How do atheists get around determinism?

[hatsoff]

no science is practiced independently of the PSR. name a single physical science that doesnt rely on the PSR as its very foundation. every scientist expects, and rightly so, that there is an cause for the effect that he has observed.

it is literally the basis for the scientific method.

Already covered.

no, im not confusing it with chaos, im saying that an effect without a cause is impossible!

**no effect is possible without existence, otherwise the effect wouldnt exist. the ultimate cause of any effect is existence itself. no matter the steps between the bare fact of existence, and any particular effect, we can be assured that each and every effect has a cause. **

if your a little light on philosophy, then there is this rejection.

That’s not a proof of the PSR. In fact, I can’t say it’s a proof of anything. Effects have causes by definition.

Consider the following proposition: Proposition P is true, and P has no explanation. Let’s call this proposition Q. Is that sentence consistent? If not, in what way is it inconsistent? If it is consistent, then the PSR (let’s call it R, for short) cannot be logically proved, since Q implies ~R.

the PSR is tested an untold number of times and always found to be true, what more proof do you need? it is more rock solid than any of the laws of physics. we know it in ways more intimate and familiar than any of the physical laws, that you surely do not deny.

The PSR is an inappropriate generalization of the evidence of which you speak, as explained previously.

i propose that if you deny the PSR, you deny the ability to know anything, as there “may be” an exception to any laws at all. but some how i doubt your level of skepticism rises to such things as denying gravity, max light speed, the laws of conservation of mass, energy, momentum. etc.

What you propose is that ~R implies certain scientific facts are false. However, ~R implies nothing of the sort.

if you reject the PSR on the basis of a lack of evidence, then you necessarioly deny the ability to actually know anything at all.

see above.

and what of fermats evidence? number theory was the basis in reality of his theorum. number theory is ultimately based on integers we see correspond to physical objects. thats not a theory based on no evidence. there is no such thing.

Number theory is not based on anything physical. At best, it is inspired by physical observations.

how does one theorize from nothing?

You don’t, but you needn’t theorize from anything real, either. In the case of number theory, we have declared axioms.

i think maybe we are talking past eachother on this part. we may be having different ideas of language here, surely you dont think hypothesis are real objects floating about somewhere?

Thankfully no.

Although I have given an abstract example, abstractions are indeed far afield of the topic in question. We don’t need evidence to make coherent statements about the physical world, as long as we don’t care whether those statements are true or false. And hypotheses are just a certain kind of statement, which can be true or false. Physical evidence enters into play when we wish to make a judgment on the truth or falsity of the statements, and only then if the statements refer to the real world.

That was my point, earlier.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Effects have causes by definition.

A definition is a part of logical argument.

But an “effect” is defined by a “change”. Something went from not being to being and vise versa. Anything and everything that changes or changed, is an effect and thus had a cause (by definition).

Those things that never change and never have are the “divine”, but even they have logical (situational) cause, not temporal cause.

You can’t get around cause.

Consider the following proposition: Proposition P is true, and P has no explanation. Let’s call this proposition Q. Is that sentence consistent? If not, in what way is it inconsistent? If it is consistent, then the PSR (let’s call it R, for short) cannot be logically proved, since Q implies ~R.

By saying that “it has no explanation”, you are merely confessing ignorance of its cause. “Q implies ~R” is a false presumption.

If you meant that P has no cause, then yes, it would be inconsistent with logic, be-cause everything pertaining to logic has cause, no exceptions, either “temporal cause” or “situational cause” (ex; the small box fits inside the large box be-cause (by the cause of) all of the dimensions of the small box are lesser).

 

[tdgesq]

Every single science is practiced independent of the PSR, which is a philosophical hypothesis. I wonder if most scientists have even heard of the PSR!

I wonder that too. I do not see denial of PSR as equivalent to denial of cause. Although there are some scientists who apparently believe that quantum mechanics gives them license to posit various ontological absurdities like that.

In any case, I think the question assumes that most atheists are materialists, and that in the materialist’s metaphysic causation demands determinism. Yet most atheists act like they have free will. Are there any atheists here who believe in such a thing as free will?

 

[hatsoff]

I wonder that too. I do not see denial of PSR as equivalent to denial of cause. Although there are some scientists who apparently believe that quantum mechanics gives them license to posit various ontological absurdities like that.

In any case, I think the question assumes that most atheists are materialists, and that in the materialist’s metaphysic causation demands determinism. Yet most atheists act like they have free will. Are there any atheists here who believe in such a thing as free will?

You can slap a label on anything, and in the end, “free will” is just a label. The question becomes, then, is “free will” an appropriate label for our exercising of voluntary choice? I suppose it depends on the context.

In a conversation like this, I tend to avoid saying that I accept free will. To be more precise, I should say that I do not accept free will as envisioned by many Christian theologians.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Already covered.

you addressed it yes, but only to deny it. i dont think that you can name ones physical science that doesnt rely on the PSR. as i said a scientist rightly expects a cause for an onserved effect, he hypothesizes about said cause, experimenting until a theory holds. can you please be specific as to how or what of the sciences doesnt use the PSR in the sceientific method?

That’s not a proof of the PSR. In fact, I can’t say it’s a proof of anything. Effects have causes by definition.

it is proof that it is not possible to have an effect without a cause. that would seem to be proof of the PSR.

isnt this then an admission of the veracity of the PSR? do you mean this is some manner that may exclude the PSR?

Consider the following proposition: Proposition P is true, and P has no explanation. Let’s call this proposition Q. Is that sentence consistent? If not, in what way is it inconsistent? If it is consistent, then the PSR (let’s call it R, for short) cannot be logically proved, since Q implies ~R.

except the PSR says that if P is true there must be a sufficient reason. P cannot be true without sufficient explanation. there is no known situation in which your proposition is possible. its imaginary. Q isnt possible. the sentence is inconsistent. P must have a cause because it exists, the chain between existence as the cause., and the effect is unimportant, if P exists, there is a sufficient explanation. otherwise P would not exist.thats not the only problem though. you arent holding other laws or principles to this standard, specifically the laws of physics.

The PSR is an inappropriate generalization of the evidence of which you speak, as explained previously.

yet you accept the generalizations of the physical laws do you not? it would seem that if you do, then you hold different standards for what you wish to be true and what you do not wish to be true. thats a contradictory position to hold. cognitively dissonant.

QUOTE]What you propose is that ~R implies certain scientific facts are false. However, ~R implies nothing of the sort.

thats not what i said. i said that no knowledge can be held trustworthily at all if the PSR were false. if things happen without sufficient reason, all scientific facts can be construed as nothing more than coincidence.

if a scale can show 5 lbs, when it has 34 pounds on it one time, and 2 pounds the next, the scale is untrustworthy, no?

Number theory is not based on anything physical. At best, it is inspired by physical observations.
You don’t, but you needn’t theorize from anything real, either. In the case of number theory, we have declared axioms.

and what are they declared from? observed phenomenon. 1 2 3 4 apples, hey, a quantity we can now divide among the other cavemen.

Thankfully no.

Although I have given an abstract example, abstractions are indeed far afield of the topic in question. We don’t need evidence to make coherent statements about the physical world, as long as we don’t care whether those statements are true or false. And hypotheses are just a certain kind of statement, which can be true or false. Physical evidence enters into play when we wish to make a judgment on the truth or falsity of the statements, and only then if the statements refer to the real world.

That was my point, earlier.

im not sure what this has to do with the basis of the scientific method, scientists expect a cause for an effect, everyone from the geologist to the physicist, they expect a sufficient reason for the effect, that we call the cause. the veracity of the hypothesis is the core reason for the scientific method, and physical, empirical evidence is the gold standard in their investigations. they arent pure mathematicians, dealing in the abstract.

 

[AnAtheist]

you may say that free will comes from quantum indeterminancy, but as above, causal determinism in matters of QM is easily proven from its contingent relationship with the universe. and if true, then where is the evidence, surely free will shouldnt be the only phenomenon associated with quantum indeterminism?

Why not?
What is Free Will anyway? Doesn’t this term simply mean that someone makes a choice between presented options in a certain situation on his own? It doesn’t really matter how in detail this choice is made, by quantum processes, mechanical processes, magical processes, or transcendent processes. (Btw, as you have mentioned evidence, there is even less evidence for other than physical processes.)

if free will is deterministic that means that the start of the universe was randomly formed in such a way as to perfectly fake all those data points. for no reason at all other than pure chance.

Well, an omniscient, omnipotent creator cannot form a universe otherwise. An omnipresent observer like God would cause any quantum wave function to collapse anyway, so there would be no indeterminism on the quantum level at all. So real Free Will would actually prove there is no omni-anything god.
Or the Calvinists are correct.

 

[Just_Lurking]

except the PSR says that if P is true there must be a sufficient reason. P cannot be true without sufficient explanation. there is no known situation in which your proposition is possible. its imaginary. Q isnt possible. the sentence is inconsistent.

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem contains a constructive proof of Q. Godel constructs P as a universally quantified sentence in the logic of arithmetic, such that P is true, but there is no proof of P. (Hence the logic of arithmetic is incomplete.) What is the “sufficient explanation” of P, given that there is no mathematical proof of P?

Are there any papers in metaphysics that address the consequences of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem as regards the PSR?

Edited to add: Google found the following (see here):

And here is where the concept of algorithmic information can make its surprising contribution to the philosophical discussion of the origins and limits of knowledge. It reveals that certain mathematical facts are true for no reason, a discovery that flies in the face of the principle of sufficient reason.

Indeed, as I will show later, it turns out that an infinite number of mathematical facts are irreducible, which means no theory explains why they are true. These facts are not just computationally irreducible, they are logically irreducible. The only way to “prove” such facts is to assume them directly as new axioms, without using reasoning at all.

 

[tdgesq]

You can slap a label on anything, and in the end, “free will” is just a label.

So is “determinism,” and a whole host of other philosophical terms. It’s going to be a little bit difficult to communicate with one another if we dismiss all such terms as mere labels.

The question becomes, then, is “free will” an appropriate label for our exercising of voluntary choice? I suppose it depends on the context.

I disagree. The question is what definition of “free will” do you accept, and more to the point, whether that definition corresponds to any philosophically recognized meaning of that term. It’s not as if the concept is a new one.

In a conversation like this, I tend to avoid saying that I accept free will.

Why? Simply define your terms. If someone attributes a meaning to you that is incorrect, direct him back to your definition.

To be more precise, I should say that I do not accept free will as envisioned by many Christian theologians.

I don’t accept free will as envisioned by many Christian theologians either. That doesn’t tell anybody what you do accept though.

Here is the problem that the atheist has: his worldview demands that determinism is true, yet he goes about the world declaring how proud he is of his accomplishments and how outraged he is over the actions of others - how people ought to do X but not do Y; all the while claiming he has a rational basis for how he acts.

To answer the OP, the way atheists attempt to get around determinism is to redefine “free will” as determinism. That is why they are loathe to give you a definition, because it immediately becomes apparent that is what they are doing.

 

[James_S_Saint]

To answer the OP, the way atheists attempt to get around determinism is to redefine “free will” as determinism. That is why they are loathe to give you a definition, because it immediately becomes apparent that is what they are doing.

Bing-go!!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not?

first, quantum indeterminancy is easily disproven, no universe no QM.

What is Free Will anyway? Doesn’t this term simply mean that someone makes a choice between presented options in a certain situation on his own?

ummm…no, whats this about presented options? i can choose to react any way to stimuli, regardless of sitiuation. there is a difference between the ability to do something and being rational doing it. if i got a speeding ticket, i could pay it, do a little dance, build a rocket ship in protest, or roll around on the ground. not all those options are rational, but barring a physical inability, like handcuffs, i am capable of an infinite range of responses.

It doesn’t really matter how in detail this choice is made, by quantum processes, mechanical processes, magical processes, or transcendent processes.

it makes a huge difference philosophically. we can rule out quantum indeterminism, and mechanical processes for the same reason, the universe is deterministic and if its not then how did the universe come to form in such a way as to perfectly fake trillions of tests of free will per day?, magic? i wont bother with that, transcendant processes are the only ones left, hence my metaphysical libertarianism. the universe is clearly determinant, we clearly have free will. you are then left with only processes transcendant of the physical universe. maybe what we call the soul.

(Btw, as you have mentioned evidence, there is even less evidence for other than physical processes.)

trillions of tests everyday for thousands of years are less evidence than for theories and laws developed just a couple centuries ago? youre unable to account for the difference in standards here, but seem unwilling to admit it. i think perhaps your atheism is a faith. a religion in its own way.

Well, an omniscient, omnipotent creator cannot form a universe otherwise.

why not? wouldnt be very omnipotent if He were restricted to a STEM universe now would He? why must the universe be STEM? is STEM the only possible arrangement? why? i can conceive of universes with any manner of substances that would not be of the normal matter, or even material for that matter.

An omnipresent observer like God would cause any quantum wave function to collapse anyway, so there would be no indeterminism on the quantum level at all.

we can already get there from the mere fact of existence. QM relies on a universe already existng, a contingent relationship, implies a necessary causal relationship.

So real Free Will would actually prove there is no omni-anything god.

i dont see how you get this conclusion from the premise.

Or the Calvinists are correct.

correct about what? im a Catholic.

 

[hatsoff]

So is “determinism,” and a whole host of other philosophical terms. It’s going to be a little bit difficult to communicate with one another if we dismiss all such terms as mere labels.

Indeed, but as you yourself noticed “free will” is a particularly problematic term which has lots of different definitions.

In other words, I could say that I accept non-libertarian free will, but without further comment, would that really help communicate anything? In fact, I imagine it would only confound matters–which is why I’ve learned to avoid saying it.

I disagree. The question is what definition of “free will” do you accept, and more to the point, whether that definition corresponds to any philosophically recognized meaning of that term. It’s not as if the concept is a new one.

You claim to disagree, but I see nothing in those sentences which conflict with my own statements. Perhaps we are on closer ground than expected!

Why? Simply define your terms. If someone attributes a meaning to you that is incorrect, direct him back to your definition.

“Free will,” if we wish to say we have it, must be the ability to exercise what we understand as voluntary choice in this physical world. I find saying any more than that to be somewhat dubious.

I don’t accept free will as envisioned by many Christian theologians either. That doesn’t tell anybody what you do accept though.

I don’t accept any wacky metaphysical definition of “free will.” We are what we are: physical machines making our way in the physical world. But that is all we need for phenomena like consciousness, desire and action.

Here is the problem that the atheist has: his worldview demands that determinism is true,

It demands no such thing, actually. But let’s say determinism is true. At the very least, it seems to be a decent working hypothesis.

yet he goes about the world declaring how proud he is of his accomplishments and how outraged he is over the actions of others - how people ought to do X but not do Y; all the while claiming he has a rational basis for how he acts.

You write that as if you see some conflict between accepting determinism and issuing moral judgments. In case you aren’t already aware, let me inform you there is none such.

To answer the OP, the way atheists attempt to get around determinism is to redefine “free will” as determinism. That is why they are loathe to give you a definition, because it immediately becomes apparent that is what they are doing.

That’s not the reason. Rather, I have simply found that almost every time I try to explain what I mean by “free will,” people misunderstand. So I have given up, and, as mentioned previously, I avoid attempting the explanation at all.

However, you have pressed me to give an account, and so I have. I hope it satisfies your curiosity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem contains a constructive proof of Q. Godel constructs P as a universally quantified sentence in the logic of arithmetic, such that P is true, but there is no proof of P. (Hence the logic of arithmetic is incomplete.) What is the “sufficient explanation” of P, given that there is no mathematical proof of P?

Are there any papers in metaphysics that address the consequences of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem as regards the PSR?

