There are two ways to think about the deterministic nature of the material universe: hierarchical and cyclical.
Hierarchical determinism is a system in which there is at least one thing which determines the behavior or state of all other things, and that one thing is not effected by any of the things it effects. In terms of the material universe, we might think of natural laws as filling the roll of the one determining factor that controls everything else (quantum mechanics notwithstanding).
Cyclical determinism is a system in which every component always has an opportunity to effect every other component. An example of this might be the following:
Entity A effects entity B.
Entity B effects entity C.
Entity C effects entity D.
Entity D effects entity A.
So there are direct effects such as A effecting B, but there are also indirect effects such as A effecting C. In a cyclical system, indirect effects can potentially come full circle such as A effecting itself through the series A->B->C->D->A. This also obliterates any certainty as to what is effecting what. We could say that A effects B, but we could also say that, more indirectly, B effects A.
I haven’t worked out a formal proof of this, but I do believe that in a cyclical system, every effect issued by some entity X eventually leads back to X.
Now, taking the classical view of the material universe into consideration - so putting quantum mechanics aside for the moment - which one of these models - cyclical or heirarchical - best describes the nature of our universe?
I would just like to propose that “determinism” is a misused word and often describing something that is only conceptual in the mind…not necessarily an a prior structure to the nature of “being”.
The proper way to make a causal statement is to claim an event is happening, but one cannot say that there is any “determination” occuring unless one can identify the cause…the “determiner”.
The term technically implies a reson why something “is”. It is said like “such and such was determined.” But in saying so, it suggests a previous reason why, and in turn must ask the same of that posited reason.
Sartre mentions that phenomena as we experience amount to nothing more than their appearance to us…in this “appearing”. Each particular object has nothing determining its nature, but at the same time, all the objects that make up the phenomena are groundless objects themselves. It is impossible to say that one phenomena “caused” another, because we only see a succession of experienced phenomena. Instead, we can, like Spinoza, assume that entities that have “being” are both a cause and an effect, but to claim there is a point of determination where an event was necessary is a sort of anthropomophic claim- it is like saying there is a mind which has found the determining thing that just forced event X into existence.
What is necessary is cause and effect. What is contingent is an actual “state” of events. It is impossible to find the supporting cause for any one event itself, whether it be an object or a universe. And according to quantum physics, an event does not “happen” until it is observed. In a roundabout way, Sauwelios, you are saying that determinism exists because there is mind to observe the universe.
So remember, a statement that uses the term “determined” must imply a thing which did the determining. Nothing can be called a cause that is not also an effect. There was no “first push” that set existence into motion.
Since interconnectedness is a given, the A to B, B to C, C to D and D to A makes perfect sense. Though I think that may still be too linear. A to B and a lesser degree C and to an even lesser degree C, to an even lesser degree D. B to C, and to a lesser degree D, and to an even lesser degree A. The network is in serial – not just a closed circle.
Which is exactly here I’d like to keep it (which is why I can say “quantum mechanics notwithstanding”). We’re talking about a model - the classic model of Newtonian physics - and the question is: is this model deterministic in a heirarchical or cyclical sense?
Pardon my criticism, gib. It is just that determinism is the most philosophically played out subject, that only after arguing about it in company for years on end, does one realize that things wouldn’t be much different had they taken up the contrary position.
A world full of people who call themselves determinists wouldn’t look much different than a world full of people holding the position of freewill. Pragmatically, the world would still work, because politics and government, regardless of whether or not one position is true and the other false, manifest responsibility and “rights” into reality- “responsibility”, in a determined world, then only means “knowing that nobody has freewill and to answer, without question, to authority over yourself by another.” In other words, a world full of determinists would create an order of rankings and rights and responsibilities, or “duties”, because they would be necessary for such a society to operate. So you see that the “philosophical” argument is really something useless and irrelevent, since reality is still what is despite which position people hold. People make contracts…they invent the conscience and therefore the feeling of duty and rights. But none of this is determined or “freewill” for that matter.
I’ve had similar thoughts like this myself. But my aim is not so much to decide whether the world runs on deterministic forces or freewill; I’m asking this out of a greater contextual background. I’m trying to reason, in a paper I’m writing, that a universe which could be thought of as cyclically determined could be said to gain the support it needs for its own existence by the mutual support the components lend to each other. In a hierarchical model, the support that anything needs for existence necessarily comes from a “higher source” - whatever that might mean to one person or another.
Yeah, Newton himself would have, but I was refering more to society in general (from late 17th century to early 20th). And yes, they probably would have followed suite with Newton, but I’m refering more to the model itself and what anyone’s take on it might be if presented with the option I outlined above.
I’ve had similar thoughts like this myself. But my aim is not so much to decide whether the world runs on deterministic forces or freewill; I’m asking this out of a greater contextual background. I’m trying to reason, in a paper I’m writing, that a universe which could be thought of as cyclically determined could be said to gain the support it needs for its own existence by the mutual support the components lend to each other. In a hierarchical model, the support that anything needs for existence necessarily comes from a “higher source” - whatever that might mean to one person or another.
Yeah, Newton himself would have, but I was refering more to society in general (from late 17th century to early 20th). And yes, they probably would have followed suite with Newton, but I’m not sure they were ever presented with a “cyclical perspective”. Do you think they would have rejected it or embraced it?
Computer programmers can program either with traditional scripting, or with object oriented programming. Basically, they’re two different types of programming.
The first, the whole system is determined and all the bits follow the big script. The second, all the bits have their own script and are individually detremined - including how they react off each other.
The functional end result can be the same if the scripting/programming plans it to be.
I suspect that the “hierarchical and cyclical” distinction is, I’m guessing, the same. It’s interesting but functionally not too different.
I agree with APR that the distinction, functionally, isn’t that great.
But whether people would have rejected it . . . well, I would argue that cyclical determinism would also conflict with the more normal religious views and cosmology of the time. Not just Newton’s crazy ones. Now, I am sure that there would have been some contrarians who would have latched onto the idea (every time period in history has people like that) but I don’t think it would have been terribly many.
I don’t think that Enlightenment thinkers would embrace the idea too much either. At least, none come to mind.
i would say cyclical. i think it’s misled to say that there are ‘laws’ of physics, which, in themselves, determine what happens–for the laws to determine what happens as unmovable laws, they need a means of enforcement, which takes energy, and a way to enforce the enforcers, etc. energy that would come from nowhere.