 13.8 billion years is somehow linked to the way a species that is ~200,000 years old carries out its investigations.

Congratulations on demonstrating how atheism is anti-science, while Christianity, even the most wild creationist young earther in it, is for it.

You seek to undermine reason as such, the efficacy of rationality everywhere, and in every way, while he may seek to ignore just some of the evidence, and is irrational just part of the time. You have shown yourself to be more anti-science than a young earth creationist.

It's a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, of course a natural consequence of atheism, and from the posts that follow yours and congratulate it, the fact that you now find yourself in the company of known nihilists and absurdists just underlines the tragedy of it all.

[Tacitursa]

Right off the bat I have a question, do you consider computer scripts to make decisions then?

The Brain is really no different to computer script's, I think identical twin's that spend 24/7 together are pretty good evidence of that.

All of our decision's are made from emotion , experience and memory. We make our decisions before we even see the options. People try to counter that by saying they can choose an option they hate or wouldn't ever choose usually but that's easy once you've already seen the argument as there's a great motive to be right or correct so you'll allow yourself to choose options you wouldn't usually just to prove you can, That's not free will.

[Epicurean]

Congratulations on demonstrating how atheism is anti-science, while Christianity, even the most wild creationist young earther in it, is for it.

You seek to undermine reason as such, the efficacy of rationality everywhere, and in every way, while he may seek to ignore just some of the evidence, and is irrational just part of the time. You have shown yourself to be more anti-science than a young earth creationist.

It's a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, of course a natural consequence of atheism, and from the posts that follow yours and congratulate it, the fact that you now find yourself in the company of known nihilists and absurdists just underlines the tragedy of it all.

I'm sorry but I have to ask, exactly how does that make atheism anti-science, and how is Christianity pro-science? I thought science was all about proof and demonstration of theory, and I'm not aware of any proof of god. And why all the hate towards atheism?

The point I think he's trying to make, and that I tried to make myself, is that whatever irrational consequences any theory causes if true, does not say anything about the validity of the theory unless those irrational consequences can be proven false. If not, the theory could be true anyway.

[SigniferOne]

I'm sorry but I have to ask, exactly how does that make atheism anti-science, and how is Christianity pro-science? I thought science was all about proof and demonstration of theory

Science is more than just about proof, and demonstration of theory. Science, on an ever deeper level, holds as its sacred touchstone the belief that reality is first prov-ABLE. That the world is knowable.

These assumptions themselves cannot be proved; they are assumptions, hopeful ones. And they have as THEIR foundation, the anthropic principle. Once you become an atheist, you must of necessity destroy the anthropic principle, and consequently everything that's built on it, including all of the assumptions that make science possible, necessary, and heck, even great and noble.

To an atheist, there is no reason why reality has to make sense. And thus he will put forward scientific theories with an ever greater and greater degree of incomprensibility, until he drowns in a nightmare of absurdity and self-contradictions and science itself becomes a fruitless task, that leads nowhere, and produces nothing but absurdities as its result.

[Epicurean]

Science is more than just about proof and demonstration of theory. Science even deeper than that holds as its sacred touchstone that reality is first provable . That the world is knowable.

No it doesn't. That has got to be the most desperate claim I've seen trying to make theism the only standpoint compatible with science.

I've always heard that the big bang is the limit of how far into the past we can have knowledge, as anything that preceded big bang would not in any way be traceable today within the universe. Now I don't know if this is true or not, but it's an example of defining the limits of what science can explore, and this limit is of course always subject to change.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Science, on an ever deeper level, holds as its sacred touchstone the belief that reality is first prov-ABLE. That the world is knowable.

I'm not a scientist, but from what I gather science is a way of thinking with a goal; to find out what regularities there may be, if any, and how these are connected, if so. The world then becomes knowable as a consequence of these apparent regularities and connections.
Therefore I don't think one starts out with the assumption that the world is knowable, one concludes this.


On to the argument; I don't understand it. Could one of you post a more detailed version?
My confusion starts here:

1) In order to determine the truth of a position, it is necessary to determine the truth value of the evidence for that position.

What do you two mean with "truth of a position"?
And what meaning is "the truth value of the evidence" supposed to convey?

[justicar5]

It's a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, of course a natural consequence of atheism, and from the posts that follow yours and congratulate it, the fact that you now find yourself in the company of known nihilists and absurdists just underlines the tragedy of it all.

saying that we don't have the tools yet to fully understand the universe is a disgrace? And yet your blood soaked religion, responsible for the deaths of billions over 7 millenia is the most gracious thing ever? Are you really that blind? Is your mind really so corrupted by the Lord Of Murder and the Prince of Genocide? Oh and before you go: OT Doesn't count: The Word was with God and the Word was God, Jesus IS the god of the old testament, set out right in Genesis, the Trinity is the same being, it reveled in blood and death for millenia and only softened it's tone when it's servants where near annihilated by the followers of other (ironically less blood thirsty) creeds.

[Sphere]

The argument doesnt end with "and therefore we have to be free" does it now? Rather that any argument to the contrary doesnt even get off the ground due to its very nature.

If you willing detach the rationality of something from the likelihood of it being true, i.e. you are content to show that the argument of a deterministic universe is "irrational", but accept it may still be physically true, the focus of you argument is squarely agaisnt our system of rationality, and has nothing to say about the nature of the universe.