Is determinism a self sealing argument?

[Innominate]

An argument is self sealing when there's no room or method to prove it wrong, since it can't be proven wrong, it's not arguing anything, it's nothing more than an empty useless statement. With determinism, which basically says "everything that happens was supposed to happen that way" besides being a blatant hindsight bias, there is no way to test this, or prove it false(to the best of my knowledge).

On this subject, I don't believe in complete free will, free will fails to explain the fact that most of the functions of our brain are automatic and have nothing to do with choice. I believe a small part of our brain is capable of making choices, but for the most part, we are reflexive, we perform most of our thinking without choice.

an example: Read the following word, and choose not to understand it= table

Just based on how the human brain works, not using any philosophical theories etc... A major portion of our thought processes go on without us being concious of them, or in control. At the same time, our cerebral cortex has been proven to control thought, memory, conciousness, functions that many people asociate with free will. so I think what we have is a combinatoin of ideas from both sides of the argument.

[Doreen]

An argument is self sealing when there's no room or method to prove it wrong, since it can't be proven wrong, it's not arguing anything, it's nothing more than an empty useless statement. With determinism, which basically says "everything that happens was supposed to happen that way" besides being a blatant hindsight bias, there is no way to test this, or prove it false(to the best of my knowledge).

I generally agree, but the word supposedly is just too floppy and can have interpretations that will head things off on tangents I don't think you intend - though I might be wrong. Perhaps the word 'had' would be better.

[glaucon]

With determinism, which basically says "everything that happens was supposed to happen that way" besides being a blatant hindsight bias, there is no way to test this, or prove it false(to the best of my knowledge).

This is incorrect.
Determinism is the position that any given state can be understood as a successor to an antecedent state, and that such a state could, in principle, be analyzed to the extent that the successor could be probabilistically determined.

You have misunderstood determinism.

More to your point however, determinism is not a closed system, such as you've described.

[Doreen]

This is incorrect.
Determinism is the position that any given state can be understood as a successor to an antecedent state, and that such a state could, in principle, be analyzed to the extent that the successor could be probabilistically determined.

It seems to me there are a variety of determinisms. I popped over to Stanford's encyclopedia of philosophy and they have

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

and

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

and under Probabalistic Causation we have...

Many philosophers find the idea of indeterministic causation counterintuitive. Indeed, the word “causality” is sometimes used as a synonym for determinism. A strong case for indeterministic causation can be made by considering the epistemic warrant for causal claims. There is now very strong empirical evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. Yet the question of whether there is a deterministic relationship between smoking and lung cancer is wide open. The formation of cancer cells depends upon mutation, which is a strong candidate for being an indeterministic process. Moreover, whether an individual smoker develops lung cancer or not depends upon a host of additional factors, such as whether or not she is hit by a bus before cancer cells begin to form. Thus the price of preserving the intuition that causation presupposes determinism is agnosticism about even our best supported causal claims.

Since probabilistic theories of causation require only that a cause raise the probability of its effect, these theories are compatible with indeterminism. This seems to be a potential advantage over regularity theories.

I suppose the main point I am making is that there is not a single version of determinism, and I don't think we can say one of these is incorrectly stated if there are adherents.

[Innominate]

This is incorrect.
Determinism is the position that any given state can be understood as a successor to an antecedent state, and that such a state could, in principle, be analyzed to the extent that the successor could be probabilistically determined.

Ok so you're basically saying that determinism is the idea that what's going to happen is based on what has already happened? or, what's going to happen can be determined by what has happened, did I understand you correctly?

[Doreen]

An argument is self sealing when there's no room or method to prove it wrong, since it can't be proven wrong, it's not arguing anything, it's nothing more than an empty useless statement.

It also becomes rather ironic. I mean, to say...

The universe is deterministic

if true

means that you had to say this. You were always going to say it, going all the way back to the compact, overheated origins of the universe. However logically you think you arrived at this conclusion, the truth is - if you are correct - regardless of whether your line of thinking merely seems logical - has a 'feelslogical qualia', you had to say it.

[glaucon]

Ok so you're basically saying that determinism is the idea that what's going to happen is based on what has already happened? or, what's going to happen can be determined by what has happened, did I understand you correctly?

Yes.
This is what is normally understood by the term.

[Innominate]

Yes.
This is what is normally understood by the term.

To be honest, I don't see much of a contradiction between my poorly written definition, and yours.

Are they different? yes, but they both lead to the same conclusion.

what I said: Everything happens the way it was going to happen.

what you said: Everything that will happen can be determined from what has happened.

Looking at it this way, the only difference is that my view on determinism is focused on the past, and yours is focused on the future. Since the future doesn't exist(yet) I like my definition a little better



If everything I've said here is true, then I still believe it's self sealing, and invalid.

[glaucon]

To be honest, I don't see much of a contradiction between my poorly written definition, and yours.

You should.

what I said: Everything happens the way it was going to happen.

what you said: Everything that will happen can be determined from what has happened.

The difference is crucial.
Yours says that there is causal certainty.
Mine says that there is no such certainty.

If everything I've said here is true,
...

Which is not, nor could be proven.

...
then I still believe it's self sealing, and invalid.

non sequitor

[glaucon]

I suppose the main point I am making is that there is not a single version of determinism, and I don't think we can say one of these is incorrectly stated if there are adherents.

Your point on the varieties of determinism is well taken.
However, to claim that any one has equal value as any other, simply because it has an adherent isn't correct.
We can assign a hierarchy to the different varieties, based upon how well they serve us in a predictive explanatory framework.
This is why the OP is wholly incorrect. We're not talking here about a closed system; quite the opposite in fact.

