An Argument Against Determinism

[Ivan Denisovich]

No.


Then you're stone-cold fuck-up. Stone-could fuck-up who might think that it is his choices that lead him to such stance or who might think that universe determined it for him. It's irrelevant because it was determined either way.


It could. Determinism only means that whatever you think or act isn't done by your choice (even if you think differently). It is determined that you held opinion x (or opinion y) but it's also determined that tomorrow you will hold opinion y (or continue holding opinion x). At least such is my take on it.


I don't think that free will is anything but excuse of religious types for their deity non-intervention so I suppose I'm closer to determinism spectra of things. I don't subscribe to it all the way though. In my view people have agency but are influenced by myriad of factors like cultural capital, upbringing or even money or lack of them.

Those questions were objections to the OP.

My mistake then.

[The Grand Nudger]

It could. Determinism only means that whatever you think or act isn't done by your choice (even if you think differently). It is determined that you held opinion x (or opinion y) but it's also determined that tomorrow you will hold opinion y (or continue holding opinion x). At least such is my take on it.

b-mine

That would take a truly narrow set of possible levers and outcomes I think, at least in a deterministic understanding of events.  Let's dispense with the idea of changing our minds - maybe neither of us believes we're in the drivers seat there and that's what we're trying to express.  The idea that our opinion tomorrow is set today suggests that there are no determinative externalities to the state of those opinions, either.  Not only that we can't change it but that it can't be changed.  At least not in the time between now and tomorrow.  

Determinism seems to suggest otherwise, though, doesn't it?  By tomorrow, there will (possibly) be 24 more hours of now future prior events which might affect the then-present outcome or opinion.  If this is not true, or cannot be true (because said outcome or opinion is set today) then either determinism is false, or there just aren't many -or any- deterministic factors between now and then which can explain why one or some things happen while others don't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Serious question -- how might quantum probabilities affect deterministic outcomes?

[Ivan Denisovich]

It could. Determinism only means that whatever you think or act isn't done by your choice (even if you think differently). It is determined that you held opinion x (or opinion y) but it's also determined that tomorrow you will hold opinion y (or continue holding opinion x). At least such is my take on it.

b-mine

That would take a truly narrow set of possible levers and outcomes I think, at least in a deterministic understanding of events.  Let's dispense with the idea of changing our minds - maybe neither of us believes we're in the drivers seat there and that's what we're trying to express.  The idea that our opinion tomorrow is set today suggests that there are no determinative externalities to the state of those opinions, either.  Not only that we can't change it but that it can't be changed.  At least not in the time between now and tomorrow.  

Determinism seems to suggest otherwise, though, doesn't it?  By tomorrow, there will (possibly) be 24 more hours of now future prior events which might affect the then-present outcome or opinion.  If this is not true, or cannot be true (because said outcome or opinion is set today) then either determinism is false, or there just aren't many -or any- deterministic factors between now and then which can explain why one or some things happen while others don't.

I merely meant to say that changing one opinion does not invalidate determinism. All things are predetermined included changes (or lack of them) of one opinions and timespan of it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Determinism seems to suggest otherwise, though, doesn't it?  By tomorrow, there will (possibly) be 24 more hours of now future prior events which might affect the then-present outcome or opinion.  If this is not true, or cannot be true (because said outcome or opinion is set today) then either determinism is false, or there just aren't many -or any- deterministic factors between now and then which can explain why one or some things happen while others don't.

I think we're hopelessly subjective on the issue, and can't propound an answer that is not colored by our desire to think we are large and in charge. Even if that answer is determined by everything that has passed before us, how could we know the difference?

If determinism is true, how might our opinions expressed here even be free at all? I'm not arguing determinism must be true -- but I wonder how we might know the difference.

In essence, determinism is unfalsifiable.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Determinism seems to suggest otherwise, though, doesn't it?  By tomorrow, there will (possibly) be 24 more hours of now future prior events which might affect the then-present outcome or opinion.  If this is not true, or cannot be true (because said outcome or opinion is set today) then either determinism is false, or there just aren't many -or any- deterministic factors between now and then which can explain why one or some things happen while others don't.

I think we're hopelessly subjective on the issue, and can't propound an answer that is not colored by our desire to think we are large and in charge. Even if that answer is determined by everything that has passed before us, how could we know the difference?

If determinism is true, how might our opinions expressed here even be free at all? I'm not arguing determinism must be true -- but I wonder how we might know the difference.

In essence, determinism is unfalsifiable.

Exactly. It pleases me to think that I decide what to have for breakfast, but there’s no way to know if my sitting down to eggs and bacon is an inevitable consequence of the Big Bang.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I merely meant to say that changing one opinion does not invalidate determinism. All things are predetermined included changes (or lack of them) of one opinions and timespan of it.

Right, because our decisions (however arrived upon) are also counted in the set of prior events, but not because all things (or anything) is predeterminied.  Determinism and predeterminism are wildly divergent notions about the cause of events. Under determinism it's entirely possible that that necessarry and sufficient conditions for x are not met until the very moment it happens. Predeterminism doesn't allow for this, and generally invokes an external and divine cause. An architect of fate. Freely willing what we cannot.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we're hopelessly subjective on the issue, and can't propound an answer that is not colored by our desire to think we are large and in charge. Even if that answer is determined by everything that has passed before us, how could we know the difference?

If determinism is true, how might our opinions expressed here even be free at all? I'm not arguing determinism must be true -- but I wonder how we might know the difference.

In essence, determinism is unfalsifiable.

Depends on how confident we want to be in that knowledge.  Determinism may be unfalsifiable in principle.  We could do experiments to test the conjecture...but, on the one hand, determinism may be a fundamental assumption of those experiments and, on the other.... there's pretty much no outcome or experiment that a person couldn't question by appealing to hidden and non-deterministic variables.  

QM, since you asked earlier, modifies determinism with the inclusion of randomness and probability to natural law.

[Thumpalumpacus]

QM, since you asked earlier, modifies determinism with the inclusion of randomness and probability to natural law.

And can something be both random and predetermined?

[Ivan Denisovich]

I merely meant to say that changing one opinion does not invalidate determinism. All things are predetermined included changes (or lack of them) of one opinions and timespan of it.

Right, because our decisions (however arrived upon) are also counted in the set of prior events, but not because all things (or anything) is predeterminied.  Determinism and predeterminism are wildly divergent notions about the cause of events.  Under determinism it's entirely possible that that necessarry and sufficient conditions for x are not met until the very moment it happens.  Predeterminism doesn't allow for this, and generally invokes an external and divine cause.  An architect of fate.  Freely willing what we cannot.

Predetermined was only stylistic choice not venue for new argument. All I want to say that if determinism is true then everything is determined - even dude changing all of his opinions daily, seemingly for no reason.