Thoughts on Determinism

[Skepsis]

I think that determinism exists in the degree in which the person believes in it. The same goes for free will. I think we can all see how this works in real life. Think of someone you know that no matter what seems to never be able to get themselves out of bad circumstances. You may see possibilities that they don't see, see how they could improve their situation, but it futile if the person believes that every choice they make is the only one available to them. They may view the possibilities you suggest as not possible for them.

So, some people behave as if hard determinism was true, some in its complete opposite(absolute free will), and I would bet that most people sensically believe it is somewhere inbetween.

[Pa3s]

I'm sorry I took so long to reply, but first, I was too busy/lazy and then I just forgot about it.

*post*

If I understood you correctly, you seem to believe that neither of the extreme positions of free will vs. determinism is true. Regarding your arguments: Determinism is not much more than a hypothesis and it will most likely never be "proven" (not that anything could ever be conclusively proven). So yes, it assumes a lot.

Free will, on the other handside, seems like the more "natural" choice. It's as if we're born with the conviction of having free will. But if you look closely, you will see that this theory assumes just as much and some necessary preconditions even defy laws of nature (from a certain point of view that is).

I think that the simplest way of putting it is to say that time is uncountable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set), as it is the set of real numbers. It elucidates that time doesn't move forward in increments, but that time is perceived, depending on how one counts the uncountable. Thus, how we come to traverse or count time is not representative of its functioning, but of our relative position in perceiving its change. In other words, the universe would be inherently lawless or unbounded in how it changes, but relatively bounded or lawful by an observer, who can find and imagine as best as possible through The Scientific Method, incremental, relative changes, because anything else would not make sense.

This is very hard thing to try and explain because I think it's much easier for someone to think of time as moving forward, rather than existing statically in an infinite continuum where all things are relatively possible and yet exist in the same time, but in a different relation to one another. But this is how I've come to understand time.

You're right, this is hard to understand. I'm not saying you're wrong about that, but if you start thinking about (and challenging) these "levels" of existence, there is not much point in discussing determinism or free will anymore. Because if this was true, it could mean that everything we are able to observe and experience as humans could also be a subjective illusion and irrelevant if one truly wants to find out how the universe works. Of course, it is still an interesting idea to think about.

I think that determinism exists in the degree in which the person believes in it. The same goes for free will. I think we can all see how this works in real life. Think of someone you know that no matter what seems to never be able to get themselves out of bad circumstances. You may see possibilities that they don't see, see how they could improve their situation, but it futile if the person believes that every choice they make is the only one available to them. They may view the possibilities you suggest as not possible for them.

So, some people behave as if hard determinism was true, some in its complete opposite(absolute free will), and I would bet that most people sensically believe it is somewhere inbetween.

I think what you have in mind is not determinism, but fatalism (i.e. the belief in an unchangeable faith). If a person believes that they were "born unlucky" it might actually lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy because it changes the way they act. I'd agree that a person with such a belief would be less likely to actively work on improving their lives compared to someone who beliefs in free will.

But determinism must be understood from a meta-perspective. Fatalism has a religious element in it, but determinism is value-neutral. Determinism does not suggest that a person's situation can't change. Because you don't know what will happen, you're just as free as a person who believes in free will.

If two people decide on something, while person A beliefs in free will and person B is a determinist, only their explanation of the decision-making process will be different, but there's no reason to assume that their belief changed their decision (unlike fatalism!).

It would probably sound like that:
Person A: "I chose option 1, even though I could have chosen every other option as well."
Person B: "I chose option 1, because all preceding events determined my choice."

While person B believes that, it is still "their" choice, because the disbelief in free will also means that every decision is made this way.

[Skepsis]

I think what you have in mind is not determinism, but fatalism (i.e. the belief in an unchangeable faith). If a person believes that they were "born unlucky" it might actually lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy because it changes the way they act. I'd agree that a person with such a belief would be less likely to actively work on improving their lives compared to someone who beliefs in free will.

But determinism must be understood from a meta-perspective. Fatalism has a religious element in it, but determinism is value-neutral. Determinism does not suggest that a person's situation can't change. Because you don't know what will happen, you're just as free as a person who believes in free will.

If two people decide on something, while person A beliefs in free will and person B is a determinist, only their explanation of the decision-making process will be different, but there's no reason to assume that their belief changed their decision (unlike fatalism!).

It would probably sound like that:
Person A: "I chose option 1, even though I could have chosen every other option as well."
Person B: "I chose option 1, because all preceding events determined my choice."

While person B believes that, it is still "their" choice, because the disbelief in free will also means that every decision is made this way.

Sorry, I should've been more specific. I was speaking of determinism as "hard determinism", which does tend toward fatalism.

