Determinism Is Self Defeating

[KichigaiNeko]

It's usually a great idea.....






and then you add people

[little_monkey]

It's usually a great idea.....

and then you add people

But people can do sweetfuckall in determining the fate of the universe, which is pretty much determined, hence determinism rules.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the deterministic model this would be patently untrue. Your actions (however they arise) most definitely do have an effect on the universe - and there is no fate. Fate is not deterministic, it's non deterministic. In "fate" no matter what occurs from "now" till "then", an specific event is going to occur "then". Determinism holds that the "now's" add up and determine the "thens", that there are no events that occur regardless of all the "nows" till "then"..

To give you an example how how the idea of fate looks to "the determinist" lol...... A "fated" life holds that you will die in a submarine. Despite never going near the water, or even so much as touching a sub - a fated person in a fated universe will die in a submarine.

[little_monkey]

In the deterministic model this would be patently untrue. Your actions (however they arise) most definitely do have an effect on the universe - and there is no fate. Fate is not deterministic, it's non deterministic. In "fate" no matter what occurs from "now" till "then", an specific event is going to occur "then". Determinism holds that the "now's" add up and determine the "thens", that there are no events that occur regardless of all the "nows" till "then"..

To give you an example how how the idea of fate looks to "the determinist" lol...... A "fated" life holds that you will die in a submarine. Despite never going near the water, or even so much as touching a sub - a fated person in a fated universe will die in a submarine.

The word "fate" just means that something is pre-determined. So these are interchangeable terms. And determinism is the foundation of science. Deny determinism, you deny science.

On a side note, your analogy, A "fated" life holds that you will die in a submarine, doesn't hold water... sorry, couldn't help with the pun...you can only determine an event if you know all the causes. It just happens that we simple mortals don't know all the causes that go into determining certain events.

[Red Celt]

Suddenly, that's a matter that is under dispute?

Suddenly?
That is what I've been saying all along.

That Koolay isn't stupid?

So therefore I'm putting you on ignore.

Goodbye asshole

One less stupid person on my people-who-I-encounter list?

---

The most obvious point that can be taken from most of this conversation is that people generally don't understand what determinism is.

Chaos Theory isn't non-deterministic. Chaos Theory allows for the tiniest of complicated differences that an evolved ape might easily ignore... simply because it is so damned complicated. And some of us (for some reason) consider ourselves to be judge and jury on the level of complexity that the universe can exhibit before a metaphorical wand is produced and words like "magic" bubble in our ape-brain subconsciousness.

And that very much includes the human mind. It isn't that the universe is deterministic, but our brains aren't. We value our minds so dearly and imagine them to be so inherently awesome, unpredictable, almost magic-like because we don't fully understand them...

...yet.

And that "yet" is an important one.

A determinist would argue that the mind is every bit as deterministic as everything else in the universe. And for good reason.

Here's an analogy:-

Imagine the engine of a car. You're a mechanic and you understand what component does what, because you've been trained to do so and trial-and-error easily allows you to use cause-and-effect to find any problems that might arise. Put simply, you understand how it works because it isn't too complex.

Now imagine a million car engines put side-to-side, but all interacting with their neighbours. But that comes nowhere near the complexity of the human brain, so imagine components (that you don't recognise) interacting with further neighbours via mechanisms that you also don't recognise. And imagine the whole mass as one distinct engine. Now, as we're still nowhere near the complexity of a human brain, imagine the equivalent of a billion engines acting as one.

The level of complexity means that the engine is well beyond your ability to understand what is happening. It is, however, still an engine. It isn't running on magic.

It might hurt our self-esteem and be a difficult concept to accept... but guess what, folks, the universe isn't driven by the ego of one sentient race on one remote planet in one remote star system in one remote galaxy. As atheists, we should be much more capable of accepting that premise, without using falling rocks on remote hills to defend our pride so desperately.

[The Grand Nudger]

The word "fate" just means that something is pre-determined. So these are interchangeable terms. And determinism is the foundation of science. Deny determinism, you deny science.

pre-determiniation or fatalism is similarly non-deterministic. Good shit, eh? I wouldn't go so far as to say that denying determinism denies science though. That the world is knowable, that knowledge can be had - would more aptly, be the foundation of science.

On a side note, your analogy, A "fated" life holds that you will die in a submarine, doesn't hold water... sorry, couldn't help with the pun...you can only determine an event if you know all the causes. It just happens that we simple mortals don't know all the causes that go into determining certain events.

That may be the case, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes we can assign certainty to a prediction, however it happens, the universe appears to behave in a deterministic manner in that instance. I don't think that fated lives in fated universes hold water either. Because I am not aware of any process or law or behavior applicable to ourselves that leaves all, any, most or many circumstances aside when tallying an outcome.

As I've mentioned to others, whether or not we have the knowledge required is ancillary to whether or not such a prediction is possible. The latter is evidence of determinism, the former would be evidence of the practical accuracy of our models and ability to make measurements. Both together is tremendously powerful evidence for both - and this is what we see when rocks roll downhill, when water autolevels, when growth inhibitors are applied to synth, etc.

[little_monkey]

The word "fate" just means that something is pre-determined. So these are interchangeable terms. And determinism is the foundation of science. Deny determinism, you deny science.

pre-determiniation or fatalism is similarly non-deterministic. Good shit, eh? I wouldn't go so far as to say that denying determinism denies science though. That the world is knowable, that knowledge can be had - would more aptly, be the foundation of science.

If the universe wouldn't be deterministic, then it would contain lots of magic as it would not be governed by any laws, and such universe would not be understood under scientific scrutiny. Whether you want to admit or not, but the moment you do science you've already conceeded that it is deterministic. Determinism is a presupposition to any scientific enquiry. It's not something you can prove but it is a starting hypothesis. Scientific theories, scientific models are all based on the notion that the universe is ruled by laws, and therefore it is deterministic. If we know the initial conditions and all the relevant forces, we know exactly how the universe will behave in the future. All scientists have acted under that notion. That's why I said: deny determinism and you deny science.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the universe wouldn't be deterministic, then it would contain lots of magic as it would not be governed by any laws, and such universe would not be understood under scientific scrutiny.

It boggles the mind as to how we might gain knowledge of such a universe using a prediction based system - yes.

Whether you want to admit or not, but the moment you do science you've already conceeded that it is deterministic. Determinism is a presupposition to any scientific enquiry. It's not something you can prove but it is a starting hypothesis. Scientific theories, scientific models are all based on the notion that the universe is ruled by laws, and therefore it is deterministic. If we know the initial conditions and all the relevant forces, we know exactly how the universe will behave in the future. All scientists have acted under that notion. That's why I said: deny determinism and you deny science.

It is difficult to imagine how science "does work" in a non-deterministic universe - yes.

[pocaracas]

My apologies then, that's the way I read your statement.

My apologies for not making it clear...

But the single biggest counter to a deterministic universe in my view is the ability of a sentient creature to choose a course of action that is in defiance of all prediction and reason.

And how do you know such choice is truly free.
How do you know it's not determined by the processes in your brain?
How do you know that given the exact same prior conditions/knowledge/experiences and when put before exactly the same problem, this creature would not arrive at the exact same choice?

But as to a deterministic universe, it may well be the case. But until such a time as evidence can be provided then I have no good reason to accept it.( much like god really)

And until such a time as evidence can be provided for an undeterministic Universe, then I have no good reason to accept it.

[little_monkey]

If the universe wouldn't be deterministic, then it would contain lots of magic as it would not be governed by any laws, and such universe would not be understood under scientific scrutiny.

It boggles the mind as to how we might gain knowledge of such a universe using a prediction based system - yes.

Whether you want to admit or not, but the moment you do science you've already conceeded that it is deterministic. Determinism is a presupposition to any scientific enquiry. It's not something you can prove but it is a starting hypothesis. Scientific theories, scientific models are all based on the notion that the universe is ruled by laws, and therefore it is deterministic. If we know the initial conditions and all the relevant forces, we know exactly how the universe will behave in the future. All scientists have acted under that notion. That's why I said: deny determinism and you deny science.

It is difficult to imagine how science "does work" in a non-deterministic universe - yes.

I know this is highly hypothetical, but if I could send you back 10 years and erase all your memory in those 10 years, do you believe you would make different choices and live a different life?

Personally I don't. In exactly the same circumstances, we would make exactly the same choices.