A definition of "determinism"

[Penumbra]

And I'm not interested in the probabilities that occur in quantum mechanics. I'm talking about events at the super-atomic level.

Without understanding how consciousness works, I don't think one should limit their definition of determinism to one particular size.

And if we're talking philosophically rather than only physically, then the key difference between determinism/randomness isn't really necessary because neither determinism nor randomness can reasonably be called free will. I don't think the debate about whether free will is an intelligible concept needs to be tied to determinism.

 

[Skwim]

Without understanding how consciousness works, I don't think one should limit their definition of determinism to one particular size.

From post #5

"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.

And if we're talking philosophically rather than only physically, then the key difference between determinism/randomness isn't really necessary because neither determinism nor randomness can reasonably be called free will.

And because these are the only two ways in which events arise, it's evident that free will does not, indeed, exist.

I don't think the debate about whether free will is an intelligible concept needs to be tied to determinism.

I leave that to the free will proponents to decide.

 

[Penumbra]

From post #5

"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.

And the Orch-OR speculative model of consciousness proposes that quantum mechanics does play a role.

Until someone provides an evidenced theory for how consciousness arises in the brain, it will remain a rather speculative field. And until then, considering that every fundamental particle that makes up the universe and the brain exists as a probability wave, to ignore quantum mechanics and probability in a discussion about determinism doesn't make much sense.

And because these are the only two ways in which events arise,

As far as we know.

I mean a century ago if we were having this discussion, we would be saying there is only one way that events arise: deterministic cause and effect. It wasn't until the early 20th century that quantum mechanics and the inherent probabilistic aspects of the universe became known.

it's evident that free will does not, indeed, exist.

I agree that free will probably doesn't exist, but for me it's more a matter that I've yet to see even an intelligible definition of what it could look like in theory.

It's one thing for someone to be able to propose a coherent description of something and then to conclude that evidence suggests it does not exist. It's something different to argue that even coherent descriptions of that thing are lacking.

 

[Willamena]

And I'm not interested in the probabilities that occur in quantum mechanics. I'm talking about events at the super-atomic level.

Then God plays dice.

 

[Skwim]

And the Orch-OR speculative model of consciousness proposes that quantum mechanics does play a role.

"However, Orch-OR made numerous false biological predictions, and is considered to be an extremely poor model of brain physiology."
Source: Wikipedia.​

Until someone provides an evidenced theory for how consciousness arises in the brain, it will remain a rather speculative field. And until then, considering that every fundamental particle that makes up the universe and the brain exists as a probability wave, to ignore quantum mechanics and probability in a discussion about determinism doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does. Until it can be shown that quantum randomness plays a role in the function of the mind it's no more relevant than Swiss cheese.

As far as we know.

Yup, and given that no other exists, we work with what we have.

I mean a century ago if we were having this discussion, we would be saying there is only one way that events arise: deterministic cause and effect. It wasn't until the early 20th century that quantum mechanics and the inherent probabilistic aspects of the universe became known.

And the reason we"re having this one is because you feel that quantum randomness may impact our thinking.

 

[Skwim]

Then God plays dice.

Only at the quantum level.

 

[Penumbra]

"However, Orch-OR made numerous false biological predictions, and is considered to be an extremely poor model of brain physiology."
Source: Wikipedia.​

Sure it does. Until it can be shown that quantum randomness plays a role in the function of the mind it's no more relevant than Swiss cheese.

Until someone proposes something resembling a theory of consciousness, all models are speculative. Orch-OR is not convincing to me either. But there are literally no good evidenced models explaining how consciousness works.

So it's pretty hard to make definitive statements about something for which there is a gaping lack of knowledge in the scientific community.

Yup, and given that no other exists, we work with what we have.

As long as it's understood that current knowledge isn't necessarily all knowledge.

"We work with what we have," is certainly a step back in certainty from, "And because these are the only two ways in which events arise, [...]".

And the reason we"re having this one is because you feel that quantum randomness may impact our thinking.

It might. Or might not. Until someone proposes a working theory of it that becomes reasonably well-accepted, it's kind of a crapshoot to base any assertions on how consciousness works.

We're actually having this discussion, which I believe is likely exhausted at this point, is that in regards to the thread premise, quantum mechanics conflicts with the existence of determinism as proposed in the thread OP. There are no known particles in the universe that operate according to the proposed definition of determinism.

 

[Willamena]

Only at the quantum level.

You weren't paying attention.

Watch the video.
A definition of "determinism" | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Skwim]

"We work with what we have," is certainly a step back in certainty from, "And because these are the only two ways in which events arise, [...]".