[Pa3s]

Sorry, I should've been more specific. I was speaking of determinism as "hard determinism", which does tend toward fatalism.

Well, hard determinism is also the kind of determinism I was talking about.

I still see determinism and fatalism as different concepts, though. As far as I understood it, both pretty much say that everyone's life will proceed in one specific way which can not be changed.

The difference is causality. For determinists, causality is the one and only reason why things are the way they are. The sum of all past events determines the future (and thus, the future is predefined because there is only one way the events can unfold). For fatalists, the crucial element is not causality, but the fate, which is predetermined by god(s) or some unspecific powers.

A determinists belives that the laws of nature are the only factors which control their lives (and may reject the idea that life has an inherent purpose or meaning), whereas fatalists believe in some kind of "instance" which is also responsible for giving life its meaning.

If a person looks back on their life and sees how every attempt to improve it was a failure, it can appear logical for a fatalist to regard it as the personal fate (that's what I meant by "born unlucky"). If you believe that a god decided upon your fate, you might believe that god does not "want" you to have a good life. This extrapolation, however, is illogical to a determinist (no matter if they believe in hard or soft determinism). Determinists will say that the universe is too complex to accurately predict most things, let alone what happens in their lives.

The difference between hard and soft determinism is the question if free will is compatible with it or not. Hard determinists are incompatibilists, soft determinists compatibilists. I think this is largely a matter of interpretation.

[Skepsis]

Well, hard determinism is also the kind of determinism I was talking about.

I still see determinism and fatalism as different concepts, though. As far as I understood it, both pretty much say that everyone's life will proceed in one specific way which can not be changed.

The difference is causality. For determinists, causality is the one and only reason why things are the way they are. The sum of all past events determines the future (and thus, the future is predefined because there is only one way the events can unfold). For fatalists, the crucial element is not causality, but the fate, which is predetermined by god(s) or some unspecific powers.

A determinists belives that the laws of nature are the only factors which control their lives (and may reject the idea that life has an inherent purpose or meaning), whereas fatalists believe in some kind of "instance" which is also responsible for giving life its meaning.

If a person looks back on their life and sees how every attempt to improve it was a failure, it can appear logical for a fatalist to regard it as the personal fate (that's what I meant by "born unlucky"). If you believe that a god decided upon your fate, you might believe that god does not "want" you to have a good life. This extrapolation, however, is illogical to a determinist (no matter if they believe in hard or soft determinism). Determinists will say that the universe is too complex to accurately predict most things, let alone what happens in their lives.

The difference between hard and soft determinism is the question if free will is compatible with it or not. Hard determinists are incompatibilists, soft determinists compatibilists. I think this is largely a matter of interpretation.

I do think they could very well be different concepts, but they could also be different shades of the same concept. There seems to be some trouble in defining what exactly what the two are, and how they are different, as there seems to be some overlap that muddies the definitions some.

For instance, when I think of hard determinism, I think of it as very similar, if not identical to predeterminism, in which all current events originate to a single cause. If every current incident is the result of a long chain of prior events, then all future occurrences are an extension of that chain of events. So while the future is known, it could be predicted if every single variable was taken into consideration.

While fatalism is in a sense exactly as you said, a consignment of fate to an individual by some conscious being, it's relationship to determinism is at least analogous in that the future is unavoidable by a chain of events outside one's control. But, it is not necessarily confined to a conscious agent. It is often just the feeling that what has happened, or will happen is "destiny" whether it is by naturalistic or supernaturalistic means.

One way of looking at it is that determinism is fatalism without a god and/or without applying a meaning, and is often more philosophically naturalistic, but I see them as two concepts that are both the same, yet different.

[Pa3s]

One way of looking at it is that determinism is fatalism without a god and/or without applying a meaning, and is often more philosophically naturalistic, but I see them as two concepts that are both the same, yet different.

I think that's fair to say. Fatalism is deterministic by nature, but causal determinism is not identical to fatalism.

Another thing: I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that yet, but if I'm not mistaken a fatalist may actually believe in free will as much as any indeterminist. But there's a catch, because it wouldn't matter anyway since the fate is already determined. An incompatibilist determinist, however, would say that free will is an illusion/not even possible (according to its common definition).

[Esaman]

Events without objective cause or causal relationship are referred to as random, while the events of a chaotic system
can not be predicted even with absolute knowledge. Both concepts are incompatible with the principle of determinism, according to which the universe resembles a perfect machine, which works incessantly by rigid laws and produces results which have no alternatives. These, in turn, form the basis and cause of subsequent events.

Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, sociology, physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

In laziness I assume that for that last part in wiki it is talked about "not practically predictable" because theoretically with god powers you could make absolute copy of the universe and run it forward to get the prediction.(if the world was chaotically deterministic)

Will be reading forward.