I’m talking about closed systems in science where we can say that in a closed system the second law of thermodynamics says x. Or acceleration due to gravity is taken to be a constant of ~9.8m/s^2 then, of course neither of these examples is true, as gravity varies across the Earth by a small but significant amount according to the geological make up of the Earth and temperature transference is not a causal system but it appears to be non reversable ie it behaves in a statistical stochastic manner not a causal one.
The term determinism can be applied to strict systems, for example when working with Earth’s gravity we use newton but it is inapt when we need to synchronise global positioning systems.
There’s a problem with this line of thinking, of course: it’s always possible that our understanding of these concepts is wrong, or at least incomplete. What we understand as “predictably unpredictability” in something like quantum mechanics may actually be the first layer of a system that is entirely causal. At best, our temporary knowledge of the systems you listed might make determinism less valid- but not false, as neither option will ever be completely discounted.
Although I’m curious: what is it about thermodynamics that’s “non-causal”? If you could explain this without scientific jargon, all the better.
I’m saying, “is determinism the case?” is a question that can only be answered within a closed system, and when I mean closed, I mean really closed, and therefore ignoring the seemingly philosophical nature of the question.
Basic example, if I mix chemical a and chemical b, is is determined that reaction c will take place. In that instance, determinism is valid. It’s validated by repeatable observation.
Now in that case you can say determinism is valid. But if you ask the question, “is philosophical determinism the truth and free will the falsehood”, the I’ll ask you to guess which hand I’m going to raise, and it’ll be shown to be the case that you cannot accurately predict which one it’s going to be no matter how many times you try. Now to press on and say that the truth of determinism goes farther, you find yourself w/ an astonishing lack of evidence, and an inability to prove it.
That’s a good example of what I mean actually chemical reactions may seem on the surface causal but actually they are anything but, it is not determined how any substance will react exactly but the paramaters are between infinite limits.
It’s astonishing to me therefore despite philosophers knowing the limitations of causal determinism, still insist that everything about man and his observable world is ruled by it, even his will. As I’ve said on other threads this to me seems to be a sort of Luddite post post modern cult.
EDIT:
As you know I am a nihilist when it comes to free will so I cannot but agree that the only conclusion is no one knows if they have free will no matter how you define it.
The chemist might say, “determinism is true!”, and the game theorist might say, “hell no it’s not!, we’ve tried the best we can to make it true and it’s just not!”.
They are both correct, it’s just a matter of degree.
I’m not implying that there’s a causal relation in the chemical reaction. I’m just saying you can always be sure of what it’s gonna do.
That difference is important one of them will be ridiculed in science the other might win acclaim. We’re talking about things that could mean life or death depending on which system they are involved in. Any engineer will be using the right mechanics just like he will be using the right tools for a job.
If I set up a GPS system using only Newtonian causal mechanics I’d quickly find my degrees minutes and seconds going out of synch.
They’re not both right one is close the other is right. You wont win a Nobel prize for being nearly right though.
If you’re just talking about the pros and cons of using different abstract models to mirror the physical world, I lean towards the notion that the similarities between have a much greater impact on their descriptive power than their differences.
I mean, you could for instance come up w/ several types of ontologies and say, “well monism is the best because of this or that” and another person might say equally that “dualism is clearly the case for these reasons” and then a trope theorists might say, “I’m neither one of you, and I’m also both”.
I don’t think problems in the applicability of theories are solved so much by pointing out inconsistencies in the competing theories but are better served by efforts to generalize them such that the competing theories can be closed within them and to do this in a way which retains an equal or greater degree of nuance and respect for the particular than before.
How can you know that certain events are not causal? Isn’t it more fitting to say certain events have yet to be understood and explained in terms of causal steps? This seems very obvious to me.
ANyway, I pretty much agree with Only_Humean. We “understand” (or, when confused, try to understand) the world in the context of cause and effect, and we reflect and plan according to what will or will not (likely) result in this or that.
From a pragmatic perspective of not being able to see and understood the world, and live in/with it, WITHOUT the context of causation, and considering the drive to seek pleasure, avoid pain, or be/have good and avoid bad, the fact that believing those goals can be better achieved by believing they will more likely be fulfilled (and in some cases it seems will depend on), an assortment of actions (and lack of actions), which can then be planned, and those TOO better taken by considering what those seem to require, I don’t see any reason to believe determinism always applies.
What a well-thought, informative and relevant reply to my post.
How am I deluding myself? Please explain what I am missing.
“But religions are like that”? Are you saying I have faith in some religion and that is keeping me from seeing the truth? Well, what is this truth that some event are not causal, as you claimed? What studies, data ad reasoning can you provide to show it is definitely not just “it seems random to us, we can’t explain this in terms of step by step between A and B”?
COme on, don’t just say I’m delusional and explain “religions are like that”. Support these claims of yours.
Already have the universe is not causal you are merely deluding yourself it is.
You can say that given a then b will result and all action is a matter of agency all you want doesn’t make it true if the natural laws of the universe don’t and have never worked like that.
Abstractions are what models reality, it then becomes obvious to me that our perceptions are not refined enough to see how things work at all scales. We therefore need better language or better maths, as Bohr himself opined on Quantum Mecahnics (QM).
What we don’t need is priests arm waving away inconsistencies with their views on reality because they think somehow it is clever to deny the implications in science of the last 200 years. Hence post post modernism, a stubborn refusal to accept where science is, commonly exhibited by philosophers who fight against the implications of science to science to the point of absurdity.
I do if determinism makes no sense to reality, perception at any level, macro, micro or nano, what is the point of touting it as anything but an anachronism?
So that compatibilists can go around in ever decreasing circles until they explode?
How would I choose w/ no access to the underlying truth of either?
“more logical”, to me, is a misnomer. Logic isn’t hierarchal in the sense I think it’s being used here. I think it has more to do w/ description than evaluation.
How do you chose anything to believe in science then? is it all just nonsense?
I use science to tell me how the world works, and philosophy to tell me if I am applying the science properly. What I don’t do is say the universe is non deterministic according to science and then go banging on about all materialism being determined, not if I am sane.