Determinism

Exist · Feb 16, 2006

I do believe in Determinism, but it's in spite of quantum physics. Logically it make sense that if the exact same variables are in place the exact same result should occur. So to me the hidden variable theory sounds plausible.

Woah, I think my OP was unclear. Determinism is completely different from Fatalism, though one can be a Fatalist through Deterministic beliefs. But I would agree with you. I have very little knowledge on QP, but through what I know, I say that the hidden variable theory is likely.

essentially, the future is fundamentally unpredictable, even in a wholly deterministic universe.

False. In a wholly deterministic universe, the machine itself (if it was omniscient) would factor in itself as one determinant in what the man would do. What would it say? Would the man do what it said? If it was truly omniscient, then the man would do what it said (if he didn't, then the machine isn't omniscient, and you're story goes down the drain). But what would the machine say? I don't know, I'm not omniscient. And I would say that no machine ever could be.

However, I find debates on this subject to be unprofitable. We simply don't have enough knowledge of the brain yet to settle the matter once and for all.

They may be nothing more than mental masturbation, but I don't think they're unprofitable just because we don't have more knowledge. We don't have enough knowledge on many things worth discussing and debating.

Did you chose to post that?

Yes, I did.

I chose to post this. Nothing outside of me or in my environment or in my dna forced me to do it.

Well, I'm glad you were speaking for yourself there. Because my environment and all the variables in my body are completely responsible for my post. Note that all the variables in my body and how they are interacting with my environment is what makes up "me". So "I" did choose.

levi501 · Feb 16, 2006

These freewill discussions always crack me up...
Can something uncaused occur?

FSTDT · Feb 16, 2006

levi501 said:
These freewill discussions always crack me up...
Can something uncaused occur?

Technically, yes. But its a perfectly awful way to describe anyones behavior.

Exist · Feb 16, 2006

then what determined the first event?

My personal belief? There was no uncaused cause. There is no God, and the universe didn't create itself (or just randomly spring out of nothingless). There has always, always been something, some cause preceding the effect you're seeing now. Even if a god did create the physical realm, then there was a cause for it. And a cause for the god. And a cause for that.

Computer programs have external influences.

And that's where my analogy ends. I don't believe that there are external influences in this realm.

You say that our choices are the result of processes over which we have no transcendental control. However, it depends on what you mean by transcendental control. Transcendental can mean outside of experience or outside of nature.

I'm talking about transcending the natural law of cause and effect.

Furthermore, there exist things beyond our senses.

I agree, but I don't see why you're saying this.

Yeah, of course. You are a deteministic bio-machine though.

Blunt claims don't do much to discussion.

No I am not. I am a being that has the ability to make decisions and act on them.

As I said in another thread, in determinism, we truly do have the freedom to act out on our will. But we do not have the freedom to determine our will.

A machine can find a best path to act out on it's pre-set commands, then act on it. But it can't transcendentally change it's commands.

elman · Feb 16, 2006

levi501 said:
These freewill discussions always crack me up...
Can something uncaused occur?

No. Can you be the cause?

Exist · Feb 16, 2006

Unfortunately we cannot test your theory. I believe we could decide things two different ways in two different occasions if everything presented to us was exactly the same. We cannot test that because we cannot ever exactly duplicate an occasion. We never step into the same river twice.

I agree. I doubt that it's even physically possible to ever test any part of determinism.

But here's a hypothetical: There is a cube of exactly 5 grams. Exactly 15 joules is applied to one side. Friction is the only variable (and it is utterly constant), there is no wind, no air, no little children walking up and pushing the cube. Every time this happens, do you think the cube will go the same distance?

To a Deterministic Fatalist, it will go exactly the same distance, not to the centimeter, not to the milimeter, but to the atom, if all the variables are exactly the same each time this is done.

And to a Naturalist, the brain is an organic machine that isn't attached to a supernatural soul; all it's processes are physical. Every physical process has determinants and they follow the laws of nature.

So if you hit rewind on the universe and let it play back the last five minutes, all the processes would play out just as it did the first time. If you photocopied it, and hit play on both of them, they would both play out the same.

Now, know that I'm talking about Determinialistic Fatalism. QP implies that there are random numbers underlying all physical variables, so it isn't as clockwork as that to most Determinists.

Exist · Feb 16, 2006

No. Can you be the cause?

Yes, you can be the cause. But as you just said, there is nothing uncaused, so the "you being the cause for this effect over here" has a cause found over there.

elman · Feb 16, 2006

Exist said:
Woah, I think my OP was unclear. Determinism is completely different from Fatalism, though one can be a Fatalist through Deterministic beliefs. But I would agree with you. I have very little knowledge on QP, but through what I know, I say that the hidden variable theory is likely.

False. In a wholly deterministic universe, the machine itself (if it was omniscient) would factor in itself as one determinant in what the man would do. What would it say? Would the man do what it said? If it was truly omniscient, then the man would do what it said (if he didn't, then the machine isn't omniscient, and you're story goes down the drain). But what would the machine say? I don't know, I'm not omniscient. And I would say that no machine ever could be.

They may be nothing more than mental masturbation, but I don't think they're unprofitable just because we don't have more knowledge. We don't have enough knowledge on many things worth discussing and debating.

Yes, I did.

Well, I'm glad you were speaking for yourself there. Because my environment and all the variables in my body are completely responsible for my post. Note that all the variables in my body and how they are interacting with my environment is what makes up "me". So "I" did choose.

It was not the varibles in your body that chose. It was your brain that chose. It now seems that I can chose since I am the one with the variables in my body. There is more to you than your environment and the invaribles in your body.

elman · Feb 16, 2006

Exist said:
Yes, you can be the cause. But as you just said, there is nothing uncaused, so the "you being the cause for this effect over here" has a cause found over there.

Not if I am the cause and I am over here. The cause is found over here and not over there.

elman · Feb 16, 2006

Exist said:
I agree. I doubt that it's even physically possible to ever test any part of determinism.

But here's a hypothetical: There is a cube of exactly 5 grams. Exactly 15 joules is applied to one side. Friction is the only variable (and it is utterly constant), there is no wind, no air, no little children walking up and pushing the cube. Every time this happens, do you think the cube will go the same distance?

To a Deterministic Fatalist, it will go exactly the same distance, not to the centimeter, not to the milimeter, but to the atom, if all the variables are exactly the same each time this is done.

And to a Naturalist, the brain is an organic machine that isn't attached to a supernatural soul; all it's processes are physical. Every physical process has determinants and they follow the laws of nature.

So if you hit rewind on the universe and let it play back the last five minutes, all the processes would play out just as it did the first time. If you photocopied it, and hit play on both of them, they would both play out the same.

Now, know that I'm talking about Determinialistic Fatalism. QP implies that there are random numbers underlying all physical variables, so it isn't as clockwork as that to most Determinists.

The hypothetical cube does not have a brain. Quite a difference. It is a theory that the brain is an organic machine, unprovable theory as is the theory sll processes of the brain are physical that have determinants and follow the laws of nature. It is my theory that theory is incorrect.

Exist · Feb 16, 2006

It was not the varibles in your body that chose. It was your brain that chose.

And why wouldn't everything going on in your brain be some of the variables I'm talking about?

It now seems that I can chose since I am the one with the variables in my body.

That's what I've been saying. It's not a bunch of numbers making decisions while we watch, it's us making the decisions, and the bunch of numbers are us.

Wow, a bit confusing, but I hope you got what I was saying.

There is more to you than your environment and the invaribles in your body.

Like what? A soul? Proof? This is why it's almost always a Naturalist's belief; I believe there are no metaphysical influences.

Not if I am the cause and I am over here. The cause is found over here and not over there.

You might want to rephrase, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you are the cause for yourself? That humans are uncaused causes?

Exist · Feb 16, 2006

The hypothetical cube does not have a brain. Quite a difference.

Ah, so you do believe that humans are uncaused causes. And you attribute this to us having souls? Or what? What supernatural influence breaks us out of the natural law of cause and effect?

levi501 · Feb 16, 2006

FSTDT said:
Technically, yes.

even QM objections to determinism show it to be probalistic and therfor a deterministic system. Let's leave QM out.

FSTDT said:
But its a perfectly awful way to describe anyones behavior.

I'm not trying to.
I'm trying to help people who need a place to start in understanding freewill is a farse.
Getting it in their mind that nothing occurs spontaneously without cause is the first step.

levi501 · Feb 16, 2006

elman said:
No.

good. step one check.

elman said:
Can you be the cause?

Yes and since every cause is an event in and of itself in this world and since you agree nothing is uncaused then you must conclude that all causes have causes themselves. Therefor "you" being a cause means "you" also have a cause(s).

Lord Emsworth · Feb 16, 2006

elman said:
Unfortunately we cannot test your theory. I believe we could decide things two different ways in two different occasions if everything presented to us was exactly the same. We cannot test that because we cannot ever exactly duplicate an occasion.

I don't need a test to know that what you claim (underlined) would entail randomness given that I specified exactly the same person.

elman said:
We never step into the same river twice.

Goes against my specifications.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 16, 2006

morningstar2651 said:
The First Cause
If there are only natural laws and determinants, then what determined the first event?

Responsibility
Our choices are determined by our innate nature.
Our innate nature is determined by our experiences.
Therefore, our choices are determined by our experiences.

We are not responsible for our actions - they are determined by our experiences. It would be wrong to punish me if I went on a killing spree.

I think that you misunderstand punishment. It server IMO three purposes:
1. correction
2. deterrence
3. removal

morningstar2651 said:
My choice wasn't caused by me, it was caused by my playing a violent video game or reading a comic book.

Yes and? Society nontheless seeks out to either correct your behaviour or, if correction is deemed unlikely, remove you from society altogether.

morningstar2651 said:
It would be wrong to be praise or respect me for saving someone from a burning building. My choice wasn't caused by me, it was caused by my playing a violent video game or reading a comic book.

Computer Program Analogy
Computer programs are discrete (digital) systems. Reality is made mostly of continuous (analog) systems. Computer programs have external influences. I can write a program that runs on this computer, but doesn't run on one with less memory, different drivers, etc. I can crash computer programs. What if my computer gets the BSOD while the program is running?

Experience & Will
You say that our choices are the result of processes over which we have no transcendental control. However, it depends on what you mean by transcendental control. Transcendental can mean outside of experience or outside of nature. I define nature as the sum total of all existance - therefore something that is transcendental is something outside of the sum total of all existance and does not exist. However, outside of experience is something else.

Have we experienced all there is to experience? Of course not. When we experience something new, we are transcending our experience and causing the sum total of all we have experienced to grow.

Furthermore, there exist things beyond our senses. I can't taste oxygen, smell oxygen, see oxygen, or feel oxygen. However, I know that without oxygen, I wouldn't last very long. The human eye responds to only a fraction of the known waves on the electromagnetic spectrum. I don't see Ultraviolet or Infrared, but they exist.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 16, 2006

elman said:
No I am not. I am a being that has the ability to make decisions and act on them.

Of course you make decisions - like all deterministic bio-machines of your type do.

Lord Emsworth · Feb 16, 2006

levi501 said:
These freewill discussions always crack me up...
Can something uncaused occur?

If it can, it is random.

morningstar2651 · Feb 16, 2006

Alright, lets look at some more professional looks at determinism then:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Determinism and Morals by Bertrand Russell

Also, other things you might be interested in:
Systems Thinking
Emergent Behavior

jinkazama · Feb 16, 2006

If you believe in determinism, how does personal respondibilty come into play, can you blame anyone of crimes?

Determinism

Human

Senior Veteran

Yahweh

Human

elman

Human

Human

elman

elman

elman

Human

Human

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency