Is the concept of hard determinism merely semantic trickery?

Question

What I mean is that it's really easy to prove hard determinism and a complete lack of free will. It's simply a case that every refutation for hard determinism gets 'feed-back looped' into the definition. For example one could say 'if multiple time-lines exist this disproves determinism'. But then you can just expand the notion of 'everything' to include multiple dimensions. Then you can say that there are determining factors underlying the workings of multiple dimensions. Or if someone argues that chance disproves it, then you can say that chance becomes a part of the sum of determining factors. Or whatever argument one makes against it. Could it be that this is really just 'labouring' (so to the speak) the notion of free will beyond all common-sense and feasibility?

Answer 1

Hard determinism simply means that one holds that all events that occur have a cause, regardless of dimensionality or spatial / temporal directionality (time and space) of the cause and effect, ...and that due to that free will is impossible. It really is not semantic trickery.



Instead, semantic trickery happens for those that contrive free will by redefining it in a way that is not free, not willed, or neither. These are compatibilist notions of free will. Such contrivances validate those who think they have this other version of free will, that being the ability to choose between more than one viable option in which such choice was up to them - even though this type of free will is logically impossible. The fact of the matter is: free will is logically incoherent. It is already beyond feasibility. People just except it because the illusion of it is so strong and deeply embedded within our psyche.



I am not a hard determinist, but rather a hard incompatibilist. This means that I think free will (logically) incompatible in both a deterministic universe (one where every event has a cause), as well as an indeterministic universe (one where acausal events happen). Some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics postulate acausal events (events without causes), and it is my stance that even if these interpretations are correct (and the universe is indeterministic), free will is impossible, as any acausal event cannot be a willed event.



I am currently writing a book explaining why both determinism and indeterminism are incompatible with free will, the logic behind it, and why different time conceptions do not help with the attainment of free will. I also explain why it is important for us to move away from our free will psychology.



For your question, the answer is "no". If the universe is deterministic, hard determinism is the only logically viable option, and is one that is not a game of semantics.



Hope this answers your question.



Take care,

'Trick Slattery

Answer 2

Not really.



It's more a matter of whether you believe any even can be truly random.

See we might generically consider a roll of the dice random, but what we really mean is it's beyond our ability to calculate what number will come up. In our hearts we believe with sufficient data, a precise & accurate prediction could occur.



Our minds are literally evolved to observe & predict cause & effect. We believe causality is absolute. Hmmm or is it?



Hard determinism is simply the question "Would an exact copy of the Universe unfold exactly as this one does?" Most folks would say yes - some no & it's not just a matter of brains.

Newton & Einstein would favor the yes crowd, the Quantum guys would say no.



In the end the point is virtually moot. You can't make an exact copy of the Universe. We presume absolute causality because one looses the capacity for logic the further you drift away from it...

...but there's no way to test absolute causality because we can't know if we have accounted for all possible causes.



Then debate is needlessly complicate by the Just/Judgemental God paradox - namely that God cannot justly judge us if hard determinism laid down our behavior the moment God created the Universe.



It would take many pages to cover the sloppy & missing definitions that make this debate possible.



God is the notion that the Universe is alive, as opposed the the notion that it just compels the creation of Life.

Creationism is the belief we are the result of an Intelligent Designer.

Evolution is the belief that Life & Natural Law just ACT like an Intelligent Designer.



God is all powerful, the Universe is all power.

God is all knowing, the Universe is all that can be know.

God justly judges all men, no man is exempt from Natural Law.



It is not so much 'trickery' as fundamental sloppiness in human language.



If we do not have or agree on Logical definitions, then we cannot Logically prove or disprove any particular concept. If we have only emotional definitions, then we discuss Art not Science & there is simply no accounting for taste.



Free Will simply means we sense no Overwhelming cause influencing a decision. The term is simply not defined well enough to embrace the debate of absolute causality.



If I told you that only the insane have free will, would you think I was?

Answer 3

People were inspired for the notion of free will by real feelings and thoughts. Therefore, free will itself must be a real thing. I definitely think that the hard determinists view of trying to "force out" free will out of existence is therefore beyond common-sense and feasibility. Deciding what to eat from a restuarant menu is evidence enough for free will. It doesn't matter how deterministic world workings may be. We can decide things, illusion or not. So the hard determinists effort to eliminate free will is an unrealistic, and even irrational, move.

Answer 4

Atoms and energy are deterministic.

Your brain consists of atoms and energy.

Your brain is the mechanism of decision making.

Your decision making is deterministic.



"Choice" is the experience of your brain simulating possible futures based on past experience and determining which future would most closely fulfills a distinctly mammalian hierarchy of needs. That isn't to say that choice doesn't exist, just that it isn't magic.