Dil wrote:Tmaq wrote:Dil wrote:Hey.
There has to be a difference between determinism that states that the future is set, and the determinism that states that our choices are set.
because our choices don't necessarilty determine the future, things happen regardless.
for example QM is used to try to negate determinism 'the future is not set version', while it does nothing for 'determinism of our choices are set'.. since randomness doesn't equate to more freedom, in fact, I think QM maybe contradictory to 'free will' as conscious decisions based on experience definition. Doesn't randomness null the 'reasonable' decision making process by making things irrational, as in, strange random lapses in our brains causing lapses in judgement?
Randomness only proves that determinism isn't operative. It does not establish that our choices are free. (usually; "random selections" are not what most people mean by free will.)
Have you seen the "Newcomb's Paradox" thread? It is impossible to reconcile the difficulties of that paradox with the determinist position.
Err, I fail to see how you addressed my points. Flesh it out a bit.
Lets start with the distinction you have in mind, because its not clear that there is a distinction at all.
All choices are choices intended to affect the future. Nobody makes choices in the hopes of changing the past. IOW, I don't think there is a distinction between 'the future is set' and 'our choices are set.'
I think you need to flesh out that difference, because it appears to be purely semantic, but not really expressing different ideas.