The Fallacy of Determinism and Freewill (and any theory for that matter)

[Jacobsrw]

Both of these theoretical worldviews are equally flawed from my own analyses and reflection. Just as is all theories, beliefs and worldviews.

Determinism 

Determinism argues that ones foreseeable future is predetermined by virtue of where they began. This is a complete fallacy if we accept reality is in constant change and flux. Epigenetic’s, neuroplasticity, quantum physics and the relativity of space and time all debunk this notion. A beginning can not determine an end if the changes in between it manipulate its unfolding process. We can observe this in nature. Whereby all ecosystems are completely different form the beginnings they first sprung. A forest or river morph, grow and deplete according to the surrounding weather and inhabitants that feed it. The earth has evolved and transmutated more times than any other observable part of life. Another good example is one who is born impoverished and maltreated. This person can turn their circumstance around providing they have the resources available. Or they may just choose to respond differently and make use of what they have been dealt. Either way, one is manipulating their forthcoming reality.

Freewill

Freewill is the inverse of determinism but is just as absurd. It argues one has independent autonomy and control over the outcome of their life and the decisions they conduct. At first this would seem true. However, at a fundamental level almost all functions we operate are autonomous to our conscious choosing. The many thoughts you concoct daily are not of your choosing. You do not choose how many thoughts to have at a given moment. Or which ones will overcome your mind at a given time. They arise at their own will completely dependent upon your state of mind and circumstance. How you respond to the manifestation of thoughts can be chosen by you but not the arising of them. This can be extrapolated to biology as well. Almost all functions of the body operate without your conscious intent. You do not consciously choose how to beat your heart, pump your blood, digest food, or when to be tired etc.

It’s accurate to argue one can put forth particular actions and behaviours that influence change upon these functions. Yet it is complete delusion to believe one can independently will them.

And finally, both of these theories are conceptual. Which means they are abstracted from reality. There is no determinism or freewill inherently held within the theory determinism and freewill. They are simply abstractions, thought forms taken out of reality to understand through a human lens. Which means they are invariably fragmented and limited, as all theories are.

At a metaphysical level both of these belief systems are dependent on mind and hold no objectivity of their own. They imply language, thought and concept. Which renders them unequivocally limited and secondary. Theories and beliefs are predicated on a mind which is it’s self another conceptual belief. 

Why is all this important? Because many of us act from the presupposition of these paradigms and find ourselves at the mercy of their principles. When just a short analysis reveals how absurd they really are.

Figures such as Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, who actively pontificate about these topics, only further compound the problem and delude audiences. We need to reflect upon given theories ourselves and determine the fallibility or truthfulness of them.

A better way to consider life is that of the Lao Tszu’s explanations. The Tao Te Ching.

“Those who flow as life flows need no other force” – Lao Tzu

Life is like an ever changing river that should be moved with.

Would love to hear others thoughts on these topics. Especially from those who follow ides of this sort. Fire away.

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Mason Riggle]

1 hour ago, Jacobsrw said:

Determinism argues that ones foreseeable future is predetermined by virtue of where they began.

1) This is not Determinism. 

2) Determinism doesn't 'argue' anything.. determinists do. 

3) 'Predetermined' is a redundant term, like 'pre-planned'.. you can't 'determine' something 'prior to' determining it.  You can't plan something prior to planning it.   You don't 'pre-plan' your trip to the beach.. you just plan your trip to the beach.  Things are 'determined' by 'determinants', not 'predetermined'. 

Determinism is a relatively simple notion, that in my opinion, has never been 'debunked'.  In it's simplest terms, it's one half a duality..  Not Determined or Determined.  

If you consider what 'not determined' means regarding any 'event', it means that 'nothing' caused the event to be how the event was.  I don't know of any model of reality where the sentence 'nothing caused something' is coherent.  Yet, we see examples of the opposite being true.  The distance of the Javelin was 'determined' by the angle and speed of the toss, the wind resistance, etc..   The behavior of the bridge was 'determined' by it's shape, construction material, amount of use, etc.. 

Even in quantum mechanics, quantum events are not 'uncaused' (not caused), random, or unpredictable.  

