<< Determinism >>

I will now present my case. . ====> C O N T E N T I O N S <==== Pro has put forth an argument for determinism supported by no evidence. His conclusion, to a certain extent, logically follows, but his premises are bare assertions and simply hold no weight. Premise 1: The rules of the universe are set in place (Be it physics or religion. ) A: I assume he is referring to the laws of physics and by "religion" he means "God" or "divine law. " First of all, which is it? You haven't even chosen your side. Is the Universe predetermined by the laws of physics or is it determined by God? Whichever you choose, you must prove your position and why it is correct. However, putting aside who or what put the rules here, do these laws apply to everything? Are these laws all encompassing? My opponent must demonstrate that these laws do in fact, apply to everything in order to assert that everything is predetermined by them. Premise 2: Everything that falls under these preset rules (everything) is determined by said rules. A: As I addressed in my first rebuttal, he hasn't proven that everything falls under these preset laws, nor has he proven that these laws are factual and absolute. There really isn't much else that can be said here because this is merely a bare assertion with no reasoning or evidence to support it. There is no need to refute his conclusion if his initial premises that support it are incorrect. ====> A R G U M E N T S - A G A I N S T - D E T E R M I N I S M <==== Definitions: Determinism: The idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) [1] Indeterminism: Uncaused events, nondeterministically caused events. - SEP [2] Free Will: Choice is not wholly determined by prior factors, it is free and under one's own control simply in virtue of being it's own. - SEP [3] ::::: The Microcosm ::::: On a small scale, it is quite clear that quantum particles are indeterministic and here's why: The Copenhagen Interpretation (standard interpretation) of Quantum Theory holds that the laws of nature are indeterministic and probabilistic. [4] In this interpretation, a small particle swerves in a particular direction at a particular time and can only be described by probabilistic equations. However, the movement of the particle is indeterministic. [4] In classical physics, the future motion of a particle can be exactly predicted or determined based on physical laws. However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle contradicts this and we find that quantum particles are unpredictable and indeterministic. The future motion of a particle cannot be known, but only a range of possibilities. It is also true that the position and momentum cannot even be precisely measured. [5] Even if we take that a scale further and assert David Bohm's theory of hidden variables, determinism still fails. Assuming that there is a field of even smaller quantum particles (Bohm's hidden variables) that are responsible for determining the seemingly indeterministic quantum particles of the Uncertainty Principle, these variables themselves would be *self-determined* even as admitted by David Bohm himself. Self-determination is antithetical to determinism and supportive of free will. "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 [6] "In principle, every new moment could be entirely unrelated to the previous one—it could be totally creative. " - David Bohm [7] So it can be concluded, that absolutely, on a small scale, determinism is demonstrably false. My opponent would have to deny Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which is observably true, in order to have a case for a Universe governed by entirely predeterministic physical laws. :::::: The Macrocosm :::::: On a large scale, there are two things that need to be considered: objects and conscious beings. It is obvious that objects are most certainly deterministic as can be predicted by physics and laws of motion. An object such as a ball, is bound by predetermined events and physical laws. If it moves, it's because it reacted to an external agent exerting force on it and inevitably moved a certain distance. However, the decisions and actions of humans and animals are not entirely deterministic. We have minds that have the ability to contain, process, and analyze information, and based on the analysis of that information, a person can choose freely, how to react. There are also no scientific laws that govern the conduct of human beings. People don't act a certain way because there is an absolute law that governs their actions. The only way this could be true is if monistic physicalism is assumed and that the particles that compose the human brain are deterministic. But as I have just demonstrated, quantum particles that compose the human brain are indeterministic. ====> A R G U M E N T S - F O R - F R E E - W I L L <==== :::::: The Microcosm :::::: As I have just demonstrated on the microcosmic scale, quantum particles are SELF-DETERMINED. To demonstrate how this leads to free will, I will provide a syllogism: P1: Indeterminism is something that is not determined by an external agent or cause. P2: If it is not determined by anything else but itself, it is self-determined. :. If it is self-determined, it is free. :::::: The Macrocosm :::::: The very idea of determinism that every event is necessitated by antecedent events is entirely arbitrary. If determinism rests on the notion of past events being the causal factor for determining current events, then it simply falls apart. Why? Because "events" are entirely arbitrary concepts and don't actually exist. What distinguishes one event from another? Whatever we define it to be. If events don't actually exist, one cannot assert that determinism is true. If my opponent wants to contend that events do exist, he must demonstrate that there is a way to empirically define what separates one event from another. According to philosopher Alan Watts: "In reality, there are no separate events. Life moves along like water. " This leads me to my next point. Since there are no past events, our actions cannot be said to be determined by past events. In fact, the present determines the past, just as a ship in the sea leaves a wake or stream of water behind it. The ship is not determined by the wake it leaves behind it. The same analogy applies to us. All of our actions are free and all of our past events are just a trail that we leave behind us. The past does NOT determine our present actions. It can't. The past only exists in our memories and will eventually fade away like the wake of a ship. As Alan Watts said: "Explaining things by the past, is a refusal to explain them at all. All you're doing is postponing the explanation. You're putting it back and back and back, and that explains nothing. What does explain things, is the present. " ====> C O N C L U S I O N <==== In conclusion, I have successfully refuted my opponents premises and provided sufficient arguments for free will. Thank you for reading. "No limits to my freedom can be found except freedom itself, or, if you prefer, we are not free to cease being free. " - Jean Paul Sartre Sources: [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [5] . http://www.aip.org... [6] . http://tinyurl.com... [7] . http://www.anthonyflood.com...