Is there any good critique against determinism?

>>1513767
>"Hey determinist, can you predict the future?"
>No, but clearly, Marxist/Scriptural/ThisScientificModel shows tren-
>No? Then good.
/thread.

problem of induction

causal gaps

>>1513777
How is that a good critique? You dont have to know the future to be a determinist

>>1513777
Determinism is the argument that the future is determined, not that humans have the ability to identify or predict that future precisely.

Also, we can predict the future. It's basically the modus operandi of science.

Also,

>/threading your own post

>>1513799
>we can predict the future

doesn't equal

>determinism is true

Determinism would either imply an infinite chain of causes or a first cause that exists no reason. And even in the first case it raise the question: what caused the infinite chain of causes? In any case, something in this universe seems to exist without any reason. Might as well go with common sense and believe in free will, as it is how humans perceive things by default.

>>1513767
There is not.

The actual question is where does morality and blame stand in this world, when everything is determined by events in the past?

>>1513810
>Determinism would either imply an infinite chain of causes or a first cause that exists no reason
Objective proof seems to point this out.
>Might as well go with common sense and believe in free will, as it is how humans perceive things by default.
This doesnt disprove determinism.

>>1513811
prove determinism

>>1513802
I'd like to hear you explain how we could predict the future in an indeterminate universe.

>>1513802
It's the other way around

>>1513825
Literally whole history is based on determinism. Things in the past cause things in the future.

I'd probably argue that you can not be sure to predict it since there's no objective and non-inductive way to know if your methods and constructs used for this prediction are correct.

>>1513838
>A=B because A=B

>>1513840
This is not an argument against determinism,but against human capacity.We just don't have the scope or capacity to predict everything,so we believe in free will to fulfill the wholes

>>1513841
If you find the script behind determinism you would be saying you can predict future. I don't want to say that.

>>1513824
>Objective proof seems to point this out.
What does objective proof point out and how?

>This doesnt disprove determinism.
It doesn't, but when you have two possibilities that both seem from a rational perspective problematic, the one that is more aligned with intuition is preferable.

>>1513767
It's a proposition that can neither be prove nor disproven. A deterministic world would be exact the same as a non deterministic world, so who the fuck cares?

>>1513777
Just because a world is deterministic doesn't mean you could gather all the necessary causal information to predict the future.

>>1515282
Non-determinism makes me feel better

>>1513810
>even in the first case it raise the question: what caused the infinite chain of causes
Existence had to start somewhere. If not it would be just a constant "if that created that this, then what created that" question situation

>>1515282
I agree with this.

Free will = Determinism are the same, all your choice are still based on Perception and Knowledge.

>>1513838
Literally historians jobs are to examine the chain of historical causality while also examining contingency. No contingency, no historical discipline. If no act or event could be otherwise, then there is no reason to inquire as to the causes and consequences of events.

The question of wether reality is deterministic can be equated with the quetion to what extend can we determine it.
Asking something about reality the way the OP did pressuposes some understanding of a Reaity that is independant of us.
The way we percieve "reality" as in the concept we ourselves define, is the only way it can be percieved or exist.
We inspect/create reality and structure/restructure it in the present and towards the past.
The more people there are, the more systems we build and design, the more structured and determined reality seems to us but to larger entities, like groups of people, nations as entities or empires or even larger groups of people, reality might still be said to preserve the same chaotic feeling.
to such entities reality might feel undetermined because the structures we have created are a part of these groups like cells are a part of us humans.

>>1515727
in short determinism depends on to what extent is an entity embedded within a structure and how uniquties this structure is to this entity.

>>1515727
>>1515740

For example to many groups as oppose to individuals, the univers is not nessecarily 13 billion years old, at least not to the same extent of assuredness as for certain individuals that are a part of this group.

>>1515282
How are they the same. A world that isn't deterministic is literally unknowable. Anyone who believes in reason, logic or the scientific methods and not determinism is misunderstanding one of those concepts.

>>1515727
That's fucking stupid though and is based on feelings. If you look at it statistically you get the opposite. Societies and large groups are easier to define and predict than individuals which are notoriously difficult. If anything shirks the idea it's the individual. If anything reinforces it it's the system seen from the outside.

>>1516018
If I look statistically? statistics when looked at by an individual is how individuals probe or examine society. You or me cant understand what it is like to be an entity like a state for example. It has its own consiousness.
How are societies easier to predict?
Please elaborate.

>>1516043
In simple terms the ability to predict an individuals reactions are extremely limited. On the other hand prediction of group behaviour just gets easier and easier the higher you go. It's a pretty well known phenomena in social science.

As such wouldn't the idea of an individual evading comprehension and prediction support a lack of determinism? Wouldn't groups BEING predictable hurt that stance?

>>1516014
You mean a world is deterministic when we determine it and when we dont its unknowable because we are the knowers.
Some methodologies and procceses are created by us to make the world determined.
We live our lives within structured societies that structure our lives and make them more determinable. You are born and go to school, then high school, university and all the time interacting with prebuilt changing systems. Many things within your life are automated for you and your power to resist them is much dimished versus the power of an individual to enact change within a small group of people.

>>1516105
Your ability to determine outcomes and determinism are not the same. Determinism is that all outcomes are pre-determined. By your logic creating a closed system should somehow make people more suceptible to supporting determinism. As if, I don't know, coding a program and watching how insular and restricted outcomes are should make me more primed for determinism.
I find the opposite to be more effective.

More importantly: how can determinable outcomes and physical constants exist if determinism isn't real?

>>1513828
we can't

>>1513838
>Things in the past cause things in the future.

prove it

>>1513767
Why would you want one? Whether the world is determined or not has little impact on any other aspect of our behavior or knowledge. Be a determinist - you can still have your free will and eat it, too.

>>1513838
I'm not too certain that Determinism has a temporal element. In the broadest sense it just means that every event is ultimately determined by another event. Most determinists are temporal determinists for sure - they believe past causes future. But plenty of determinists believe in retrocausation, synchronization and other non-linear or otherwise atemporal determinations.

>>1516126
>has little impact on any other aspect of our behavior or knowledge.
Except invalidate most modern discoveries. Determinism is essentially causality boiled down to a fine point. The only way for the universe not to be deterministic would be if causation weren't constant. If the rules can change dynamically that means science is inherently wrong and we've been fluking all this time. If it isn't wrong then by extension the world must be deterministic.

>>1516059
Lets think of it this way.
If I go to work and meet coworkers I can roughly determine what they will do because we work within a system that we know wich guides our actions and restricts others.
If i meet an alien to me the alien would be some sort of undeterminable phenomena.
In this sense determinay from my perspective is the interaction with known systems created by us to work in a certain predictable way.
to an individual there are the collective experiences and systems of existence. these are the different working and probings of reality that different human systems do, like all the systems and individuals involved in predicting the weather.
To contrast there is one's own experience of being, meaning the watching of the news on tv and seeing the forecast for the day.

The systems from which the individual gets his input are part of the internal experiences of the entity of which the individual is a part of.
For that entity compirsed of individuals knwoeldge of the universe's age or prediction of th weather are part of its workings and internal experience. It itself is not embedded in as many larger systems and thus for it reality is less determined and less structured.

It however exists in a less systematized world.
The bigger the system the less determined its experience is compared to the parts of which it is comprised.
It cnnot predict what its individual parts will do because its part are part of its mechanism of determination. The working parts are it as it determines.

>>1513767
The universe determined you to believe what you believe, determinism or freewill. The universe also determined you would be a huge autist so you could try to forced your determinism on other people who were determined by the universe to not be autists and believe in free will so they could do other things than worry about determinism.

Many worlds. Neither the standard conception of determinism of freewill fits.

