r/determinism

The reasons our actions are free even though they are determined is because the persons will matches exactly what the person is determined to do. That’s why they can be held responsible, even if their actions were not determined, with that will they would’ve committed the same act whether the Will was determined or not. If our will was not the same as what we were determined to do then we could not reasonably be held responsible because the person has not actually committed the action. So when folks mock Compatabalists about being held responsible, they are not being coherent. Were they determined to commit the crime? Yes. Did they choose to commit the crime? Also yes.

https://preview.redd.it/91ld9xc1xgbh1.png?width=1448&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5295a11faecf6fe09a86c3486e4ed24500180ee

>Decisionism: "A decision must be made before any outcome of the decision-making process can emerge. No observable / measurable outcome can happen prior to a decision being made. Outcomes are only observable / measurable after a decision has been made."

... "Decisionism" trumps "Determinism" because determinism is subservient to whatever decision is about to be made. Determinism is rendered powerless. Everything leading up to a decision being made (no matter what) must yield and wait for a decision to be made before any result(s) can happen.

No decision = No outcome

Despite the many determinists' arguments that whatever is chosen was predetermined by prior events (cause and effect), the outcome of those prior events and any other mechanics that the determinists argue are in play must yield and wait for a decision to be made.

That places the power, authority and control of the entire decision-making process solely in the hands of the "decision maker."

NOTE: The only reason a determinist would reject this ideology is because it has zero effect on eliminating free will.

---

EDIT 7:20 PM EST: Those of you who are downvoting my OP and my replies must first 'decide" to issue them before they can ever show up on Reddit. Yes, even with your shameless downvoting you are unwittingly demonstrating the supremacy of "Decisionism" over "Determinism."

This post is about quantum randomness. Afaik most physicist think that quantum randomness is real.

Is there a connection between the universe and fate? If our destiny is already written, where is the will and is it fate that I am writing this right now or my own will

I always blame myself for the wrong decisions I took. I keep wondering what could have happened if I hadn't done what I did. I eventually realized that it's not always my fault. There were other circumstances that made me did what I did. Do I blame others/circumstances now?

It's human nature to get closure for yourself by blaming others or circumstances or sometimes your own self. This helps me from not taking such decisions in the future, but I often get stuck in a cycle of over analyzing the events and not taking accountability for my actions.

But all the circumstances depend on thousdands of other circumstances. Who do I blame? Is it the fault of the universe that lead to this chaos? How do I stop myself from blaming myself and others. Plz advise.

in the move to affirm absolute necessity, we end up in a conceptual universe where the structure of necessity itself, is the ultimate self fulfilled and self expressed agent.

an agent utterly alienated from its-own selfhood, yet an agent nevertheless.

theres a temptation to remove agency and the idea of the self in some forms of determinism, but there i think agency is simply transposed to some external force, or set of forces which infinitely have the power of causality passed through them, but without them ever being able to hold this power.

in this sense, causality itself begins to take on a spiritual dimension, whereby it passes through substantial material reality, shaping it, but never remaining in the same place to be it.

In a conversation about determinism, OP quoted Einstein's determinism and reply was 'but Hawking did not agree with Einstein's determinism'.

Is this accurate? What were Hawking's views on determinism?

The more I’ve internalized hard determinism, the harder it’s become to genuinely despise criminals, mass killers, or people society labels monsters. Not because I condone what they did, but because I increasingly see them as organisms unfolding exactly as their biology and environment dictated.

I still care about suffering. I just find hatred itself becoming harder to access.

Anyone else end up here, or did determinism leave your intuitions about blame intact?

The irony I felt got me ask: If there's no free will, could there still be a meaning to (human/my) life?

There is a recurring confusion in the common debate about the words undetermined and unpredictable. These words can absolutely have different meanings in some contexts, but the question is whether that difference is relevant in the context of metaphysical discussions about determinism.

A common distinction:

Unpredictable: We cannot know what will happen, but the outcome is already fixed.

Undetermined: There is no fixed outcome prior to the event.

This distinction makes sense if we assume there is a “fact of the matter” about the future that exists independently of any possible observer, and the only question is whether an observer can access it. Basically, this distinction makes sense if you’ve already assumed the truth of determinism.

For example:

A coin flip:

In a classical model, the exact outcome is determined by initial conditions, but humans may lack enough information.

In a quantum model, the outcome may not be fixed in advance.

Here “unpredictable” and “undetermined” are different concepts.

However, in the context of the free will/metaphysical debate, the disagreement is not primarily about our ability to calculate outcomes. The disagreement is about whether the future is a completed fact waiting to be discovered or whether the future is generated through a process.

The key point:

If a process is not determined by prior states, then from the perspective of any agent inside that process, the relevant feature is that the future is open rather than fixed.

The determinist position is:

“The future only appears open because we lack information.”

The indeterminist position is:

“The future is open because there is no fully specified future state yet.”

But the difference between those claims is not an empirical distinction available from within the system; it depends on a metaphysical assumption about whether a complete future state exists independently of all possible access to it.

So when discussing agency, choice, and the structure of reality, the meaningful distinction is not:

“Can we predict the future?”

It is:

“Is the future already a completed fact, or does it emerge through the unfolding of the process?”

That is why, in this specific philosophical context, “undetermined” and “unpredictable” are functionally pointing at the same problem: whether the future is fixed prior to the process that produces it.

In the specific context of the conversation between “free will” and “determinism”, there is no relevant difference in meaning between “undetermined” and “unpredictable”.

I’m not talking about how if I saw a future of where a vase breaks, and I go to save it, but my carelessness caused the vase to break.

I’m talking about if I saw a future of a vase breaking and I successfully save that vase, was the vision I saw meant to ensure that the vase didn’t break and that was the one true future?

I know philosophy has been talked about for a very long time, and people have many popular questions like the first paragraph, so almost all questions already have well thought out theory’s. But I haven’t see a question like mine, I also am ignorant about philosophy.

Forgive me if my question doesn’t make sense, I’ve been interested in philosophy for a while, but this is my first time asking questions and talking to people about it.

The only work around this I can think of is that the experiencing being of heaven is the only “real one” and so perfection is defined by their wants and desires which may justify typically imperfect events such as suffering.

Note:I am not debating whether heaven exists that is an entirely different topic

If every moment is locked in by prior conditions, then what does "small cause leads to a big effect" mean? Is that just the way our brain comprehends it? Might be a stupid question but its really getting me thinking.

If Hume described "the self" as a fleeting bundle of perceptions and viewed it difficult for anyone to really get to know themselves, and modern science and most Compatabilist's and Hard Determinists agree with the "bundle of perceptions".

Then does this go towards validating Galen Strawson's Basic Argument?

• 1. Action from character: We act the way we do in any given situation because of the way we are.
• 2. Need for responsibility: To be ultimately responsible for what we do, we must be responsible for the way we are (our mental nature and character).
• 3. The impossibility of self-creation: To be responsible for the way we are, we must have intentionally and consciously chosen to be that way in the past.
• 4. The infinite regress: But to have made those past choices, we must have had a prior character that guided those decisions—meaning we would have had to make even earlier choices to form that character. This creates an infinite regress, requiring us to have existed forever or to have made a first, uncaused choice.
• 5. Conclusion: Since an infinite chain of past decisions is impossible, and we cannot be the ultimate creator of ourselves, it is impossible to possess ultimate moral responsibility.

So does this go in anyway to agreeing with Strawson's argument? Aka no freewill.