• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Is there a skeptical/scientific argument against predeterminism?

Not sure if this helps, but it's my understanding that free will isn't technically provable. We are unable to separate cause from effect and label each one definitively. And since we exist in a system of causality, we are unable to escape that system to see anything other than the "tail end" so to speak, so we are kind of "one step behind".

Hence .... some form of determined causality exists which we are a part of, and the proof we have otherwise isn't objective evidence. Me saying, "I freely choose to eat pizza tonight" isn't technically provable. My choice to eat pizza could be the result of other factors and not some spontaneously generated desire I created out of "nothing".

I'd like to see if Piscivore has any thoughts on this question he'd like to share :)

Personally, I think it's possible that "freedom" exists within pockets as certain aspects of the universe haven't been determined yet. However, once outside forces interact with those pockets, the result is the effect of the cause. Before that however, there is an "unknown" where multiple states exist at once. Schrodingers Cat is an example of this .... as is the nature of photons for example. Superposition, in other words .... I believe could be used as evidence that certain things exist apart from a predetermined causality. Anyone feel free to correct me .... :)
 
Define your terms. I am assuming that predeterminism means the belief that all actions in the future are determined by current conditions, and thus predetermined.

If that is the case, then yes there is a scientific argument against it. The study of quantum mechanics suggests that some events are, in fact, random. Whether an electron jumps from one orbit to another, emitting a photon is, to the best of our knowledge, a random event. Throw in a touch of chaos theory, and you can show that that photon can have effects on the macroscopic world, which can alter the course of history.

So, even if you could measure the exact state of the world as it exists now, you still could not know the future. The best you could do is to give a probability distribution function for any given future event.
 
The study of quantum mechanics suggests that some events are, in fact, random. Whether an electron jumps from one orbit to another, emitting a photon is, to the best of our knowledge, a random event.
Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but I don't think quantum mechanics remotely indicates that what happens on the quantum level is really "random". Just because we have yet to identify a cause/causes doesn't mean it's really random. I just means we don't understand it (yet?).
 
You can't prove either determinism or non-determinism. There are skeptical arguments for both.

Determinism - Take two universes, A and B, which will both last for some period of time (pick however long you like). Universe A is absolutely deterministic, from beginning to end, following a few simple rules to derive the next state from the current state. Universe B proceeds precisely like universe A until a certain point in time (call it t0) after which it goes into utter chaos, with absolutely no discernible pattern. Its resemblance to A was just coincidence.

If you are a resident of one of the two universes, no matter how neat and deterministic everything seems, there is no way to tell if you occupy A or if you're in B before t0.

Non-determinism - This one's a bit easier. Meadmaker is right about quantum uncertainty, but the problem with saying it definitively shows we live in an indeterminate universe is in that tiny phrase, "to the best of our knowledge". There is no way to be certain whether things are indeterminate or just following rules we haven't figured out.
 
kellyb said:
I might be wrong, but I don't think quantum mechanics remotely indicates that what happens on the quantum level is really "random". Just because we have yet to identify a cause/causes doesn't mean it's really random. I just means we don't understand it (yet?).
Click to expand...

The marquis is correct. To the best of our knowledge, it is random. I chose that phrase deliberately. It might be random, or it might be something we don't understand.

However, the bit in parentheses is not applicable. It may be something we don't understand that makes the apparently random event not be truly random, but there is no "yet". Whatever hidden causes might exist, they exist in a space beyond the power to observe, even theoretically. The universe will appear forever random, whether or not it is truly so.
 
kellyb said:
I might be wrong, but I don't think quantum mechanics remotely indicates that what happens on the quantum level is really "random". Just because we have yet to identify a cause/causes doesn't mean it's really random. I just means we don't understand it (yet?).
Click to expand...
No, it goes further than that. There are no successful local "hidden variable" theories of quantum mechanics. Either quantum events are truly random, or they violate causality.
 
kellyb said:
I might be wrong, but I don't think quantum mechanics remotely indicates that what happens on the quantum level is really "random". Just because we have yet to identify a cause/causes doesn't mean it's really random. I just means we don't understand it (yet?).
Click to expand...

Without something (hidden) transferring information between particles faster than light, it is impossible for there to ever been any non-random theory for quantum mechanics no matter what evidence we attain in the future. So far there's no reason to think faster-than-light stuff is happening behind the scenes, and in fact we assume that's impossible.
 
Random != Free, however. In fact, if the wavefunction collapse is truly and universally random then that points very strongly to the absence of free will. If there’s nothing we’ve found so far in the universe that can influence the direction of collapse, Occams Razor and/or the Copernican Principle (which, I know, are not physical laws as such) suggests that it’s highly unlikely my brain just happens to be the one physical structure that can.

I do think free will might be logically falsifiable. It’s possible that the biological basis of consciousness will turn out to be completely unconnected to anything but perception – that our sensation of ‘making decisions’ can be proved to be nothing but instant post-hoc rationalisations of what we appear to ourselves to be doing.

Which will be an interesting day for ethicists…
 
Matt the Poet said:
Random != Free, however. In fact, if the wavefunction collapse is truly and universally random then that points very strongly to the absence of free will. If there’s nothing we’ve found so far in the universe that can influence the direction of collapse, Occams Razor and/or the Copernican Principle (which, I know, are not physical laws as such) suggests that it’s highly unlikely my brain just happens to be the one physical structure that can.

I do think free will might be logically falsifiable. It’s possible that the biological basis of consciousness will turn out to be completely unconnected to anything but perception – that our sensation of ‘making decisions’ can be proved to be nothing but instant post-hoc rationalisations of what we appear to ourselves to be doing.

Which will be an interesting day for ethicists…
Click to expand...

Free will is such a ludicrous concept anyway, and I don't see how it would make any sense to be evolutionarily selected for (and further there's really no evidence it exists).

Frankly, I also think it is a destructive idea. I can't count the number of times I hear the idea of free will used to dismiss the serious nature of psychological and other problems from addiction to depression to narcissism to something that begins with a 'z'.*

*The only thing with a 'z' that comes to mind at the moment is Zimbardo, but while related to the issue, he's certainly not a problem.
 
The September meeting of NMSR featured James Thiel on "The Nonexistence of Free Will and Merit."

It's written up here.

Thiel's basic argument is that no functional relationship exists between Free Will and Merit, because neither exists.

He concludes that
"The nonvoluntary origin of desires and infinite regression demonstrate the nonexistence of choice. There exists no capacity to do otherwise and no capacity to have done otherwise. Predestination does not exist since uncaused events equate with fundamental unpredictability. No one merits or deserves anything. Nothing is anyone’s fault or to anyone’s credit. ..."
Click to expand...

Cheers, Dave
 
I have always found it inappropriate to jump from the nonexistence of free will to the non existence of "fault", "blame", "merit", or "credit".
Even if everything is deterministic, we can still have a reasonable model of blame and merit based on a unity of cause and intent.
 
PixyMisa said:
No, it goes further than that. There are no successful local "hidden variable" theories of quantum mechanics. Either quantum events are truly random, or they violate causality.
Click to expand...

Is this woo, or disproven?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things
Click to expand...

BBC Radio interview with Paul Davies, 1985
 
KellyB,
we have to be careful, the interpretations of QM are exactly that, So first we need to know what some sort of superdeterminism would imply for QM and then determine if there is evidence for it.

So far no violations of Bell's theorm.
 
Again: Even if everything is deterministic, we can still have a reasonable model of blame and merit based on a unity of cause and intent.
If you intentionally did X and X is a bad thing, we can blame you for X.
If you intentionally did X and X is a good thing, we can praise you for X.
Predeterminism or not, we can still have reward and punishment, and we can still teach individual responsibility and discipline. So the free will discussion is not practically relevant in the manner in which some try to direct the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom