Determinism

[OldTrees]

If i can but in for a minute.
In a example: If a soldier come back from active service having accidentally shot an innocent civillian and wonders if he could repeate the moment would he still act in the same way.
If I understand then if it is free will then it stands to reason that if it was his choice to start with the he would react in the same way because that is who he is and that is just how he would react meaning that it is irrelevant wether or not it is actually free will he would act in the same way regardless.

Free Will: Could have but didn't.
Determinism: Couldn't have thus didn't.

[gnslinger]

If i can but in for a minute.
In a example: If a soldier come back from active service having accidentally shot an innocent civillian and wonders if he could repeate the moment would he still act in the same way.
If I understand then if it is free will then it stands to reason that if it was his choice to start with the he would react in the same way because that is who he is and that is just how he would react meaning that it is irrelevant wether or not it is actually free will he would act in the same way regardless.

Free Will: Could have but didn't.
Determinism: Couldn't have thus didn't.

So if I understand correctly then it dosen't really matter which is which it just depends on wether the person in question prefers to believe they are in control of their actions or that we are all part of some cosmic master plan.

[OldTrees]

If i can but in for a minute.
In a example: If a soldier come back from active service having accidentally shot an innocent civillian and wonders if he could repeate the moment would he still act in the same way.
If I understand then if it is free will then it stands to reason that if it was his choice to start with the he would react in the same way because that is who he is and that is just how he would react meaning that it is irrelevant wether or not it is actually free will he would act in the same way regardless.

Free Will: Could have but didn't.
Determinism: Couldn't have thus didn't.

So if I understand correctly then it dosen't really matter which is which it just depends on wether the person in question prefers to believe they are in control of their actions or that we are all part of some cosmic master plan.

It is relevant in the field of Ethics for many ascribe to the belief that "Ought implies Can". If the person is deterministic then they cannot not do what they ought. The double negative is important. This would remove 2 (morally prohibited and morally praiseworthy) of the 4 categories of actions leaving only morally neutral and morally obligatory actions.

[gnslinger]

If i can but in for a minute.
In a example: If a soldier come back from active service having accidentally shot an innocent civillian and wonders if he could repeate the moment would he still act in the same way.
If I understand then if it is free will then it stands to reason that if it was his choice to start with the he would react in the same way because that is who he is and that is just how he would react meaning that it is irrelevant wether or not it is actually free will he would act in the same way regardless.

Free Will: Could have but didn't.
Determinism: Couldn't have thus didn't.

So if I understand correctly then it dosen't really matter which is which it just depends on wether the person in question prefers to believe they are in control of their actions or that we are all part of some cosmic master plan.

It is relevant in the field of Ethics for many ascribe to the belief that "Ought implies Can". If the person is deterministic then they cannot not do what they ought. The double negative is important. This would remove 2 (morally prohibited and morally praiseworthy) of the 4 categories of actions leaving only morally neutral and morally obligatory actions.

That is incredibly confusing

[OldTrees]

If i can but in for a minute.
In a example: If a soldier come back from active service having accidentally shot an innocent civillian and wonders if he could repeate the moment would he still act in the same way.
If I understand then if it is free will then it stands to reason that if it was his choice to start with the he would react in the same way because that is who he is and that is just how he would react meaning that it is irrelevant wether or not it is actually free will he would act in the same way regardless.

Free Will: Could have but didn't.
Determinism: Couldn't have thus didn't.

So if I understand correctly then it dosen't really matter which is which it just depends on wether the person in question prefers to believe they are in control of their actions or that we are all part of some cosmic master plan.

It is relevant in the field of Ethics for many ascribe to the belief that "Ought implies Can". If the person is deterministic then they cannot not do what they ought. The double negative is important. This would remove 2 (morally prohibited and morally praiseworthy) of the 4 categories of actions leaving only morally neutral and morally obligatory actions.

That is incredibly confusing

I will use a practical example:

If I say "One ought not kill innocents" then my assertion assumes that "One can not kill innocents".
What if a murderer's actions were determined? In such a case the murderer could not have avoided killing the innocents. Thus it would not be morally prohibited for the murderer to kill innocents.

Likewise if I say "Charity is morally praiseworthy", I mean that it is supererogatory (above the call of duty). If something is above the call of duty then it is something that could be avoided. If Mother Theresa's actions were determined then her acts of charity would not be morally praiseworthy.

[maverixk]

Well, by determinism here, I mean that: if one knew the position and vector/speed(I've forgotten what that second value is, its something like that. And I'm not saying its possible.) and if one knew how every particle interacted with each other, then one could know every action that would happen afterward.

What I would like to know is if anyone disputes that. Not if anyone disputes the ability to gain such knowledge, just if one had that knowledge, if they could have that result.
Because, to me, it only seems logical that if you knew how everything interacted with one another and what they were doing at any given moment, then one could, in a sense, predict the future.

[OldTrees]

Well, by determinism here, I mean that: if one knew the position and vector/speed(I've forgotten what that second value is, its something like that. And I'm not saying its possible.) and if one knew how every particle interacted with each other, then one could know every action that would happen afterward.

What I would like to know is if anyone disputes that. Not if anyone disputes the ability to gain such knowledge, just if one had that knowledge, if they could have that result.
Because, to me, it only seems logical that if you knew how everything interacted with one another and what they were doing at any given moment, then one could, in a sense, predict the future.

If at any point in that reality a Free Will existed then you would not be able to predict which of the futures that Will would choose. If a ball hits a Free Willed entity, you would not be able to predict the future location of the ball despite knowing its initial state.

[Cheesy111]

Well, by determinism here, I mean that: if one knew the position and vector/speed(I've forgotten what that second value is, its something like that. And I'm not saying its possible.) and if one knew how every particle interacted with each other, then one could know every action that would happen afterward.

What I would like to know is if anyone disputes that. Not if anyone disputes the ability to gain such knowledge, just if one had that knowledge, if they could have that result.
Because, to me, it only seems logical that if you knew how everything interacted with one another and what they were doing at any given moment, then one could, in a sense, predict the future.

In my opinion, just because the components of an object(tiny particles) act deterministically that does not mean that the whole(the brain) acts deterministically.

[OldTrees]

Well, by determinism here, I mean that: if one knew the position and vector/speed(I've forgotten what that second value is, its something like that. And I'm not saying its possible.) and if one knew how every particle interacted with each other, then one could know every action that would happen afterward.

What I would like to know is if anyone disputes that. Not if anyone disputes the ability to gain such knowledge, just if one had that knowledge, if they could have that result.
Because, to me, it only seems logical that if you knew how everything interacted with one another and what they were doing at any given moment, then one could, in a sense, predict the future.

In my opinion, just because the components of an object(tiny particles) act deterministically that does not mean that the whole(the brain) acts deterministically.

If every component acts deterministically then you can predict the arrangement of the components throughout time with certainty. If you can predict the arrangement of the components, have you not predicted the the interactions of the whole? For the whole to act in a non deterministic manner it needs to include a non deterministic component.