AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Causal Determinism

19 5536
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

I've had some info about this on my profile for a while now. But if I were to post all of that, too many people would be scared off by the teal deer (tl;dr) and the thread would die.

So I'll keep it short.

Causal determinism is not regular determinism; it has nothing to do with deism or an omniscient being. Or rather, it does not require any kind of god.

Basically, causal determism dictates that everything reacts with everything else in a certain way. Which, given an initial condition, means that only one event can follow. What has happened is the only thing that could have happened. The future is similarly determined.

Questions to consider:

1) Is there a set of "rules" that the universe MUST follow?
(why or why not?)

2) If yes, does this necesarily prove causal determinism? If no, how do things happens? IE what determins whether a coin flip comes up heads or tails?

I have several follow up questions, which I shall release depending on the success of the thread, and if there is a general consensus on whether or not our universe is causaly determined.

  • 19 Replies
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Interesting topic:

I have several problems with determinism, and causal determinism in particular. For the sake of being able to continue the debate, and initiate response on a smaller scope, I'll post only my primary issue here.

True causal determinism states that nothing can be self caused. Therefor it insinuates that no entity or force may create a stimuli without first having been stimulated and so on back to the origins of creation. Obviously we can see many examples, both in science, as well as simple observation of the world, that indeed stimuli may be initiated without any preceding motivator.

Causal determinism, while seemingly applicable in physics, does not explain nor allow for any conscious entity that has the ability to respond to stimuli based on perception and experience. Because of this it disallows accurate predictions of events as put into motion by living beings. However it is perfectly explanatory of inanimate objects, such as atomic particles.

aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

If this ends up being a DP, it's because my internet is horrible.

First:

However it is perfectly explanatory of inanimate objects, such as atomic particles.


But we are made out of atomic particles.

If atomic particles are subject to physical laws which dictate their interactions, and if we are made out of atomic particles, then are we not also causaly determined? How can be possibly be greater than the sum of our parts?

Secondly:
True causal determinism states that nothing can be self caused.

Correct. Everything must be caused by something else.

Therefor it insinuates that no entity or force may create a stimuli without first having been stimulated and so on back to the origins of creation.

Ah, incorrect. You see, causal determinism is not necesarily one way. The past may cause the future, or the future may cause the past. Therefore, no beginning is needed.

You just need one instant, at any point in time, and everything else falls into place. Because in causal determinism, there would only be one way to get to that instant, and only one way to proceed from it.

Metaphor:
There is a road (the past) leading up to a house (the future). Both the house and the road need each other to exist: there is no point to a road that leads nowhere, and no point to a house you can't get too. So it is impossible to say whether the road was created because of the house, or the house because of the road.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

If atomic particles are subject to physical laws which dictate their interactions, and if we are made out of atomic particles, then are we not also causaly determined? How can be possibly be greater than the sum of our parts?


It is quite obvious that we are greater than the sum of our parts. We have cognitive reasoning capabilities and we respond based on perception, experience, situational factors, and many other things. If indeed we are no greater than the sum of our parts, and indeed the universe is causally determined, then everything that will be is a forgone conclusion. There is no morality as there is no free will. When everything becomes predetermined then there is no room for interpretation, initiation of stimuli, or self motivation. Causal determination is just a philosophical way of saying that everything is governed by fate and there is no way to alter it.

You just need one instant, at any point in time, and everything else falls into place. Because in causal determinism, there would only be one way to get to that instant, and only one way to proceed from it.


That is not causal determinism. Causal determinism requires preceding stimuli and says that given A, B, then C, then we will get D, unless E, F, or G occur. This does not take into account responses based on personal perception. The future cannot affect the past, even in causal determination.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

From Carl Hoeffer, who has PhD in Philosphy from Standford:

For a wide class of physical theories (i.e., proposed sets of laws of nature), if they can be viewed as deterministic at all, they can be viewed as bi-directionally deterministic. That is, a specification of the state of the world at a time t, along with the laws, determines not only how things go after t, but also how things go before t.


That is not causal determinism. Causal determinism requires preceding stimuli and says that given A, B, then C, then we will get D, unless E, F, or G occur.


But the only way to get to C is through A and B.

So A + B = C
is also
C = A + B

In other words, if C has occured, than the things that led up to C must have occured.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Causal determinism also states that not only does C require A + B, but that for A + B the ONLY outcome is C. I don't buy that. It works in math, but nowhere else. Basically if causal determinism is true then there are a specific and observable set of stimuli which have led to my sitting here at my computer, and that the exact words I'm writing could be predicted and are the only possible outcome of said stimuli. I find it to be a great stretch of the imagination that I have no free will, yet I'm sitting here claiming to have exactly that. It seems too preposterous to me, and there are many other issues with causal determinism that make it extremely unlikely.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

In other words, if C has occured, than the things that led up to C must have occured.


