Is a deterministic universe a predestined universe?

If we could trace out all the miniscule factors and causes leading up to an event, it seems logical to conclude that it was predestined to happen. Doesn't this suggest that the coexistence of multiple possible futures is really just based on our own ignorance and that the future is as set in stone as the past is? Can humans REALLY change the course of events? Or is this just an illusion too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to the best theory we have at the moment, nothing further into the future than the time it takes light to cross a Planck length is certain to happen.

In addition: You cannot, even in theory, "trace out" causes and factors like that, nor are "causes" and "factors" that kind of entity. It's like starting an discussion by presuming one could travel faster than light, logically concluding we were predestined to have already colonized nearby galaxies, and asking whether in light of this our current restriction to one planet was "just an illusion".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow! The time it takes light to travel a planck length is incredibly brief. That's good news to me. I'm a believer in the indeterminacy of the future. IOW, the future is always changing based on whatever is happening now. Freedom is built into the very nature of time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see much freedom built into the nature of things. You don't really get to choose anything in this life. And the choices you think you freely make are probably wired into your genetics and stuff. Maybe you can change some events in the course of your life, but who is to say that wasn't predestined, too? And what about death? That is pretty much set in stone no matter what you do. Indeterminacy and randomness my a** lol.

 

Oh, yeah? If you really believe that the choice of clothes to wear today was already determined for you even before your birth, then I feel very sorry for you, little robot.

 

Why feel sorry for Tashja?

I take consolation in the fact that I didn't have any choice. I leike!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There are different ways to understand the notion of "determinism."

One way is this:

(1) When this is, that is.
(2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
(3) When this isn't, that isn't.
(4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that.

People sometimes get hung up on notions of determinism when they take too small a scope of phenomena into consideration, so that they end up with a fatalistic outlook.

If you take into consideration only the very limited scope of your usual awareness of things, and try to figure out the causal relationships, you're probably going to end up very gloomy.

More about this/that conditionality here.

 

Well, I have to say that the only other people I've met who believed as you do were ones who didn't WANT to accept any responsibility for their actions. Nothing was ever THEIR fault - instead, it was "fate" or (whatever you choose to call it) that MADE them do it. In plain words, just a bunch of worthless liars. <shrug>

 

Interesting. Then are moral values just illusions too? IOW, the possibility of doing good or evil presupposes the freedom to choose between them. If it is all predetermined, then not only are immoral actions impossible, but moral ones are as well. We're all just amoral robots helplessly acting out our own internal programs. Is this what you believe?

 

Yes. That is precisely what I believe.

 

The thing is , while you trace the miniscule factors and causes at that moment , they change within that moment

So you never get a solid grasp of any moment

You can't STILL the moment , any moment

 

Moral values are illusions even with full freedom of choice.

 

I see. So raping and killing a child isn't REALLY wrong or evil. It's just an illusion of being wrong or evil. You're insane..

 

What makes it objectively wrong?

 

It's not science. It's morality. You can't apply the scientific method to it. It is MORALLY wrong as based on human nature and societies all over the world and as such is just as valid as any other principle that we have evolved to judge behavior by. Do you seriously see nothing wrong with it? Is this the fruition of your nihilistic outlook--that because something is subjective it must be an illusion?

 

I'm not applying the scientific method to it. (Though your claim that I am only shows your ignorance of it) I'm asking why. Why is a valid question.

I didn't say anything about its validity as a moral principle. I asked you what makes the principle objectively true. You've stammered something of an answer here, so let's explore it.

First, you say it's wrong based on human nature, but those who don't feel it is wrong are also saying so based on human nature. After all, the people committing these acts are fulfilling their natural desires. So the "human nature" argument is spurious. Next you say "[based on] societies all over the world," which is an ad populum, a logical fallacy. Also, societies all over the world doubtless hold moral and ethical beliefs that you would disagree with. How do you reconcile these disagreements if you cite the popularity of other moral values among these societies as cause for holding them yourself?

Of course I do. But that's because I project my personal values onto the act, rather than the act having an intrinsic moral value of its own.

Straw man, as usual. Your inability to conduct these discussions on the level has quickly put you in the company of some of the site's other undesirables. It's unfortunate, because you don't seem to lack anything intellectually. It's ethically that you seem to have problems. I certainly hope you remedy these shortcomings in the future...but I won't hold my breath.

 

LOL! That's pretty high moral ground for someone who thinks morals are illusory. Look..I don't even know what you mean by "objectively wrong". Ofcourse moral values are subjective. And this one in particular is universal. If you asked me if an apple was objectively red, I'd say well not really. It is projected as such by our brains because that's the way we evolved. Red is subjective but it is REAL too. Same with morality. Your inability to find an objective correlate to moral value does not invalidate in any sense. These laws of our mind have evolved just like the laws of logic and the laws of physics have. They are a part of us and define who we are. If that spoils your "everything's permitted" party I'm sorry. But that's what I believe.

 

You mean pretty high moral standards? Maybe. I think it's odd you'd take such a moral stand given that you can't give a rational explanation of what makes rape wrong.

Yet you just tried to make a case for why it is objectively wrong. Remember all your flailing about human nature?

Certainly not. There are plenty of people who see nothing wrong with rape or murder.

Bad analogy. Colors are real in the sense that they are wavelengths of light. An apple is red because of the wavelengths it reflects rather than absorbs. Conversely, an act is only moral or immoral when we project our own values onto it. So morality only exists in our minds. For that reason, it is no less illusory than morality in a world where everything is predetermined.

Straw man. I never said it wasn't a valid moral value. Is your dishonesty a defense mechanism, or just a bad habit?

That's silly. Morals change continually. Logic and physics on the other hand, are constants.

Unless you lack empathy, of course.

Yet another straw man. When did I say everything's permitted?

 

You can never derive a complete set of objective moral standards from anything. Not even religion. Not even a single religion, given it's constant evolution/reformation/de-nominalization. At best you can decide on a core set of basic moral principles that tend to benefit everyone collectively, with the finer points to be hashed out dynamically according to specific situational considerations.

Similarly, a core set of basic moral principles that tend to benefit everyone collectively can be derived simply from a consideration of who and what we are, as human beings, again with the finer points to be hashed out dynamically according to specific situational considerations. Obviously such core moral principles would revolve around avoiding, as Sam Harris put it in a great talk on this subject, "the worst possible misery for everyone". Why? Because there is overwhelming agreement on this point. People don't like to suffer. It doesn't matter why this is the case, it simply is, and therefore comes as close to an objective basis as anything can.

But, some suffering is relative. Some suffering is situational. That is to say that given different social/cultural contexts, a certain action may induce suffering, or instead be relatively benign, or in some cases even be beneficial to an individuals personal growth/sense of self-worth. Use your imagination. Do some reading. This is why the finer points of morality will always be relative. Humanity is not monocultural.

With all that in mind, I believe it is reasonable to say that an action is wrong, or bad, or whatever, in any situation in which it clearly does more harm than good, where harm is judged with respect to a nearly universal aversion to suffering.

 

And by resigning yourself to the truth of this premise, you're actually turning yourself into more of a robot than you might already be.

Good one.

Like some others, I don't think this is about a philosophical conviction for you, but rather a desire not to be held accountable for your actions. In other words, an excuse.