Determinism?

so determinsists believe that everything is predetermined? (inventive name)
so basically,
Prisoner: "you cant punish me for shooting those people, i was destined to"
Judge: "then you cant blame me for sentancing you, its MY destiny"
Prisoner: "then YOU cant blame me for doing this" *pulls out a gun and shoots the judge*

could be fun till society crumples

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats why the judge is too arrogant to believe in determinism, and the prisoner is too ignorant to follow...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The easy way out

The question is moot from any practical standpoint. The question of determinism is purely a metaphysical consideration. The Universe is too complex by far to predict any but the simplest of deterministic systems. Chaos theory shows that even the slightest mistake or truncation in measure will result in error. Operationally, we have no choice but to think and act as if the Universe is indeterministic and we possess free will whether we do or not.

There is also quantum uncertainty to consider. It appears as if the very foundation of existence is essentially unpredictable. While this indeterminacy may be so small that its effect is negligible from the aforementioned 'practical standpoint' it does indicate that any particular point in history may indeed be unique and irreproducible.

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prove that determinism is false=
By taking responsibility.
Determinism ends the moment you take responsibility.
Either you make a plan for your own life, or beleive me, somebody else will.

Determinism can only be talked about after the fact.
Determinism stops at the exact moment reason begins.
Reason is the consistant integration of facts and reality.
The connections of logic do not happen automatically.
The level of integration you acheive with a personal philosphy is not determined, only arrested, or halted.
Learning creates new options, new choices, ones that did not exist before without the implementaion of effort to understand.
You have a choice to think, or not to think.
Effort is creation.
Determinism is another way of saying, I'm done. Integration is no longer possible. I know what I know, and everything there is to know will happen by itself.
Wrong, people develop only enough reason to get by in life.
And barely that.
In that sensne, yes, most people ar determined( to live in misery).
Apply effort, to continue learing the facts of reality and you will succeed and be happy to that degree.
Happiness and fullfillment is not determined.
It is earned.
Anything with effort is not determined, but discovered through effort itself.

Determinism may also be described as instinct.
Animals have no free will.
They are determined by set laws within thier nature.
They cannot decide to choose to live differently than they do.
Bears will not store nuts in trees, and squirells will not go down to the river and fish.

Man is born with free will.
And must use the effort of reason to decide on a course of action in life.
Mans tool of survival IS reason and free will to continue to increase his ability and depth of integration.
Denial of effort and the use of reason, logic, and free will to pursue this leads to times like the black plague.
Reality is real.
Facts of realkity will not change.
The earth will not stop orbiting the sun, to have the sun orbit the earth.
To think and observe the facts of reality are not automatic.
You can choose to stop thinking and assume determinism.
Listening to your emotions and some power over and above us controlling every thing we do.
Stop all effort.
Give in and accept your god of determiism to live your life.
Yes, determinism is a choice.
To think or not to think.
To be man, or sub-man/pro-god.
It is this fundamental.
Choose or do not choose.
Live or be lived.
Determinism is lived with emotions and through your primal senses/
Your senses tell you that something exists, but it is your mind that integrates and understands, thus integrating your knowlegde into usable identification so that your conscious mind can go unto otheR things and continue to prosper yourself and succeed, to not just survive. But THRIVE.

I can see how you you perceive determinism.
Everything I choose to do is affected by what I have experienced before hand.
The line is very fine.
In fact, it is created.
I so wish that determism was real.
I could just let gravity take its toll on me and I would just lie on the ground waiting for my fullfillment to come.
For food to come to my mouth.
For a house to be built over my head.
For beer to be put in my fridge

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I could not ponder the possibilty of determinsm I would agree with you whole heartedly in it.
The fact that I can understand what it is, talk about it, define it, play with it, look at it, says that I determine determimism.
This post is long enough.
Buh bYE.
Determinism, I wish.

 

I know it is very hard to fathom alright but when u get used to it, it seems natural! A most common example is radioactive decay. Not one scientist alive today knows exactly why an atom decays at any time. It just seems to randomly decay in accordance to Quantum principles!

 

Why should the judge NOT inprison him anyway? Whether it is determined or not, the prisoner should go to jail because he is a threat to society. Anyone who breaks the laws of this society should go to jail according to those laws! Remember, the evolution of our laws through time is also determined too!

 

You guys are getting much more depressed than you need to be. There is no evidence that we don't have some measure of freewill, and plenty of good logical reasons for believing that strict physical determinism cannot be true.

The observation within QM of what appears to be indeterminism and randomness does not sway the argument either way, since we can never prove that the behaviour of fundamental particles and fields is not strictly determined, however weirdly they behave. More relevant is the question of what exactly an 'observer' is.

The trouble with strict physical determinism is that it assumes either the 'ex nihilo' creation of matter for no reason or the eternal existence of matter, also for no reason. Do either of these answers make sense to you? I doubt it. Neither of them has ever made any sense to philosophers.

But there is a way out of this. If strict physical determinism is not true this does not mean that that the universe is not strictly determined. This is because conscious states may cause conscious states just as physical events cause physical events. Determinism is usually associated with science, but in Buddhism likewise all effects must proceed from causes. That is, determinism does not entail materialism.

Where this leaves freewill I'm not sure. I can't figure it out at all. However from experience I've found that when a question seems to be undecidable it is a surefire sign that it is the wrong question. So I suspect that the answer to it is that 'in one way we do and in one way we don't'.

Erwin Schroedinger thought long and hard about this all his life, and wrote quite a lot about it.

He encapsulated the problem of consciousness in the form of two premisses:

 My body functions as a pure machanism according to the laws of nature.

 Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I forsee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

To avoid a contradiction here he said, ‘the only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I – I in the widest meaning ot the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt “I” – am the person, if any, who controls the “motion of the atoms” according to the laws of nature.’ And this would lead you to say, he provocatively suggested: ‘Hence I am God almighty’.

(This led to rejection of ‘What is Life' by his publisher in 1943)

This is not at all an uncommon view, even amongst western philosophers. Therefore, to look on the bright side, it is possible that materialism is false but that determinism is true, and that we have freewill, although perhaps not in the way we normally think we do.

 

For some reason I don't find this issue perplexing. Maybe there is something I don't understand?
For me its simple, the universe's path and every aspect within it has to be determined.
I see it in the same light as evolution vs creation, I feel the opposing side has a whole heap of explaining to do before I would even consider their assertion. Like determinism is normal logical scientific etc and non-determinism seems romantic and magic and unreasonable.
I realise this isn't an argument for determinism, reason being, I feel it doesn't need an argument.
Whether the universe started as a big bang or something else, that moment that it started it was destined to pan out exactly as it did. Sure no one 'knew' then, there was no one to know, but is it not rational to assert that if somehow we could reverse back to that big bang, and let it happen again exactly as it did, without fiddling in the future just letting that ball of energy explode or whatever (I really don't know anything about the big bang) would we not be able to watch the exact history of our universe all over again? How could anything happen differently? Why would it?
That energy ball (that may or may not exist) was comprised of exactly the same atoms as it was at the origin of our universe, exploded in the same way, the rest is bound to happen. UNLESS you convince me of a divine magic hand that interferes from outside of the reality of the universe. Which will take alot of convincing.

BTW it disappoints me to see ethical issues even mentioned, like 'well if thats true bla bla , that would be bad so no its not true', the truth would be the truth whether we liked it or not, whether it made a mockery of how seriously we took society or not, all those issues are absolutely irrelevent to whether or not the universe is determined.
'that would mean we blame people for behaving how they were destined to behave before they existed' for example isn't evidence against determinism. You could use it as evidence against blame if determinism were proved true, but it doesn't affect determinism.
Ethics aren't set in stone for science to try and fit around, if you see what I'm saying.

 

Determinism is true in that way that nothing ever changes in the totality of what is going to happen, but it's false in the way that everything is made new. So the before events can all be found misinterpreted when seeing it in the light of something new.

Everything isn't revealed yet, so you just sit tight.

 

Not anymore! QM has shown us the truth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do agree that this novel paradigm seems magical and unreasonable in our mind but that is because we have grown up with those rules for a long time.

It never did need an argument. QM mechanics was not discovered by people trying to disregard determinism.

This is called a "classical viewpoint"

The liklihood is that the universe would have panned out differently. The chance that every single atomic and molecular event turned out to be the exact same is infinitely small.

No need to. Even if the same amount of energy and matter were to be started over again, it would turn out very different due to inherent randomness.

 

To add to the randomness conversation; The reason we feel disgruntled when hearing about it is because it violates the causality principle. One way to save it is to say that everytime a random event occurs, ALL possible outcomes do in fact happen. Altought each outcomes happens in a parallel universe.

(If some of you remember the schrodinger (or henseinberg?) cat experiment, it was referring to what I explained above.)

Assuming that, the principle of causuality is still preserved. Note that I am not sure if it is still accepted in mainstream science (perhaps someone could tell us?) but it was the proposed solution when quantum mechanics first emerged.

 

Thinking more towards the possibility of determinism and the possible arguments for it, I have to take into consideration how you are perceiving the world to come to this conclusion.

Taking into consideration that I can only act and make decsions based on what is actually presented before me, reality, I guess in that sense I am determined to have to make choices based soley on reality and on none other.

The basis for determinism is what is actually there/here in the real world.
Facts are facts, and cannot be otherwise.
Existence exists.

So if an argument of determism is based on the fact, that we can only choose from what is, and not, from what isn't, then yes.
I beleive in determinism.
However......
There is a seperate determinism for choosing not to think,
and there is another determinism for choosing to think and integrate your surroundings through reason, effort and thinking.
Stay with me.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

#1.-The choice of refusing to think will be "determined" by others thinking, random feelings, physics in general, physical interpretations of pain and pleasure, and everything else in your environment including the loudest guy on the soap box.This is definitely a shitty form of determinism and is what is leading the majority of the worlds population.

#2.-On the other hand, one who chooses to put forth the effort neccessary to integrate his surroundings through the use of reason, and gain knowledge of reality and facts of nature to survive and thrive, are determined to obey the laws of nature and work within them.
In other words,
"In order for nature to be commanded, it must first be obeyed".

So in a sense, there is a characteristic of determinism in both cases.
However, one contains no freedom but that of ignorance, and the other allows you to at least acknowledge the nature of wind, but direct your sails.
The gap in determinism as a whole lies between these two choices.
To put forth effort,think and integrate your surroundings to correctly identify nature in order to survive and thrive, or not.

 

No... determinism lost. You can't prove to me that my decisions aren't free... All you can say is the usual retorical blablabla... cause and effect... blablabla... and so on...

 

It's not necessary to use quantum mechanics... determinism is pure Philosophy... it proves nothing.

 

I fully agree with Dr Lou.

Moementum, you cannot disprove determinism, so stop trying to argue against it. You cannot break down the human population according to their philosophical viewpoints to disprove determinism...it makes no sense. And freewill for the sake of functioning in your environment, exists. It is not practical to think otherwise. But if you want to start talking about physics, then determinism becomes a factor.

Determinism, the philosophical idea, has nothing to do with people determining or controlling what other people do. Determinism is not a form of government or politics.

This has nothing to do with determinism...

And as far as most people are concerned, freewill exists. Because right now in our current state, it is not practical to believe in anything otherwise. Determnism only exists to us now as a philosophical idea that cannot be put into mathematical form, yet. So if you want to talk about physics, math, or philosophy you should start to consider determinism. But if you are talking about decisions in your ever day life, you have choice, some factors are just too small to even realize. But there are factors that influence every decision. Some day we will know all the factors. Just live your life believing you have control, because you do to a point...

And we are all ignorant to the universe, including the physicists studying quantum mechanics. Math is very flexible, and there ways to fill the gaps of knowledge that do not disagree with accepted ideas. But some math is just there to fill in the gaps for things we do not truly understand. QM is still very new, and we have a long way to go. We won't understand everything for a very long time.

Determinism is not meant to prove anything, its only a way of viewing the universe.

 

Hi Philospher.
I am not exactly sure as to what your bottom line is?
My understanding of this topic was that of"Existence and everything in it", including our, thoughts, decisions.....everything is predetermined.

It is apparent that we have both come to a very different conclusions of what "Determism" means in this context as a whole.

Could you awnser if existence is determined with a yes or no?

 

if you choose to believe that all that exists is before you, you will believe determinism and know it to be true. i suppose if that's practical for you, feel free but try not to insist it's true. raith and canute seemed to point out excellent reasons as to why.

however strict determinism is based in a very linear, traditional, flat view of time. could it be that time itself is due to our relationship with it? i mean, that it's something that's actually more than it appears to be but we can only see a smidge of it because of where we're standing?

can't say eh? yeah me too.

welll, regardless if time is apparently part of the universe, then you can't use it as an explanation for the universe.

i agree with raithere and canute.

where determinism is practical, utilize it. always remember that you might not have accounted for something and try not to be a dick about it. you probably will be anyway sometimes. at least you're trying.

 

Moementum, I guess my bottom line is that I believe determinism to be true, and I just can't see your side of the argument. So this discussion might be a little pointless. Its like arguing over whose religion is the right religion.

Yes...
I believe all existence, all things we've come to know and all things we will come to know, on the surface looks random. But deep down somewhere it has been predetermined. Things are the way they are because they were always meant to be this way. It is only a belief now, and I don't plan on continuing a pointless argument.

 

Philosopher: Do u have a religion? If so, does it allow for free will?

 

So, how to disprove it? Well, lets approach a different argument, the Argument from (....where? Correct me if Im wrong, memory is shakey) Cosmology, for starters. It states (attempting to prove the existence of God):

"Things move, thus, there must have been a first mover."

Unfortunately, no one can directly "disprove" this argument (yet). Science has not empowered us to empyrically verify the origins of our universe (though there is a famous principle well on its way to achieving acceptance, governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang). We can, however, provide a counterexample. The implication here is that an infinite chain is impossible. But, wait, what about a number line? Preserving the form of the original argument, but substituting "moving things," or "the universe" with "numbers," we get:

There are numbers, thus there must be or have been a first number.

Unfortunately for the Cosmological Argument, there is no such thing as a "first number." Heck, theres an infinite number of digits between zero and one alone! So, we have shown the argument to be invalid, by means of counterexample. We haven't disproven the conclusion, only negated the proof, remember.

Now, lets get back to Determinism. I cheated, bringing the previous in to play, knowing ahead of time that deterministic principle was little more than an extrapolation of the Cosmological Argument. Allow me to explain. Determinism suggests that all actions are caused, and that those causes were in turn caused, ad infinium, and finally, arriving at a "first cause," itself set in motion (usually) by some benevolent Creator.

Most should see where this is going by now, but...

"All results have causes, thus, there must have been a first a cause. This first cause was God."

First, we apply Okkam's Razor. The nature of this first Cause (the God part) is not a necesarry condition in order for the above scenario to work. Its addition is a red herring, and must be removed. So, without even attacking the Deterministic argument itself, we burst Creationalist hope that it allows them a proof for Gods existence (because, you see, the nature of the first cause is irrelevant to the principle of its existence), and are left with just the necesities:

"All results have causes, thus, there must have been a first cause."

Using what we learned above, debunking the Cosmological argument, we already KNOW this argument is invalid, for it uses the same form as the Cosmoglical Argument. But how can we prove it, just to be sure Logic really works? Well, Quantum Mechanics might help. According to Quantum theories, atomic orbits cease to be predictable at relativeistic speeds. So, accelerate an atom to (or near) the speed of light, and it will begin to behave randomly. This has recently been demonstrated via particle accelerator. Or, more simply, place a marble on a ramp. The marble will always roll down the slope, certainly, which might seem to support the original conclusion (deterministic). However, what will change every time is the manner in which the marble rolls: speed, angle, etc.

Actually, scrap that last part. Roll a perfect sphere down a perfect plane in a perfect vaccuum, and its trajectory down the ramp will never change. Explains why Determinism presented philosophers with such a challenge to invalidate. No, stick with the Quantum counterexample.

Note that I haven't "disproven" Determinism, only negated (or proven invalid) its proof. That is, shown that deterministic theory is not theory at all, but fallacy. It's hard to prove a negative, and all. If you're looking to philosophy for answers, you're in the wrong place. It only provides more questions, Im afraid. But, being rational human beings, we have a duty (some choose to ignore) to NOT accept as FACT anything which is not supported by evidence. Once this "evidence" (above) has been disproven, we are obvigated not to disbelieve Determinism, but to not BELIEVE it. Understand?