The very fact that minds can make fairly accurate predictions at all, is excellent evidence for a 'determined' Universe.  Any 'unpredictability' seems to come from the fact that we don't have access to every 'determining' factor.  There are always 'unknowns', but just because we don't know what 'determined' something, doesn't mean that something was 'not determined'. 

----------------------------------------------------

'freewill'.. the notion that in any given moment things could occur 'other than how they are occurring' is nonsense. 

@Kalo is correct.. there is only 'Gods Will' or 'the will of the Universe'.. or 'what will'. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Moksha]

2 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

And finally, both of these theories are conceptual. Which means they are abstracted from reality.

Given this limitation, why look for a conceptual answer?

Maybe the answer is in the question.

How can there be free will, or determinism, if there is no I? See the shell game Consciousness plays?

[Jacobsrw]

2 hours ago, Kalo said:

To grant free will to the ego implies seperation from God's Will, which is impossible. There is only God's Will. 

God has total control and authority over it's Creation. 

Someone has to do it.

Precisely. Well said

Edited February 19, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

19 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

1) This is not Determinism. 

I believe it is. Pre-existing circumstances determine the foreseeable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism

19 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

2) Determinism doesn't 'argue' anything.. determinists do. 

I’m unsure of your point here, could you please elaborate. If you are proposing determinists are pragmatists I don’t see how that’s relevant to my argument. All determinism is, is an argument. It’s a theoretical proposition one claims upon reality in opposition that of a more freewill or pyrrhonist worldviews.

19 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

3) 'Predetermined' is a redundant term, like 'pre-planned'.. you can't 'determine' something 'prior to' determining it.  You can't plan something prior to planning it.   You don't 'pre-plan' your trip to the beach.. you just plan your trip to the beach.  Things are 'determined' by 'determinants', not 'predetermined'. 

The very fact that minds can make fairly accurate predictions at all, is excellent evidence for a 'determined' Universe.  

That isn’t determinism. Determinism is a progressive argument not a preordained one. Determinism argues that from one singular cause other events are determined to precipitate not predetermined to.

I feel you may be describing a different theoretical perspective.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

5 hours ago, Moksha said:

Given this limitation, why look for a conceptual answer?

Maybe the answer is in the question.

How can there be free will, or determinism, if there is no I? See the shell game Consciousness plays?

Yes from a absolutist point of view thats very true. However, relativity still exists in the domain of mind and provides utility in exploring.

We live in a mind of dualism, thus, should seek to understand the fallacies that lie within it.

Leap frogging aspects of reality can be just as delusional as staying asleep.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Mason Riggle]

@Jacobsrw Determinism says nothing about a 'single cause'. It's basically - cause and effect.  That humans can make *fairly accurate* predictions, is evidence for reality being determined in this 'cause and effect' manner.. but predictions are not guaranteed because we can't know all of the causes.. and the further out our predictions, the less probable they become. All it takes is one unknown factor to derail even the most confident prediction. 

Many people make the assumption that Detetminism is a model of reality that explains how events 'began', but this is a false assumption. It's a failure of logic to assume the Universe 'began' or that it will 'end'. If you get comfortable with infinite regress (and infinite progress) then this assumption goes away. 

Consider: how big is reality? How old is it? These questions are born of the assumption that reality is not infinite. 

We see evidence for a determined reality everywhere we look. Why do you think your comment will get responses? Because you understand that your comment will DETERMINE how others will respond. If determinism were not true, you couldn't predict anything at all. The floor might fall out from underneath you at any moment without cause. Gravity could suddenly fail, without cause. Nothing could be 'determined'. We couldn't predict anything. Events would just be happening 'without cause', and we couldn't say why anything happened. Why did I write this? No reason. Why do bridges stay up? Don't know.. just lucky I guess. Will cutting this tree cause it to fall? Who knows? We can't even guess. 

 

[Jacobsrw]

9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@Jacobsrw Determinism says nothing about a 'single cause'. It's basically - cause and effect.  That humans can make *fairly accurate* predictions, is evidence for reality being determined in this 'cause and effect' manner.. but predictions are not guaranteed because we can't know all of the causes.. and the further out our predictions, the less probable they become. All it takes is one unknown factor to derail even the most confident prediction. 

