Determinism Is Self Defeating

[little_monkey]

Basically, you are stating determinism as a brute fact, aka begging the question, since this thread is ABOUT whether determinism is true.

Evolution by common descent isn't a direct observation either, but it is far and away the best explanation of the total sum of all relevant observations concerning the theory of evolution.

Quarks aren't directly observed, but it is far and away the best explanation of the Standard model in regard to hadrons and mesons.

Quantum states are vectors in a Hilbert Space isn't a direct observation, but it is far and away the best hypothesis on which Quantum Mechanics is founded on.

You need to brush up on what is a hypothesis, a theory, and supporting evidence.

[Walking Void]

Thanks for your input little_monkey, your examples are sound.

Bennyboy, what I am endorsing is basically the scientific method on a magnified level. Used for- predicting the future. Please read this page from the wiki and tell me what You think:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

I am not asserting or assuming any claim on any laws be they free will or determinism. If You read what I texted in both of my 2 posts in a different tempo You will find nothing but respect for reality.

[bennyboy]

Basically, you are stating determinism as a brute fact, aka begging the question, since this thread is ABOUT whether determinism is true.

Evolution by common descent isn't a direct observation either, but it is far and away the best explanation of the total sum of all relevant observations concerning the theory of evolution.

Quarks aren't directly observed, but it is far and away the best explanation of the Standard model in regard to hadrons and mesons.

Quantum states are vectors in a Hilbert Space isn't a direct observation, but it is far and away the best hypothesis on which Quantum Mechanics is founded on.

You need to brush up on what is a hypothesis, a theory, and supporting evidence.

All the things you mentioned are (I believe) falsifiable. You could come up with evidence that would disprove them. But how would you disprove determinism? You wouldn't-- you'd say, "Oh, science had ____ wrong, so it's impossible to make meaningful predictions. We must look for a new theory." At no point in this process does modifying the philosophical basis of determinism come into the question.

Given access to only 1 timeframe, and therefore no way to repeat the state of any system exactly, how WOULD you disprove the "hypothesis" of determinism? What experiment would you propose to show that the future is malleable, rather than set in stone, or that it is not?

[The Grand Nudger]

Given access to only 1 timeframe, and therefore no way to repeat the state of any system exactly, how WOULD you disprove the "hypothesis" of determinism?

All you have to do is remove the divider and observe water -not- seeking it's own level like it did all the other times.

[bennyboy]

Given access to only 1 timeframe, and therefore no way to repeat the state of any system exactly, how WOULD you disprove the "hypothesis" of determinism?

All you have to do is remove the divider and observe water -not- seeking it's own level like it did all the other times.

That's a pretty crude, statistical kind of determinism. The real question is would every little ripple and droplet, even in a massive flood event, have to turn out exactly as it does? Or is there wiggle room on local levels that seem deterministic on larger levels because of the massive statistical certainty of large populations?

To humanize it, it's statistically definite that there will be about X road-rage killings this year. But that certainly doesn't mean (at least to me) that any particular killer was destined to do it.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a pretty crude, statistical kind of determinism. The real question is would every little ripple and droplet, even in a massive flood event, have to turn out exactly as it does? Or is there wiggle room on local levels that seem deterministic on larger levels because of the massive statistical certainty of large populations?

What you seem to be attempting, is to complicate an event beyond our ability and then insinuate that once some event is sufficiently complicated that the principles and behaviors that the participants in the event exhibit shift or change into something we have no knowledge of or only probabilities for. No dice. As far as "wiggle room" goes there's a massive amount of wiggle room for any given thing even within the deterministic model when invoking any particular outcome- and depending on the actor or participants in that outcome. So whether or not there's wiggle room won;t tell us much about whether or not we have a deterministic or non-deterministic (or mix of both) universe.

To humanize it, it's statistically definite that there will be about X road-rage killings this year. But that certainly doesn't mean (at least to me) that any particular killer was destined to do it.

I don't buy into destiny myself..remember? I'm a determinist not a fatalist. They are vastly different. The position of hard determinism is such that at some point - perhaps long before but perhaps right before the very moment - there was only one way the situation -could- pan out due to the circumstances of the event. That beyond that moment when all requirements where met all roads led to a road rage killing. The point of no return, if you will. Perhaps that moment was only met after the car was doing 50, aimed at the pedestrian, the pedestrian was right in the middle of the path - not fast enough to get out of the way - and beyond the point that the car could slow down quickly enough.

