Thoughts on Determinism

Matripsa

I've been reflecting on determinism recently, and I’ve come to a firm belief that our actions are indeed predetermined. However, I’m still grappling with how to fully articulate my understanding of it, because it seems to me that there’s a deeper complexity to the system at play, one that makes it hard to view our decisions as just simple, linear cause and effect.

I believe that the system governing our actions is far more intricate than we can currently understand. There are so many variables—biological, environmental, psychological, and beyond—that shape who we are and how we make decisions. These influences are part of what determines us, but they’re also what makes us who we are at any given moment. Who we are is constantly evolving, and our decisions are tied to this ever-shifting complexity.

In this way, I don’t see our actions as separate from who we are, but as an extension of ourselves. The idea of determinism, for me, isn’t a simple domino effect; it’s more like a web of interconnected factors—each one influencing the other. Our choices, in this context, aren’t isolated events but are deeply embedded in this complex system. And while we may not fully understand it, I think determinism accounts for all of this complexity and interconnectedness.

I’ve been reading Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, and it’s made me think more about how determinism could potentially allow for mystery. Chesterton emphasizes the importance of mystery in life, and at first glance, it might seem like determinism would strip away that mystery. But I think it actually adds a layer of it. The system we’re part of is so complex that we can’t hope to fully understand all the factors influencing our decisions. It’s not randomness that creates mystery—it’s the overwhelming intricacy of a system that we can never fully predict or control.

So, while I do believe our actions are predetermined, I don’t think that makes them any less meaningful or mysterious. In fact, I think it’s the complexity and depth of the system that makes life so fascinating. We may not be able to change the fundamental structure of this deterministic world, but our awareness of its complexity might give us the ability to navigate it more consciously.

Does anyone else here feel that determinism, in its full intricacy, actually leaves room for more mystery rather than less? Or do you see it differently?

MoK

↪Matripsa

Have you ever been in a maze? If yes then you realize that options are real when you reach a fork. The options are however a manifestation of neural processes and they are deterministic. Therefore, you could have options in a deterministic world. How we realize options as a result of neural processes is not well understood yet!

wonderer1

Does anyone else here feel that determinism, in its full intricacy, actually leaves room for more mystery rather than less? Or do you see it differently? — Matripsa

I largely agree with you, although I wouldn't use "predetermined" and instead I would use something like "interactively determined". I don't have any clear picture of how one might quantify mystery though.

As you point out the complexity of causal interactions results in plenty of mystery, particularly with respect to the functioning of our minds/brains.

DifferentiatingEgg

although I wouldn't use "predetermined" — wonderer1

I mean, maybe you should...

“Look at this gateway! Dwarf!” I continued, “it hath two faces. Two roads come together here: these hath no one yet gone to the end of.

This long lane : it continueth for an eternity. And that long lane forward—that is another eternity.

They are antithetical to one another, these roads; they directly abut on one another:—and it is here, at this gateway, that they come together. The name of the gateway is inscribed above: ‘This Moment.’

But should one follow them further—and ever further and further on, thinkest thou, dwarf, that these roads would be eternally antithetical?”—

“Everything straight lieth,” murmured the dwarf, contemptuously. “All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle.”

“Thou spirit of gravity!” said I wrathfully, “do not take it too lightly! Or I shall let thee squat where thou squattest, Haltfoot,—and I carried thee HIGH!”

“Observe,” continued I, “This Moment! From the gateway, This Moment, there runneth a long eternal lane BACKWARDS: behind us lieth an eternity.

Must not whatever CAN run its course of all things, have already run along that lane? Must not whatever CAN happen of all things have already happened, resulted, and gone by?

And if everything have already existed, what thinkest thou, dwarf, of This Moment? Must not this gateway also—have already existed?

And are not all things closely bound together in such wise that This Moment draweth all coming things after it? CONSEQUENTLY—itself also?

closely bound together in such wise that This Moment draweth all coming things after it? CONSEQUENTLY—itself also?

For whatever CAN run its course of all things, also in this long lane OUTWARD—MUST it once more run!—

And this slow spider which creepeth in the moonlight, and this moonlight itself, and thou and I in this gateway whispering together, whispering of eternal things—must we not all have already existed?

—And must we not return and run in that other lane out before us, that long weird lane—must we not eternally return?”— — Nietzsche, TSZ, The Vision (and the Enigma)

If all things hitherto and heretofore have come to pass, than there is never a wrong choice in the gateway of this moment.

Eternal Recurrence is one of Nietzche's riddles for overcoming the bad conscience.

I left out the Enigma, which is another step, which covers Amor Fati, which leads to the transfigured being, the higher human:

No longer shepherd, no longer man—a transfigured being, a light-surrounded being, that LAUGHED! Never on earth laughed a man as HE laughed! — same as above

Have you ever been in a maze? If yes then you realize that options are real when you reach a fork. — MoK

The problem here is that the hard determinist would deny that you genuinely have an option. They would reply, "Certainly it seems as if you are making a choice at the fork. But this is an illusion; the elaborate process you may go through in order to 'decide on your choice' is itself predetermined. You have no more actual choice in the matter than a vacuum robot has when it 'decides' in which direction to vacuum next. Even if you (and the robot) are choosing randomly, to do so was still not really 'your choice' -- it's the programming."

No, I don't think this picture is correct, but what should we say to the hard determinist about this? What error are they making?

flannel jesus

↪Matripsa

good take

MoK

↪J

I am not talking about decisions here but only the existence of options. Could you realize between two situations in which you are presented with one ball or two balls?

Could you realize between two situations in which you are presented with one ball or two balls? — MoK

Sorry, could you clarify? What does "realize between two situations" mean?

MoK

Sorry, could you clarify? What does "realize between two situations" mean? — J

Situation (a): I present you with one ball and ask you how many balls you see. Your answer is one for sure.
Situation (b): I present you with two balls and ask you how many balls you see. Your answer is two for sure.

Could you realize the difference between the situation (a) and (b)?

↪MoK

Thanks. Yes, I see the difference. Not sure how seeing a difference in possible outcomes means that I would any choice about what to do. But perhaps that wasn't your point.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Matripsa

I think one of the advantages of the tradition that Chesterton is writing out of is that it recognizes that determinism does not preclude self-determination. It also allows that we can be more or less self-determining (e.g. an infant versus an adult or a well-developed, intentionally directed life versus a life ruled over by vices and circumstance, etc.). Additionally, the institutions we are embedded in (the family, workplace, civic organizations, states, etc.) can also be more or less self-determining, allowing for a sort of development and enhancement of freedom across the social and historical dimensions.

Determinism only seems to drain the "life" out of the cosmos when it is paired with assumptions like smallism/reductionism (e.g. man is but a "cloud of particles") or a similarly totalitarian "bigism" (e.g., the universe is just one universal process) or other ideas, like the notion that consciousness can be nothing more than an accidental and causally inefficacious representation of being.

MoK

↪J

I am not talking about the decision here yet since I didn't ask you which ball you pick from the two. I am saying that we can distinguish between situations (a) and (b) so saying that situation (b) is an illusion, what hard determinists say is nonsensical!

...so saying that situation (b) is an illusion, what hard determinists say is nonsensical! — MoK

I'm just not following -- why is situation (b) but not situation (a) an illusion?

T Clark

Welcome to the forum.

We have the determinism discussion here often, and it can get tiresome. That being said, I like the way you've laid this out.

The idea of determinism, for me, isn’t a simple domino effect; it’s more like a web of interconnected factors—each one influencing the other. Our choices, in this context, aren’t isolated events but are deeply embedded in this complex system. And while we may not fully understand it, I think determinism accounts for all of this complexity and interconnectedness. — Matripsa

This is what I like - your recognition that the world is not chains of cause and effect but a vortex of immensely complex interacting phenomena. To take this point of view to it's extreme, there is only one thing - that vortex. The universe is just a swirling miasma. That perspective is the starting point for many philosophies. That includes eastern philosophies such as Taoism, but the viewpoint is also examined in many western philosophies and religions. From Genesis in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles - "Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

My criticism is that you haven't taken your analysis far enough and to it's logical conclusion. From that perspective, saying "our actions are indeed predetermined" is pretty much meaningless.

MoK

I'm just not following -- why is situation (b) but not situation (a) an illusion? — J

Because we are talking about options. If I present you with one ball, there is only one option available whereas in another case, when you are presented with two balls there are two options.

noAxioms

The idea of determinism, for me, isn’t a simple domino effect; it’s more like a web of interconnected factors—each one influencing the other. Our choices, in this context, aren’t isolated events but are deeply embedded in this complex system. And while we may not fully understand it, I think determinism accounts for all of this complexity and interconnectedness. — Matripsa

Determinism or no, yes, it is a complex web of interconnected factors, hardly a linear domino chain. You got this right.

Chesterton emphasizes the importance of mystery in life, and at first glance, it might seem like determinism would strip away that mystery.

Don't confuse determinism with predictiability. Lack of predictability is the source of mystery, and it has been nicely proven that the world is not predictable, even in principle.

It’s not randomness that creates mystery—it’s the overwhelming intricacy of a system that we can never fully predict or control.

One can control it to an extent. That's what good decision making is all about, and why deterministic processes are an aid to that, not a hindrance.

Does anyone else here feel that determinism, in its full intricacy, actually leaves room for more mystery rather than less?

Same, not more. Whether the sort of determinism you envision is the case or not seems not to have any effect on this.

If I present you with one ball, there is only one option available whereas in another case, when you are presented with two balls there are two options. — MoK

There are always multiple options. Your examples don't bear that out well since there's one obvious correct answer, but correct answer might not be the reply you want.

- - - -

Many spin determism as a bad thing, but never have I seen an example of determinism thwarting what you would otherwise have done. Quite the opposite: Randomness might thwart what you might otherwise have chosen. For this reason, evolution has suppressed amplification of random events and selected for deterministic functions in all biological processes, exactly as have engineers making artificial information processing devices.

T Clark

man is but a "cloud of particles" — Count Timothy von Icarus

And yet, "man is ~~but~~ a 'cloud of particles'" is a valid and sometimes useful perspective once you remove the offending adjective (or is it an adverb?).

totalitarian "bigism" (e.g., the universe is just one universal process) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't understand the meaning of "totalitarian" in this context. Also, "the universe is ~~just~~ one universal process" is a valid and sometimes useful perspective once you remove "just."

consciousness can be nothing more than an accidental and causally inefficacious representation of being — Count Timothy von Icarus

"...Consciousness can be ~~nothing more than~~ an accidental and causally inefficacious representation of being" is... yada, yada, yada.

Perhaps that means that "to drain the 'life' out of the cosmos" is a sometimes useful practice.

T Clark

Don't confuse determinism with predictiability. Lack of predictability is the source of mystery, and it has been nicely proven that the world is not predictable, even in principle. — noAxioms

I have argued in the past and I still think can be considered true that if something cannot be predicted, even in theory, it is meaningless to say it is determined. This is from a previous discussion:

It feels intuitively to me that in some, many, most? cases unraveling cause is not possible even in theory. It's not just a case of being ignorant. Part of that feeling is a conviction that sufficiently complex systems, even those that are theoretically "caused," could not be unraveled with the fastest supercomputer operating for the life of the universe. There is a point, isn't there, where "completely outside the scope of human possibility" turns into "not possible even in theory." Seems to me there is. — T Clark

flannel jesus

↪T Clark

why is it meaningless? The word has a literal meaning. It might be untestable, but I don't think it's meaningless.

MoK

There are always multiple options. Your examples don't bear that out well since there's one obvious correct answer, but correct answer might not be the reply you want. — noAxioms

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I was trying to be simple explaining the existence of options as a mental phenomenon. We are on the same page if you agree that options are real.

Patterner

Many spin determism as a bad thing, but never have I seen an example of determinism thwarting what you would otherwise have done. — noAxioms

What does "would otherwise have done" mean in a deterministic setting?

noAxioms

I have argued in the past and I still think can be considered true that if something cannot be predicted, even in theory, it is meaningless to say it is determined. — T Clark

Well, a system in principle can be predicted from outside the system, it's just from inside that it has been proven unpredictable, a rather trivial proof at that, by Alan Turing.

It feels intuitively to me that in some, many, most? cases unraveling cause is not possible even in theory.

A deterministic world is not necessarily reverse deterministic. Classically, our physics seems to be, but it is weird watching entropy go the wrong way. A world like Conway's game of Life is hard deterministic, and yet history cannot be deduced since multiple prior states can result in the same subsequent state.

could not be unraveled with the fastest supercomputer operating for the life of the universe

A computer, however unreasonably fast, cannot simulate itself, at least not at speed. I wrote a program to do exactly that and got it up to about 15% efficiency.

There is a point, isn't there, where "completely outside the scope of human possibility" turns into "not possible even in theory." Seems to me there is.

Actually simulating our physics (even the most trivial closed classical system with say 3 particles) cannot be done without infinite precision variables, which puts it in the 'not possible even in theory' category.

We are on the same page if you agree that options are real. — MoK

We are on the same page. Say the options are vanilla and chocolate. Both options are available and while your lack of sufficient funds might compel a choice of only one of them, determinism does not compel some choice against your will. It is your choice since it is a function of your mental processes.

What does "would otherwise have done" mean in a deterministic setting? — Patterner

In the context of my comment, it means that determinism does not remove the choice from being a function of your will. Had you willed otherwise, a different choice would have occurred.

Patterner

What does "would otherwise have done" mean in a deterministic setting?
— Patterner
In the context of my comment, it means that determinism does not remove the choice from being a function of your will. Had you willed otherwise, a different choice would have occurred. — noAxioms

In determinism, could you have willed otherwise? What is will? In determinism, is it not the resolution of an uncountable number of factors which, although we cannot hope to track them all, resolve in the only possible way? Just as, though we cannot calculate all the factors in an avalanche, due to their arrangement at the start, every rock lands in exactly the one and only place and position it does?

Philosophim

There's a large difference in outlook between knowing that things are determined vs the idea that nothing can know what that is. Even measuring the entire system is part of the determination. You would then need to measure yourself measuring yourself and then of course time has passed and...in the end you can really only know what happened and make a best guess at what will happen.

So even if there is determinism its not like we can fully understand it.

Patterner

↪Philosophim

I agree entirely.

And, of course, whether or not I measure the system would be determined, down to the second I begin. As well as whether or not I measure my measuring, etc.

flannel jesus

↪Philosophim

That's why NoAxiom was saying there's a difference between determinism and predictability.

Patterner

Things that are determined are predictable. But only to the degree that the predictor is able to perceive all the factors, and calculate all their interactions. The farther away, farther into the future, and larger the scale of, the thing a being tries to predict, the less certain their prediction, and the more likely they will be wrong.

MoK

It is your choice since it is a function of your mental processes. — noAxioms

To me will is an ability of the mind. What do you mean by mental processes here?

ENOAH

The idea of determinism, for me, isn’t a simple domino effect; it’s more like a web of interconnected factors—each one influencing the other. Our choices, in this context, aren’t isolated events but are deeply embedded in this complex system. And while we may not fully understand it, I think determinism accounts for all of this complexity and interconnectedness. — Matripsa

It can be called History; each so called individual, a locus in History. At the risk of sounding New Age (though it is not), it is like Indra’s Net. It is also found in Hegel, looked at without nit picking. It is not just Greater Mind or Greater History which is driven by dialectic. Each point of Mind/History, each locus and every seemingly choice/action is the outcome of Mind/History intersecting and interacting with that locus and through micro dialectics gets settled upon. Even choices which seem to be deliberate exercises of free will designed to resist History, are already constructed and informed by History. To give an over simplified e.g., you weren't born with the
settled notion that the thing is an apple(-and-all-structures-attaching-to-apple). It was input and though you think you have a choice, you don't. Then, if you choose to defy History and think of it otherwise, every place you settle at as the otherwise, has been input by History and structures the otherwise.

noAxioms

In determinism, could you have willed otherwise? — Patterner

I can think of I think 4-6 different kinds of determinism, and under 2 of those, yes, you could have willed otherwise, but probably not due to any difference of internal state, which is, as I've said, evolved to not be a function of random processes.

What is will?

Cheap answer: It's what you want to do. I will to be outside this jail cell. Physics compels me to do otherwise, so my will isn't entirely free in that sense.

In the philosophical sense, I'm totally unclear why free will is better since it seems to be a freedom to do something other than what you want, which is a weird thing to value. Or perhaps choice not based on prior state, which is an insanely bad thing to value.

To me will is an ability of the mind. What do you mean by mental processes here? — MoK

Same meaning as yours, different words. Both of our words leave 'mind/mental' fairly undefined, leaving open a natural or supernatural interpretation of it.

In determinism, is it not the resolution of an uncountable number of factors which, although we cannot hope to track them all, resolve in the only possible way? — Patterner

Under 4 of the 6 definitions, yes, 'the only possible way', and we even have free will under one of those 4.

Just as, though we cannot calculate all the factors in an avalanche, due to their arrangement at the start, every rock lands in exactly the one and only place and position it does?

Under 4 of the 6, yes.

MoK

Same meaning as yours, different words. Both of our words leave 'mind/mental' fairly undefined, leaving open a natural or supernatural interpretation of it. — noAxioms

Ok, I see.

Thoughts on Determinism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions