Determinism Is Self Defeating

[pocaracas]

Today, on SMBC!
Sometimes, I get the feeling the guy that draws these, is a member of this forum...

[bennyboy]

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.

Careful with saying what I am or am not clear on. Them be 1 vs 1 debating words. One two three four-- I declare a link war! But to save us both the tedium and time of actually following through, here:

Fate is the idea that all roads lead to Rome, basically. So no matter what decisions I (freely) make, I cannot avoid arriving at a certain state.

Determinism is a belief in a single causal chain. So despite my apparent freedom of choice, actually all my behaviors are simply a response by my brain to various stimuli (including its own memory, as well as new sensations). I'd call this "hard fatalism," because it means that everything that has ever happened, or ever will, is set in stone, rather than just certain crucial moments.

As for "existence," I think you're wrong on that point. Nothing can really be created: there is just a stream from state to state. All the physical circumstances and "participants" have always existed, or determinism is necessarily false.

---

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.

It shows that determinism isn't falsifiable. Any apparent disproval, evident in a failure to predict, can ALWAYS be met with a claim of lack of sufficient information. But this introduces both question begging and a paradox-- because if the unpredicted event is non-deterministic, then your appeal to hypothetical accurate information is an appeal to the non-existent.

Given the statement: "It's not possible (ever) to collect the kind of information you're talking about," there's also a potential argument from ignorance: "Since we can't collect accurate state data, you cannot show that this system is not deterministic." Then we get to play the BOP hot-potato game.

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.

Yes, IF I knew the state of a system, and all the laws govern its progression through time were deterministic, I would be able to predict perfectly (assuming I had access to a perfect analog calculator). But this implies that states are fully knowable, that the way in which they unfold is deterministic, and that such a calculator could exist, even in theory. For all these to be assumed true, even hypothetically, we've also already ASSUMED determinism, rather than showing it.

[little_monkey]

Determinism is a belief in a single causal chain.

A single causal chain??? What determined what you did upon waking up this morning - showered, peed, ate breakfast, or fondled the little lady, -- depended on a gazillion number of factors before you made that single choice.

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.

It shows that determinism isn't falsifiable.

Magic would falsify determinism, I said that before. But we don't observe magic. But we do observe that the universe can be understood with scientific laws.

Any apparent disproval, evident in a failure to predict, can ALWAYS be met with a claim of lack of sufficient information.

Unless that is false, you can't use that to defeat the argument. It is a fact that we rarely know everyhing about a system.

But this introduces both question begging and a paradox-- because if the is non-deterministic, then your appeal to hypothetical accurate information is an appeal to the non-existent.

Regardless of the lack of knowledge, if something were magical, that would reveal itself quite easily, and determinism would then be defeated.

Given the statement: "It's not possible (ever) to collect the kind of information you're talking about," there's also a potential argument from ignorance: "Since we can't collect accurate state data, you cannot show that this system is not deterministic." Then we get to play the BOP hot-potato game.

But no one is saying that you must prove determinism, no more than one is required tp prove the existence of quarks. But assuming their existence, QCD unfolds. Similarly assuming determinism, then science unfolds.

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.

I knew the state of a system, and all the laws govern its progression through time were deterministic, I would be able to predict perfectly (assuming I had access to a perfect analog calculator).

That is the basis of science. Deny that, you deny science. OOPS, I've said that before, but it's worth a repeat.

But this implies that states are fully knowable, that the way in which they unfold is deterministic, and that such a calculator could exist, even in theory. For all these to be assumed true, even hypothetically, we've also already ASSUMED determinism, rather than showing it.

Bingo.

[bennyboy]

A single causal chain??? What determined what you did upon waking up this morning - showered, peed, ate breakfast, or fondled the little lady, -- depended on a gazillion number of factors before you made that single choice.

Yes, but a single state for any given time, t, stretching back forever (or at least until the creation of the Universe).

Magic would falsify determinism, I said that before. But we don't observe magic. But we do observe that the universe can be understood with scientific laws.

Magic, if provably magic and not a new technology or product of an as-yet discovered law, would falsify determinism. So let's say I produce a rabbit out of a hat. Are you going to run out the door screaming "Science is proven false. Determinism is wrong!" or are you just going to say "Hmmmm. . . we do not yet understand all the causal factors leading to this event. (Because of lack of information)

I can't imagine ANY observable event in which this wouldn't be the approach.

Any apparent disproval, evident in a failure to predict, can ALWAYS be met with a claim of lack of sufficient information.

Unless that is false, you can't use that to defeat the argument. It is a fact that we rarely know everyhing about a system.

Exactly. You are at peace with that, as a scientist. I'm not at peace with that, as someone looking at it from an absolute philosophical perspective.

But this introduces both question begging and a paradox-- because if the is non-deterministic, then your appeal to hypothetical accurate information is an appeal to the non-existent.