[Doreen]

Your point on the varieties of determinism is well taken.
However, to claim that any one has equal value as any other, simply because it has an adherent isn't correct.
We can assign a hierarchy to the different varieties, based upon how well they serve us in a predictive explanatory framework.
This is why the OP is wholly incorrect. We're not talking here about a closed system; quite the opposite in fact.

Could you go into this a bit more, the closed system part. Are you referring to him calling it a self-sealing argument?

As far as the varieties of determinism: part of what I was pointing out in those quotes was that your version of determinism is not even considered a determinism since it is probabilities rather than direct inevitable causation.

I am not saying that any belief with adherents is of equal value to any other, rather I think the controversies around determinism are much less settled than your response earlier seemed to indicate.

[glaucon]

Could you go into this a bit more, the closed system part. Are you referring to him calling it a self-sealing argument?

I am indeed referring to that.
The error in the OP is the linking of an inability to prove/disprove with a deterministic system. This is a contradiction. A proof is only, and specifically possible within a closed system. Any non-closed system, by definition, is not a realm where proof obtains.
In lay terms, the operation of causality in our world can neither be proved or disproved due to the fact that our world is [as far as we experience it] unlimited. The notion of proof only is applicable to a closed system, say, for example, mathematics.

[Doreen]

I am indeed referring to that.
The error in the OP is the linking of an inability to prove/disprove with a deterministic system. This is a contradiction. A proof is only, and specifically possible within a closed system. Any non-closed system, by definition, is not a realm where proof obtains.
In lay terms, the operation of causality in our world can neither be proved or disproved due to the fact that our world is [as far as we experience it] unlimited. The notion of proof only is applicable to a closed system, say, for example, mathematics.

I took his stance to mean that determinism is not falsifiable. That we could not even notice if it were not true, either because it is so broad and vague as to be meaningless or that in hindsight we can just point to any relationship and call is causal. I think that is a fair issue to raise. I am not sure, but it seems to me the unlimitedness of experience does not eradicate this issue. With many things one could, potentially, find a counterexample and eliminate a theory or hypothesis. But even in an unlimited system one can hit counterexamples. The possibility remains. With determinism, I thought he was saying, no such counterexample could possibly come along because we would not notice it or would explain it away.

I have to admit I have some trouble with the term 'closed system'. I don't quite get it, except somewhat in terms of thermodynamics, or quite get it here in this context. So this could be part of the problem. But isn't the universe considered a closed system?

[glaucon]

I took his stance to mean that determinism is not falsifiable.
...
With determinism, I thought he was saying, no such counterexample could possibly come along because we would not notice it or would explain it away.

Yes, and that's exactly what I addressed.
In other words, what he's saying is so obvious as to be moot.
Of course it's not falsifiable.
However, to conclude therefore, that it's wrong, is the height of stupidity.

I have to admit I have some trouble with the term 'closed system'.
...
But isn't the universe considered a closed system?

No.
A closed system is one which is formally decidable. This means that there are a number of formal axioms applicable, from which we can determine the likelihood of any ocurrance.

decidability

[Doreen]

Yes, and that's exactly what I addressed.
In other words, what he's saying is so obvious as to be moot.
Of course it's not falsifiable.
However, to conclude therefore, that it's wrong, is the height of stupidity.

But he did not say it was wrong.

No.
A closed system is one which is formally decidable. This means that there are a number of formal axioms applicable, from which we can determine the likelihood of any ocurrance.

Ah, that closed system. I thought bringing in thermodynamics was odd.

[glaucon]

But he did not say it was wrong.

True, but he did say it was devoid of meaning.
Which is just as incorrect.

The vast majority of systems are open, and as such, strictly speaking, not formally decidable. Nonetheless, we have, for example, the ability to predict phases of the moon, stresses on bridges, dice rolls, etc., etc.

[Doreen]

True, but he did say it was devoid of meaning.
Which is just as incorrect.

Well it would be very incorrect to say it is wrong after saying you cannot prove this, in a context where one is stressing the importance of proof, so if we are really going to talk about degrees of incorrectness, I disagree.

Further I think it is a fair issue to raise. What is the difference between something following something in time and something being caused by the prior something. Do we really have a solid definition of this on an ontological level? Rather than say rules about when we get to talk about cause empirically. Or perhaps that does not matter. I would guess it would not to a phenomenalist. But then I am not sure most scientists, for example, are phenomenalists. I think they want cause to have some ontological status and not simply a practical one. (as they and not use might conceive the distinction)

[Innominate]

Yes, and that's exactly what I addressed.
In other words, what he's saying is so obvious as to be moot.
Of course it's not falsifiable.
However, to conclude therefore, that it's wrong, is the height of stupidity.

Not being falsifiable IS the problem there, Doreen has said everything I've tried to say 10x better, which is frustrating, but I appreciate it. I've always been horrible at explaining myself.

Determinism fails to provide any information, it doesn't prove anything, it's an empty concept. the past determins the future..what is this actually saying? It's the textbook definition of self sealing, it's a completly useless statement. Like I said before, free will isn't much better off, it fails to explain actions that are known to be reflexive or automatic. I feel that both ideas look at different aspects of our material world and overlook the parts that contradict.

[glaucon]

What is the different between something following something in time and something causing being caused by the prior something. Do we really have a solid definition of this on an ontological level?

Which is precisely why it's silly to say it's meaningless.

[glaucon]

Not being falsifiable IS the problem there,

It's not a problem.
90+% of hypotheses involving causality are not falsifiable.