Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
What do you believe in
Free Will 44%
Determinism 22%
I dont have a choice 33%

Votes: 9

 The consequences of Determinism

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 27, 2002
 Comments:
My last diary had nothing to do with free will and yet it (strangely) developed into a full swing argument about it vs determinism.

Basically what was decided was that free will and determinism are both possible and neither can be proven and disproven. Even though free will is the view held by the majority doesn't mean that determinism has any less chance of being the truth.

What I want to think about here however is what would happen if Determinism was one day proven true somehow. People talked of such an event as being "destructive" and "scary".

diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed

Indeed a society which followed determinism wouldnt believe a criminal to be guilty because of course they have no free will over their actions. In fact everyone would be free of blame and guilt. In the same way everyone would be free of achievement. Yes that would be a bad place.

But couldn't we just live with the knowledge of Determinism being truth and at the same time understand that we must force ourselves to live under the rules of free will for our society to exist properly?

If determinism was proven true it would be stupid to simply ignore the fact as much could be learnt from such an insight. As long as we accepted that such a truth shouldnt interfere with our society and that life must go on as before with all its guilt and blame our society wouldnt suffer at all.

That is why I believe in determinism but at the same time I will never use it as an excuse for my actions or anyone elses (even if it is proven).

       
Tweet

Good grief (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:50:05 PM PST
I should have stopped reading at:

What I want to think about here however is what would happen if Determinism was one day proven true somehow.

but I kept on until:

But couldn't we just live with the knowledge of Determinism being truth and at the same time understand that we must force ourselves to live under the rules of free will for our society to exist properly?

Now I am finished. I will never again force myself to read any more of Potato's Errors.

 
Some asshole on K5 said the same thing to me. (none / 0) (#2)
by derek3000 on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 06:05:49 PM PST
Now I don't want to bash you, because there are plenty of people here to do that, and I wouldn't want to take any of their lines, but:

But couldn't we just live with the knowledge of Determinism being truth and at the same time understand that we must force ourselves to live under the rules of free will for our society to exist properly?

You really shit the bed here. This is completely inane. You'd better watch it or people will start to think you are a 'Tater Tot.

...

...

Is this thing on?


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Free Will vs. Determinism (none / 0) (#3)
by Slubberdegullion on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 08:12:39 PM PST
Determinism has been proven false by quantum physics. This does not, however, necessarily mean that free will exists. Certainly you do what you choose, but are your choices affected, and can they be affected, by anything but cause and effect or random chance?

Quanta (none / 0) (#5)
by Akumu on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 10:30:28 PM PST
I admit that I have only a rudimentary understanding of quantum physics, but how does it disprove determinism? Quantum physics, in the capacity that I believe you are referring to it, holds that all particles in fact are "psi" waves, which under close scrutiny collapse into such tight wave packets as to be considered particles.

So, there is a "probability" that a particle could be in one of infinite places, but thinking of it that way defies quantum physics, does it not? It is in fact a unified probability wave, not a collection of particle probabilities. So couldn't determinism dictate the structure of all the probability waves, and also how they collapse when scrutinized?

What quantum theory preempts is the idea that with full knowledge of a single point in time, the behavior of the universe at all points in time could be extrapolated logically.

I stand ready to be disproven.

-akumu-

not bad! (none / 0) (#13)
by fzr on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:29:15 AM PST
So couldn't determinism dictate the structure of all the probability waves, and also how they collapse when scrutinized?

This is perhaps the greatest problem in quantum mechanics. The evolution of a quantum state (or probability wave, wavefunction or whatever you wish to call it) is completely determined by the Schrodinger equation - this process is often called U (for Unitary evolution).

The process by which this state collapses to give a definite answer as to where the particle is (often called R for state Reduction) is generally thought to be indeterministic, but it is poorly understood (when must we invoke R?) and it is entirely possible that R too is determined by some undiscovered equation.

What quantum theory preempts is the idea that with full knowledge of a single point in time, the behavior of the universe at all points in time could be extrapolated logically

Here though, I must take issue. Firstly, this idea is not new - it has been around as long as the "billiard ball" universe. Secondly, you must have heard of chaos theory! OK, chaotic systems ARE deterministic, but this does not mean this is even theoretically possible - what kind of (theoretical) device do you propose to run the calculation on? The device cannot exist in this universe as it clearly wouldn't have enough storage (for the precise state of every particle in the universe).

So what if it existed in another, "higher" universe? Well perhaps the state of this universe could be determined throughout time. But what about the state of the higher universe - is it deterministic or not?

So, in my opinion, it is entirely possible that the universe is deterministic. What use this information may be to us... I don't know, but I'm guessing "not much"!


oh (none / 0) (#14)
by PotatoError on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 08:57:27 AM PST
"what kind of (theoretical) device do you propose to run the calculation on? The device cannot exist in this universe as it clearly wouldn't have enough storage (for the precise state of every particle in the universe).

So what if it existed in another, "higher" universe? Well perhaps the state of this universe could be determined throughout time. But what about the state of the higher universe - is it deterministic or not?"

That kind of reminds me of Godels theorm a bit. Or am I wrong? (yes, I admit I could be very wrong in advance)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
thats a common misconception (none / 0) (#9)
by PotatoError on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 05:54:59 AM PST
Quantum physics has never proven determinism to be false - all its done is proven that as lowly humans we will never be able to predict the future 100% accurately.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Close, but you used the wrong term. (none / 0) (#19)
by RobotSlave on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:15:21 PM PST
I think you meant "the Copenhagen interpretation" rather than "quantum physics."

It's a pretty common oversight, so we'll let it go this time. Just don't do it again, OK?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
... are deterministic. (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 10:17:41 PM PST
That is why I believe in determinism but at the same time I will never use it as an excuse for my actions or anyone elses (even if it is proven).

Not that you'd have the choice.

yea thats true (none / 0) (#10)
by PotatoError on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 05:57:11 AM PST
I wouldnt have the choice really but I would have the illusion that I did have the choice.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Funny thing about determinism... (none / 0) (#6)
by Akumu on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 10:34:51 PM PST
It doesn't make a whit of difference.

Defendant: I couldn't help from killing him, it was predestined.
Judge: Then I guess my sentencing you to death is predestined too.

In fact, determinism if taken fully seriously, is so irrelevant that talking about it is worthless. There are no consequences of determinism, at least, no consequences that could be differentiated from undeterminism.

-akumu-

Even funnier (none / 0) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 12:45:14 AM PST
In fact, determinism if taken fully seriously, is so irrelevant that talking about it is worthless. There are no consequences of determinism, at least, no consequences that could be differentiated from undeterminism.

Even funnier is to watch the Babbling Philosophers scream bloody murder when you only hint the idea of determinism. When you touch their oh-so-precious Free Will.

Like it would matter.


Thats the point of my diary (none / 0) (#11)
by PotatoError on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 05:59:20 AM PST
That if determinism was proven true it wouldnt our lives at all - it wouldnt cause the chaos some people envision. All it would do is give science new theories to play with.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
So, (none / 0) (#7)
by tkatchev on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:24:28 PM PST
In fact, everyone would be free of blame and guilt.

That would be the ultimate liberalist paradise, would it not?

The truly scary fact is that we're almost there. We got the "guilt" part down pat, what's left is getting the "blame" part correct.


--
Peace and much love...

I thought it was the other way round (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 06:03:09 AM PST
That the push is towards there being more guilt and blame in society. Just look at the increased number of accident compensation ads on TV.

I guess if a Meteor hit the WTC instead of a plane there would still have to be a guilty person found. It just seems to be todays culture that nothing can happen by accident - everything is someone elses fault.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

That's exactly what I mean. (none / 0) (#15)
by tkatchev on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 11:39:42 AM PST
We in our society are ready to blame anyone at all for our problems (the government, communism, dirty hippes, God, etc.), when in fact 95% of the time it is your own fault.


--
Peace and much love...

Is blaming effective? (none / 0) (#18)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 04:22:21 PM PST
Does everything have to have a concrete, attributable culprit? Isn't it rather true that shit happens all the time and the only thing we can do is to debug thoroughly and ask for redundancy and pray to our respective deities when appliable?

In most cases, "shit happens" strategy gives better results than "whom to blame" (aka "blamestorming") one.


Suggestion. (none / 0) (#20)
by hauntedattics on Fri Mar 29th, 2002 at 07:04:40 AM PST
Instead of 'blame' think 'take responsibility for.' Most of the things that go wrong in one's life are a direct result of one's own actions, opinions, feelings or thoughts.

"Shit happens" is when a truck runs a red light and rams into your car. "Shit happens" is not when your wife finds out you had an affair or your boss fires you for mouthing off. In those cases, when you're divorced or jobless, pulling a "shit happens" is the essence of irresponsibility.




 
Linguistic reason (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 12:47:51 PM PST
Our language (at least enligsh; can't speak for all) is arranged so that it's difficult to speak of events without speaking of them as actions carried out by agents. E.g. we much prefer to say "It is raining," (what is raining?) than "raining is occurring". It leads not just to blaming people for events, but attributing them to imaginary beings (like God).

Wittgenstein figured that the point of philosophy was to free us from the mental traps our languages set for us.

 
I think Sartre said it best. (none / 0) (#17)
by JoePain on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 03:40:13 PM PST
But i forgot what it was that he said.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to the individual if we have free will or not, we (everyone -psychotics) have an emotional response that occurs with our actions.

Wrong action brings guilt whether we caused it or not.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.