The Epistemological Problem: Why Determinism is Delusional

Here we focus in on the epistemological problem with determinism which shows that it is delusional.

[patrickward]

Determinism is not the monstrosity which most contributors on this channel seem to take it to be. It is a metaphysical theory, based on good science (the majority of philosophers think determinism is true), which allows for all the powers which we ordinarily conceive ourselves to have. In particular, it gives us the ability to make decisions and exercise choices. This is no small matter. However, what it does not allow for is an immaterial soul, a "ghost in the machine", which acts independently of nature, which 'bucks the trend' of nature, as it were - on the contrary, it is the trend of nature. We are part of that flow, along with everything else that happens.

[AsgersWeb]

I still don't get the whole free will debate.

Like of course we dont' have absolute free will, like no shit we didn't choose to be born or who our parents are, or our genes, or our upbringing. All of those things are what makes us... Us. This idea of free will is only a debate because some people try to seem smart by implying that we don't have free will because we didn't choose our genes etc, which is like of course we didn't that's nothing new.

I feel like most people claiming we don't have freewill are just articulating stuff we already know in a confusing manner that makes it sound like something new while being something we already know. We've always known that we are made up off our upbringing and our genes, that's something even a 10 year old could say like ffs.

Freewill just means that you could have done otherwise, and before you say "well by deterministic logic you were determined to do so" YOU were determined to do so, you did it and nobody made you do it. Your body did the it and you feel as if you did it ergo you did it, you were perfectly healthy when you did it = you did it.

[franciscobohm]

Well, we build our knowledge and understanding out of exactly that: understanding. We say we understand something when we know how that works, what the causes and consequences of it are, between other things.

In very short, and correct me if I'm wrong, the base of determinism is that everything has a cause.
It is indeed speaking of absolutes, which is kind of dangerous BUT the truth is there were a lots of things in the past which people just attributed to "gods" or "destiny" and which we've found out exist very natural causes for. And up until now it's been working afaik, I'm not aware of a lot of areas in which determinism has been proven wrong, none outside quantum physics.

(Of course this is a dumb clarification but the fact we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean there isn't one or that determinism is broken)

So, maybe because of my lack of religious education, i kinda have trouble understanding what the alternative is to a world ruled by cause and effect.

I honestly was raised in such a way that "why?" was always a valid question and if no one knew, then the answer wasn't "there isn't a reason" but rather an honest "we don't know".

[perttiruismaki]

I really appreciate your crusade against determinism, but I think you have not yet reached the very core of the total absurdity of determinism.
1. A deterministic universe is a logical impossibility. Determinism denies both methods to determine the contents of a universe. Determinism denies both intelligent creation and random evolution (or initial setup).
2. Determinism is not a theory, it does not describe reality and it does not explain anything. It is only a theoretical idea, a practical shortcut to make classical physics easier to understand and calculate.
3. If we should imagine a deterministic universe, the laws of physics would be quite different there. There would be no life, no thermodynamics (entropy would remain constant), no uncertainty (goodbye Dr. Heisenberg).
4. Determinism is not a belief or a claim. Determinism excludes completely the whole concept of alternative possibility. The future is as fixed as is the past. All claims or beliefs have two possible truth values, true or false. There is no concept of belief in determinism. It is illogical to believe in determinism, to believe in one's own inability to believe.
5. Determinism denies the existence of immaterial information and knowledge. When every action is physically caused, it does not matter what the actor "knows", knowledge does not have any effect on the course of events.

[timothywalsh]

It's weird how many scientist mistake the map for the territory

[wessexexplorer]

While I can understand philosophical approaches to protecting our freedom of will, I think the debate is somewhat overstated, affected by our overreaction to information about states of existence that are irrelevant to our lives.

You mention that if determinism is true then the life of the universe is mapped out from the start. While theoretically true, is it practically possible to set out the full and complete history and future of the universe? There are youtube videos that in 30 minutes take you on a journey into the future (doubling the speed every second) that end with the very last black holes dying from hawkings radiation evaporation - then nothing. However this gives the impression that this future is just around the corner - what's the point of going on! Life on our own planet will last another billion years (1, 000 million). We have only been around for 2 million at a stretch. Thats at least another 40 million generations just here on Earth!

Equally the human brain is a marvel and how it makes decisions is unknown and the variables that affect decisions so huge that while freedom of will might be 'an illusion' - it is a pretty convincing one that no determinist is going to be able to 'work out' and make predictions or use this information. We certainly shouldn't see our brain being limited to the material world as some excuse to end individual responsibility or agency.

[badhumanus]

Brilliant. Most falsehoods in science are self-referential. Determinism, time travel, gravitons, etc. They all have a self-referential component that annihilates them.

[shalemkitsis]

That's the dumbest argument against determinism I've heard in a long time