Do you accept / believe in Determinism?

[Duppers]

In general terms do you accept Determinism, defined as:

"Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences."



(I am not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. Quantum mechanics does make statistical predictions. Hence, I don't think the HLC will find that nonexistent God particle. Einstein was right to begin with, I do think, and sooner or later, the disparity between relativity and quantum will be solved.)


It is also discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=42951

[dipsydoodle]

1. I tried one once

but the wheels fell off.

[patrice]

2. If it isn't caused by "this", it's caused by "that" or by "the other thing(s)".

The determining factor MAY only be a "determining" factor by some fraction of a percent, .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...1 influence, but nothing is not "caused", except, perhaps, The Big Bang, or God, i.e. whatever The First Cause is/was.

[Dollface]

3. Can an occurence be caused by something that did not occur? But isn't the failure of something to

occur also an occurence? So yes? Back to Philosophy 101 for me.

[Igel]

4. Voted 'no'.

But then again, it's not like I had a choice.

[Duppers]

5. This would be helpful to read

Kinds of Determinism. There are two basic kinds of determinism: naturalistic and theistic. Naturalistic determinists include behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner, author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity and Beyond Behaviorism. An atheist, Skinner wrote that all human behavior is determined by genetic and behavioral factors. On this view, humans are like a brush in the hands of an artist, though in his view the "artist" is a mix of societal manipulation and chance. The human being is at the mercy of these forces, and is simply the instrument through which they are expressed.

The theistic version of this view insists that God is the ultimate cause who determines all human actions. Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will are examples of this theistic determinism. It is the view held by all strong Calvinists.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/Determinism.html


No buying that second example. But y'all knew that. ;)

[tama]

6. I'm a zombie

determined to vote no.

[MindPilot]

7. No. I hope that's the right answer -- don't want to start a black hole

But I don't think people and particles can be lumped together. Humans obviously do things while--in most cases--being consciously aware of the potential consequences of those actions. A river cutting a meander through the landscape, not so much.

I could go on at considerable length about this stuff, but I really should get back to fixing computers, which is what my current universe, called "Employer", has determined for me.

[TZ]

8. Have you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins?

It does deal with the biological determinism question, with behavior being determined by genetics.

Like most behaviorists today though I think that behavior is influence by both complex genetic and environmental factors...
I've never bought the Determinsim view..it seems like a techo version of fate..and I believe that the universe is a random and chaotic place.

[patrice]

9. There are no absolutes, not even randomness nor chaos . . .

http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fourattr.html

[Duppers]

18. Thanks, t-sue

Although I think most things could be predicted (but not in any sense of some religious 'fate' thing!!), I am forced to agree with you.

I have Dawkins' book, not read it yet. :blush:

[Duppers]

10. geesh ...

I just had a conversation with hubby about my post --finally.
Hells bells, he's an agnostic on the subject!! I'm surprised!! He sited chaos--in the quantum sense. Since he's a physicist, he would site some physical theory.

I write more later. Too curious about the market right now, since the bailout bill failed.

[mainegreen]

11. Yes, but it doesn't matter because you could never build the machine to make the predictions.

So it's basically moot.

[YankeyMCC]

12. That's a pretty good and succinct way to put it

pretty much how I see it.

Or maybe you'd have to say any predictive machine or model would effectively be another copy of this universe - so where you would put it? ;)

[phantom power]

14. FYI, the theoretical term is "computationally irreducible"

The fastest way to compute the state of the system at time (t) is to let the system itself execute.

[YankeyMCC]

15. Thanks

I've heard that term before now that you remind me of it. I need to remember that.

[hunter]

13. Do any of these words actually mean anything???

We like to think so.

I tend to believe the past and the future are entirely undefined -- the closer you try to focus in on them the closer you get to a divide- by-zero error. Chaos approaches infinity.

It seems very likely to me we might define everything visible to a human sort of consciousness within three dimensions, not four. There's a very narrow surface in which we can act, and beyond that everything else is untouchable. Every human perception arises from a universe that no longer exists, and every human action is a speculation based upon models of very limited resolution.

If there is intelligent life on this planet then it operates at the very fringes of whatever stuff intelligence might be. For the most part we are putting words to the ordinary behaviors of animals, and not doing a very good job of it, most especially when the social structures we build upon these inaccurate models and words become engines of death.

From my own perspective "determinism" can have no meaning. There's no fixed point by which you might determine the flow of the universe. Anything beyond the churning surface of locality is imaginary.

[Orsino]

16. Quantum uncertainty and Determinism are mutually exclusive.

Can't have both in the same universe.

[Duppers]

17. yes, that the scientific argument

I've got two physicists in this family saying the same.

thanks.

[qazplm]

19. what about random events?

Spasms?

What about making a decision against type?

I think we'd need a much more fundamental understanding of a whole lot of things to answer, so I say IDK.

[Random_Australian]

20. No I don't believe in determinism. Quantum kicks arse.

That is all.

Well, except I need to go reread Baum's extension of the EPR paradox. (Terribly enough, I went through the derivation that the output of the second SG apparatus was different based on different ideas, but never checked the result)

Edit: Please note that SG = Stern-Gerlach, not Stargate. :)

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. I don't have any choice in the matter

So I suppose that would be a "Yes." :hi:

[RagAss]

22. I'll answer you in the third demension, as viewed from the fourth.....

Nothing within space-time can experience space-time. Therefore, all events and cognitions are extensions of what is ever-existing.

[pokerfan]

23. see if you can guess how I voted

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.

Chorus:
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotus-land.

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

Chorus

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

Chorus