Exactly. You can look back in the conversation to post #170 to see where I’m coming from. (Little up and down arrows are helpful for navigation, you can also click a user’s name then the funnel to filter by that user’s posts)
~Max
Thanks, sorry if I’m rehashing things needlessly, I’ll admit I haven’t read every single post. I’ll try and hold back a bit more before I blurt out things.
On the other hand, I sort of jumped in here because I thought it might be helpful for me to poke at some things from my point of view and see if I could help dislodge some points that others seem to be stuck on somewhat. So not trying to aggravate, just to help things move along if I can.
If that universe is deterministic, isn’t your route determined by fate? With enough knowledge we could calculate your route a thousand years before you are even born. I can’t separate fatalism from determinism.
~Max
In my view, the universe being deterministic doesn’t mean that every single thing in the universe is necessarily connected. It’s not “everything affects everything”, but “nothing happens without cause”. That said, it may well be, that a butterfly is connected to the events that lead to your brain existing, but that doesn’t mean your brain is not the proximate cause for your actions. That’s all that I can see “special” meaning in this context. There would be no way for the butterfly to cause any of your actions, if you had no brain. Hmmm, well, not being well enough versed in biology, perhaps it’s possible for the brain stem or some other part of the nervous system to cause reflexive movement, but this seems a needless digression…
That line of posts concerned block-universes, specifically. In the case of a block-universe, all of time and space is a single static four-dimensional orthotope, and all events past present and future coexist.
~Max
Well, I guess you could call it fate if you like. I would say that is just another way to communicate the same thing as determinism. But ‘fate’ is used quite a different way and in a different context. You could say, that in a deterministic universe, what happens to us is simply fate. But this again in my opinion is veering into the same territory I talked about earlier, sort of mixing up different levels of understanding – humans are not free of influences, but we still make decisions, and take actions based on them. Whereas, in a “normal” colloquial(?) sense, whenever we talk about fate, it tends to be seen as some sort of force that PREdestines our lives. I’m not too sure about the history of terminology, but it seems to me there is a useful disctinction between determinism and predetermisim. A dictionary definition says both mean the say, but to me the latter has much more of a ‘spiritual’ connotation. It implies to me, that some ‘thing’ or entity has first decided to put up the dominoes as they wish, and then pushed the first one over.
How I think of determism is that matter and forces affect eachother in a calculable manner, which leads to the conclusion that from an omniscient perspective it would be simple to know all future and past events by tracking those interactions. (With the clarification that not all events are connected in a manner where you could calculate everything in every “direction” starting at any given starting point – you’d still have to choose to follow events as they cause one another) This has no bearing however on any individual’s life, neither does it diminish the significance of their decisions as necessary steps in defining their actions. It’s simply saying that (sorry to repeat myself) from an omniscient vantage point, one could predict each thought before it occurs.
To be clear, by no means am I saying that it’s a foregone conclusion that everything would be knowable like I described. There are too many things I personally don’t know about to make such a statement. If for example we find out that there is some quantum phenomenon affecting brains that brings in a truly random and unknowable factor, that’s a different matter. All I’m saying is that the human will is a link in a chain of events, not something separate from it.
Well, but that’s simply not how a deterministic universe works. There are no alternatives—given that particular point you’re on, all the rest of the way is perfectly fixed. That’s just a property of the laws of physics (a necessary one for a deterministic universe, I argued above, but the case of infinitely many possible states for the system is more difficult to make, as pointed out by @Thudlow_Boink). All you need is the laws of physics and the initial conditions—or, indeed, the laws of physics and the conditions at any given point in time.
Let’s take an example. Suppose the universe has three possible states, or configurations, A, B, and C. The set of these states is its state space. The laws of physics then determine the transitions between the states. For instance, without loss of generality, we may assume the following dynamics:
A → C
B → A
C → B
This determines the system completely. Now all you need is to specify which state the system is in at t_0, and then, everything is fixed. Suppose we start in state A. The system’s evolution will be:
A --> C --> B --> A --> C...
t0 t1 t2 t3 t4
So, there is no possibility of branching: it simply isn’t the case that at, say, t_1, there are turns that could be taken, but aren’t. Moreover, the entire chain is determined not just by giving the state at t_0, but equally well, by giving it at any point along the history. So I could just as well have said, the state at t_2 is B—then, it would have been just as clear that the state at t_1 must have been C, and that the state at t_3 will be A, and so on. That’s why pointing to the state being C at t_1 doesn’t tell us anything new about the state at t_2—the propositions ‘the state is B at t_2’ and ‘the state is C at t_1’ are logically equivalent.
