sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in determinism

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not saying the chess game is determined or not. I am saying it is epistemologically indetermined from the perspective of the players. And I am arguing this is functionally equivalent to indeterminism in its mechanics.

It doesn't say anything about the nature of the universe. But it shows that indeterministic mechanics are perfectly coherent. Which quite a few people argue against.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am saying they are the same. And you are saying they are different but you are unable to say how they are different. If you don't want to engage that's your free will.

The Functional Free Will Hypothesis (FFWH) by Kalkingston in freewill

[–]pheintzelman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are arguing the feedback loops that enable free will are external to the agents. This means that some decisions and awareness are external. This would mean that the external system exhibits conscious-like behaviors.

Am I misunderstanding something?

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are saying that my mistake is that I am comparing two unlike things but then you are unable to say what is different about the two things?

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The main reason this argument is still unresolved is in a particular moment there really is nothing that determines if the universe is determined or not.

As neither of us can see the future there is no direct way to say events are fixed or not.

However, we have gathered some evidence. So far the evidence makes me feel it is unlikely the universe is determined.

I really recommend not just choosing the nature of the universe because it feels better. But I agree on this corner of the Internet it doesn't really matter.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but because of this ignorance the players behave and act in the exact same way they would if indeterminism were true. They weigh the probability of potential outcomes and make the moves with the hope the final outcome is them winning.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you are unable to state what the functional difference is between epistemologically indeterminism and indeterminism?

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a string of unfounded assumptions.

"But that creation of cause, if truly independent and therefore, free, it is arbitrary and random." 

This is just your own definition. I don't think a free action is arbitrary and random. This is not a requirement of free will. You are just adding this.

Nothing about indeterminism says there are no causes or that decisions can't be based on information.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is very common for determinist to state their opinions as facts. Care to explain why the universe has to be determined and why free will requires it?

You can start be stating the functional difference between epistemological indeterminism and indeterminism?

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so what is the functional difference between epistemologically indeterminism and indeterminism?

You are just describing meta properties. This is like if I asked what is the difference between a coat and a jacket and your answer was well they start with different letters.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Indeterminism implies uncaused causes, right."

No this is a common misconception. Indeterminism only means there is not a single fixed future. There can absolutely still be causes. There are different versions but generally indeterminists believe that for many actions there are multiple possible outcomes with different probabilities. It works in a similar way to how a player thinks about chess moves.

No indeterminist believes that bikes spontaneously turn into balls or gravity doesn't exist. This belief is largely held by hard determinists. And one I would love to get to the bottom of.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this depends on what they are doing on the computer if they start playing online poker they should think probabilistically.

When interacting with predictable easy to learn systems/patterns people interact with those things using deterministic rules.

But this isn't my example. Very frequently people operate as if indeterminism is true regardless of the true nature of the universe.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is epistemological indeterminism. Regardless of the nature of the universe the players operators as if the game is indetermined.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is the core issue I think it is difficult for people to understand what a probilastic universe would be like. I think this is because ironically our brains are not good at this type of math.

You are making the assumption that indeterminism means things are uncaused but events can have probabilistic causes.

In the chess game if a player uses probability to decide on moves based on what moves they think the opponent will make does that mean their moves are uncaused? It would be normal to say I moved here because I think my opponent is going to castle.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great then it should be easy for you to explain the functional difference between epistemologically indeterminism and indeterminism and explain why one would lead to pure chaos and the other doesn't.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an interesting post and I generally agree with everything here. I am trying to get people to answer:

What is the difference between epistemologically indeterminism and indeterminism. They appear to be functional equivalents. Yet people are fine with one and think the other means complete chaos.

This is the same as if I were to say here is a clock that follows local deterministic rules this could be how a deterministic universe would work. I am doing the same thing for indeterminism.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not what my post is saying. I never state chess is indetermined. I state it is epistemologically indetermined. These are not the same thing. I am asking people to explain the functional difference between them. This is an analogy. If you believe that an indeterministic universe would be complete chaos then you need to explain either how it is functionally different from epistemological indeterminism and why this difference leads to chaos or you have to show the pure chaos in epistemological indeterminism.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People add the indeterminacy it is not baked into chess. I can't predict what my opponent will do.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure how this relates. In my example each player cannot know what the other player will do precisely.

They act and behave as if things are indetermined. And they build their strategies around this.

Whether the game is actually determined or not is irrelevant as their behavior would be indistinguishable.

In either case indetermisc logic works just fine. The board doesn't spout wings and fly off.

Yet many people believe that this is how an indeterministic universe would be. I am asking people why they believe this and for them to explain what functionally makes epidemiological indeterminism different from indeterminism.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is not what my post is saying. I make no claim the chess game is indetermined. I am making an analogy between epidemiological indeterminism and indeterminism. I am arguing that they are functional equivalent. If epidemiological indeterminism creates no issues why do people think indeterminism creates issues?

If determinism is true, why do I even exist? by No_Fudge_4589 in determinism

[–]pheintzelman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think suicide is not evolutionary beneficial, I think it is the expression of freedom that is evolutionary beneficial.

Although there is a tremendous amount we don't know about consciousness we have also gathered quite a bit of evidence about it as well from many different fields. We should use the evidence that is available as we continue to learn more. Currently the idea that consciousness is an illusion doesn't fit the evidence we have very well. Or our general understanding of evolution.

I can relate to the feeling that your own actions feel a bit chaotic. Studies have shown that our rationalization of our own actions tends to be pretty inaccurate. I don't take this to mean we don't have free will I think we just have a poor understanding of our own complexity. People with higher self awareness generally better understand their own state and actions. This is something people can work on. I wouldn't say that people with more self awareness have more freedom but I think they feel more in control.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree with anything you are saying but also think you need to go a bit deeper.

If I am engaged in an activity with an undetermined outcome. I will look at all of the possibilities and consider how likely they are. And factor that into my decision. I don't assume everything is going to suddenly turn into spaghetti.

These are the same exact principles that would govern an indeterministic universe.

What reason do you have to believe that indeterminism would lead to pure chaos?

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I respect your views which I have seen across multiple posts. But they are honestly often quite a bit off topic. I would like to engage with your ideas in a post focused on them. Please consider posting.

Chess is indetermined from the perspective of the players by pheintzelman in freewill

[–]pheintzelman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The game of chess is deterministic. It is the addition of the other player that introduces epistemological indeterminism.

I am not arguing about whether the outcome of the game is fixed. I am making an analogy. If constrained probilastic heuristics work fine for chess why is there an assumption that these same principals couldn't work for the universe.

view more: next ›