A definition of "determinism"

[Skwim]

The following is an off-hand definition I made on another thread, and was asked to re-post it separately. So do what you will with it, or not.

Determinism is the concept that all events, human actions and thought in particular, happen because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else. All events absolutely have to be the way they are. Determinism and absolute randomness, are the only two agents of action, which give lie to freewill. Freewill is an illusion. ​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The following is an off-hand definition I made on another thread, and was asked to re-post it separately. So do what you will with it, or not.

Determinism is the concept that all events, human actions and thought in particular, happen because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else. All events absolutely have to be the way they are. Determinism and absolute randomness, are the only two agents of action, which give lie to freewill. Freewill is an illusion. ​

I think Im having the same debate in another thread about "the universe/God cant make decisions. I kinda left out the fancy terms...but is determinism like predestined events that we think are sponteneous to us, but without a "person" behind it, was meant to happen anyway? Cant think of the word.

 

[lovemuffin]

"absolute randomness" appears to contradict the part of the definition wherein the antecedent causes insure that things will be exactly what they are and nothing else. I understand that you are probably trying to incorporate the apparently random (stochastic) nature of quantum events, but if it's the case that quantum randomness has any bearing on human action and thought, then it is not the case that the antecedent causes insure that those actions and thoughts will be exactly what they are and nothing else. So I think the definition in that sense could use some work.

With regard to the statement "free will is an illusion", you might also be interested in discussions about Compatibilism in philosophy, which holds that there is a meaningful definition of "free will" which is compatible with determinism. I believe a majority of professional philosophers these days are compatibilists (cf. Preliminary Survey results | PhilPapers Surveys)
For a brief outline of compatibilism:

How is the Bible the Word of God? | Page 17 | ReligiousForums.com
Radio RF - 5 minute philosophy - segment notes and discussion | ReligiousForums.com

Anyway, it's just like a nervous tick for me to want to suggest to people that they clarify that when they say "free will is an illusion" they mean that it seems likely that metaphysical (or Libertarianism) free will is an illusion...

 

[Brickjectivity]

The following is an off-hand definition I made on another thread, and was asked to re-post it separately. So do what you will with it, or not.

Determinism is the concept that all events, human actions and thought in particular, happen because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else. All events absolutely have to be the way they are. Determinism and absolute randomness, are the only two agents of action, which give lie to freewill. Freewill is an illusion. ​

Its possibly right, but to me it depends on whether there is ultimately repetition in numbers, such as in the number line and in the digits of pi or the natural exponent. I agree things appear to be deterministic that do not operate in loops, referencing the results of their own actions. Most things have a particular beginning and then proceed deterministically from that beginning, however dynamic systems which feed back into themselves are supplemented by the number line. If the number line is truly without pattern then so are they, although that is still an 'If'.

Though experiment: Consider the super milkman who leads a charmed, uneventful life. The super milkman gets up early in order to deliver milk, picks up the milk and delivers it. The milk is delivered according to a set of predetermined causes and potentials. The same milk man delivers milk every day to the same locations with no changes in orders. His is the perfect schedule, never changing, and he and his clothes never age. His wife never ages, and his friends and his town never age. Every day he gets up, picks up the milk and delivers it again; but every morning he starts out in a slightly different way, because 'Yesterday' has affected 'Today'. Each day he begins his work with the effects of the previous day's works. His previous experiences feed back into his daily experiences, so that each day is actually different. The point here is that each day begins a typical way and proceeds deterministically, but what is the effect of the repetitions and the slight variations? Why don't the days become more and more similar until they are all exactly the same? Instead each previous day adds some sort of difference to the next day, and despite all things being the same they never are.

What is the last digit of pi? The last digit changes depending upon the accuracy you want, and as far as we know is random though possibly its not. Perhaps there is some repetition somewhere in it or some way to predict. There may be a pattern to it or not, and the question of whether things are truly chaotic probably depends upon answering questions like that one.

 

[Skwim]

"absolute randomness" appears to contradict the part of the definition wherein the antecedent causes insure that things will be exactly what they are and nothing else. I understand that you are probably trying to incorporate the apparently random (stochastic) nature of quantum events, but if it's the case that quantum randomness has any bearing on human action and thought, then it is not the case that the antecedent causes insure that those actions and thoughts will be exactly what they are and nothing else. So I think the definition in that sense could use some work.

Absolute randomness does indeed contradict determinism, and is mentioned only to acknowledge that it appears to exist at the quantum level. However, I don't see it having any impact on events at the super-atomic level. As for having some bearing on human action and thought, I go along with what Mark Tegmark has said about it.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."

Tegmark, M. (2000). "Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes". Physical Review E 61 (4): 4194–4206.​

With regard to the statement "free will is an illusion", you might also be interested in discussions about Compatibilism in philosophy, which holds that there is a meaningful definition of "free will" which is compatible with determinism. I believe a majority of professional philosophers these days are compatibilists (cf. Preliminary Survey results | PhilPapers Surveys)
For a brief outline of compatibilism:

I'm fairly familiar with compatibilism, having stopped reading about it when it became apparent it was playing fast and loose with the concept of hard determinism

Anyway, it's just like a nervous tick for me to want to suggest to people that they clarify that when they say "free will is an illusion" they mean that it seems likely that metaphysical (or Libertarianism) free will is an illusion...

It's a true illusion in every sense of the word. Freewill, which, for purposes of argument I define as "the ability to have done differently," is a deception of the mind, made either consciously or unconsciously.

Though experiment: Consider the super milkman who leads a charmed, uneventful life. The super milkman gets up early in order to deliver milk, picks up the milk and delivers it. The milk is delivered according to a set of predetermined causes and potentials. The same milk man delivers milk every day to the same locations with no changes in orders. His is the perfect schedule, never changing, and he and his clothes never age. His wife never ages, and his friends and his town never age. Every day he gets up, picks up the milk and delivers it again; but every morning he starts out in a slightly different way, because 'Yesterday' has affected 'Today'. Each day he begins his work with the effects of the previous day's works. His previous experiences feed back into his daily experiences, so that each day is actually different. The point here is that each day begins a typical way and proceeds deterministically, but what is the effect of the repetitions and the slight variations?

Haven't the faintest idea.

Why don't the days become more and more similar until they are all exactly the same? Instead each previous day adds some sort of difference to the next day, and despite all things being the same they never are.

As a matter of fiction, it all depends on how you construct the story.

What is the last digit of pi? The last digit changes depending upon the accuracy you want, and as far as we know is random though possibly its not. Perhaps there is some repetition somewhere in it or some way to predict. There may be a pattern to it or not, and the question of whether things are truly chaotic probably depends upon answering questions like that one.

Just to be clear, the ability to predict or not predict has nothing to do with determinism.

 

[Laika]

Determinism is the concept that all events, human actions and thought in particular, happen because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else. All events absolutely have to be the way they are. Determinism and absolute randomness, are the only two agents of action, which give lie to freewill. Freewill is an illusion.

Implied in this definition is equating determinism with fatalism. The dualism of mind and matter is reflected in the belief that the world can be divided into phenemona that is determined (matter) and that other phenemeona is governed by absolute randomness because it has agencys and therefore the property of choice (mind).As the two are considered to be mutually exclusive, the idea of matter as being determined quickly becomes very fatalistic because it eliminates the idea of agency or choice which belongs to a person and their mind. i.e. If there is no mind, there is no free will and everything a person does is governed by laws which are external to them and they cannot change it (i.e. fate).

If we accept that the mind is determined by matter, we also have to take into account that the mind is itself a material phenemenoa (i.e. the brain) and secondly that our decisions affect our actions and can therefore have material effects. Conequently, we are determined, but we can- within a narrow sense of the realm of possibilities avaliable to us in the material world- have freedom to change those conditions. hence determinism and fatalism are not the same in this sense. I would agree with Well named that the idea of metaphysical or libertarian free will (which implies the mind and the body are seperate) is an illusion. you can have 'free will', but it depends entirely on the definition of freedom.

