Thought examples of determinism and a bit of clarification

Determinism versus Free Will

context of free will versus determinism...



Not having choice but seemingly subject to the will and whims of others, seems deterministic with respect to the choices and circumstances availed to such individual?  Or at least from an psychological standpoint...that other free will stuff seems to get thrown right out the door at times?!


It seems a relative and psychological assertion more so to the relative abstract analysis of possibility, or that free will encompasses the possibility of inhibiting the free will of others, and that laws are structured so as to in consequence with the possibility of inhibiting the free will of others.


Consider a death row inmate falsely accused of a crime he hadn't committed.  At the very moments of his death, what free will exists for him in such world?!  Could one say relatively so that any number of events in passing at least forward should be determined?!  He has little choice in evading such events that he knows will likely happen?!  What freedom could he find here aside from something of psychological escape alone?!  Of course, it seems to me even that free will and determinism paradoxically exist relative to the other.  One could neither deny so much the capacity of choices made by individuals likewise having some apparent freedom.


To talk of the same prisoner in the abstract, determined structures of laws having existed provides security to the safety and order of society as a whole were the sacrifice of complete free will by any individual in terms of potential outcome.  What I mean here, is that we as individuals sacrifice our potential freedom with the possibility of legal wrongful convictions for the sake of legal structures that very well may not only limit the set of freedoms that any such individual have, but also in the course of time may as a possibility in this reality produce a set of deterministic like if not outright set of deterministic outcomes regarding our existential circumstance.  Does a condition of imprisonment cease to exist because a prisoner has thought otherwise neither to accept his condition of imprisonment?!  Physically it seems isn't his imprisonment yet a condition in reality still having existed all along, and if at the moments prior to his death, he thinks to be free but is not freed: is not the condition of events determined in some manner beyond his free capacity in acting?!

Of course it seems mortality at some representative point in time, serves likewise to illustrate deterministic like consequence.  That is, there is nothing that I could do in the context of free will to avoid this consequent event at some point and time in the future?!

If seemingly the existence of any such event which is deterministic in nature, isn't the logical possibility enough to say that something of determinism does exist if extended even beyond the mere its mere thought up existence?! 

To the argue this, however, neither is to absurdly suggest as an absolutist.  This is neither in the sense of negation or annihilation, and I hadn't suggested one exist mutually exclusive relative the other.

Then there is the matter of time and history past, of course, having expressed this resolution of paradox should seem to exist, the past is determined having provided existential continuity to a present.  While having talked about the outcome of the Titanic sinking as suggested from the result of possible engineering mistakes...talking of mistakes in the context of preventing the tragedy in the past could be erroneous.  Supposing engineers corrected  mistakes in the ship's engineering design such that it could have withstood the collision with the iceberg that may have been estimated in thought today, it seems resolution of paradox would have it always that the Titanic did sink and the occupants of such had no choice other then sinking with such ship.  If it weren't an iceberg, then an even larger iceberg with higher collision velocities, or maybe a massive meteorite or any other circumstance absurdly enough would manifest itself ensuring the continuity of of events past leading to the present.  Thus it seems nothing could prevent it and free will in this context would be absurd, as likewise the decision to improve the design of ship prior to it ill fated voyage.  At least this is supposed to to causality.  It seems we couldn't exist without something of determinism in our present, and our futures could not exist without our present passing into historical determinism. 

To talk of determinism in the context, is neither to talk of the absence of free will, unless we lived literally in a past present, this is to say a determined past un  known to us whose future inhabitants depended upon a course of events ensuring the continuity of their future present, but how would you or I ever know this?! 

If a future weren't clearly with determination, neither a future present existed in some determined fashion which structured something of integral determinism in a past present ensuring causal continuity, then it seems more likely free will should abound in so far as the course of events which shape such future.

Perhaps the determined past present whose future present up to some point in time of future presence, by all means seems mutually exclusive to the idea of free will...this is to say, I could never go back in time prior to my conception to prevent it, and to this extent if the same were true of my present existence...perhaps something would conspire to prevent my death if I tried it...here imagine Christ leaping off a cliff and being saved by angels, it seems something of determinism and purpose might exist in the continuity of events leading to His resurrection seems in some fashion almost miraculously deterministic, and similarly I have heard of strange and odd stories personally speaking of people falling distances greater then fifty feet head first and surviving with no more then a small fracture to the head (wouldn't suggest trying it).  It  seems that even here it would be hard to say at times that something of miraculous determinism exists defying the appearance of physical convention...by all means such a fall usually results in a death?!  Here unfortunately and absurdly a man slips from a step stool perhaps no more then six inches off the ground and hits the back of his head, and goes into something of a permanent coma.  Seems very absurd!

I would offer it isn't to suggest fatalism here, at least it seems my thoughts, however, rational or irrational allow for the possibility that I could choose seemingly at some point in time to go the store freely, however, determined, this neither throws one into despair, at least in mind, I hadn't known a possible determination for my future and would seemingly act as free as I thought in acting.   Of course, as to theology here, it seems others had considered determinism in way of ideas such as pre destination, however, reconciled to the muddier waters of human judgement on these matters. Neither reconciled as in knowing perhaps with certainty individual fate and judgement as reasoned, but suggested logically upon the premise of pre destination, acts and circumstance were self evident in some manner?!  This is to say those acting in accordance could be said to be more self evident in the negative sense, and in the positive sense this were God's determination alone....or in other words they were more careful to embrace the certainty in knowing their certainty while trying to live by acts having shown expressed an image but not totality of certainty, but having stronger judgements against those acting, for instance, amoral, as proving something of self evidence to pre destination in the sense of rejection, but even here maybe give and take?

Although I hear 'Can do no right' and 'Can do no wrong' crop up from time to time sometimes in the language of others, it seems far less commonplace even believing more strongly in the possibility of a more deterministic world neither completely precludes the possibility that others believe more strongly in shown acts having little to do with contrary thinking of futility, fatalism, and abandonment.  Futility seems more in line with irrational thinking in so far as existence, for often it seems the contrary might easily occur to disprove the absolute of such statements in time, at least Calvinist thinkers at such time would have understood something of possible erroneous thinking in presuming certainty of their condition by my mere example of acts alone?  These seem only self serving excuses have little basis in reality.  In the previous mentioned case,  at least engineers of the Titanic might have remedied flaws to the best of their ability concerning a ship's design while a conspiracy would ensue to ensure the ship continued its voyage regardless, people's actions might have been afforded in some way differently relative to another set of actions past, where any new actions hadn't clearly led to some existential paradox of a future present (these would be conservation of matter, energy violations and so forth...or at least one could think of violations of something like bound and free energy violations?!).  It seems at least in thinking I have heard this, and in any event, what ensues is not that all actions must necessarily be the same for the same event to occur (conservative actions, non conservative paths), it seems a manifold of events could be possible in a deterministic past, providing the seeming appearance of free will, but being determined enough so that continuities are maintained in so far as events important to the structural continuity of a future present.  For example, to have a child a couple might not have to go to Denny's they could have gone to...Ihop... and thus the child was still born after they ate where ever they happened to eat that were still determined, and maybe event going out to eat, or eating would even be necessary to the act of conceiving here. 


At least with respect to past context, however, it seems nonetheless, that events are determined events in the context of having been manifest, and determinism allows for the possible shaping of future events.  Without determinism in the past what could be said of the future.  The displacement of matter arrangement which could be posited in some seemingly quantum like arbitrary space in the macroscopic sense should seem something of a chaotic mess, who or what could clearly and continuously exist without causality, and determinism in the macroscopic sense?  As to the couple going to Ihop as opposed to Denny's , you might ask what happened to arrangement of matter that would be displaced otherwise in the past set of events at Denny's that had been relegated to Ihop in a series of events...of course, the response here were something of mirror symmetry, another couple that would have gone to Ihop instead went to Denny's and displaced matter in exactly the same way that the couple that went to Ihop did when in another past they had occurred when having gone to Denny's, and it seems some of a regression of this argument could be had in maintaining causal preservations between two event dissimilar pasts which lead to the same future present.  Okay then you start talking about gas consumed and the problems of energy displacement of one couple relative another, here, lo and behold the funny and odd coincidence occurs that the each set of couples lives in a geographic sense exactly sum total equidistant from either location, or in other words, the gas consumed in driving to either location would sum total remain the same in terms of energy consumption...it the argument could get pretty tedious and funny from this point going forward, but it seems possibility could still exist that in the end, the future that were landed upon were the same from two event dissimilar pasts, as long as alterations of matter in outcomes were neither so different as to provide for conservation of of energy and matter violations here?! 

