An Answer to the problem of "Choice or Determinism"

[Age]

Your statement is logically, as I am interpreting it, is

It is Not the case that "Choices" or "non-Choices" exist as a third option. But you also indicated earlier that your conclusion is only binary, not trinary. Thus you have to accept at least one of these can only be true.

Sorry for my lack of proper English accent.

There is NO real need to be 'sorry' for such a thing.

If ANY thinks you 'need' to be 'sorry' for that, then it is they who are so narrowed and short sighted an individual.

And thank you all for all the patience and hard work trying to understand me.

You are NO harder in trying to understand than ANY other human being.

Anyway. I have two binary questions in mind,

1- Is it "all choice" , or is it "not all choice"? In other words, is it "all choice", or is it "some determinism" ?

When you say 'it', what are you actually referring to, exactly?

See, EVERY physical piece of matter is 'determined' (or pre-determined by past events). Whereas, human beings are ABLE TO 'choose', which therefore means some of 'it' is choice and some of 'it' is determinism. But, then, what exactly am I referring to when I used the 'it' word here.

Therefore, until you clear up what the 'it' word means or is referring to, exactly, then what you are questioning here, exactly, will remain NOT YET understood.

2- Is it "all determinism", or is it "not all determinism"? In other words, is it "all determinism", or is it "some choice" ?

Again, what does the 'it' word refer to, EXACTLY?

Now I have reasoned that both "all choice" and "all determinism" are contradictory to themselves in two separate discussions, and therefore concluded it must be: it is "some choice and some determinism".

Again thank you for your time and effort.

'it' could mean or refer to ABSOLUTELY ANY thing.

So, the only one 'you' have 'reasoned' ANY thing to here is "your-self". This is because 'you' are the ONLY one who KNOWS what the 'it' means or refers to here.

[Belinda]

I waited for a response until now, but apparently no one believes in all choice nor all determinism. I don't know, but the issue of choice and determinism is a historical discussion in philosophy that goes back to at least twelve centuries ago. If no one believed in anything but some choice and some determinism, then what was all this discussion about.

Maybe this issue is solved before and I don't know about it. Then please tell me who solved it and when and how. Or maybe just nobody dares to face contradiction with her/himself.

Your interest in the question of FreeWill or determinism is justified and many people here are interested.
The reason I did not reply is that choice is not the alternative to determinism. People who believe in strong determinism choose. My dog chooses.

The alternative to determinism is not choice but Free Will.
I recommend https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/book ... gKlXvD_BwE
How Free Are You is an inexpensive paperback.

If you claim the alternative to determinism is not choice but Free Will, then surely you are able to inform us of what 'Free Will' is to you, correct?

If this is correct, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

From what I have observed, a big reason WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were STILL CONFUSED over, and STILL DISCUSSING/DEBATING, this 'free will/determinism' little matter is just because of how you, each and individually, are defining those words.

It's no only me but also all philosophers who have understood the implications of hard determinism.

Free Will means something, God alone knows what, that unlike anything else in the universe is not caused .

[trokanmariel]

My own take, on choice or determinism, is that determinism is the ultimate truth, however, this determinism then encompasses magic adults, and not just reality beings.

My reasoning, for this "choice", is that daylight is destined to supersede the human choice, no matter what the choice is

[Age]

Your interest in the question of FreeWill or determinism is justified and many people here are interested.
The reason I did not reply is that choice is not the alternative to determinism. People who believe in strong determinism choose. My dog chooses.

The alternative to determinism is not choice but Free Will.
I recommend https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/book ... gKlXvD_BwE
How Free Are You is an inexpensive paperback.

If you claim the alternative to determinism is not choice but Free Will, then surely you are able to inform us of what 'Free Will' is to you, correct?

If this is correct, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

From what I have observed, a big reason WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, were STILL CONFUSED over, and STILL DISCUSSING/DEBATING, this 'free will/determinism' little matter is just because of how you, each and individually, are defining those words.

It's no only me but also all philosophers who have understood the implications of hard determinism.

What, exactly, do 'you' and all "philosophers" understand has being "the implications of hard determinism"?

Free Will means something, God alone knows what, that unlike anything else in the universe is not caused .

I KNOW what the words 'free will' means and refers to, which fit in perfectly with EVERY thing else. However, I was just asking 'you' what 'free will' means, to 'you'. Are you able to inform of us?

[Scott Mayers]

Your statement is logically, as I am interpreting it, is

It is Not the case that "Choices" or "non-Choices" exist as a third option. But you also indicated earlier that your conclusion is only binary, not trinary. Thus you have to accept at least one of these can only be true.

Sorry for my lack of proper English accent. And thank you all for all the patience and hard work trying to understand me.

Anyway. I have two binary questions in mind,

1- Is it "all choice" , or is it "not all choice"? In other words, is it "all choice", or is it "some determinism" ?

2- Is it "all determinism", or is it "not all determinism"? In other words, is it "all determinism", or is it "some choice" ?

Now I have reasoned that both "all choice" and "all determinism" are contradictory to themselves in two separate discussions, and therefore concluded it must be: it is "some choice and some determinism".

Again thank you for your time and effort.

You're very welcome. Thanks for being polite. I understand that you are asserting some of each exists. This is fair.

[Skepdick]

We have three options in front of us:
1- It is all Determinism.
2- It is all Choice.
3- It is some Choice and some Determinism.

This list is incomplete. What about non-determinism/indeterminism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

[bahman]

Matter follows the laws of nature, which means that it is deterministic in its nature. Matter, however, can be in a marginal state (when there are options). This means that matter cannot move any longer. That is where the mind can intervene and break the conflict in the marginal state.

[Age]

Matter follows the laws of nature, which means that it is deterministic in its nature. Matter, however, can be in a marginal state (when there are options).

When are there "options"?

This means that matter cannot move any longer.

When is there ever a moment when matter cannot move any longer?

Has matter ever been able to NOT move any longer?

If yes, then WHEN?

That is where the mind can intervene and break the conflict in the marginal state.

HOW can "the mind" intervene at those, alleged, times when matter is NOT able to move any longer and break the, supposed, conflict in the marginal state?

First, you will have to PROVE that there is a, so called, "marginal state", BEFORE you even begin to start explaining what 'the mind' is, which could do such a thing as you claim here.

[K1Barin]

You're very welcome. Thanks for being polite. I understand that you are asserting some of each exists. This is fair.

Thank you too for your knowledge and effort. I just wanted to assert this too that using the method of "rejecting ideas that are contradictory to themselves" is original and new in the discussion of "choice and determinism".

[bahman]

Matter follows the laws of nature, which means that it is deterministic in its nature. Matter, however, can be in a marginal state (when there are options).

When are there "options"?

When there is no motion, for example. Haven't you ever had options in your life?

This means that matter cannot move any longer.

When is there ever a moment when matter cannot move any longer?

In the classical limit, when all forces cancel each other.

Has matter ever been able to NOT move any longer?

Of course, yes. Your cup of tea is staying on the table without moving.

If yes, then WHEN?

I already answered that.

That is where the mind can intervene and break the conflict in the marginal state.

HOW can "the mind" intervene at those, alleged, times when matter is NOT able to move any longer and break the, supposed, conflict in the marginal state?

First, you will have to PROVE that there is a, so called, "marginal state", BEFORE you even begin to start explaining what 'the mind' is, which could do such a thing as you claim here.

The existence of the marginal state is already argued. Can't you move your body using your mind?

[Age]

Matter follows the laws of nature, which means that it is deterministic in its nature. Matter, however, can be in a marginal state (when there are options).

When are there "options"?

When there is no motion, for example.

When is there "no motion"?

Haven't you ever had options in your life?

I have heard of 'options', in my life.

You appear to have not understood my question here posed, to you.

This means that matter cannot move any longer.

When is there ever a moment when matter cannot move any longer?

In the classical limit, when all forces cancel each other.

When has this ever happened?

Has matter ever been able to NOT move any longer?

Of course, yes. Your cup of tea is staying on the table without moving.

