I can’t resist a good free will cartoon. This one, courtesty of reader jsp, comes from FoxTrot Classics, by Bill Amend:
The problem, of course, is that the “preordination” comes not from God, but from the laws of physics. Still, I can predict from those laws that yes, the Joker would be happy. ~
I think the Joker is on record in several places saying he and the Batman need each other to survive. 🙂
That’s my understanding as well – they made each other.
You couldn’t be more correct! Not only has the joker made comments to that effect, his actions in several different “universes” confirm the symbiosis. …
The thing to remember though, is that the Joker is constantly reinventing himself in order to stay erratic, so his motivations aren’t continuous. Some days, he really does want Batman dead.
And some days, Harley gets annoyed by how obsessed he is with Batman and tries to rub out the Caped Crusader herself.
An archetypal motif. Holmes and Moriarty. Superman and Lex Luthor, etc.
…Jesus and Satan…Horus and Set….
b&
Simon and Garfunkel.
Reblogged this on lit! and commented:
Good one. 🙂
I’m not sure how “determined” becomes “preordained”.
I think the cartoonist is questioning the claim some theists make that god knows and is the author of the future, ie, not dealing with the implications physical law has for free will.
D’oh!
*…the claim done theists make that we have free will and that god knows and is the author of…*
Yes I see it
I was more questioning Jerry’s “The problem, of course, is that the “preordination” comes not from God, but from the laws of physics.” i.e. I’m not sure the laws of physics preordain anything.
I always thought it was likely that Bruce Wayne was a nut and funded his “villains”.
Indeed, I, too, had no choice but to laugh.
Oh — and permit me to take this as an opportunity to remind the peanut gallery that, as so eloquently evidenced by this cartoon, the popular conception of the term, “free will,” is inextricable from the theological resolution of the problem of evil and divine omnipotence and omniscience. If you’re offering a version of “free will” that doesn’t directly relate to all that, nobody else is likely to recognize your offering as actually being “free will.”
b&
Except for those of us for whom the term has never involved those connotations…
Yeah, but we don’t count, don’t you see? You only have to convince yourself deeply enough that ‘free will’ cannot ever mean anything else than what you imagine it must mean, and everybody who thinks differently automatically is not just mistaken but doesn’t know what he’s talking about. What a great super-philosophy, making sure your view is shielded from criticism forever.
You said it, not me.
…she said, cravenly.
😉
The real theological problem is how damnation can exist with divine preordination. God knows who will “freely choose” to go to Hell before these people are created. This creates amusing apologetic havoc.
Which makes for any number of great cartoons–I’ll bet Pliny the in-between has already covered it. 😀
YES. Determinism, natural or supernatural, undermines notions of moral responsibility and punishment. Far more than it undermines entitlement and reward.
I commented on the most recent free will post that I think compatibalists are more driven by attachment to the notion of evil than to that of goodness. Also, I speculate compatibalists are more comfortable, on average, with the notion of upper-class entitlement.
“Determinism, natural or supernatural, undermines notions of moral responsibility and punishment.”
Determinism in fact undermines moral responsibility, but punishment still serves its purpose as a deterrent for the future for both the culprit and others.
Moral responsibility wouldn’t make sense *without* determinism.
“I commented on the most recent free will post that I think compatibalists are more driven by attachment to the notion of evil than to that of goodness. Also, I speculate compatibalists are more comfortable, on average, with the notion of upper-class entitlement.”
Well, that’s two strikes outta two. 🙂
(At least for myself, and as far as I can see, in regards to a good portion of others I’ve seen defend compatibilism).
“Moral responsibility wouldn’t make sense *without* determinism.”
Do you think that someone with the brain of a psychopath or a 13-year-old boy brainwashed by the Islamists to fight for ISIS is morally responsible for his actions?
The problem with that is that punishment is remarkably ineffective and wasteful in terms of reducing both crime and recidivism compared with less primitive and more productive uses of society’s resources.
b&
No, the theological problem I’m pointing out here really has nothing to do with the free will/determinism debate. I’m granting for the sake of argument that even God’s pre-knowledge of an agent’s choices doesn’t preclude ‘free will’ or whether or not someone “deserves” punishment. That’s irrelevant.
The new conundrum involves God’s own moral culpability. We take a step back. If God is omniscient and omnipotent and thus omni-responsible itself, then God made some people for the deliberate purpose of their “freely” sinning and “justly” going to hell. Coming up for reasons for this is fun work, and run the gamut from necessary collateral damage, sadism, divine indifference to human suffering, and divine inscrutability. I suppose someone could also invoke aesthetics: the stylized Kabuki dance called ‘Existence’ requires the beauty of the damnation movements for harmony, or some such rot.
As for compatibilism, I agree with Vaal below. I think you’re misunderstanding the concept.
Actually, the honest christians (all half-dozen of them) don’t have a problem. They say that god *does* preordain people to damnation (they just don’t say it out loud much), with solid biblical basis. Here’s Romans 9.19-23 (read the whole chapter for a truly “the apostle Paul tell you to STFU” experience; contains the famous “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” quote):
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory
I don’t suppose they’d be too edified if you asked them for evidence that any of this is true…
In case you still have not lost your supper, you may (I know, not likely) wish to peruse the Canons of Dort, especially articles 6-10.
Short version: If I can help someone, and just stand by and ignore his plight, I’m a shithead. If god does the same, well, he’s god, so he has the right to do so.
I agree. It’s essentially absolving God of all moral blame by using the same tactic as the one in Job: “Look at the size of my fist.” Human beings are chattel.
I think the Christians who accept this excuse (such as the Calvinists) manage to brainwash their human feelings out of the equation by emphasizing God’s authority and glory and denigrating human significance in contrast. Fortunately, they usually compartmentalize this attitude — at least, they do today, growing up as many of them do in humanist-influenced cultures.
Shirley, that must have been a deliberate choice of word:
Cheers,
b&
Hi Jerry,
You often use the word “determinism” in the context of the free will debate, and I’m always curious to know what you mean. Are you claiming that consciousness is “determined” by underlying physical processes (a position that is more accurately described as materialism), or do you mean that the laws physics themselves are deterministic?
I think both. Everything that is physical is determined and the laws of physics are deterministic, i.e., chaotic dynamics, complex emergent phenomena, and quantum randomness are still determined.
That would be right, at least not as those terms are understood by physicists. As Jerry has often recognized, the laws of physics are not deterministic (in the sense that the range of future observations is not a unique function of the past). Quantum randomness means that many kinds of individual events are not uniquely determined in advance.
Nevertheless we all also recognize that this kind of indeterminacy has little to do with free will (though see the “Free Will Theorems” of quantum physics).
Oh crap, “That would be right…” should be “That would NOT be right…”
Random is a strong word for quantum systems. There is almost no experimental circumstance where physics tries to look at the condition of a system that is not uniquely defined by just a single wave function. Wether it is related to coherence, or decay, or spin, a (quantum) phase transition. In that sense, random is the adjustment of a single parameter. This is hugely constrained from what most people think of random.
So if a sodium atom might beta decay or not, the story is not wether it is going to change into a gold atom, that would be random! The story is one of simple probability for one specific dynamic action with just about all other possibilities constraint to zero, for all practical purposes.
Actually…it seems that physics, even Quantum Mechanics, probably really is fully deterministic.
Ask anybody who holds to the Many-Worlds Interpretation (which I don’t, but the majority of those in the know do), and they’ll tell you that all possible outcomes are deterministically actualized, and it’s just an anthropic accident that “we” happen to observe one particular outcome as opposed to all the others which also really do deterministically manifest.
