Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 04-26-2006, 06:23 AM

There's a fundamental problem with determinism, in that it removes the need for any sort of morality.

This was an issue a few centuries back, during the crusades. Men of God raped, pillaged and stole. Their reasoning was based on a deterministic theism; essentially the thinking was 'if I can do it, God meant for it to happen.'

One can hopefully see the havoc caused by such a train of thought.

Having isolated the practical issues with determinism, I would like to address the OP's illustration as well.

See, the thing is, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're stretching it a bit too far; to state that if physical laws do not direcdtly govern our behaviour, they must not govern anything is to stretch the argument.

An example of my own : when I'm on the highway driving in my car, I follow certain rules. I signal my lane changes, I buckle my seat belt, I obey the speed limit (or close enough to it so as not to attract any undue attention). Yet here, sitting in front of my computer, I do none of these things. Does that mean the rules of the road are meaningless, or that I have to do those things? Clearly not; I choose to obey the rules of the road, because I have no wish to suffer the consequences of not doing so. And yet, I don't have a seat belt on my computer chair and to date have not suffered for it.

Quantum mechanics (and indeed, all physics) are a method of describing how the universe works. This is what men such as Isaac Newton all the way up to Dr. Hawking today have been trying to do. We want to build a framework through which we can understand why things are the way they are. These rules need not apply to the way we think.

Now, obviously, I cannot break these rules. Despite numerous attempts as a child, I remain to this day unable to avoid the effects of gravity and I'm certain that I could get better mileage out of my car if only I could do away with that pesky friction. These physical aspects of it are beyond my control; yet my thoughts are not physical in nature. Therefore those things that describe the physical realm need not apply.

Which, of course, begs the question of just what is a thought. I cannot see it or taste it or hold it in my hand. I only know of it's presence through my ability to suppose that it must be there; I have no further proof of thought beyond my own ability to think. As has been pointed out, a great deal of effort has gone into deciphering the nature of thought to no avail. At the moment one would be just as correct in assuming that a thought is not a part of the physical realm and is intangible in nature as one would assuming that it is physical, but beyond our current methods of detection. We can neither prove nor disprove either one of these theories.

Now, let's revisit your pool table. You may not be aware that I do enjoy shooting a few rounds of eightball in my off time myself. Through a combination of my understanding of physics and long hours spent practicing, I now understand the angles required to place the balls where I want to. I make the decisions, I take my shots and, if everything works the way I've envisioned it, one or more balls will go off the table and into one of the pockets. I'm using an understanding of how the world works granted me through observation; both my own and that of great minds that have come before. This understanding grants me the ability to predict the outcome of a specific action and therefore allows me to make choices based on those predicted outcomes. I may, for example, choose a harder shot now with the knowledge that should I sink this shot I'll be left with an easy one for my next turn.

According to the deterministic view, I was destined to attempt the harder shot should I make this choice, and I am destined to either sink or miss the shot accordingly. But is this necessarily valid? Can you prove that the selection and outcome of said shot was predetermined? Of course you can't, just as I can't prove that the selection was not decided long ago. There is no concrete evidence of one or the other and therefore this is one of those situations where personal belief takes over. But to assume that because physical matter is guided by natural laws my intangible thoughts must be as well is, in my opinion, stretching the argument.

04-26-2006, 06:23 AM	#16 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	There's a fundamental problem with determinism, in that it removes the need for any sort of morality. This was an issue a few centuries back, during the crusades. Men of God raped, pillaged and stole. Their reasoning was based on a deterministic theism; essentially the thinking was 'if I can do it, God meant for it to happen.' One can hopefully see the havoc caused by such a train of thought. Having isolated the practical issues with determinism, I would like to address the OP's illustration as well. See, the thing is, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're stretching it a bit too far; to state that if physical laws do not direcdtly govern our behaviour, they must not govern anything is to stretch the argument. An example of my own : when I'm on the highway driving in my car, I follow certain rules. I signal my lane changes, I buckle my seat belt, I obey the speed limit (or close enough to it so as not to attract any undue attention). Yet here, sitting in front of my computer, I do none of these things. Does that mean the rules of the road are meaningless, or that I have to do those things? Clearly not; I choose to obey the rules of the road, because I have no wish to suffer the consequences of not doing so. And yet, I don't have a seat belt on my computer chair and to date have not suffered for it. Quantum mechanics (and indeed, all physics) are a method of describing how the universe works. This is what men such as Isaac Newton all the way up to Dr. Hawking today have been trying to do. We want to build a framework through which we can understand why things are the way they are. These rules need not apply to the way we think. Now, obviously, I cannot break these rules. Despite numerous attempts as a child, I remain to this day unable to avoid the effects of gravity and I'm certain that I could get better mileage out of my car if only I could do away with that pesky friction. These physical aspects of it are beyond my control; yet my thoughts are not physical in nature. Therefore those things that describe the physical realm need not apply. Which, of course, begs the question of just what is a thought. I cannot see it or taste it or hold it in my hand. I only know of it's presence through my ability to suppose that it must be there; I have no further proof of thought beyond my own ability to think. As has been pointed out, a great deal of effort has gone into deciphering the nature of thought to no avail. At the moment one would be just as correct in assuming that a thought is not a part of the physical realm and is intangible in nature as one would assuming that it is physical, but beyond our current methods of detection. We can neither prove nor disprove either one of these theories. Now, let's revisit your pool table. You may not be aware that I do enjoy shooting a few rounds of eightball in my off time myself. Through a combination of my understanding of physics and long hours spent practicing, I now understand the angles required to place the balls where I want to. I make the decisions, I take my shots and, if everything works the way I've envisioned it, one or more balls will go off the table and into one of the pockets. I'm using an understanding of how the world works granted me through observation; both my own and that of great minds that have come before. This understanding grants me the ability to predict the outcome of a specific action and therefore allows me to make choices based on those predicted outcomes. I may, for example, choose a harder shot now with the knowledge that should I sink this shot I'll be left with an easy one for my next turn. According to the deterministic view, I was destined to attempt the harder shot should I make this choice, and I am destined to either sink or miss the shot accordingly. But is this necessarily valid? Can you prove that the selection and outcome of said shot was predetermined? Of course you can't, just as I can't prove that the selection was not decided long ago. There is no concrete evidence of one or the other and therefore this is one of those situations where personal belief takes over. But to assume that because physical matter is guided by natural laws my intangible thoughts must be as well is, in my opinion, stretching the argument. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame