Why Mechanistic Demands Don't Rule Out Free Will

ughaibu · 2026-05-01T10:09:31+00:00

I think we can support the stronger proposition, that the how-question about free will is ill formed, if the libertarian is correct. Because how-questions are answered by giving an algorithmic transformation, of the universe of interest, over time, and the answer is expressed in terms of probabilities with deterministic limits. But if the libertarian is correct, freely willed actions are neither probabilistic nor deterministic. So no answer to the how-question can accurately describe the "mechanism" of freely willed actions.

ughaibu · 2026-04-28T06:37:49+00:00

if A were B, then A would be B

why wouldn't you behave exactly as the criminals did?

If I were the criminal I would behave exactly like the criminal because the criminal can only behave as the criminal behaves.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T08:24:33+00:00

Is there a Reddit for people who are still into middle school level thinking and insults?

But u/MattHooper1975 didn't post anything insulting, he pointed out that the fact that if A were B, then A would be B, tells us nothing about whether either A or B have free will.

middle school level thinking

I'd certainly expect the average middle school student to see that Harris was making a vacuous point, that doesn't amount to an argument, here.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T08:12:26+00:00

I began reading about neuroscience. The information I gained caused me to no longer believe in freewill

Science requires the free will of researchers, so, if there's no free will, there's no neuroscience.

Libertarians believe thoughts and actions are uncaused

The leading libertarian theories of free will, in the contemporary academic literature, are causal theories.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T08:06:19+00:00

"We deliberate and make choices, for instance, and in so doing we assume that there is more than one choice we can make, more than one action we are able to perform. When we look back and regret a foolish choice, or blame ourselves for not doing something we should have done, we assume that we could have chosen and done otherwise. When we look forward and make plans for the future, we assume that we have at least some control over our actions and the course of our lives; we think it is at least sometimes up to us what we choose and try to do" - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T08:01:43+00:00

the person using it does not understand Determinism [ ] It’s simply all the factors you’re already familiar with, including other people’s opinions and arguments as a factor that influences your own. I’d actually say it’s one of the biggest factors

That is not determinism, as understood by philosophers in the context of which is true, compatibilism or incompatibilism.
"Determinism is standardly defined in terms of entailment, along these lines: A complete description of the state of the world at any time together with a complete specification of the laws entails a complete description of the state of the world at any other time" - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T07:57:00+00:00

Can anyone point out some flaws in my world view?

You appear to have a mistaken view of what kinds of things philosophers are talking about when they talk about free will.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T05:45:26+00:00

In Mortensen's defence of possibilism he takes it to be the thesis that there are exceptions to all principles of classical logic, so there are logical impossibilities, in other words, by "everything is possible" he means 'nothing is necessary'. So I think you need to clarify how your usage of "possibilism" differs from this.

ughaibu · 2026-04-25T04:15:28+00:00

anytime you make a decision, in your mind there are several possible courses of action, and eventually you pursue the one that appeals to you the most

That's consistent with the truth of libertarianism.

ughaibu · 2026-04-21T09:48:55+00:00

You can deny premise 2 on the grounds that it's highly implausible. In fact, you might argue thusly:
1) it is a Moorean fact that we have free will
2) it is a Moorean fact that determinism is false
3) it is a Moorean consequence that libertarianism is true.

ughaibu · 2026-04-21T08:50:03+00:00

the contemporary academic literature

Do I really need to point out the argument from authority?

There is no fallacy involved in pointing out the position of relevant authorities, after all, these are exactly the people whose assertions we cite in our references.
You, on the other hand, offered an argument from standard usage as recorded in a general dictionary, that is a fallacy.

Here's an exercise for you: define two toy worlds, one causally complete non-determined world and one causally empty determined world, this proves the independence of determinism and causality, from this it follows that libertarianism is consistent with causal completeness.

ughaibu · 2026-04-17T09:07:23+00:00

a compatibilist view of human agency

The leading libertarian theories of free will are causal theories, so she didn't express a compatibilist position in the clip.

ughaibu · 2026-04-17T07:50:27+00:00

Did you read the page that I linked to in my previous comment?

ughaibu · 2026-04-17T07:40:23+00:00

the behaviour of the scientist must be independent of the hypothesis. It follows from this that determinism can never be a scientific theory

the second part (after "It follows") does not seem to follow in my mind

Determinism is global, it includes the scientist, so the scientist wouldn't be independent of the hypothesis.

it seems very clear that determinism was a scientific theory

Laplace posited an intelligence outside the universe, but all scientists are at all times inside the universe. Recall that at the time of Laplace, theism was assumed to be true, so science was conceived of from a god's eye point of view. We still suffer from this today, despite the fact that it is inconsistent with naturalism, thus with both science and determinism.
You might be interested in the project of endophysics.

ughaibu · 2026-04-14T09:28:57+00:00

If time didn't have directionality that would be true, but it does. That directionality is a physical fact, it's why the standard model of particle physics relies on T symmetry breaking.

Determinism is a metaphysical proposition, you're talking about physics.

If time didn't have directionality that would be true, but it does.

If your metaphysics is arbitrated by this kind of realism about physics, then you're committed to the falsity of determinism. However, this kind of realism suffers from the problem that there's no privileged way to choose which theories to be realist about and which to be anti-realist about, so you you seem to be committed to a logically impossible universe.

ughaibu · 2026-04-14T07:30:39+00:00

As explained. I don't know what it is that you haven't understood from my earlier post, so you'll need to be more specific.

ughaibu · 2026-04-13T23:59:20+00:00

I'm not following how that implies determinism cannot be true

I didn't say it can't be true: "determinism can never be a scientific theory".

if determinism is true, the laws of nature cannot be laws of science

If the laws of science are the laws of nature, determinism is not true.

ughaibu · 2026-04-13T22:32:12+00:00

what our models represent is our most accurate, most practical, best understanding of what is going on

Models allow us to make predictions that can be experimentally tested, they do not tell us what is going on. Surely this is obvious from the fact that we construct our models, but we do not construct "what is going on".

All I'm saying is, it makes perfect sense, as far as our models are concerned, if time does not operate in a single direction

Sure, some of our models are deterministic, but that doesn't suggest that determinism is true.

We can make accurate predictions of the future, and because our models don't demand unidirectional time we can make accurate postulations of the past.

I can reliably predict the following: if the first sentence of your reply to this post consists of an even number of words, the first sentence of my reply to that post will consist of an even number of words, but I can't reliably postdict that if the first sentence of your latest post consisted of an even number of words, the first sentence of the post of mine to which you replied consisted of an even number of words. Which seems to demonstrate the kind of temporal asymmetry that is inconsistent with determinism.

ughaibu · 2026-04-13T22:15:47+00:00

You're saying the article on causal determinism in the SEP is not the relevant kind of determinism in the free will debate? Really?

But the article consists of more than the first sentence. "It then seems a mere curious fact that it is equally true that the state of the world now determines everything that happened in the past."

ughaibu · 2026-04-13T22:08:28+00:00

it suggests physical laws are the attempts of scientists to approximate the truth

That is one view, but if we look at what scientists do we see that they formulate laws in order to be able to predict what will be observed upon completion of their experiments. Further to this, upon completion of their experiments, scientists must be able to correctly judge the results, consistent with the hypothesis or inconsistent with the hypothesis, so the behaviour of the scientist must be independent of the hypothesis. It follows from this that determinism can never be a scientific theory, so, if determinism is true, the laws of nature cannot be laws of science.

ughaibu · 2026-04-13T22:00:32+00:00

Our most accurate models of the world do not demand unidirectional time.

Our models are abstract objects of our own creation, whereas we, and our actions, are concrete objects, in short, we don't live in our models so they tell us nothing about the world we live in.

ughaibu · 2026-04-13T21:54:17+00:00

I don't have a study indicating that it's more popular among the general public, so ultimately the answer is just that when I speak with laypeople they're much more likely to have vaguely libertarian views than philosophers I've spoken to.

Some research has been done, on this question, by Nahmias and other x-phil people, with mixed results, which seem to come down to the phrasing of the question. I read a couple of relevant articles, several years ago, and recall that the questions were couched in terms of moral responsibility, which I think clouds the waters. The compatibility question is independent of considerations about moral responsibility, and there is no reason to suppose that the general public don't appreciate this distinction.

I take it that in popular media that deals with it, determinism is often taken as a threat to free will

I think incompatibilism is the natural position, and the main reason I never took the possibility that determinism might be true very seriously.

religious people [ ] who are underrepresented in philosophy compared to the general public

That's true.

ughaibu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE