Philosophy Now Forum

An Answer to the Problem of “Choice or Determinism” by a New Reasoning

In this article we want to find a suitable answer to the problem of “Choice or Determinism” by the method of “denying the statement that is in contradiction to itself”.

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.

By answering the following two questions that each cover everything, we pick one of the three options above.

First question: Is it all Determinism? Or is it not all Determinism; there is some Choice?
Second question: Is it all Choice? Or is it not all Choice; there is some Determinism?

- Discussion about the first question

Suppose p= “It is all Determinism”. And q= “It is not all Determinism; there is some Choice”. If it is all Determinism, There is no CHOICE between p and q. Therefore discussion and reasoning and trying to persuade that it is all Determinism has no meaning. Because if we want to find an answer to the above question by discussing and persuading, we should assume the other side has some Choice. Or the story is like this: It is all Determinism or is there any choice? Which one is your Choice?!

- Discussion about the second question

If it is all Choice, is there a choice to choose that there is some determinism? In this case the statement that “It is all Choice” will not be stable. Therefore for the stability of the statement “It is all Choice” it should itself be deterministic. Or this story is like this too: Is it all Choice or is there any Determinism? Which one is final or in other words, it is Deterministic?!

In conclusion, because the two statements “It is all Determinism” and “It is all Choice” each one is in contradiction to itself, the statement “It is some Determinism and it is some Choice” is acceptable.

K1Barin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:23 pm An Answer to the Problem of “Choice or Determinism” by a New Reasoning

In this article we want to find a suitable answer to the problem of “Choice or Determinism” by the method of “denying the statement that is in contradiction to itself”.

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.

By answering the following two questions that each cover everything, we pick one of the three options above.

First question: Is it all Determinism? Or is it not all Determinism; there is some Choice?
Second question: Is it all Choice? Or is it not all Choice; there is some Determinism?

- Discussion about the first question

Suppose p= “It is all Determinism”. And q= “It is not all Determinism; there is some Choice”. If it is all Determinism, There is no CHOICE between p and q. Therefore discussion and reasoning and trying to persuade that it is all Determinism has no meaning. Because if we want to find an answer to the above question by discussing and persuading, we should assume the other side has some Choice. Or the story is like this: It is all Determinism or is there any choice? Which one is your Choice?!

- Discussion about the second question

If it is all Choice, is there a choice to choose that there is some determinism? In this case the statement that “It is all Choice” will not be stable. Therefore for the stability of the statement “It is all Choice” it should itself be deterministic. Or this story is like this too: Is it all Choice or is there any Determinism? Which one is final or in other words, it is Deterministic?!

In conclusion, because the two statements “It is all Determinism” and “It is all Choice” each one is in contradiction to itself, the statement “It is some Determinism and it is some Choice” is acceptable.

You can have choices in a deterministic system. You however need a mind to resolve the conflict of interest by a decision!

K1Barin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:23 pm 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.

Unfortunately, this is a false trichotomy.

You can see that if you ask yourself if anybody believes that EVERYTHING has to be "choice." I don't know of a single human being who believes that, for example, the law of gravity pulls things down "by choice." I know of nobody who would argue that people are born "by their own choice." I don't think there's a human being silly enough to imagine that the day of his death will come "by choice," unless he's also silly enough to kill himself.

So nobody believes #2. Nobody.

Then, number 3 is also problematic. This is because Determinism, rightly understood, is an all-or-nothing claim. It's not merely a synonym for "materially caused," because even "choice" believers know full well that material causality sometimes is the right kind of explanation for a thing -- indeed, often is.

The only real question is whether or not EVERYTHING is predetermined, or whether there is some space for human will in the universe. So there are really only two options, not three. And they are as follows:

1. It is all Determinism
2. It is not all material causality; there are some choices.

Thank you for your reply. I thought some sufis believed in all choice, or at least that is what they claimed. But the way you described about the two options, then the discussion about the first question I wrote about, would be an answer to the problem. Meaning, for the two options you posted, the first option is in contradiction with itself, and second option is acceptable.

K1Barin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:54 pm ...for the two options you posted, the first option is in contradiction with itself, and second option is acceptable.

Well, there really are people who claim to believe in 1. And I have to admit that. But invariably, their actions (such as arguing, debating, trying to persuade, or just living their daily lives by making choices) make that claim incredible. At best, Determinism must be a mental imposture; it is certainly never a lived reality. Nobody "lives like" a Determinist.

I think the second option is the only one that reflects lived experience at all. We all know that the Law of Gravity or the various Laws of Entropy are fixed and irresistible. We should all admit that some aspects of life are predetermined by some force beyond us. Nobody's really "the master of their own fate and the captain of their own soul." That poem is hogwash. We are, at most, part owners of our situation, not total controllers of it. Total "masters" of our fate, we are not; but "meaningful participants," yes.

But nobody actually lives as if Determinism "makes all decisions for us," no matter what they say. So I agree with stroking 1 out.

[Nobody "lives like" a Determinist.]
I agree.

I just want to point out that there are many ideas about choice and determinism. The thing that makes my original post different from others is the method of reasoning which is based on "rejecting the ideas that are in contradiction with themselves".

K1Barin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:13 pm "rejecting the ideas that are in contradiction with themselves".

That's a really good axiom, actually. Self-contradictory arguments are about as certain a case of something that's wrong as anybody can find.

That's a problem with arguing for Determinism: people do it all the time, but in arguing they're implying that they can change minds, and that a person's volition matters, and that they have the means to change their minds. All that would be impossible if Determinism were true: our minds would not be capable of being changed by our decisions, arguments could avail nothing, the mind would not be real (it would be no more than an odd expression of a causal chain of purely material elements), and so forth.

In the act of claiming he is believing Determinism, he proves himself contradictory...and wrong. He should say, "I"m a Determinist because I was predetermined by prior causal forces to be one; and you are a voluntarist because you were predetermined to be one. End of story."
But he doesn't think that. He thinks he's believing Determinism because it's rational...and he thinks you can be convinced to change your mind, a mind he also claims you have no control over.

K1Barin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:23 pm An Answer to the Problem of “Choice or Determinism” by a New Reasoning
...
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.

....

In conclusion, because the two statements “It is all Determinism” and “It is all Choice” each one is in contradiction to itself, the statement “It is some Determinism and it is some Choice” is acceptable.

The problem you have is that to have "choice" is a human decision. A better way is to think of it as either having ONE and only ONE reality or "options" rather than the term, 'choice'.

Choice --> (implies) Options --> Indeterminate (not one unique outcome or 'many' outcomes).

I personally reasoned this out long ago as follows and it is absolutely necessary for my own (physics) theory.

To reduce to the most simplistic meaning, define two propositions,
p = "Reality is deterministic"; q = not-p = "Reality is not deterministic"


Then you have (p or not-p) which is equivalent to not-(p and not-p). [the default true/false valued systems of logic using non-contradiction.]

If by any reason one can deny the contradiction, such as by some paradox, then you still interpret this incorrect in ONE universe but correct to an external one. As such, this fixes the contradicton by reinstating (p or not-p) but in a DIFFERENT dimension.

If we think of the horizontal expressions (acts as the present dimension in question),

(1) (p and not-p), an assumed paradox (real contradiction) [assumption, or apparent fact]
then you first deny it as,
(2) not(p and not-p) , [Reduction to absurdity] (for a given Universe/universal)

Then, if the above contradiction is nevetheless true (indeterminism or 'free options/choices' exist), then the solution to remedy this is, vertically,....

(3a)not-p..............[The present Universe (which is the "dimension" default)
OR................[uses DeMorgan's theorem + Change dimension]
(3b)p...................[NEW Universe (which is a "new dimension"]

Here we require a rule about "changing dimensions dynamically". Basically, it 'splits' the world in two distinct worlds at the point of a real contradiction. It would be 'perpendicular' to the present dimension in some way but leads to an infinite set of worlds that are 'parallel' to the default given dimension(s).

This makes Totality (or larger 'super universe') "deterministic" as a whole but relatively "indeterministic" by the perspective of each subset universe contained in it. Thus this enables both choice (relative to each of our LOCAL options) while still deterministic also. The use of quantifiers, "some" or "all" is avoided and less conflicting.

This is similar to what Hegel* meant in his trinary-style logic and what Marx borrowed in his Dialectic Materialism. [Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis] It is also what multivalued logics act like in principle. I have a different process similar to multivalued logics of which the above is a simplified explanation. Quantum Mechanics also uses a multivalued system of logic.

[* Hegel is difficult to interpret and was hoping to find a means to argue for God. Marx borrowed it to argue for history (of political system evolution). Both fail for reasons that I won't get into here.]

By the way, K1Barin,

You still made a common logical error. When using quantifiers, the 'contradiction' of
All A is Some non-A, not No A.

All A is 'contrary' (not contradicting) to No A.

I don't know about multivalued logic. I am thinking pure 1 and 0. Even saying it is true or not true. Not even saying true or false. Saying something is false has a sense of condemnation, and two values of true or false are like 1 and -1, not 1 and 0. I am thinking pure 1 and 0 logic, as everyone knows how digital equipment have taken over all the industry.
That way being contrary or in contradiction, are the same.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:06 am When using quantifiers, the 'contradiction' of
All A is Some non-A, not No A.

Thanks, Scott...you've put that concisely.

It's another way of saying that the existence of any choice...any at all...is a defeater for Determinsm, because Determinism is a categorical claim, but "some free will exists" is not.

I don't know but you may have misunderstood me.
I am claiming it is not all choice too. In a parallel way to "it is all determinism", I am reasoning that "it is all choice" is in contradiction to itself too.
Maybe it's obvious that it's not all choice, and saying and reasoning for it may not be necessary. But it doesn't count as a logical flaw.

K1Barin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:05 am I don't know but you may have misunderstood me.
I am claiming it is not all choice too. In a parallel way to "it is all determinism", I am reasoning that "it is all choice" is in contradiction to itself too.
Maybe it's obvious that it's not all choice, and saying and reasoning for it may not be necessary. But it doesn't count as a logical flaw.

People are limited by physical abilities, mental abilities and situations. That means that it is not all choice. Nevertheless, in spite of the limitations, people make choices when they are in various situations.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:46 pm Nevertheless, in spite of the limitations, people make choices when they are in various situations.

I agree. But I'm also curious. What do you find proves that, or at least makes you think it's the most reasonable conclusion? (I don't mind responding to the same question in return, of course. I just want to see if you've maybe got ahold of something I haven't thought of yet.)