Determinism - Your Views

[Dragoon Knight]

*Flips a coin into the air*

First of all, dammit Gunwounds, I was gonna reply to that thread! :P  Secondly, there needs to be calm.  The Enraged Philosopher (Philosophus Imastabyou) is a dangerous animal.  Best to keep him locked away with all our other dirty, dirty secrets.

Now, for my point of view.  I'm what is termed as a "Soft Determinist"; I'm kind of half way, but I veer more towards the determinist view, because... well, because it's the only feasible option, in my opinion. :)

Humans entertain this illusion of free will; the idea that we determine every single thing that we do, and that no matter the external influence, when faced with Peach or Pie, we can choose either.  This is both very wrong, and partially right.

Determinism holds that everything we do - every action we make, or decision we follow through on - was meant to happen, for want of a better word.  To take it to extremes (ones that are incalculable by human minds, but logically consistent), we were determined to do so 1000 years beforehand, and even further into the infinite past.  It would seem, then, that these two views are totally incompatible... but looks can be deceiving.

We'll use the Peach and Pie example to demonstrate.  Screw the apple, I ate it; peach for the win.  Now, the man comes up to the cafeteria line and sees both the Peach and the Pie.  He believes that he could choose either of them, and firstly opts to go for the pie.  He wants the pie.  He's had his eye on this pie since this morning, and has composed poems about it.  He reaches for the pie... then, at the last second, he grabs the peach and goes to sit down and eat.  This man, however, is allergic to peaches and dies in a big frothy puddle of fruity saliva.

Even though he wanted the pie, and even though he was allergic to peaches, the choice he made was still pre-determined... though possibly a bit insane.  Even though it bears the mark of a free choice, it is only "free" for a given value of "free".

The choice the man made was determined by every factor that happened before the decision was made, be it a direct or indirect effect.  Everything will eventually effect everything else (debatable, as the universe is infinite, but for the purposes of this argument, stfu) and so everything around the man (physically, mentally and temporally) will affect his decision.  Dante has used plenty of examples of this, and I used a couple in my above depiction - the man wanted the pie.  There are trillions of other factors that have contributed to the decision, but that still doesn't seem to be enough for some Free-Will advocates.  Lets take it to a baser level.

In your brain, the culmunation of electrical signals that make you "think" the decision through (i.e. act upon it) are pre-determined.  Now, you can't get much baser than that.  Don't even bother with String Theory, or I'll have to launch you into space.  Besides, I haven't finished yet... here's where the two views become compatible.

Even though the action itself was pre-determined, it is still human thought that makes the decision go through.  Regardless of whether or not you had the choice to begin with, we still consciously make the "choice" to do (or not to do) something.  We don't know the decision we'll finally make, as it may not be our choice - someone may choose the pie, but it might explode randomly.  Bad example, but it illustrates how we cannot know what our determined path is.  We cannot possibly gather all data, because the universe is constantly changing, making all data inaccurate after the smallest period of time.  But this in itself is an argument for free will, in the soft determinism sense.

Since we don't know the outcome, and we can't possibly predict it, the causal chain is out of our control - that's determinism.  But by the same token, there is no possible way that we could act upon this causal chain if we are under full control of our surroundings.  This might not sound clear... what I mean to say is this: even though we are determined in our actions, we cannot comprehend, nor therefore act upon every single piece of causal stimuli (unless it's obvious, like a pie exploding).  If we cannot act upon this data, it cannot be said to consciously influence us.  If it does not influence us, then it does not determine our actions.  This is free will; an illusion, yes, but one that our minds can comprehend.

OK, so chances are only I'm going to understand what I mean.  I can't seem to find the right words for it, but please read it again if you don't get it.  I'm not trying to say anyone isn't intelligent enough to get it, just that I can't put it into words correctly.  This is my view, and in my opinion, it's the correct one.  Pick holes in it if you want, but...

*Coin lands*

...it's just my two pence. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

I personally think we could have determinism on a micro scale and free will on a macro scale....... (altho string theory could throw this out the window)

all the technical tiny causes could be pre-determining us... but on a macro scale i can go and eat pie if i want

[Dragoon Knight]

Your description of the prisoner kind of missed the point, but is correct in its own way.  The prisoner certainly can't get pie, while you can... but both of you are still determined in your actions.  Adding the prisoner to the equation merely introduces a second man, one who has the highly comprehendable stimuli of prison walls.  Or Bubba. :P

But you (going to the store to get pie) were determined to do so by all comprehensible stimuli (I'm hungry, I like pie, I need to pay Bubba with pie for giving Man 2 some lovin') and trillions of incomprehensible ones (too many to list).  Your actions are determined, but you chose to do the determined action. :)

Your point about the dog is also quite valid; free will is all about perception.  As we are able to see more and more of the universe (i.e. more stimuli), we will grow to realise that the universe is truly determined. :)

Spectral Paladin - my view is that someone cannot possibly know what his decision is going to be.  He can decide something, then change his mind... or not.  His final decision is predetermined, but he is the one that chooses it.  Soft determinism is still determinism, but the choice is still made by ourselves.  We don't know what the end result will be, and so we have to act upon stimuli we can comprehend.  There can only be one result, but we don't know what it is, therefore we have the idea of "making a choice".  So strong is this illusion, that it has carried with us for thousands of years, before recorded history, before we had such complicated thoughts.  Our actions are determined, but we weigh up the "pros and cons" if you will, and we carry out an action, based on our response to comprehensible stimuli.

