There seems to be a common intuition, but not a universal one, that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, if it were true, would imply Determinism is also true.
(Please note that the poll question isn’t asking you if you think the PSR is true - only if you think that if it were true, it would imply determinism. You can answer ‘Yes’ to the poll and still think the PSR and Determinism are both not true)
I’ve seen arguments both for and against this intuition. Apparently Liebniz believed that the PSR produces Determinism, but his approach was, from what little I know about it, very alien to me, as it was very much God-based.
I think part of the disagreement might come from different interpretations of what ‘sufficient’ means in this context. If there is “sufficient reason” for something to happen, or for something to be true, does that mean it MUST happen, MUST be true? I don’t think everyone answers that question the same.
Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason imply determinism?
Determinism is the view that events, including human actions, are causally determined by prior states and laws, leaving little or no room for free will in the sense of alternative possible outcomes. It appears in philosophy, science, and everyday reasoning, and different forms propose varying degrees of predictability and freedom.
I believe quantum physics disproves determinism, because an atom in a box only has a probability field.
I believe in the year 3000 or year 4000 determinism will finally be proven or disproven, and it will be proven or disproven as follows: They will clone an exact 3d printed human with the exact same brain as the other clones, then give 100 of these humans VR that is exactly the same, all running the same Single player game with deterministic AI and levels. The game will be a RPG and choices and dialogue options. They will analyze the input of each player then if it is random then determinism is not true. I wanted the game to be an FPS-RPG but it cannot because the controller inputs may drift after a while. The game must be gridlocked movement where random controller drift cannot influence the game. The game must be VR so that outside things cannot influence the game, such as their chair being slightly at an angle. The rooms must be vacuum soundproofed so that sounds cannot influence the players.
Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason imply determinism?
i do not believe so.
If the universe always existed it has no cause, therefore there is not a cause to explain everything.
Even if a cause can explain every action, it does not prove determinism exists. The cause could have been entirely quantum random and non-determinable or non-computable.
Footnote: The current definition of “determinism” is sloppy and wrong.
Something being “quantum random” and non-computable does not mean it is or isnt “set in stone”. It means no ASI, no God and no Cyborg can fully predict the future.
I use the phrase “set in stone”, what you call “determinism”, instead of “determinism”. Determinism root word is “determine” which means a brain or equation has determined it, therefore it is computable. But “set in stone” means the future may be impossible to predict, but it is fixed and set in stone.
I will give an example, no ASI can predict or “determine” a dice roll outcome, But the classical newtonian dice is probably “set in stone” because of newtonian physics. Unless the dice hits exactly at a 45 degree angle then it might be more of a quantum system idk.
I want to make it clear that my op isn’t about whether or not determinism is in fact true, or whether or not the principle of sufficient reason is in fact true.
Both of them could be false, and it still be true that “the PSR implies determinism”. Whether or not determinism is disproved by some other thing is an interesting aside but not the primary thing I’m asking.
So if we did happen to live in a universe where the PSR is true, the reasoning plays out like this for me.
The psr starts that door every fact, there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise. If that’s the case, then there cannot truly be anything genuinely random. Let’s look at a hypothetical random event and see why.
Suppose something happens that we think is random, some event we call A1. If it’s truly, genuinely random, that means we think that if the state of the universe were turned back to what it was before that event, as if rewinding on a cosmic VCR, and then pressed play, something different could happen - we’ll call this different event A2, which is the random alternative to what we saw the first time, A1. But if something different happens, then there’s no sufficient explanation within the state of the universe prior to that event to explain why A1 happened the first time and A2 happened the second time. If there’s no sufficient explanation, then the PSR cannot be true in a world where random events happen.
So if we live in a world where the PSR is true, randomness is impossible and determinism must be the case. And if we live in a world with randomness, the PSR cannot be the case.
Instead of Schrodinger’s cat (which is wrong) I make a new story called Schrodinger’s mouse.
In Schrodinger’s mouse, there is a box with a bomb and a mouse. The bomb detonation is decided by a 50/50 quantum coin toss, set up in such a way for a quantum atom to decide the detonation. Either the bomb detonates the mouse or the mouse lives…
This seems to be a scenario where their might be true randomness, and yet still a definite cause of events, a principle of sufficient reason, PSR, for events.
Butt yet one single event without a definite cause, the 50/50 coin toss. Say it comes up heads - what’s the sufficient reason for it coming up heads? If it’s a sufficient reason, will it come up heads every time you rewind the universe and press play again? If yes, it’s not truly random. If no, it seems the reason wasn’t really sufficient.
The psr states that for every fact, there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise. In your scenario, we come up to the quantum coin flip, and then the coin is flipped, and it comes up one way. If it’s truly random, then is there a sufficient reason why it was that way and not otherwise? That’s the problem at hand - that’s the root incompatibility that I see between PSR and randomness. If there is a sufficient reason, then that sufficient reason guarantees which side of the coin comes up.
I am 90% or sure Aether exists. If Aether exists, then everything is some kind of wave soup. Then its likely that the 50/50 quantum randomness is not random, but the future is set in stone. The future is non-computable, but fixed, set in stone by quantum soup fluctuations.
Now here’s the thing I don’t understand about Aether: Aether of what? The word Aether sounds like an ocean of particles. But then aether is causing the existence of Atom particles… It doesn’t quite add up. What is doing the waving? For example, sound waves, ocean waves, are all made of particles… if Aether is not made of particles… then what is the wave made of? Then, if Aether is made of particles… then what is the cause of the particles?
If Aether doesn’t exist, then it seems like the quantum 50/50 might be true random, since its not sitting in a soup of wave fluctuations. Idk.
Second of all, the PSR falls apart when you talk about existence itself… existence just exists, there is no cause of existence… thus that is an example of something that has no cause.
Will, as an intentional act, moving a living organism ‘towards’ an objective, participates in causality, along with every other living, willful, being, and along with non-living, unintentional, existence.
All these actions, interactions (attracting/repelling) are causes of what we call the world (subjective)….or existence (objective).
Free-will does not mean ‘free of cause’, but participation - one of many causes.
When we use the term ‘cause’ for any event we mean the totality of interactions.
I mostly agree with this, I think. If everything that’s true Q has a sufficient reason P, then doesn’t every P count as a new something, a new Q, that then needs its own P? There’s an infinite regress there, so there must be some root truths, I think, that don’t themselves have reasons for being true, they just are.
But it’s still possible that there are a few root truths and then the PSR applies to every other truth apart from them