What happens next Benny? Is there any scenario in which the pedestrian does not get hit? Can this go any other way?

[little_monkey]

Evolution by common descent isn't a direct observation either, but it is far and away the best explanation of the total sum of all relevant observations concerning the theory of evolution.

Quarks aren't directly observed, but it is far and away the best explanation of the Standard model in regard to hadrons and mesons.

Quantum states are vectors in a Hilbert Space isn't a direct observation, but it is far and away the best hypothesis on which Quantum Mechanics is founded on.

You need to brush up on what is a hypothesis, a theory, and supporting evidence.

All the things you mentioned are (I believe) falsifiable. You could come up with evidence that would disprove them. But how would you disprove determinism? You wouldn't-- you'd say, "Oh, science had ____ wrong, so it's impossible to make meaningful predictions. We must look for a new theory." At no point in this process does modifying the philosophical basis of determinism come into the question.

Determinism IS falsifiable: if I could produce a real rabbit out of thin hair, IOW, magic, not the art of illusion, but real magic would disprove determinism. In such a world, anything would happen without cause, and hence predicting the future based on scientific laws would be impossible.

[bennyboy]

I don't buy into destiny myself..remember? I'm a determinist not a fatalist. They are vastly different. The position of hard determinism is such that at some point - perhaps long before but perhaps right before the very moment - there was only one way the situation -could- pan out due to the circumstances of the event. That beyond that moment when all requirements where met all roads led to a road rage killing. The point of no return, if you will. Perhaps that moment was only met after the car was doing 50, aimed at the pedestrian, the pedestrian was right in the middle of the path - not fast enough to get out of the way - and beyond the point that the car could slow down quickly enough.

In a deterministic universe, all these events are packaged into the Big Bang. As for destiny-- determinism is just destiny with one possible path.

---

Determinism IS falsifiable: if I could produce a real rabbit out of thin hair, IOW, magic, not the art of illusion, but real magic would disprove determinism. In such a world, anything would happen without cause, and hence predicting the future based on scientific laws would be impossible.

EVEN IF you pulled a real rabbit out of thin air, which would be massively surprising, this doesn't prove that things could have turned out otherwise. Maybe due to a wormhole, which traces a causal link back to the Big Bang, Fluffy was inevitably going to materialise at that moment, but nobody predicted it because "we just lack accurate enough data." All it would prove is that some things cannot possibly be predicted-- which is already the case for almost everything in the universe more complicated than billiard balls, taxes or death.

[The Grand Nudger]

In a deterministic universe, all these events are packaged into the Big Bang. As for destiny-- determinism is just destiny with one possible path.

Not even close. As the circumstances and participants in events could not have been said to have existed yet - so how could they lead to anything like clockwork? The interactions and results of the first event do not yet constitute a requirement for some action 14 billion years later. You've glossed over all the space in between and in the deterministic model all of the spaces between are crucial. The big bang may be -a part of- the chain of causality - but requirements other than (the big bang occurred) need to be met before any other event we might want to invoke has any measure of certainty attached. For example. The big bang has to have occurred a specific way to produce a force of gravity such that if matter exists with a specific mass and arrangement and proximity to another bit of matter with a specific mass and arrangement then inevitably this force will act on both in a predictable way (that is the only result of all of these exacting circumstances). All requirements must be met.

You're clearly not clear on what determinism is - what seems to have rubbed you the wrong way is fatalism. Fate or destiny has a power arbitrary to any preceding circumstance. Hopefully you can appreciate the immense difference between an invocation of destiny or fate and an invocation of circumstances in attempting to explain an event? To say that one is destined for something since the moment of the big bang is not to state a position of determinism - at all.

[little_monkey]

Maybe due to a wormhole, which traces a causal link back to the Big Bang, Fluffy was inevitably going to materialise at that moment,

Here you are providing a cause for the magic rabbit, and if the universe functions according to laws, then everything is determined. That basically defeats your own argument.

but nobody predicted it because "we just lack accurate enough data." All it would prove is that some things cannot possibly be predicted-- which is already the case for almost everything in the universe more complicated than billiard balls, taxes or death.

That also defeats your argument. You're saying, I can't predict because I don't know, which means, if I knew, I would be able to predict.

Good job.