Determinism: What are your arguments against it?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nate on December 21, 2009 at 10:27pm

A determined system begat a determined system, begat a determined system that begat a chaotic one which begat a chaotic system and so on. So maybe it only seems like we live in a deterministic universe when really it is chaotic.

Chaos itself is both a deterministic cause and effect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Gladden on December 21, 2009 at 11:14pm

yes but chaos is simultaneously cause and effect. So which do you apply when a chaotic system is introduced into a deterministic system? Once chaos is introduced it is unpredictable and no longer strictly deterministic.

Chaos has been described as everything and nothing all at once. That description sounds to me to be pretty definitive while leaving plenty of room for specifics.

Chaos underlies every single measurable thing known to exist.

At some point for us humans we have to use categorization to describe what we sense to each other because it is the most efficient system we have devised so far. I think it is also a natural system caused by the way our brains are geared to recognize patterns. We naturally see patterns in the world around us even though the things we see are entirely chaotic. If we were not able to find some semblance of a pattern within the chaos of every tree, leaf, rock and cloud each one would have to be identified as that tree, that rock etc. because we would not be able to see how they were similar. We would literally not be able to see the forest for the trees in it. Pattern recognition only makes things seem to be nice and orderly which naturally determines how we tend to think in terms of patterns. It is hard for you to grasp that the universe isn't simple and organized because your brain does not easily work in that way. Try watching snow(static) on tv for a little while and you will start seeing patterns within the chaos. It is natural to do so. That is your brain trying to connect what it is seeing to what it has seen. You automatically try to organize and categorize everything you sense from your own perspective. And you are completely random in every way right down to your fingerprints. In light of that evidence I cannot begin to accept that the universe works in a predefined way.

1% of doubt is all it takes to render an idea unbelievable. Are you 100% sure that the world is all just some set-in-stone path you're looking out of in the mid-point of a chain reaction taking place?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on December 21, 2009 at 11:53pm

Are you 100% sure that the world is all just some set-in-stone path you're looking out of in the mid-point of a chain reaction taking place?

Not stone. It's like a perpetual concrete pour. The present is fluid. The past is that which has set. Yes, we are always in the middle of a causal chain reaction. I am both cause and effect. The only possible alternative would be the introduction of a force that exists outside of naturalistic explanation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on December 22, 2009 at 4:11am

Yes, we are always in the middle of a causal chain reaction.

I don't see it that way. I 'am' in the middle of the chain yesterday. I am at the end of that chain now, just like I 'was' yesterday.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on December 22, 2009 at 7:23am

Yes, we are always in the middle of a causal chain reaction.

I don't see it that way. I 'am' in the middle of the chain yesterday. I am at the end of that chain now, just like I 'was' yesterday.

Such is our perception of time. As certainly as you are at the end of the chain at a given moment(an effect), you are also a cause affecting what immediately follows.

We live in the past and in the future- the present is almost impossible to grasp- reflecting on our observations of what's just happened and anticipating what's about to. A lot of New Age thinking would have us believe that only the now is real. Past and future are illusions. I get the concept, but it doesn't hold up to reality and seems to be an attempt at escape from it. There is no now without the past. The now wouldn't be the now without the impending future. I guess at the moment of a life being extinguished, there is a now not followed by a future, in the perspective of that life. But only at that moment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on January 5, 2010 at 6:37am

We live in the past and in the future- the present is almost impossible to grasp- reflecting on our observations of what's just happened and anticipating what's about to. A lot of New Age thinking would have us believe that only the now is real. Past and future are illusions.

Strange you present it like that. In my experience it's New Agers who claim the past and future to be as 'real' as the present.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on December 22, 2009 at 10:50am

Your assumption is that pure causality is the unbreakable rule. Let me throw this into the mix. The universe, via a very strong circumstantial case, contains a good deal of absolutely nothing. Nothing has neither a cause nor effect. It has no mass, no temperature, no light, no inertia, etc. Yet, without it, we could have no darkness, no cold, no vacuum - and everything else would have no wiggle room. So - is causality the only game in town?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on December 22, 2009 at 6:55pm

Nothing has neither a cause nor effect. It has no mass, no temperature, no light, no inertia, etc. Yet, without it, we could have no darkness, no cold, no vacuum - and everything else would have no wiggle room. So - is causality the only game in town?

I very strongly disagree.

Nothingness can be very instrumental in causing effects. Nothingness can also be the outcome(caused effect) of something.

For example, the absence of light, warmth, etc.(the nothingness that you describe) exerts an influence on living organisms. There are reactions that result in nothing where once there was something.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on December 22, 2009 at 9:47am

How do you call someone who resists determinism? A rebel without a cause.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johnny on December 22, 2009 at 7:26pm

lol you could say that... i only argue for determinism because it is so fascinating.

Obviously there are more important factors of behavior to spend my time debating (*aherm religion)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fan of OHair on January 5, 2010 at 6:00am

determin'izm, schizm
are we playing w/language again?
try PHP, JAVA or PERL
then we'll have a determined debate on what works best for data-mining societies
hugh, wtf?

it's all about the money and who's buying out whom?
if some megachurch, CEO, etc. were to buy out atheist nexus for say 2 billion dollars and change the name to christ's nexass... well, do the math.
guess then you could just change the name, take the money and run but...
surely they'd have you sign your name in blood on that crucifix contract

?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page