Does anyone have an argument that can refute hard determinism?

Answer 1

quantum physics
Heisenberg Principle

Answer 2

Hard determinism is a subjective or empirical reality for those that choose to believe it (as is the choice to believe in God). Subjectivity is by nature a personal experiential perspective. Any or all argument against hard determinism could be accepted if the believer chooses to accept it. The difficulty in refuting a subjective belief is that in logical argument confronting emotional belief, logic is going to be the loser. We always validate our empirical experience over someone else's logic. My personal opinion is that hard determinism is real, with the provisio that collective humanity is God.

Answer 3

Why is it important to you to refute it? Is it because of the alleged consequences for morality? (The claim that if hard determinism is the case then moral praise and blame cannot be justified.) If that's the problem, it's not a problem. Consider this: - if hard determinism is the case then *all* that occurs does so necessarily, AND THAT INCLUDES MORAL PRAISE AND BLAME. So morality remains *untouched* - whether or not hard determinism is the case. If we decide to apply moral blame for moral crime, then it matters not whether that decision was 'free' or 'caused' - either way, we can make it, and we should.

Answer 4

I don't, but I have a related thought.

It is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, because anything that we think we know might be contradicted by some fact that we are yet to become aware of.

Thus, we can never know for sure if life is totally predetermined or not.

That leaves us with two choices:
1) assume that life is not predetermined.
2) assume that life is predetermined

If #1 is true, and I assume that #1 is true, then I will be likely to maximize my potential, to lead a meaningful life.

If #1 is true, and I assume that #2 is true, then I will be likely to waste my potential to lead a meaningful life....as I will not have the motivation to expend any significant effort.

If #2 is true, and I assume that #1 is true, then I haven't lost anything, as nothing I did mattered anyway.

If #2 is true, and I assume that #2 is true, then I haven't lost or gained anything, as nothing mattered anyway.

Thus, the best way to hedge your bets, in the face of certain undertainty, is to assume that life is not predetermined: that you have freewill.

To do otherwise inceases your chances of squandering your potential in life.


That is what I do; Make the assumption that their is freewill, as this appears to give me the best odds.

:-)

Answer 5

I'd have to say epistomological skeptisicm (like that of David Hume). Do you know for sure that your own mind is determined by the physical laws of nature? You can see other people's brains and experiment with them, but in the end, you don't know whether you're different or not. All you know is what's inside your own head. The mind is the most private place of all.

Answer 6

I'd say the fact that we have free will is a good counterargument to determinism. The two are incompatible.

Answer 7

"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." James 4:4

Answer 8

Albert Einstein would probably say no. ("God doesn't play dice with the universe.")

But current thought(see string theory and beyond, ref NOVA) has ramdom action playing an important role.

Answer 9

outer locus of control bus 101, but lets hope not

Answer 10

the incertitude principle, the problem is that nobody really understands it.
so ask hawking or something cause the problem is deep.