>>1513767
Let's break down the question here
A non deterministic world would have to function on randomness in the truest sense of the word, as in an absolute randomness that even to an infinite knowledge can never be known
while a deterministic world would have to function on logic and logic alone as chaos and logic cannot both exist, and keep in mind there is nothing contradictory about free will in a deterministic world

So what do you think makes sense?

>>1516113
Yes making a software plays a small part in prming you for a deterministic look at life. People who work in different fields and think about the same hings over and over again tend to be influned by it and look at other aspects of life in a smilair way.
However your entire experience of everything is causing you to feel the world is more determined because you live in a very structured society. This includes many of your experiences. what they show on tv at which hour, how traffic works, the structure of your city and the different rules which you are aware of in the different places in which you interact.

Think about a more primitive era when our lives were not so systematized like in the prehistorica era and you can immidiately see how life would feel a lot less deterministic.

>>1516163
and yet your internal experience of yourself, your imagination, is not causal. Causality is not even an acceptable term when it comes to your own experience of yourself.
You, your inernal self is not causal, only an external analysis of you can be causal. Meaning that looking at neurons firing is causal but the person whos neurons those are is not thinking and operating in an internally causla way.

Causality is a result of an analysis of externality but internal experience of oneself is not causal, it does not not have parts and causal forces.
external reality as we observe it becauer of our observations is causal. We are limited in our actions to this observed reality but our thinking and mind is not, it is itself the determiner and causer.

>>1516293
As in i can imagine myself going through a wall but when i try to do it i cant.
External reality limites my actions but not my actual thinking because the experience of thinking is not causal, is not observable is not analyzable in the same way we analyse external reality.

>>1516235
I can sort of grasp where you are coming from but I disagree. One of the examples I use when discussing determinism is hitting a cue ball into a fresh rack of billiards. This event is NOT repetitive and knowable in the ways your perspective on systems suggests an argument for determinism should be. Instead it highlights that the factors and inputs of an event determine its outcome. So to has the universe already been supplied with its inputs and factors and as such we experience the outcome.

>>1516256
This sounds stupid without justification. Care to explain?

>>1516263
Primitive eras believed more in determinism than now, albiet in a more spiritual state. Omens and diviniations were rampant. People were sure they could predict the nature of the future from interpretations of factors in the present. While they lack the scientific backing how different is the shape of a Goats innards predicting the outcome of a battle from a butterfly on Everest creating a storm?

>>1516293
>concious thought isn't casual
It is on basic levels. Experiential levels. I think of red, I think of blood, think of Mayans. Have the elements that constitute this train of thought occurred in a vacuum or are there relationships present? Temporally can we link the development of these concepts? Admittedly we can experiment. We cannot remove all other factors of the mind but even as a though experiment it is clear to see casual interaction.

>>1516405
but i ma talking about the general idea of thinking of the world as determined.
Meaning that very idea that you think life is determined as oppose to not is because of you being embedded in a systematized world.
A world of our creation and after our inspection. A game of billiards is already embedded in our world.
and a creation based on our perception of determinancy.
your argument about anciant people imagining gods that control the world is exactly an example of men trying to impose his methodologies on the world to make it seem determinable.
We have just improved a lot at doing it since our numbers and complexity has increased.

>>1516421
you force causality on your stream of thought with your description. But though titself, your thinking as you are thinking it cannot be broken down to causal relations. yes you think of red and then about a chair..In what sense is it causal? did the thinking of red somehow touched chair and made you think of it? How can you analyze your own thinking in a causal manner? Causality nessecarily implies certain material interactions or actions.
When you think of causal interactions you are thinking of a ball pushing another for example. But how are certain things of which you cannot point ot a conection to can be causal? You are simply forcing causality on your thoughts by saying they are causal but when it comes down to it saying thinking about red caused you to think about chair is simply forcing a connection between them.
Causality is part of the way we observe the world but how can you say our internal experiencing is causal? Based on what? Our thinking is not made of examinable objects.
Causality is a certain characteristic of how we as groups examin and agree on reality for purposes of controlling and modifying it. It is a certain side of reality which directs itself at us as causal and modifiable.

>>1516504
>but i ma talking about the general idea of thinking of the world as determined.
So determinism or not? Determinism isn't prescience. It's just an understanding that whatever will happen is inevitable and was always set to happen. Our choices, though free, are influenced by situation, nature and nurture. Those situations and upbringings are determined by the people around us and society and our nature is determined by our genetic line.
Whether a new and exciting thing happens every day or you're stuck in a room with a button determinism remains the same.

>>1516504
as in the idea of gods controlling the weather and us sacrifcing animals to them to effect their descisions is a result of a system of a group of people. like a tribe.
And it was bad and primitive and thus a bad predictor of events. As we aquired more control over reality and were able to probe it further we became good at structuring the world and making it seem determinable.

>>1516548
Whether it is understood it is present. Train of thought is a common phenomena. For this reason alone, while causality isn't ever present in the mind, it's not absent. That is my point.

Further while we cannot determine why red turned to chair that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason. Any process that occurs over time must be causal if it obeys certain rules. Just like the physical constants which were discovered the might may too have constants.
This is of course skirting around Neurology which confirms all of the above after having completely mapped out an animals mind in its entirety. Minds are causal. An event occurs which triggers a reaction which triggers a thought which may trigger a behaviour and so on. Just because the human mind is complex does not make it's mechanism any less causal than a slugs.

>>1516262
Modern science is leaning towards absolute randomness

>>1516570
I mean the very idea of determination versus non determination. It is a sort of complete or false thinking.
WE make the world determined or not.
We decide what to give agency to. we turn things into determinable through our probing and structuring them.
You saying that genetics is the cause of your actions is an example of a systme we as a group created to structure our actions.
This iswhat im talking about. The more we structure reality the more we make our reality predetermined. The moment we as a society structure biology and different things related to people the more people themselves become structured.
At the source of al lthese efforts is our desire to structure reality. IS there any other reality but the one we decide on how to structure?
At some point we decided that certain things were not causal or determined like the individual having a soul which allowed him to be seen as the soul agent of his own actions.
We threw agency at the universe but now we are at the othere extreme of turning everything into a causal machine withotu agency and the more complex we become the more numerous and the more complex systems we demand to sustain ourselves the more we make the wolrd systemic and see individuals, now part of a gigantic collection as un influential kogs as oppose to important agents of change likwe we used it when we were less i number and less embedded in our own creations.

>>1513838
A bold claim

>>1516613
Yeah of tiny particles or are you going to tell me I can throw a ball and it'll rise up into the air never to be seen again if I do it enough?
Further, if it is random it cannot be determined. If things cannot be empirically determined they are no longer scientific.
>b-but they're determining it's random
That's like knowing you know nothing. It's still nothing.

File: 12513945_890782297700626_7342938482594766465_o 1.jpg (166KB, 858x960px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 858x960px

>>1513810

I don't know.

Its quite possible things are determined by change and randomness, but the seed is universally the same, so if you had a universe generator, you'd get the same results every time.

The only way to observably prove this would be to create an artificial universe twice and see if you get the same results. So... Not any time soon.

>>1516631
No. Your looking at it to personally. In fact you have been for awhile. Whether something is determined or not has nothing, NOTHING, to do with whether you know if it will happen. If you've determined stuff then good on you. If something was determined than it collapses over you, it was always determined whether you observed the patterns or not.
What we decide to give ascribe agency to is determined. Literally everything is determined. Nothing is out of place or random. Nothing can be unless there's external forces fucking with our closed system. Even them if you expand the system to include such a force things would be determined again.

>>1516642
>Yeah of tiny particles
What does it change? You have a bit of true randomness which already negates determinism.
>are you going to tell me I can throw a ball and it'll rise up into the air never to be seen again if I do it enough?
That could happen. It happens on micro level actual (quantum tunneling effect).
>Further, if it is random it cannot be determined. If things cannot be empirically determined they are no longer scientific.
Scrap quantum physics then.
>that's like knowing you know nothing. It's still nothing.
They know the odds. Probability is pretty important things when you are playing lotteries.

Quantum physics are literally the greatest butthurt inductor even fucking Einstein fell for it and ended up proving it more when he tries to wreck the whole theory on top of actually laying foundation for it.

>>1516606
What do you mean discovered? You mean there is some sort of "objective" reality which wediscover? In what way can this be? objective reality is not out there and we somehow tap into it like tapping into heaven with prayer.
We are in no way discovering something objctive but chaning things all the time.
You siply cannot think of thinking and experiencing in causal manner because we are the cause inducing entities through our experience and interactions. We created causal links and systematized our percpetion of reality more and more.
So because there are tides every day and because i make an omlette every day it means the cause causes the other? BEcause the sun set and right after i scratched my head the two are causal? How is me thinking about red and then chair can be said to be causal or non causal? Our experience simply does not abide by this method of structuring reality, as in the social examination and agreement.
the very experiencing is completely out of any such shared inspection and agreement which is at the core of systematizing. Scientific "exploration" is a result of social interactions and communication and because of its inherent social aspect it simply inherently cannot probe ones very experiencing of the world.
It can probe neurons firing but not one'e whole experience of oneself.

>>1516660
>They know the odds
Odds are just made from a model of a sample of a population of occurrences. Unless you've seen everything you will never know the odds for sure.

Probability, statistically speaking is what is left over from unaccounted factors or interactions in a system. I am more than happy to accept that humanity will never comprehend certain factors but as long as causality exists, which as we all know anecdotally and through science that it does than there are static factors and interactions within that soup of probability waiting to be teased out and examined.

>>1516672
>Probability, statistically speaking is what is left over from unaccounted factors or interactions in a system
And the funny thing is that Quantum Physics are generally considered pure probability

>>1516613
There's no way to determine this through scientific method.
Humans will always only have a limited perspective, and quantum physics says nothing about a true randomness, only what we perceive.

>>1516682
That is funny. If it were PURE then it would not hold to trends.
Academia needs to wash out so many areas. Thanks for convincing me physics is one of them.

>>1516690
Quantum Physics leave a gaping hole where we can't insert determinism yet
>>1516696
You sound like some kind of alt right, trump supporting, /pol/master that denies math and physics that actually are demonstrably true because it hurts their ideology.

>>1516709
>literally just backed up mathematics and traditional physicals as well as a statistics
>explain how probability works
>receive no response that retorts this
>instead
>Fucking REEEEE I bet you're from /pol/, fucking TRUMP MEMESTER
You cannot be serious. It seems that quantum physics has left a gaping hole where doctors cannot reattach your brain.

Show me a demonstrable case of 'pure' chance

>>1516709
>Quantum Physics leaves a gaping hole where we can't insert determinism yet
No, it really doesn't.
Science will NEVER explain more than the workings of our physical environment. It does not address matters of existence.

>>1516740
Quantum fucking physics has a case of PURE chance. Most interpretations don't even try to insert any missing factors and the ones that do, fail. It's only your thinking supported by pretty much nothing at all setting axioms like "Probability must be from things unaccounted for" just like Newton fucked up with his modelling and people wouldn't accept relativity because it's so convoluted lol. You don't explain how probability works, you explain how you assume it works.

Only a true /pol/ master would say shit like "Academia needs to wash out so many areas" because his ass with no qualifications doesn't understand shit. I have already seen one of you faglords denying Monty Hall problem because answer confused his brain.

>>1516755
>and the ones that do, fail
>people haven't been able to determine the factors involved
>empiricism must have been a meme, for sure
>it's not like the factors just haven't been understood yet. If the current quantum physicists don't understand then no one ever will and it will remain PURE CHANCE (first of its kind)

>y-you must be /pol/. In fact you mustn't be qualified in anything and really stupid
Sorry who is desperately trying to defend the precepts here?
Further, if you don't think academia needs a rinse then you're a fool. Inquiry into recent research is turning up more and more bullshit. Not just fudged but completely fabricated. Some fields are worse than others but there is a HUGE problem.
Don't presume to know anything about me for the purposes of shit flinging when clearly you aren't exactly following things that well yourself

Pretty pathetic how quickly your discussion dies out when you run out of easy comebacks and suddenly it's all character attacks

>>1513767

The infinity of propositional systems of mechanics contains sets of mechanics which are arranged in random ways, through immense levels of operater and rule reconfiguration.

Stop worrying about being a megalomaniac and focus on systems that you can obtain good data from and under the judgement of good models.

>>1516787
Ok ok Heisenberg's uncertainty principle certainly is something that was discovered a thousand times before and let's listen to random anon who says that it must be deterministic because otherwise his world view is ruined.

Academia is fucking fine and you want to just butt in cause it ruins your world view.

>>1516743

I'm pretty sure the physical environment is all there is. Evidence for magic seems to be pretty non-existent.

>>1516819
>Academia is fucking fine and you want to just butt in cause it ruins your world view
Yes, I managed to forge decades of results all across the world in a diabolical bid to install determinism and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for this paranoid, /pol/ obsessed retard.

>>1516836
Nice unrelated reply. You are just a retard that starts hating institutions and has dreams about purging them because they hurt your feelings.

>>1516655
>everything is determinedbecause i said so.
You are not explaining anything you are simply shouting everyhing is determined.

It is like being a materialist or even pjhysicalist and claiming there is no evidence of god while your materialistic pressupositions are already coloring the wy you insepct the "evidence" and thus no evidence can ever be evidence of god.

>>1516842
>unrelated reply
>state areas need a rinse
>you freak out
>explain why
>you ignore it
>reiterate
>fuck man why are you so off topic
You're doing it again man. That thing where you raise a point, back down and then attack character again.

>>1516852
You are the one freaked out who doesn't even respond to the real argument of QM. You didn't explain shit you just said they bad cause they do shit things which one of those shit things is working on QM, which seems to be purely because muh determinism. You are a joke and can't stop making posts about me being mean to you and calling random fallacies. I have to skip reading of half your posts because it's basically non-arguments where you bitch that I compared you to some /pol/ faggot on sidelines.

>>1516823
I take it you're not on this board for the Humanities part

>>1513924
>It doesn't, but when you have two possibilities that both seem from a rational perspective problematic, the one that is more aligned with intuition is preferable.

This.
/thread

>>1516823
So what is a phenomena that is caused by the interaction of many different parts?
For example the way traffic behaves. Certain regularities can be observed and calculated but the phenomena itself is not material.
Lets cal this phenomena Y. Now it is a thing that happens butthe thing itself is not material.
It is not the cars by themselves or the road or the gusts of wind surrounding them and yet it is something that exists but isnt material.

An accident between two cars, the event itself is not the cars or the people sitting in them the accident is soemthing else that exists that we aknowledge and even give a name to and yet it is not material, it only involves material things.

File: pc.gif (939KB, 500x282px)

939KB, 500x282px

>he is not a hard incompatibilist

>>1513767

yes, its made up. There you go

>>1519475

Are you seriously suggesting if you were to throw a stone it might randomly start zig-zagging in the air and then fly to the Moon?

The idea that cause and effect is "made up" is pretty laughable.

The only good argument against determinism is Quantum Mechanics and my bet is that will eventually be shown to be deterministic once we are able to account for all the variables.

>>1513777
>Hey determinists, can you predict the future
Yes, and we do.
>hurpy durp its not 100% accurate and only works in short term
Because there's no way to track 100% of the variables.

>>1516114
>Prove that things in the past cause things in the future.
>Someone said this on a history board.

Cause and effect. What has ever happened that wasn't caused by something else that happened?

>>1513777
what a shitty argument and a wasted get

fuck you