Determinism - is there such thing as choice?

[Circastes]

Originally Posted by shredder

As I replied to you earlier, to no response:

Whether it's physical particles being manipulated, or as-yet-unknown forces, or some combination of all kinds of 'things' (tangible or otherwise), it has little impact on the broad concept of determinism imo, which is a concept about an infinitely-complex interlocking (and theoretically reproducable) cause-and-effect system involving all entities (known or unknown) in the universe. Whether those entities are "matter" as we know it, or something else entirely, doesn't really affect the concept.

It's not a concept that going to be able to be proven (or disproven) of course, but these broad philosophical concepts rarely are.

But the idea of cause and effect is based on previous observation of matter, during classical times, that insisted we divide events into two parts: an initial event and a final resulting event. Further observation (quantum physics) has shown that to be a macroscropic illusion. So with the basis of cause and effect (observation of macroscopic objects) shown to be false, on what grounds do you argue its legitimacy?

Cause and effect can analyse history, but has nothing to do with what we might expect in the future, excepting the logical truisms. It just isn't a principle of this universe. There is plently of room for a universal relationship, but the "spherical-ball collision" cause-effect model which negates probability/consciousness is certainly not it.

To say, "despite all this, there is something we don't know that allows it" is just stubborn insistence in exactly the same vein as the Christian lamentation: "there is a God anyway". And really what you're insisting is that at some fundamental level that we are unaware of, the cosmos hates us; that it's completely cold, inhuman and meaningless - the opposite of ourselves. What do you think that says about your attitude towards the universe? It sort of seems like an extension of the disdain classical mechanics had for the universe, which ultimately leads to the assumption that nature is our enemy, and which is a reaction to the God (humanly sentient, judging universe) myth. These classical concepts still underlie much of our thinking in society today.

[Foliage]

religion ftl

[shredder]

Originally Posted by Circastes

But the idea of cause and effect is based on previous observation of matter, during classical times, that insisted we divide events into two parts: an initial event and a final resulting event. Further observation (quantum physics) has shown that to be a macroscropic illusion. So with the basis of cause and effect (observation of macroscopic objects) shown to be false, on what grounds do you argue its legitimacy?

Just to make it clear - I'm no expert on quantum physics (and I doubt that you are either, right?) so I can't argue specific details of that with you.

For that matter, I feel that quantum physics is very much a work-in-progress (as is everything, of course!) and a complete argument based on it cannot really be made at this stage. Todays "actual fact"/"most probable hypothesis" is tomorrow's "redundant classical thinking" as you've clearly pointed out. Not to imply that I would blindly ignore it's findings, but I do feel that it's a billion-piece jigsaw puzzle for which we have placed approximately 2 pieces so far - I would not be terribly quick to say that I see the complete picture. But FWIW I have read several papers/articles on the topic - effect of observation on quantum particles, etc - very interesting, though it's just a tiny step forward in the greater quest for knowledge.

Cause and effect can analyse history, but has nothing to do with what we might expect in the future, excepting the logical truisms. It just isn't a principle of this universe. There is plently of room for a universal relationship, but the "spherical-ball collision" cause-effect model which negates probability/consciousness is certainly not it.

Agreed, I've never really subscribed to a spherical-ball collision model. There is still facility for cause/effect (not nec. of the 'spherical ball'/'chain of dominoes' variety) to play a not-insubstantial part in the system - cause/effect is after all a pretty elastic concept.

To say, "despite all this, there is something we don't know that allows it" is just stubborn insistence in exactly the same vein as the Christian lamentation: "there is a God anyway". And really what you're insisting is that at some fundamental level that we are unaware of, the cosmos hates us; that it's completely cold, inhuman and meaningless - the opposite of ourselves. What do you think that says about your attitude towards the universe? It sort of seems like an extension of the disdain classical mechanics had for the universe, which ultimately leads to the assumption that nature is our enemy, and which is a reaction to the God (humanly sentient, judging universe) myth. These classical concepts still underlie much of our thinking in society today.

I realise that, although to be honest most of your above inferrences with regards to my casual layperson's comments are a bit off (no doubt based on your own experiences, or uni lectures - fair enough). As I said above, perhaps my understanding of some of the concepts I discussed previously are somewhat more elastic than yours. Personally I believe that if that assigning "the universe" (or such is our understanding of it) human traits is foolish, as is thinking that human-related matters are special entities subject to their own unique rules or treatments. The true part of your quickfire character appraisal is that I believe there to be things we do not yet know.

[toliman]

assigning human terms to a complex entity is pretty common, anthropomorphism is just one of the flaws that human beings put on the observable universe.

determinism has always been fixated on ideas, two of which are, the mechanisms of the universe, and the idea that the universe was created by some entity. that idea underpins the readily observable rules of the system/universe e.g. gravity, nuclear forces, mass and electromagnetic forces,the golden ratio phi, etc. these principle ideas underlie the universe as we know it, and define a significant number of physical interactions by prediction, observation and comprehension of the physical interactions.

in metaphysics and eastern philosophy, the intangible interactions of freely associated objects within the system interact over time and cause other actions to take place in a conjoined or abstract (undefinable) fashion. this allows for things like non-interactive systems of actions and events without an immediate cause, or for effect to occur before cause, which is strictly unobservable or indeterminable. it also allows for explanations of related interactions such as chaos theory, karma, and predictions of future events to exist within a closed mechanical system without having to redefine the system entirely.

if you then look at the universe as a construction of god, i.e a principle of intelligent design, then there is a central orthodoxy of thought that derives and defines the observable universe. this kind of thinking is self-satisfying, since you can ignore those things that are unobserved, and also those phenomena that remain unexplained or unassigned to a central dogma. it remains elusive that a deterministic system can fulfill the requirements of intelligence, i.e comprehension, observation and reaction, planning and method. having god do all that, plus organise social and moral objectives for a fledgling civilisation is pretty good of god, considering his agenda. if god exists, he exists outside the discussion since the system (i.e. the universe) works with or without an observable interaction.

this also allows god to determine our will, and our interactions in 'his' domain. thus, our actions are not free, and our lives are pre-determined within the system. so therefore, god is pretty lazy, much like us, or there's a plan so infinitely chaotic, that nobody is to blame for their immoral or illegal acts.

as a social mechanism, a omnipotent entity that controls our free will allows people to excuse or accept behaviour that would normally destroy a society's belief system. by accepting the unacceptable as a function of religion, and denying that it is a flaw since it is recognised to be an integral part of the closed system, then all behaviour is part of a closed system.

why determinism can't be a mechanism of a system that requires periodic adjustments to fit a particular inarticulate schedule, or a system that can be chaotic and indeterminate, is illogical to the human foundations of observation, interaction, control, comprehension and experience. if the deterministic universe ran by itself, who would be responsible, who would change things, who would you need to influence to get things your way ? god needs to be observable or influenceable in order for people to conceptualise the idea readily, and it also requires that god be unobservable in order for free will to exist. because god is a human idea, god does not need to exist at all in an observable universe. as such, god remains unnecessary since his influence is either assumed or ignored in the larger system.

in practical terms, determinism is a flawed belief system, because it opposes free will which underlies so much of our popular social and political systems.

if it were to occur that the universe was determinate, that we are part of a large cog in the mechanism of the universe, then nothing much changes, since you have already been factored into a decision that allows you the illusion of choice. this will either stifle or free you from responsibility for your future actions, and thus, nothing ultimately changes. however, since everybody else in the mechanism is also being manifestly changed by your actions, they too are also playing proxy to your actions by preventing you or allowing action to take place. thus, blame is absolved for actions as the mechanisms take away emotion, shame and guilt.

this is possibly the most illogical factor in the religious concept of determinism, since it allows for action without consequence or effective intelligent response to action, since god would be seen to have had implicit inception, authorisation and control over any action or interaction.

still, this does not answer the concept of free will, indeterminism, predeterminism, the converse idea of metaphysics underpinning a deterministic system with a metaverse that allows for dimensions of action and interaction to take place without cause or effect to be related to a common physical action. it also does not answer the relationship of determinism to ideas like socialism, politics, morality, humanity, universal physics, perception, free will, dogma, karma, dualism, capitalism, materialism, meaning, quantum mechanics, cartesian mathematics, etc.

[WRX_STi]

This thread is not for me, such big words lol i think that you do have a choice, if its already been made (eg if the future exists) then you made the damn choice in the first place.

lets just qoute the matrix, "your not here to make choices your here to underatand the chocies you already made" (something like that haha)

Ok now lets forget about the universe and complex shit and im going back to fit this car radiator

[zzyss]

You know what, this thread started because the OP felt a bit depressed that the world might be deterministic. Now I'm no psychologist, but this has turned into an intellectual debate that has probably broadened his understanding, but not addressed his real issue.

At the end of the day dude, if you're feeling trapped in your world, then you need to exercise your free will (illusionary or not) and do something random, wild, and unlike yourself. You'll feel better.

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by zzyss

You know what, this thread started because the OP felt a bit depressed that the world might be deterministic. Now I'm no psychologist, but this has turned into an intellectual debate that has probably broadened his understanding, but not addressed his real issue.

At the end of the day dude, if you're feeling trapped in your world, then you need to exercise your free will (illusionary or not) and do something random, wild, and unlike yourself. You'll feel better.

Its weird, I find it hard arguing something that seems so fundementally wrong , however I cant see it being anything else. Either way its not something that is affecting my life, I still go about it the same way as I did say a year ago.

[NoctusBelua]

Originally Posted by Circastes

...that insisted we divide events into two parts: an initial event and a final resulting event. Further observation (quantum physics) has shown that to be a macroscropic illusion.

Could you elaborate on this? What exactly do you mean when you say it is an illusion?

On a macroscopic scale, every event still has an apparent cause. Would a billiard ball have been deflected in the same way, at the same time, if its path had not coincided with the path of another ball the way it did? If you answer no, then you implicitly accept that the coincidence of the paths was the apparent cause of the deflection. How would you say that this cause is illusory?

[toliman]

its hard to get to the point, since its a wide topic with hundreds of philosophers having tried to dent out the major points of determinism and making it fill in the blanks of other ideas about how the world works.

there's no brief answer to if/how/why, which makes it ideal for philosophical discusion, not so much for just pointing a finger at something and figuring that determinism is the problem.

the simplified version is, determinism is one way to get your head around applying physics, but it is a lousy way to understand the universe. if every object in the universe has its programmed response, and its path has been mapped in advance, then what difference does anything make, why is choice such an important decision if it is simply an illusion to keep us happy and content.

all people gravitate towards comfort, that equilibrium of sensations, in between the addiction to various dopamine hits in the brain. it's what keeps civilisation from falling apart and reverting into our animal nature. secondly, we need illusions and perspective to survive and comprehend the world we live in. math, physics, biology, philosophy, science, religion, language, etc. all help keep the terror of an unknowable universe trapped within a knowable sphere of knowledge and understanding.

the concept of god also helps people from feeling that terror, that the universe is really really really huge, and that there are unexplainable things that threaten us, 'god' is looking after that for us, and we shouldnt be too concerned. after all, ignorance and reason makes us feel comfortable about the world.


this is really the argument used in the first matrix movie, that the 'first matrix' failed because people felt comfortable in their new paradise, but they died soon afterwards due to the need to feel or think having been removed, the body soon failing. it also tries to show that determinism is fine as a concept, but it does not keep 'people' from trying to escape their fate. maybe its a biological imperative, maybe a fault in psychology that we need to feel sad, depressed, miserable, repressed, tired, fatigued, etc in order to recognise and appreciate the good.

choice in the movie, goes in a bit of a slide towards the anarchistic, that you either follow or you can lead your own destiny, and that you need to fight to survive. all true, but mostly irrelevant.

matrix reloaded/revolutions is a crash course in philosophy just to grasp some of the badly constructed references to a philosophical construct, that determines how the matrix is supposed to work. you would need to read through about 50 solid references to mythology, symbology, descartes, christianity, dualism, etc. etc. in the end though, nobody should have to have the understanding of 2 years of philosophy just to decode a movie plotline.

[bmgoau]

The illusion of choice is choice.

Even if predetermination exists, which i believe it does, in accordance with the laws of physics, it does not mean our existance is any less significant. We may not have have the choice to be good or bad people, it is the sum of chemical reactions within our brain, but whether we are good or bad people is no less important to our beliefe in identity.

If there is a god, who can predict our future, then our future is already pre-determined and thus we have no free will. Semi-on topic.

Anyways, determinism is a great theory, it has its quirks (try explaining it to a girl at school), but it doesnt mean that our existance and actions are any less significant.

[Eman]

Is it not significant to have the choice to be "good or bad people"? There seems less point in knowing my identity if I can't do anything about it. Determinism may well be true but it comes with a cost in value.

[NoctusBelua]

I think we need to define free will here.

Does free will mean having the power to act on our convictions? If so, then we have free will regardless of the structure of the universe. Our convictions may be predetermined, random, metaphysical, or whatever.

I think the popular usage of the term refers to the idea that we can alter our own minds in a free manner. If we alter our own minds, it is a result of the state of our minds in the first place. This constraint seems to abolish the notion of free will by this definition. If our alterations are constrained by the preexisting state of mind, how can they be said to be free?

I don't think I'm making much sense here. I love this topic, but it is damn hard to get my head around.

[fyrestorm]

To me, this comes down to whether anything is truly random or not. Say if you can gather information outside of heisenberg type constraints and know everything about the motion of two particles. Then can you predict exactly how they will act? Knowing the answer to that would answer this question for good but we don't, and never can.

One thing which interests me is radioactive decay. For those of you unfamiliar with the process, every radioactive isotope has a half life. For 100 particles with a half life of one second, after 1 second there will be 50 undecayed particles, and 50 decayed particles on average. Maybe 51/49. Etc. Then after another second, say we did go to 50 decayed, 50 undecayed after the first second, then after a second second (ha, sorry, couldn't resist ) another 25 will have decayed. And so on, say:
25/75
12/88
7/93
3/97
2/98
2/98
1/99
0/100

Doesn't this process indicate that their decay is by nature random? It seems ludicrous to say that when each is created it has a certain expected lifetime determined by how closely it's subatomic particles are bonded, and that this arranges itself to form such decay.

[shredder]

Originally Posted by fyrestorm

Doesn't this process indicate that their decay is by nature random? It seems ludicrous to say that when each is created it has a certain expected lifetime determined by how closely it's subatomic particles are bonded, and that this arranges itself to form such decay.

Does true randomness exist? Or is it just one of the many human concepts which we have created to cover things that we can't yet explain?

[noboundaries-au]

Originally Posted by shredder

Does true randomness exist? Or is it just one of the many human concepts which we have created to cover things that we can't yet explain?

good point, the randomness may only be perceived randomness because we dont understand the underlying principles fully....

or it could just be plain random..

good food for thought though