Edited to add: Google found the following (see here):

And here is where the concept of algorithmic information can make its surprising contribution to the philosophical discussion of the origins and limits of knowledge. It reveals that certain mathematical facts are true for no reason, a discovery that flies in the face of the principle of sufficient reason.

Indeed, as I will show later, it turns out that an infinite number of mathematical facts are irreducible, which means no theory explains why they are true. These facts are not just computationally irreducible, they are logically irreducible. The only way to “prove” such facts is to assume them directly as new axioms, without using reasoning at all.

an interesting abstract.

but it begs the question, how do we know they are true? i assume that they in some way reflect or predict reality. isnt this then the reason they are true?

 

[Just_Lurking]

an interesting abstract.

but it begs the question, how do we know they are true? i assume that they in some way reflect or predict reality. isnt this then the reason they are true?

There is “meta-level” reasoning that shows Godel’s constructed statement (from his 1930’s incompleteness theorem) is true. In that sense, it does not violate the PSR.

Chaitin’s more recent result is a non-constructive existence proof, so it isn’t actually possible to write down one of his true but unprovable irreducible facts. Imagine a diagonalization argument, where you enumerate all the possible proofs / reasons / sufficient explanations, and for each one, you introduce an aspect to the irreducible statement that guarantees that proof isn’t a proof of the statement being defined. In that sense, Chaitin has disproved the PSR without actually constructing a specific counter-example.

 

[hatsoff]

you addressed it yes, but only to deny it. i dont think that you can name ones physical science that doesnt rely on the PSR. as i said a scientist rightly expects a cause for an onserved effect, he hypothesizes about said cause, experimenting until a theory holds. can you please be specific as to how or what of the sciences doesnt use the PSR in the sceientific method?

Like I said, none of it depends on the PSR. Not one bit. If you think that it does, then I’m afraid it’s up to you to explain how and why.

it is proof that it is not possible to have an effect without a cause. that would seem to be proof of the PSR.

Are you suggesting that the PSR is summed up in the simple statement that “every effect has a cause”?

Wikipedia has this to say on various formulations of the PSR.

yet you accept the generalizations of the physical laws do you not? it would seem that if you do, then you hold different standards for what you wish to be true and what you do not wish to be true. thats a contradictory position to hold. cognitively dissonant.

I have different standards for different contexts, sure. There is nothing inconsistent about that.

thats not what i said. i said that no knowledge can be held trustworthily at all if the PSR were false. if things happen without sufficient reason, all scientific facts can be construed as nothing more than coincidence.

if a scale can show 5 lbs, when it has 34 pounds on it one time, and 2 pounds the next, the scale is untrustworthy, no?

Not at all. The scale is quite trustworthy. Probabilistic support is all we require for trust and expectation–and we have plenty of it.

im not sure what this has to do with the basis of the scientific method, scientists expect a cause for an effect, everyone from the geologist to the physicist, they expect a sufficient reason for the effect, that we call the cause. the veracity of the hypothesis is the core reason for the scientific method, and physical, empirical evidence is the gold standard in their investigations. they arent pure mathematicians, dealing in the abstract.

Scientists look for natural explanations for natural phenomena, but they are fully aware that they are by no means guaranteed to find one. In more abstract fields like cosmology, they often aren’t even sure one is possible. And they certainly have no inherent expectation for an explanation of nature itself.

That kind of thing is simply beyond the scope of modern science.

 

[tdgesq]

Indeed, but as you yourself noticed “free will” is a particularly problematic term which has lots of different definitions.

Things aren’t necessarily problematic merely because not everybody agrees on an exact definition. Free will at a minimum requires some control by a human subject over his actions such that we can impute moral responsibility. We can argue about the nature and extent of that control, or we can argue about the minimum requirements for responsibility. The term is not nearly as ambiguous as you suggest.

In other words, I could say that I accept non-libertarian free will, but without further comment, would that really help communicate anything?

It communicates an enormous amount of information. It tells me that you are not a libertarian or a hard determinist, which tells me you are compatibilist. It remains to be seen whether you have any good arguments for compatibilism however.

“Free will,” if we wish to say we have it, must be the ability to exercise what we understand as voluntary choice in this physical world. I find saying any more than that to be somewhat dubious.

You mean you wish to leave the term vague and ambiguous. The obvious question is: what constitutes a “voluntary” choice? You don’t need to give an explanation, but then neither does anybody need to accept that you’ve actually given an explanation.

I don’t accept any wacky metaphysical definition of “free will.” We are what we are: physical machines making our way in the physical world. But that is all we need for phenomena like consciousness, desire and action.

Can you point out where I have alluded to anything that would count as a wacky metaphysical definition of free will? On the other hand, what are we to make of your claim that we are “physical machines making our way in the physical world” and “that is all we need for phenomena like consciousness . . .”? I would like to see the scientific evidence that proves our consciousness is exclusively the product of the material world. I would have expected the results of any such neurological investigation to be on the front page of every paper around the world. It is superstitious nonsense like this that convinces many of us of the truth of theism.

It demands no such thing, actually. But let’s say determinism is true. At the very least, it seems to be a decent working hypothesis.

It demands it in a materialist ontology, which I already stated was assumed. And that seems a safe assumption since I have yet to meet an atheist/agnostic who wasn’t a materialist. If you disagree, then you are free to make your argument. And determinism isn’t a very good working hypothesis at all when it comes to propositions about moral responsibility and normative conduct.

You write that as if you see some conflict between accepting determinism and issuing moral judgments. In case you aren’t already aware, let me inform you there is none such.

I do see a conflict, and I disagree with your conclusion that there isn’t one. Attempts to set forth ethical standards in a purely deterministic material universe ultimately end in arbitrariness. There is no rational basis for those standards.

That’s not the reason. Rather, I have simply found that almost every time I try to explain what I mean by “free will,” people misunderstand. So I have given up, and, as mentioned previously, I avoid attempting the explanation at all.

That is strange. The groundwork and categories for discussing free will are well established. I don’t know why there would be so much misunderstanding. But if you don’t want to clarify your position, then I guess we are back to the question: How do atheists get around determinism?

 

[hatsoff]

I would like to see the scientific evidence that proves our consciousness is exclusively the product of the material world. I would have expected the results of any such neurological investigation to be on the front page of every paper around the world. It is superstitious nonsense like this that convinces many of us of the truth of theism.

If you think I’m suggesting anything warranting such a response, then I request you re-read my last post.

 

[tdgesq]

If you think I’m suggesting anything warranting such a response, then I request you re-read my last post.

I reread it. I stand by my post. Actually, your statement is more speculative than I first realized. If you claim that I have mischaracterized you in someway, I am willing to consider it and even retract my statement if I made a mistake.

 

[harvard1970]

1. The world is rational, and everything can be sufficiently explained.
2. Everything has a knowable cause.
3. Nothing can go against the laws of nature and thus everything acts according to those laws

I think this summary overstates (1) and (2) with the categorical “everything”, “everything” -
It tends to support the fallacy that if we don’t know the cause of something, science fails, rather than recognizing that in a couple thousand more years we might understand things much better than today (comparing today to 2000 years ago, 4000 years, 6000 years).

The point (3) is certainly believed.

A rewording of (1) (2) (3) might emphasize that scientists look for a natural explanation rather than assigning a supersitious explanation.

 

[morgantj]

How do atheists get around determinism?

Why try to “get around” it if it makes sense? I know, because people are caused and ultimately “determined” to. They are attached to the illusion of free-will, of having freedom, they are attached to wanting to have some level of control. Ironically, the very determinism they attempt to deny determined them to deny it.

 

[tonyrey]

Why try to “get around” it if it makes sense? I know, because people are caused and ultimately “determined” to. They are attached to the illusion of free-will, of having freedom, they are attached to wanting to have some level of control. Ironically, the very determinism they attempt to deny determined them to deny it.

In that case your “knowledge” that people’s thoughts are determined is determined and makes you determined to deny that there is free will! In other words your argument is self-destructive because there is no guarantee that thoughts which are caused by physical events are true. BTW How do you know all our thoughts are determined?