When I get up I can go north, east, south, or west or any direction in between, and up, down , or sideways. But that's it. I both have and lack choices, Are the choices I have hard or soft determinism? You might answer, as I am tempted to answer your question, that it depends on what you mean by determinism, that is, on a precise definition for present purpose. And when the answers to questions depend on how the terms are defined (and there cannot be useful answers until the terms are defined), then it depends on what you say it is.

It seems to me that determinism must be hard in respect of itself, so that "soft" determinism, if it makes any sense at all, must be the mixture of both hard and no determinism. I seem always to have choices. But are there conditions, constraints, with respect to which I have no choices? Well, I am subject to gravity; I am mortal; i am who I am and what I am, and so forth. Apart from those, I have choices.

We know that most of the atomic constituents of the human body are born within stars and supernovae and as such their origins can be precisely traced to very distant antecedent events within the cosmos. My question therefore is this.

How can we possibly occupy a universe wherein some events are determined and others are not, if indeed all events are ultimately interrelated down to the very atomic structure of material objects. — Marcus de Brun

Because the so-called 'sub-atomic constituents' of matter are themselves indeterminate in nature. They're not the impenetrable and imperishable material units of materialist atomism, instead their nature can only be described in terms of probabilities.

Furthermore the mind itself is repository of judgements about the nature of the world. The mind is not the consequence of some purported, well-understood sequence of material interactions stretching back to the Big Bang and down to the atom. Science has had to acknowledge the foundational role that the mind plays in its own observations since the discovery of quantum mechanics. Arthur Eddington was instrumental in first validating the theory of relativity and a very popular philosopher of science between the wars. He said in The Nature of the Physical World that "The stuff of the world is mind-stuff."

The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds.... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it.... It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness.... Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature.... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference."

See also Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?
What we call 'Reality' is just a state of mind, Bernard D'Espagnat
The Mental Universe, Richard Conn Henry

Because the so-called 'sub-atomic constituents' of matter are themselves indeterminate in nature.

Could you expand on this? How are sub-atomic particles indeterminate?

M

Because the so-called 'sub-atomic constituents' of matter are themselves indeterminate in nature.

Could you expand on this? How are sub-atomic particles indeterminate? — Marcus de Brun

It relates to Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle, one of the first discoveries of quantum physics. It says that you can't know both the momentum and position of a sub-atomic particle. But it's not just an epistemic issue i.e. it's not as if these entities have those properties and we can't determine what they are; sub-atomic entities exist in a so-called 'superposition'. It is one of the baffling aspects of quantum physics.

Heisenberg was later to write:

The concept of the atom had proved exceptionally fruitful in the explanation of chemical bonding and the physical behavior of gases. It was soon apparent, however, that the particles called atoms by the chemist were composed of still smaller units. But these smaller units, the electrons, followed by the atomic nuclei and finally the elementary particles, protons and neutrons, also still seemed to be atoms from the standpoint of the materialist philosophy. The fact that, at least indirectly, one can actually see a single elementary particle—in a cloud chamber, say, or a bubble chamber—supports the view that the smallest units of matter are real physical objects, existing in the same sense that stones or flowers do.

But the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles.

In The Debate between Plato and Democritus (emphasis added).

The philosophical implications of quantum mechanics have been discussed ad nauseum for decades. EInstein and Bohr had many vexed debates on the subject over many years, to the point where in the end they couldn't talk about it any more (this was in the 1950's when Bohr visited Einstein in Princeton.)

In my view what has happened is that the idea of the atom has entered popular discourse as the fundamental constituents of reality. However, it's actually a metaphor, or a myth - as discussed in such books as Paul Davies and John Gribbin 'The Matter Myth'. Part of the Enlightenment ideology was that the world was atoms, and when science figures out how they all fit together, then bingo, ultimate knowledge. But it's turned out to be difficult in a way that the Enlightenment philosophes couldn't even imagine.

Can we have 'choice' if our behavior is 'determined'? Setting aside indeterminate particles, the chain of determination from atoms created in a supernova to what kind of apple I am eating must have branched and branched again many many many times, affecting me and and many other things and creatures many many many ways over the eons of time.

Maybe what we have Is "choice" and not free will. Much of what we think is "free will" is actually just a choice, driven by determination.

Life is too complex for us to figure out what has been determined and how. Therefore we say either "everything is determined" or "nothing is determined" based on deterministic factors that allow us to make choices among limited options. We tend to like certainty. Zero free will is just as comforting as 100% free will.

IF the determined arrangement of one's brain allows for little tolerance of ambiguity, the person might require philosophical views that are cut and dried. They will prefer their theology to be black and white: This and only this is right; everything else is wrong. "We have absolute free choice, so you either choose right or you choose wrong. You freely decided God was dead, and that is wrong. Therefore you will rot in hell forever. Case closed."

Some people are so determined that they tolerate ambiguity well. "What is right, what is wrong, good, bad, true false, isn't black and white -- it all tends to be kind of fuzzy. Maybe god exists, maybe not. It's hard to tell. There can't be any final right or wrong answer."

