Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Counterpoint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Did Einstein and Bohm ever define precisely what they meant by “mentality” and to what extent it resembles the mind of a rational person?
Click to expand...
Bohm said it was “a rudimentary mental pole.”

Bohm was influenced by Whitehead’s process metaphysics which qualifies as a form of panpsychism. (Bohm’s “implicate and explicate order” also qualifies as a form of panpsychism.) Within this metaphysical system, “actual entities” are the fundamental constituents. Each actual entity (or “actual occasion of experience”) has both a physical pole and a mental pole. (You will notice that Bohm employed the term “mental pole” - a term he co-opted from Whitehead.) And each actual entity exercises some measure of free will or self-determination. (I say “measure” because process metaphysics is a hierarchical system. That is, there are higher-level actual entities (themselves composed of of actual entities) that exercise more self-determinism. So, there is a continuum from more random to more self-determined as you scale-up to higher-level actual entities. And this is exactly what we observe with biological organisms.)

“Biology is the study of larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of smaller organisms.” - Alfred North Whitehead
 
Counterpoint said:

Quantum indeterminism is part and parcel of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
As with much else that’s put forward in Wikipedia, that’s not quite true. (It depends on what one means by “standard interpretation”, on which not all physicists or philosophers agree). The evolution of the state function is totally deterministic (governed by the Schrodinger equation). The measurement process, in some versions of quantum mechanics, is what introduces chance/randomness. In one version of quantum mechanics, Everett’s Relative State Theory, all is deterministic, including the measurement process. At fundamentals, your favorite physicist’s QM theory is deterministic; hidden variables were introduced to put a parallel with classical statistical mechanics: underlying deterministic variables, but unknown except for a statistical interpretation.
Here’s some reading you can do to further your knowledge of what QM is all about:
Chapter 10 in “The Conscious Mind” by David Chalmers;
“Quantum Enigma” by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner;
Quantum Mechanical View of Reality, Part 1 and Part 2, Richard Feynmann
“Quantum Mechanics–Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action”, Eds John Russell et al (click on the purple icon to get specific articles)

Finally, I’ll end up with a quote (roughly) by Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner for his work in quantum electrodynamics: “If you meet someone at a cocktail party, and he tells you he understands quantum mechanics, you’ll know one thing” (what’s that?) “he’s a liar.”

enjoy!
 
Anselm33 said:
As with much else that’s put forward in Wikipedia, that’s not quite true. (It depends on what one means by “standard interpretation”, on which not all physicists or philosophers agree).
Click to expand...
The Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation of QM. And what I stated in that post is factually correct: Quantum indeterminism is part and parcel of the standard interpretation (a.k.a. the Copenhagen interpretation) of quantum mechanics
However, the advent of quantum mechanics removed the underpinning from that approach, with the claim that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter at times behave indeterministically. This comes from the collapse of the wave function, in which the state of a system upon measurement cannot in general be predicted. (source: Wikipedia: Indeterminism)
Click to expand...
 
Counterpoint said:
The Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation of QM. And what I stated in that post is factually correct: Quantum indeterminism is part and parcel of the standard interpretation (a.k.a. the Copenhagen interpretation) of quantum mechanics
Click to expand...
I’m out of here…it’s clear you’re more interested in winning arguments than learning.
I’m a Ph.D. physicist with published papers in quantum mechanics, so I know when Wikipedia is full of it.
 
Counterpoint said:
Bohm said it was “a rudimentary mental pole.”

Bohm was influenced by Whitehead’s process metaphysics which qualifies as a form of panpsychism. (Bohm’s “implicate and explicate order” also qualifies as a form of panpsychism.) Within this metaphysical system, “actual entities” are the fundamental constituents. Each actual entity (or “actual occasion of experience”) has both a physical pole and a mental pole. (You will notice that Bohm employed the term “mental pole” - a term he co-opted from Whitehead.) And each actual entity exercises some measure of free will or self-determination. (I say “measure” because process metaphysics is a hierarchical system. That is, there are higher-level actual entities (themselves composed of of actual entities) that exercise more self-determinism. So, there is a continuum from more random to more self-determined as you scale-up to higher-level actual entities. And this is exactly what we observe with biological organisms.)

“Biology is the study of larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of smaller organisms.” - Alfred North Whitehead
Click to expand...
How can there be an intermediate stage between random and self-determined? :confused:
Either the self exists or it doesn’t.
 
tonyrey said:
It still doesn’t explain how the **power **of choice originated. Does a light switch have free will? If not why not?
Click to expand...
The two-stage model applies to a conscious agent. It explains how an agent could have chosen to do otherwise given the same circumstances by invoking both a random aspect and a deterministic aspect into the decision-making process.
 