[Dragoon Knight]

He can't, for certain.  If he "chooses" one, and follows through on it, then he was determined to do so.  His mood, determination, preference, etc. being the stimuli.  The entire point of soft determinism is that we cannot know the causal chain, because it is not a chain.  It is trillions and trillions of stimuli chains extending infinitely into the past, and the decision the man makes will become another branch; another stimuli for other decisions in the future.

We cannot comprehend this.  We can envisage it, but there is no possible way for our minds to encompass it.  It's for this reason that we cannot KNOW what decision we're going to make (not in the sense that we can know beforehand, or anyone else can know) but we can act on a decision, knowing that it is the one we have chosen (determined, though it may be).

[GUNWOUNDS]

tell me what you think of this spectral.

People often choose whatever they want even when they are presented with the facts.

[Dragoon Knight]

Again, you raise some very valid points, Gunwounds.  In reality, we're all affected by determinism, but there is still debate about whether this can be used as an excuse.  Under Soft Determinism (my stance), people can be held responsible for their injustices, as it was still them who made the decision.  Regardless of whether it was pre-determined or not, the factors will have added up incriminatingly (i.e. criminal was stimulated to hate, destroy, etc.)

[nemafakei]

Gunwounds' first post and Dragoon's first post are not contradictory - that is, while at the very lowest level, the future is entirely defined by the present, for all practical intents and purposes, we must work on the basis of free will, if only because the notion of determinism can never help us on a day to day level, but the generalisation of free will can.

[nemafakei]

"In the other thread I think we agreed that it is possible to predict the future state of a part of the universe by collecting specific rather than all data."

As I mentioned before, Einsteinian relativity (never mind the Heisenberg principle and other more practical concerns) prevents the collection of such data previous to the event itself.

"Factors that leads to one of the choices + Factor the result is known + Factor that result taking into account result is known is known + Factor that result taking into account result taking into account result is known is known is known + ... => A choice"

This would be the result of a spiteful outcome.

Essentially, it would be an insoluble equation. All that means is that predeterminism can't be observed this way.

[nemafakei]

"I checked the other thread but I couldn't find where you say that. How does it prevent it?"

Ok, briefly, data collected 3 light years away takes 3 years to reach us. At precisely that time, the subject of the data is/can be affecting us anyway, so it's no use.

Again, a spiteful computer could cause your infinite loop.

"That's what should be happening behind the scenes if predeterminism is true."

Why? I don't quite understand why predeterminism means such intervention (passing the results of prediction) is possible.

The conclusion I'm drawing is that because prediction is impossible within the laws of the universe, the paradox cannot come about - it would be a physical impossibility rather than just a philosophical one.

[Egeides]

I might have missed something simple, but from Dragoon's perspective...

Alright, you do not choose your reality and the laws of the world, so a part is determined; but other than that... what stops someone to actually choose a statistical package at each nexus?

One could say that laws include our selves, but it is not what I saw as the essential matter of his first post and what followed. So what stops from choosing a statistical package?

[nemafakei]

"Then we collect the data earlier and take that into account when making the computation. As long as we know the time each piece of data was collected, the computation is theoretically possible."

But if we collect the data earlier, more of it applies - if we collect it four years before the prediction date, we can't just do it over a 3ly radius, we have to do it over a 4ly radius (because anything going at the speed of light can affect us within 4 years if it's less than 4 ly away). And the data from 4 ly away takes 4 years to get here even before it's computed.

"I don't understand what kind of intervention you mean."

The intervention is the presentation of the results of the calculation, which amy result in action thereon.

A computer, 'A' tries to predict the binary output of a second computer, 'B' after A delivers its prediction to B. But B always does the opposite of A's prediction.

So you get the loop: (numbers in brackets are the total predicted result so far)

Factors that leads to one of the choices (1)

+ Factor the result is known (0)

+ Factor that result taking into account result is known is known (1)

+ Factor that result taking into account result taking into account result is known is known is known (1)

+ ...

=> 0 or 1 wherever you stop - and once the prediction is delivered to B, B returns the reverse.

"Still, even if there is noone to observe this that's what happening; A causes B which causes C."

I agree - observer or not. The only problem comes when the observer (who predicts C) intervenes (i.e. tells a spiteful computer or human their next action), i.e.

C causes O

A causes B

B and NOT O causes C

B and O causes NOT C

[nemafakei]

"We need to extend the radius only as long as is required to cover for the extra time required. The collection of data has to be done by starting from the edge of the circle and moving in. As long as we have the data and the time when each piece was collected, we can work out what interactions took place during data collection (to prevent miscalculations), then make our computation."

I know. What I'm saying is if all data is recorded at at time=-3, data from

[GUNWOUNDS]

nema did you mean