Let's look at it a bit differently if A accrued then the things preceding A must have accrued. Here in lies the problem, since we don't have anything preceding A, A can't happen. As such the formula A+B=C can't take place since A never could have happened in the first place.

and there are many other issues with causal determinism that make it extremely unlikely.


I would like to hear your other points on this. I've been wrestling with this concept in my head for little over a week now so this is a rather interesting thread to me.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

There are several fundamental flaws with determinism.

Firstly, it relies on the premise that every action is either caused or uncaused. This implies that there is no middle ground and if one thing has a cause then everything must have a cause, or vice versa. This is at odds with quantum physics, which has shown an element of chance and/or randomness. Einstein tried to explain this with the 'missing exponent' hypothesis (if I'm remembering correctly), however that has been disproven as there is no 'missing exponent' that fits the theory in even the smallest number of samples. And if we can prove that there is some randomness/chance, then we must admit that determinism is false.

The far more likely explanation, and one that coincides with modern quantum physics, is that every action is either caused or uncaused. If this holds to be true then no derministic philosophy is valid.

Secondly, we have great evidence that in fact some events are not caused by a predetermined stimuli, but arise in and of themselves. If this is true, then determinism cannot, by it's own definition, be true. Determinism requires that everything have a preceding causation, all the way back to the very beginnings of creation. Therefor if anything occurs at random, or without catalyst, determinism is an invalid philosophical standpoint.

Also, we can accurately say that many actions arise of our own will and often without catalyst. If this is held to be true then there can be no universal determinism at work. If there is no universal determinism then there can be no determinism as it is a universal and all encompassing philosophy.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Secondly, we have great evidence that in fact some events are not caused by a predetermined stimuli, but arise in and of themselves. If this is true, then determinism cannot, by it's own definition, be true.


I'm not sure how I should think of absolute determinism, but I know for sure that there isn't for example a biologic determinism, and this is because of stochastic events. Take for example nervous stimuli: the rate of a stimuli depends on stochastics; a stimuli from the brain to a muscle isn't absolute, but occurs because the probability for it to be launched is raised.
Back to absolute determinism, I think it depends if at the level of the smallest particles there are stochastic events or not. If not, then I think we could call it deterministic, if yes, then there is just probability..
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

I'm not sure how I should think of absolute determinism, but I know for sure that there isn't for example a biologic determinism, and this is because of stochastic events. Take for example nervous stimuli: the rate of a stimuli depends on stochastics; a stimuli from the brain to a muscle isn't absolute, but occurs because the probability for it to be launched is raised.
Back to absolute determinism, I think it depends if at the level of the smallest particles there are stochastic events or not. If not, then I think we could call it deterministic, if yes, then there is just probability..


Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't used specific examples outside of quantum mechanics yet, but this is another observed example of stimuli occurring in a manner that is not precisely predictable and further evidence that causal determinism must not hold true.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

Here in lies the problem, since we don't have anything preceding A


Ways around this:
1) a &quotrime mover" (god)

2) Infitite loops

3) Double causasation (similar to 2)

4) various paradoxes.

I don't like 1, because I'm an athiest. However, this doesn't necesarily require a god. The universe could have randomly become deterministic. In other words, it could have started out in an undefined state, which then randomly evolved into a deterministic state. But this is a horrible theory, because it is literally impossible to prove.

The problem with infinite loops: what caused the loops? The loop itself is an event, so what made it start?

If A + B, Then C. So if C, then A and B must have occured. But what caused A? Logically, it must have been some letter before A. Which doesn't exist. OR, using double causation, A was caused by C. Because if C exists, then it caused A to exist, because A is necesary for C. But this has the same problem as the infinite loop.

You know that "halfway there" paradox? The one where if you keep walking halfway to a destination, you will walk forever but never get there? If time can be divided into infinitly small increments, there is no need for an initial condition. However, infite distances of any kind generally do not bode well for causal determinism.

This is at odds with quantum physics


Correction: at odds with certain types of quantum physics.

From that same Standford site:

Contexts of type 1: Given the state of a system at t and the forces and constraints to which it is subject, there is an equation, 'Schrodinger's equation', that gives the state at any other time U|vt> -> |vt'>.[8] The important properties of U for our purposes are that it is deterministic, which is to say that it takes the state of a system at one time into a unique state at any other, and it is linear, which is to say that if it takes a state |A> onto the state |A'>, and it takes the state |B> onto the state |B'>, then it takes any state of the form (alpha)|A> + (beta)|B> onto the state (alpha)|Aâ²> + (beta)|B'>.

Contexts of type 2 ("Measurement Contexts&quot:[9] Carrying out a "measurement" of an observable B on a system in a state |A> has the effect of collapsing the system into a B-eigenstate corresponding to the eigenvalue observed. This is known as the Collapse Postulate. Which particular B-eigenstate it collapses into is a matter of probability, and the probabilities are given by a rule known as Born's Rule: (ommited due to technicality)


|A> just means vector A.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

No matter how you look at it, it still doesn't work. We have too many examples of events initiating themselves. If even one event initiates in and of itself then causal determinism is not applicable.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

1) Is there a set of "rules" that the universe MUST follow?


This is a nice, broadly phrased question to get the conversation going, but I think we should focus it a bit more. The way this question is reading, it looks more like it views natural laws as something normative rather than something descriptive. But this isn't the case.

Any laws that we observe in the universe are descriptive. They describe how the universe works rather than imposes some sort of restriction on how it can or ought to work. The natural laws that we observe must rest on some big assumptions:
1) that the universe is pretty much how we perceive it to be
2) that these descriptive laws are actually the case, i.e., we're right about physical laws and the theories within
3) we have exhausted all the natural laws within the universe

1 is fairly uncontentious, although there are a few skeptics running around who would argue 1 is false. But that's missing the point completely and this kind of argument has no place in our discussion
2 is proving more and more difficult to demonstrate. We thought we totally had it with Newton's laws, which were replaced by Einsteinian physics, which was itself replaced by quantum physics. If history is any guide, then we likely still haven't gotten it right. Then again, we would eventually be able to get it right at some point - I would hope.
It's 3 that is really problematic, and it runs into the same problem as trying to make any sort of self referential universal claim. We're trying to use empirical data to figure out these natural laws. But in order to know that these are all the laws there are, we would need that additional premise. But that's not something we can discover empirically. It's like trying to claim that you've observed every living crow on earth. There's no evidence that can actually support it - only make it more or less probable (or, of course, disproven if you find another crow you haven't observed).

I also don't think we should view these laws as necessary - at least not logically necessary. There are other logically possible worlds with significantly different physical laws than ours. I don't think there would be much of a problem with asserting any kind of physical necessity, though.

2) If yes, does this necesarily prove causal determinism?

Absolutely not. If one of the natural laws includes true randomness (and not just a lack of an observable pattern), then that particular system may be incompatible with determinism. But note I say "may be incompatible". Randomness at, say, the quantum level which gets eliminated at the macro level may still be compatible with causal determinism.

Secondly, we have great evidence that in fact some events are not caused by a predetermined stimuli, but arise in and of themselves.


What are you defining as an event, and what kinds of events are you talking about? It sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting these events are self-caused. But I (and many, many other logicians) find that notion completely self-contradictory.

Basically if causal determinism is true then there are a specific and observable set of stimuli which have led to my sitting here at my computer, and that the exact words I'm writing could be predicted and are the only possible outcome of said stimuli.


An event's being determined doesn't imply that event's being predicted. But predicting an event doesn't imply it was determined to happen, either. All we can do is talk about what we've observed. So even with the best technology possible, it would seem we could only develop one of two propositions:

either
There have been events whose outcome we could not predict
or
Every event so far has been accurately predicted

Note that neither of these propositions can imply determinism or a lack thereof without some serious leaps of faith.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Ways around this:
1) a &quotrime mover" (god)


I could perhaps give you the other three (bit iffy on #4 as well) but with this one you are just shifting A back a step. You would still require a step preceding the &quotrime mover".
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

I could perhaps give you the other three (bit iffy on #4 as well) but with this one you are just shifting A back a step. You would still require a step preceding the &quotrime mover".


I really like this thread and I don't want it to leave so soon. So... I'm gonna be a difficult bear.

The Aristotelean notion of the unmoved mover could avoid the infinite regress. Aristotle described this entity (if we can even call it that) as somehow beginning the motions of the universe although the prime mover itself was never "moved" (read created) by anything else. Without getting into the heavy part of his metaphysics, Aristotle's concept of the unmoved mover doesn't seem terribly problematic - at least on the surface.

Let's just grant that the unmoved mover seems, at the very least, plausible. Would it's truth imply causal determinism, or would this require additional premises to get to that conclusion? Would the unmoved mover need some sort of intelligence (or at least awareness) in order to get a solid implication of determinism?
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Let's just grant that the unmoved mover seems, at the very least, plausible. Would it's truth imply causal determinism, or would this require additional premises to get to that conclusion?


The presence of an 'immovable mover' is counter to causal determinism no matter how you look at it. Causal determinism states that EVERYTHING has a preceding cause, and predictable outcomes of stimuli. Therefor the existence of something which has no cause would be proof against causal determinism.
Showing 1-15 of 19