Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gimboarretino t1_iu83w97 wrote

Logic cannot disprove free will in favor of hard determinism

The big, ancient question: can free will and deterministic causality coexist?

We can trivially answer:

A) yes. I perceive causality, I perceive free will, this is what is offered to me originally, in the flesh and bones, and this is it.

However, several people would answer:

B) no, because deterministic causality and free will are not LOGICALLY compatible.

A first B1) argument usually looks like this.

If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove: the premise (all reality is deterministically causal) already contains the conclusion (if "ALL" reality is deterministically causal then necessarily the actions and thoughts of men -- which are part of reality -- will also be deterministically causal).

Therefore,we will have to opt for a B2) variant.

We start from the observation a of a "weaker" and less dogmatic causality (we observe the existence of causality without assuming from the premises that "everything is always causal," otherwise we would fall back to B1). And let's say that from this premise we can come to LOGICALLY affirm its incompatibility with free will.

It's not important which logical steps might lead us to this result. Let us simply assume and admit that from X (I observe causality in the world-of-things) -we can develope an impeccable logical reasoning -> and in the end conclude Y (there is no free will, because what we call free will - our thoughts and actions and decisions - is causally pre-determined).

However, a corollary of Y is necessarily that the very activity of "impeccable logical thinking/reasoning," is also totally subjected to causal pre-determination. And not only with regard to the development of the reasoning process, but also with regard to its very "use" as a instrument to resolve the present question. I was going to write "with regard to the methodological choice to use logic to solve the free will problem"... but at this point to speak of "choice" would be paradoxical, wouldn't it?

Now, this corollary tends to be warmly welcomed by supporters of determinism. Logical reasoning (like mathematics, moreover) is used as a method of inquiry, it develops and it comes to its conclusions **by virtue of invincible necessity ** (not choice or discretion).

And THIS is what - according to some - makes this method "certain," secure and reliable.

But doesn't this also ultimately make B2 circular?

Let's examine a classic example of flawed circular reasoning:

That God exists corresponds to the truth. Why? Because the Bible says/proves that.

And why would the Bible be reliable?

Because the Bible is the absoulte and Word of God (it's "God's intended key to understand the world".)

Reformulated and adapted:

That Reality is totally deterministic, with no room for free will, corresponds to the truth. Why? Because Logic says/proves that.

And why would Logic be reliable?

Because Logic is the necessary instrument given to us by the deterministc Reality (it is the key of interpretation direclty and invincibly imposed on us by Reality itself)

This is the criticality underlying the totality of pan-deterministic systems.

How to evalue the knowledge one acquires from them, insofar as it cannot be conceived that the prefaced introduces a novative/modifying element within the pre-given configuration of the system?

1

Chance_Programmer_54 t1_iucvbwk wrote

I agree that logic alone doesn't say anything about free will or determinism. Logic is all about language and pure reasoning. We make some rules and see what follow from these rules. Logic is not about causality. If you come up with a logic (formal system), all the consequences of that logic are instantaneous and eternal, the formal system didn't 'cause' those logical consequences -- they have always been there, just not known. Logic is not about cause and effect through time, it's about timeless truths from assuming concepts.

In physics, not all things have a 'cause', 'virtual particles' pop up from existence and disappear without detection, and their energy has been measured. Physical entities are different from abstract entities. Abstract ones are timeless (an And function, numbers,...) and physical ones are bound by time. The universe behaves in a certain way but for all we know it could have been different. To find the truth about free will, we need to learn more about the rules of the reality we exist in -- what rules does our reality follow?

2

Alert_Loan4286 t1_iu89hkn wrote

I'm not a hard determinist, but aren't you just strawmanning the position here? I think most HD would agree with you that begging the question is fallacious.

1

gimboarretino t1_iu8dkkn wrote

I don't think so.

Let us assume that Reality is indeed deterministic, and that this inevitably and certainly leads to the impeccable logical inference of the non-existence of free will, of choice, of critical thinking etc.

OK, only one thing remains to be asked. Why would logical reasoning be a good method of dealing with the problem?

The only answer can be: because logical reasoning, it's election as a method, its development and its inevitable conclusions -- the full package -- is also, inevitably given and pre-determined.
If reality is deterministic, we are deterministically driven to use logic to prove that reality is deterministic.
And there you are, stuck in a circular reasoning, therefore invalid according to the canons of logic itself.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_iu8zu3u wrote

>If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

>This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove:

Point of departure: The universe is governed by the principle of causality.

P2 The principle of causality suggests all phenomenon/events are the consequence, and predetermined by, other [causal] phenomenon/events.

P3 People are phenomenon of the universe

C Therefore people's actions and behaviour are also governed by the principle of causality.

I don't see how this argument begs the question. I think it's just concluding something besides what you think it does, that human action is predetermined not that the universe is.

1

gimboarretino t1_iu9340n wrote

Because, if C Is true, it necessarly means that the process of going from PoD to P2 to P3 to C is also a phenomen governerd by the principle of causality.

So, essentialy, you're saying that everything is predetermined because you are predetermined to say so.

Which is logically invalid, circular.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_iu9i9ru wrote

I believe I get what you're saying but I don't believe the argument is circular. Your criticism seems to be that you believe the argument isn't sound because it's a consequence of predetermination, not that the argument isn't valid per se. What I see in the argument is "everything is predetermined, I'm a thing, I'm predetermined," which by itself seems logical.

I think your objection is epistemological, you're questioning how you can know a thing is predetermined if your idea about that thing is the consequence of predetermination, am I correct?

1

gimboarretino t1_iu9w4jv wrote

yes, the argument can be logical per se, internally coherent let's say, but if we "zoom out" taking with us the results and "update" our knowledge with that, the consequence is that epistemological objection.

you believe that reality is deterministic just because you are deterministically forced to believe so.

Logic does not give any additional value or to that belief, being logic reasoning nothing more than a deterministc phenomenon forcing you to that conclusion.

1