5 ms·

Determinism is a dead end that renders the human mind useless. It has its roots in the mechanistic cause-effect nature of Newtonian physics. Rationalist philoso

Determinism is a dead end that renders the human mind useless. It has its roots in the mechanistic cause-effect nature of Newtonian physics. Rationalist philosophers like Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza create rigid, math-like world-views believing in this. Later, David Hume would prove them wrong by demonstrating that causality is not a simple problem at all.

robertlagrant 3y ago
I don't even understand how flipping a coin to make a decision isn't the death of hard determinism. Or is it that random events can be inputs to determinism?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chongli 3y ago
  How is flipping a coin incompatible with a deterministic universe? Seems to me that it only seems random because our muscle control isn’t good enough to flip the side we want every time.
- simiones 3y ago
  First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Secondly, even true randomness doesn't significantly alter the world-view of Determinism, at least not when applied to the problem of consciousness (as in the current context). Regardless of whether the future state of the world is fully determined by the past state, or whether the future state of the world is fully determined by the past state + random events, consciousness and conscious decisions play no role. That is, the feeling that you decide whether to go to work or not, that today you could have decided otherwise if you had wanted to, is still an illusion in either model. In pure determinism, this was determined the moment the universe came into being. In determinism+true randomness, whether you went or not was unknowable ahead of time, but you still didn't have any input: say, some cosmic ray flipping a switch in your brain or not determined whether you did go.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Nope. In simple newtonian classical mechanics it is entirely possible to have a phase space in which for all epsilon greater than zero any initial conditions that lead to { heads } have a neighbouring set of intial conditions within epsilon radius that lead to { tails }. ie. It is possible to have coin flipping game in which no amount of precision in setting intial conditions can guarantee the outcome. This is the implication of Lorenz's butterfly and Smale's horseshoe map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
    - simiones 3y ago
      True, though I don't believe there is any reason to think such systems would actually be physically realizable. To me this seems similar to the dome shape where a ball sitting at rest on the top would randomly move down at any time in any direction - it is part of the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics, but it is not necessarily part of the physics of it (since that dome shape requires infinite smoothness, which can't exist in the physical model).
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. I'm saying: is randomness such as this an input to a deterministic model? This brain decides to flip a coin and base its next action on that coin's outcome: is that a future past which determinism cannot see?
    - simiones 3y ago
      > Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. If we're discussing whether the future is fully determined by the past, this point is rather important. In a fully classical (newtonian) world, the future is fully determined by the past - so the result of that coin flip was already determined not just at the moment the coin was thrown, but in fact the moment the universe began. Now, with QM, whether this remains true or not is much more debatable. In the many-worlds interpretation for example, it does remain true: in that interpretation, the whole universe evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, with all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually happening, just not in the same place in phase space. In the more common interpretations, there is true randomness, with only one outcome happening from a random event and no way to predict which it will be. So, in the most common interpretations of QM, while coinflips may not be very random, you could instead measure the spin of an electron and base your decisions on that, and no one could predict the future if you do so. Still, note that you are not choosing anything, in either interpretation. Your next action is as unpredictable to you as it is to anyone else, if there is true randomness. Your thoughts, beliefs, experiences, do not influence your actions in any way if you base your actions on a random event. So, if you believe that a deterministic universe is not compatible with true free will, then you should also believe that a random universe is just as incompatible with true free will.
simiones 3y ago
First of all, I believe the majority of philosophers of mind today are compatibilists - they hold that free will is in fact compatible with determinism. Secondly, there is very clearly no room at all for strong free will in any physical theory we have. By "strong free will" I mean the idea that conscious beings are able to decide their next action at some moment T+1 without either (a) a sufficiently intelligent agent being able to predict with 100% accuracy their decision from enough knowledge about the state of the world at moment T, or (b) the decision being a purely random event. Given that human beings are made entirely out of elementary particles, there is simply no way for some part of the human to influence the elementary interactions that make up our beings. Of course, if you believe in dualism of some kind, where there is some form of a transcendent soul that doesn't obey physical theories but can intervene in them, then you can add this to any theory. The way free will can be made compatible with determinism is to accept that our choices are not fundamentally different from the choices that a search algorithm makes in its operation. They are fully determined by our previous experience and environment (up to some randomness), but different people will still make different choices, more or less appropriate. Just like different implementations of a search algorithm can work better or worse, or just differently, so two can different people make better or worse choices, or simply different ones. But, just like the algorithm, we are still each entirely the product of our entire life so far, and our nature as human beings.

robertlagrant 3y ago

I don't even understand how flipping a coin to make a decision isn't the death of hard determinism. Or is it that random events can be inputs to determinism?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chongli 3y ago
How is flipping a coin incompatible with a deterministic universe? Seems to me that it only seems random because our muscle control isn’t good enough to flip the side we want every time.
simiones 3y ago
First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Secondly, even true randomness doesn't significantly alter the world-view of Determinism, at least not when applied to the problem of consciousness (as in the current context). Regardless of whether the future state of the world is fully determined by the past state, or whether the future state of the world is fully determined by the past state + random events, consciousness and conscious decisions play no role. That is, the feeling that you decide whether to go to work or not, that today you could have decided otherwise if you had wanted to, is still an illusion in either model. In pure determinism, this was determined the moment the universe came into being. In determinism+true randomness, whether you went or not was unknowable ahead of time, but you still didn't have any input: say, some cosmic ray flipping a switch in your brain or not determined whether you did go.
- defrost 3y ago
  > First of all, in a Newtonian model, flipping a coin is not a random event, the result of the coin flip is determined by the exact forces applied, which are determined by the muscle movements of the flipper, which are determined by chemical reactions in their brain etc. Nope. In simple newtonian classical mechanics it is entirely possible to have a phase space in which for all epsilon greater than zero any initial conditions that lead to { heads } have a neighbouring set of intial conditions within epsilon radius that lead to { tails }. ie. It is possible to have coin flipping game in which no amount of precision in setting intial conditions can guarantee the outcome. This is the implication of Lorenz's butterfly and Smale's horseshoe map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space
  - simiones 3y ago
    True, though I don't believe there is any reason to think such systems would actually be physically realizable. To me this seems similar to the dome shape where a ball sitting at rest on the top would randomly move down at any time in any direction - it is part of the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics, but it is not necessarily part of the physics of it (since that dome shape requires infinite smoothness, which can't exist in the physical model).
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. I'm saying: is randomness such as this an input to a deterministic model? This brain decides to flip a coin and base its next action on that coin's outcome: is that a future past which determinism cannot see?
  - simiones 3y ago
    > Newtonianism doesn't seem relevant to my question. It is a random event if you're not trying to make it not-random. I could just say the word "heads" and continue with my day based on the "heads" decision if I wanted to affect the outcome. If we're discussing whether the future is fully determined by the past, this point is rather important. In a fully classical (newtonian) world, the future is fully determined by the past - so the result of that coin flip was already determined not just at the moment the coin was thrown, but in fact the moment the universe began. Now, with QM, whether this remains true or not is much more debatable. In the many-worlds interpretation for example, it does remain true: in that interpretation, the whole universe evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, with all possible outcomes of a quantum measurement actually happening, just not in the same place in phase space. In the more common interpretations, there is true randomness, with only one outcome happening from a random event and no way to predict which it will be. So, in the most common interpretations of QM, while coinflips may not be very random, you could instead measure the spin of an electron and base your decisions on that, and no one could predict the future if you do so. Still, note that you are not choosing anything, in either interpretation. Your next action is as unpredictable to you as it is to anyone else, if there is true randomness. Your thoughts, beliefs, experiences, do not influence your actions in any way if you base your actions on a random event. So, if you believe that a deterministic universe is not compatible with true free will, then you should also believe that a random universe is just as incompatible with true free will.

simiones 3y ago

First of all, I believe the majority of philosophers of mind today are compatibilists - they hold that free will is in fact compatible with determinism. Secondly, there is very clearly no room at all for strong free will in any physical theory we have. By "strong free will" I mean the idea that conscious beings are able to decide their next action at some moment T+1 without either (a) a sufficiently intelligent agent being able to predict with 100% accuracy their decision from enough knowledge about the state of the world at moment T, or (b) the decision being a purely random event. Given that human beings are made entirely out of elementary particles, there is simply no way for some part of the human to influence the elementary interactions that make up our beings. Of course, if you believe in dualism of some kind, where there is some form of a transcendent soul that doesn't obey physical theories but can intervene in them, then you can add this to any theory. The way free will can be made compatible with determinism is to accept that our choices are not fundamentally different from the choices that a search algorithm makes in its operation. They are fully determined by our previous experience and environment (up to some randomness), but different people will still make different choices, more or less appropriate. Just like different implementations of a search algorithm can work better or worse, or just differently, so two can different people make better or worse choices, or simply different ones. But, just like the algorithm, we are still each entirely the product of our entire life so far, and our nature as human beings.