determinism versus indeterminism

[leo-rcc]

Hi there Josef,

Determinism and indeterminism are both concepts that divide both theists and atheists alike. Really, Ive been listening to hours worth of debates back and forth, to and fro, and nothing is even slightly conclusive.

Dan Dennett tried to make his point on determinism clear with the use of a digger wasp. This insect follows a series of genetically programmed steps in preparing for egg laying. If an experimenter interrupts one of these steps the wasp will repeat that step again. For an animal like a wasp, this process of repeating the same behavior can go on indefinitely, the wasp never seeming to notice what is going on. This is the type of mindless, pre-determined behavior is what people can avoid. Humans therefore are less mechanical in thinking than wasps, and show something that might be interpreted as free will.

The deeper philosophical issue of free will can be framed as a paradox. On one hand, we all feel like we have free will, a multitude of behavioral choices to select among. On the other hand, modern biology describes humans as mechanisms that follow all of the same deterministic rules as wasps or inanimate objects. How do we reconcile our feeling of Free Will with the idea that we are mechanical components of a mechanical universe?

Dennett gives his definition of determinism on page one of his book "The Elbow room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting": all physical events are caused or determined by the sum total of all previous events. This definition dodges a question that many people feel should not be dodged: if we repeatedly replayed the universe from the same point in time would it always reach the same future?

There is something like an infinite regress in the lines of determinsm and indeterminism tries to break that regress. Some pose that you have a choice up to an extent but in the bigger picture you will always follow a certain path. Indeterminism states that some events have no cause to begin with and therefore no set endpath. something is either caused or uncaused, with predictable or unpredictable actions and reactions that follow.

This stuff is enough to give people serious headaches.

I know of atheists that do not adhere to the notion of determinism, and some that do. I find the concept interesting but there is nothing really I can honestly say I think of the matter, both have valid points.

Leo-rcc- Hi I am glad that finally someone has some understanding on the issue of indeterminism and, what's more important for me, that there are also other atheists who consider it to be meaningful for atheism.

Some understanding is the correct term. There is a lot to digest. That it is meaningful for Atheism, I guess that depends on the atheist you ask. I feel that indeterminism does play a role in the grand scheme of things. I don't think the concept of indeterminism is something that is a prerequisite to a disbelief in gods.

RD is pretty ambiguous on this issue in his TGD.
In many places he writes that evolution of life is not subdued to chance, but when speaking of the "generic drift" he admits randomness.

I think not going in-depth into this topic specifically in TGD is a conscious choice by Richard since you can fill 3 volumes the size of TGD on the subject of indeteminism alone. I also think he would rather leave this debate to Dan Dennett.

In my opinion, if atheism is meant to be a persuasion act, opposing religious belief of common persons, and not only a philosophic debate between highly skilled people, than it should have a plausible explanation to major random events of daily life especially with respect to illness and death. Randomly illness and death are fore running horses of the carriage of every religious belief. This carriage is capable of sweeping away even secular thinking people when they are in distress and are thinking "Why me?". In such a case, religion comes forward with the consolable answer of "God's will" whereas an atheist can speak only of "luck "or "bad luck".

I think it is very human to not like luck, and as a poker player I hate it even more if its bad. Passing the the buck to a third person ("god's will") can console that person, but that in no way proves that it is true.

The immediate question raised by this is, how would we test luck or god's will?

In my opinion only admitting that random or other parallel notions such as chaos, chance, etc,, meaning finally indeterminism, are laws of Nature, is able to close a gap through which the religious belief in Fate is imposing itself in the mind of people.

I am not following, could you elaborate on this?

Jesus himself might have begun his career as a healer and swept away masses who will follow him in his new religion.

Well being a good orator is already good enough to make people follow you to the grave. I don't think indeterminism comes in to play there.

I have not the scientific skill in order to enter this controversial matter, of fight between determinism and indeterminism but I'll try some considerations which seem to me as being of common wisdom.

Let's see.

I think that an event taking place within the Space-Time coordinates could be considered as deterministic if it is a result of one previous event or of a definite number of previous events.

If such an event is a result of an indefinite number of previous events then it seems to me as being indeterministic.

Well deterministic proponents would argue that the causes are definite, we only have no knowledge to some of them. The picture might not be complete to us, but not automatically mean it is indeterministic.

Now let's consider the laws which are governing Nature .
Most of laws especially in the world of life are statistical ones.
Multiplication of the members within one species ,mutations ,evolution from one species to another, pools of genes, memes and alike are all but governed by statistical laws.
A statistical law may have a deterministic core but it's margins, the more farther you go the more it's data are indefinite.

Again that could be argued since our total picture might not be complete.

Even the example of the wasp as quoted by you as a typical deterministic behavior, I am quite sure, is not excepted from statistical law, meaning that if taken a certain amount of wasps a part of them will behave as expected while another part, may be a smaller one will behave otherwise .

But as to date, none ever displayed any other behaviour. This behaviour is hard wired into every digger wasp, and it would take quite some work to remove that again by means of some evolutionary advantage to forsake such behaviour.

Let's take the issue of "free will ".
Our most basic perception is that almost every movement or thought of ours is totally random, whether involuntarily or of free will. That perception is by no means inferior to our rational perception or consciousness of nature, which we as atheists are putting forward as the mean for understanding the objective laws of Nature.

I agree.

Therefore it is the duty of scientists, when studying free will, who oppose indeterminism to demonstrate the opposite way, on which they can only speculate but never demonstrate. Such a demonstration is not of the same category as evolution of science which we see in continuous progress. It is an absolute impossibility to trace back all events in regress of an indefinite time and of an indefinite multitude previous to free will.

This does not follow, determinism can just set its boundaries or goals very wide, allowing for individual choices along the way which seem as free will. It is a way of moving the goal posts I admit, but it is a common argument. The achievements of the goals are reactionary and only verifiable after the event.

I dare say that what is not by any means even theoretically demonstrable is in effect inexistent.

I would agree with that.

That means that determinism and indeterminism are practically two aspects of the same reality.

Let's analyze another aspect in the area of the exact sciences: the infinitisemal calculus.
This calculus is based on entities as small as one can imagine of indefinite value.
The individual infinitisemal value may be indefinite but it's relation to other infinitisemal values are definite.
These are the bases of differential and integral calculus which play an important role in mathematics, physics and other sciences.
In other words indefinite and finite values are two aspects of the same measures.

There is a link, you need one to have the other, otherwise the other has no meaning.

Is this also a proof of the duality of determinism /indeterminism? In my opinion –yes it is
If other members do not agree let’s debate ,it could be pretty interesting.

I would not call it proof, but it would be a start for a case that the duality might be proven.