Counterpoint said:
The two-stage model applies to a conscious agent. It explains how an agent could have chosen to do otherwise given the same circumstances by invoking both a random aspect and a deterministic aspect into the decision-making process.
Click to expand...
This quote seems apt at this point.
Science and Statistics (1976):
Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a “correct” one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.
Click to expand...
 
Counterpoint said:
*It still doesn’t explain how the **power ***
Click to expand...
  1. Consciousness alone does not confer autonomy.
  2. Nor is a random or determined decision consistent with responsibility.
  3. You have still not explained how the power of choice originated.
  4. Does a light switch have free will? If not why not?
Click to expand...
 
Counterpoint said:
Well, if you are aware of a more compelling and parsimonious model of libertarian free will, then please share it.
Click to expand...
The most parsimonious model of genuinely libertarian free will is **one **person making one decision without interference or constraint. All other models mitigate or eliminate personal responsibility - and amount to passing the buck. Like charity it begins at home, not in factors over which we have no control.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. Consciousness alone does not confer autonomy.
  2. Nor is a random or determined decision consistent with responsibility.
  3. You have still not explained how the power of choice originated.
  4. Does a light switch have free will? If not why not?
Click to expand...
I am not obligated to furnish you with any model of free will. In fact, it is quite the contrary. You are the one who has to furnish me with a model of free will which neither entails determinism nor indeterminism. Thus far, you haven’t furnished me with anything.

By the way, if you believe that consciousness does not exert any causal efficacy, then you will have to explain why it was naturally selected by evolution. Because it is not possible for something that is both invisible and causally inefficacious to confer any kind of selective advantage.
 
tonyrey said:
The most parsimonious model of genuinely libertarian free will is **one **person making one decision without interference or constraint. All other models mitigate or eliminate personal responsibility - and amount to passing the buck. Like charity it begins at home, not in factors over which we have no control.
Click to expand...
Please explain how such a model neither entails determinism nor indeterminism. If you can’t do that, then your model is not very compelling.
 
Counterpoint said:
Please explain how such a model neither entails determinism nor indeterminism. If you can’t do that, then your model is not very compelling.
Click to expand...
  1. As you have defined it, indeterminism is false. There are no events without a cause.
  2. Determinism precludes free will
  3. I know I am free to choose - I have free will
    given 1, 2 and 3, you offer an irrational false dichotomy.
 
davidv said:
  1. As you have defined it, indeterminism is false. There are no events without a cause.
  2. Determinism precludes free will
  3. I know I am free to choose - I have free will
    given 1, 2 and 3, you offer an irrational false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
Indeterminsm and “not determinism” are interchangeable terms. So, if determinism is not true, then it logically follows that indeterminism (not determinism) is true and vice versa. And if you do not agree with this, then we will not be able to continue this debate. Because it is not possible to have a rational debate if we can’t agree on the dictates of logic.
 
Hello!

I would like to contribute.

I don’t think the categories offered exhaust the possibilities. Since these terms seem to have been applied to and discussed within a purely philosophical outlook (not that there really is such a thing - only in academia), these words seem to have in mind only materialistic determinism.

As such, since the material world is not all that exists, and since humans have souls, then pure materialistic determinism is false. i.e. it is not possible to calculate the outcome of every event and predict the decision of every human being based on brain states from moment to moment. The soul, which is immaterial, plays a role in making decisions. This might be described as materialistic indeterminism or materialistic libertarianism, since it says that material does not do the determining.

On the other hand, we live in a universe created by a God who is himself not part of the spatial-temporal order. Rather, all of space and time and everything in them is created by God, including us and our wills. This does not “interfere” with our wills because God himself is the source of our wills. We are not on a level playing field with God where our will and his will can get in the way of each other. It is more like he is the playing field that creates the possibility for our free will and at the same time he creates us making our decisions. This might be called theistic determinism since God, to whom every moment present and future, is present, creates a complete universe, determined not by material interactions which are lower than us, but by an omniscient and all-loving God.

Hope this helps!
 
mattdantuono said:
I don’t think the categories offered exhaust the possibilities. Since these terms seem to have been applied to and discussed within a purely philosophical outlook (not that there really is such a thing - only in academia), these words seem to have in mind only materialistic determinism.
Click to expand...
A couple of points:
  1. This is a philosophical forum; therefore, my employment of philosophical terms is more than appropriate.
  2. My argument assumes the validity of the theistic worldview.
 
Counterpoint said:
Please explain how such a model neither entails determinism nor indeterminism. If you can’t do that, then your model is not very compelling.
Click to expand...
I have already pointed out that self-determinism does not entail determinism or indeterminism because a person is a not a set of particles but an indivisible entity, a fact recognised throughout the world in every court of law and in daily life by every reasonable person - except theoreticians in an ivory tower all of whose conclusions are based on the belief that their conclusions are theirs, not by accident or compulsion but by voluntary design! :whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top