My only problem with hard determinism

[Washington]

is that theoretically, and perhaps actually, all events, even his very remark, had their inevitable genesis in the early moments of the universe. What I ate for breakfast, for example, was determined by a very particular chain of cause/effect events that occurred billions of years before the Earth formed. It seems neigh impossible that within the coalescence of hydrogen atoms billions of years ago lay the inevitability of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, but this is what I see as hard determinism taken to its logical extreme.

Thoughts?

 

[elcapitan]

is that theoretically, and perhaps actually, all events, even his very remark, had their inevitable genesis in the early moments of the universe. What I ate for breakfast, for example, was determined by a very particular chain of cause/effect events that occurred billions of years before the Earth formed. It seems neigh impossible that within the coalescence of hydrogen atoms billions of years ago lay the inevitability of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, but this is what I see as hard determinism taken to its logical extreme.

Thoughts?

So what's the problem?

 

[Eudaimonist]

is that theoretically, and perhaps actually, all events, even his very remark, had their inevitable genesis in the early moments of the universe. What I ate for breakfast, for example, was determined by a very particular chain of cause/effect events that occurred billions of years before the Earth formed. It seems neigh impossible that within the coalescence of hydrogen atoms billions of years ago lay the inevitability of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, but this is what I see as hard determinism taken to its logical extreme.

Thoughts?

I'm not a hard determinist, but it is worth pointing out that random quantum fluctuations play a role in hard determinism too. So it's not just the Big Bang at play.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Washington]

So what's the problem?

The impossibility seems so undeniable. I see determinism as the reining paradigm of everything that happens above the atomic level, but taken to its extreme, following the cause-effect relationship backward, to think that the reason I had bacon and eggs this morning was because of the existence of a particular chain of events, say just a few million years ago, stretches credulity. Yet that's what the paradigm demands.

 

[Washington]

I'm not a hard determinist, but it is worth pointing out that random quantum fluctuations play a role in hard determinism too. So it's not just the Big Bang at play.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't see QM as having any effect on the grosser world--everything happening above the quantum level.

 

[Hnefi]

is that theoretically, and perhaps actually, all events, even his very remark, had their inevitable genesis in the early moments of the universe. What I ate for breakfast, for example, was determined by a very particular chain of cause/effect events that occurred billions of years before the Earth formed. It seems neigh impossible that within the coalescence of hydrogen atoms billions of years ago lay the inevitability of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, but this is what I see as hard determinism taken to its logical extreme.

Thoughts?

The argument from incredulity is hardly compelling.

Besides, you have a very skewed perspective; your breakfast is more of a side effect than a particular goal of the original state of the universe. A slightly different beginning might have had you eat elderberries instead. It wouldn't have made a difference, as far as the argument goes.

Viewed from that persepective, your objection actually makes no sense. Are you saying that there is some sort of barrier preventing past events occurring sufficiently long ago from affecting events today? If so, what mechanism causes that barrier? And howcome we can see 13 billion years back in time - the very property of being detectible implies the ability to affect things.

 

[Washington]

The argument from incredulity is hardly compelling.

Not an argument as much as a problem I'm trying to get my head around.

Besides, you have a very skewed perspective; your breakfast is more of a side effect than a particular goal of the original state of the universe. A slightly different beginning might have had you eat elderberries instead.

I don't consider the universe to have a goal.

It wouldn't have made a difference, as far as the argument goes.

????

Are you saying that there is some sort of barrier preventing past events occurring sufficiently long ago from affecting events today?

No. Only that it's difficult to imagine that if the coalescence of hydrogen atoms, or even the exact way in which the Earth came into existence determined what I would eat for breakfast.

And howcome we can see 13 billion years back in time - the very property of being detectible implies the ability to affect things.

I fail to see the relevance.

 

[elman]

So what's the problem?

No problem, but why sould I believe such a thing?

 

[granpa]

It seems neigh impossible that within the coalescence of hydrogen atoms billions of years ago lay the inevitability of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, but this is what I see as hard determinism taken to its logical extreme.

Thoughts?

it is obviously impossible.

also determinism cant explain the origin of the universe from nothing nor can it explain freewill.

 

[Genre]

I'm not a hard determinist, but it is worth pointing out that random quantum fluctuations play a role in hard determinism too. So it's not just the Big Bang at play.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I could definitely be wrong here. I thought there was nothing truely random. Doesn't quantum mechanics propose that there is only true uncertainty? I read a book on this subject at one point with a chapter titled "The Uncertainty Principle, The Principle of Uncertainty, and Principle Uncertainty" (the title referred to three different things too).

This means that quantum mechanics does not negate Hard Determinism. I cannot discern if that was the point you were trying to make, but I thought I would point that out anyways.

 

[The Nihilist]

it is obviously impossible.

also determinism cant explain the origin of the universe from nothing nor can it explain freewill.

Not quite, grampa. Determinism doesn't involve an attempt to explain the origin of the universe, and determinism denies free will.

 

[quatona]

is that theoretically, and perhaps actually, all events, even his very remark, had their inevitable genesis in the early moments of the universe. What I ate for breakfast, for example, was determined by a very particular chain of cause/effect events that occurred billions of years before the Earth formed. It seems neigh impossible that within the coalescence of hydrogen atoms billions of years ago lay the inevitability of the bacon and eggs I had for breakfast, but this is what I see as hard determinism taken to its logical extreme.

Thoughts?

I don´t understand the problem. All I seem to understand is that for whatever reason you don´t like this idea. You say "it seems nigh impossible", but you don´t give any reason why it seems nigh impossible. To me it seems not only possible, but I don´t even see a valid alternative.
I don´t have any problems accepting that the way the universe is has it´s genesis in the early moments of the universe. So why would I have a problem with the genesis of the particularities being there, too?

This is but a guess, but could it be possible that you are silently connecting "origin/genesis/determination" with some sort of intent?

Now, if you don´t like the idea that today´s events have been determined in the very beginning of the universe - at what point of time would you rather wish them to have been determined? 10.000 years ago? 50 years ago?

 

[quatona]

it is obviously impossible.

Care to elaborate?

also determinism cant explain the origin of the universe

Neither can dentistry. Good thing is that both neither need nor pretend to explain the universe

from nothing nor can it explain freewill.

Determinism downright excludes concepts such as "freewill".

 

[Washington]

I don´t understand the problem. All I seem to understand is that for whatever reason you don´t like this idea. You say "it seems nigh impossible", but you don´t give any reason why it seems nigh impossible. To me it seems not only possible, but I don´t even see a valid alternative.

I don't see any alternative either. And in a sense, it is a matter of not liking it, but only because I have difficulty in wrapping my head around the idea that because 10 billion years ago molecules A, B, C, D, . . . . X, Y, Z came together a certain way rather than in some other way, I had bacon and eggs for breakfast rather than gruel.

I don´t have any problems accepting that the way the universe is has it´s genesis in the early moments of the universe. So why would I have a problem with the genesis of the particularities being there, too?

I don't know. If you accpet determinism as it stands, good for you.

This is but a guess, but could it be possible that you are silently connecting "origin/genesis/determination" with some sort of intent?

Absolutely not.

Now, if you don´t like the idea that today´s events have been determined in the very beginning of the universe - at what point of time would you rather wish them to have been determined? 10.000 years ago? 50 years ago?

It's not a matter of what I want, but of my inability to see how a particular event today is due to the fact that certain events at the molecular level took place, rather than not. Perhaps in time it will sink in, but as it stands it is a sticking point with me.

 

[quatona]

I don't see any alternative either. And in a sense, it is a matter of not liking it, but only because I have difficulty in wrapping my head around the idea that because 10 billion years ago molecules A, B, C, D, . . . . X, Y, Z came together a certain way rather than in some other way, I had bacon and eggs for breakfast rather than gruel.

It's not a matter of what I want, but of my inability to see how a particular event today is due to the fact that certain events at the molecular level took place, rather than not. Perhaps in time it will sink in, but as it stands it is a sticking point with me.

I see.
However, main obstacle for any attempt to make it more plausible to you is the fact that it is absolutely plausible to me, and that I have no idea what makes it so outlandish to you.
You don´t seem to have problems wrapping your mind around causality, and neither you seem to have problems wrapping your mind about certain events being determined by (on face value unrelated) prior events in general. Is that correct?

For every factor that appears to play a part in the immediate determination of an event there are other factors that must have played a part in determining this (co-)determining factor (and thereby the also the event we are looking at), and so on. How about extrapolating from this - I think - pretty obvious fact?
IOW: looking at the starting point and seeing the result often makes little sense as an explanation. For a person who doesn´t know anything about the process, the fact that a stainless steel knife is made of rocks is amazing, to say the least. Whilst if learning about the single steps this fact loses quite some of its counterintuitive incredulity.

 

[Washington]

I see.
However, main obstacle for any attempt to make it more plausible to you is the fact that it is absolutely plausible to me, and that I have no idea what makes it so outlandish to you.
You don´t seem to have problems wrapping your mind around causality, and neither you seem to have problems wrapping your mind about certain events being determined by (on face value unrelated) prior events in general. Is that correct?

Correct.

For every factor that appears to play a part in the immediate determination of an event there are other factors that must have played a part in determining this (co-)determining factor (and thereby the also the event we are looking at), and so on. How about extrapolating from this - I think - pretty obvious fact?

And I absolutely agree. It's just that taken to its extreme, it's difficult to imagine that within a billion years after the big bang (when stars began to form) the state of the universe was such that it would be inevitable that 12.7 billion years later I would necessarily have bacon and eggs for breakfast. As if the structure of the universe at the time had been different in any way I would not only not have B&E, but probably not exist.

IOW: looking at the starting point and seeing the result often makes little sense as an explanation. For a person who doesn´t know anything about the process, the fact that a stainless steel knife is made of rocks is amazing, to say the least. Whilst if learning about the single steps this fact loses quite some of its counterintuitive incredulity.

And the how---the individual mechanics of each cause/effect event--isn't a problem.

 

[quatona]

And I absolutely agree. It's just that taken to its extreme, it's difficult to imagine that within a billion years after the big bang (when stars began to form) the state of the universe was such that it would be inevitable that 12.7 billion years later I would necessarily have bacon and eggs for breakfast. As if the structure of the universe at the time had been different in any way I would not only not have B&E, but probably not exist.

Allow me two remarks, Washington:

1. I can relate to the "it´s unimaginable". I think every idea that deals with such timespans is necessarily unimaginable.
Actually, it takes far less for me to say "i can´t imagine this". Heck, to be honest, I can´t even imagine how a small seed and a bit of water, light and minerals grows into a huge tree. I can´t imagine men flying to the moon, I can´t imagine why this digit appears on your screen when I press this button. There are some optical illusions the mechanisms of which are conclusively explained and which I fully understand, yet leave me with the feeling "that´s impossible".

2. "As if the structure of the universe at the time had been different in any way I would not only not have B&E, but probably not exist."
Imo you are necessarily running into problems if you try to grasp the concept determinism with such negative retrospective hypotheticals ("What if, hadn´t...?"). You are introducing a way of thinking that is not compastible with determinism. Things couldn´t have been different, at no point in time, and this includes the structure of the universe at that starting point you are thinking of.
I´m sometimes wondering why considerations of the "what if things were different" are so common and dear to us, why we even entertain such absurd ideas. I think the explanation is: Whatever we look at, we have a focus, a limited perspective. We understand how this necessarily leads to that, but there is always the possibility that there are aspects we haven´t considered, and thus things aren´t turning out as we would have expected. Somehow we manage to fall for the illusion that if "What if things don´t turn out as expected?" is a meaningful question then "What if things would be different than they are?" must be equally meaningful. It almost sounds the same, after all.
In real life and we can compare the different outcomes if changing only one factor and this allows for expectations. However, the universe is all there is, there is nothing to compare it to.

And the how---the individual mechanics of each cause/effect event--isn't a problem.

So it´s just the inability to imagine very long time spans?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This means that quantum mechanics does not negate Hard Determinism.

Ah, if randomness violates what you mean by "hard determinism", I have misunderstood the term.

But quantum phenomena might include real acausal "randomness". It is known through experiment that there are at least no local variables determining the outcome of quantum states, though non-local variables have not been ruled out to my knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elman]

I don´t understand the problem. All I seem to understand is that for whatever reason you don´t like this idea. You say "it seems nigh impossible", but you don´t give any reason why it seems nigh impossible. To me it seems not only possible, but I don´t even see a valid alternative.
I don´t have any problems accepting that the way the universe is has it´s genesis in the early moments of the universe. So why would I have a problem with the genesis of the particularities being there, too?

This is but a guess, but could it be possible that you are silently connecting "origin/genesis/determination" with some sort of intent?

Now, if you don´t like the idea that today´s events have been determined in the very beginning of the universe - at what point of time would you rather wish them to have been determined? 10.000 years ago? 50 years ago?

Redetermined by me moment by moment.

 

[elman]

I see.
However, main obstacle for any attempt to make it more plausible to you is the fact that it is absolutely plausible to me, and that I have no idea what makes it so outlandish to you.
You don´t seem to have problems wrapping your mind around causality, and neither you seem to have problems wrapping your mind about certain events being determined by (on face value unrelated) prior events in general. Is that correct?

For every factor that appears to play a part in the immediate determination of an event there are other factors that must have played a part in determining this (co-)determining factor (and thereby the also the event we are looking at), and so on. How about extrapolating from this - I think - pretty obvious fact?
IOW: looking at the starting point and seeing the result often makes little sense as an explanation. For a person who doesn´t know anything about the process, the fact that a stainless steel knife is made of rocks is amazing, to say the least. Whilst if learning about the single steps this fact loses quite some of its counterintuitive incredulity.

It is not an obvious fact that I cannot chose either a steak or a hamburger or both or neither or something else. What is an obvious fact is I can do that, or not do that as I chose.