Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality

I can assure the readers that these arguments are entirely my own. ========== The Microcosm ========== My opponent contended my argument by noting that alongside the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is an equally valid quantum theory called the Bohm Interpretation which posits hidden variables to account for the behavior of quantum particles. 1. First of all, these hidden variables are hypothetical, have not been observed, and therefore, don't hold much weight at this point. The Copenhagen Interpretation is based on actual observation that quantum particles move in an unpredictable, undetermined manner. Bohm posited that, perhaps at a deeper quantum level, there are hidden variables or particles that determine the seemingly unpredictable behavior of quantum particles. Therefore, this is more of a hypothetical theory than the Copenhagen Interpretation. 2. If Bohm's Interpretation were true, these hidden variables would, in fact, provide an objective causal determination of seemingly unpredictable quantum particles. However, this says nothing about the behavior of these hidden variables/particles. Bohm himself posited that the hidden variables are SELF-DETERMINED (Free), but to us, would be seemingly random fluctuations. "Of course, the precise manner of fluctuation of the field is determined by the infinity of deeper field variables not taken into account, but in the context of the level in question, NOTHING DETERMINES THIS PRECISE BEHAVIOR. " - David Bohm [1] 3. My opponent also says that both theories are valid and that neither have been disproven. This however, is not necessarily true. Bell's Theorem has countered Bohm's Interpretation and states that "no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. " [2] 4. David Bohm himself says: "In principle, every new moment could be entirely unrelated to the previous one—it could be totally creative. " - David Bohm [4] Bohm later updated his interpretation to include stochastic (random behavior). Therefore, using Bohm to prove determinism renders itself ineffective. My opponent contested that just because quantum position and momentum can't be measured, doesn't mean it's non-existent. This however, is unrelated to the causal behavior. There's no denying that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is indeterministic. It's even referred to as Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle and Heisenberg himself asserted the indeterministic nature of his principle. There's no way around it. Pro commits a composition fallacy by concluding that indeterminism or randomness on the quantum level refutes free will on the macrocosmic level. What's true of the parts, isn't necessarily true of the whole. Pro also asserted that indeterminism or randomness would refute free will, however, randomness isn't actually random and is a form of self-determinism (Free), but because we don't understand why something acts a certain way, we call it random. I would also like to point out that, if you want to assert determinism on a quantum level, and go even deeper than that, by saying underlying, smaller quantum particles predetermine quantum particles, you will eventually reach (to avoid infinite regression) the smallest quantum particle, the basis of reality, which in itself would have to be SELF-DETERMINED (as Bohm also noted) because no underlying particle would or could exist to predetermine it. ========== The Macrocosm ========== Pro denies that a human being can make free choices based on the analysis of stored and processed information by asserting, "every single action that we commit is a direct result of our brain and the chemical going-ons for which we are not completely in control. " The first contention is a non-sequitur. Just because our actions are the direct result of our brain (this may or may not be true), does not mean that the brain can't make free choices. The second contention is an unproven assertion. The human mind/consciousness is still somewhat of a mystery (a conscious observer literally affects the wave function of quantum particles, which in itself creates a distinction between unconscious machines and conscious beings) and by no means has it been proven to be purely mechanical. Richard Dawkins rejects this view, and posits that "we are evolved to second guess the behavior of others by becoming brilliant, intuitive, psychologists. " He also asserts that we and our consciousness have evolved so greatly that we now have been able to REBEL against previously deterministic causes. Our consciousness has evolved far beyond that of a lifeless machine of simple cause-effect operations. Con: If a person is on a strict diet, they have a desire or urge to eat to appease the hunger, but may choose not to eat. The choice could go either way, and no prior action can trigger an inevitable reaction in that case. That person was free to choose. Pro: This is completely false. The person's choice to not eat would be based on the fact that they're trying to lose weight, therefore their decision was the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. ^^^ My opponent was unable to refute this. I put forth a set of two choices, each just as likely, and my opponent simply picked one (as if it were inevitable) and said why it was determined. The problem is that neither outcome happened, and both were equally likely. Point still stands. Said person still has the ability to freely choose whether to eat or not. There are two external agents: hunger drives her to eat, the diet drives her to not eat, and she is in control to make an equally likely choice on her own. "There is far too much information for human beings to be able to predict every future outcome. The individual factors that make up the entire universe are so minute that the human brain could never fathom such intricacy to the point where we would be able to determine everything. " Then how can your human brain fathom the nature of the intricacy, let alone the intricacy itself? My position allows for such intricacy to be indeterministic. Your claim makes the extraordinary leap of assigning every aspect of the intricate Universe to be deterministic. Mine allows for unknowns. My opponent is making an absolute knowledge claim, yet admits that no one can fathom the intricacy and multiple factors of the entire Universe. If there are so many unfathomable, unknowns, how can my opponent claim to know that these unknowns are deterministic? My opponent also denies my point that irrationality and illogicality don't exist under a deterministic framework. However, determinism holds that every action is an inevitable, logical (if this, then that) reaction. If something illogical happens, it defies determinism. ====== Free Will ====== My opponent did not attempt to refute Sartre's argument, and simply dismissed it. He argued that one can break away from their past and constantly recreate and redefine himself, thus allowing for every action of that individual to be independent of any prior experiences. ======= Conclusion ======= In conclusion, I once again demonstrated that quantum particles on the microcosm are indeterministic, and conscious beings on the macrocosm do indeed have free will. Pro cannot refute (she attempted to, but I demonstrated that her contention was flawed) that there are multiple, influential external agents, and MANY POSSIBLE REACTIONS. Not every reaction is inevitable, nor is reality a strict, linear paradigm of cause-effect, action-inevitable reaction. There are things that are in fact avoidable, and thus overcoming inevitability, should it ever occur. Thank you all for reading. Sources: In comments section.