# Free to Cause
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [July 4, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009 "2005-07-04T17:35:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Dr.Satanical](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dr.Satanical)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/21 "2005-07-13T03:51:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> No this is common determinism. For every cause must have an effect. If you act (or cause) than the effect SHOULD be known. If it’s not than determinism fails.
You are simply mistaken. Of course you can’t predict a model from within the model…duh.
> [@](#):
>
> You are SO stuck in the theology of determinism that any discussion of an alternative switches on the same block that theologists (of all types) use.
You are using the word ‘theology’ incorrectly. Theos means god, and there are no supernatural components to my position whatsoever.
With that said, I am and always have been open to a change of position. In fact, when I first started reading ILP I was of the opinion that freewill could and must exist.
Someone changed my mind, and the more I scrutinize and examine the position the less likely free will seems.
cause and effect is observable and follows the principles of logic.
Freewill is religious in nature and not only isn’t supported by evidence, but runs contrary to known axioms (every effect has a cause)
> [@](#):
>
> an you even see that your views are SO locked that any challenge them is met with complete illogic of logic?
>
> If you are really willing to challenge your beliefs in determinism read up on chaos theory and quantum mechanics.
If you yourself had read anything convincing from the feilds of CT and QM you would be able to present an argument, instead of pointing me at general fringe feilds of science and citing that as your argument.
I think your position is rooted in your emotional need to believe. That is fine, but I do not share that need, I instead need to base my positions on my own reasoning ability and clear thinking.
To convince me free will exists is simple.
1: Produce evidence an effect can happen uncaused.
2:Explain to me how a ‘free choice’ is created if not by chemical processes.
---
### Author:  [@scythekain](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/scythekain)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/22 "2005-07-13T13:18:03Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 1: Produce evidence an effect can happen uncaused.
> 2:Explain to me how a ‘free choice’ is created if not by chemical processes.
1.Many quantum physicists feel the beginning of the universe was an uncaused cause.
[infidels.org/library/modern/ … aused.html](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html)
1. Why does free will or volition, or freedom to cause, have to be connected to the laws of cause and effect? because it’s created by a “chemical process”? Our brain is not a pure logic engine, and does not operate on true false states. There are “fuzzy logic” states, states in between true and false that exist.
for example, cause and effect states that if I cause (let’s say I give you a gift, a pen) your effect will be (to thank me.) but sometimes the immediate response is not to thank me (which is due to a certain amount of programming) but something… random.
I’m sure even you in your pure quest for logic and determinism have witnessed behaviour from animals and humans that purely defies any logic or any preceding “cause”.
here’s one for you.
Let’s say I believe that cause and effect shape us.
Who’s to say that we aren’t still free to choose? When talking about pure desires your of course going to choose the thing you had before that felt or tasted the best to you. But some people for whatever reason break this volition and choose the opposite thing, regardless of whether they’ve had past bad experiences with it.
When a jackass on the freeway cuts you off, you choose to get pissed off about it. You could just as easily let the anger slide off.
When talking about two things that you haven’t experienced before what drives you to choose one over another?
I think that’s the big message here… Determinism (from my limited grasp of it, which I admit I am partly debating with you to learn more about it.) from my view is debilitating to human spirit… It removes drive, it rewards bad behavior.
Why help others? It’s a selfish act because it makes you feel good.
Why bother trying?
Why shouldn’t I steal your food? Causality has determined I have no other choice, then you’ll have no other choice but to kick the crap out of me etc etc.
Causality, determinism allow you to always pick the path of least resistance.
Increase the resistance and you force yourself to pick the path less traveled.
---
### Author:  [@scythekain](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/scythekain)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/23 "2005-07-13T17:17:27Z")
part of the problem with this debate is like religion there are many forms of determinism, obviously you Dr. S (and perhaps others here) are not fatalistic determinists who believe that future events are predetermined.
Have you heard of “compatibilism”?
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)
I’ll try a “determinist dillema” tell me if it fits your version of determinism.
All are future actions are based on our desires.
I become buddhist and suppress my desires.
I’m free to act without desires and free from the bonds of “determinism”.
---
### Author:  [@scythekain](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/scythekain)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/24 "2005-07-13T18:35:25Z")
I think I’ve come up with a couple of examples that show where determinism (of any kind) falls flat on it’s face (though I’m sure you’ll find some way to shift the meaning of determinism so it’s still valid.)
Let’s imagine we have a guy name matt.
he goes to a swimming hole with some other people and at the last minute he is met with a choice. Jump in or don’t jump in.
Matt A jumps in.
Matt B doesn’t jump in.
either way you have the same predecessor cause and two different effects. Determinism lays claim that both are causal. so suddenly you have two different opposing outcomes with the same cause. An impossibility.
Let’s say that tomorrow, there is a 50% chance of rain (I realized I used this example in the other thread, I’m gonna extrapolate.) It comes to be the day after tomorrow and we have:
yesterday A where it did rain and causality can look at the results and say “cause and effect show why it rained.”
yesterday B where it didn’t rain and causality can say “cause and effect show why it didn’t rain”
* * *
Cause and effect work brilliantly in a closed system.
Unfortunately for determinists we live in an open system.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Satanical](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dr.Satanical)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/25 "2005-07-14T00:53:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 1.Many quantum physicists feel the beginning of the universe was an uncaused cause.
But have yet to verify any known event happening uncaused.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Why does free will or volition, or freedom to cause, have to be connected to the laws of cause and effect? because it’s created by a “chemical process”? Our brain is not a pure logic engine, and does not operate on true false states. There are “fuzzy logic” states, states in between true and false that exist.
The fact that not all of how we think and act are guided by the logic part of the brain doesn’t imply it is free of causality. Everything from how we smell to how we see to how we feel emotion can be traced back to chemical reactions and ballances in the brain. Everything.
> [@](#):
>
> for example, cause and effect states that if I cause (let’s say I give you a gift, a pen) your effect will be (to thank me.) but sometimes the immediate response is not to thank me (which is due to a certain amount of programming) but something… random.
Not being aware of a cause doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Quite to the contrary. When scrutinized deeply enough, nothing is ever found to happen uncaused. Someone may not thank you because they are in a bad mood (chemical ballance) are in a hurry, or distracted ( external stimuli) or are just an asshole (conditioning or genetics, either way external causes)
> [@](#):
>
> I’m sure even you in your pure quest for logic and determinism have witnessed behaviour from animals and humans that purely defies any logic or any preceding “cause”.
Let me get religious on you for a sec…
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
The third Satanic statement. I am about getting down to the most likely truth, not defending a position.
Like I said, if you could produce evidence that freewill might be a viable option (by producing the 2 pieces of evidence I asked for above) I would be much more receptive to your position.
However emotional rhetoric just isn’t going to sway me.
> [@](#):
>
> Who’s to say that we aren’t still free to choose? When talking about pure desires your of course going to choose the thing you had before that felt or tasted the best to you. But some people for whatever reason break this volition and choose the opposite thing, regardless of whether they’ve had past bad experiences with it.
Massochistic tendancies are also rooted somewhere and are not created in a void.
> [@](#):
>
> When a jackass on the freeway cuts you off, you choose to get pissed off about it. You could just as easily let the anger slide off.
but you only will do one of the above, based on whatever factors involved that cause you to slide down the path you do.
> [@](#):
>
> When talking about two things that you haven’t experienced before what drives you to choose one over another?
Others opinions, marketting, personal preference, subconcious activity, current levels of hunger, thirst, comfort, and a bevy of other possibilities.
> [@](#):
>
> I think that’s the big message here… Determinism (from my limited grasp of it, which I admit I am partly debating with you to learn more about it.) from my view is debilitating to human spirit… It removes drive, it rewards bad behavior.
I agree. many wastrels fall into this line of thinking simply because it excuses them of all responsibility. of course, this is only because they themselves have only a limited understanding of determinism…or maybe my version is a little different.
I think that all events are predetermined, but retribution also fits in with cause and effect. Stupidity is a major cause of many different stupid effects. Responsibility to the responsible!
As for the human ‘spirit’…what exactly is that? Is it anything like a purple unicorn?
> [@](#):
>
> Why help others? It’s a selfish act because it makes you feel good.
You answered your own question 😛
> [@](#):
>
> Why shouldn’t I steal your food? Causality has determined I have no other choice, then you’ll have no other choice but to kick the crap out of me etc etc.
Maybe because you do not want an ass kicking? The desire to not get an ass kicking is itself a cause.
> [@](#):
>
> Causality, determinism allow you to always pick the path of least resistance.
>
> Increase the resistance and you force yourself to pick the path less traveled.
The way things happen aren’t always the easiest way they can happen. That is a misconception you seem to hold about the nature of determinism. Factors can lead to something happening (say a hindu guru setting himself on fire for his faith) in the most resistive way possible.
> [@](#):
>
> Let’s imagine we have a guy name matt.
>
> he goes to a swimming hole with some other people and at the last minute he is met with a choice. Jump in or don’t jump in.
>
> Matt A jumps in.
>
> Matt B doesn’t jump in.
>
> either way you have the same predecessor cause and two different effects. Determinism lays claim that both are causal. so suddenly you have two different opposing outcomes with the same cause. An impossibility.
The impossibility here is time replaying itself. That just can’t happen(or at least, has never been known or suspected to), your whole example is flawed.
> [@](#):
>
> Let’s say that tomorrow, there is a 50% chance of rain (I realized I used this example in the other thread, I’m gonna extrapolate.) It comes to be the day after tomorrow and we have:
>
> yesterday A where it did rain and causality can look at the results and say “cause and effect show why it rained.”
>
> yesterday B where it didn’t rain and causality can say “cause and effect show why it didn’t rain”
Ditto for this. It either rains, or it doesn’t. A day can’t replay itself. If it rains, it is because of whatever environmental/meteorological conditions etc caused it to.
> [@](#):
>
> Cause and effect work brilliantly in a closed system.
>
> Unfortunately for determinists we live in an open system.
Interesting claim, what do you have to back it up with?
The evidence says otherwise. Ever watch CSI?
We live in an open system. Everything we know to happen and that has happened, when scrutinized, is found to have been caused by something else. That is what the evidence says.
> [@](#):
>
> part of the problem with this debate is like religion there are many forms of determinism, obviously you Dr. S (and perhaps others here) are not fatalistic determinists who believe that future events are predetermined
Well, you are mistaken about my position. I think future events ARE predetermined, but because we live within the system, and becuase we experience time and events in a linear fashion, we cannot predict it (as I have already said in this thread, now that I think about it)
> [@](#):
>
> All are future actions are based on our desires
Huh? What leads you to that conclusion.
I think all our future actions are caused by a vast multitude of external stimuli and circumstance, each of which itself is caused by something else. Our ‘desires’ play a very small part in all of that, but a part none the less.
---
### Author:  [@NoelyG](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoelyG)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/26 "2005-07-14T01:34:59Z")
Dr S.
> [@](#):
>
> When scrutinized deeply enough, nothing is ever found to happen uncaused
Not exactly true. If two electrons are prepared in the same way, and are accelerated through a double slit by an electric field, they will not land in the same position. What caused this deviation? If the initial conditions are the same, why shouldn’t they land in the same position. An inherent probability is associated with the movement of small ‘particles’. How can determinism and causality explain this type of phenomena?
You may argue that these deviations are caused, and aren’t in fact random, it’s just that we don’t understand the causes. But bear in mind that this problem has been worked on by the finest physicists since 1927 with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and no strict causality has been found. This may or may not have an impact on free will, but I fail to see how it is possible to have such a firm conviction in determinism in the light of these uncertainties.
---
### Author:  [@TheAdlerian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/TheAdlerian)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/27 "2005-07-14T01:47:05Z")
What I said before should hold true.
When we watch a drip of water role down a smooth surface it never rolls down quite the same way twice.
Why?
Well, when you blow the surface up with an electron microscope you can see that the smooth surface looks like the most rugged mountain range ever seen. Water is more like motor oil at this level as well. So, that drip that we see is really flowing according the laws that would govern and ocean of motor oil being pour down through the Alps. Each pour will hit different peaks and valleys and the flow will never be the same. On the microscopic level things are in the way. On the macro level it does not appear that anything is in the way.
I believe that it is possible that on an imperceptible level there may be structure that cause particles that we can see to appear to behave unpredictably simply by being obstructions.
---
### Author:  [@NoelyG](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoelyG)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/28 "2005-07-14T01:57:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I believe that it is possible that on an imperceptible level there may be structure that cause particles that we can see to appear to behave unpredictably simply by being obstructions.
Possibly, but my argument is that we are far from being certain about determinism at these scales, so why is it that some have such a strong conviction about determinism. Also, we already know at microscopic scales things behave very differently than they do at macroscopic scales. For instance, small “particles” such as electrons, photons, quarks etc exhibit both particle and wave properties simultaneously. If such standard properties break down at these small scales, why is it not conceivable that other presumably inherent properties, such as strict determinism, breakdown as well?? How can we be so sure?
EDIT: Just because something is not intuitive, does not mean that it cannot be the case. Modern physics has shown that time and time again.
---
### Author:  [@TheAdlerian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/TheAdlerian)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/29 "2005-07-14T03:24:17Z")
Well much of this chaos stuff has been used to try and say that god exists. He creates order from chaos and all of that.
Also, it is intuitive that something ordered is going on down there as something ordered is going on up here. As I implied, there could be some “thing†creating the particle/wave observation that is beyond our observation.
Frankly, I believe that somewhere in the year 40,000 they will still be talking about it. However, it may be the race of Puppymen that have out-evolved us, but it’s the same difference.
---
### Author:  [@NoelyG](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoelyG)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/30 "2005-07-14T04:48:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Well much of this chaos stuff has been used to try and say that god exists. He creates order from chaos and all of that.
What’s that got to do with anything?
> [@](#):
>
> Also, it is intuitive that something ordered is going on down there as something ordered is going on up here. As I implied, there could be some “thing†creating the particle/wave observation that is beyond our observation.
That’s not my point. My point is this: Just because something is un-intuitive does not mean that it is impossible.
The wave-particle duality is un-intuitive, but by all our observations is still likely to be correct. So, already there is evidence that ‘particles’ are behaving un-intuitively at these small scales, why is it not possible that an intuitive concept like determinism breaks down in this region as well? I have already given an example of how causality appears to breakdown in the quantum world. This is enough for me to say that it is possible that determinism is not universal. I find it hard to accept those who claim for certain that causality and determinism is universal in light of our present understanding.
---
### Author:  [@jjg](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/jjg)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/31 "2005-07-14T06:01:34Z")
Predeterminism in terms of Scripture comes from the Greek word “pooridtz” which means for God to declare or know through foreknowledge.
It is not causla, but because God is eternal rather than temporal, God can see the choices we make.
---
### Author:  [@scythekain](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/scythekain)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/32 "2005-07-14T13:22:43Z")
it’s interesting that the probability of something occuring at two places at once (the electron gun is a good example) yet the determinists standard answer no matter where the electron hit is causal.
It’s contradiction at it’s finest and a great example is the probability in weather systems. Which shows that we can’t know something till it happens and up until that point we’re free to go either way. If anything I think the human brain is more of a probability engine than a logic engine.
And as Noely points out, at the quantum level, cause and effect, basic determinism as has been known for hundreds of years breaks down.
> [@DR](#):
>
> But have yet to verify any known event happening uncaused.
that’s the quantum physics/mechanics dillema. it’s more an anthema of philosophy than science. until someone can prove multiple realities 🙂
> [@](#):
>
> The fact that not all of how we think and act are guided by the logic part of the brain doesn’t imply it is free of causality.
I think that even the logic part of the brain is driven more by probability than “pure logic”. (women for sure are driven more by probability than logic 😉 — but that’s more for mundane bable or the rant house.)
> [@](#):
>
> When scrutinized deeply enough
This is a common determinist dillemma… we aren’t scrutinizing deep enough to fully see the laws of cause and effect at work.
> [@](#):
>
> However emotional rhetoric just isn’t going to sway me.
However improbable at this point free will looks to you, it’s more than likely that our choices aren’t controlled strictly by logic.
> [@](#):
>
> I agree. many wastrels fall into this line of thinking simply because it excuses them of all responsibility. of course, this is only because they themselves have only a limited understanding of determinism…or maybe my version is a little different.
> I think that all events are predetermined, but retribution also fits in with cause and effect. Stupidity is a major cause of many different stupid effects. Responsibility to the responsible!
> As for the human ‘spirit’…what exactly is that? Is it anything like a purple unicorn?
well as long as you accept responsibility for your actions I respect your belief a WHOLE lot more, my “beef” was with the “wastrels” who don’t accept personal responsibility.
as for that purple unicorn, can you disprove it’s existence?
if you can’t then you can only believe that it doesn’t exist. but really that’s a topic for another thread, I may create later. 😉
> [@](#):
>
> You answered your own question
yes, but I dont’ agree with that sentiment. If helping someone makes you feel good there’s got to be a reason for it right? What logical purpose could that feeling serve? let’s say that someone doesn’t feel that “warm fuzzy” when they help someone else yet still give themselves up for others, would you consider that selfish?
you didn’t really answer the compatibilist question. What do you think of that philosophy? it sounds like that’s almost the version of determinism you “believe”.
me, personally I’m gonna work out a probability philosophy.
---
### Author:  [@TheAdlerian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/TheAdlerian)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 1:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/33 "2005-07-14T13:29:59Z")
1. What’s that got to do with anything?
It’s important because religious people try to use ideas from physics to promote their own illogical agenda. When you couple good ideas with crazy idea the power of crazy goes up dramatically.
1. That’s not my point. My point is this: Just because something is un-intuitive does not mean that it is impossible.
I think that “intuitive†was a bad word choice. It’s a fact that almost every thing that we observe follows some pattern of behavior. I might not say that it is ordered but there is a pattern. So, it is logical to conclude that even though we can’t see the atomic world that it is following patterns.
It also makes sense when we look at the world holistically. Things aren’t just happening down there. They are happening everywhere at the same time. So, somehow the micro is aligning to form the macro world. Something—is—going on down there.
Perhaps chaos theory is just another form of reductionism.
---
### Author:  [@TheAdlerian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/TheAdlerian)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 1:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/34 "2005-07-14T13:34:44Z")
Also, you have to think that scientific mechanisms are calibrated to detect what is expected to be detected. They can’t detect what is not known to exist.
That creates a post hoc analytical problem, as the various devices are set to measure the end result before the experiment even begins.
---
### Author:  [@NoelyG](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoelyG)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/35 "2005-07-14T23:32:35Z")
Alderian,
> [@](#):
>
> I think that “intuitive†was a bad word choice. It’s a fact that almost every thing that we observe follows some pattern of behavior. I might not say that it is ordered but there is a pattern. So, it is logical to conclude that even though we can’t see the atomic world that it is following patterns.
150-200 years ago, it was logical to follow the mechanistic view of particle dynamics. We now know that the purely mechanistic view falls short. By using the word intuitive I was referring to ideas that seem logical to us at our present level of understanding. When the wave-particle duality was first discovered, it seemed illogical (or un-intuitive) to those at the time, when the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics was revealed, it seem illogical etc etc.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps chaos theory is just another form of reductionism.
Chaos theory is a different concept to probabilistic quantum mechanics.
> [@](#):
>
> Also, you have to think that scientific mechanisms are calibrated to detect what is expected to be detected. They can’t detect what is not known to exist.
That is way off. Nature doesn’t lie. Scientific experiments may be pointed towards certain hypothesis that need to be tested, but time and time again these experiments have shown the existence of entities that were previously not known to have existed. If the above statement was true, how do you explain the wealth of discovery that experimental science has produced? I’m not sure how you would have developed this opinion.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Satanical](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dr.Satanical)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/36 "2005-07-15T00:09:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> it’s interesting that the probability of something occuring at two places at once (the electron gun is a good example) yet the determinists standard answer no matter where the electron hit is causal.
???
> [@](#):
>
> It’s contradiction at it’s finest and a great example is the probability in weather systems. Which shows that we can’t know something till it happens and up until that point we’re free to go either way. If anything I think the human brain is more of a probability engine than a logic engine.
You continue to equate not having all the data to the data not existing.
Why?
> [@](#):
>
> And as Noely points out, at the quantum level, cause and effect, basic determinism as has been known for hundreds of years breaks down.
You keep mentioning quantum physics and mechanics, but simply asserting ‘qm says so’ without presenting an argument here involving such, is pretty meaningless. I’m not a physicist.
> [@](#):
>
> I think that even the logic part of the brain is driven more by probability than “pure logic”. (women for sure are driven more by probability than logic — but that’s more for mundane bable or the rant house.)
and
> [@](#):
>
> This is a common determinist dillemma… we aren’t scrutinizing deep enough to fully see the laws of cause and effect at work.
really have nothing to do with what we are talking about…try not to meander 😉
> [@](#):
>
> However improbable at this point free will looks to you, it’s more than likely that our choices aren’t controlled strictly by logic.
Who said our ‘choices’ were controlled by logic? not me!
Anyway, do you realize how much like a bible thumping christian you sound?
What makes it more than likely?
Certainly not any evidence.
Freewill is a faith based belief…why not just go one step further?
> [@](#):
>
> as for that purple unicorn, can you disprove it’s existence?
>
> if you can’t then you can only believe that it doesn’t exist. but really that’s a topic for another thread, I may create later.
I don’t need to ‘believe’ it doesn’t exist. Since I have no reason to care one way or the other if it does exist, and since I have no reason based in reality to think it does exist, doubt is more than enough.
> [@](#):
>
> yes, but I dont’ agree with that sentiment. If helping someone makes you feel good there’s got to be a reason for it right? What logical purpose could that feeling serve? let’s say that someone doesn’t feel that “warm fuzzy” when they help someone else yet still give themselves up for others, would you consider that selfish?
If you enjoy helping people , but yet you derive no sort of pleasure from the gratitude, you are probably a sociopath.
> [@](#):
>
> you didn’t really answer the compatibilist question. What do you think of that philosophy? it sounds like that’s almost the version of determinism you “believe”.
I didn’t answer the question because
A: it’s off-topic
and
B: I couldn’t care less.
---
### Author:  [@NoelyG](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoelyG)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/37 "2005-07-15T00:16:06Z")
Dr S,
> [@](#):
>
> You keep mentioning quantum physics and mechanics, but simply asserting ‘qm says so’ without presenting an argument here involving such, is pretty meaningless. I’m not a physicist.
I know you are addressing scythekain here, but the information about the apparent failure of standard determinism in quantum mechanics is all in easy reach via the net. If you’re interested in seeing this possibility, then google is all you need.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Satanical](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dr.Satanical)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/38 "2005-07-15T01:02:51Z")
> [@NoelyG](#):
>
> Dr S,
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > You keep mentioning quantum physics and mechanics, but simply asserting ‘qm says so’ without presenting an argument here involving such, is pretty meaningless. I’m not a physicist.
>
> I know you are addressing scythekain here, but the information about the apparent failure of standard determinism in quantum mechanics is all in easy reach via the net. If you’re interested in seeing this possibility, then google is all you need.
In that spirit, I could present all my arguments in all forums on all topics simply as ‘logic and science say so, all the information is out there somewhere, go find it’
But that seems pretty pointless doesn’t it?
---
### Author:  [@NoelyG](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/NoelyG)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/39 "2005-07-15T01:08:53Z")
Dr S,
> [@](#):
>
> In that spirit, I could present all my arguments in all forums on all topics simply as ‘logic and science say so, all the information is out there somewhere, go find it’
> But that seems pretty pointless doesn’t it?
I’m not about to present a detailed discussion of quantum mechanics on these boards for your sake, that would be a waste of my time. If you wish to find out about these things, which I can assure you can be easily found and participate in the discussion, then the burden is on you to educate yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Satanical](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dr.Satanical)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009/40 "2005-07-15T03:16:22Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not about to present a detailed discussion of quantum mechanics on these boards for your sake, that would be a waste of my time. If you wish to find out about these things, which I can assure you can be easily found and participate in the discussion, then the burden is on you to educate yourself.
Afraid not, sunshine.
If you are going to introduce QM as the cornerstone of your argument against determinism, you are going to have to display the faintest hint that you at least know what you are talking about.
Just saying ‘QM says so’ is completely useless.
quantum theory is regarded as mostly philosophy anyway.
If your whole argument for freewill is reliant on fringe science that you don’t seem to understand at all anyway, you should head back to the drawing board.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/free-to-cause/6009.md?page=3)