Mentioned this in thought previous, what makes matter so stable in the causal sense otherwise?! 

This being said, human experience should seem limited enough, what clearly could we see of determinism if we live in the forest which shrouds clearly from view the certainty of our actions and 'free will' therein?!

Leading me back to something of origins here...had something of humorous fascination in thoughts to the theological subject matter of Genesis. Of course, in retrospect to much having been said earlier, while at one time, 'free will' should have existed in so far as the attainment of knowledge pertaining to good and evil, it seems now that  such event is now considered deterministic, no time traveller could avert the possibility that mankind ever fell from grace here or ever prevent such an outcome!  I think of the word 'free will' in the context of 'with' and 'with out' but this perhaps should be erroneous with respect to the possible consideration of mindset.  Innate curiosity to partake in the sharing of the fruit of knowledge, would imply the existence of 'free will' before knowledge of good and evil were ever known?!  Which yet seems a bit strange to me in some way, maybe one considers splitting a hair with respect to so much the difference in psychology having existed which leads to this, one senses in writing here that Adam and Eve never really had the same capacity understanding as we might understand today, prior to consuming fruit which would transform their understanding of their own existence, but none the less something of 'free will' must have existed despite all this with just enough difference between creator and created, allowing for such decision of great momentum?!  And it seems talking about 'free will' in one context relative another should have some apparent contrast, curiosity alone weren't itself on the same level as having obtained something of greater requisite knowledge, nor one supposes that curiosity alone would facilitate the possibility of anything that we think of today regarding 'free will'.  Of course, absurd to say that a being could conceive of evil before having knowledge of it, yet such being acting within capacity of 'free will' simultaneously in mind...prior speaking, I should mention here, there generally shouldn't have been, for instance, teaching Adam not to do wrong and being punished for doing wrong, because Adam didn't have the mindset to conceive wrong.  :)  Some might erroneously choose the words 'determinism' here but one carefully neither posits such words in describing one state of existence relative another.  As to the ongoing stream, seemingly this provides something of a model to those interested in artificial intelligence, for instance.  Here, it seems quite plausible, to us at least in some manner, that a mind itself could have differences and understandings.  What makes one think at any moment of an idea?!  What capacity might be oriented around a given mind with respect to the creation of ideas neither having existed in a prior context in such mind?!  Generally speaking, it seems, however, certain, that any number of thoughts and ideas may generally on a daily basis be generated from the continuity of thoughts having existed in a historical context.  Memory aids with respect to the thought structural process of daily living here.  Long since having grown into adulthood, the translated sensation of a feeling of being hungry, could transpire into the thought, "I would like peanut butter!'  And it seems while the creation of this thought were neither necessarily unique alone relative to its re creation time again wherever memory served to remind that a jar of peanut butter should exist ample to serve in the alleviation of hunger.  It seems more likely these sorts of thought processes could predominate living in an everyday context.  However, for a child that has never seen an 'apple', how does such child conceive of the word 'apple' or know what such object is like without having been taught such word and associated named object here?!  Is it possible?!  One admits here that it seems that the continuity of learning ideas in some ways also have some origins to environment, and that these themselves may not have some mind excepting vacuous source that is indigenous.

Resorting to Plato's allegory of The Cave, it seems likewise one could speak more clearly with respect to the contrasts between knowledge and experience
in so far as learning and comprehension.  It seems even here the idea that a mind could find connection between events or patterns of structures in an environment could exist in so many different ways.  This being said regarding 'determinism' and 'free will' which abounds here?!  It seems ironic that the determined historical context so much provides structure and governance in many way with respect to the orientation of the mind itself.  For Adam and Eve it seems their minds were structured by prior requisite knowledge and experience, excepting certain knowledge here, it seems, curiosity itself neither excepted from the process...I would offer that their minds must have seemed very innocent and child like to us today.  I imagined here the absence of any inset experience, obviously pertaining to evil as we think of it today, and interestingly enough something of embedded in the story were the relation of the idea of knowledge and a differed worldly experience imparting and transmitting in mind something which hadn't existed prior.

It seems one then should ask, what exactly is created the very unique sense of expression that hasn't already been created?!  Certainly dreams, works of art may seem quite unique and distinct relative to anything past, but are these merely variant expressions in some ways of determinant forms already seen in some manner?!