It’s different in an indeterministic universe. There, the state at any point doesn’t determine the state at every point. For instance, we might have something like:
-> A --> B...
|
A --> B --> C -
|
-> B --> C...
t0 t1 t2 t3 t4
In such a case, the state at t_0 (or t_1) doesn’t uniquely determine the entire history. Extra information is needed, and that extra information comes in at the branching point. That extra information hence does something no event in a deterministic evolution ever does—it selects one of an ensemble of real, possible alternatives. It actually could have come otherwise, which is never the case in determinism.
Of course, this doesn’t work as a point of origin for free will. Randomness isn’t any more free than determinism is. But this is a salient distinction that should not be blurred by careless talk of causes and effects.
Indeed, you mention the very thing which forces me to make choices right here:
In other words, physics. In the same way that gravity actually robs me of my freedom to fly like a bird, in a deterministic universe physics actually robs me of my freedom to make decisions.
And it makes a difference in my moral evaluations - if I was a juror and a mass murderer proved conclusively that his actions were inevitable, I would acquit him. His case would be no different than some woman showing her daughter how to cut vegetables when a baseball flies through the window and hits her in such a way as to literally force her, by reflexes or something, to stab the daughter.
~Max
This is exactly the crux of the matter I was alluding to with my talk of “levels of understanding” or “categories”. It is this mixing up of different levels of phenomena, that seems to be at the core of the debate.
Regardless of the physics and chemistry affecting the state of matters, we have criteria on which we base the judgement of what the level of control a person has over their actions in any social context is. It doesn’t matter that again, from an omniscient perspective we could see all the different interactions to what ever level of detail needed to predict things.
What matters is whether a person is able to consider their actions on a “human level” – the state of matters on the atomic level doesn’t really come into it. But the state of matters on say a chemical level might. We do indeed take into consideration the many and complicated reasons a person may have committed their actions. Things like diminished responsibility for what ever reason. And after considering things, we take more actions, that we deem the best. None of this is nullified by the fact that everything we do, think, or say, is equally the result of matter and forces interacting.
I get this, I sort of think the only thing needing more work is around the word “possible”. And, I need to emphasize that I do concede I have no complete knowledge of all the forces in the universe, so I’m not saying I can say if it’s purely deterministic or not.
I should have clarified or qualified my comments on the analogy I guess. How I see it is, the forks in the road are basically hypothetical. IF (A), then turn left, ELSE IF (B), then turn right. When we arrive at the fork, it’s the state of matters that determines which turn we take. Up until that point, either one may have been equally possible. But once the turn has been made, the other option is irrelevant.
The big question is: in a non-deterministic universe, what does that possibility of branching actually mean, and what facilitates it? To me, it would simply mean that there are some relevant things that are unknowable. Like I tried to demonstrate above, the possibility of things going either way may exist all the way up to when the fork is reached, and at that point something makes it so that either side is chosen. In a deterministic universe, all the affecting factors can hypothetically be known – in a non-deterministic one, they can’t?
I’ll disagree with you there. My system of morals rests upon the concept of culpability - people being responsible for their own actions - which itself only takes root at the base of a causal chain. So the foundation of my entire system of morals is a metaphysical assumption that individuals are prime movers in their own right. They can be constrained by physics or what have you, but when constrained to one possible choice culpability evaporates. My system of morals, which I use to decide what does and does not matter, is fundamentally incompatible with determinism at any level.
~Max
But in a deterministic universe, what happens at the fork is completely fixed long before we actually arrive at that fork—indeed, given the initial state (or indeed, any state), there simply is no fork—the state at every moment along the history of the universe is completely fixed. So I don’t see how there is a sense in which we could arrive at the fork to determine the turn taken. It’s completely clear how things will continues, and has been just as clear billions of years ago.
Why? Can you help making the decisions you do?
This is what I’m getting at: everything you think is the result of some sort of interaction. You think of things and consider your options, and finally decide to take an action. At base level however, your mind is the product of your brain, which is a physical thing. Therefore, all your thoughts are connected to physical things. That doesn’t mean you are a “slave” to them. It just means there is an interaction.
Maybe I could try to illustrate this with an example like this: you happen to think of something that evokes in you an emotional response, which then leads to blood rushing to the vains in your face, i.e. you blush. It also makes you consider your options: should you call that person on the phone, or maybe that would feel embarrassing? Everything in this chain of events is connected. You will still make a decision to call or not, but that will be a result of brain activity. There could be something wrong with your brain chemistry, that would result in you feeling very ashamed of having your thoughts and result in you becoming so anxious that you’d decide the only thing you can do is to hurt yourself. We would deem the latter to be a malfunction.
