Is there a skeptical/scientific argument against predeterminism?

[Roboramma]

Which is pretty much the same way that a loose bolt can be said to be responsible for an engine failing.

Okay. And?

 

[Robin]

No, determinism allows for and requires physical cause and effect. "Just finding that you were unable" is an effect without a physical cause.

Of course there would be a physical cause. If time travel was physically possible then killing your grandfather would be physically impossible. The specifics of why it was physically impossible would be impossible to say as they would depend on the situation, a combination of many things.

Under your particular fictional interpretation of how time travel would work, you say there would be no paradoxes. But (1) that's still just fiction because as far as we know time travel is not possible, and (2) being unable to act (or the machine malfunctioning) for no physical reason is just as much a contradiction of your premises (that determinism is in effect) as killing your grandfather would be.

I didn't say time travel was possible. Time travel was not even part of the thought experiment I presented. Others mentioned time travel.

And it is not my fictional interpretation of time travel, that is pretty much what everybody has meant by it from Edward Page MItchell onwards.

If you think that there are time travel paradoxes under determinism, just state what the paradoxes are.

 

[Robin]

Okay. And?

Well since I have already agreed that you can say someone is responsible for an action in the same sense as a loose bolt can be said to be responsible for an engine failing then you are just being repetitive.

Are you saying that moral responsibility has just the same meaning as this?

 

[Roboramma]

Well since I have already agreed that you can say someone is responsible for an action in the same sense as a loose bolt can be said to be responsible for an engine failing then you are just being repetitive.

Are you saying that moral responsibility has just the same meaning as this?

Yes.

ETA: I do think that the moral implications of that responsibility are much clearer in a decision making process such a computer, which is why I used that example. Since you say that they are equivalent I think that you might better understand my viewpoint if you look at it through that lens rather than only considering the simpler situation of a loose bolt.

 

[winter salt]

I have not mentioned any "compassion". I was speaking of equity and responsibility.

I thought you did here:

Determinism does not imply any kind of too compassionate morality. Quite the opposite.

 

[Robin]

Let's clarify something.

If I have "OK" and "Cancel" on my phone screen and am trying to decide which to choose, under determinism at least one of these options is already physically impossible, right?

But you can't say exactly what the physical reasons would be.

But just because you can't state these reasons doesn't mean that there is no reason.

So "no physical cause that can be explicitly stated" does not mean "no physical cause"

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@Robin
As I was saying to David, in moral philosophy "moral evil" is defined simply as "bad" that was caused by the deliberate action or inaction of a human agent. But even if we gave up on the notion of "evil" entirely, then it just reverts back to being "bad".

Why I'm saying that is that even if we lost every single applicable meaning of "responsible" or whatnot, it would still simply revert to some stuff is "good" and some stuff is "bad". We still would try to have more of the former and less of the latter. So essentially nothing changed.

Ultimately the goal still is to have more "good" stuff and less "bad" stuff, whether a certain meaning of responsibility applies or not.

If you want an analogy with an engine, we can decide that engines failing and setting a tank on fire (as actually happened to some German tanks in WW2) is "bad", while a more robust engine is "good", whether or not we find a meaning of responsibility that applies to a mechanical piece. And strive to design an engine that will at least get the tank from the railway station to the fight in any case.

Or as an example that involves humans, let's say we're a small village half-way up a wooded mountain in medieval Germany, and wolves kill some kid playing outside the village now and then. We sure as heck can't apply moral judgments to wolves, so we can't call them "evil", and there was no human attracting the wolves or anything. We don't have an "evil" person to blame and drag before the local lord to judge and sentence. BUT we can still decide it is "bad" to have kids get torn apart by wolves, and it might be "good" for example if we posted a guard or two to watch out for them. Or while we can't call the kids "evil" for wanting to play with other kids outside, we can decide it's "bad" if kids are that completely unsupervised and vulnerable, and it might be "good" if they stayed at least within hearing range of an adult that could help. And decide to educate them to do just that.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is: whether we can find a meaning of "responsible" that applies, or someone responsible at all, is ultimately of very little consequence. We can still solve the same problem anyway.