Regardless of the lack of knowledge, if something were magical, that would reveal itself quite easily, and determinism would then be defeated.

Mind.

Can't see it. Can't touch or feel it. Can't manipulate on it in any way. Still claimed as part of physical determinism.

Given the statement: "It's not possible (ever) to collect the kind of information you're talking about," there's also a potential argument from ignorance: "Since we can't collect accurate state data, you cannot show that this system is not deterministic." Then we get to play the BOP hot-potato game.

But no one is saying that you must prove determinism, no more than one is required tp prove the existence of quarks. But assuming their existence, QCD unfolds. Similarly assuming determinism, then science unfolds.

This, I accept. The point of science (at least to me) seems to be taking systems which aren't currently predictable, and learning how to predict them. In a sense, I'd accept this as a kind of statistical determinism. Don't think that I don't love science, and most especially the amazing things people have learned doing it.

However, all the specifics of the system are unknowable: for example, the spin on very particle. And in some cases, the causal chain confounds us in making useful and important predictions (for example about weather), and there's good reason to believe that will never change due to the butterfly effect (I prefer to call it "precision creep" or something).

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.

I knew the state of a system, and all the laws govern its progression through time were deterministic, I would be able to predict perfectly (assuming I had access to a perfect analog calculator).

That is the basis of science. Deny that, you deny science. OOPS, I've said that before, but it's worth a repeat.

But this implies that states are fully knowable, that the way in which they unfold is deterministic, and that such a calculator could exist, even in theory. For all these to be assumed true, even hypothetically, we've also already ASSUMED determinism, rather than showing it.

Bingo.

Okay. If you want to say, "Assuming determinism is what allows us to provide real-life results, and generates an understanding of the unvierse that no other philosophical position would allow," then I'm 100% behind you, and science, and the use of that assumption.

However, sometimes we forget that assumptions are assumptions, and because we're so used to them, we start treating them as brute facts. This leads to things like, "We know the universe is deterministic, so the mind must be only an expression of deterministic processes. Therefore, free will is at best an illusion." Since this is at odds with my own observations and experiences, I cannot allow that line to go unchecked without challenge: it must be proven, not believed on principle.

Let me say this-- if science can really show WHY mind exists in a supposedly objective universe, and can really show a good basis for how some physical processes arrive at actual sensation, then my view on determinism could potentially change, since the existence of mind is my main obstacle to determinism. So far, some evidence has been provided-- but it is still very crude, and because of the way the brain processes, I'm really not sure that it's possible to go much farther. It's an exciting age, this is, because we can at least give it a pretty good try.

[Walking Void]

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like stroking a long white/grey beard from contemplating this thread regardless if they have one or not?

Sorry for the potential record-scratching innuendo. Actually, I am not sorry. That is just a perverted mind in action.

[pocaracas]

Mind.

Can't see it. Can't touch or feel it. Can't manipulate on it in any way. Still claimed as part of physical determinism.

AI
Can't see it.Can't touch or feel it. Can't manipulate on it in any way(this is debatable for both AI and mind). Still claimed as part oh physical determinism.

http://youtu.be/0NchKHaZ4W8

[The Grand Nudger]

Fate is the idea that all roads lead to Rome, basically. So no matter what decisions I (freely) make, I cannot avoid arriving at a certain state.

No matter what you do or don't do, even if you are a rock, regardless of whether or not you have the "ability" to make decisions. That's why fate is non-deterministic. Rather than stating that for any specific set of circumstances t, t+1 is the only outcome..fate states that regardless of the specific circumstances of t, some event x will happen.

Determinism is a belief in a single causal chain. So despite my apparent freedom of choice, actually all my behaviors are simply a response by my brain to various stimuli (including its own memory, as well as new sensations). I'd call this "hard fatalism,"

Then you'd be wrong, unless we were looking to create a new set of definitions for the sake of discussion. At which point I'd call you a newt. Fatalism is the position that regardless of whether or not you have free will (in the model of fatalism you -could- be "freely making choices") it's all for naught - you're merely stuck flowing towards an inevitable outcome. It has nothing to do with whatever you think your brain does or choices are.

because it means that everything that has ever happened, or ever will, is set in stone, rather than just certain crucial moments.

That's not fatalism -or- determinism.......-as stated. It is not determinism because determinism cannot ignore (and is defined by) -all- the "crucial moments". It is not fatalism as fatalism is not the position that something is set in stone - but that you are incapable of affecting whatever will occur. Depending on what you might point to as the origin of this setting in stone what you are discussing now is probably predetermination /predistination.

As for "existence," I think you're wrong on that point. Nothing can really be created: there is just a stream from state to state. All the physical circumstances and "participants" have always existed, or determinism is necessarily false.

Lets run that through the meat grinder then.

-You and I must have always existed...or determinism is necessarily false-

I don't know bud.....doesn't seem like were on to anything with this one.

[bennyboy]

No matter what you do or don't do, even if you are a rock, regardless of whether or not you have the "ability" to make decisions. That's why fate is non-deterministic. Rather than stating that for any specific set of circumstances t, t+1 is the only outcome..fate states that regardless of the specific circumstances of t, some event x will happen.

[. . .]Fatalism is the position that regardless of whether or not you have free will (in the model of fatalism you -could- be "freely making choices") it's all for naught - you're merely stuck flowing towards an inevitable outcome. It has nothing to do with whatever you think your brain does or choices are.

It has everything to do with free will. Because unless you are introducing ANOTHER mechanism for non-determinism, we are in fact talking about free will vs. determinism. If you think there is another mechanism, please feel free to introduce it.

because it means that everything that has ever happened, or ever will, is set in stone, rather than just certain crucial moments.

That's not fatalism -or- determinism.......-as stated. It is not determinism because determinism cannot ignore (and is defined by) -all- the "crucial moments". It is not fatalism as fatalism is not the position that something is set in stone - but that you are incapable of affecting whatever will occur. Depending on what you might point to as the origin of this setting in stone what you are discussing now is probably predetermination /predistination.

It's most definitely determinism. If determinism is true, then everything that will happen after now is already determined, i.e. set in stone. Fatalism is like the steerable cars at a Disneyland ride I remember. You can turn the steering wheel to go back and forth a little, but the car is still getting pulled around on a track. I suppose you could look at it as points on a graphed curve. The points represent the "intersections of fate" or whatever. If ONLY one curve can intersect all those points, then you have determinism: in which case, those points of fate are really just arbitrary selections of determined moments which you view as important.

As for "existence," I think you're wrong on that point. Nothing can really be created: there is just a stream from state to state. All the physical circumstances and "participants" have always existed, or determinism is necessarily false.

Lets run that through the meat grinder then.

-You and I must have always existed...or determinism is necessarily false-

I don't know bud.....doesn't seem like were on to anything with this one.

Physics isn't about you. You are a conceptual label for an uncountable number of particles vibrating in space according to the rules of the universe. Unless you are asserting that the assembly of particles into a human being adds something new to the universe that wasn't there before, then attaching a label onto a particular collection of particles doesn't really say anything about determinism. So no, just because some particles have taken on the name "bennyboy" doesn't (in the physical monist/determinist) model, mean anything new has been created; it was inevitable that the particles called "bennyboy" would be so assembled, and so called.

[The Grand Nudger]

It has everything to do with free will. Because unless you are introducing ANOTHER mechanism for non-determinism, we are in fact talking about free will vs. determinism. If you think there is another mechanism, please feel free to introduce it.

I'm not introducing any mechanisms, I'm simply elucidating the subtleties between these sometimes contradictory positions which you've lumped together under the label "determinism".

It's most definitely determinism. If determinism is true, then everything that will happen after now is already determined, i.e. set in stone.

Sigh, no...that would be predetermination.

Fatalism is like the steerable cars at a Disneyland ride I remember. You can turn the steering wheel to go back and forth a little, but the car is still getting pulled around on a track.

That's a pretty good analogy for fatalism, yeah.

Physics isn't about you. You are a conceptual label for an uncountable number of particles vibrating in space according to the rules of the universe. Unless you are asserting that the assembly of particles into a human being adds something new to the universe that wasn't there before, then attaching a label onto a particular collection of particles doesn't really say anything about determinism. So no, just because some particles have taken on the name "bennyboy" doesn't (in the physical monist/determinist) model, mean anything new has been created; it was inevitable that the particles called "bennyboy" would be so assembled, and so called.

Inevitability =/= actuality. It has nothing to do with whether or not physics revolves around me, the way you arranged that statement was dismal. You're still trying to saddle determinism with extraneous baggage, and I'm calling heinous bullshit on that.

[bennyboy]

Sigh, no...that would be predetermination.

I see them as identical. "Pre" just means "before now." But with a 1:1 causal relationship for EVERY t and t+1, then all things are both determined and predetermined. Except maybe the Big Bang itself, for which it's very hard to argue determinism since it supposedly has no cause.

The only actual difference I can see is that the word "predetermined" implies mind with foresight and intent (i.e. God), whereas "determined" does not.

Inevitability =/= actuality. It has nothing to do with whether or not physics revolves around me, the way you arranged that statement was dismal. You're still trying to saddle determinism with extraneous baggage, and I'm calling heinous bullshit on that.

This is really an argument about whether future time is "real," i.e. whether it's an actual dimension along which events are arrayed. If you see time as a dimension, then inevitability = actuality (but just currently inaccesible to us).

As for physics not being about you, I mean it's not about any of the collections of matter that we label. This is a non-trivial point, because of the brain. As soon as you try to see systems in the universe as unique to each other, you end up with the problem of organizing matter into systems "creating" things out of nothing-- like mind. If you see the universe as a single system consisting only of particles, then that problem doesn't come up.