Though experiment: Consider the super milkman who leads a charmed, uneventful life. The super milkman gets up early in order to deliver milk, picks up the milk and delivers it. The milk is delivered according to a set of predetermined causes and potentials. The same milk man delivers milk every day to the same locations with no changes in orders. His is the perfect schedule, never changing, and he and his clothes never age. His wife never ages, and his friends and his town never age. Every day he gets up, picks up the milk and delivers it again; but every morning he starts out in a slightly different way, because 'Yesterday' has affected 'Today'. Each day he begins his work with the effects of the previous day's works. His previous experiences feed back into his daily experiences, so that each day is actually different. The point here is that each day begins a typical way and proceeds deterministically, but what is the effect of the repetitions and the slight variations? Why don't the days become more and more similar until they are all exactly the same? Instead each previous day adds some sort of difference to the next day, and despite all things being the same they never are.

In Marxism, this is known as necessity and accident. Whilst all things are governed by laws of cause and effect, some events are 'accidental' in relation to other events in that they do not cause them. i.e. the necessity of delivering milk versus the accidents which mean no day is exactly the same.

 

[Skwim]

Implied in this definition is equating determinism with fatalism. The dualism of mind and matter is reflected in the belief that the world can be divided into phenemona that is determined (matter) and that other phenemeona is governed by absolute randomness because it has agencys and therefore the property of choice (mind).As the two are considered to be mutually exclusive, the idea of matter as being determined quickly becomes very fatalistic because it eliminates the idea of agency or choice. . . .

Not agency, but choice.

i.e. If there is no mind, there is no free will and everything a person does is governed by laws which are external to them and they cannot change it (i.e. fate).

Determinism doesn't negate the mind, only the possibly of true choosing.

If

we accept that the mind is determined by matter, we also have to take into account that the mind is itself a material phenemenoa (i.e. the brain) and secondly that our decisions affect our actions and can therefore have material effects. Conequently, we are determined, but we can- within a narrow sense of the realm of possibilities avaliable to us in the material world- have freedom to change those conditions.

Not in the sense of change originating from a free will.

 

[George-ananda]

The following is an off-hand definition I made on another thread, and was asked to re-post it separately. So do what you will with it, or not.

Determinism is the concept that all events, human actions and thought in particular, happen because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else. All events absolutely have to be the way they are. Determinism and absolute randomness, are the only two agents of action, which give lie to freewill. Freewill is an illusion. ​

To my thinking Quantum Theory ended the type of Determinism in the definition of above. Conscious observation should have no affect on matter in the worldview this definition springs from. But conscious observation does affect matter! This is something completely mysterious to the worldview from which this type of Deterministic Theory springs from. A material scientist would have to say the universe is mysterious at this time (not deterministic as we understand Determinism).

 

[Brickjectivity]

A material scientist would have to say the universe is mysterious at this time (not deterministic as we understand Determinism).

Maybe, but a process engineer would not.

 

[Skwim]

To my thinking Quantum Theory ended the type of Determinism in the definition of above.

As I said in post 5,

"Absolute randomness does indeed contradict determinism, and is mentioned only to acknowledge that it appears to exist at the quantum level. However, I don't see it having any impact on events at the super-atomic level. As for having some bearing on human action and thought, I go along with what Max Tegmark has said about it.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
​

But even if determinism was displaced by quantum randomness it still doesn't help free will. The will would be at the mercy of random events, and not free at all.

 

[George-ananda]

As I said in post 5,

"Absolute randomness does indeed contradict determinism, and is mentioned only to acknowledge that it appears to exist at the quantum level. However, I don't see it having any impact on events at the super-atomic level. As for having some bearing on human action and thought, I go along with what Max Tegmark has said about it.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."

