Debate determinism

[persianfan247]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

So what do people think of determinism, I myself believe that everything that happens is the result of everything that comes before it and you wont find a different reaction when you combine the same group of different chemicals on numerous occasions without adding something different.

Every choice we make was inevitable because of how our brain works, people may make different decisions in the same situation but this is because of different experiences, different moods, brain going through a different process at the time with different chemicals, but all these things determined by the past and how chemicals and all things interact, the meteor that comes crashing down was determined to come crashing down because of what came before it, from it coming into range of what ever gravital force, to how ever the meteor was created.

Does anyone disagree? Does anyone think that when it comes to any situation would would we really have made the other choice? Would it have been posible for the family that was murded, not to have been murded?

I really have no idea whether anyone would really disagree, but Im just trying to find out and learn.

[Del Valle]

What is fascinating to me is how scientific knowledge and terms are being applied to such age old philosophical questions, such as the ancient free will vs. fate debate above.

[Bovril]

To stick for a moment with scientific analysis (which hardly has preeminance in this question), randomness is a property of quantum mechanics which means really strict determinism is not in line with mainstream scientific thinking. That's an obtuse point though.

A more important point to make is that the free will vs. determinism debate has been largely transcended by modern philosophy. Linguistic philosophy largely ignores it as irrelevant and 'behavioural philosophy' (to coin a term) seems to adress the question of which processes are internal to an individual rather than which processes could be predicted given a knowledge of prior states of affairs and the algorythms governing their intreractions and transitions.

[Playfishpaste]

What is fascinating to me is how scientific knowledge and terms are being applied to such age old philosophical questions, such as the ancient free will vs. fate debate above.

Precisely. Science has demonstrated this philosophy to actually be wrong, for now.

There is no set future, it is determined by a randomized set of variables, all interacting with the various chaotic systems in the universe. Fluid Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Meteorological activity etc.

However, what you do is indeed determined by the chemicals inside of you. I still consider this free will because I consider the chemicals inside of me myself. Hence, I make my own choices.

Anyway, there is virtually no physical system in which all the components will consistently behave in the same way in an infinite amount of trials, this is the nature of chaos.

[Bovril]

Precisely. Science has demonstrated this philosophy to actually be wrong, for now.

For pople who take this view I prescribe a heavy dose of the later Wittgenstein. Philosohpy can only be proven wrong by science when it steps onto science's realm of thought, method and language. And in any case, when it does such a thing its not really philosophy anymore anyway.

[pericles_plato]

Philosophy will not go away. As long as thinking exists philosophy exists.
Though i beleieve everything happens for a reason, so I really don't care about this. I just know God did this because and God allowed this becauses.

[Avendiel]

Precisely. Science has demonstrated this philosophy to actually be wrong, for now.

There is no set future, it is determined by a randomized set of variables, all interacting with the various chaotic systems in the universe. Fluid Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Meteorological activity etc.

Really?

What kind of experiment do you think could be run that would distinguish between determinism and nondeterminism, when we're talking about the outcomes of unique events?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Most of determinism is a load of crap. Sure, some or even most things that happen in the past affect future events, but this totally ignores the reality of man's will (or free will, if you wish to call it that for clarification purposes) and his ability to rationally make decisions without being shackled by chemical reactions in the body or past experiences. This makes man into no more than a cause-and-effect machine, which he clearly is not.

[Playfishpaste]

For pople who take this view I prescribe a heavy dose of the later Wittgenstein. Philosohpy can only be proven wrong by science when it steps onto science's realm of thought, method and language. And in any case, when it does such a thing its not really philosophy anymore anyway.

This is true, just as much as dialetheism is just as credible a school of logic as platonic thought.

However, if we're looking at what people trust the most, science would be the judge in determining philosophy's practicality.

Avendiel, no experiment really needs to be done since the mathematics have already demonstrated this to be the case. However, an easy one would simply be to chart the development of weather systems and plot the equations for divergence, roll, etc in the atmosphere.

You'll get the infamous butterfly effect when you graph them. A chaotic attractor. This demonstrates that this system will indefinitely randomly change, hence why meteorological events are completely unpredictable in the long term. Hence, there is no set fate for someone that was hit by lightning. If they were hit, the event was random and happened at that specific time only by virtue of randomness. That person's future was not set in stone, but at the same time, he had no control over it.

[Avendiel]

That's all great, but it completely misses the point.
'
Telling me what "the mathematics have already demonstrated" is irrelevant unless you assume that those models actually bear some relevance to the real world. To show that they do, you need experimental evidence.

So show me the experiment that distinguishes between determinism and nondeterminism when we're talking about the outcomes of unique events, not event-types.

[Playfishpaste]

That's all great, but it completely misses the point.
'
Telling me what "the mathematics have already demonstrated" is irrelevant unless you assume that those models actually bear some relevance to the real world. To show that they do, you need experimental evidence.

Um, no you don't. At all. That's completely weird of you to request. It would be like me not accepting the existence of black holes or quantum relativistic field theory because no one's measured or tested them.

So show me the experiment that distinguishes between determinism and nondeterminism when we're talking about the outcomes of unique events, not event-types.

I just gave you a unique event, a meteorological survey taken on a specific day.

If you'd like, go out and do it yourself. Take a barometer and measure the air pressure outside and notate the cloud formations, then notate the altitude of the inversion and see how many of them collide. Then come back the next day and do it again. After 100 days make a chart and plot the variables you put in onto a graph. You'll get a butterfly pattern.

If you'd like to save yourself the work, just a freshman atmospheric science major at your local university who has done an introductory project on fluid dynamics and he'll show you his or her graph. It will look the same as anyone elses.

[Avendiel]

Um, no you don't. At all. That's completely weird of you to request. It would be like me not accepting the existence of black holes or quantum relativistic field theory because no one's measured or tested them.

Are you serious? If you're going to tell me that "science has demonstrated determinism to be wrong" you're going to have to give me some kind of evidence that actually, you know, supports the idea that determinism is wrong. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but scientists don't just drag numbers out of their ass (one would hope). Science is done by observation and measurement, and everything has to be based on that---either directly or more indirectly. So yes, if there were no evidence for the existence of, say, black holes, then you actually would want to doubt their existence.

So if anything, I'm being extremely generous. I'm not even asking you for actual evidence that determinism is wrong, despite the fact that you've (so boldly) claimed that science has already "demonstrated" that it is.

All I'm asking for you to do is to outline any experiment that could possibly be performed which would be even in principle capable of providing that kind of evidence.

I just gave you a unique event, a meteorological survey taken on a specific day.

If you'd like, go out and do it yourself. Take a barometer and measure the air pressure outside and notate the cloud formations, then notate the altitude of the inversion and see how many of them collide. Then come back the next day and do it again. After 100 days make a chart and plot the variables you put in onto a graph. You'll get a butterfly pattern.

If you'd like to save yourself the work, just a freshman atmospheric science major at your local university who has done an introductory project on fluid dynamics and he'll show you his or her graph. It will look the same as anyone elses.

When I say a unique event, I mean one that's maximally specific. So specific that they're not actually repeatable. You know...unique.

Determinism is, as far as I'm concerned, the idea that there's only been one possible outcome for every unique event; it means that the world couldn't have been any different than it is/hasbeen/willbe. This claim isn't scientifically testable because there's no way to repeatedly observe a single unique event to see if it really does "come out the same way every time". All you can do is study lots of different unique events which fall under event types based on their sharing whatever characteristics are relevant, and then generalize about those event types. But determinism in the broadest sense isn't really about event types. It's about the unique events being fixed/determined in a way that means there's no real possibility/choice/chance in the world (again, at least as far as I'm concerned--definitions are tricky and might be causing confusion). There's really no way to show empirically that this claim is true or false; there's no way we could possibly gather evidence for or against it (that I can think of, anyway).

[Ummon]

Chaotic systems are determinist systems: they just are unpredictable (we will always ignore the data to the necessary detail -> 100% precision). Of course, this assumes that quantum phenomena are determinist phenomena: otherwise, chaos will just amplify indetermination.

[persianfan247]

Chaotic systems are determinist systems: they just are unpredictable (we will always ignore the data to the necessary detail -> 100% precision). Of course, this assumes that quantum phenomena are determinist phenomena: otherwise, chaos will just amplify indetermination.

This is what I was thinking, but admittedly I am ignorant about all these systems and must learn more. I need to find a good book.

Most of determinism is a load of crap. Sure, some or even most things that happen in the past affect future events, but this totally ignores the reality of man's will (or free will, if you wish to call it that for clarification purposes) and his ability to rationally make decisions without being shackled by chemical reactions in the body or past experiences. This makes man into no more than a cause-and-effect machine, which he clearly is not.

The reality of Man's will? How can you say that man's will is not determined. It dosn't necessarily mean he dosn't have a will(what ever a will is, can you define it?, Identify it within the brain?)

His ability to make decisions without being shackled by chemical reactions in the body or past experiences? I am failing to see that man has this ability, shackled suggests hes being held back, they are not seperate things that shackle him, but are him, his very being, part of the world not separate, nor are chemical reactions seperate things from experiences but are determined by these experience for instance your chemical reaction when you met a hot girl and you do have chemical reactions to things all the time. Also the balance of chemicals in your body can determine how you interperate your experiences and how you even act out these experiences,

He is clearly not a cause-and-effect machine? Prove this. You will have to forgive my ignorance, but all you have done is make claims? If you want me to agree with you please explain more if you have the time. Please educate me.

