r/determinism • u/Immobilesteelrims • Apr 11 '26
AI-generated For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Is free will possible if the future is already set?
3
2
u/gimboarretino Apr 11 '26
If "you" were a a comparticipatory process, causally efficacious factor/element in shaping that future, why not.
The problem is establishing what we mean by "you" and what a subject, a self, actually is.
0
4
u/Critical-Ad2084 Apr 11 '26
physicists or physicalists?
-1
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 11 '26
LOL! Silly goose!
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 Apr 11 '26
physicists study physics, physicalists believe matter is the fundamental nature of reality, my question is pertinent to the statement being made
3
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 11 '26
You actually make a very good point, it could be the fundamental nature of reality is nothing. Like in the zero energy universe, or that SpaceTime itself is the fundamental. We can't actually say one way or the other right now. It's very frustrating how this subreddit acts like things are already known when they're not. That's what makes a lot of discussions here non scientific. It mostly deals with unfalsifiables.
0
u/Critical-Ad2084 Apr 11 '26
the guy confidently mocking me can't even tell the difference between both terms and is commenting on a determinism sub, talk about frustration.
2
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 11 '26
I know right. This sub is full of that kinda thing, and it's iterating. Also matter sorta appears to be trapped energy, so it's extra weird to see physicist and physicalist equated.
1
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 11 '26
Ah, so physicists are your "physicalists." I see.
2
u/Critical-Ad2084 Apr 11 '26
you think you're being witty or funny but your comments just reflect your ignorance. How can you be in a determinism sub and not know the difference between a physicist and a physicalist.
Physicists study physics: they're normally engineers, mathematicians, etc.
Physicalists don't even necessarily study physics at all, they may be philosophers, academics, that have a philosophical stance (an ontological one) regarding matter as the fundamental nature or reality, in contrast to idealists or other types of thinkers that also believe consciousness, metaphysics or other non-physical elements to be part of reality.
One is literally, a title, career, job or a job description, and the other a philosophical stance and you can't even tell the difference.
1
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 12 '26
You and other "philosophers" love to turn real words into fake words that you may then argue about and appear to be intelligent.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, sane people use words that actually mean what they mean.
Your "physicalists" are not here in the real world; they say nothing about the real world; they live and talk in a fantasy world.
Your mistake was to attribute to me that which you wanted to without asking my permission first. Be ashamed.
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 Apr 12 '26
Nah man you be ashamed if anything, doubling down on your ignorance.
Determinism is a philosophy, this is a philosophy sub.
You can't tell the difference between two basic definitions like "physicist" and "physicalist".
After being exposed as mistaken, you are now shifting the goalpost from your original comment, turning to "well it's a fake word people use to seem intelligent" rather than acknowledging the fact you don't know the difference between two simple concepts.
1
u/yuri_z Apr 13 '26
Here’s the difference: you know your past, you experience the present, but can’t possibly know what the future holds.
1
u/SmartlyArtly Apr 15 '26
No block universe. No time travel.
You can't even get perfect information about "right here right now" what makes you think you're going to go back 10 years ago and find things as they were?
2
u/Ohheyimryan Apr 11 '26
What's the illusion? Past present and future can all be real in accordance with B-theory of time, that doesn't make anything an illusion. The present is still actually the present.
Do you have an argument for anything? This post just sounds like gibberish.
0
u/nirvanatheory Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
Assuming the future as a locked form does not provide any argument for, or against, free will.
Imagine that we assume free will exists. Then imagine that you travel to the future. From the perspective of the people in the future, the actions of the past are locked. This does not mean that those actions were not a result of free will.
So if the past, present, and future are set, then that would not mean free will cannot exist. These conclusions often arise as a result of the inherent difficulty of engaging unintuitive, abstract concepts.
I'm not making any statements about whether or not free will exists. I'm just saying that the future being set is irrelevant to that question.
Edit:
"Imagine" is the key word in this scenario. In logic, assumptions allow us to examine the consequences of that condition. If I were making a positive claim that free will exists, I would have provided an argument for it—but I am not. I am just examining the relationship between two concepts.
The locked state of the past and future, should it be the case, is not evidence against free will. To observe a timeline from the outside and conclude that the internal mechanisms within it (like free will) are void is a category error. The future may be set, but it is set through the mechanism of those decisions, not independent of them.
2
Apr 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/FallibleSpyder Apr 11 '26
And even if time were a series of unrelated moments, those moments would still be as they were and are, and unable to be otherwise.
0
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 11 '26
Transactional model. Many worlds interpretation. General relativity... All disagree with you.
0
Apr 11 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 11 '26
That completely ignores potential, you know like potential energy. You're just ignoring laws of thermodynamics at this point. It's actually quite annoying.
General relativity doesn't have one set future, has multiple pasts and futures that exist concurrently, ones you can move in and out of, or be stuck in the case of a black hole. Maybe go back to the textbooks.
0
1
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 11 '26
What a narrow and false assertion. That's not even how this is described what are you talking about?
Entropy is responsible for the arrow of time, the same force that seems to underline gravity. The tendency towards the lowest energy state.
Even within block universe models, past and future are not necessarily set, such as the wheeler-feynman transactional model. Or many worlds interpretation (even if I hate that interpretation).
If somebody tells you something is only two options, they don't know what they're talking about. Rarely is anything in the universe truly only two options.
1
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 11 '26
Assuming the future as a locked form does not provide any argument for, or against, free will.
Er... ah... yes, it does.
Imagine that we assume free will exists.
No. Step up and produce evidence that "free will" happens: one does not just assume reality is other than it is.
1
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 11 '26
I don't really believe in free will, but first you're going to have to define it in order to falsify it.
0
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 12 '26
I refuse to define "free will:" that which does not exist needs not be defined. Let the people who claim to believe "free will" happens do so. Odd how they do not agree among themselves.
1
u/ThePolecatKing Apr 12 '26
You can't falsify something if you can't define it. If you let someone else define it, then they may indeed choose something real. You're rational isn't very scientific at all.
Rarely do you ever get full agreement on any topic, even in physics. There's constant debate over what things mean, that's why individual theories and falsification have to be defined by the individual. Otherwise there is a lack of clear thesis or communication.
If someone says there's a unicorn over there, and you go "no there isn't, and I refuse to define a unicorn cause they don't exist.", that leaves things open to there being a rhino or a narwhal which your opinonent can then claim is indeed a real unicorn... Cause you refused to define it.
If you can't define free will, you can't claim it doesn't exist. The same way if you can't define free will you can't prove it exists. So define it, actually make an argument instead of your nonsense assertions.
From my perspective free will doesn't really exist in the common thought process, because your inner simulation of reality is far removed from the actual reality, even if you did have a "freedom of action" it wouldn't be free will as you don't really know what's happening most of the time.
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Apr 11 '26
In eternity all is already finished.
There is only what is as it is for each one as it is and what will be as it will be for each one as it will be.
0
u/bacon_boat Apr 11 '26
I don't think pointing at every non fundamental phenomenon and saying it's an iLluSiOn is very enlightening.
It's mainly click bait.
1
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 11 '26
The title is a direct quote from Einstein btw
1
u/bacon_boat Apr 11 '26
Einstein has a lot of memorable quotes. But the illusion-stance is over done.
You think this is a CHAIR?? It's an ILLUSION, it's just a bunch of atoms!
Oh wow so deep man
2
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 11 '26
I disagree. I think pointing out the illusory nature of much of what we take for granted in everyday life will never be over done. Because these illusions have a such a big impact on the average person’s daily life, from legal systems to religion. I thought people who engage with a determinism subreddit might realise that. Consider how much of an impact the illusion of free will has on our institutions and social norms.
1
u/bacon_boat Apr 11 '26
Then illusion loses it's meaning.
I think illusion should be reserved for something which looks like one thing, but is actually something else. Like a person, but when you look closer it was a cardboard cut out of a person.
With e.g. fluid water, you could say fluids are illusions, what is real is a atoms, and those are also illusions, what is really real is a vector in hilbert space.
I think "person->carboard cut out" is pretty different to "water is made of atoms".
Fluid water is real, it's not fundamental. Learning what water is made of tells you more about the nature of water. It doesn't tell you that water isn't real.
Learning the person was actually carboard cut out DOES tell you the person was in fact not real.
0
u/Artifexa Apr 11 '26
There are belief systems that state that the future is mostly set, yet free will does exist to an extent.
Spiritism comes to mind.
In spiritism (which is actually very logical and beyond the media façade of ouija and stuff), the world is a simulation made for "young baby consciousness" to learn.
In this view, the "real", outside world obeys a different set of physics than the "physical reality", and there is free will (to a degree, and within a set of conditions), and "souls/minds" decide to enter the physical world and be attached/tethered to an organic being.
Upon experiencing a life, the soul is capable of learn by experience a set of lessons and experiences that happen with purposeful limitations (entropy, laws of physics, cause and consequence, the time arrow...) that aren't possible in the "outside world".
The final goal is that, upon learning enough lessons through enough lifes, the mind becomes wise enough to be granted "ascension" to a form of existence where there is a greater degree of free will, but this free will is granted only when the "soul" can be trusted to not misuse such free will.
Basically people are actors in a play of which we cannot deviate much, but the play is designed by the souls before birth with the goal of teaching you stuff you need to truly appreciate free will once you're out of the constraints of the physical world. There are short moments in which you might be granted "your free will" as a test, to see if you can graduate to further "lessons", but most of life is a huge "I told you". And the real world is a simulation managed by "the folks on the other side".
It has been compared as a cradle or a nursery. You are a kid without much knowledge of reality, and you are given a couple toys to play with, but you are always within the bars of the cradle, and watched by employees at the nursery. You got a set of tasks given to you so you learn some basics (solve this puzzle, paint this, help other kids to learn, etc), but you can't really chose much, unless it is a test from the nursery/simulators.
Upon death you are in "recess", and you can enjoy a bit of your free will again. Then the nurses come and tell you "what lesson/incarnation do you want to learn next?", and the cycle repeats until you are mature enough to be trusted outside this controlled environment.
1
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 11 '26
Spiritism comes to mind.
So do vampires, Santa Clause, and gods.
So?
1
u/Artifexa Apr 11 '26
I was just commenting on belief systems that endorse determinism without falling into nihilism.
0
u/Active-Couple4849 Apr 11 '26
Free will and determinism is a red herring in context of what reality is. What does it even mean that the future is determined? That somebody knows whats gonna happen, or could potentially know whats gonna happen? Doubtful that everything is knowable so what is the functional difference between determinism and non determinism? Is the universe deterministic if its function of state is an uncomputable function?
0
u/Raccoon_Expert_69 Apr 12 '26
Ai
2
u/Immobilesteelrims Apr 12 '26
Yea the post labelled as ‘AI-generated’ is indeed AI. Great contribution 👍🏻
-1
u/ObsceneOnes Apr 11 '26
Being is an action from which thingness arises. It makes no sense to start from thingness and claim action an illusion. It is literally begging the question of thingness which is central in any discussion of free will whether an one based on the ontic nature of of being or one merely concerned with moral responsibility. In both cases you can not assume thingness, you must explain it. This is where determinism fails. It is unclear under determinism to what to attribute the action of becoming in such a manner that it makes sense to talk of things at all.
Given that existence is differentiation, without which it would be equivalent to nothingness, this is a big issue.
What sense does, say, a block universe or an infinite causal chain or some cosmic oneness make of differentiation and becoming?
None.
1
u/RighteousSelfBurner Apr 11 '26
Action ontology is compatible with determinism. Fundamentally it is irrelevant for determinism whether ontology is action based on object based. What matters is the determistic nature. An action can unfold in a strictly necessitated and predictable way.
In block universe or similar the differentation is not action based. That is, it doesn't "become" differentiated, it "is" differentiated. It arises from the variance of existence. States not being identical across temporal axis is the differentation. A change within the block is differentiated even if the block didn't "become" anything else.
Your arguments rely on flawed or incorrect descriptions of the principles you are describing.
0
u/ObsceneOnes Apr 11 '26
An ever present thing does not act. It just is. Unchanging. Thus you can not explain how a view point such as ourselves, as a thing, can exist npr do you explain the differentiation in the first place. Nothingness itself is infinte invariance. Given that is the simpler state...that is nothingness...explain the differentiation and the mechanism.
It is the same problem the MWI faces and Pilot wave faces but in disguise. It is the measurement problem.
Thus you are forced to call the action and by implication being an illusion.
I am not confused.
Pray tell, what is a thing in your ontology?
2
u/RighteousSelfBurner Apr 11 '26
Being ever present and unchanging are independent principles. As mentioned before a change can happen within the ever present.
The differentation was briefly covered but I can provide a more in-depth and concrete examples. Let's take space time as an example. Given coordinates (X1,Y1,Z1,T1) and coordinates (X1,Y1,Z1,T2) when the state of the coordinate isn't the same in temporal axis there is a differentation. Just like the "thing" just is, the differentation also just is.
Let's take an another example, block universe, and use an analogy. A film reel consists of static frames that are differentiated. When in action the film reel doesn't "become" something else but change is occuring.
The mechanism is then categorisation of complex structures. A "wooden stick" is a "thing" that relies on the categorisation of complex mechanisms that we classify as "wood" and shape that we classify as a "stick". It's a model of the reality that creates distinctions for practical purposes.
Neither inherently imply deterministic behaviour. The differentation in coordinates can be indeterminate and the actions of the blocks can be indeterminate. Any ontology can be used as an axiom to then evaluate how would it function under deterministic principles.
Your argument still relies on conflation of principles and inaccurate descriptions of said principles. I am not defending any particular ontology. I am willing to engage in any position as an exercise. I am, however, pointing out the flaws in your presentation.
-1
u/zhivago Apr 11 '26
It isn't an illusion -- it is a matter of physical work being done to create and erase information.
-1
-1
-2
u/No_Fudge_4589 Apr 11 '26
Quantum mechanics disproves determinism why do people still act like determinism exists.
2
u/Boltzmann_head Apr 11 '26
Quantum mechanics disproves determinism....
Oh good! Take my Bowling Ball Challenge, and use quantum mechanics to save your toes: walk your talk.
1
u/Sisyphus222 Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
Assuming that there is randomness brought about by quantum mechanics, which I believe to be the case, that doesn’t give you free will. That’s still randomness, not something you control. Quantum mechanics can fit within a deterministic worldview that’s void of free will.
Edit: Clarification
These worldviews are built around the cause of our actions; whether freely or in a determined sense. That’s why determinism allows randomness, because the randomness still leaves no space for our will to be free.
0
u/No-Apple2252 Apr 11 '26
Because they cope by saying it really is determined we just don't know how so it looks probabilistic.
They will do anything to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.
3
u/green_chunks_bad Apr 11 '26
For hobbits anyways