Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

keelanstuart t1_j9a522a wrote

Reply to comment by BlueSkyAndGoldenLite in Compatibilism is supported by deep intuitions about responsibility and control. It can also feel "obviously" wrong and absurd. Slavoj Žižek's commentary can help us navigate the intuitive standoff. by matthewharlow

What I took from it is that I may be a Compatibilist - I believe the universe is completely deterministic, even though I also think "free will" is the human experience - because I am ignorant and beyond education in any relevant, meaningful sense... unless I somehow missed the point.

Why? Given the state of the universe at any time to be S(T):

  • I do not have knowledge of S(0)
  • I do not have knowledge of the current T
  • I can not extrapolate a future state, S(T + n), with any degree of certainty, even locally
  • I feel "free" in my decisions, because even though I cannot control what I desire, it seems like I can choose how to deal with desires
  • I can never change any of the above

Acceptance of our inescapable ignorance is the key to never feeling "oppressed" by determinism... which is why I would feel pity for any omniscient beings that exist; god knows they're not free.

In terms of moral responsibility, perhaps it is helpful to view the universe systematically. "Responsibility" allows the system to self-correct and protect itself. If we are not the individuals that we seem to be, but parts of a whole, removing pieces that damage that whole is of benefit.

6

BlueSkyAndGoldenLite t1_j9bblou wrote

My limited understanding of quantum stuff has led me to believe that there's multiple worlds out there due to the probabilistic nature of things. But then that seems to imply that the world is still deterministic, just now in infinite ways and the current "world" is still determined with factors outside of my control (luck/randomness).

I think that the acceptance definitely plays a part somewhere, I mean at the end of the day we are biologically programmed beings to live and have self-preservation so it makes sense that our minds come up with reasons for us to keep living.

I've pondered the idea of responsibility before as well. If you view the world deterministically then you can't hold people accountable. Even if the majority of society accepts determinism, we can't allow people who commit crimes to stay free for the benefit of the majority. If we want to act morally and put the blame on what caused someone to commit crimes, you kind of just start going down the rabbit hole of who/what to hold accountable? Do you blame someone's parents for their poor upbringing and as a result environment for growing up? Their DNA? For practicality, in society you kind of have to put the "responsibility" somewhere and its easiest to put the responsibility on the individual.

3

keelanstuart t1_j9bgbct wrote

Many of my beliefs have formed due to my profession as a software engineer. "Random" numbers are not truly random... they are pseudo-random given a seed value to start with. I.e., pull n values from a random number generator that started with the same seed and you will get the same numbers out in the same order each time. I like to think of "god" as that generation function and of each universe having a unique seed value. Maybe all universes have the same rules, but for each "decision point" (whatever that is!), a different number was given and thus a different result.

The little computers between our ears can't extrapolate S(T + n) for more than a couple of variables and we also can't look at the state of other brains... so, we're left to be mostly reactive to whatever we observed in S(T - m). Responsibility is placed most easily with the observed. When a computer malfunctions, we deal with that instance... yeah.

Looking at parents or at DNA is really meta... the machine looks at itself... what does it see?

3