There is no set future, it is determined by a randomized set of variables, all interacting with the various chaotic systems in the universe. Fluid Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Meteorological activity etc.

Anyway, there is virtually no physical system in which all the components will consistently behave in the same way in an infinite amount of trials, this is the nature of chaos.

Chaotic systems, systems I guess is the result of the limitations of human language ha. Anyway these systems all have rules right or else they would not be systems and if it were purely chaotic then they would not be clearly indetifiable as something, a system and of course all of these systems can interact and influence each other right? I do get the feeling Im going wrong somewhere here, but please explain how.

For the second part, as Ummon said, would do not have 100% percent knowledge of all the things involved. Something that might not be involved in one test, but is in the other and would determine the outcome of the test.

The only reason why you get different sides of the die when you roll it is because many things, like the way you are holding the die, which is determined by how you picked it up and so on, resulting with the 6 side facing your palm etc. Also how you throw it what it lands on, whether there is wind or not, so many things to influence the outcome, but if you were to achieve the imposibility of achieving the same situation as that which lead to 5 facing up when it landed, you would get five everytime.

[SorelusImperion]

Free will is an illusion as it would require a concsiousness which is detached from the natural world. What is mistakenly considered beeing "free will" is in reality just the result of a combination of several external and internal forces all of them beeing completely beyond your control.

When you manage to minimize the influence of visible externale forces you will usually be under the illusion of beeing free but it remains an illusion. There are also external forces wich you are simply unable to percieve as such amongst them beeing the sunlight which does much more than allowing you to see but actually influences your emotions and helps to set your biological clock.
The most obvious example of internal forces are your emotions. At no point in your life you will be able to choose your feelings but at all times you will act on them. Other internal forces are your instincts and reflexes and all of them can be further dissected to look at their bio-chemical, mechanical and physical origins.

[Ummon]

Free will is an illusion as it would require a concsiousness which is detached from the natural world.

And you are certain this isn't the case? Congratulations.

This is what I was thinking, but admittedly I am ignorant about all these systems and must learn more. I need to find a good book.

More than one. James Gleick's "Chaos" is a good introduction.

[persianfan247]

The most obvious example of internal forces are your emotions. At no point in your life you will be able to choose your feelings but at all times you will act on them. Other internal forces are your instincts and reflexes and all of them can be further dissected to look at their bio-chemical, mechanical and physical origins.

I agree and when you think you are controlling your emotions, for instance calming down, or telling your self that you should restrain yourself from doing something, it is merely internal or external forces acting upon you, chemical reactions to the the consequential danger that may result from attacking someone, or consequential social dangers.

Every decision you make or will ever take, will have been enivatable because of the interaction of all these internal and external forces. Every event that happens was enevitable because of all of the rules of the universe and existence. Every interacting and reacting. Cause is effect and effect is cause.


Edit: dam it, the internect disconnect as soon as I had finished editing my post and i thought it was good editions to my post

[SorelusImperion]

And you are certain this isn't the case? Congratulations.

As certain as science allows you to to be. We know that emotions and our consciousness can "controlled" by manipulating the bio-mechanics of our brain this is how antidepressiva and a lot of drugs up to something simple as alcohol work. It is proven that chemicals influence our decisions and our behaviour drug addicts and drunk people being testament to that. Consequently we can conclude that whatever "entiety" is responsible for our decisions is part of and influenced by the natural world instead of beeing detached from it.

[persianfan247]

And you are certain this isn't the case? Congratulations.



More than one. James Gleik's "Chaos" is a good introduction.

Thanks, I am pretty ignorant, Will see if its as the Uni library, they should have it right? I still don't consider my ignorance should prevent me from debating on a public forum though, maybe my comments are stupid and ignorant, but who isn't ignorant about something and I can only act upon what I know, though it is foolish to act on limited knowledge, when you have the opportunity of acting on greater knowledge and I can at least learn from the thread I created.

Most if not all people are aware that they can be wrong about something and are aware that there is something they believe but wrong. But many people seem to forget that when they start debating. I sound like I'm patting myself on the back, problem am. All opinion of course.

[Ummon]

More than one because the argument is vast. Gleick is a journalist, his book is divulgational. After that, you should try to peruse others, introducing you to the mathematics of Chaos. In Italian, I have used initially, Bertuglia, Di Vaio: "Nonlinearity, Chaos, Complexity". It is very simple as a scientifically viable book:

http://www.oupcanada.com/catalog/9780198567905.html

I am not aware of the quality of the translation.

Then you will need to go further with more complex things. These, obviously, I cannot choose for you. Prigogine though comes to mind.