I know the subject has been approached before, but it’s never been ratified in my mind.
I do not like the idea of determinism - it negates free will and leads us to make choices that are already made. That’s hardly appealing to the philosophical amongst us. Nevertheless, I’ve been unable to shake it.
I crapped out on Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (glancing at bookcase and judging by bookmark) about a third of the way through when he dismissed deteriminism on what I consider a tired old basis. His dismissal is based on our (in)ability to measure. And no, we are as yet unable to measure all the influences on a physical reaction.
Chemical reactions are fairly predictable, to the 95% range, but our inability to predict the rest is a more a result of our inadequate measurement than unpredictability. We, as yet, cannot control the collision rates or angles of molecules in a beaker.
So, is there really an undetermined portion of the equation out there?
Well, beatle, as you know I’m no cosmologist. But I think the quantum uncertainty and chaos theories can be combined to show that determinsim is false.
As I understand it (a big caveat) quantum theory shows that there are certain events at the subatomic level that are not only unpredictable for technical reasons; they are unpredictable in absolute terms.
Now the fact that unpredictability exists at subatomic levels really does say much by itself about the issue of human free will. But chaos theory implies that the smallest of variations can multiply and lead to massive variations. So unpredictabilities at the quantum level can support rather than cancel out each other and cause unpredictability at the level of human consciousness.
Well, I don’t like or agree with Determinism as in fate, as in pre-scripted actions which we may or may not want to carry out but must anyway. But, just because our thought processes follow deterministic rules (if they do, and whatever those may be), does not negate free will.
Perhaps, in a given situation, a person will always react in the same manner. We can’t know this as we don’t have two identical people to put in identical situations, and we can’t put one person in the same situation twice because going through the first time changes the person. But, even if only one choice is possible in any given situation for a given person, that does not negate the fact that the choice is made.
All the thoughts and reasoning that went into the decision are just as valid, regardless of determinism or not.
All my decisions are still mine, whether or not I could theoretically have chosen to do otherwise. It does not eliminate responsibility.
This view fits very well with my preferred view of the possibility of Artificial Intelligence. Which is that the intelligence resides in the software, whether that runs on a computer, or on a brain. Of course, this just makes it more aesthetically pleasing, not necessarily more correct.
“Well, I don’t like or agree with Determinism as in fate, as in pre-scripted actions which we may or may not want to carry out but must anyway.”
Could someone who holds this view please tell me what they find unpleasant about determinism? This is a commonly held view, but I just don’t understand it.
“But, just because our thought processes follow deterministic rules (if they do, and whatever those may be), does not negate free will.”
Saying that our thought processes follow deterministic rules and that our actions are determined by those processes is just another way of saying “our actions are determined by our opinions, attitudes, and personalities”. What’s so disturbing about that? Personally, I would find it more diturbing if the universe was such that my actions weren’t determined by my thoughts, opinions, and attitudes. What about lack of determinism makes the universe more pleasant in the eyes of so many? Is lack of determinism randomness, or do you guys believe in some “third way” that is neither random nor deterministic (and if so, what the heck is it, and what kind of properties does it have?)? I think that the “problem” of “free will” can be resolved somewhat painlessly if you really think about what you mean by “free will”. When I say that I want “free will”, I am not saying that I don’t want my actions to be lawfully determined, I am merely saying that I don’t want my actions determined by somebody else. If I determine my actions and I am deterministic, there’s nothing wrong with that in my book.
I can’t speak to the quantum physics of the question, though.
Also, I want to point out to everyone that several things can contribute to inability to predict:
[ul][li]True Randomness (if it exists in the universe)[/li][li]Imprecise Measurements (i.e. incomplete information). Coupled with chaos theory, this makes long-term predictability virtually impossible in some systems. The weather is an example.[/li][li]A process which is so complex that it is more computationally difficult to predict the process than it actually is to run the process (e.g. even if the universe is completely deterministic, I couldn’t predict what you would do tomorrow by creating my own universe with my own Big Bang and watching what happens in that universe’s February 14th, because it would take me longer to run my experiment than it will take to just wait until tomorrow and watch what you do).[/ul][/li]Note that the second two items do not deny determinism. Determinism and predictability are two different things. A predictable system must be deterministic, but a deterministic system does not have to be “predictable” (assuming we use the same definitions of predictable).
Since you quoted me, i’ll try to address your questions.
The first part you quoted was saying that I don’t like the idea of determinism as fate. For instance, I don’t like the idea that I am destined to end up a lonely bitter old man.
I choose each of my actions, and I am in charge of my life. If I end up a lonely bitter old man, that’s because of my mistakes, not because I had no choice.
But the second point was basically agreeing with you. Determinism, I don’t have a problem with. It does not negate free-will. It’s Destiny that I don’t like.
“Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way, like the problem of cause and effect…the individual is separate from his universal environment only in name. The individual may be understood neither as an isolated person nor as an expendable, humanoid working-machine. He may be seen, instead, as one particular focal point at which the whole universe expresses itself.”