Determinism, Free Will and Paradox

[bennyboy]

We've talked much about determinism in the context of free will. If all the universe is a product of mechanical certainty, then there is no free will, at least as we'd normally think about it. But it seems to me we've taken a good philosophical idea and trivialized it as a kind of parlor trick to pull out of a hat for online discussions, ignoring that under the hat sits a universe-sized dragon to think about.

If we accept that everything that exists is connected, at least by Gravity, and perhaps by being entangled in a Big Bang event as well, then what does this mean? It means that all events, past, present and future, inevitably lead to my existence, and yours, and etc., like a multidemensional tapestry woven of a single thread. If you were to pull at that thread at any point in that tapestry, the entire picture would be transformed, perhaps subtly, or perhaps not so subtly. But perhaps we can't do that, can we, because we ourselves would then flicker out of existence. So free will, it seems, must be false. Right?

It also means that time doesn't matter to causality. Not only does every past event in the universe arrive at my existence, so is every single future event an absolute necessity: every death, every birth, every thought we all have-- they are all mutually co-dependent. Every neuron fired, every sperm that was #2 in the race to fertilize an egg, every movement of every particle in the universe, is co-dependent on every event that ever happened or will happen.

It seems to me that determinism implies yin-yang, the paradoxical separation of an individual life into the polar opposities of infinite power and infinitesimal importance: power, because each act I commit affects everything in the universe; and unimportance because those very actions are strictly determined by the position, momentum, spin, etc. of every particle in the universe. Therefore, determinism, if true, makes each of us the Alpha and the Omega-- both the beginning of all causality and its end. Paradoxically, however, it is exactly determinism which best allows for a real free will. I can choose to eat a Mars Bar, or to rape an entire nation, or to type in an internet forum, or to sit next to a river for 20 years, and in the end it all "works out," because the paradox of determinism means that everything I do is exactly what I am meant to do in order to keep the Universe chugging along toward the Big Crunch (or whatever).

The mistake in discarding free-will is this: that it favors only one expression of the paradox of existence. It favors the absolute effect OF the universe ON one's behavior, but ignores the equally absolute effect ON the universe OF one's behavior. If determinism is true, then free will must ALSO be true. That they are mutually exclusive means little-- only that we are not capable of accepting the paradoxical nature of reality.

[Alex K]

Concerning your third paragraph: yes, from a maths point of view I'd say the whole history of the universe would be equivalent to the initial conditions plus the fundamental laws of physics. Deep philosophical question: does time even exist in this case?

In any case, there currently aren't good reasons to think the universe is deterministic, so this discussion is interesting mainly as a thought experiment.

[bennyboy]

Concerning your third paragraph: yes, from a maths point of view I'd say the whole history of the universe would be equivalent to the initial conditions plus the fundamental laws of physics. Deep philosophical question: does time even exist in this case?

Saying that subsequent conditions are a product of initial conditions and the laws of physics seems to imply that time does exist. But I think the directionality is less clear-- given that all states, from beginning to end, are set in stone, then why wouldn't we argue that the initial conditions are a product OF subsequent events?

In any case, there currently aren't good reasons to think the universe is deterministic, so this discussion is interesting mainly as a thought experiment.

I've often agreed with you on this. However, how would one collect evidence on either side of this question?

[Aoi Magi]

Is this progression truly linear?
The laws are just explanations for everything around us that we know of so far, and thus are subject to change as we know more and more, so in a way we define these laws not the other way around. From our limited knowledge of quantum physics we have already seen that our observation and actions do effect the universe, so can we really claim that what we have is what it was meant to be? can we be certain that probabilities are only an illusion? Maybe all of us are the origins of our own universes having free will within the scope of that universe (translation: free-will is subjective, my opinion)!

[helyott]

If our life is a true mechanical result why do we produce 50 million spermatozoon ?

Our live isn't a endpoint.

It's an hazard.

There is no destiny.

There is no goal.

Only mechanical chaos.

[The Grand Nudger]

We've talked much about determinism in the context of free will. If all the universe is a product of mechanical certainty, then there is no free will, at least as we'd normally think about it.

No mind-as-unmoved mover, but I never thought about free will like that anyway. That's all that hard determinism takes off the table. Is that really such a problem? In and of itself, I mean, not a problem because it removes, in your mind...some other favored concept. An actual problem?
(you know my biggest gripe is that these threads always end up boiling down to "but if theres no free will then what about this other thing!" :Shrugs: What about it? Is it patently impossible to argue free will on it's own merits?)

But it seems to me we've taken a good philosophical idea and trivialized it as a kind of parlor trick to pull out of a hat for online discussions, ignoring that under the hat sits a universe-sized dragon to think about.

Are you claiming that there's a dragon in your garage, Mr Sagan? Show me.

If we accept that everything that exists is connected, at least by Gravity, and perhaps by being entangled in a Big Bang event as well, then what does this mean? It means that all events, past, present and future, inevitably lead to my existence, and yours, and etc., like a multidemensional tapestry woven of a single thread.

I don't think we can make quite that big a leap just by removing/modifying "free will". Neither the present nor the future lead (in either tense) to you, inevitably or otherwise, unless we reject the notion and experience of asymmetry regarding time. Lets challenge one thing at a time, eh?

If you were to pull at that thread at any point in that tapestry, the entire picture would be transformed, perhaps subtly, or perhaps not so subtly. But perhaps we can't do that, can we, because we ourselves would then flicker out of existence.

If I removed your mother then I'd expect you to flicker, if I removed you then I would expect you to flicker (and in both cases I would expect to find no "future you"). If I removed your future self I wouldn't expect your present or past self to flicker, no. I wouldn't expect that, because we end people all the time and it doesn't seem to have that effect. So, no...I don't think that removing -just any- strand changes the -whole- picture. Some "threads in the tapestry", sure, but not all.

So free will, it seems, must be false. Right?

On the basis of the above....I'd say no, not at all. I think you've gone off on a tangent about time and whether or not it expresses itself asymmetrically. If it expresses itself symmetrically, then perhaps I could remove you in the future and this would somehow alter the past - but things don't seem to work that way, in our experience -regardless of whether or not we have "free will". Or maybe I'm misreading?

[bennyboy]

If I removed your mother then I'd expect you to flicker, if I removed you then I would expect you to flicker (and in both cases I would expect to find no "future you"). If I removed your future self I wouldn't expect your present or past self to flicker, no. I wouldn't expect that, because we end people all the time and it doesn't seem to have that effect. So, no...I don't think that removing -just any- strand changes the -whole- picture. Some "threads in the tapestry", sure, but not all.

Yeah, but gravity.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're going to have to develop that thought a little further than that.

[Alex K]

Concerning your third paragraph: yes, from a maths point of view I'd say the whole history of the universe would be equivalent to the initial conditions plus the fundamental laws of physics. Deep philosophical question: does time even exist in this case?

Saying that subsequent conditions are a product of initial conditions and the laws of physics seems to imply that time does exist. But I think the directionality is less clear-- given that all states, from beginning to end, are set in stone, then why wouldn't we argue that the initial conditions are a product OF subsequent events?

Ohh, my favourite topic, about which I can go on for days. No, directionality in this case is not clear at all! The laws of classical (non quantum) physics are identical under time reversal. If you look at a simulation of several mass points attracting each other, there is no way to tell whether you are watching it forward or backwards, save for one thing: if you're watching it forward, one tends to, statistically, observe less likely configurations to go towards more likely ones. If one has many many particles, this becomes the second law of thermodynamics. If, on the other extreme, you have just two particles, there is no notion of direction of time in principle.

In ypur deterministic pet universe, one could identify regions in time evolution where one can use entropy to assign a direction, and this would coincide with our subjective notion of an arrow of time. Towards heat death, this becomes less and less pronounced.

In any case, there currently aren't good reasons to think the universe is deterministic, so this discussion is interesting mainly as a thought experiment.

I've often agreed with you on this. However, how would one collect evidence on either side of this question?

Quantum measurements look perfectly random, and if there are hidden variables which guide this observed randomness in a deterministic way, we do not have evidence for them. This to me is evidence against determinism - we can discuss how strong. If there is a many worlds multiverse, it is deterministic as a whole, but the subjective path through it for any observer is truly random if the observer we follow is chosen randomly.

[The Grand Nudger]

-except that QM is probabalistic, not "random". Isn't actually all that relevant to the discussion, since we're talking about creatures of a particular size at a particular level of interaction that is decidely -not- best modeled by reference to QM. Whatevers happening "down there" the picture is different "up here".

The minute someone says "but QM" I check out, bullshittery will follow. No offense, truly.