Why Incompatiblist Determinism is not relavent to us

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There are numerous aspects and views pertaining to the nature of freedom, one of which I have been struggling with on and off for several months is the deterministic point thesis, such that everything is predetermined before we do that.

This thesis came to me independently through consideration of certain physical consequences pertaining to the origins of the universe and reductive reasoning. One can ask about the origins of somthing and it will always result in an infinite line of questioning, thus in a certain sense considering our origins is sensless and is indeterminable by logic.

Determinism, however, is not contingent upon any single point in time, but rather that all the data can be accrued such that the physical state of the universe at one point in 'time' can be used to determine a future point in 'time' thus the conclusion is that free will is an illusions and that we as well as the eintirety of this universe is a machine whose movements are predetermined by its nature. My thesis is not contingent upon the truth of this statement but can be tied into it.

It leads to an infinite loop if an object belonging to the set having the property which includes it in our physical universe attempts to accure all of the data at some point in time and apples it to determine a point in time which is further ahead or the same as the present time durig which it is calculating for the object cannot exculde the mechanical/physical process of its thoughts which cannot exculde the mechanical/physical process of the prior mechanical/phisical process ect. This leads to an infinite aquisition of data.

The direct consequense of this is that though determinism may or may not be correct (I personally believe it to be correct, but I am not setting out to prove it here) the incompatiblist view which states that free will is precluded by determinism is not of consequence to us as it cannot be utilized by us to show what the inevitable physical state of the universe is.

Any thoughts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,437 • Replies: 8

No top replies

@Zetetic11235,

If incompatibilism is true, human limitations will not change this.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Human limitation defines the universe for humans by definition, does it not? So it is nonsense to consider anything beyond human limitations, you may as well have said nothing! Im not sure what your point is in that statement so I appologize in advance if I mistook your meaning, and I request that you expand upon what you said either way.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Quote:

Human limitation defines the universe for humans by definition, does it not?

In a manner of speaking perhaps. I cannot travel to any other galaxy, but this limitation is no reason for me to reject that other galaxies exist, nor is this limitation any reason to think the existence of those galaxies has no bearing on human life.

Quote:

So it is nonsense to consider anything beyond human limitations, you may as well have said nothing!

It is nonsense for us to consider doing anything beyond human limitations. Collecting the vast amount of data, and then making the calculations, necessary to employ the supposed predictive power that determinism allows is beyond human capacity. But our inability to make accurate predictions about the future via deterministic rules does not discredit the truth of determinism (if we assume determinism to be true).

Quote:

Im not sure what your point is in that statement so I appologize in advance if I mistook your meaning, and I request that you expand upon what you said either way.

Hey, it's cool Smile

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I understand you, either. But we're trying, and that's what counts, eh?

I don't want to turn this into a debate about determinism being true or not, so I'm just taking determinism to be an assumed truth. From what I can tell, you say that determinism is irrelevant to us because we cannot make use of deterministic rules that provide for the possibility of accurately predicting the future. I disagree because determinism can still be true even if mankind, due to various limitations, cannot make use of the possibility of accurately predicting the future. Also, even with our limitations in making use of all of the implications of determinism, determinism has other implications that directly affect our lives and the way we understand our lives - especially incompatibilism.

We may not be able to accurately predict the future because of human limitations, but we are still faced with the gloomy conclusion that we are ultimately automatons if incompatibilism is true.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Very interesting. I had to read through your post multiple times just to understand where you are going. If your 'Argument of an Infinite Loop' is original, it is damn good.

You say that determinism is not contingent upon any one point in time, but is has to be. That point in time is now and subsequent points in time. If I choose now as a point in time to stop the accruing of data, I stop becoming an object of the set and thus no longer fall into an infinite loop.

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

I think you are making the, quite common, mistake of mixing up our "knowing" (second order logic) with our "existence" (first order logic). Where second order logic is "knowledge" (a posteriori), first order logic is "intuition" (a priori). Your reasoning is correct when related to second order logic: our reason cannot explain, nor "know" certain things as such (a posteriori). The reality of the matter is that this takes place in such a way because the inexplicable things for the second order logic lie in first order logic.

An important piece of information is that second order logic (self-consciousness) can only exist because first order logic (consciousness) exists. The other way around simply cannot exist. So, how can something which exists in first order logic not exist in second order logic?

- By deni-all.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

In a manner of speaking perhaps. I cannot travel to any other galaxy, but this limitation is no reason for me to reject that other galaxies exist, nor is this limitation any reason to think the existence of those galaxies has no bearing on human life..

This misses the point, by definition somthing beyond human limitations cannot be considered because for it to be beyond human limitations would mean beyond the considerable aspects of our physical universe as you must consider mental limitations also. I do not consider a physical hinderence to be a complete limitation if the possibility of an alternative to the current physical state of things can be concieved of, for our conception is a factor that is not limited in this case. My definition of limitation is much broader in scope than perhapse the standard one and I probably should hvae clarified initialy.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

It is nonsense for us to consider doing anything beyond human limitations. Collecting the vast amount of data, and then making the calculations, necessary to employ the supposed predictive power that determinism allows is beyond human capacity. But our inability to make accurate predictions about the future via deterministic rules does not discredit the truth of determinism (if we assume determinism to be true)...

No argument, I'm not searching for the truth of falacy of determinism in writing this.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Hey, it's cool To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I understand you, either. But we're trying, and that's what counts, eh?

Definately:)

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I don't want to turn this into a debate about determinism being true or not, so I'm just taking determinism to be an assumed truth. From what I can tell, you say that determinism is irrelevant to us because we cannot make use of deterministic rules that provide for the possibility of accurately predicting the future. I disagree because determinism can still be true even if mankind, due to various limitations, cannot make use of the possibility of accurately predicting the future. Also, even with our limitations in making use of all of the implications of determinism, determinism has other implications that directly affect our lives and the way we understand our lives - especially incompatibilism.

We may not be able to accurately predict the future because of human limitations, but we are still faced with the gloomy conclusion that we are ultimately automatons if incompatibilism is true.

Im not sure I consider it such a gloomy conclusion though, in a sense it will make things considerably easier including answering many ethical questions which will likely arise as a result of A.I.
P.S. In response to the statement reguarding whether or not this is an original conclusion:I can't of course answer to its originality in the sense that I am the theorems sole conciever, only that I came up with it independently.

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Quote:

You say that determinism is not contingent upon any one point in time, but is has to be. That point in time is now and subsequent points in time. If I choose now as a point in time to stop the accruing of data, I stop becoming an object of the set and thus no longer fall into an infinite loop.

Wouldn't it be contingent on every point in time, an infinite loops would require infinite starting and end points. Every point in time is a start and and end of the loop unto itself

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

This misses the point, by definition somthing beyond human limitations cannot be considered because for it to be beyond human limitations would mean beyond the considerable aspects of our physical universe as you must consider mental limitations also. I do not consider a physical hinderence to be a complete limitation if the possibility of an alternative to the current physical state of things can be concieved of, for our conception is a factor that is not limited in this case. My definition of limitation is much broader in scope than perhapse the standard one and I probably should hvae clarified initialy.

Hence the 'In a manner of speaking perhaps.' I think Arjen's post would be useful in sorting this out.

Quote:

Im not sure I consider it such a gloomy conclusion though, in a sense it will make things considerably easier including answering many ethical questions which will likely arise as a result of A.I.

Answering AI questions is the least of my concern. I'd be a little more worried about attempts to reduce suffering in the world when faced with the fact that they are absolutely and hopelessly futile. Makes me glad I don't have to cope with such an idea.

0 Replies

Why Incompatiblist Determinism is not relavent to us

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know