Correction. PHYSICAL determinism is dead. Determinism within the accepted premises of the scientific worldview no longer works. Nothing precludes determinism outside of this however – i.e. including causes from outside the accepted scientific worldview.
1 Like
Physical determinism being “dead” as you mentioned, that means that the Physical Universe being deterministic is also dead, correct? Or am I reaching?
On the same subject but speaking about a group here, the determination we see from people like Sam Harris and others in the new atheist movement, that would be physical determination, I believe? That is physical determination that they advocate for, that all things are determined by prior causes and essentially every choice is predetermined, etc.
EDIT I can no longer comment today because I reached my comment limit, but I will be following along!
I guess that might depend on how this question is answered:
Is the physical universe all there is? The materialist says ‘probably so’ - which, if that’s the case, would mean determinism of every kind would then be dead (at least that’s my take on it.)
But if we insist that there is more to this universe than just what can be physically observed, then that strongly implies probable influences on this universe, meaning that we just don’t know every influence in order to be able to spell it out. Maybe if we knew those laws - maybe that higher determinism would still be a live option then. But that’s hard to say. We can’t rule it out at least (is what I would say).
Only if you think the physical universe is the limit of reality and only if by the physical universe you mean what is described by the scientific worldview. David Bohm gets out of this by constructing an interpretation of quantum physics which rejects the premises of the scientific worldview. So he would say that the physical universe is deterministic – its just not the physical universe as understood by the consensus of the scientific community.
p.s. out of the discussion for a few hours now to do other things…
What, Mitchell?!! You have another life?
Traitor.
Maybe we can overlook it this time. Give somebody a hug for me while I keep typing here. 
…actually I think I may be turning traitor too here in a bit. 
Calculation as a way of processing our experience is too limited to accommodate the demands of our humanity. To plot a course to Mars and back it is the only way to go but for reflecting on who/what we are it is almost useless. For that you need to tap into intuition and imagination to access the collective wisdom transmissible through stories.
I think a lot about what positive difference religion has made which has made it strongly selected for. One way to look at it is as providing a imaginative landscape/storyline rich in meaning. It’s literal interpretation may serve at the introductory level for children but retained too long it can limit development. What matters is developing a rich relationship with the idealized Other which can also enhance empathy for others attempting to do the same. Once that Other has been internalized the specifics of its empirical status become less important. We can’t deduce our way into the relationship, we have to enter into it organically and without pretext. Believing that is even possible requires faith.
1 Like
Sorry about that. It’s an anti-spam feature of the Discourse platform that we can’t change. But after your account has existed for 24 hours, you can post to your heart’s content or at least until you get on one of the moderators’ last nerve. (You seem like a decent human being with social skills, so we aren’t too worried about you.)
1 Like
The answer is both. Nature’s laws are both deterministic and random. Evolution is a great example. Genetics is random, and yet is not. The child receives genes from its parents and in that way it is determined by them, but there is no way of predicting which genes it will receive from each and how they will combine, so in that way it is considered random or unpredictable.
But is it unpredictable? Yes and No. It is certainly unpredictable in a narrow precise sense. None of us knows what the future holds. There are just too many variables to understand in order to make precise predictions. On the other hand, humans manage to survive and adapt by not making permanent long-range plans, but by adjusting as we go along.
However, there is another kind of genetic change which is more clearly random or unpredictable called mutation where there is a change in the structure of the gene. Genes are finite so they are subject to accidental change, sometimes caused by radiation.
These new mutated genes can create new species, but first they must pass a series of tests based on natural selection. First, they must go to term. An estimated one fourth of all pregnancies do not go to term. Second, they must survive to maturity. Third, they must attract a mate. Fourth, their offspring must also be successful. If these new genes can allow the new species to better adapt to its environmental niche it is likely to be successful.
Thus, while mutated genes cannot be predicted by definition, their success can be foreseen if they meet the flexible criteria for natural selection. Genetic variation is random within limited scope, while natural selection is determinative also within a limited scope. Variation does not cause change but allows for change. Selection does not determine change, but it directs change.
Quantum physics is true, but only governs quantum physics. It does not govern non-quantum cause and effect. It does not govern time or thermal energy. Different types of energy function in different ways, which gives the universe its diversity, and causes confusion in the minds of humans who0 distain diversity.
1 Like
@MarkD Bro. Mark, I think that you have made a factual error.
To send a space to Mars it takes more than plotting a course. It is my understanding that there is written into the directions a course correction procedure whereby the spaceship uses stars to make sure it is on course and usually makes necessary changes to complete its journey successfully.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I find it hard to see how I can develop a relationship with an idealized Other, Who does not relate to me. If I make the common mistake of creating a God in my own image the empirical status of that God is very important
Amen. But deducing that only a Good God could and would create a good universe and therefore God is worthy of being trusted is rational, but it takes the Will to trust in Jesus.
Oh boy! I can upload all of my bird and fossil shell pictures to the Creation Photos from Around the World thread, one per post, and there’s no way to stop me! Except to remind me that I need to do other things this year. 
4 Likes
(@mitchellmckain, @Mervin_Bitikofer , etc) Does this comment/that mean that the Physical universe is non-deterministic (thanks to Quantum physics/mechanics we know this) but the Universe itself is fundamentally deterministic? Is there a difference and is that a fair leap of logic here? And does this mean that we still have free will? I ask all of these because I see that many believe that since the Universe is fundamentally deterministic, that leads to all things strictly determined I.e. no free will blends into that as well.
I’m taking Roger’s comment in my understanding (limited of course because I’m new to this so of course I’d love to hear your feedback, @Relates) that we are limited due to natural laws and physics that are deterministic, but what happens in between these laws can be random and unpredictable and “determinism” is soft and/or casual, or even at times, nonexistent.
Is that correct? That while as physical beings, we are constrained to the laws of physics but can move “freely” within those constraints? Does that make sense? Also,
The reason I ask all of this too, is because I recently read this little thread and every time I see “determinism” and “physics” I think Sam Harris and the group of strict determinism and at times it will rattle what I know about this topic. It seems like the only way you can be a determinist or believe the Universe or our decisions are pre-determined, is if everything is like that and we are essentially robots.
Please let me know what you all think! (@MarkD & @Christy as well! You are all super awesome, I don’t believe that was a pre-determined statement. 
)
Here is my own hang up with that question: I cannot even conceive what it would mean for the universe to be anything else. I mean just think about this. We have enough of a challenge just thinking of how there could be any event that is essentially causeless physically speaking … we find that so amazing that we made an entirely different category for just such events: we call them supernatural. I.e. these “miracles” happen apart from or in violation of natural laws as opposed to mundane things (presumably everything else that behaves as it’s supposed to.). And that is what generates the challenge for me. A fundamentally non deterministic universe seems to oblige us to believe not just in an occasional special miracle, but in an ongoing normality of causally inexplicable miracles built into the fundamental behavior of matter itself!
Now don’t get me wrong … I’m not at all disturbed by the the thought that there are probably laws we have not yet conceived of, much less formulated. I rather expect that is true. So stuff might look truly random to us, and yet be following some higher laws we know nothing of. But to be following no law at all? My mind just can’t go there. Which is why, to this day I still can’t really fully appreciate the apparent significance of QM or Bell’s theorem or even just the “basic” significance of the uncertainty principle and just how these developments have apparently put the last nails in the coffin of Determinism … not just determinism underneath the basic laws we do know, but even apparently in defiance of any possible laws or hidden variables that could yet be discovered! That just blows my mind, and I have yet to hear it explained in any way that I could meaningfully grasp.
Sometimes people are tempted to suggest that the universe is mostly deterministic. Unfortunately the truth is otherwise because of three simple words: “three-body problem.”
We are tempted to say the universe is mostly deterministic because the mathematical description seems to work pretty good for many thing a lot of the time. It is more accurate to say that much of the universe on the large scale is approximately determinist in the short run. The reality is that we constantly need to make corrections because in the long run, even on a large scale it isn’t deterministic at all.
2 Likes
…also don’t get me wrong … I find it perfectly understandable how practical physical determinism is already brought to an early grave quite before having insisted on ontological randomness, but earlier by chaos theory, error amplification, the butterfly effect and all that, which Mitch has alluded to. So its application is at an infinite remove from us through the demand for impossibly infinite precision. Fine. Great. Understood. So it’s a God thing. But that isn’t what I hear all the physicists stopping with. No … they press on to insist it isn’t just a matter of our own limitations of knowledge … the precision is literally nonexistent in the first place. Meaning there is literally nothing there to be known… by us or God!
Mind blown.
1 Like
Would a better response be either we “don’t know” or flat-out that the universe isn’t fundamentally deterministic?
It seems like Sean Carroll and Physicists like him believe that QM do not provide a loophole out of determinism but frankly put we will never really “know” if the universe and us as humans are truly determined or not.
Not at all pertinent to any point I was making but that sounds like something that would help, though I have to imagine they make some effort to get it headed in the right direction and speed to keep the corrections to a minimum and that can be described as plotting a course.
Looks like you’re keen to attribute that claim to me. It’s not mine.
Okay there we have an actual point of disagreement. Not that I think you’re factually wrong but I don’t think that is what one should look to from the mystery you call God. Galaxies, atoms and cells got here however they did or have been around in some form or another forever. I don’t really care about that and I can’t understand the urgency some feel to lay the credit on some being no one can see.
What interests me is what makes possible beings like us with minds and wills at our disposal with so much processing taking place beneath our notice. Not only is a constancy of identity provided through no effort of our own but the world that we experience out there is also tracked and recognizably continuous with the world we’ve experienced before with very little conscious management on our part. I’m not grateful to anyone or anything for stars and plants and animals. It is spectacular that they are here too but I have no burning need to have a pat answer about that. I’ll just be grateful for the measurements of science which peel back the curtain of time s bit at a time to reveal how what there is hasn’t gotten to what we see today. No genie had to blink it all into existence and origins can only be approached through careful observation and measurement. We can’t start with an imagined beginning and show how that could have gotten us here; that isn’t useful.
I feel this, I would love to dive deeper into this topic but since I am uneducated on it and frankly don’t have the time, it’s really tough to find good fruit when it comes to this discussion. So many people who push strict determinism really despise religious folks and really want to push a worldview that takes spirituality out of it and that really makes me skeptical (maybe that’s my YEC pre-determination kicking in,lol) but I am thankful for Mitchell because he is putting out a lot of good fruit for me to look at and understand. I think some scientists on either side would benefit from flat out saying either they “don’t know” or “we don’t have the evidence either way” rather than become psuedo-philosophers and push a worldview that matches their own “science” rather than peace and love but hey.
3 Likes
Which is ironic in my case, because I consider my mental tether binding me to determinist outlook to be quite old fashioned - and with a significant religious edge to it too. After all, God is a God of order, not disorder, right? (I know that isn’t true, and that God is over everything - not just the “orderly” stuff - but my mind still only grasps “orderly”). I’m the antiquated oddball it seems, and everybody else has long been liberated from this tyranny of Determinism. Which is exciting, even though I can’t understand it. Your atheistic physics friends have long given new excitement to a world of possibilities for the spiritually minded that they so love to despise. Now that the bogeyman of Determinism has been vanquished, the world is thrown open to no end of speculative influences from who knows all where. And it isn’t lost on the now historically paranoid religious practitioner that here, finally, is a corner he can hide in where science itself has recognized an apparent boundary it won’t be crossing. That is a dubious pleasure as far as I’m concerned as a religious person. And only for those that had bought into the long-discredited falsehood that religion had anything to hide from in the first place. But oh well. It’s still exciting. And as someone who fiercely has always believed in free will and responsibility, it does finally give me a conceptual parking place for that concept which otherwise has to tolerate an uneasy coexistence with my Deterministic outlook.
Right. The results of measurement are sometimes a product of the measurement. We are often not simply observing a measurement value which is already there but creating it with our measuring device. That much is true. But it would be wrong to make too much of that with a philosophical generality that nothing is there. That is not what is meant at all. Let me explain…
This is all about incompatible measurements connected with the so called uncertainty principle: position and momentum, time and energy, spin in orthogonal directions, and many more. A particle like an electron does not have precise position and momentum both at the same time. If you measure the position then the momentum is spread out over many possibilities. But if you then measure the momentum of the particle then you alter it so it has a precise momentum (randomly chosen) but the position is now spread out over many possibilities. And this is not just a matter of knowledge. The particle cannot have precise values of these incompatible measurements at the same time.
The upshot is that the billiard ball picture of reality is just plain wrong. But then the wave or vibration picture of reality is wrong too. Somehow it is between the these two very differernt descriptions, which is indeed hard – for our desire to picture reality fails us.
1 Like
Damien it is late and the next two days promise to be busy. So I will tell you briefly what I think though I haven’t had a look at the article yet. I’m curious to have a look at it but I don’t trust my memory to bring me back to it any time soon.
While what we think of as our free will seems improbable, a deterministic world that renders us all puppets seems down right absurd. Other animals have degrees of freedom but nothing like ours. But of course we are highly constrained, we can’t will ourselves to fly or dodge bullets like Neo in the Matrix movie. But we didn’t get this way all at once. We’ve evolved alongside all the rest of the biosphere and our new capacities are made possible by all the underlying iterations that have brought us here. And we don’t have the only hand on the steering wheel. Our hand is not even always the strongest. We are like mahouts sitting astride mighty elephants that often feel strongly about what we should do. It isn’t always possible to stand back or exercise even a free won’t.
But for all our limitations, what an opportunity we have. While we reasonably do (and must) hold each other responsible for our behavior it is good to develop empathy too for how circumstances can make achieving that control harder for some than for others.
Also perfect control isn’t the highest human good. Love and creativity are served well by insight and insight requires leaving room for reflection and uncertainty. So a good life must balance control enough to treat each other fairly but enough openness to risk to permit for love that is more than duty.
Okay too late to neaten this up much. Hope to find my way back soon.