In Defense of Determinism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » In Defense of Determinism » In Defense of Determinism

In Defense of Determinism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

In Defense of Determinism

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/07/09 - 09:00 AM: Subject: In Defense of Determinism	#1
There are many threads about determinism in this forum, although most degenerate into discussions about free will. I would like to avoid including any notion of free will in this thread, focusing instead on determinism itself. There is a recent thread about arguments against determinism. I realize that, in arguing against what I put forth, many posts in this thread could be instead posted in that one. However, although that thread inspired me to write this, I didn't want to muddy it with a rigorous defense when arguments against were what was asked for. I'll start by giving an account of what I wish to defend: 1) All effects have at least one cause 2) All causes have at least one effect 3) Every event is both a cause and an effect. Number 1 is the condition upon which the universe - the events within it - can be thought about rationally. "The postulate on which we think about the universe is that there is a fixed quantitative relation between every phenomenon and its antecedents and consequents. If there is such a thing as a phenomenon without these fixed quantitative relations, it is a miracle. It is outside the law of cause and effect, and as such transcends our power of thought, or at least is something to or from which we cannot reason." --- Oliver Wendell Holmes (with added emphasis not occurring in the original text) The above makes number 1 seem like a transcendental truth. We must either concede that an event cannot be understood or we must concede that, in order to understand it, we must look for its cause. There is no reason to believe an event to be inexplicable; what would such a reason even look like? We will find no such reason (at least not a convincing one) because ex nihilo nihil fit: from nothing, nothing can arise. Notice that, although this is an epistemological point, reasoning such as Heisenberg's (uncertainty principle) doesn't bear on it. That there are things that cannot be known at the same time, with an equal degree of certainty, is not tantamount to an argument that effects do not have causes. Number 2 is the idea that there is no such thing as a nomological (law-like) dangler. Proponents of the epiphenomenalism have been criticized based on the incoherence of nomological danglers. J.C.C Smart's rejection of nomological danglers is likely the most famous, although he focuses more on rejecting dualism in favor of a strict identity theory than he does on danglers, and his discussion in "Sensations and Brain Processes" does not really focus on danglers at all. His specific mention of them consists in the following: "It is not often realized how odd would be the laws whereby these nomological danglers would dangle." I agree with that statement, although I admit that it is a rather bald and unconvincing intuition pump. None the less, while it would seem odd for there to be such things, it would be beyond odd for us to believe in them. If a thing dangles, having no effects, we would have no way of knowing this. They would literally not be a part of our scientific world view because, having no effects at all, they could not be detected and they would explain nothing. Indeed, if consciousness were thought of as a nomological dangler, we would be stuck with the idea that we do not eat because we are hungry, for example. Because, by their very nature, they explain nothing at all, they ought to eliminated by Occam's razor, which is another way of saying that we have absolutely no reason to believe in such things. Number 3, I contend, follows from numbers 1 and 2. If we cannot conceive of an event (effect) without a cause, and we have no reason to believe in events without effects, then it follows that everything there is - every concievable and believable phenomenon or event - must have both a cause and an effect.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 426

Posted 11/07/09 - 09:26 AM:	#2
Kamerynn wrote: Notice that, although this is an epistemological point, reasoning such as Heisenberg's (uncertainty principle) doesn't bear on it. That there are things that cannot be known at the same time, with an equal degree of certainty, is not tantamount to an argument that effects do not have causes. I agree. Chaos theory is also sometimes offered up as a refutation of determinism, but non-linearity does not imply a lack of causation: it simply makes certain systems very difficult to understand and predict. But these are, as you say, epistemological, not metaphysical, points.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 11/07/09 - 10:06 AM:	#3
Kamerynn wrote: Number 1 is the condition upon which the universe - the events within it - can be thought about rationally. "The postulate on which we think about the universe is that there is a fixed quantitative relation between every phenomenon and its antecedents and consequents. If there is such a thing as a phenomenon without these fixed quantitative relations, it is a miracle. It is outside the law of cause and effect, and as such transcends our power of thought, or at least is something to or from which we cannot reason." --- Oliver Wendell Holmes (with added emphasis not occurring in the original text) If only the universe was made of thought, you'd be home and dry. But I fear it is the other way about. Some Guy wrote: Who among you can by taking thought add one centimeter to his height? Is there any reason to suppose that the universe is constrained by the limits of thought?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2121