But even if determinism was displaced by quantum randomness it still doesn't help free will. The will would be at the mercy of random events, and not free at all.​

Just the fact that consciousness affects matter tells us how mysterious the universe is and that we need a new paradigm to understand it. If we don't have a working paradigm for how the universe operates, the idea of Determinism doesn't carry much weight. Basically the idea that consciousness is a creation of matter is seriously called into question by the mysteries of quantum physics.

 

[Skwim]

. If we don't have a working paradigm for how the universe operates, the idea of Determinism doesn't carry much weight.

Not at all sure what kind of paradigm you're looking for, but as an operational "paradigm" determinism, along with quantum randomness, is quite sufficient.

Basically the idea that consciousness is a creation of matter is seriously called into question by the mysteries of quantum physics.

Don't know how, but that's a subject for another thread.

 

[Willamena]

The following is an off-hand definition I made on another thread, and was asked to re-post it separately. So do what you will with it, or not.

Determinism is the concept that all events, human actions and thought in particular, happen because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else. All events absolutely have to be the way they are. Determinism and absolute randomness, are the only two agents of action, which give lie to freewill. Freewill is an illusion. ​

I don't think that's defined well, as you've given a purpose to determinism.

Edit: What you've described is fate, and investment in it is fatalism.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think that's defined well, as you've given a purpose to determinism.

Please explain.

 

[Willamena]

Please explain.

Dominoes need something to have arranged them, such that the stated outcome might occur. If you take away the assurance granted to antecedent causes, I think you'd have painted a better picture.

Ordinarily the organization of these things would be attributable to a conscious mind, but I don't think you meant to go there with your definition.

 

[Skwim]

Dominoes need something to have arranged them, such that the stated outcome might occur. If you take away the assurance granted to antecedent causes, I think you'd have painted a better picture.

If there's some "stated outcome" then the dominoes might very well have to be arranged in a specific way. But even so, the purposeful arranging or an incidental arrangement is an event with determining causes. Events don't don't simply materialize out of thin air, they're caused by a specific something, and that specific something are causes that makes that specific event inevitable. The process is one of cause/effect. If you reach for an apple instead of an orange it's because the series of cause/effect events leading up to your reaching determined that you had to reach for the apple. To reach for the orange the casual events would have to have been different, but they weren't. So reaching for the apple was inevitable.

Ordinarily the organization of these things would be attributable to a conscious mind, but I don't think you meant to go there with your definition.

And the events of the conscious mind are no less determined by inevitability of antecedent causes than is an earthquake. Free will is an illusion. You think this or you think that, b-e-c-a-u-s-e. . . . . . And the cause part is controlling factor.

 

[Willamena]

If there's some "stated outcome" then the dominoes might very well have to be arranged in a specific way. But even so, the purposeful arranging or an incidental arrangement is an event with determining causes. Events don't don't simply materialize out of thin air, they're caused by a specific something, and that specific something are causes that makes that specific event inevitable. The process is one of cause/effect. If you reach for an apple instead of an orange it's because the series of cause/effect events leading up to your reaching determined that you had to reach for the apple. To reach for the orange the casual events would have to have been different, but they weren't. So reaching for the apple was inevitable.

Your stated outcome is that events happen "because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else."

Clever antecedents.

And the events of the conscious mind are no less determined by inevitability of antecedent causes than is an earthquake. Free will is an illusion. You think this or you think that, b-e-c-a-u-s-e. . . . . . And the cause part is controlling factor.

I'm not arguing against determinism.

Just fatalism.

 

[George-ananda]

Not at all sure what kind of paradigm you're looking for,

If consciousness effects matter then 'what consciousness is' is a mystery to science. To say such a mystery acts deterministically is just not warranted.

 

[Skwim]

Your stated outcome is that events happen "because they had antecedent causes that insure they will be exactly what they are and nothing else."

Clever antecedents.

They're not purpose driven, but simply the result of previous causes. It's like

I'm not arguing against determinism.

Just fatalism.

In the end it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Skwim]

If consciousness effects matter then 'what consciousness is' is a mystery to science. To say such a mystery acts deterministically is just not warranted.

Why not? What else produces them?