And most of those who hold to something other than Many-Worlds go with something that’s also fully deterministic, but which has math so complex that the outcomes are chaotic in the sense that we’ve got no more chance of predicting a single Quantum-scale even than we do of predicting the result of breaking a set of billiard balls.
I’m not aware of any significant theories that are truly random, even though all predict the appearance of absolute (and stochastic) randomness.
b&
“…even quantum mechanics, probably really is fully deterministic.” There is no evidence to support that statement. Yes, the various many-world interpretations have their adherents, but that’s mainly because the concept of a multiverse is convenient for other reasons (e.g. it makes string theory almost seem coherent, and it provides a “just so” explanation for the problem of fine-tuning). I use the word “convenient” on purpose, because this is not science, it’s motivated reasoning – some theoretical physicists are trying to find a framework that makes their pet theories seem more acceptable. The whole multiverse story should be treated with extreme skepticism for now, and that includes Everitt’s interpretation of QM and its progeny.
The truth is that we simply have no idea what sort of theory QM actually is. It may be that at the scale of subatomic particles the universe is truly non-deterministic, or it may be something else. It may even be that QM is not a theory at all, but simply a computational heuristic for predicting the outcomes of experiments (i.e. a “black box”). And *that* is in fact how the vast majority of working physicists and engineers actually treat it. (Most of the people actively spruiking the many-world hypothesis probably have one eye on the market for popular science books.)
Quantum mechanics is the most spectacularly successful theory in the history of science.
Interpretations of what it means generally appear unfalsifiable, even if they are plausible.
Consider this, all efforts to experimentally realize the transition between quantum-classical are consistent with determinism.
If by “successful,” you mean that QM is able to predict the measurable outcomes of experiments to high levels of accuracy, then, yes, it is a very successful theory. If, on the other hand, “successful” refers to the extent to which a theory grants us a conceptual understanding of nature, then QM is very unsuccessful. By contrast, theories such as evolution and general relativity are conceptually rich, in the sense that, not only do they make predictions, but they also explain *how* nature goes about meeting those predictions.
“I’m not aware of any significant theories that are truly random…”
Off the top of my head:
1. Brownian motion
2. Statistical mechanics
3. The Black-Scholes model
4. Numerous models of population dynamics
5. Numerous climate models
6. Numerous models of population genetics
In fact, that opposite of your claim is probably true – the best models in the natural and social sciences explicitly incorporate randomness.
Those area all examples of chaotic deterministic systems. There’s no randomness in Brownian motion, any more than there is in a gumball machine set on a vibrating platform. It’s a billiard ball break on steroids. Newton still applies, but we lack the computing power and measurement equipment to sufficiently model the system over the time periods we’re interested in. Fortunately, you can model those systems as if they were random and thereby make very useful predictions. But, if you had sufficient computational and measurement ability, you’d be able to get much better predictions than using the higher-level descriptions.
…of course, the necessary computational power may well require more resources than are available in the observable universe, and Quantum Mechanics may well limit the resolution of your measurements…but you can overcome either limitation by dramatically limiting the scope of your predictions in both quantity and duration. You might be able to model a single pollen grain in a milliliter of 1°C water for a few nanoseconds or so with today’s supercomputers, for example.
Cheers,
b&
No, as a theory, Brownian motion is *explicitly* stochastic. (And your previous statement was that there are no “theories that are truly random.”) Now you’re arguing that while the theory may be stochastic, the underlying reality is not. Maybe, but can you demonstrate that?
A couple of comments:
1. If you’re talking about the physical Brownian motion of a pollen grain on the surface of a beaker of water, then you’re not talking about a problem of Newtonian mechanics. For one, your ability to specify the initial positions and momenta of the water molecules is limited by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. But, a complete description of the interaction between the water molecules themselves will certainly uncover other quantum mechanical effects.
2. “You might be able to model a single pollen grain in a milliliter of 1°C water for a few nanoseconds or so with today’s supercomputers.” If by “model a pollen grain” you mean replicate its precise path, then the answer is “no,” for a number of reasons: (a) Heisenberg prevents you from completely specifying the initial state of the system; (b) the actual “collisions” between water molecules are dominated by quantum mechanical effects; (c) you don’t know whether physical time is continuous or discrete (and if its continuous, all computational efforts are buggered); (d) the required computational power almost certainly scales non-linarly with the resolution of the model;…
1. There is no good evidence to suggest that quantum mechanics is a deterministic theory; it may be purely stochastic (a la the Copenhagen interpretation).
2. Chaos is really part of mathematics, not physics, although it is largely concerned with models of physical processes. From a practical point of view, the main concern is to describe how measurement errors propagate through time in certain systems with non-linear dynamics.
3. “Emergent complexity” is so far just a buzzword that hasn’t been tethered to any formal definition (which is not to say that it isn’t useful or interesting).
My broader point is that Jerry sometimes seems to conflate materialism with physical determinism (but I may not be reading him properly). Materialism is a very sound hypothesis, but determinism is not, in my opinion.
“Materialism is a very sound hypothesis, but determinism is not, in my opinion.”
I think I know what you mean. I try to avoid the word ‘determinism’ in that means different things to different people. Whether quantum phenomena are determined/indeterminant I think matters not. If my actions/thoughts are determined by the aggregate sum of a whole bunch of quantum phenomena … so be it.
Mlodinow and Hawking describe quantum phenomena as the new determinism in the Grand Design, if my memory serves me well. If you see what I mean.
Quantum mechanics, is mathematically defined as probabilistic. Purely stochastic, makes it sounds like anything is possible, which is clearly not the case. There is a reservoir from the classical world which constrains the uncertainty relations (time/energy, momentum/space) which rule out a near limitless number of possible outcomes to usually only two.
I think chaos is real in the sense that it might be proven that physics is incapable of achieving infinite precision through modeling or simulating and therefore chaotic behavior is a property of a particular physical system, not just a mathematical property, but an inherent property of the system.
I think you are right about emergent/complex phenomena: probably a short-stop description of things we will need to just learn more about, then they won’t be called that anymore.
Materialism is a better word to have chosen than determinism, though I semantically meant to suggest with determinism that there is no metaphysical origin to physical systems.
No, “stochastic” does not mean anything is possible; it simply means that the outcome is uncertain. The degree of uncertainty and the range of possible outcomes has no bearing on whether a system can be described as stochastic. A coin toss is the archetypical random event, and a sequence of repeated coin tosses is the archetype of a stochastic process. In both cases the range of possible outcomes is very limited, and their distribution is very simple.
Quantum mechanics is not “mathematically defined as probabilistic.” The derivation of Schrodinger’s equation was a response to several perplexing experimental results, which indicated that matter possessed wavelike properties. This suggested the classical wave equation as a natural starting point. Probability theory did not enter into it until the mathematical formalism was essentially complete. At that point Max Born realised that the modulus of the (complex-valued) solution to Schrodinger’s equation could be interpreted as a probability density function, after being suitably normalised.
My point about chaos is that it is a property of mathematical models, and not (necessarily) of physical processes. At some point, all models fail to describe reality adequately (at least, that has been our experience so far). So, it’s unclear whether real physical dynamic processes really are chaotic.
Aside from the fact that there’s zero scientific evidence for the existence of soul, the nonmaterialistic hypothesis of soul/brain dualism invalidates the concept of sin, which lies at the heart of every religion.
Knowing that our behavior and cognition are determined by, inter alia, the structure of our brains, our DNA, environmental factors like air pollution, and even viruses, punishing the soul for the biochemical reactions of our bodies that influence, and in the end, determine our behavior doesn’t make sense.
No! I strongly disagree. If the Joker ever killed Batman, then the Joker would have nothing to do, and his life, which was previously wholly devoted to killing batman, would no longer have any meaning. It’s just like what happened to poor Wile Coyote when he finally caught the Roadrunner. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj78yCaumpc0) see for yourself.
I should have seen that punch-line coming! 😀
You had no choice but not to see it coming.
The comics, and the second Nolan Batman film, have actually addressed this question. In many iterations of the Joker, he actually doesn’t want to kill Batman – he enjoys pushing Batman to his limit, and watching him react to the chaos he unleashes.
In the comic “The Dark Knight Returns”, Joker actually becomes catatonic in the years after Bruce retires as Batman, and “awakens” back to his old self only after Batman returns.
There are some really interesting documentaries about Batman, and his relationship with the Joker, on YouTube – featuring interviews with psychologists, and so on.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it is addressed in the _Batman and Philosophy_ volume which no doubt exists.
Here is an excellent little skit for introducing kids to the subject of free will/determinism. You simply show it to them, then exchange physics for “the writer”: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwfmUYs1gjQ)
One thing that is very useful about this cartoon is how it demonstrates with the first panel already that determinism is also a possible, and at times extremely popular, religious position. First, that is why the discussion is nothing new, and the recent findings of neuroscience haven’t added anything. Second, maybe closer consideration of this fact will show that the whole “we need to get rid of free will because that will weaken religion” strategy is just not going to work; many religious people will happily accept divine preordination and the absence of libertarian free will.
Oh, but in classic theist doublethink style, they embrace the “determinism” of god’s preordination while also claiming we have free will.
You really have to clear out any hint of logic from your reasoning if you want to think like a theist.
I do not claim that the primary characteristic of theism is its internal logic, but there are indeed theists who are perfectly happy with a world view under which there is no human free will: Insha’Allah, Deo Volente, etc.
Really the most important reason a theist needs free will is for theodicy, but if they take the position that whatever god allows to happen must be good (otherwise he would not allow it to happen), they can easily dispense with it.
“whole “we need to get rid of free will because that will weaken religion” strategy”
Our pointing out that there is no free will is not a strategy to weaken religion. It’s nothing personal, religionists! Take note that there are also atheists who are uncomfortable with this new knowledge.
There is no new knowledge. Libertarian free will did not make any sense 2,500 years ago because cause-and-effect and randomness have always exhausted the possibilities; the moment some ancient philosopher realised that the discussion was at the same state as it is today, and it has been going in circles ever since.
Exactly.
And that philosophers still take the question seriously demonstrates yet again the utter vacuity of philosophy.
…just like theologians ever since Epicurus and his Riddle….
Science gives up on bullshit like this long before it gets anywhere near as mired down; just look at epicycles and the luminiferous aether and phlogiston. But philosophy and theology just won’t fucking let go….
b&
“It is very hard to get a man to understand something when his entire paycheck depends upon him not understanding it.”
And worse, when the dividends to those payments are purported to last an eternity in the afterlife. Those jokers never let go.
Indeed, one would be damned hard pressed to think of a more effective scam than religion, once you get past the initial hurdle of convincing the marks to believe your story. Fortunately for the conmen, the groundwork was laid millennia ago and all they have to do is reap the profits of that ancient investment of the prophets.
b&
Reblogged this on A Philosopher's Take.
I’ve brought this up with creationists before, and received a response such as “just because he knows or is aware of what you will do/how you will behave, doesn’t mean he interferes with your free will to do so”. I find this to be a bit of a cop out, but any good defenses for this claim?
Of course it’s just a game dancing between “god’s will” and “free will”. So maybe I answered my own question. Still, I’ll be curious to see what some of you would respond with.
Also, this is my first post here. I’ve been a long time reader but finally decided to join in discussion a bit. Thank you for providing this forum for us, Dr. Coyne. Big fan of your book and impatiently awaiting the new one!
Ask them if God lets anything happen that is not in his will. They will have to answer no.
The Joker is on record telling batman “you complete me”