this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
120 points (98.4% liked)
memes
23646 readers
271 users here now
dank memes
Rules:
-
All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.
-
No unedited webcomics.
-
Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop
-
Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.
-
Follow the code of conduct.
-
Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.
-
Recent reposts might be removed.
-
No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is this different to anyone else? I thought we were determinists?
Materialism doesn’t necessarily imply determinism. On the quantum level we understand that the universe has indeterminate building blocks. So to me the determinist argument against free will isn’t so watertight
Edit: somebody pointed out that I’m misusing the term determinism. Im specifically referring to Laplacian determinism here
Yey, but what got randomness to do with freedom?
It undermines the deterministic argument, I.e.: the universe is deterministic, all things happen strictly one way because of this determinism, therefore free will cannot exist because the chemical reactions that make us up can only occur one way due to the environment. We know the universe is on some level nondeterministic, so while one can argue that there are material consequences of past events, I think it is immaterial to state that means there is only one potential outcome to every situation. So free will is not inherently undermined by a materialistic outlook. This isn’t a fully formed argument in and of itself, just a rebuttal, but there are plenty of philosophers who present more sound logic towards this end.
We need to draw distinctions between different kinds of "determinism."
Materialism is deterministic but only in the most broad sense of the word, which is sometimes referred to as nomological determinism, which is merely the idea that the natural world is governed by natural physical laws, expressible in the language of mathematics, and nothing else. By necessity, then, your decisions are thus reducible to the laws that govern the "chemical reactions in the brain."
Note that nomological determinism does not, in and of itself, imply Laplacian determinism, the idea that the future is absolutely predetermined by the present. It can be very much true that the laws of nature are fundamentally stochastic, which nothing about stochastic dynamics is difficult to express in mathematical language, and that this would still be nomologically deterministic, because your decisions are still ultimately reducible to those stochastic laws which govern the "chemical reactions in the brain," and thus it is still not compatible with free will.
There are in fact many different kinds of determinism:
All of these, though, ultimately fall under the very broad umbrella of nomological determinism, so they are all in contradiction with "free will," as the "free will vs determinism" debate is ultimately about nomological determinism, it is about whether or not your decisions are ultimately reducible to the natural laws that govern the "chemical reactions in the brain" or something else. The mathematical structure of these laws, the kind of specific determinism they follow, is not useful for the free will vs determinism debate. It is only useful for the determinism vs randomness debate, where what is at stake in that debate is usually understood to be Laplacian determinism.
If by nondeterminism you mean not Laplacian deterministic, we actually don't know this. It's a lie perpetuated by cultists who wish to push their religious agenda as if it were science, and you have probably been tricked and misled by them.
It is true that we don't have a good reason to believe quantum mechanics is ultimately Laplacian deterministic as no one has discovered the existence of hidden variables, but it is not true that we know it is not Laplacian deterministic, as if they are ruled out as a possibility.
This is just a lie people perpetuate who intentionally misrepresent and misunderstand the mathematics of Bell's theorem, despite John Bell himself being one of the biggest promoters of Laplacian deterministic hidden variable theories, specifically Bohm's pilot wave theory.
Again, there is no good reason to believe in pilot wave theory, but that is very different from saying that we "know" it is false, since it is consistent with all the empirical data we have, just as much as orthodox quantum theory.
I come from a CS and math background so I apologize for misusing the terminology, it’s more in line with how I’d use it in a CS environment. By determinism I was definitely referring to Laplacian determinism by your definitions.
I do not understand the diatribe you included about religious cultists tricking me; I’m an atheist myself and these are arguments I’ve come to appreciate from the perspective of my own understanding of the science and physics, and reading the arguments published in the field of modern philosophy. And a lot of my perspective is informed by experience: it’s a separate argument, but I experience the act of decision making every day, and watch others do the same. Free will seems self evident from the perspective of exercising it day to day. But I digress. It was just a strange and rude inclusion that doesn’t actually make any point.
While we can model stochastic systems as probabilities, these are statistical models and are indeterminate, we know that there is uncertainty in our ability to predict quantum particles’ properties. I’m not a physicist so I can’t make strong claims about hidden variable theories, I’m only familiar with the more basic levels of quantum mechanics; I learned the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger equation, and the uncertainty principle, that level of knowledge. My only understanding of Bell’s theorem is that it disproves local hidden variables. I think the mathematical structure of these laws remains relevant to the debate though, because it negates the logical conclusion of our universe as a mechanical, pre-set system of events, at least by this level of understanding. If non local hidden variable theories pan out as better predictors and prove uncertainty to be irrelevant then I’ll shift my perspective, but I’ve not seen great arguments for pilot waves over the more standard quantum models.
I’d also like to point out that nomological determinism is not inherently at odds with free will. I think most modern philosophers are compatibilists on some level, having some type of deterministic view of the universe while simultaneously arguing for free will. I believe the perspective I’m coming from would meet this definition too, now that you’ve introduced me to more thorough terminology for what I’m actually arguing.
This is all well outside of my expertise as I’m not a physicist or a philosopher. I’m just sharing my perspective as a relative layman
was clearly talking specifically about people who mislead others about Bell's theorem. You seem to have interpreted what I said. It was not generally applicable statement regarding all of your viewpoints you hold, but a specific viewpoint which is misrepresented in the popular media. I think rather than taking my warning seriously, you misinterpreted my warning as a personal attack even though it wasn't talking about you but people who may mislead you with false claims like "Bell's theorem rules out hidden variables," which it doesn't, but is commonly statement as if it were fact.
My only point was that is ultimately a philosophical position and is not "proven." Something like pilot wave theory makes all the same predictions as orthodox quantum mechanics yet is "mechanical." Yes, if you want to argue that we currently don't have a good reason to believe in anything beyond quantum mechanics and so we should take it as the final word for now, then the universe clearly is not "mechanical" but obeys certain stochastic laws (I guess unless someone believe in MWI but I have my own criticisms of that). My point was less that the orthodox formulation of QM is not stochastic but that it's not proven the universe cannot be deterministic in the Laplacian sense. There isn't a no-go theorem that rules it out as a possibility, so technically if someone was convinced for philosophical reasons that the universe is deterministic then you can't prove them wrong.
At best you could give philosophical arguments as to why you think that is a less reasonable belief, maybe by invoking Occam's razor or something, but they may have a rebuttal for that. Tim Maudlin for example is a major philosophy who upholds that the universe is mechanical and has rebuttals to the Occam's razor argument. For example, he criticizes how to count complexity so he argues pilot wave is not inherently more complicated, and he also criticizes other interpretations that stick with the orthodox formalism as not making philosophical sense and thus justifies the change in formalism based on logical consistency.
Not saying I agree with those arguments just pointing out that they exist, and so we should be more careful than to say it is definitely proven that there are no hidden variables.
Yes, you're right, I should have specified that I was talking about non-compatibilist free will. Personally, I think compatibilism is just word games. I don't like the idea of redefining free will to make it compatible with determinism. It just confuses the discussion. But that is just me, I guess.
I'm determinist, but also kind of compatibilist. At least in the sense that I haven't seen a definition of free will that made sense and went beyond freedom to act unrestricted from outside influences.