- Terrey West
- Virginia Beach, VA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
Chemistry is a science. All actions and reactions are based on the laws of physics, and victims to environmental variables, pressure, temperature, volume, etc.
The human brain is based on a complex solution of chemistry. Decisions have not been shown to originate anywhere except for the brain. A soul cannot be discussed in this debate unless scientific evidence for the existence of the soul, and its impact on free will is provided with proper citations prior to argument.
1) Does this evidence provide a logical grounds for adopting a Deterministic worldview?
2) Is a Deterministic worldview beneficial or harmful to society?
Tim blackburn 30+
Orlando Hawkins 20+
This may seem unrelated but I would state that if you were to take some studies related to quantum mechanics and have a deep understanding of consciousness and meditation, you would sort of realize that it sort of only validates free-will?
Have you ever heard or read the works of Amit Goswami?
and if you need me explain more about this I will, I just have to really head out to work right now
Tim blackburn 30+
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Joanne Donovan 30+
David Hamilton 50+
If there is absolutely nothing, that is "me". If there is no "soul", no "ghost in the shell", and no individual identity... Then why do "I", have to be here?
If, it is all going to happen anyway... Why do "I" have to watch it? What is the purpose of my "feeling" of observation, if nothing can change?
This idea has constantly instilled hatred in religious peers of mine... but, I truly believe... That if I knew "God" existed, and his plan for the universe was infallible... I'd kill myself right now. The same would be true if "Chemistry" existed, and it's will was infallible. If the whole world is going to work out fine anyway, why do I need to be here, watching everything decay, and everyone be miserable?
I truly believe, that the reality, or illusion of "free will", whichever the case may be, is necessary, for human beings to continue living their lives. People need a sense of purpose, and free will gives them that... whether it be an illusion, or not.
Too dark?
Terrey West
I wonder, even if science does manage to prove that the universe is deterministic, if humanity would be willing to accept that as true. I think, to some degree, they would simply ignore it and go on with their lives.
I will say, I think that the killing of the self is an illogical response to this view. In the end, those who are religious, hold deterministic viewpoints. They state that "God has a plan", and still hold the view of free will. I think the same cognitive dissonance would apply to this outlook as well.
David Hamilton 50+
I don't see any pragmatic, usefull, or predictive quality to the belief that humans do not have free will. While the idea that they do is comforting... So, I'd need evidence to give it up. I don't think chemicals existing, are proof that "I" as a cognitive entitiy have no control over my reaction to said chemicals.
Terrey West
Something is not true because it is useful. Something is not useful because it is true. Don't make the mistake of applying this logic to your preconceived notions.
David Hamilton 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the earth feels stationary. but really? how would it feel if the earth moved? how would it feel if the earth didn't move?
David Hamilton 50+
It feels, like there is a me seperate from my internal biological, and chemical make up. I choose to read literature, and philosophy, while most of the people around me choose not to. I don't think my chemical desire to read literature and philosophy is greater than my chemical desire, for example, to go consume alcohol at a local dance club... but I make that choice. I also choose to watch ted, it doesn't provide me with the same level of stimulus that sex, drugs, and rock and roll in convluence might... but,, there is a me, that enjoys the person I am, as someone who chooses more classical and intellectual pursuits.
I imagine, if I did not have free will, it would feel like peer pressure was a large influence on my life. It's not. It would feel like my desire for rampant sexual conquests, makes a long term monogomous romantic relationship impossible... I don't think it does. The fact that there are two different points of view however on such a vague, inconsequential philosophy however, to me, also suggests free will.
It's a personal experience, emotion based argument... but because the illusion is so vivid, one would have to offer me substantial evidence that it's an illusion, before my opinion would change. I spend a lot of time meta cognating, meditating, and engaging in really obscure activities for reasons that feel like free will, and personal choice... So, I don't think people are determined to do anything, I think they choose to follow the herd, because they're boring.
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Terrey West
I think I understand your disagreement.
Is it because the uncertainty principle is only uncertain because of our own scientific ignorance? Therefore, we cannot say for certain that quantum mechanics is truly a cast of the die or truly deterministic?
My quantum mechanics knowledge is theoretical more than practical, I'm a biology/large-scale physics buff, and haven't had the opportunity to delve into the real guts of quantum mechanics beyond an intermediate primer.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the current widely accepted view is that we have proof for the latter case. EPR and similar experiments were actually conducted, and the results contradict the possibility of an underlying deterministic model. that view, however, was challenged by arthur fine. fine describes a possibility that our measurement devices does not sample the cases in an unbiased way. in short, our devices measure if a particle is A or B. fine says, if our particles can be A or B or non-A-non-B, and the detector can not detect the non-A-non-B, we can explain the measurement results with a deterministic underlying model. calculations exist that in some experiments, 80% detection rate would disprove that possibility. but our current detection rate is like 1-5%. so the question won't be decided anytime soon.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
edward long 100+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
edward long 100+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
If you want me to be pedantic about it, I'll say in all likelihood doesn't exist. But given that nothing can absolutely be proven not to exist with 100% certainty, I think its an unnecessary precision to make.
Let's put it this way, total constructs of the mind, based on no pre-exisiting knowledge or evidence, has very very little chance of being true. Why does the soul seem more likely? Because of the number of people who believe in it and the desirability linked to it. In other words an Ad Populum fallacy and an Argument from emotion fallacy. Desirability or popularity of an idea don't make it more likely (unless of course it's popular because it's proven).
edward long 100+
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
As for Socrates, how did he know?
scott lee
Take the example of a game of chance. If I throw 2 dice I know that I should bet on 7. It has the highest chance of being the sum of the 2 dice. However, in deterministic reality, chance has nothing to do with it. If 11 is rolled, there was no possibility of any other role happening. Technically, the idea of "chance" is an illusionary concept, based on my own ignorance.
The problem is, it may be true that the dice rolls are determined, but that doesn't help me when I'm trying do decide what to bet on. In real life, I have to cope with my own subjective perspective. "Chance" may be an illusion, but it is still a useful concept for allowing me to deal with my own inability to determine the future.
Free will is very similar. What I do may be "determined", but certainly not by anybody in the real world. In order to deal with my subjective perspective, concepts such as free will and consciousness are in fact more useful than the concept of determinism. After all, there are a lot of other concepts tied into free will and consciousness. Things like: responsibility, motivation, joy, grief, ambition, and creativity, to name a few. In fact, if one eliminated all concepts that were rooted in subjectivity, it would be very hard to even have a conversation.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
scott lee
Other than the specifics of the question, how else can one judge a world view other than its utility? The truth? Nobody knows the truth. Objectivity? Human experience is innately subjective.
Even scientists often turn to utility as a measure of ideas. eg. Does theory "A" render useful predictions?
Often people turn to the technological achievements of the modern world bolster support of science.
what is the utility of determinism?
Terrey West
An aspect of the self which is intangible, and not beholden to the natural laws to which we are aware. I.E, the spirit which continues when the body fades, the mind which is filtered through the brain.
We know that those who have damaged brains have altered behavior, and are not simply unable to be themselves; They, as we knew them, are no longer there. Their self is not preserved in some intangible vessel which pulls the strings of human consciousness. I count this as legitimate evidence against the concept of the soul as the intangible self, and would daresay that human consciousness is quantifiable, and biological in nature, rather than spiritual.
Since this is off topic, the concept of the divine "self", or the eternal "essence" of a person, would violate our body of knowledge and have no place in the discussion. Apologies if my barring of this topic seemed... Odd, but a transcendent mind is the only way I could fathom free will given what we already know about the universe.
edward long 100+
QUOTE: "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science." (Albert Einstein)
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but since we still lack the general theory that would describe the world, it is not a final verdict on reality. the question is open.
Terrey West
What about the second part of the question? What, if any effect on society would a deterministic worldview cause? Do we, if the universe is deterministic, suspend the logical problems introduced, and act as though we are agents with free will, or do we adjust our social norms to line up with this knowledge?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the latter is easy. see why? it would not. it could not. since the world is deterministic, nothing can change nothing. the entire timeline is written in stone. we just watch it like a movie.
the former is tricky. because considering the second point, this only matters if this view is false. so if there is free will, but for some reason many people are convinced that there is not, what happens then? such questions are impossible to answer with any certainty. we can come up with guesses, but we can not be sure. however, we can derive a good strategy to follow in life: act as if there is free will. if it does not matter, it can't hurt.
Terrey West
Not necessarily. When one looks at all of history as a chain of causality with a finite beginning, one can know the outcome only if he knows the rules of the system. Much like a single shot in billiards, one only needs to know the velocity vector and the origin to predict the outcome of the single shot.
In this way, we can see an effect becoming a cause for a subsequent effect.
With or without free will, this view being adopted by the majority of the populace will become a cause instead of merely being an effect.
One can't know, for certainty, but I would be interested in speculative interpretation, after all, it is an incredibly speculative question.