Indeed a moral system is something we build to function in society. As I said, the interactions of matter and forces being completely calculable doesn’t make humans automatons, any more than atoms being mostly empty space make a chair impossible to sit on.
We are only constrained to the choices we end up making on a level of detail that in social interactions is irrelevant. It’s not the atoms we need to concider, atoms don’t have feelings. I guess the most conscise way I can think to summarize it is that nobody and nothing is free of influence. You might think that your moral system is “purely your doing”, but I would describe that as just a feeling.
Well, yeah – that’s what I meant by saying it was hypothetical. The other fork is only possbile if the state of matters at that point in time is different. I know this may seem sort of redundant…
I guess what I’m trying to approach here is the difference to the non-deterministic option. What is it that facilitates the “true possibility” of branches? Wouldn’t it be something affecting the physical universe (well, I’m starting to think I should ask the obvious question of what else is there…) that is by its nature unknowable? In a quantum sort of way I suppose?
Alas, I am not personally a physicalist but a dualist.
~Max
Well, something merely being unknowable wouldn’t suffice, it seems to me—reality is not defined by our epistemic access. No, it should rather be an ontic notion, one of indeterminateness—i.e. being genuinely not a function of the totality of the universe’s history up to that point. I think it’s easiest to think of it as the creation of new information—in a deterministic universe, you start with some input (the initial conditions), say a string of bits, and then let things work on that; but in an indeterministic universe, additional bits of information are added along the way.
As to how that might work, well—that’s one of the ‘black boxes’ that exist in every picture of how stuff happens in the world. Clearly, you can’t reduce this random.choice to a mechanism, as then, it would be just another deterministic system. You can consider an infinitary system, as I do above, that would generate truly random (incompressible in an algorithmic sense) bits, but it’s doubtful whether something like that is possible in the real world.
In the end, my main point in this thread is just that every picture of how stuff happens—free will, causation, a block universe, randomness—contains such a ‘black box’, and neither is really better off than the others in that regard. It’s just that different people take different black boxes to be fatal.
Hi Pseudonym, glad you decided to get involved, and hope you enjoy the discussion 
Yes, I think you’re right. I think the framing issue is at least as big as the definitional problems though.
In Western culture, it’s usually framed something like: “Free will means you ‘could have chosen differently’. This is incompatible with a Deterministic universe, therefore free will doesn’t exist. Agree or disagree?”
And we have seen this in this thread – it’s been steered to a discussion about Determinism, not defending the concept of free will.
But my position is that “could have chosen differently” is nothing like as clear a concept as it seems at first glance, given what we think of as a reasoned choice. And it’s hard to see how it could possibly play out even in a non-deterministic universe, anyway.
Alas, “free will” has such a long history in philosophy now that few people think to question the legitimacy of the concept or framing itself.
I’ll respond to the rest of the posts later (since this thread has got “hot” if I responded to everyone immediately it would take up too much of my time. But it’s good to respond to someone who’s just joined the discussion).
Thanks Mijn!
I agree with all of this, and I’m very interested in trying to sort of untangle the whole ball of yarn to whatever extent it might be possible. It seems like the whole issue has been muddled and both sides are talking about different things, so this particular conversation seemed to be approaching the same issues I’ve long had in mind.
I wanted to attempt and clarify precisely the idea of ‘could have chosen differently’, with which I think there was at least something happening above, namely regarding the idea of ‘true choice’. Based on that, I would now summarise my understandings of the positions like this:
determinism = events are only caused by previous events
vs.
indeterminism = some events aren’t caused by previous events
Personally, my next problem is understanding what the latter is based on. In much the same way as occasionalism, I currently have no idea what is behind the idea, other than “we can imagine it”.
One aspect of it all came up in what Max said – as I understand it, certain things must be true for determinism to be possible, namely, a physical universe that doesn’t contain anything ‘supernatural’. Mind-body dualism would in my understanding fall outside of this. Although I’d be very interested in hearing more about it. (Don’t know if that would/should sprout a whole other thread though.) I can much more easily understand the existance of the problem of free will in a dualistic context, where perhaps a deity is posited, that influences humans. Although I’ll admit this is already starting feel like purely spitballing, with no real deep knowledge of the history of the issue.
What scope of choice is required to constitute ‘free will’?
This is exactly what I wasn’t able to put to words so concisely. Scope is exactly the issue I was also circling around with my talking about “levels” and “categories”. And it ties into how free will and morals are connected, versus what free will means in a deterministic context.