Three Arguments Against Determinism

[Jonti]

that makes it no less of a question.

I think the answer's Vancouver. But not this planet.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

lol "apodeictic". I think it just means logical necessity. Slightly unsure what that means, too, tbh.

That's a lot different from a crawdaddy's claw, isn't it.

 

[118118]

Who says I've done no reading? I have a dual major bachelors degree, one of them being philosophy. In my final years, I did self-directed study courses directed to the issue of free will vs determinism. I've read a couple of things about it.

But, you wouldn't repeat anything that you've learnt, here. Nevermind.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But, you wouldn't repeat anything that you've learnt, here. Nevermind.

A lot of that learning is taking the fundamentals, processing them yourself, and coming up with a conclusion you're comfortable with.

Studying philosophy is not like learning the names of the major rivers in geography.

 

[Jonti]

Adj. 1. apodeictic - of a proposition; necessarily true or logically certain
apodictic
logic - the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
true - consistent with fact or reality; not false; "the story is true"; "it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true"- B. Russell; "the true meaning of the statement"




source

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

lol "apodeictic". I think it just means logical necessity. Slightly unsure what that means, too, tbh.

Dude, when you take a word like apodeictic and turn it into poditic, it worries me that maybe you're just foolin' with us here.

Like somebody carrying on a conversation on a French board about french literature, by cadging phrases out of a text written in english on the subject, then running them through a translator, and posting them up.

 

[118118]

A lot of that learning is taking the fundamentals, processing them yourself, and coming up with a conclusion you're comfortable with.

Studying philosophy is not like learning the names of the major rivers in geography.

So, three years of study and you learnt your a hard determinst

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So, three years of study and you learnt your a hard determinst

Four years actually.

 

[118118]

Dude, when you take a word like apodeictic and turn it into poditic, it worries me that maybe you're just foolin' with us here.

Like somebody carrying on a conversation on a French board about french literature, by cadging phrases out of a text written in english on the subject, then running them through a translator, and posting them up.

I've already explained what I'm doing here, and why I plunder texts fir quotes (it will help with my dissertations) Do I have to pass an IQ test to post here lol

If you want me to go away, just say, dear.

 

[118118]

That's different. It's arguable that 'reality' is a construct. If we all agree on the construct, then it's not deviant etc even though the construct is in some way artificial.

So this discussion is totally pointless then.

And doesn't this show that it is best to look up what terms mean

 

[muser]

There are various versions of the Godel incompleteness theorems (which technically aren't paradoxes). The original version is not the easiest to understand or see the relevance of. An essential ingredient (of the 1st incompleteness theorem) is using a formal axiomatic system (F) to describe itself in order to come up with a ghost of the liar paradox something like:
"This statement is not provable in F"
cf liar paradox:
"This statement is not true."

An alternative version in computer science is that there is no algorithm that can test whether all algorithms terminate. This is know as the halting problem.

So what I suggest is that it seems likely that if there were a set of (presumably very complex) rules that could predict human behaviour, then 'human behaviour' - which presumably includes formulating these rules - could not decide whether certain consequences of these rules are true.

It all boils down to self-reference. So the 'will' might be ultimately free of human knowledge but not of the universe itself.

I should add a disclaimer that you need to be very careful when wielding Godel incompleteness theorems and I'm certainly not being careful here. I'm not proving anything, I'm just suggesting an idea.

The section in bold is food for thought. Could you expand on this line of thinking. Is the human psyche caught in seminal purgatory where the outcome of our decisions are never really fully known to ourselves?

 

[118118]

Dude, when you take a word like apodeictic and turn it into poditic, it worries me that maybe you're just foolin' with us here.

Like somebody carrying on a conversation on a French board about french literature, by cadging phrases out of a text written in english on the subject, then running them through a translator, and posting them up.

Erm, there is no novel. Your just say your thoughts. Its different. Bit really. Maybe, you are implying that your profund thoughts, really are that profound.

carrying on a conversation on a French board about french literature, by cadging phrases out of a text written in english on the subject, then running them through a translator, and posting them up

Funny, cos I think thats a much better description of your study habits

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've already explained what I'm doing here, and why I plunder texts fir quotes (it will help with my dissertations) Do I have to pass an IQ test to post here lol

If you want me to go away, just say, dear.

Stay or go, it's up to you. But usually, people who have studied and written extensively about philosophy, have the terms down. Because if you sound out the words phonetically on your term paper, the professor gives you a low mark.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So this discussion is totally pointless then.

:

Yes, but so is a game of cribbage.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Erm, there is no novel. Your just say your thoughts. Its different. Bit really. Maybe, you are implying that your profund thoughts, really are that profound.
D

No, they're just my thoughts.

 

[118118]

Stay or go, it's up to you. But usually, people who have studied and written extensively about philosophy, have the terms down. Because if you sound out the words phonetically on your term paper, the professor gives you a low mark.

Since when did you have to have studied and written extensively in philosophy to post here, ffs. (lol) what a rediculous thing to insult someone for - your translator analogy wasn't even a very good analogy - FACT.

Re: the plague - maybe it is relevent to say that some people think illness is a construct too.

If philosophy is just a game of cribbage you have learnt even less from your philosophy degree (and there is no point, in my eyes - if I wanted to play a game I would play quake, or something)

 

[118118]

You say that people are not mad to think consciousness is real, as most poeple think this way

So, if 60% of the population has the plague, no-one is ill? Or, are you hard-nosed anti-psychiartry, too?

That's different. It's arguable that 'reality' is a construct. If we all agree on the construct, then it's not deviant etc even though the construct is in some way artificial.

Not sure I understand. Plenty of people think 'illness' is a construct. Not sure if that relevent, because I don't understand what relevence it is that reality is a construct to whether or not a character trait found in 60% of the population can ever be treated as an illness.

 

[Jonti]

So is a lack of free will apodictic? ... is it apodictic that no will is possible without laws?
(spelling corrected)

That's an interesting thought. One might well think that yes, in order to be able to exercise freedom, to act in the world, there must be something fixed against which to push, so to speak. In a sea of chaos, one cannot strike out in any particular direction. Or at least it means nothing to do so.

Danniel Dennett's explanation of compatibilism certainly seems to suggest that "future making and avoidance" is something that can only take place within a regular framework. Without some regularity one could not predict what is coming down, and then (choose to) take measures to avoid that eventuality.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Since when did you have to have studied and written extensively in philosophy to post here, ffs. (lol) )

You don't, but judging by the terminology etc in your posts, it looked like you had; maybe not in school, but it's possible to study without school.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If philosophy is just a game of cribbage you have learnt even less from your philosophy degree (and there is no point, in my eyes - if I wanted to play a game I would play quake, or something)

Alternatively, that's exactly what I needed to learn from my degree.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You say that people are not mad to think consciousness is real, as most poeple think this way





Not sure I understand. Plenty of people think 'illness' is a construct. Not sure if that relevent, because I don't understand what relevence it is that reality is a construct to whether or not a character trait found in 60% of the population can ever be treated as an illness.

Is illness a construct? I suppose it depends on how you define construct, but watching gangrene or flesh eating disease might lead one to believe that it has a biological substrate.

 

[Jonti]

The section in bold is food for thought. Could you expand on this line of thinking. Is the human psyche caught in seminal purgatory where the outcome of our decisions are never really fully known to ourselves?

Well, yeah. Unless it's just me, that is

This short book by Nagel and Newman provides a clear account of Godel's Proof. Well worth a read. In the present context, the relevance is much the same as Dennett's point in this video. The thought is that, in order to establish that a system is predefined, one has to embed that system within an encompassing metasystem. One cannot do it from within the system itself.

But one could also argue that if a system does not "contain itself" in that sense, then it in some way transcends itself. It is never complete, however much more of it is invented. Godel's proof is enormously suggestive, but needs to be deployed with great caution. Technically, it is a proof about arithmetic and numbers. It shows all that stuff is "just there" -- unlike with geometry, one cannot reduce arithmetic to a finite set of axioms.

 

[Jonti]

I'm not sure the question of free will is a particularly useful one. In my view compatibilism is obviously true, but what question does it answer?

If we interpret 'free' to mean 'independent', which I think is reasonable, what are we claiming to be independent of? Are we independent of the motion of Saturn? Are we independent of the functioning of our central nervous system? Are we independent of our own consciousness? (and yes I'm leaving terms like 'we' and 'consciousness' undefined)

Usually a belief about the 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station is based on the actual 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station. So our freedom to believe it is on time is dependent (ie. not entirely free from) the actual train (or at least the timetable).

The question is where you draw the line if at all.

"In my view compatibilism is obviously true, but what question does it answer?"

I think the idea is more freedom to than freedom from. One is free to author one's own life story -- to take measures to do oneself favours, and to avoid harm --- but not free from the laws of physics. Conceptually, compatibilism is a way of answering the question "how are we able to act and make choices in a world governed by physical law?". It doesn't say how the trick is accomplished, but we can say the answer to that is, "by taking measures".

Yes, usually a belief about the 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station is based on the actual 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station. But in the case of (ultra?) hard determinism, the material conditions for that belief (within the organism, whatever) unfold from the initial conditions of creation, independently, as it were, of all the other unfoldings. Everything is dependent on intitial conditions, nothing more comes from the configurations later in time. This is the realm of Leibniz's fearsome monads. It represents an extreme end of the continuum to be delineated.

 

[muser]

free vimto

Well, yeah. Unless it's just me, that is

This short book by Nagel and Newman provides a clear account of Godel's Proof. Well worth a read. In the present context, the relevance is much the same as Dennett's point in this video. The thought is that, in order to establish that a system is predefined, one has to embed that system within an encompassing metasystem. One cannot do it from within the system itself.

But one could also argue that if a system does not "contain itself" in that sense, then it in some way transcends itself. It is never complete, however much more of it is invented. Godel's proof is enormously suggestive, but needs to be deployed with great caution. Technically, it is a proof about arithmetic and numbers. It shows all that stuff is "just there" -- unlike with geometry, one cannot reduce arithmetic to a finite set of axioms.

Thank you for the link, the interview with Joseph goldstein is great, though it is truncated, where can I find the rest of that interview. scrap that, found it

 

[118118]

Is illness a construct? I suppose it depends on how you define construct, but watching gangrene or flesh eating disease might lead one to believe that it has a biological substrate.

Not entirelysure what you mean (can never be entirely sure) but watching, say, the movement of the sun across the sky, would suggest that reality has a physical substrate.

 

[Knotted]

"In my view compatibilism is obviously true, but what question does it answer?"

I think the idea is more freedom to than freedom from. One is free to author one's own life story -- to take measures to do oneself favours, and to avoid harm --- but not free from the laws of physics. Conceptually, compatibilism is a way of answering the question "how are we able to act and make choices in a world governed by physical law?". It doesn't say how the trick is accomplished, but we can say the answer to that is, "by taking measures".

Isn't this trivial though? Anything - conscious or otherwise - has the freedom to do things or become things if you don't know enough about the thing and its environment. Compatibilism either:
1) just states that we don't know enough about ourselves to determine our futures - which is something nobody would disagree with.
and/or
2) it states that the mind is independent of matter - which is just dualism given a different name.

Yes, usually a belief about the 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station is based on the actual 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station. But in the case of (ultra?) hard determinism, the material conditions for that belief (within the organism, whatever) unfold from the initial conditions of creation, independently, as it were, of all the other unfoldings. Everything is dependent on intitial conditions, nothing more comes from the configurations later in time. This is the realm of Leibniz's fearsome monads. It represents an extreme end of the continuum to be delineated.

The key word you introduce here is 'independently' and I'm at a loss to as to what you mean by it. Surely almost nobody* no matter how hard their determinism thinks that beliefs about the 8:17 from Liverpool Street Station is independent of the actual train.

*I suppose that a solipsist or a hardline anti-realist might.

 

[Jonti]

Well, that's just where the logic of Laplacian determinism from initial conditions leads.

The stuff in your head all derives from initial conditions. What is printed on the timetable all derives from initial conditions. The building, structure and design of the locomotive all derives from initial conditions. As does the driver's beleif it's time to go to work. And so on, and on and on. All of the marvellous harmony of creation is simply the result of the right initial configuration, nothing more. If it had been slightly different, the stuff in your head could have deterministically developed to lead to quite a different set of beliefs than the ones you currently enjoy, with the rest of the world remaining the same. Presumably

But no, that's not a solipsist position, or that of a hardline anti-realist. Such are more likely to see the world as "nothing but" dream. Those positions are unlikely to be concerned with antecedent configurations in the slightest.

It's a corker of a question alright. Why should the initial conditions of creation have been such that (as it often turns out) one's beliefs about things are in fact true?

 

[Knotted]

Well, that's just where the logic of Laplacian determinism from initial conditions leads.

The stuff in your head all derives from initial conditions. What is printed on the timetable all derives from initial conditions. The building, structure and design of the locomotive all derives from initial conditions. As does the driver's beleif it's time to go to work. And so on, and on and on. All of the marvellous harmony of creation is simply the result of the right initial configuration, nothing more.

But we are not talking about a whole set of independent initial conditions we are just talking about the initial conditions of a closed system. Which closed system are we talking about?

But no, that's not a solipsist position, or that of a hardline anti-realist. Such are more likely to see the world as "nothing but" dream. Those positions are unlikely to be concerned with antecedent configuarations in the slightest.

It's a corker of a question alright. Why should the initial conditions of creation have been such that (as it often turns out) one's beliefs about things are in fact true?

Why shouldn't they? Because it seems unlikely? Why should randomness produce unlikely situations? I don't think it fairs any better.

By the way I think Leibniz's monads and his causal chains is a stronger form of determinism than Lapacian determinism. I'd have to refresh myself on Leibniz to say for sure though.

 

[Jonti]

Which closed system are we talking about?

That would be all of creation (if it is indeed "closed" in the needed sense). As I put it ...

All of the marvellous harmony of creation is simply the result of the right initial configuration, nothing more.

Why shouldn't they?

Oh, they *should*, otherwise things Just Wouldn't Work. Your beliefs (as pre-ordained in the initial configuration) about the 8:17 would turn out to be wrong.

I wonder how many initial configurations were possible.

 

[Knotted]

I don't think that determinism is without its difficulties (although I think you are confusing Lapacian determinism with a more naive causal determinism where you can identify specific causal chains - this is not possible in (deterministic) dynamical systems cf three body problem & chaos theory in general).

Given that the state of the universe is incredibly unlikely determinism just shifts the problem into the past, but it at least identifies a cosmological question. Where did all this negative entropy come from? The standard (most popular) theory is that the rapid expansion of the early universe caused matter/energy to be uniformly spread rather than clumped together as you would expect if it was left to its own devices. Of course there is then the question why the universe went through such a rapid expansion...