Callen I know your post was addressed to Duck but I found it interesting and wanted to reply.
deleted_user wrote:I suppose you mean to say that, say you could, if subject A made decision Y at X point in time, if you could "rewind" to just before X point in time, subject A would make decision Y again, and always would.
And, if you had all the information contained in the universe, you would be able to predict its entire past and its entire future. Thatâs determinism.
But there is something weird about the concept of free will. There is one difference between a deterministic brain and a non-deterministic brain: randomness. A deterministic brain is commonly viewed as not having free will. It follows, then, that a non-deterministic brain is âfreeâ. The thing I donât get is why people view this as more âfreeâ. I would argue that if the decision is influenced by randomness itâs not even fully your will, let alone free.
Despite this problem with the concept, for some reason itâs still often used in discussions such as the one about the death penalty.
Objective morality has to be present or else this conversation would have no point, right? It's not that there is no such thing as wrong, just that there is no such thing as personal responsibility for personal wrong.
Let me ask you this: If our brains were non-deterministic (aka random, unpredictable) would there be personal responsibility then? Why? Again I would argue you are actually less responsible because your decision was influenced by randomness.
Just because weâre wired a certain way changes nothing in the context of responsibility, imo. We are responsible for our actions, morally or otherwise, because they are our actions. We have free will in that we are free to act according to our own unique motivations.
We are really the instantaneous end of a continually growing decision tree -- where there are really no decisions in the true sense -- where our personal decision tree is nested within our parentsâ decision tree, and so on. What is the beginning of the first decision tree? If there must be a start, how did it come about? Suppose it had any number of âpossibleâ branches: of 2 or 3 or 4 or⊠was this first decision a true decision or was it, too, predetermined? The branches either possess(ed) the same objective moral goodness, or one of better goodness than the other, or worse, or⊠it does not matter. If there were an infinite amount of potential starting branches it started with one particular branch, whether by means of true decision or determination, you argue the rest follows as determined, and that is all we know. There has to be an origin -- has to be.
Origins is a tough one. You alluded to the only thing I can think of that doesnât run into a paradox: Thereâs an infinite amount of potential starting branches, and they are all happening at the same time. Our reality is just one of the ways it could go. Everything exists.
Then if we exist in this determined plinko experience, if the push of the plinko ball was either so it ends on the best objective moral timeline or the worst, or somewhere in between, in essence, because it is determined, objective morality is for all intents and purposes not a thing, and people are chemical die only, and moral nihilism in unavoidable, and this theory is a theory of a lack of responsibility of a thing which does not exist to us.
Objective morality is certainly not a thing. But morality is still important in any situation where multiple individuals are living together. Humans did not invent morality, ours is just more complex and letâs say less forgiving than that of other speciesâ because it needs to be and we can afford it to be.
In a determined world, what has intrinsic value?
Nothing. But again I can turn this around on you: In a world influenced by randomness, what has intrinsic value? Still nothing.
What is worth celebration
Everything that makes us happy.
and condemnation?
Everything that makes us unhappy.
What can be discussed?
Everything.
What can be gained from what we discuss?
Knowledge, understanding. Indirectly, happiness.
Why is any of this different in a deterministic universe compared to a non-deterministic one?
It's too dire for me. Or am I taking it the wrong way, or did I make a mistake?
If itâs too dire to you then I would say you are taking it the wrong way, yes. Because to me itâs the opposite of dire. Yes, the universe doesnât care and nothing inherently matters. So what? Why do you need things to matter objectively? Things matter to you, don't they?
Isnât it comforting that there is order in this apparent chaos? Isnât it beautiful in a way? And besides, everything may be predictable in theory, but it isnât to us. You can still choose to either play AoE3 or not play AoE3. To have a beer or not have one. Try this: At some point, when you are going to do something trivial, donât do it. Sure, you were predetermined not to do it in the end, but did that matter? That choice was yours alone and you made it.