Not at all.

We're actually having this discussion, which I believe is likely exhausted at this point, is that in regards to the thread premise, quantum mechanics conflicts with the existence of determinism as proposed in the thread OP.

No conflict at all. The only element in quantum mechanics that may be antithetical to determinism is the possibility of absolute randomness. And this is at a separate level of existence and of no consequence.

There are no known particles in the universe that operate according to the proposed definition of determinism.

Don't know what you mean by "operate," but if I'm getting the gist of what you're saying, then they would necessarily "operate" absolutely randomly. Is this your contention?

 

[Skwim]

You weren't paying attention.

Watch the video.
A definition of "determinism" | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com

Did. I suggest you watch it again and pay careful attention to exactly what he is saying.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Only at the quantum level.

Quantum physics is an irreducibly statistical theory that purports to describe the dynamics of all physical systems at any level, while classical physics isn't a theory but an outdated, incorrect framework for the dynamics of physical systems that we keep around because it is useful and significantly simpler than quantum physics. Determinism is a philosophical perspective:
"Determinism is the philosophical conception and claim that every physical event and every instance of human cognition, volition, and action is causally determined by a continual, uninterrupted sequence of prior events." (italics in original)
from the introduction to Ciprut, JV. (Ed.). (2008). Indeterminacy: The Mapped, the Navigable, and the Uncharted. MIT Press.

This philosophical perspective arose due to the success of classical physics when it was just "physics", and in particular classical (Newtonian) mechanics:
"In physics, the deterministic view developed along with the experimental approach to research, in the sense that phenomena are reproducible under the same unchanged external conditions, implying that the same cause leads to the same consequences under the same conditions...Isaac Newton was the first to lay down the complete basis of classical mechanics, which at the time was considered to be the origin of all physical phenomena...With the rise and development of classical mechanics the view of determinism developed, with the opinion that all natural laws can be described by dynamical equations, either ordinary differential equations (as, for example, in celestial mechanics) or partial differential equations (as, for example, in the dynamics of fluids). In each case precise knowledge of the initial conditions (all positions and all velocities) completely determines the entire future and entire past of the system. When pushed to its extremum, this view implies complete deterministic evolution of the entire universe, including all its smallest and largest details." (emphases added).
From the entry "determinism" in Scott, A. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Science. Routledge.

Determinism is not and was never an empirically tested (or derived) theory or component of science, and what empirical evidence existed that it was a correct philosophical perspective existed in the deterministic nature of classical physics (and basically died with it).

"The world most probably is indeterministic, meaning that there are particular events which lack a sufficient cause. Once we grant that there are such events, and that at least some of them are caused, we then require an account of causation that gives the conditions in which they are to count as caused. This is the problem of indeterministic causality. Providing for indeterministic causality has been a major motivation for the development of probabilistic accounts of causation." (italics in original)
from the introduction to Dowe, P., & Noordhof, P. (Eds.). Cause and Chance: Causation in an Indeterministic World. Routledge.

Insofar as determinism means every event is caused by prior events, special relativity renders determinism obsolete all by itself. "Prior" here loses any meaning, as special relativity tells us simultaneity is relative and time itself is not linear except within a subjective reference frame (technically, special relativity holds that time doesn't exist at all, but whether or not the 4-dimensional description of spacetime is ontological is debated). Also, classical mechanics fails to approximate the macroscopic deterministically because even though models of systems in classical physics are deterministic, how some set of variables determines the values of others in such models often depends upon purely arbitrary decision. Complexity and nonlinearity render impossible the ontological determinacy of classical mechanics and classical physics more generally, because despite the deterministic evolution of a system, in order to derive the determined result we have to choose in advance and in complex cases without justification what is going to determine what (by "without justification" I mean that we could pick other variables and accurately determine the evolution of the same system).

The problem determinism always faced was the relative failure of physics in general to describe living systems. The "laws" of classical mechanics were all about external forces acting on bodies and removed from the beginning the possibility for a system to "self-determine". We now know that living systems are qualitatively (not quantitatively) more complex and self-organized than are even self-organizing non-living systems. We also know that complex system exhibit nonlocal (and hence inherently indeterministic) emergent structures. And of course quantum physics makes determinism impossible. What we don't know is whether weaker forms of epistemic determinism sufficiently approximate something like (a form of) ontological determinism so as to justify claims that emergent processes and structures either have no causal power (i.e., causation can't be top-down) and that any causal nonlinearities are sufficiently localized such that a system's evolution is unchangeable under reasonable enough time-scales.

Perhaps the most important and frequent area in which this is investigated and debated is that of mental causation- the idea that emergent (and possibly non-physical) mental states have causal power such that if I choose to do x, the mental state that caused this is closed to efficient causation (it is a process or function that emerges from the brain but is not reducible to the physics governing neuronal dynamics). Currently, the main reason for thinking this might be correct is the influence of late 18th and 19th century perspectives that were themselves byproducts of a scientific framework we now know is wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And I'm not interested in the probabilities that occur in quantum mechanics. I'm talking about events at the super-atomic level.

"It has been widely recognized for over two decades that, contrary to the long-standing lore, Newtonian mechanics is not a deterministic theory."
Norton, J. D. (2008). The dome: An unexpectedly simple failure of determinism. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 786-798.

 

[Nakosis]

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. ​

This is fine for a definition, at least it avoids using the idea that a person could not made a different choice then the one they made. Which ends up just an unprovable presupposition.

However I have to disagree with truth of determinism then. And here's why...

Human imagination. Humans can imagine any past present of future. It can be realistic or unrealistic. Through imagination someone can change the past. They can imagine what would have happen if they had made a different choice and because of what they imagine might have happen, alter their future choices.

Imagination can create a cause which is not necessarily tied to any actual past. Imagination can originate a cause. Ideas like God or flying or going to the moon. We can create whatever reality we want and be motivated by that created reality.

So the actual past does not necessarily create the future. In fact I think some have difficulty separating the past they imagine from the past that actually occurred. People can operate entirely from a past that is imagined. So the choices they made is not caused by the actual past but from the past they've imagined.

 

[Skwim]

However I have to disagree with truth of determinism then. And here's why...

Human imagination. Humans can imagine any past present of future. It can be realistic or unrealistic. Through imagination someone can change the past.

No they're not. If you went to the library last Tuesday, and today are imagining that last Tuesday you went to the theater instead, in no way does this change the fact that you went to the library.

They can imagine what would have happen if they had made a different choice and because of what they imagine might have happen, alter their future choices.

First of all, there is no such thing as choice or choosing. You do what you do because the series of causes and effects leading up to the moment of doing made you do what you did and nothing else. You HAD to do X rather than Y. Y was never a "choice."

Imagination can create a cause which is not necessarily tied to any actual past. Imagination can originate a cause.

Imagination itself only arises because it was caused, and is just another cause in a whole line of cause/effect events that leads to an event.

Ideas like God or flying or going to the moon. We can create whatever reality we want and be motivated by that created reality.

Then your concept of reality is like none that I've ever seen before.

re·al·i·ty

rēˈalədē/
noun
noun: reality
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.​

So the actual past does not necessarily create the future.

It absolutely does, unless, that is, you believe events arise absolutely randomly, in which case free will is still a dead duck.

 

[Nakosis]

No they're not. If you went to the library last Tuesday, and today are imagining that last Tuesday you went to the theater instead, in no way does this change the fact that you went to the library.

You can change the past in this sense. You can believe, basically imagine Oswald did or did not kill Kennedy and make your choices according to that belief independent of the actual past.

First of all, there is no such thing as choice or choosing. You do what you do because the series of causes and effects leading up to the moment of doing made you do what you did and nothing else. You HAD to do X rather than Y. Y was never a "choice."

Imagination itself only arises because it was caused, and is just another cause in a whole line of cause/effect events that leads to an event.

However you are looking at it as a series of events. A sequence of steps, one happening after the other but ignoring the process of reiteration. When you make a choice it is not just a condition of not having made a choice and having made a choice. There is also an undetermined intermediate process of imagining what could have happen it you had made different choices in the past, what might happen if you make different choices and whatever unknown possible circumstances might exist. This occurs during the decision making process which can be based on what has been imagined as well as what actually occurred in the past.

Then your concept of reality is like none that I've ever seen before.

re·al·i·ty

rēˈalədē/
noun
noun: reality
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.​

It absolutely does, unless, that is, you believe events arise absolutely randomly, in which case free will is still a dead duck.

This is probably a better definition..

"Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."

Basically a guess based on incomplete information. Imagination is there to fill in the gaps. There is obviously gaps in our knowledge like having absolute knowledge Oswald shot Kennedy. One can imagine conspiracies or whatever other individuals involved and act according to a composite of the past and a past that is imagined.

Another example would be if a person happened across a picture of their spouse which suggests an ongoing intimate relationship with another person. Maybe it was an unknown sister or cousin etc. However they imagine the worst. They get enraged, file for divorce, beat their spouse or worse. They act not based on an actual past but on the past they've imagined.

 

[Skwim]

You can change the past in this sense. You can believe, basically imagine Oswald did or did not kill Kennedy and make your choices according to that belief independent of the actual past.

Or believe that you were born immensely wealthy and never have to work a day in your life. But, so what? Do you become immensely wealthy and never have to work a day in your life because you imagined it? Of course not.

However you are looking at it as a series of events. A sequence of steps, one happening after the other but ignoring the process of reiteration. When you make a choice it is not just a condition of not having made a choice and having made a choice.

But you don't make choices. You do whatever all the prior/cause/effect events lead you to do.

There is also an undetermined intermediate process of imagining what could have happen it you had made different choices in the past, what might happen if you make different choices and whatever unknown possible circumstances might exist. This occurs during the decision making process which can be based on what has been imagined as well as what actually occurred in the past.

And what drives this process if it isn't cause and effect? Randomness?

This is probably a better definition..

"Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."

No it isn't.

 

[Nakosis]

Or believe that you were born immensely wealthy and never have to work a day in your life. But, so what? Do you become immensely wealthy and never have to work a day in your life because you imagined it? Of course not.

What a great imagination you have. You imagined both a possible past and a possible future because of the past you imagined. And I assume because of the future you imagined made choices to avoid it because of the possible past you imagined.

But you don't make choices. You do whatever all the prior/cause/effect events lead you to do.

Yes, which is the unproven claim of determinism.

And what drives this process if it isn't cause and effect? Randomness?

Why you do of course. This is why I think the concept of right thought is important in Buddhism.

"The Buddha described two types of thought; wandering thought (vicàra) and logical or directed thought (vitakka). Normally our mind is filled with scattered, random, wandering thoughts and we have little say in what they are or what they will be next. When we have a task to do or a problem to solve, the will takes hold of and directs our thoughts in a particular direction."

Right Thought - Dhamma Wiki

No it isn't.

Probably not if you choose to believe in determinism.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, which is the unproven claim of determinism.

Proof is for mathematics, logic, and alcohol. My claim arises out of reason.

Why you do of course.

And how do you operate, randomly or through causality? There is no other option.

 

[Nakosis]

Proof is for mathematics, logic, and alcohol. My claim arises out of reason.

Proof is just evidence with can be or has been validated. It's not certainty. You can, well ought to IMO use evidence which has had some form of validation in your reasoning.

And how do you operate, randomly or through causality? There is no other option.

Metaphysics... I don't know. Consciousness if I knew the mechanics of it I could probably prove it, predict it. I could make assumptions, but I prefer not to. I accept the reality of consciousness because of personal experience. I accept the reality of making choices because of personal experience. I could be wrong but I'd need something beyond conjecture to convince me of this.

I'm am left to presume the truth of what I experience for myself unless something comes along to disprove it.

Your certainty is founded on your reasoning which is limited by the information you have available to you.

My certainty is founded on my experience which is limited by what I have experienced.

 

[Banjankri]

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.

First of all, we need to clarify that distinction between cause and effect is conventional. There is no true and ultimate borderline between them. They are one reality.
Our ability to separate certain properties, give them existence and importance, is our way of controlling things. By knowing details about something, we can modify it to get expected results. This is something we learn when we are kinds. Something that is given, is our ability to make changes. I can say to you, raise you hand, and you will do it. Thought will command matter, so our will can surely influence things.

Now, is it free will, or is it determined?

Of course it's determined, and this determination is done through our experience, out of which comes purpose. Without purpose, there is no point of changing anything.
In other words, if you have no purpose, there is no reason to change anything, so there is no need for will. It becomes totally meaningless.
This implies that "will" must be conditioned by definition, thus it cannot be free. Illusion is born, when reasons behind our actions comes from sources that we are not aware of.

Now, the interesting part. What are the consequences of our view on this very subject? Huge!
But can we do anything about it?
To know that, we need to know where do we get our views from?

We try to figure out how things work, based on experiences that we have, and knowledge that was given to us. There are three sources feeding our experience: Thoughts, feelings, and sensory input. All three are unknown, although predictable to some degree (you may think that you control your thoughts for sure, but try to suppress them, and you will see that It will costs effort not to think). We operate on those three by imposing our intention onto them. We can either, try to suppress them, or allow them to manifest. We do it unconsciously (habits), and consciously (views).

People don't have free will... they have views, and views makes us homo sapiens.