 

[Robin]

Yes.

ETA: I do think that the moral implications of that responsibility are much clearer in a decision making process such a computer, which is why I used that example. Since you say that they are equivalent I think that you might better understand my viewpoint if you look at it through that lens rather than only considering the simpler situation of a loose bolt.

What do you think the moral implications of a computer beating you at chess are? I can't think of any.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

 

[Myriad]

I will have to try re-reading, because I am not getting it. You could say that a person was responsible, in the sense that you would say a loose bolt was responsible for an engine failure.

Imagine Tesla Corp, as an offshoot of their self-driving car technology, develops a smart bolt. The smart bolt has a powerful internal processor integrated with multiple redundant sensor systems (position sensors, internal stress sensors, vibration sensors, optical sensors, temperature sensors, even chemical contact sensors) for determining how tight it is, and a mechanism for tightening itself if it starts coming loose. It also has multiple signaling devices (audible alarms, lights, wired and wireless interfaces to multiple independent computer systems, it can even make cell phone voice calls) for warning the engine's owners and operators whenever its self-tightening mechanism needs to be activated. Or if that mechanism fails, putting it at risk of coming loose. Or if its tightness changes in any way that puts it at risk of coming loose in the future. Or even, despite no changes in its tightness, if it predicts, based on past patterns of the variables it tracks, that its operating conditions make some change in tightness likely to happen in the future. It's that smart!

Despite all this, the bolt comes loose and the engine fails. Investigation shows that the loosening was gradual, the self-tightening mechanism never activated, and the smart bolt didn't issue any alarms or warnings at any time.

I wouldn't blame the "bolt," if by that you mean the shaft, the threads, the mechanical parts that were loosened by vibration or thermal cycling. That's just physical forces acting on a passive object. But I would blame the smart bolt system for failing to sense and act as it should have. I'd say, "so-called smart bolts are proven unreliable and should be taken out of service, tested, and their faulty behavior corrected."

We blame things (systems) as well as people based on their perceived capacity to sense, decide, and act. That's why we don't blame young children or the intellectually disabled when they do some things we would blame neurotypical adults for. It's not because we suppose the behavior of young children or the intellectually disabled is somehow more deterministic than that of neurotypical adults. It's because we have lower expectations of good social decision-making from them (or from rocks or bolts) than from other people.

 

[Roboramma]

What do you think the moral implications of a computer beating you at chess are? I can't think of any.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk

I can't think of any either, but the more general case of a computer reacting to inputs and going through a decision making process before giving some output has some.

For instance I heard a computer that was used to analyse the suitability for parole of some prisoners. The moral implications of that decision seem obvious to me.

 

[Darat]

See my comment 186, please.

Doesn't solve your problem.

 

[Darat]

Fair enough.



In our universe the laws of physics are actually time reversible. As such if the universe is deterministic in the sense that any present state has one and only one possible future state then it's also the case that any present state also has one and only one possible past state.

But that's just our model, I'd say if entropy is a correct description of reality then we could be in a deterministic universe and still not be able to roll the clock back because some information of the past state has been "lost".

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'd say: not really, no.

IF the universe acted perfectly deterministically, as it was believed to be before 1900, and basically every particle were a billiards ball, then no past information has really been lost at any point. If you knew the current position and speed of all the balls (which is why I said "before 1900"), you could just and reconstruct the past by seeing what happens when you reverse the speed vector. Well, or more accurately speaking, running the time axis in reverse.

The entropy could still be calculated just the same, as an overall measure of how chaotic the system is, but that's not all the information you have. If you actually have complete information, then that's really what matters.

Or to be even more precise, it doesn't even matter if any human could ever have the complete information. Just that it exists.

 

[Roboramma]

But that's just our model, I'd say if entropy is a correct description of reality then we could be in a deterministic universe and still not be able to roll the clock back because some information of the past state has been "lost".

There's a distinction between the information being inaccessible and not existing. Entropy increases and information becomes less an less accessible.

 

[David Mo]

The morality of modern society is applicable to ancient China. If it were not it would be no morality at all.

The ancient Chinese weren't Neanderthals, by the way.

So, your argument doesn't state that those without free will don't deserve moral consideration?

Chinese and Neanderthals would be equally astonished by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the individualism of modern Europe.
Leave Chinese alone and concentrate on our modern concept of morality.

Of course I would grant rights to people in irreversible coma, but they would be very different from freewill people. For example, as I have been saying, I would not hold them responsible for their passivity. What I would do with a person with all his faculties. So the difference would be in responsibility, which depends on freedom. But I'm not a metaphysical deterministic, like most people in this forum.

 

[David Mo]

I can hold a person responsible for their actions in the same way that I can hold my computer is responsible for beating me in chess.

How can I be responsible for an action I haven't committed? If my grandfather killed his neighbor I cannot be responsible for that death.
You use metaphorical language when you say that the computer is responsible for your defeat. We are talking about moral responsibility. You don't ask to put the computer in jail. Go to the police station and try. They'll look at you like you're crazy.

 

[David Mo]

I thought you did here:

I was quoting HansMustermann

 

[Myriad]

Excuse me, but I am not discussing my moral system, but whether determinism is compatible with the contemporary moral systems of our society.

The contemporary moral systems of our society is an imperfect human design, that's different from the human moral systems of the past (which is why I brought up ancient China) and will likely change again in the future.

Whether or not the universe (including but not limited to human cognition) is deterministic, causal but stochastic, or something else (such as Schopenhauer's monism of will), is an intrinsic quality of the universe.

Therefore, even if contemporary moral systems are incompatible with determinism (which you have not shown), that points to a possible flaw in the design of contemporary moral systems, not to any logically valid argument that the universe cannot be deterministic.

 

[David Mo]

.

I wouldn't blame the "bolt," if by that you mean the shaft, the threads, the mechanical parts that were loosened by vibration or thermal cycling. That's just physical forces acting on a passive object. But I would blame the smart bolt system for failing to sense and act as it should have. I'd say, "so-called smart bolts are proven unreliable and should be taken out of service, tested, and their faulty behavior corrected."

We blame things (systems) as well as people based on their perceived capacity to sense, decide, and act. That's why we don't blame young children or the intellectually disabled when they do some things we would blame neurotypical adults for. It's not because we suppose the behavior of young children or the intellectually disabled is somehow more deterministic than that of neurotypical adults. It's because we have lower expectations of good social decision-making from them (or from rocks or bolts) than from other people.

You blame a device in a different sense than you blame a person. You don't put a car in jail because failed brakes, but you denounce the guy who cut the brake lines for responsibility. The difference is obvious: one did it because he wanted to and the other did not.

 

[Roboramma]

How can I be responsible for an action I haven't committed? If my grandfather killed his neighbor I cannot be responsible for that death.

I don't know what you mean by this. I didn't say you are responsible for actions you haven't committed.

You use metaphorical language when you say that the computer is responsible for your defeat.

No, I'm being literal.

We are talking about moral responsibility. You don't ask to put the computer in jail. Go to the police station and try. They'll look at you like you're crazy.

Why would I want to put the computer in jail? Would doing so impact it's future actions, or the actions of others?

The problem here, I think, is that we have different views of moral responsibility. Myriad has given a good explanation of the reasons that we treat people in certain ways, including punishing them. All of those reasons are based on the outcome of the action of punishment, absent those repercussions I don't believe that punishment for moral wrongdoing is a good thing.

The issue here isn't that I'm metaphorically equating computers to humans. I'm literally equating humans to computers.