Is Fatalism Worse or Equal to Religion?

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying something could have happened other than what did happen. In doing so, you are assuming that determinism is false. According to determinism, no other action can take place other than the one that does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are going to need another variant of determinism to allow for QM randomness. As I see it, a cause doesn't necessarily result in a particular effect -- it can result in a range of effects, with each one having a certain probability.

So, how is determinism different from fatalism? And is ther another "ism" that allows for QM randomness?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> You are saying something could have happened other than what did happen. </font>

Yes, I understand that I was doing this. For some reason, I can understand the physical (physics?) side of determinism, but have a real hard time getting around the mental aspects of determinism. One pilot who felt under the weather might have decided to call in sick. Another pilot feeling the exact same way, might have sucked it up and decided to go to work anyway.

At some point, I like to think of the effects of the big bang as closed off and not a factor and inside my mind is one of those places. But VERY interesting stuff! Since my mind exists precisely because of the effects of the big bang, can it's actions ever be truly seperated from the cause and effect of the big bang?

I think what we're really getting at is: Can seperate worlds be created outside of the physical properties of the universe (that created it)? Is it possible for the spawning of a new life for example, to create a new world within itself that is distinct and apart of the physical properties that created it?

[hmkpoker]

If QM randomness influences the universe, then the universe is indeterministic.

I'm a long time believer in determinism, but the universe is a lot more complicated than may seem intuitive to me, or any classical physicist. I don't understand QM, I don't understand how or if the randomness on that minute level impacts reality, and, were it not for the fact that some very, very smart people who know more than I do about physics think it has some merit, I wouldn't believe in it at all.

But then, what do I know? I think it's a good possibility.

I still, however, see no reason to believe in free will [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If QM randomness influences the universe, then the universe is indeterministic.
...
I still, however, see no reason to believe in free will [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's probabilistically deterministic -- with no free will. That's too long to say... so I need a new "ism". What shall we call it? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Probabilism?

[Lestat]

I can't believe so many (that I respect), do not believe in free will. Non-free will is totally inconceivable to me. I really need to look further into this.

So I decide to make a surprise stop at my mom's house. No wait.. Never mind I don't have time. Screw it, I haven't seen her in a while, I'm gonna go.. Oh I forgot! I promised my girlfriend we'd go out to dinner, etc. etc.

You mean to say ALL this waffling was set in motion by the big bang? I can't conceive it.

[atrifix]

The question of determinism has been debated since the ancient Greeks (esp. Aristotle), however, it never really gained prominence until the development of Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian physics sparked the interest of Hume and Kant, among others. I think that, for a discussion ongoing for 3000+ years, we are in need of a lot of clarification, definitions and distinctions.

First I'll distinguish between what I'll call "physical determinism" (e.g., the belief that all physical phenomena can concievably be predetermined) and "philosophical determinism". Physical determinism has been more or less "refuted" by quantum physics, but hidden-variable theories would fall into this category. Philosophical determinism is the denial of free will. This can be caused in two ways: by physical determinism, or by causally predetermined events combined with the possibility of purely random events. Presumably not many people take random chance to be their choice. When you are dealt 27 or AA, we don't say that the dealer (or deck?) "chose" to give you those hands. There's nothing logically inconsistent with ascribing choice to probability, but doing so is likely more unappealing than any other alternative.

Secondly, let's distinguish between determinism and fatalism. Determinism states that given some set of initial conditions (important note: determinism does not depend on the big bang, or however the universe was created, but just some state of the world before your birth), then one could predict the current conditions, and presumably future conditions after that. Fatalism states that this state is necessarily the case. In other words, if we changed the initial conditions in the case of determinism, we might get a completely different result. According to chaos theory, we'd get something completely different with only a minute change over a very short period of time. For fatalism, on my interpretation, the current state of affairs would have arisen regardless of what the initial conditions were.

Finally, we should distinguish between hard determinism (determinism and incompatibilism) and soft determinisim (determinism and compatibilism). Compatibilism is the belief that people can be free even though their will is determined. For example, suppose that what it means to choose something is not to elect to do otherwise, but rather to want to do something. Then we could ascribe choice to a collection of mental states, which could be measured regardless of whether determinism holds.

I don't know whether these problems can be settled conclusively. Most philosophers today are soft determinists, but there are always notable exceptions.

[Lestat]

I feel like a kindergartner in a college class here, but...

<font color="blue"> (important note: determinism does not depend on the big bang, or however the universe was created, but just some state of the world before your birth) </font>

Well, wait a sec... Can you explain this to a kindergartner?:

If it doesn't go all the way back to the big bang, then how can it be true? If the first act of the universe didn't set in motion the exact "state of the world before your birth", then what did? And if there could've existed "some other state of the world before your birth", then there could've been a 3rd, and so on, until we arrive at some such state that could've altered current events. This renders any determinism null and void, no?

I don't get "soft" determinism. Things are either determined or they aren't. We either have free will, or we don't. I don't see the space for any in between or gray area.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wait a sec... Can you explain this to a kindergartner?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish I could--I'd be one of the greatest teachers ever.
[ QUOTE ]
If it doesn't go all the way back to the big bang, then how can it be true? If the first act of the universe didn't set in motion the exact "state of the world before your birth", then what did? And if there could've existed "some other state of the world before your birth", then there could've been a 3rd, and so on, until we arrive at some such state that could've altered current events. This renders any determinism null and void, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes and no. Determinism as usually stated says that all events are predetermined, which presumably relates back to the big bang, or whatever else. But determinism when applied to a specific event, e.g., suppose we take an agent and observe him commit some action; then we ask, did he act freely? Our theory only needs to capture a causal link back to an event that we all agree he could not have had any choice over, which I shortened to a state of a the world before his birth. When stated broadly, this will hold for any agent. But the key point is that determinism does not make a claim about how the universe began. In other words, it's consistent with big bang theory, creationism, deism, and whatever else there is.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get "soft" determinism. Things are either determined or they aren't. We either have free will, or we don't. I don't see the space for any in between or gray area.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, things may be determined, but perhaps our original idea of freedom as causal relation was in error. A soft determinist agrees that there is a causal (or causal-probabilistic) link between series of events, but denies that this causal link prohibits freedom.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Our theory only needs to capture a causal link back to an event that we all agree he could not have had any choice over, </font>

But it seems to me this "theory" has to go considerably further than this... It not only has to go back and capture a causal link to an event the agent had no control over, but it now has to correlate proofs and predictions on how this event affects everything from the synapses and neurons inside the agent's brain, to his motor skills, in order to bring about one and ONLY one possible event, no?

btw- You use the term "theory". Is determinism really a scientific theory? That's pretty strong and means I should be studying rather than questioning it.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wait a sec... Can you explain this to a kindergartner?:

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and we shouldn't have to.

[ QUOTE ]
If it doesn't go all the way back to the big bang, then how can it be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter.

All that matters is this: everything is caused by something else, in a fundamentally lawful way. If it didn't, all science would have fallen apart. As for choice, one of two things is possible:

A) The ego/personality is the sum of its experiences and environment. Because it is sentient, and can consciously "choose" things. Because it is fundamentally unaware of its choosing processes (are you aware of the neurons that fire when you choose to go to the bathroom?), its decisions appear, to itself, isolated, and thus there is an illusion of free will.

B) There is free will. Accordingly, there must exist an agent/force/whatever that functions outside of the known laws of science. There is no empirical evidence for said agent. Modern psychology repeatedly shows that behavior is lawful, suggesting that there is no need for such an agent (the vast majority of psychiatrists are determinists)

Occam's razor shreds the latter to pieces.