Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

hey guys, since there's no official debate section on Dakka (which there totally should be FYI) I've decided to start a debate thread or two in here, based on some things I find rather interesting.
I am a subscriber to the view of a deterministic universe: I believe all of time is (generally) predetermined, and as a consequence (a bitch on a one) we technically have no real free will.
Now, this of course applies only in a metaphysical sense: we CAN still choose to make decision, out of our own volition, its still OUR choice. However, metaphysically, it is still pre-determined by the external world: although it is my choice whether I am going to take option A or option B, due to cause and effect, it is predetermined that I am going to take option A.

So, I'd like to see what kind of a response I get to this before I post up my arguments. If anyones interested in opposing me, just say you'll get involved, then I'll shout out my opening speech.

Thank guys!
Chris

I see fiery times ahead here..

Thats what I hope for!

Well if you ascribe to Everett's 'trousers of time' theory, then everything is predetermined because every possible option is played out in a different dimension. Otherwise, no.

Even then, it kinda does.
I'm going to lay out a deductive argument here, basically meaning that if you accept all my premises, (points 1-6) you have to accept my conclusion. Here we go:

1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action (for example the tree will fall over because the axe caused its structure to weaken. In turn the axe caused this because it has a sharp point (caused by it being sharpened) and the arms swinging it into the tree along with a host of other variables.)
2) our choices have causes, just like everything else
3) these causes boil down basically to our personality (I will choose to help the woman across the road because I have a generally nice personality)
4) our personality will have a cause (a person who has a generally angry personality may find the cause of that angriness in their sad childhood for example (as just one cause))
5) the cause of our personality can be tracked back to the external world: as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point leave us. We are originally caused by our parents choice to create life (using a bit of a euphemism there. Plus I just made you think about something you don't want to ) and our brains are developed by our DNA. From there, we receive external stimuli, which causes our thoughts/personality to change. There is nothing in our brains that doesn't have a cause itself outside our brains, that would cause our personality to change in some way.)
6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world.
conclusion) our actions are predetermined.

Feel free to object in any way you like!

(furthermore, since the world of physics runs on cause and effect, each event can be tracked back in a chain of causation to the big bang: in effect the way the big bang happened, the particular velocity/energy/direction/whatever-the-f***-was-happening of the particles, determined the next stage of causation, which determined the next, up until present day.

retort?

I'm content to think that I have freewill.

Measuring the validity of a ruler, cannot be done with a ruler. It is impossible for us to actually examine the nature of our own consciousness.
Ergo, get a proper degree

care to expand on that?

The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.

Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.

Well, Quantum mechanics are not part of causality, but I'm not sure on the effects of the quantum world on ours.

walker90234 wrote:care to expand on that?

Yes.
People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?

Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.

Well M-theory and such rely on there being 11 dimensions, I think the trousers of time stuff is the 5th, don't quote me on that though.

I meant the 'infinite universes' idea. That's the disproven one.

Joey wrote:Ergo, get a proper degree

This.

Until you can measure free will discussing whether it exists or not is irrelevant.

Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.

Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.

No it isn't, quite a few prominent physicists (including Hawking IIRC) support the multiverse theory.

If we don't have free will, discussing it is rather pointless, because it doesn't exist. Doesn't really make horrible things less horrible though.

If we have free will, discussing it is still rather pointless...

Spontaneous actions were observed scientifically by a psychology lab, before Piaget wrote Insights and Illusions of Philosophy. I just finished it, but since it was packed full of info and names I'm not familiar with, I'll just mention it before I can find the exact name of the researcher.

At a different interpretative level, I like Schopenhauer's very simplistic interpretation of free-will : You are a part in the causal world, thus you will be submitted to causality whenever an external action will cause in you a reaction. And you can only react as you are right now. But at any given time, you can also determine that you shouldn't react in this way, so you can become your own causality for future events. Basically, you can't help reacting a certain way because of who you are, but you can help yourself at becoming better.

At least, I think it has more to do with the ability to have a mental discourse than any faculty of the soul...

Corpsesarefun wrote:

Perkustin wrote:The multiverse theory is widely disproven by physicists. Just dont ask me to disprove it. Might have Something to do with gravity being a weak force but not an infinite or non-existant one IIRC.

Anyway, i think the idea of fate is kinda silly, even if you do allow for God. Weird example, but think of Horoscopes; everyone knows that they are Bullcrap but by the end of the week, would you look at that; It came true. It came true because you made it happen, you, often subconciously, tried to meet 'a new person' or 'form a new relationship'. The horoscope was less of a prophecy more a pep-talk. This doesnt disprove anything obviously but it offers an alternative.

No it isn't, quite a few prominent physicists (including Hawking IIRC) support the multiverse theory.

'Fraid so. The multiverse theory is, rather misleadingly, the name given to the concept of (functionally)infinite universes. The idea of Multiple Universes, which i think you mean, is not disproven.

Perkustin wrote:I meant the 'infinite universes' idea. That's the disproven one.

Infinite universes is another of the dimensions of M theory, there's all sorts, including infinite universes with infinitely different laws of physics.

I am aware of the difference.

It was my understanding that Hawking was for the idea of "Trousers of time" splitting at every conceivable moment thus yielding functionally infinite parallel universes (not dimensions).

dæl wrote:Well, Quantum mechanics are not part of causality, but I'm not sure on the effects of the quantum world on ours.

Quantum effects are observed even in objects in our scale (grain of sand).

http://www.acfas.ca/prix-concours/preuve-image/2012

This is a light trap. It will, even at normal temperature, sometimes both emit and not emit light.

I think you meant to link the torus.

Sorry, damn, this is hard because of the thingy they use to swipe images. It's the third one from the end, which looks like a red grain of salt.


Oh and the third one on the second row is a 'microeye', a small explosion observed at random times when building the nanofilaments of a quantum computer transistor (I assume they talk about the D-Wave, but they don't specify)

@ Melissa: If you view this thread as pointless, why bother posting in it? I personally view it as very interesting, I'm not trying to achieve anything here, I'm just trying to have a bit of fun
I will totally agree, IT HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on everyday life, I won't stop making decisions just because determinism is the logical conslusion of my view of the world: you put the philosophy aside when you go home. In the words of my teacher, when you're wife asks you to do the dishes, and you reply "I will not do the dishes, the dishes don't exist", you're not going to be a very happy bunny for quite a few nights


"People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?"
1) Your first point isn't an argument dude, the first point doesn't lead onto your conclusion in any meaningful way. Lay it out in a clear argument if you want me to take you seriously.
2) Um, yes you would use a torch to see light? The torch generates light energy which reflects off objects and into your eyes? That's what a torch DOES.
3) Just because I HAVE logic doesn't mean I can't use it to examine logic? I have no idea where you got that from. Why you felt the need to bring evolution into it, I have no idea.

Furthermore, if all you have to say is "philosophy is bullcrap", as you seem to be implying by your (quite offensive and utterly ignorant) 'ergo get a proper degree' speech, then what place do you have in this disscussion


@ perkustin: I think you misunderstand me when I say time is predetermined. I am not in any way mentioning 'fate', or 'god', as some sort of mystical force. I'm simply talking about cause and effect. In fact, your post on horoscopes completely supported my view: our actions in such instances find their cause in how we react to the horoscopes.

To fully illustrate this argument, lets imagine a world with no life, simply inanimate matter. This world, just like ours, operates under the laws of cause and effect.
Take a split second in time from this universe, where every one of a finite number of particles is in a specific place, with a specific velocity. Now, imagine you KNOW both the position and velocity of all of these particles (Yes, this is impossible, but its hypothetical anyway) and had the mental capacity to fully remember and understand them, and process their movement. I believe you would agree with me in saying that you could predict the position and velocity of each of these particles in the next moment, as such things would be determined by their current qualities. Also you could determine the collision and reactions of any of these particles. If you had the mental capacity, you could predict how each of these would continue to function for however long you want to: you could use cause and effect to predict the future.

Now, that is entirely hypothetical, as we know that it is pretty much impossible. However it does illustrate my point, as the things going on at one moment in time will determine the things going on in the next, and so on for infinity.

Add in humans (assuming human minds function under the same laws as the rest of the universe) and we are still predetermined. Any (developed, intelligent) retorts?

@biccat: simply not true. You're ascribing to a simply empirical understanding of the universe, where nothing empirically verifiable is meaningless. This fails in the same manner as Ayer's verification principle.
Furthermore, if you don't agree with me, prove what you're saying. You are simply laying down a conclusion without any supporting arguments. That isn't convincing.

TO CONCLUDE: please guys, if all you have to contribute is "this topic is crap/meaningless/shouldnt be talked about, then please don't post at all. everyone else who wants to discuss this topic is actually trying to, whereas all you have to say is "i find this discussion meaningless". It doesn't really contribute anything at all.

Quantum computers are cool, but they stop working when observed, even if what's observing them is a passing electron.

But anyway, Determinism, now we've established that the quantum world can affect ours surely this breaks the chain of causality.

@Walker : +1

@Dael : I don't know that they do. I don't know much about it, so I can't say honestly, but it seems that the D-Wave is capable of working out a few specific tasks pretty well. Admittedly, it's still contested that it's actually a quantum computer...

But quantum physics as little to do with determinism, since our brain is in no way a proper environment for quantum effects (or at least it doesn't seem so). Free Will must be explained psychologically, I think.

To fully illustrate this argument, lets imagine a world with no life, simply inanimate matter. This world, just like ours, operates under the laws of cause and effect.
Take a split second in time from this universe, where every one of a finite number of particles is in a specific place, with a specific velocity. Now, imagine you KNOW both the position and velocity of all of these particles (Yes, this is impossible, but its hypothetical anyway) and had the mental capacity to fully remember and understand them, and process their movement. I believe you would agree with me in saying that you could predict the position and velocity of each of these particles in the next moment, as such things would be determined by their current qualities. Also you could determine the collision and reactions of any of these particles. If you had the mental capacity, you could predict how each of these would continue to function for however long you want to: you could use cause and effect to predict the future.

This would not work, quantum uncertainty principle will create particles randomly which will affect the overall model.

walker90234 wrote:
"People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?"[/b]
1) Your first point isn't an argument dude, the first point doesn't lead onto your conclusion in any meaningful way. Lay it out in a clear argument if you want me to take you seriously.
2) Um, yes you would use a torch to see light? The torch generates light energy which reflects off objects and into your eyes? That's what a torch DOES.
3) Just because I HAVE logic doesn't mean I can't use it to examine logic? I have no idea where you got that from. Why you felt the need to bring evolution into it, I have no idea.

Furthermore, if all you have to say is "philosophy is bullcrap", as you seem to be implying by your (quite offensive and utterly ignorant) 'ergo get a proper degree' speech, then what place do you have in this disscussion

1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.

If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?
Just asking. I admit I do not understand the concept all too well.

Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.

I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.