We can't chose, or will the kind of person that we will be when we are conceived. We are pre-determined. But we will never feel the "master program" pulling us one way or the other. It will all seem like "just us doing our thing that we want to do because that is, in truth, what we will."

Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance.

Thank you wayfarer for a very interesting and detailed reply.

I suspect that you are right here, in the sense that sub-atomic particles behave in a manner that is outside of our classical understanding of time and space, and as such the question of determinism hard or soft? is perhaps antiquated by recent observations in QM.

However, whilst QM and uncertainty have indeed apparently undermined the possibility of arriving at an answer in respect of determinism, QM's own conclusive failures, or 'failures in conclusion' appear to arise from its inability to reconcile itself with Philosophy. Not that there is no attempt to do so, there certainly is, and this is perhaps nowhere more evident in the essential and contemporary consideration of the 'Philosophy of Time'.

In my own estimation, definitive movement in QM Theory is entirely contingent upon the emergence of a reconciliation between QM and the Philosophy of Time. Quantum Physicists are certainly working on this, however they are limited in the endeavor by the reality that Philosophy and QM are generally considered as separate disciplines; Philosophers have a limited understanding of QM, and vice versa.

All discoveries in science ultimately create an unGodly mess; one that an old and arthritic Philosophy is invariably called upon to clean up.

If perhaps Bohr and Einstein had the benefit of Schopenhauer and Kant moderating the argument, we and QM might be a little closer to the truth of things as such.

From my own understanding it seems that QM has been brought to a relative stand still by the question as to whether that which Einstein refers to as 'spooky action at a distance' can or cannot be explained by 'local variables'.

Bell has formulated this question into something of a theorem or hypothesis which attempts to answer the question, but as yet, this not been thoroughly or conclusively resolved.

Bell does however suggest that his theorem can be resolved or avoided, and the question can be definitively answered if the Universe is not only determined but Super-determined.

"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will"

John Bell 1980 (BBC interview)


The indeterminate nature of quantum particles and Uncertainty itself , are both (it seems) contingent upon (or perhaps contaminated by) the imposition of an apriori temporal philosophy. The impossibility of determining momentum and position at a particular point IN time, may merely suggest that events do not occur within Time, as time is presently considered. Events or qualia may not occur within time but might well be the cause of time. Equally determinism per se, is itself contingent upon temporal Philosophy.

Perhaps both QM and Determinism lead us back to the primary rule of philosophical engagement, in that 'terms' must be defined before they can be debated. Therefore, perhaps we need to consider what is the nature of time? And how can time itself be reconciled with determinism before determinism can offer QM the opportunity for a quantum leap of sorts.

In my estimation QM and Philosophy are presently at the same impasse. Neither can proceed without an appropriate Philosophy of Time and this may lie at the very heart of the questions pertaining to the truth, falsity or function of a Determined Universe.

Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance. — Bitter Crank

This appears to be empirically correct, but is this not simply stating that reality is something of a delusion, if experienced reality is at odds with the fundamental truth of that reality?

If as you say "soft determinism is the appearance of reality", this too cannot be dismissed tritely, as appearance is (after all) the fundamental basis or function of experience.

I suspect that you are right, and that hard or super-determinism as alluded to by Bell, is the fundamental reality. However, I suspect that within the functionality of 'appearance', there are indeed elements of absolute or near absolute freedom. 'Feelings' for example, do not necessarily invariably correlate with behavior, or the evolution of our material forms. We continue to do and say bad things despite the 'feeling' that they are bad. Certain feelings do not moderate material or mechanistic behavior and as such, aspects of our emotional life (whatever that is) may well be entirely free, despite the determined nature of the material function of ones life.

What are your thoughts on the function of "appearance" in the context of your use of the term with reference to soft-determinism?

M

Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance. — Bitter Crank

This appears to be empirically correct, but is this not simply stating that reality is something of a delusion, if experienced reality is at odds with the fundamental truth of that reality? — Marcus de Brun

Stand on the edge of a circle, look inward to the center, then look outward. You will not see the actual circle, because the origin of your viewpoint is a point on that very circle. The same applies to higher dimensional perception. Its perspective is fixated to a specific point in space-time continuum. Each point appears unique, which leads our three-dimensional senses to speculation. However, there is a one-dimensional thread running through all of reality. Its length and curves beyond comprehension. What can be deduced is that there are infinite points on this line, but that its course cannot be altered. That's not to say your actions do not have impact, to the contrary. The results of weighing your perceived choices, even the weighing itself, can be considered unavoidable parts of the same thread. Hence there is only hard determinism, anything else is only speculation from a limited three-dimensional perspective.

That is an interesting perspective, however like many others upon the subject it is contingent upon an apriori concept of that which you refer to as the "space-time continuum"

Would you care to expand upon what you mean by this rather general assumption of space or time and a continuity that unites them? Once this is clearly illustrated, your analogy with the circle may become more definitive.

M

Of course. I used the concept of space-time continuum here, as it is commonly used when referring to four-dimensional space. In principle, this idea can be applied to n-dimensional space. Hope that answers your question.

I used the concept of space-time continuum here, as it is commonly used — Ötzi

Might you be in a position to outline the 'common' view of the space-time continuum?

M

Sure. Albert Einstein stated that time, rather than being an independent singular dimension, is joined to the three dimensions we perceive with our eyes. Continuum means that no single dimension can exist independently of other dimensions. Obviously, there is no physical length without depth and width. Each dimension exists only in the context of the next.

There is therefore in this common view a distinction between the first order of perception "with our eyes" and the second order of 'perceived dimensions'.

How does the common view reconcile the first and second order of this relationship?

M

Interesting question. I started a new thread about multi-dimensional realization just yesterday. Anyway, each of our eyes receives a two-dimensional image. The difference is calculated by the mind, creating a three-dimensional image. This process comes naturally as it has been key to our survival in three-dimensional space. Higher dimensional perception is much more difficult. Accurate time perception can only be approximated by using predetermined units of measurement (like my one-eyed depth-perception analogy). Anything of higher dimensions can only be conceptually understood by using mathematics.

Higher dimensional perception is much more difficult. Accurate time perception can only be approximated by using predetermined units of measurement (like my one-eyed depth-perception analogy). Anything of higher dimensions can only be conceptually understood by using mathematics. — Ötzi

Higher dimensional perception might not be as difficult as you suggest. If the process of thought upon one's thought (meta-thought) is considered, then all or most humans engage in higher dimensional thought, readily and quite easily?

What then if the temporal dimension itself is not perceived as an external apriori, but rather is the product of the function perception?

M

What then if the temporal dimension itself is not perceived as an external apriori, but rather is the product of the function perception?

That is basically saying everything is subjective. An interesting notion but I tend to think the subjective is derived from the objective, not the other way around.

That is basically saying everything is subjective. An interesting notion but I tend to think the subjective is derived from the objective, not the other way around. — Ötzi

That is not what I wrote. Not "everything" but rather the "temporal dimension" of everything.

I too agree that there is some truth to the 'other way round', but this other way round, although it is the 'common' view, does not appear to be sufficient to substantiate a definitive cosmological or QM model, and is contradicted specifically by observation in respect of the double slit experiment, entanglement, quantum 'tunneling', etc and the 'observer effect' itself.

M

Time is definitely relative to the observer. I think it is as much subject as length, width and depth. Quantum mechanics researchers have made very interesting discoveries lately. I could do a lot of hypothesizing over how quantum entanglement may be a relation in the 5th (or greater) dimension, but that would be pure speculation. Great stuff nonetheless!

In my estimation QM and Philosophy are presently at the same impasse. Neither can proceed without an appropriate Philosophy of Time and this may lie at the very heart of the questions pertaining to the truth, falsity or function of a Determined Universe. — Marcus de Brun

A lot of folks here have mentioned this book which is about this topic.

In my view the difficulties of quantum physics provide a salutary lesson about the limits of our own understanding. All throughout contemporary physics there are yawning gaps and huge conundrums. And it should challenge 'scientific realism' which is after all a form of arrogance, in my view.

Thanks for the book reference I have not read it but will order a copy. I wonder if some of the yawning gaps might be closed were Philosophy to supply a sound answer/theory to the relation between consciousness and the presumed temporal dimension?

I agree that 'scientific realism' or even pure 'realism' does contain an arrogance of sorts. Although sometimes arrogance can be justified..., depending upon the nature of the source.

M

I would read the reviews and abstracts pretty carefully before ordering it. Lee Smolin is quite well known for a dissident view of physics, look up his previous title, The Trouble with Physics, on Amazon (here. He also has a lot of online interviews and articles. I often order such titles from Amazon and then end up not really reading them :yikes: .)

I have always been critical of scientific and/or naive realism. It seems to me it takes for granted the organising role of the mind and then looses sight of this role. So it assumes that the Universe exists 'out there', regardless of whether us humans are in it, or not. That was expressed rather pungently by the late Stephen Hawkings:

The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.

It's not as if 'the universe exists for our benefit' but that we are the means - the sole means, as far as we know - that the Universe becomes aware of itself. You do find this awareness expressed by scientists from time to time - Neils Bohr said, perhaps a little tongue in cheek, that 'a physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself'.

The point is, Enlightenment science loves to believe that it has 'dethroned man' from 'imago dei' and earth to being 'a mere speck' - as if this dethronement is itself a token of Enlightenment! But this looses sight of the even more profound understanding of the way in which the mind itself 'constructs' the Universe - which was the profound understanding that Immanuel Kant arrived at in the Critique of Pure Reason. He showed that the Universe is not merely 'given' to us, but that the mind synthesises and draws together the sensory input according to the categories of the understanding. Science often doesn't understand or appreciate the contribution of the mind. (Sorry for the digression but it's a pet theme of mine.)