Many people make the assumption that Detetminism is a model of reality that explains how events 'began', but this is a false assumption. It's a failure of logic to assume the Universe 'began' or that it will 'end'. If you get comfortable with infinite regress (and infinite progress) then this assumption goes away. 

That’s very true. Although I never stated determinism claims a single cause determines others or that it strictly concerns its self with beginnings. I stated that determinism argues pre-existing circumstances determine the nature of those forthcoming. I used the term ”began” to analogise my statement. Determinism is concerned with experiences which are influenced by what preceded them. How things came to be what they are now in other words.

9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

@JacobsrwConsider: how big is reality? How old is it? These questions are born of the assumption that reality is not infinite. 

These questions are born as a function of duality not reality being limited. The mind is limited and thus, applies its limitations upon reality to diminish reality’s infinitude. What else could a limited entity do?

9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

We see evidence for a determined reality everywhere we look. Why do you think your comment will get responses? Because you understand that your comment will DETERMINE how others will respond. If determinism were not true, you couldn't predict anything at all. The floor might fall out from underneath you at any moment without cause. Gravity could suddenly fail, without cause. Nothing could be 'determined'. We couldn't predict anything. Events would just be happening 'without cause', and we couldn't say why anything happened. Why did I write this? No reason. Why do bridges stay up? Don't know.. just lucky I guess. Will cutting this tree cause it to fall? Who knows? We can't even guess. 

 

I disagree with this comment. Reality is always in flux. Yes particular patterns continue to occur within it but this does not support the argument of determinism. It supports probabilistic occurrences, ones that are more likely to occur than not. However, they are still not guaranteed. This says nothing about a determined reality. It demonstrates a reality that can maintain consistencies and patterns but at anytime can change, which they tend to do. E.g. weather patterns.

My comment in no way guaranteed a response. It had nothing to do with determinism, I don’t see the relationship here but the one it seems you have applied. Responses to my post are probable. In fact, I was under the assumption it would render no responses and be ignored due to the lack of interest in philosophy I often see around here. Ironically.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Moksha]

12 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

Yes from a absolutist point of view thats very true. However, relativity still exists in the domain of mind and provides utility in exploring.

We live in a mind of dualism, thus, should seek to understand the fallacies that lie within it.

Leap frogging aspects of reality can be just as delusional as staying asleep.

I wouldn't call it leapfrogging, so much as recognizing that phenomenal reality arises from, and returns to, ultimate reality. God creates and destroys, and is the cause of everything in the cosmos. Would you agree that anything created cannot have free will of its own accord? It must act according to the parameters of its creation.

[Jacobsrw]

7 hours ago, Moksha said:

I wouldn't call it leapfrogging, so much as recognizing that phenomenal reality arises from, and returns to, ultimate reality. God creates and destroys, and is the cause of everything in the cosmos. Would you agree that anything created cannot have free will of its own accord? It must act according to the parameters of its creation.

Yes I would completely agree with what you said. I was just simply pointing out that the finite experience of a self must still be accounted for, hence, our discussion here. Theories and concepts are subsets of the larger picture we call ‘god ‘ or the ‘absolute‘, yet they still play an integral part in the egos development and its transcendence. 

Sorry if I misquoted you but I was using leap frogging as a figure speech to represent the process of awakening.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Moksha]

59 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Yes I would completely agree with what you said. I was just simply pointing out that the finite experience of a self must still be accounted for, hence, our discussion here. Theories and concepts are subsets of the larger picture we call ‘god ‘ or the ‘absolute‘, yet they still play an integral part in the egos development and its transcendence. 

I get you bro, just pointing to the "finite experience of a self" as being created by God/Consciousness/Tat, and therefore ultimately incapable of autonomous "free will"

[Heaven]

We are acting according to our genes and up to date conditioning which is all God’s will.

[Jacobsrw]

1 hour ago, Moksha said:

I get you bro, just pointing to the "finite experience of a self" as being created by God/Consciousness/Tat, and therefore ultimately incapable of autonomous "free will"

I completely agree! We invariably move with motions of reality 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

1 hour ago, Heaven said:

We are acting according to our genes and up to date conditioning which is all God’s will.

That’s true. Excepted it depends on what you mean by genes. There’s the ideological theory of genes or the apparent reality of genes which may be nothing more than a hologram.