Then Again, Maybe Determinism is Why I Wrote This Post and I am Wrong Thinking I Freely Willed to Do So
A few days ago over at the Groping the Elephant blog, Doug B brought up the subject of predictability, specifically of causal determinism. I get the impression from this and other of his previous posts that Doug is a dead set believer of determinism (as far as I can tell).
Anyway, so he ended the post inviting his readers to think about that. And I accepted the invitation, since although I knew where I stood on the subject, I really had never thought out the reasons why and figured I probably should.
Determinism is the philosophy that every event, including human decision and action, is absolutely predetermined and the result of earlier causes. The presumption here is that there is no such thing as free will or choice, that events which seem happenstance are actually foreordained and could be fully understood and explained (the future could be predicted even) if only an avant-garde smartest someone was able to figure out how things work.
Of course I have no issue with believing in the laws of nature, causes and effects, antecedent conditions producing consequences, butterflies spawning tornadoes; physics is physics, after all, and I'm no fantastical flake.
The problem I have holding with determinism is that, precluding free will, there is no such thing as morality, no right or wrong, no good or evil; all of our behaviors would be foreordained and we would have no choice in the decisions that we make. Everything would be out of our control, which might certainly be convenient but which I find incredible.
Assuming that there is no chance happening, no such thing as choice and only a singular predictable future reality seems entirely illogical to me. I would maintain that, in the mashup of all things existential, chance and free will are also causative in determining the future, just as are other natural laws.
My personal contention then, is that there is an interconnection of certainty with chance and choice that shapes reality, and that there are multiple possible futures. Fundamentally, I think that the physical and metaphysical realities of a connected universe frustrates being defined by either absolute determinism or chance, that the two are in fact compatible.
Anyway, so he ended the post inviting his readers to think about that. And I accepted the invitation, since although I knew where I stood on the subject, I really had never thought out the reasons why and figured I probably should.
Determinism is the philosophy that every event, including human decision and action, is absolutely predetermined and the result of earlier causes. The presumption here is that there is no such thing as free will or choice, that events which seem happenstance are actually foreordained and could be fully understood and explained (the future could be predicted even) if only an avant-garde smartest someone was able to figure out how things work.
Of course I have no issue with believing in the laws of nature, causes and effects, antecedent conditions producing consequences, butterflies spawning tornadoes; physics is physics, after all, and I'm no fantastical flake.
The problem I have holding with determinism is that, precluding free will, there is no such thing as morality, no right or wrong, no good or evil; all of our behaviors would be foreordained and we would have no choice in the decisions that we make. Everything would be out of our control, which might certainly be convenient but which I find incredible.
Assuming that there is no chance happening, no such thing as choice and only a singular predictable future reality seems entirely illogical to me. I would maintain that, in the mashup of all things existential, chance and free will are also causative in determining the future, just as are other natural laws.
My personal contention then, is that there is an interconnection of certainty with chance and choice that shapes reality, and that there are multiple possible futures. Fundamentally, I think that the physical and metaphysical realities of a connected universe frustrates being defined by either absolute determinism or chance, that the two are in fact compatible.
One thing I think we can agree on: my post was one of the major causes of this one. And I'm delighted to have been part of the process. But I have to ask you: is it not doublethink to believe in a future based on "certainty with chance"?
ReplyDelete"there is an interconnection of certainty with chance and choice that shapes the future reality, and that there are multiple possible futures."
ReplyDeleteI believe my actions certainly do lead to my future reality, but not to a *specific* future reality. There are too many other factors at play, including the actions of others, to predestine me to a single future reality.
Or maybe I've just read The Talisman too many times. ;)
No, not doublethink, more like duality. I do think there are multiple possible futures, but I think that those possible futures are limited to the possibilities determined by the causal chain of events that created the present. Like I said, I don't think that *absolute* certainty nor *absolute* chance define the future, but both together, certainty allowing chance and chance becoming certainty.
ReplyDeleteWell that brings up the whole parallel universe thing.... :) and that's something that makes my brain hurt thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Doug, I forgot to mention that, yes, your post was obviously the cause of this one, and also that I do want to thank you for that. Being part of the thinking "process", you always do that well, my friend.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Doug, I forgot to mention that, yes, your post was obviously the cause of this one, and also that I do want to thank you for that. Being part of the thinking "process", you always do that well, my friend.
ReplyDeleteεἰ δὲ ταῦτα φαίνεται καὶ μὴ ἔχομεν εἰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἀναγαγεῖν παρὰ τὰς ἐν ἡμῖν, ὧν καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν καὶ ἑκούσια.
ReplyDeleteBut if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, and if we are unable to trace our conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us, themselves depend upon us, and are voluntary. Aristotle- This has been discussed by philosophers for centuries. Discussed so much I wonder--why? It seems pretty obvious that all that happens is either natural law at work or a combination of many events. Yawn.
combo
ReplyDelete