Why Determinism could never be disproven or shown to be unlikely

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

Your explanation doesn't help me understand your definition.
Strong determinism holds that everything in the universe is connected and in reaction, thus the entire past and future of everything, including your thoughts, was/is inevitable.
Here's a short introductory overview of determinism: Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Well your strong determinism seems to indicate a dependence on time behaving a certain way, which isn't necessary for what I believe most people think of when they are so sure determinism must be true.

In other words, your definition could only be considered the same as my definition of determinism if by past and future you meant a sort of more general time line that included any self interaction in what is typically though of as the timeline.

So let's say I am Dr. Who. Today I get up, eat breakfast then, then go stop a dalek invasion of earth. Then a dalek goes back in time and hides my Wheaties (tm) so I am not 100% and then fail to stop the invasion.

What we would normally think of as a timeline would be confusing and unclear and would cause a problem with some kinds of determinism (perhaps your strong determinism).

However the timeline for this brand of determinism would look different.

It would show that Dr. Who originally got up and ate breakfast, then was defeated the daleks, then afterwards a dalek stole his wheaties, then the new verson played out. Thus a knot has been straightened into a line, and determinism is safe once again.

Of course it's irrelevant if time travel is impossible regardless of what is involved (People or particles)

Just to show how confusing of a situation this could create and still be deterministic, imagine a pool table and how the balls react when you hit them. In a normal scenario there are many interactions and it would be difficult to plot and follow all of them. Now imagine that the balls, for whatever reason, were capable of hitting another ball with its momentum before itself was given any. IE a moving ball went back in time and smacked another moving ball which then went into the future and smacked another ball which then etc etc. Even supposing there was a very precise and deterministic reason why the ball went where it did in time, this situation would be very difficult to understand despite being deterministic. It makes my brain hurt just trying to imagine it.

[Sacri Sankt]

determinism is a psychological ploy, a way for someone to hold onto a sense of order in a universe which is founded on chaos. the knowledge of the chaotic foundations of reality make the futility and meaninglessness of our existance clear. for a philosopher, someone seeking the 'grand truth', the knowledge that there is none leads to determinism as a self-defence mechanism.

[Kriminal99]

that claim seems to be in contradiction with just about everything.

For instance, why did you press the keys on your keyboard? Without determinism they are just as likely to initiate a self destruct mechanism as they are to make letters appear on your screen.

Tell me how exactly the following statement could ever be false:

If you rewound the universe 5 minutes, and absolutely nothing was changed from the first time the universe existed 5 minutes ago, then everything would play out exactly the same.

If you think determinsm means anything else, you have misunderstood what people who defend it are talking about when they mention the concept.

Some scientists claim the above statement might be false because a quantum particle might just decide to do something different one time. However this is the supreme example of the argument from ignorance. If you don't know why a quantum particle does what it does, you don't know. That precludes you from stating that it has no reason for doing it. No hidden variable theories are just examples of ignorance of human reasoning- the many many assumptions inherent to these theories, both recognized and unrecognized, show where the true hidden variables would exist.

[ughaibu]

One could equally contend that if the universe was rewound five minutes it would produce a different sequence of events. I see no reason to accept either contention.

[Kriminal99]

You left out that nothing has changed from the first time.

To argue that it is "just as likely to be true as it is untrue" goes against absolutely everything.

You could not exist in such a world since no living being could evolve in an enviornment where nothing was consistent. Where things fell up half the time and down the other, where sometimes putting your hand in water would cause you to spontaneously combust and others not etc. You could not think to formulate a response if your body could not depend on the physics of the world remaning constant so that your thoughts could be realized. etc etc

Once you allow for the contention that most things are determined in such a manner, then you only have left that perhpas some small things could be different.

Which leaves the question why would such things that would not cause the universe to fall apart be chosen to be non deterministic and not others? Is some magical being specifically choosing only small things (which in turn cause great changes throughout the system) to be determined who knows how (since our concept of random is actually deterministic, we can't call it "random" rather we simply have no idea what non deterministic would even mean)

Perhaps people choose these things (ie free will)? Based on what? What they feel like doing? And do people choose what they feel? No. In fact what people feel is a function of what happens to them. What could cause someone to choose? Oh I forgot. You can't ask that question since if there was an answer for it then people's actions would then become determined. So there would be no reason. Except I for one know there is a reason for everything I do.

This is hardly something one can say "could just as easily be true as untrue"

[ughaibu]

For your claim to begin to be convincing "most things are determined" is inadequate.

[Sacri Sankt]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Tell me how exactly the following statement could ever be false:

If you rewound the universe 5 minutes, and absolutely nothing was changed from the first time the universe existed 5 minutes ago, then everything would play out exactly the same.

i point you towards qm, which indicates that this belief of yours is false. since the universe is founded on chaotic, random events, rewinding the universe would give a different result every time.

If you think determinsm means anything else, you have misunderstood what people who defend it are talking about when they mention the concept.

i understand the theories of la place and his associates. i just think theyre completely wrong.

Some scientists claim the above statement might be false because a quantum particle might just decide to do something different one time. However this is the supreme example of the argument from ignorance. If you don't know why a quantum particle does what it does, you don't know. That precludes you from stating that it has no reason for doing it. No hidden variable theories are just examples of ignorance of human reasoning- the many many assumptions inherent to these theories, both recognized and unrecognized, show where the true hidden variables would exist.

im afraid this passage shows your own complete ignorance of quantum mechanics. the behaviour of a particle in the future cant be predicted, not even in theory. its not a matter of building a bigger microscope, there is a theoretical limit on how well you can understand something. a limit imposed by the nature of reality itself. like many philosphers, i think you would benefit tremendously from studying scientific theories for a while, it would stop you building intellectual models on profoundly flawed premises.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Sacri Sankt

i point you towards qm, which indicates that this belief of yours is false. since the universe is founded on chaotic, random events, rewinding the universe would give a different result every time.



i understand the theories of la place and his associates. i just think theyre completely wrong.



im afraid this passage shows your own complete ignorance of quantum mechanics. the behaviour of a particle in the future cant be predicted, not even in theory. its not a matter of building a bigger microscope, there is a theoretical limit on how well you can understand something. a limit imposed by the nature of reality itself. like many philosphers, i think you would benefit tremendously from studying scientific theories for a while, it would stop you building intellectual models on profoundly flawed premises.

Human behavior has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics and I challenge you to support that it does with evidence. Behaviorism is a scientific theory that is fundamentally dependent on sociological determinism. Human beings behave based on genetic and sociological influences and there are volumes of scientific evidence to support that!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Human behavior has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics and I challenge you to support that it does with evidence.

Freddy,

QM deals with many things about the universe as a whole. If the theories hold merit, I'd suggest they also apply (although, it's possible only peripherally) to human behavior as well.

Let's just look at the firing of neural nets... The cascade is probability dependent on the reactions cascading prior. Some random neuron could be triggered by a neural net clear the other side of the body, and that randomness described by QM... Just a thought. You may not want to discount the connection out of hand.


Cheers.

[Sacri Sankt]

whether qm has anything to say about conciousness (and i would hold thatit has a great deal to tell us) its lessons clearly demonstrate the falsity of determinism. how can the universe be deterministic if truely random events occur within it?