Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

I vote tie
Both are well read, both understood their opponent as well as their own. Both a tad windy for my tastes but, they were very good. Oh and both were top notch classy gentlemen debaters

I appreciate the compliments as well as that vote!

I read both of your arguments and it took me a while to pick a winner. I believe I’m going to have to side with Pav by just a hair. I can definitely agree with what Pav was saying, but to really get his point across I think he just needed a slightly different perspective. Tab’s argument was really good, and if he looks at the World with those eyes he will deffinitely get far, because as he says, pav’s point isn’t worth considering because it would be an unpredictible event. But I don’t think you got Pav’s point. It’s not that it hasn’t changed the outcome to two completely different ends, it’s about whether it ever could. To help Tab figure out why I picked Pav over him i’ll give my own example.

Our actions can be changed by information. there is an infinite number of potential information. (e.g. 0,1,2,3…infinity) and information can be used to create more information. Your theory holds true in the beginning, When your dealing with just evolution and a small amount of information and early human civilization. As information icnreases and becomes more available, so does the way it effects our actions. It’s possible that a peice of information be created much later than another peice of information. (e.g. you gave an example of two books written far apart from each other that were pretty much exactly the same.)

When a small action leads to some giant event it’s not that the trigger must eventually happen, what if another action existed which had the opposite effect. Or that the same trigger not triggering had the opposite effect? Lets hypothetically pause our universe. We’re going to make an exact duplicate of this universe and set it right next to this other one. I think that if you hit play, if there where really probability differences between the two I believe you would eventually see a big difference between the two worlds.

So basically what i’m saying is that the timing of the trigger is also extremely important. In one of these universes, this famous scientist who is studying the power of lasers is left hanging off of a cliff. In one universe the scientist’s friend saves him while in another one he doesn’t and the scientist ends up falling to his death. In the universe where he survives he goes to create extremely powerful lasers while in the other World the technology has yet to exist. Now both of these universes are in trouble because there is a giant asteroid heading for Earth. In the universe with the powerful lasers they are not worried because they have the technology to destroy the asteroid. In the other universe they are struggling to figure out a way to stop the asteroid. they end up not figuring out anything and end up being destroyed by the asteroid. This of course assumes that the only solution was a powerful laser. That’s not to bad of an assumption even if their where other methods maybe they weren’t thought of yet, or maybe they couldn’t be executed. That’s all irrelevant because here are two different ends to the same equation. Life on Earth didn’t create Nature as we know it. The World used to be ruled by dinosaurs. If the dinosaurs never went extinct they would still be here and we wouldn’t. it wasn’t until the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs that allowed the chance for human life. That was an occurence that changed the outcome of the this World, whether the change was determined or not is irrelevant. As long as you accept the possibility.

to avoid from veering to far off from pav’s point I won’t say much more. But Tab, I agree when you say we are limited by our biological functions. But to say that these limits cause an inevitable future is a little much. I can easily see how a certain action can diverge to different path which will lead to a diferent outcome. these differences in outcomes will eventually cause a dramatic change between the Worlds. The stage that you are trying to get a feel for is caused by these smaller actions adding themselves together. I hope that makes you understand why I chose Pav over you. I think Pav was pretty much making this point but your argument was attacking something different other than this point.

One last thing, I don’t quite have 100 posts so I won’t mind if you don’t count this vote, thought I might as well give it a try since I was interested…

I think that is a very well-reasoned Judgment.

Of course, had you simply said, “Pav wins,” I’d have still concluded that you made a well-reasoned judgment. (Just Kidding)

I’m going to leave it up to Tab whether or not your vote counts because he is the adverse party in this matter.

TheBerto,

I made a few comments regarding the example in your post. I cannot post them here because they could influence the outcome, so I have PM’ed them to you.

The Berto - Thanks for the time you took to read, and to post. The first considered vote of the judging.

Good enough for me - Your vote stands. Damn your eyes. :wink:

EDIT - deleted what would have been a furtherence of my argument.

  • Hey Pav - sorry you posted while I was editing. I deleted my continued argument. The debates over, better not muddy the waters till the voting is done.

Can you delete your counter arguments until the time limit’s up…?

I straight-up deleted the post altogether. I’m sorry about that, I should have thought of that.

EDIT: Sorry, missed that by an inch, deleted this post as well.

tab is right and the compatiblism contradicts itself
there is a cause which produces an effect- which then becomes a cause to another effect. the original cause was the overall cause of the whole thing

I’m really not gunna read the rest of this novel though

After reading and re-reading both arguments, I have to say that I’m struggling with the idea that the two sides are mutually exclusive. Seems to me there is a distinction to be made between the two, but it is a fine distinction, almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Tab concedes that on an individual level, we certainly feel like we’re able to make autonomous choices. Even while refuting Pav’s cereal guy argument, he brings in quantum indeterminacy and the butterfly effect. Which seems to support Pav’s cereal guy argument. But Tab’s main argument relies on a grander scale, anthropologically, demographically, and temporally. And although he posits that the optimal solutions exist outside of time, that doesn’t seem like an especially useful axiom, because we don’t exist outside of time. We can only judge those solutions as optimal after the fact, and hindsight is 20/20.

If I understood correctly, Tab’s position can be summarized in this sentence:

Pav points out that one must consider the role irrationality plays, introducing a somewhat random factor which results in our inability to predict future events with a high degree of accuracy. He agrees that probability enables us to make fairly reliable predictions, but the door is left open for deviations from those predictions. Whereas Tab’s argument analyzes the past to reveal inevitability, Pav’s seems to focus more on the unfolding of the future and our inability to predict developing events.

I’d sum up Pav’s argument with this:

You both did a great job in illustrating your points and making your case. The fact that you each came at this debate from differing vantage points makes it difficult to judge; and as I said earlier, the positions themselves are not so far apart. It would’ve been easier if one of the positions was for strict determinism.

But since that was not the case, I’ll have to give a slight, very slight edge to Pav. You two are both excellent in your rhetorical skills, both were eloquent and compelling, and actually both arguments were convincing. If Tab would’ve talked a little more about how inevitabilism can help us view the future as well as the past, I probably would’ve given him the edge.

Well done, both of you.

A fine and reasoned decision.

What, me, disappointed…? No [size=60][sob][/size] not at all.

I agree that Anita came to a well-reasoned Judgment. Thank you Anita for all of the compliments that you paid to both myself and Tab!

I’m going contrary to my nature to comment on one of these debate things, probably because I ended up feeling sorry when you kept begging for people to choose who wins. Christ, my kids do that to me what seems like a million times a day, give me a break. And it’s a little ironic given the topic, no? But WTF, you probably won’t be surprised that it’s my opinion that neither of you wins. :smiley:

Also, as far as style, I thought you both proceeded into discussion without clarifying well enough up front your individual understandings of the critical terms used here. Because of this, it seemed to me to end up as a debate of exploring some fundamental meanings as one goes along rather than refining a more concise initial position, so I took points away (before I’d even given any, as a matter of fact!) for that.

As for the specific stuff, here’s a little bit. I didn’t have time to read all that dialogue Tab wrote. And I’m pretty sure that had I read all of it, my opinion wouldn’t change. But I could be wrong.

Again, neither of you really identifies which definition of you’re aruguing over. I think that’s a problem that ends up confusing the debate, because when you’re discussing one, another one stands in the background without note but influencing the argument anyway. If free will is an agent’s ability to control his or her action according to his/her will (as long as conditions of the situation permit this), then that’s one thing. And mostly what you’re arguing over, I think. But the broader idea about free will as something that transcends our physical existence and how the workings of the world ultimately control us is lurking back there, not really elaborated upon by either of you. I think Tab comes closer when he talks about an individual “experiencing” the freedom of choosing and how he can “feel” after-the-fact as though he could’ve chosen differently. I think he’s reaching for the ultimate when he says…

“Regardless of the truth of the matter, a society believing, and acting upon the belief, that it possesses freedom of choice will act very differently from one that does not. The simple existence of the concept in the group mind, frivolous or real, has effect.”

…and yet doesn’t explain the “effect”, so I’m not sure how or why that’s relevant. Anyway, just because anyone – or an identified group of anyones – believes they possess freedom of choice doesn’t mean that they do. What he’s labelled “freedom of choice” is the fact that agents have the ability to control their behavior and choose their actions. That doesn’t mean they possess self control in the ultimate sense.

Pav’s view of the ultimate sense of it shows up (I think!) as he notes the “unpredictability of happenstance in the purely physical world”…but then assumes once a “sufficiently sentient breed of agents came into being” were prompt to mentally categorize all of this unpredictability into “the novelty of choice”.

Of course right off, “came into being” implies causality and I assume the point is that it took humans to construct the idea of causality. But humans also constructed “happenstance”. So what’s the point here, really?

What does “quantum indeterminacy” mean and whose finger is doing the tapping?

Moving along, Pav elaborates upon what he believes to be a valid depiction of a chain of cause and effect to illustrate how events of the “past” will have impact on “the future”. As I read, I could hear the ice cracking and I wanted to shout a warning to him to get out of there NOW…but I figured the noble souls who enter this ILP Chamber do so with the understanding that sinking into the freezing depths is, well, an option. :slight_smile:

He says it’s all because a guy chose Cocoa Puffs for breakfast. Actually, he said “wanted”, which would’ve (should’ve IMO) allowed him to introduce the concept of intention into the mix. But anyway, his point is that the decision that, on the surface, seems relatively inconsequential, actually leads to “vast intended and unintended consequences”. Really?

I didn’t care for hypothetical Cocoa Puffs example because he started with a simple decision and then selected a chain of events in a linear way, so that he could base all the contingencies along the line on that one. But this doesn’t reflect the intricacy of the web of causality. On the surface, he makes his neat linear case. No doubt he would respond “but I only meant that as one possible example!” But that’s not how it works. He doesn’t realize that each of the occurrences that he has isolated at each point along the way to his chosen outcome are, in fact, at each moment, interrelated in this web through an infinite number of relationships that he can’t possibly identify.

In other words, it’s not even remotely that simple and I’d say it’s, in fact, so complex, that he can’t claim that the example can prove anything about causality. Just as I can hold an orange in my hand and, as an exercise, try to imagine everything that occurred in the past to place it there. My way is a teensy weensy bit better, because I’m starting with an actual orange (versus ending up with an imaginary ghost town) and I know a few facts about how it got there (I saw it, I bought it, I sat down at the table and gazed at it and thought about it. I have a reasonable certainty that it came from a particular tree in a particular location, and that it was picked, packed, distributed, displayed, chosen, paid for, etc. That’s my little linear chain…but I’m of course ignorant of the lion’s share of what actually caused that orange to be in my hand at the precise moment. I may deduce that it was part of a causal process, but there is absolutely no way that I can know this, because the web is too intricate.

This is a non sequitur to me. The future is simply a projection of thought, it’s not about causes- and effects-to-be.

All I’ve got the time for, sorry.

Good breakdown, Ingenium. The only thing that I would mention for now (and only because mentioning this won’t sway any votes) is that you attributed a couple of Tab’s quotes to me.

So I’ve put that down on the score sheet as another big fat double zero.

Tally stands at 2-1 to Pav. Thanks Ingenium. Should have read the dialogue though. That was my favourite bit. Quantum indeterminancy. Wiki.