Imagining Determinism

[elman]

Your argumentation tends to get a bit too circular, for my taste.

That is not a response. It may be a critque.

 

[elman]

If I help another person but do so with no feeling whatsoever - in other words, I do not really care what happens to them but am just operating automatically (say it is my job, for example) am I acting in a loving way?

Yes you may be be loving but you are acting in a loving way. I think to be loving an intent to help them is a necessary ingreiant, which you seem to be implying.

In other words, I cannot see the distinction that you make. If I love someone, I take actions that are loving. If I do not love someone, how can I take actions that are loving?

As you said you can still act in a loving way.

 

[levi501]

Let me show you where you've gone wrong...

If you act without a choice, you do not act in love.

false assertion.

An act that is compelled is not an act out of love.

false assertion.

There are no self aware human beings without free will.

false assertion.

 

[elman]

Let me show you where you've gone wrong...

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman




If you act without a choice, you do not act in love.




false assertion.

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman




An act that is compelled is not an act out of love.




false assertion.

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman




There are no self aware human beings without free will.




false assertion.

I am overwhelmed by your intelligent reasoned arguments.

 

[quatona]

That is not a response. It may be a critque.

Yes, that´s what it was.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As I said you are too smart for me.

You didn't say that.

 

[levi501]

I am overwhelmed by your intelligent reasoned arguments.

As this is your usual modus operandi, hopefully in the future you won't demand evidence from anyone without feeling at least incredibly hypocritical. You never support what you say yet you argue vehemently as if you are making point and not simply offering an unsupported opinion.

 

[elman]

As this is your usual modus operandi, hopefully in the future you won't demand evidence from anyone without feeling at least incredibly hypocritical. You never support what you say yet you argue vehemently as if you are making point and not simply offering an unsupported opinion.

You are the one not supporting what you say or even any reason why you say it. "False assertion" is a less than supported opinion.

 

[elman]

You didn't say that.

Who do you think said it?

 

[levi501]

You are the one not supporting what you say or even any reason why you say it. "False assertion" is a less than supported opinion.

wow.
An assertion is an unsupported statement.
I pointed out that you made many.
If asserting is your method or tactic for discussion then why take offense when someone else asserts what you said as false?
It's sad that you can't see the irony here.

People use the the term "false assertion" to describe a statement that is not only unsupported but one that they don't agree with. Why should I feel compelled to back up my opinion that your statements are false when you never bothered to supply any reason or rationale for yours?

 

[michabo]

I don't know much about determinism. Does it mean that everything is fully predictable and mechanistic? Does it require that everything happens for specific, identifiable reasons (even if only in theory)?

Or is it just anti-free will?

 

[David Gould]

I don't know much about determinism. Does it mean that everything is fully predictable and mechanistic? Does it require that everything happens for specific, identifiable reasons (even if only in theory)?

Or is it just anti-free will?

It means that everything is mechanistic, although not necessarily predictable. I think of it in terms of unbroken causal chains all with one first cause.

I think determinism is falsified by quantum mechanics.

However, all quantum mechanics really does is show that the universe has multiple first cause, along with multiple unbroken causal chains.

(In other words, there may be effects without causes, but there are no causes without effects).

This makes me a practical determinist - QM alters the notion of a singular first cause and multiple causal chains to multiple first causes and multiple causal chains.

Man, I am explaining this badly. But I hope you get the picture.

 

[levi501]

My main problem with QM is simply that I don't understand it, so it's hard for me affirm it and reject a deterministic world or deny it. What makes the outcomes in a double-slit probabilistic and therefor predictable? I'm not a physicist, but it seems there's more to it that we simply don't know.

 

[elman]

wow.
An assertion is an unsupported statement.
I pointed out that you made many.
If asserting is your method or tactic for discussion then why take offense when someone else asserts what you said as false?
It's sad that you can't see the irony here.

People use the the term "false assertion" to describe a statement that is not only unsupported but one that they don't agree with. Why should I feel compelled to back up my opinion that your statements are false when you never bothered to supply any reason or rationale for yours?

It is sad when you can't see the irony here. I did not take offense. You did. You are the one responding without support. In a meaningful discussion one would not say I don't agree and quit. They would then say why they do not agree. Saying false assertion says nothing about why it is a false assertion.

 

[levi501]

It is sad when you can't see the irony here. I did not take offense. You did. You are the one responding without support. In a meaningful discussion one would not say I don't agree and quit. They would then say why they do not agree. Saying false assertion says nothing about why it is a false assertion.

I don't agree with you because you have offered me no reason to assume what you asserted.

 

[David Gould]

My main problem with QM is simply that I don't understand it, so it's hard for me affirm it and reject a deterministic world or deny it. What makes the outcomes in a double-slit probabilistic and therefor predictable? I'm not a physicist, but it seems there's more to it that we simply don't know.

The double slit experiment is not the end of QM. There is much more to it than that. It has been demonstrated mathematically that QM behaviour is not caused.

However, I do not think it matters either way, really - in the first case, the universe has many causal chains all with the same beginning; in the second case, the universe has many causal chains with many different beginnings.

There are still causal rules. There are still reasons why things happen at the level that we can observe - there are even reasons why things happen at the QM level.

I accept that QM is random, and I am a practical determinist.

 

[michabo]

It means that everything is mechanistic, although not necessarily predictable. I think of it in terms of unbroken causal chains all with one first cause.

Please don't think this is pedantic, but what do you mean by "cause" or "causal chain"? How would you go about determining if a given event A caused B? Are there ways to determine if A could not cause B?

I ask because:

However, all quantum mechanics really does is show that the universe has multiple first cause, along with multiple unbroken causal chains.

Are you saying that QM says that things have multiple causes, or that an event has multiple effects?

(In other words, there may be effects without causes, but there are no causes without effects).

Is that by definition of 'cause' and 'effect'? We may have an event without a cause, but can we have an effect without a cause?

 

[David Gould]

Please don't think this is pedantic, but what do you mean by "cause" or "causal chain"?

A cause Y of event X is something such that if Y had not occurred X would not have occurred. I think the word I am looking for is 'necessary'. Something can have multiple contributory causes - for example, the cause of a spaceship travelling a certain way is the force of it engines plus the forces of gravity plus other miscellaneous forces.

A causal chain is a series of causes with each one necessary for the succeeding one.

These definitions might be in error, or might have problems - I am working on it.

How would you go about determining if a given event A caused B?

Using the scientific method. I do not think it is possible to prove that a given event A caused B.

Are there ways to determine if A could not cause B?

At the moment, most definitions of cause include the notion that the cause most occur prior to the effect.

I ask because:

Are you saying that QM says that things have multiple causes, or that an event has multiple effects?

No, I am saying that QM says that there are multiple first causes - many causes that themselves have no cause.

Is that by definition of 'cause' and 'effect'?

You are right.

We may have an event without a cause, but can we have an effect without a cause?

I guess I am not being precise enough: what I should be talking about are caused causes and uncaused causes.

Quantum mechanics says that there are multiple uncaused causes; determinism says that there is only one uncaused cause.

Does that make my thinking clearer to you?

 

[michabo]

A cause Y of event X is something such that if Y had not occurred X would not have occurred. I think the word I am looking for is 'necessary'. Something can have multiple contributory causes - for example, the cause of a spaceship travelling a certain way is the force of it engines plus the forces of gravity plus other miscellaneous forces.

Must Y necessarily follow from X and not just "X must preceed Y"?

Using the scientific method. I do not think it is possible to prove that a given event A caused B.

Well, support then

At the moment, most definitions of cause include the notion that the cause most occur prior to the effect.

What about locality? Would you have to study all agents anywhere in the universe?

Must there be some mechanism for A to influence B? Some interaction?

No, I am saying that QM says that there are multiple first causes - many causes that themselves have no cause.

Ahh... I see. So when you say 'first cause', you don't mean First Cause (the universe), but rather you mean many effects which, themselves, do not have a cause. Is that about right?

Quantum mechanics says that there are multiple uncaused causes; determinism says that there is only one uncaused cause.

When I look up 'determinism' in Wikipedia, it just paints it as the opposite of Free Will, but it sounds like you're describing it as the theory that the universe is like clockwork, mechanical and predictable. But one of my problems is that, by acknowledging that the universe is not like clockwork because of QM, we have said nothing about Free Will, and so there must be more than simply this clockwork determanism and Free Will. What other philosophical options are there?

I would go much further and observe that, in general, the universe is nothing like a clock in either the micro or macro scales. It is more like a waterfall, chaotic and roiling and predictable only only in terms of attractors and generalities.

It is like asking which moving oxygen molecule(s) caused a tornado. It is literally impossible (not merely impractical) to answer this, and worse, given the current movement of air molecules, it is equally impossible (not merely impractical) to predict what is going to happen with any precision. Once we leave the world of clocks, billiard balls, and weights falling in a vacuum and enter the world of systems and leaves falling through air, I think the idea of causality also disappears.

As a thought experiment, mentally toss a feather into a briskly moving river and follow it for a minute. Ask yourself what 'caused' it to take the path it took. Mentally follow it for an hour and ask the same question. Toss in a second feather and notice the completely different path that it takes and ask yourself what caused the difference. How valid are your answers? Do they convey any real information? If you were to completely describe the path of a feather for only a single minute, how many 'causes' would you have to invoke?

 

[David Gould]

Aren't those simply practical difficulties?

Isn't the whole of science based on discovering patterns, and these patterns rely on causes?

In other words, if we could not determine the cause of things - at least in the general sense - could we do science?