Kevin's Watch

I'm not quite sure how to frame this question so that it will make sense, but here goes:-

In the light of quantum theory with it's 'uncertainty' and 'probability' (but not absolutely neseccarily etc), and string/m theorys etc, is the old Newtonian clockwork universe - ie wind it up and set it going and if you know all the starting conditions then the whole thing is predictable from A through to Z - is that 'a chicken that will no longer fight'.

And if this is the case, that the old 'scientific determinism' as described above is a gonner, then where does that leave the broader ideas of 'philosophical determinism' (hope I'm getting these terms right, but if not I'm guessing that you'll be able to get my drift) - ie does that get conigned to the dustbin of 'wrong philosophical ideas' as well.

I'm not sure I will have much to say in relation to this topic, because frankly I just don't know enough about it to make much meaningfull input ("Doesn't normally stop him" they cry ) but I am interested in what you guys have to say on the topic. I've always rather liked the old deterministic universe for some reason - perhaps because of it's capacity to absolve us from blame, and I for one would be rather sad to see it's anhialation at the hand of brute, cold science. But there you have it - what must be must be!

I don't believe in determinism, but I do believe in cause and effect. Make of that what you will.

--A

It's interesting that right now I am finishing up Neal Stephenson's Anathem, which is about, among other things, notions about how consciousness arises from quantum effects.

Quantum theory doesn't deny the determinism of cause and effect, AFAICT. It merely postulates that causes can cannot be predicted, they just randomly happen. Hence, the world is deterministic but not predictable.

Also AFAIK, no one has postulated that these probablistic events are under conscious control. Hence, nothing has changed in terms of how we make choices - we are still at the mercy of determinism. It's just unpredictable determinism.

Unpredictability is not free will.

There you go - lost already. I thought cause and effect was to determinism what natural selection is to evolution so your post Avatar, has me spinning in circles. And Wayfriend - 'deterministic but not predictable'. Arrrgggghhh!

Yea, unpredictability isn't free will.

And no, determinism isn't dead [though "old school" might not apply.] There are many, maybe most of the hard scientists, out there who will tell you that there is no such thing as randomness, that everything is predetermined and always has been, the appearance of randomness and the fact of unpredictability are due to hyper-complexity, sheer number of conditions and events, and the limits of knowledge/observation, not to any loopholes/empty places in cause-effect.

Vraith wrote:Yea, unpredictability isn't free will.

And no, determinism isn't dead [though "old school" might not apply.] There are many, maybe most of the hard scientists, out there who will tell you that there is no such thing as randomness, that everything is predetermined and always has been, the appearance of randomness and the fact of unpredictability are due to hyper-complexity, sheer number of conditions and events, and the limits of knowledge/observation, not to any loopholes/empty places in cause-effect.

Exactly. Stephen Hawking once wrote that even who appears on the cover of Cosmopolitan was per-determined by scientific laws.

wayfriend wrote:Also AFAIK, no one has postulated that these probablistic events are under conscious control.

Oh, I've postulated it. So has Hyperception. I'm not sure I believe it, except on unpredictable days though.

Unpredictability is not free will.

But quantum unpredictability is not determinism either.

We need a definition.

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

Causes external to my will don't determine my actions. The might precipitate them, they definitely influence them, but the choice of action is ultimately up to me.

Things happen because other things happen, but the effect (or reaction) is under my control, and occurs through effort of will. (And I know this, because sometimes I can feel that effort. )

--A

Avatar wrote: Causes external to my will don't determine my actions. The might precipitate them, they definitely influence them, but the choice of action is ultimately up to me.

Well said, Av! But I am unclear:

Avatar wrote:

wayfriend wrote:Also AFAIK, no one has postulated that these probablistic events are under conscious control.

Oh, I've postulated it. So has Hyperception.

Under OUR conscious control, or a transcendent consciousness?

Avatar wrote:

wayfriend wrote:Also AFAIK, no one has postulated that these probablistic events are under conscious control.

Oh, I've postulated it. So has Hyperception. I'm not sure I believe it, except on unpredictable days though.

Care to pass on what those postulations were?

Avatar wrote:Causes external to my will don't determine my actions. The might precipitate them, they definitely influence them, but the choice of action is ultimately up to me.

Sorry Avatar - Can't buy that one. Because we are not concious of the causal steps that lead up to us making a particular choice or doing a particular thing, does not mean they are not there. (Take Schopenhauer's analogy of water in a pond saying "Today I could leap into the air, or rush down a hill or even make high waves - but I think I'll just lie here flat and calm instead." In this case the water only remembers that it sometimes does these things and hence thinks it can do them all the time by choice.) That our apparent choice in how we do things is not just an illusion is a difficult one to prove.

deer of the dawn wrote:Under OUR conscious control, or a transcendent consciousness?

Oh, under ours of course. As a practical atheist, I don't go in much for transcendent consciousnesses. As I said to WF though, I don't believe it enough for it to actually work. Not in the way I think he means, anyway.

wayfriend wrote:Care to pass on what those postulations were?

Oh hell, now you're asking me. Definitely a thread in the Close...maybe the "Is reality real" thread. Best bet might be to do a search for all of Hyperceptions posts...there's not that many of them.

peter wrote:Sorry Avatar - Can't buy that one. Because we are not concious of the causal steps that lead up to us making a particular choice or doing a particular thing, does not mean they are not there.

I'm not saying they are not there. I'm saying that they are not the final determinant of what we do. Every predisposition I have, every causal step might lead to toward one reaction, but I can still exert my will and carry out a different action. If I so choose. (Or with sufficient motivation.)

In this case the water only remembers that it sometimes does these things and hence thinks it can do them all the time by choice.) That our apparent choice in how we do things is not just an illusion is a difficult one to prove.

Of course, the water can't do any of those things, lacking everything needed to do so "by choice" including the ability to even consider it. I know that I can stand up right now for instance.

I think it's much harder to prove that we don't have a choice in how we act. (And to some extent, isn't it the ultimate cop-out? "I was unable to act other than the way I did.")

--A

If we cannot predict accurately how can we say any course of action is pre-determined? Randomness belies determinism, of necessity.

SerScot wrote:If we cannot predict accurately how can we say any course of action is pre-determined? Randomness belies determinism, of necessity.

But the hard-core folk say that there is no such thing as randomness at all, not one jot. Everything that has ever happened and ever will happen was set in stone from the very beginning. If we could know to infinite precision every single factor involved in an event we could predict what happens next with 100% certainty. The only reason we can't is that we can't know everything to infinite precision.

Vraith,

Configuration Space?

Random all the way. My problem is that the base of determinism is the idea that things happen for a reason. Me, I think that sometimes things happen for no reason at all. But this is different from there being a cause.

--A