Top products from r/determinism

We can change our desires and tendencies, but we will change them according to our current ones which include desire to change them in the first place. Moreover, our current desires are based on our previous desires which are based on even older desires. Ultimately, if we follow causation of each desire, we will end at factors upon which we had no control.

I assume, those factors which are beyond our control are what Einstein referenced when he paraphrased Schopenhauer.

In a previous thread you mentioned Sam Harris as a person who piqued your interest in free will debate. Even though I am a layman, I came to conclusion that Sam unknowingly or even worse knowingly left out many important questions (of which Frankfurt cases are most significant) unanswered in his book and speeches. I strongly encourage you to read proper positions on free will debate. My suggestion is book called 'Four Views on Free Will'. I also recommend Derk Pereboom's lectures if you gravitate toward position similar to hard determinism.

>this is an interesting proof

I came across it in something by Prigogine, probably The End of Certainty, he didn't make a fuss about it, seemingly considering it to be obvious. But in the SEP Hoefer wrote "it then seems a mere curious fact that it is equally true that the state of the world now determines everything that happened in the past", which suggests that he wasn't aware of this argument.

>why is a determined world fully reversable?

It follows from the usual definitions; a world is determined if and only if it has, at all times, a definite state, that can, in principle, be exactly and globally described, there are laws of nature that are the same at all times and in all places, and given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly and globally entailed by the given state and the laws. See this page too.

>why does life require irreversibility?

Life requires chemical processes that produce stable structures, cell walls, for example, such reactions are all irreversible.

On the face of it, the premises are pretty much uncontroversial, so it would seem that the determinist must reject the inference of 3 from 1 and 2. Perhaps they would argue that 1 is a statement of metaphysics but 2 is a statement of science, so 2 can be scientifically true but metaphysically false.

Sam Harris - Free Will

Also, his presentation of the same content.

Both are excellent! He talks a little bit about a proof for determinism (however, I find it caters to people who already accept determinism). He also debunks the idea that determinism is incompatible with ethics/law.

The concept of determinism, and the paradoxes surrounding it are discussed in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Intuitionistic-Way-Ultimate-Reality-Unlocking/dp/1480871427

Sharing a link for anyone interested in a unique perspective.