Can Determinism accurately describe Reality?

[Arachna]

Determinism - The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
Or to say..everything is determined. Call it a Faith ways. And we can't change it. The way you are born. Your life. Path's you take. And your death.

Free Will - The philosophical doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
We decide what we shall be and how shall we be it. And of course it means notting is pre determined.You decide for yourself. How to live,who to marry...just pick one..

Anyway, links are here for referance.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/#SH3c
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Our-...ined-by-The-Environmental-Factors-28413.shtml


Now then. This is something for a debate.

What are your thoughts about it.

ProDeterminism ? Or Free will stance ? What will it be?

 

[Kaze Araki]

This is a rather complex matter that pretty much requires deep thinking. Profoundly influenced by Kurenai Chan's philosophical stance in the Random Thread, I view "Free Will" as an incoherent if not impossible concept.

 

[Cephal]

I would have to say from the start of this conversation that I am an Agnostic. More specifically an Agnostic Theist for means of convenience in terms that I believe there is some sort of higher order of things but I at the same time offer criticism toward it. I also do not believe in any religion or standpoint in depth, so my views toward a higher order are a bit vague.

So to point out - reality is something that is difficult for any single person or even the full of humanity to properly to flesh out on the grand scale. How each and every one of us perceive existence is subjective and even science which is ostensibly an objective line of thought has it's subjective moments and preferences. No matter how much we find out about our universe and the questions surrounding it - there will always be questions that extend on for an infinity and we may not always find answers.

Our point of view even as people is very limited and leads to a number of conflicting ideological differences regarding the reality of our existence. It's something that requires a grain of salt and patience when composing because we never know whether or not we are truly, definitely correct. We may very well perceive things incorrectly from their true reality. We have views of existence from normal sciences to physics that are being discredited, evolving, changing, and building every so often. Knowledge is ever evolving in that sense. Even Einstein's calculations of existence are gradually being questioned more by the scientific community, though it had some applications. Knowledge, no matter what kind has some sort of flaw in it's line of thought, while there ARE some basics that are unquestionable at this time, that does not mean they will remain that way forever as we dig deeper and deeper into the potential of knowledge

What I'm trying to say is, there is no truly accurate way to define reality and our stance in it beyond what we can see, perceive through senses, and interact with unless we were to experience it. Truth in experience, more or less. What we experience is our reality and our perception of reality defines us.

Free will, sentience, sapience, spirit, knowledge, wisdom, mind - they're all subjective and in relation to our experience. What may be sentient to us may not be sentient to something that perhaps can view us in a widely different way on a different scale of thought. All the knowledge and considerations built through time by the Human Race are neither fully definitive - as there is no way of determining the true value of their correctness beyond the evidence and there is no way of validating whether this knowledge is valid beyond the conditions of our region in space and our current fundamental laws in viewing existence.

Determinism does have some validity in trying to explain the universe around us but the problem with determinism is the grasp of potential and furthermore possibility of events are full well capable of straying from any perceivable course. While there are fundamental laws that do argue on behalf of determinism, at the same time our view and scope of understanding existence, time, and to a limited extent - cause and effect is still far too small to accurately decide that determinism is correct on an existence wide scale.

Ergo, I believe that existence (this also includes ideas of thought such as determinism) is something that we can try to know and perceive - knowing to an extent - but something that is ultimately beyond our reach and capability to validate. - IE. you can believe in it, but it's just that - a theory, an ideology, a perception.

 

[-lexus-]

Hmm, if you take the standard Quantum Mechanic interpretation, then no, the universe itself is not deterministic, because random events occur. Furthermore, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle pretty much makes it impossible for anyone to know everything for sure, allowing only for probability, making it impossible to 'prove' determinism beyond any doubt.

However, that only applies to small scale events. So while perhaps at its basis, the universe itself is not deterministic, randomness is neither a support for free will. And on top of that, small scale events can influence increasinly larger events, like domino's or the idea that a butterfly causes a hurricane at another continent. That again, suggests that the universe at larger scales becomes deterministic again. It just becomes really hard for us to view it as such since we dont always see how far back the cause of something goes.

And then humans. We dont have free will, that is for sure. We act on the basis of chemistry within your body or by outside stimuli. We see something, smell something and hear something. This causes a certain activity in your brain, activating certain memories, which then lead to other memories, and thoughts. This then again alters the chemistry in your brain a bit, which compels you to do a certain thing. The whole decision making process is rigged. In the end, you dont make a decision between two things, you are just led down a path that inevitably leads you to choose one thing over the other. Youre just not aware of it, due to the incredible complexity of the whole process, and the countless factors that play a role in it. But, change one factor, alter the smell or the sight, or the sound a bit, and the whole decision can change, as it would bring in different memories, and it would subtly alter the brain chemistry for a bit here and there.

 

[Kaze Araki]

[MENTION=1240]Arachna[/MENTION]
Amazingly, I find IEP as way much easier to decipher compared to SEP.


In any case, we need to clarify first in regard to free will and causal (nomological) determinism. Since free will is notoriously hard to define, I will instead elaborate more on causal determinism as further extension from the opening post:

Causal determinism (hereafter, simply “determinism”) is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature. Imagine a proposition that completely describes the way that the entire universe was at some point in the past, say 100 million years ago. Let us call this proposition “P.” Also imagine a proposition that expresses the conjunction of all the laws of nature; call this proposition “L.” Determinism then is the thesis that the conjunction of P and L entails a unique future. Given P and L, there is only one possible future, one possible way for things to end up.

Consequently:

If determinism were true, then a being with a complete knowledge of P and L and with sufficient intellective capacities should be able to infallibly predict the way that the future will turn out.

And:

For one, the truth of determinism would entail that the laws of nature are not merely probabilistic—for if they were, then the conjunction of the past and the laws would not entail a unique future.

Finally:

There are two ways that worlds could fail to be deterministic. As already noted, if the laws of nature in a given world were probabilistic, then such a world would not be deterministic. Secondly, if there are entities within a world that are not fully governed by the laws of nature, then even if those laws are themselves deterministic, that world would not be deterministic.


If the standard model of Quantum Physics is true, then this imply that our universe is not nomologically deterministic - regardless of the definition for free will.

 

[Arachna]

[MENTION=1240]Arachna[/MENTION]
Amazingly, I find IEP as way much easier to decipher compared to SEP.


In any case, we need to clarify first in regard to free will and causal (nomological) determinism. Since free will is notoriously hard to define, I will instead elaborate more on causal determinism as further extension from the opening post:

Causal determinism (hereafter, simply “determinism”) is the thesis that the course of the future is entirely determined by the conjunction of the past and the laws of nature. Imagine a proposition that completely describes the way that the entire universe was at some point in the past, say 100 million years ago. Let us call this proposition “P.” Also imagine a proposition that expresses the conjunction of all the laws of nature; call this proposition “L.” Determinism then is the thesis that the conjunction of P and L entails a unique future. Given P and L, there is only one possible future, one possible way for things to end up.

Consequently:

If determinism were true, then a being with a complete knowledge of P and L and with sufficient intellective capacities should be able to infallibly predict the way that the future will turn out.

And:

For one, the truth of determinism would entail that the laws of nature are not merely probabilistic—for if they were, then the conjunction of the past and the laws would not entail a unique future.

Finally:

There are two ways that worlds could fail to be deterministic. As already noted, if the laws of nature in a given world were probabilistic, then such a world would not be deterministic. Secondly, if there are entities within a world that are not fully governed by the laws of nature, then even if those laws are themselves deterministic, that world would not be deterministic.


If the standard model of Quantum Physics is true, then this imply that our universe is not nomologically deterministic - regardless of the definition for free will.

[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION] i find it hard to dechiper both Sometimes.

Ok..i tryed to explain the free will. As i see it. For this debate.


Free will : An object such as a ball, is bound by predetermined events and physical laws.
If it moves, it's because it reacted to an external agent exerting force on it and inevitably moved a certain distance.
However, the decisions and actions of humans and animals are not entirely deterministic.
We have minds that have the ability to contain, process, and analyze information, and based on the analysis of that information, a person can choose freely, how to react.

For example, someone gets hungry, and therefore eats to satisfy that need.
However, a person will also have conflicting information in the mind that suggests otherwise.
If that person is on a strict diet, they have a desire or urge to eat to appease the hunger, but may choose not to eat for other personal reasons.
But the choice could go either way, and no prior action can trigger an inevitable reaction in that case.
That person was free to choose.



I tried to see it fro the deterministic view. I was thinking on how to approach this debate from both sides.
So. This is what i got.


Determinist would argue the free will like this :

First, every single action that we commit is a direct result of our brain and the chemical going-ons for which we are not completely in control.
Our brain tells us what to do, how to feel, what to think, etc.

When a person makes a decision, it is dependent upon their brain.
Environment plus biology necessitate your actions. We're just reacting to stimuli; your brain learns reactions as time goes by thus developing personality. We know that personality is part biology (traits determined by genetics) and part environment (experiences and outside stimuli).
Now, if our choices are dictated by genetics and stimuli, clearly we have no control over them.
We cannot control the genetics that make us who we are, nor the experiences that we have.

"Heredity establishes the limits of one's personality traits that can be developed, while the environment - represented by the cultural, social and situational factors - influence the actual development within the limits...

Cultural factors are related to the cultural values earned by someone in the course of his/her life, especially during the period when his/her personality is formed. These cultural values have a great impact upon an individual's behavior...

Situational factors emphasize or diminish some aspects of one's personality.

For example, a person that has experienced recently one failure after another would not wish to be involved in another project - at least for a period of time - even if this particular one might be successful.

Hmm, if you take the standard Quantum Mechanic interpretation, then no, the universe itself is not deterministic, because random events occur. Furthermore, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle pretty much makes it impossible for anyone to know everything for sure, allowing only for probability, making it impossible to 'prove' determinism beyond any doubt.

However, that only applies to small scale events. So while perhaps at its basis, the universe itself is not deterministic, randomness is neither a support for free will. And on top of that, small scale events can influence increasinly larger events, like domino's or the idea that a butterfly causes a hurricane at another continent. That again, suggests that the universe at larger scales becomes deterministic again. It just becomes really hard for us to view it as such since we dont always see how far back the cause of something goes.

And then humans. We dont have free will, that is for sure. We act on the basis of chemistry within your body or by outside stimuli. We see something, smell something and hear something. This causes a certain activity in your brain, activating certain memories, which then lead to other memories, and thoughts. This then again alters the chemistry in your brain a bit, which compels you to do a certain thing. The whole decision making process is rigged. In the end, you dont make a decision between two things, you are just led down a path that inevitably leads you to choose one thing over the other. Youre just not aware of it, due to the incredible complexity of the whole process, and the countless factors that play a role in it. But, change one factor, alter the smell or the sight, or the sound a bit, and the whole decision can change, as it would bring in different memories, and it would subtly alter the brain chemistry for a bit here and there.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. It does not state that the position and momentum do not exist - simply that they can not be measured.

Just because we can't measure them doesn't mean their positions and momentum don't exist,
There is inconclusive evidence that indeterminism exists at the atomic level.

And the second part sounds like you are pro determinism . lolz :grin:

 

[-lexus-]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. It does not state that the position and momentum do not exist - simply that they can not be measured.

Just because we can't measure them doesn't mean their positions and momentum don't exist,
There is inconclusive evidence that indeterminism exists at the atomic level.

And the second part sounds like you are pro determinism . lolz :grin:

Apologies, I didnt try to argue for the idea that because of that, their momentum and position do not exist. No, what I meant to say was that because of it, we cannot make accurate predictions, because those predictions do require the exact position and momentum of particles.

As for the second part, Im bordering on fatalism these days.