Determinism Is Self Defeating

[Koolay]

I have always considered determinism to be completely irrational for the following reason:

If a determinist is trying to convince me to change my mind and accept determinism, then he or she is accepting that I have free will and can choose between accepting the two theories.

It's like someone talking to you, saying "you can't hear anything" - well if I can't hear then why are you talking to me? Doesn't that make you completely irrational?

It's as simple as that, to win a debate with a determinist you just need to let the determinist talk.

The only reason why I think determinists have this position is not because of logical effort, (A child can tell you that an animal is different from a rock.) But it's more than likely that determinismt believes this to avoid responsibility for their actions, and let's face it, that's very attractive to some people.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have always considered determinism to be completely irrational for the following reason:

If a determinist is trying to convince me to change my mind and accept determinism, then he or she is accepting that I have free will and can choose between accepting the two theories.

He or she could be wrong, doesn't affect determinism. Nor does your "changing your mind" in the vacuum that it was stated. In a deterministic universe, he or she has no "choice" but to argue for the positon...and you have no "choice" but to reject or accept the position.

It's like someone talking to you, saying "you can't hear anything" - well if I can't hear then why are you talking to me? Doesn't that make you completely irrational?

You can be irrational and right, or rational and wrong, you simply cant garauntee either or from that position.

It's as simple as that, to win a debate with a determinist you just need to let the determinist talk.

The only reason why I think determinists have this position is not because of logical effort, (A child can tell you that an animal is different from a rock.) But it's more than likely that determinismt believes this to avoid responsibility for their actions, and let's face it, that's very attractive to some people.

We still have "responsibility" for our actions in a deterministic universe. It;s worked well enough for us up to this point...it;s just that the specifics of our "responsibility" changes (or doesn't).

In short

Determinism stands as the only position -in evidence- no matter how shitty you or I think it is, and no matter what you think people might "get away with". Maybe we'd really like to excuse ourselves from the only position in evidence (and maybe we're right) - but we have no reason to do so..we cannot garauntee any conclusion based upon this excuse.

[bennyboy]

@Koolay

I'm not a big fan of determinism either, but I think your remedy for it is too simple-- because the intent or implied belief of the questioner is irrelevant to the issue of whether they could have done otherwise.

---

Determinism stands as the only position -in evidence- no matter how shitty you or I think it is, and no matter what you think people might "get away with".

I disagree. Not only is determinism unproven, it is unprovable. You must prove that given a particular state of the universe at time t, there is only one possible outcome for time t+1.

Show me the evidence that "things could not have gone differently than they have." You cannot. What you have is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical assumption made on the basis that it accords with what we are used to thinking about in science.

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree. Not only is determinism unproven, it is unprovable. You must prove that given a particular state of the universe at time t, there is only one possible outcome for time t+1.

And? In evidence =/= proven, or provable. We could be wrong about our deterministic universe...we simply have no reason to assume that we are, and every reason to assume that we aren't.

Show me the evidence that "things could not have gone differently than they have." You cannot.

Of course I can show you this evidence. Which way do things fall? Can I prove that they will always fall this way, or that "x" is how they fall this way, or that they -have- to fall this way? Nope, but that hardly matters, as I can very easily show you that they -do- fall this way.

Determinism is simple, present state x (and past state a that amounts to present state x) determines the future state y - this is how everything we can detect appears to behave. Do you have some evidence that the rest of us (as in humanity) does not? Please, share. If you're banking on the "unknown unknown", oh well, that is a position that is not in evidence.

In truth, we don't disagree in principle. I know that I cannot know that determinism holds across the board. That doesn't change the fact that determinism holds in any specific. An example of a deterministic process. Organic chemistry. Given t, t+1 has only one possible outcome, the process is incapable of yielding anything -but- t+1, we can predict t+1....and we have certainty (insomuch as it can be said to exist) that t+1 will occur, and only t+1 will occur. Gauntlet thrown and accepted. Now, if you please, show me some process that doesn't fall to determinism?

[pocaracas]

I have always considered determinism to be completely irrational for the following reason:

If a determinist is trying to convince me to change my mind and accept determinism, then he or she is accepting that I have free will and can choose between accepting the two theories.

It's like someone talking to you, saying "you can't hear anything" - well if I can't hear then why are you talking to me? Doesn't that make you completely irrational?

It's as simple as that, to win a debate with a determinist you just need to let the determinist talk.

The only reason why I think determinists have this position is not because of logical effort, (A child can tell you that an animal is different from a rock.) But it's more than likely that determinismt believes this to avoid responsibility for their actions, and let's face it, that's very attractive to some people.

My 2 cents.

The human brain works in a very complex way. Thus far, we can't recreate the complexity of the brain with computers, unless in some very basic and highly dumbed down way.

The brain works with inputs from the outside and all it's inner connections to produce a deterministic outcome. The thing is... there are millions and millions of neural pathways, neural connections, each dealing with some form of information in a way we can't yet decipher. And this neural connectivity is ever changing, either through outside input, or through its own workings (thinking).
In the end, it looks like there's free will, and no determinism... but down deep, it's very deterministic, but also very complex, if not chaotic. And it's this chaotic nature which gives it the impression of non-determinism.

Oh, and I seriously doubt that our brain work with standard binary computer logic.... I'd guess it has a number of "maybe" states for each decision and picks the one with the highest maybe level... it is, after all, a gray area...

[bennyboy]

And? In evidence =/= proven, or provable. We could be wrong about our deterministic universe...we simply have no reason to assume that we are, and every reason to assume that we aren't.

It's goofy to treat an unproven and unprovable philosophical position as a default, and treat other phiosophical positions as new assertions bearing the BOP.

To have ANY evidence for determinism, you have to show that for a given time, t, nothing in the universe could have transpired other than it actually has. Given the probabilistic nature of QM (for example), I don't see how anyone can take this position, even a science-minded person.

You want evidence of free will? Get up in the morning and decide what you're going to have for breakfast. This is free will. Now, you will have to argue that the human experience is illusory, a byproduct of material process and nothing more.

I've seen this argument made, but it begs the question, as it is ALWAYS assumed true before the arguments even begin. The argument represents a world view, rather than a deducible conclusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it had been treated as a default and left at that uncritically then it would be "goofy" sure, but it hasn't been. Determinism isn't something that we defaulted to, it's what we discovered. It isn't as though this stuff is incapable of being (and hasn't been) tested empirically. Long before we happened upon the notion of determinism, for example, we were going with the idea of "fate" which we commonly see wrapped up in peoples conception of what determinism is (and their arguments bucking against it). Fate, by the by, is a non-deterministic process...perhaps in a way that defies how we commonly think of the two terms.

Water seeks it's own level. given t (t being a time where the body of water is not level) t+1 has only one possible outcome. We can run this experiment over and over again (in the same way that we can run little experiments in organic chemistry -over and over again-). It was only a matter of time until someone raised the QM boogeyman. QM itself is deterministic (though the measurements we attempt are probabilistic), so I don't see the problem. Even here, the most recent bastion for people who wish to argue against determinism as it (somehow) applies to some other thing most likely not related, a still gets you to b, b to c, and so forth.

No, I don't require evidence of "free will". I'm comfortable that we both agree that "it" - whatever "it" is, exists. I'd like to see some evidence that free will isn't just another part of the chain of causality (and of course I;d like to see that because I;m not in the habit of writing special passes....it works for water, it works in the case of organic chemistry, but for some unstated reason it doesn't work for my wheaties?). So as above, saying "but I have free will" doesn't leave me with nothing to do but argue against the consequences of it;s negation (and why would I do that anyway?). I'll go out on a limb here and state that I'm positively certain that you and I have "free will" - and equally as certain that we appear to have really fucked the pooch about what that "free will" is.

[bennyboy]

To be fair....we did a little more than simply -assume- that cause and effect holds.

Cause and effect is not determinism, unless each set of causes can only lead to one possible outcome. Take this to the extreme, and it HAD to be that I would be sitting here, typing this text. In all the possible unfoldings of the universe, determinism has it that from the Big Bang, it was destiny that I would be doing this.

You have to be pretty confident to assert that out of all the infinite interactions between matter and energy, both known and as yet unknown, that it all arrives, out of pure necessity, at this moment in time.


I think sentience is a good indicator that this is not the case. The idea that sentience, the thing which most defines what it means to be alive, is a byproduct of a deterministic mechanism, seems unlikely. Why would a machine need to be actually aware for it to process sensory input and output a behavior? Why is there a subjective existence at all?

One approach to that question is to believe that mind, while supervenient on the brain and heavily mediated by it, has some quality that transcends pure mechanism. Another is to go with a pure idealism: that since it's hard to explain the existence of the mind in a physical monism, it makes more sense to explain the existence of physical consistencies in an idealistic universe.

Another approach is the idea of infinite multiverses which realize ALL the possible outcomes of a given state. That way, randomness isn't really randomness-- it's a discovery of which of those infinite multiverses you personally happen to have ended up in.

My point is that in the face of philosophical speculation, science will take an unconvincing and obviously incomplete answer, and will wave away challengers with the BOP-wand. But that's just a cheap tactic. Unless you can show that at any given time, t, the universe could not have proceeded otherwise, determinism must remain an assumption, rather than a scientifically testable hypothesis.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cause and effect is not determinism, unless each set of causes can only lead to one possible outcome. Take this to the extreme, and it HAD to be that I would be sitting here, typing this text. In all the possible unfoldings of the universe, determinism has it that from the Big Bang, it was destiny that I would be doing this.

Yeah, actually, cause and effect is -precisely- what determinism is........

Destiny would be non-deterministic, as was fate, as in the case of destiny some future state is set regardless of all the intermediate states.

In a deterministic system some other "unfolding" of the universe -may- have you doing the same thing...but we couldn't be sure of that, because all of those "unfoldings" are the past and present states that determine future states. It would be awesome convergence and "luck" if two different sets of circumstances yielded the exact same result. Not impossible, mind you, but I;d be very surprised if the universe unfolded differently and still "arrived here" to take a few words from below.

You have to be pretty confident to assert that out of all the infinite interactions between matter and energy, both known and as yet unknown, that it all arrives, out of pure necessity, at this moment in time.

Was there somewhere else to arrive?

I think sentience is a good indicator that this is not the case. The idea that sentience, the thing which most defines what it means to be alive, is a byproduct of a deterministic mechanism, seems unlikely. Why would a machine need to be actually aware for it to process sensory input and output a behavior? Why is there a subjective existence at all?

Self awareness seems to have given us an edge, hasn't it? As you say, however, sentience is clearly not necessary - plenty of things do well enough without it. I have to ask though...wheres the opposition to determinism in any of this? I'm not sure why this seems "unlikely" to you.

My point is that in the face of philosophical speculation, science will take an unconvincing and obviously incomplete answer, and will wave away challengers with the BOP-wand. But that's just a cheap tactic. Unless you can show that at any given time, t, the universe could not have proceeded otherwise, determinism must remain an assumption, rather than a scientifically testable hypothesis.

If that's your point, then I have some bad news. Establishing deterministic behavior does not require such complete knowledge or even an accurate prediction, we only need to show that a prediction -is possible-. What you're doing is wrapping non deterministic things like fate and destiny into the mix and essentially, arguing against those two things via ignorance by consequence.

Here I want to remind you again, that I keep offering empirically testable examples of deterministic behavior....and all I claimed was that determinism is difficult to escape because it was the position in evidence. Meanwhile, you're focusing on some intangible that you seem to think is unlikely....are we actually having a disagreement, or are we simply talking -to- each other about different things?

[bennyboy]

If that's your point, then I have some bad news. Establishing deterministic behavior does not require such complete knowledge or even an accurate prediction, we only need to show that a prediction -is possible-. What you're doing is wrapping non deterministic things like fate and destiny into the mix and essentially, arguing against those two things via ignorance by consequence.

I've said nothing about fate or destiny. In fact, just the opposite-- I'm saying that it's possible that one set of circumstances in the universe might have more than one possible outcome-- in other words, that the reason some things aren't predictable isn't only that we lack computational power-- but that there is some random or unknowable element involved that makes the future NOT set in cause/effect determinism.

I'd also point out that the only system complex enough to predict the outcome of the entire universe is the universe itself. Try even to predict stock market outcomes a few months from now, and you'll find out how unpredictable things are. Or lottery tickets. Or whatever.

So how do you KNOW all those things are deterministc? You can't predict them. You cannot access another time stream in which they are confirmed to be the same still (or maybe shown to be different). What can you actually do to prove that the lottery numbers on a day couldn't have been other than they turned out to be?

Let's say you are working with QM. You say it's deterministic, but unknowable. I happen to know that there's a high-level physicist on this site, and I believe he will disagree with that (i.e. I remember him having said something in the past that I think disagreed with that). But I still want to know how you think you could establish that for a given state of the universe at a given t, and its resultant state r, that r is a set with only one member. What experiment would you do to establish this? What observation would you make to confirm it?

The answer is none, and none. It cannot be confirmed, because we don't have that much control over this universe, let alone hypothetical ones (or multiple real ones if they do exist).