Posted 11/07/09 - 10:47 AM:	#4
Kamerynn wrote: Number 3, I contend, follows from numbers 1 and 2. If we cannot conceive of an event (effect) without a cause, and we have no reason to believe in events without effects, then it follows that everything there is - every concievable and believable phenomenon or event - must have both a cause and an effect. How does this follow? You seem to assume that every event must also be an effect - why?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/07/09 - 12:35 PM:	#5
unenlightened wrote: If only the universe was made of thought, you'd be home and dry. But I fear it is the other way about. Is there any reason to suppose that the universe is constrained by the limits of thought? I suppose that the obvious answer is "no." And yet, 1) remains the condition upon which we can rationally think about the universe, which is important in itself. It is somewhat analogous to how Kant discusses space and time as preconditions for having any sense experience whatsoever. 1) is a prerequisite; any explanation of an event assumes that the event has a cause (indeed, drawing out the cause is what we often mean when we talk of explaining an event). This is more of an epistemological point, however, and so the obvious answer (no) still stands. The metaphysical part of my argument must rest on "ex nihilo nihil fit." I suppose I simply felt the need to show how (what I perceive to be) good epistemology concerning 1) is consistent with good metaphysics regarding 1) in that both lead us toward positing a cause. reincarnated wrote: How does this follow? You seem to assume that every event must also be an effect - why? I suppose I am assuming this because the word "event" can replace "effect" (or "cause") in both 1) and 2), salva veritate.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 11/07/09 - 04:07 PM:	#6
Kamerynn wrote: 1) All effects have at least one cause 2) All causes have at least one effect 3) Every event is both a cause and an effect. #1 and #2 are both true by definition. An effect is whatever happens as the result of a cause; a cause is something that brings about an effect. Does anyone really dispute this? Kamerynn wrote: Number 3, I contend, follows from numbers 1 and 2. If we cannot conceive of an event (effect) without a cause, and we have no reason to believe in events without effects, then it follows that everything there is - every concievable and believable phenomenon or event - must have both a cause and an effect. #3 does not follow from #1 and #2, at least not deductively. For one thing, you introduce a new term, event; and it seems that what you are really doing here is offering a definition--an event is something that is both a cause and an effect. What you still have to justify is your claim that "every conceivable and believable phenomenon" is, in fact, an event--as you have defined that term. What follows from that is the truly controversial premise of determinism--that every cause is also an effect with its own prior cause(s); i.e., there are no "uncaused causes" or "first movers".
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 426

Posted 11/07/09 - 04:23 PM:	#7
aletheist wrote: What you still have to justify is your claim that "every conceivable and believable phenomenon" is, in fact, an event--as you have defined that term. What follows from that is the truly controversial premise of determinism--that every cause is also an effect with its own prior cause(s); i.e., there are no "uncaused causes" or "first movers". It would seem that the negation of that premise is at least as controversial.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178

Posted 11/07/09 - 04:41 PM:	#8
First of all, the uncertainty principles have more to do with the statistical deviation of measurments than individual measurments. That aside, it seems that your argument would fail on the example of probabilistic theories, such as some take QM to be. After all, if events are random, but their probability distributions determined, we can still make a sensible physical theory of them. And as for unenlightened's unenlightened objection, I guess one could argue that since one can't talk about the universe except in our theories, holding that it is somehow different from our best theory makes no sense. All in all, though, I'm somewhat skeptical of a deductive argument for anything. Why should it not suffice to say that determinism is a feature of all our working theories and that, consequently, it is proyably true?

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 620

Posted 11/07/09 - 04:50 PM:	#9
Arkady wrote: It would seem that the negation of that premise is at least as controversial. Oh, I agree--in fact, whether that premise or its negation is true is the controversy!
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

optrader
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 165

Posted 11/07/09 - 05:23 PM:	#10
First, thought requires contrasting ideas. We cannot think without creating "cause and effect". To say that one thing "causes" another, may not be quite true. There is simply a relationship between all things. Our minds perceive change among things and projects a "cause and effect" relationship. To say that everything is a "cause and effect", essentially tells us nothing about the nature of things. It is simply a postulate. Determinism is true and untrue; depends on perspective. When we say that a cause initiates an effect, we are simply saying that a result was determined by a past state. However, if we examine the cause more closely, we find that there are so many factors within the cause to make it incomprehensible to mental deduction. In other words, the limits of mind, negates determinism. For you to exist means that there have been trillions upon trillions of interactions in the universe. To say that one thing "caused" you, is a mere simplification. When we say that one thing "caused" something and produced a certain "effect", is the art of simplification. And, yes, this is the way the human mind works. It works by narrowing our focus. To say that one thing is a cause, is to eliminate billions of other factors that combined to make the "cause". Therefore, determinism is a shortcut term, a simplification, or a focus of the mind that tells one thing but eliminates many other things. This makes determinism a "term", a word, of limited utility. After all, what are ideas? Are they nothing more than the "tools" we humans use? Determinism is a "tool". It can only be used at a certain "job". It is not all encompassing. If we make a broad statement, saying that that the universe is "deterministic", we are essentially saying nothing. Because, we all know that it is the interaction of billions of things in the universe that have lead to the current state of the universe. Yes, one thing is "determined" from the interaction of billions of other things. But, this makes "determinism" incomprehensible. Since it is incomprehensible, it is of very limited use to us mortals.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.