If this is what you see or believe, then, obviously, you have a very narrowed perspective of things.

Is that "cup of tea", "staying on the table", supposedly, "without moving", really 'not moving' at the subatomic level? Or, do you not look at things from that perspective?

If you want to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things, then you NEED to LOOK from ALL perspectives.

If yes, then WHEN?

I already answered that.

That is where the mind can intervene and break the conflict in the marginal state.

HOW can "the mind" intervene at those, alleged, times when matter is NOT able to move any longer and break the, supposed, conflict in the marginal state?

First, you will have to PROVE that there is a, so called, "marginal state", BEFORE you even begin to start explaining what 'the mind' is, which could do such a thing as you claim here.

The existence of the marginal state is already argued.

Absolutely ANY thing can be 'argued'. But only SOME things can be 'argued, soundly and validly'.

And, by the way, these things can NOT be refuted and so are thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your arguments here are clearly NOT sound and valid.

Can't you move your body using your mind?

Who, or what, is the 'you', which is being asked if 'it' could move 'it's' body, using 'it's' mind?

And, who or what is ACTUALLY in 'control' here, 'the mind' or 'the you'?

[bahman]

When are there "options"?

When there is no motion, for example.

When is there "no motion"?

When the total force exerted on an object is zero.

Haven't you ever had options in your life?

I have heard of 'options', in my life.

You appear to have not understood my question here posed, to you.

What do you mean with heard? Have you ever been in a situation when there were options in your life? Yes or no?

When is there ever a moment when matter cannot move any longer?

In the classical limit, when all forces cancel each other.

When has this ever happened?

Think of the cup of tea on your table.

Has matter ever been able to NOT move any longer?

Of course, yes. Your cup of tea is staying on the table without moving.

If this is what you see or believe, then, obviously, you have a very narrowed perspective of things.

Is that "cup of tea", "staying on the table", supposedly, "without moving", really 'not moving' at the subatomic level? Or, do you not look at things from that perspective?

If you want to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things, then you NEED to LOOK from ALL perspectives.

As I mentioned, in the classical regime. Do you know what classical regime is?

If yes, then WHEN?

I already answered that.

HOW can "the mind" intervene at those, alleged, times when matter is NOT able to move any longer and break the, supposed, conflict in the marginal state?

First, you will have to PROVE that there is a, so called, "marginal state", BEFORE you even begin to start explaining what 'the mind' is, which could do such a thing as you claim here.

The existence of the marginal state is already argued.

Absolutely ANY thing can be 'argued'. But only SOME things can be 'argued, soundly and validly'.

And, by the way, these things can NOT be refuted and so are thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your arguments here are clearly NOT sound and valid.

I don't think so.

Can't you move your body using your mind?

Who, or what, is the 'you', which is being asked if 'it' could move 'it's' body, using 'it's' mind?

And, who or what is ACTUALLY in 'control' here, 'the mind' or 'the you'?

This we have been through it many times. "The you" is your body and your mind.

[Age]

When there is no motion, for example.

When is there "no motion"?

When the total force exerted on an object is zero.

Well that could NEVER happen. At the subatomic level there is ALWAYS a force being exerted. Just like there is ALWAYS a force being exerted at the above atomic (or classical) level, ALSO.

Haven't you ever had options in your life?

I have heard of 'options', in my life.

You appear to have not understood my question here posed, to you.

What do you mean with heard?

Sorry I meant 'had'.

Have you ever been in a situation when there were options in your life? Yes or no?

Yes.

In the classical limit, when all forces cancel each other.

When has this ever happened?

Think of the cup of tea on your table.

Of course, yes. Your cup of tea is staying on the table without moving.

If this is what you see or believe, then, obviously, you have a very narrowed perspective of things.

Is that "cup of tea", "staying on the table", supposedly, "without moving", really 'not moving' at the subatomic level? Or, do you not look at things from that perspective?

If you want to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things, then you NEED to LOOK from ALL perspectives.

As I mentioned, in the classical regime.

Again, you are NOT looking from ALL perspectives.

The cup of tea can NOT stay on the table, without moving in ANY regime.

By the way, when did you mention " classical 'regime' "?

Do you know what classical regime is?

I know what it is, from my perspective.

What is 'classical regime', from your perspective?

Absolutely ANY thing can be 'argued'. But only SOME things can be 'argued, soundly and validly'.

And, by the way, these things can NOT be refuted and so are thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your arguments here are clearly NOT sound and valid.

I don't think so.

Okay.

Who, or what, is the 'you', which is being asked if 'it' could move 'it's' body, using 'it's' mind?

And, who or what is ACTUALLY in 'control' here, 'the mind' or 'the you'?

This we have been through it many times. "The you" is your body and your mind.

Is the 'your' word a possessive noun, to you?

If no, then what is it, to you?

But if yes, then ONCE AGAIN, how could one be 'what they own/possess'?

[bahman]

When is there "no motion"?

When the total force exerted on an object is zero.

Well that could NEVER happen. At the subatomic level there is ALWAYS a force being exerted. Just like there is ALWAYS a force being exerted at the above atomic (or classical) level, ALSO.

I have heard of 'options', in my life.

You appear to have not understood my question here posed, to you.

What do you mean with heard?

Sorry I meant 'had'.

Have you ever been in a situation when there were options in your life? Yes or no?

Yes.

When has this ever happened?

Think of the cup of tea on your table.

If this is what you see or believe, then, obviously, you have a very narrowed perspective of things.

Is that "cup of tea", "staying on the table", supposedly, "without moving", really 'not moving' at the subatomic level? Or, do you not look at things from that perspective?

If you want to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of things, then you NEED to LOOK from ALL perspectives.

As I mentioned, in the classical regime.

Again, you are NOT looking from ALL perspectives.

The cup of tea can NOT stay on the table, without moving in ANY regime.

By the way, when did you mention " classical 'regime' "?

Do you know what classical regime is?

I know what it is, from my perspective.

What is 'classical regime', from your perspective?

Absolutely ANY thing can be 'argued'. But only SOME things can be 'argued, soundly and validly'.

And, by the way, these things can NOT be refuted and so are thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Your arguments here are clearly NOT sound and valid.

I don't think so.

Okay.

Who, or what, is the 'you', which is being asked if 'it' could move 'it's' body, using 'it's' mind?

And, who or what is ACTUALLY in 'control' here, 'the mind' or 'the you'?

This we have been through it many times. "The you" is your body and your mind.

Is the 'your' word a possessive noun, to you?

If no, then what is it, to you?

But if yes, then ONCE AGAIN, how could one be 'what they own/possess'?

I am talking about the macroscopic level when the total force exerted on an object is zero. Example of your body or cup of tea on your table.

[Age]

When the total force exerted on an object is zero.

Well that could NEVER happen. At the subatomic level there is ALWAYS a force being exerted. Just like there is ALWAYS a force being exerted at the above atomic (or classical) level, ALSO.

What do you mean with heard?

Sorry I meant 'had'.

Have you ever been in a situation when there were options in your life? Yes or no?

Yes.

Think of the cup of tea on your table.


As I mentioned, in the classical regime.

Again, you are NOT looking from ALL perspectives.

The cup of tea can NOT stay on the table, without moving in ANY regime.

By the way, when did you mention " classical 'regime' "?

Do you know what classical regime is?

I know what it is, from my perspective.

What is 'classical regime', from your perspective?

I don't think so.

Okay.

This we have been through it many times. "The you" is your body and your mind.

Is the 'your' word a possessive noun, to you?

If no, then what is it, to you?

But if yes, then ONCE AGAIN, how could one be 'what they own/possess'?

I am talking about the macroscopic level when the total force exerted on an object is zero. Example of your body or cup of tea on your table.

LOL

Does the earth move, or is it still, to you?

If it is the former, to you, then ALL human bodies and ALL cups of tea are ALSO moving. So, there is a force being exerted on ALL of those objects.

However, if it is the latter, to you, then I suggest OPENING UP your view of things.