Determinism: Difference between revisions

The idea that every event is caused by previous events and conditions, along with the natural laws that govern them, implying that all actions and decisions are the result of prior causes (Hoefer, 2023).<ref>Hoefer, C. (2023, September 21). Causal Determinism. ''Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/</nowiki></ref>

The idea that all propositions (statements), including those about the future, must be either true or false. This means that the truth or falsity of statements about future events is already fixed, even if those events have not yet occurred (Vihvelin, 2022, under “1. Preliminaries”).<ref name=":0">Vihvelin, K. (2022, August 22). Arguments for Incompatibilism. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/</nowiki></ref>

The idea that an omniscient God exists, who knows about the truth or falsity of all propositions, including those about the future, leading to the question of how free will can exist when God already infallibly knows all that is going to happen (Vihvelin, 2022, under “1. Preliminaries”).<ref name=":0" />

(Also see in GlossaLab) The idea that determinism is fully compatible with free will, and that whether the action is free or not is defined independently from its determination or causation, but by whether the action is caused by the person in question itself or another person or circumstance. Moreover, compatibilism states that causation and determination are a necessity for free and responsible action. (Russell, 2020).<ref name=":1">Russell, P. (2020, May 27). Hume on free will. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/#FreWilHumRel</nowiki></ref>

The idea opposing to compatibilism, claiming that determinism is incompatible with free will.

As one of the founders of classical compatibilism, David Hume claims that both determinism and free will coexist (Russell, 2020, under “1. ‘Liberty and Necessity’ – The Classical Reading”).<ref name=":1" />

As a consequence of determinism, Hume questions religion by claiming that all evil in the world would thus be directly attributed to God, and not the individuals performing the acts of crime, making them completely morally unaccountable for their actions (Russell, 2020, under “6. Free Will and the Problem of Religion”).<ref name=":1" />

The existence of freedom, which according to Kant is necessary for our ability to make judgements based on ethics and apply reason directly opposes the idea of determinism. “Reason creates for itself the idea of a spontaneity that can, on its own, start to act–without, i.e., needing to be preceded by another cause by means of which it is determined to action in turn, according to the law of causal connection, Kant says” (as cited in McCormick, n.d., under "8.a. – Kant’s Ethics: Reason and Freedom").<ref name=":2">McCormick, M. (n.d.). Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' URL=<nowiki>https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#SH8a</nowiki></ref>

Kant claims that our ability to reason and follow a framework of ethical rules gives us a choice and hence makes us ethically responsible for our actions, unlike animals whose actions, due to the lack of reason, are a just a result of causality and determination, which removes any ethical accountability from animal predators (McCormick, n.d., under "7.b – The Idea of Reason: Reason and Freedom").<ref name=":2" />

While claiming that he cannot prove or disprove free will, William James believes in Indeterminism based on his own practical point of view, which states that the assumption of determinism would render the regret of bad life events completely pointless and thus, unlike the pessimists, optimists and subjectivists, perhaps being able to accept that, he himself could not live with it.

Furthermore, he posits that for people to accept and act on basic moral concepts, it requires them to believe in their ability to use free will and freely influence their environment (Pomerleau, n.d., under "6.a. – Freedom and Morality – Human Freedom").<ref>Pomerleau, W. P. (n.d.). William James (1842-1910). ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' URL=<nowiki>https://iep.utm.edu/james-o/#SH6a</nowiki></ref>

As a materialist and determinist, David Lewis believes that the evolution of this world from any given point in time, given the laws of nature and the state of the world at that time, is determined, if the past, along with the laws of nature, is fixed.

David Lewis rather supports compatibilism, while also acknowledging the position of incompatibilism in the context of the problem of evil and free will ("David Lewis," n.d.).<ref>David Lewis. (n.d.). ''The Information Philosopher''. URL=<nowiki>https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lewis/</nowiki></ref>

This means that a free, voluntary act, can be initiated by the brain before the person itself is aware of their own free decision to perform that motion, which directly challenges the idea of free will.

Many critical questions about the idea of [[free will]] are posed by these results: Is free will merely an illusion our brain makes us believe in, after already having determined the next action without actually giving us a free choice?

This demonstrates that the patient was not aware of the real reason of why he selected the shovel, but instead his left hemisphere made up a false explanation. So the left hemisphere believed in having made a free choice, while instead it was the right hemisphere that made the choice for other reasons (based on visual skills) than the patient believed.

The fact that the patient's brain generated such a confident yet incorrect justification for his choice, raises significant doubts about whether we can trust our sense of free will, or whether it is merely a post hoc rationalization for us to feel in control of our actions.

The Liar Paradox<ref>Dowden, B. (n.d.). Liar Paradox. ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' URL=<nowiki>https://iep.utm.edu/liar-paradox/#H1</nowiki></ref>, which is primarily attributed to Eubulides of Miletus, a contemporary of Socrates, challenges the definition of logical determinism, that claims that binary truth values can theoretically be assigned to any proposition, in the past, present or future.

As mentioned earlier, David Hume shows that determinism poses the question of [[Ethics|moral responsibility]] in humans, if God exists as the creator of the world, knowingly having predetermined all processes and actions in said world.

Richard P. Feynman describes this experiment as "a phenomenon which is impossible, ''absolutely'' impossible, to explain in any classical way" (Feynman, Leighton, & Sands, 1963, as cited in S. Goldstein, 2021, 14 June)<ref>Goldstein, S. (2021, 14 June). Bohmian Mechanics. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.''URL=<nowiki>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#TwoSlitExpe</nowiki></ref>, which emphasizes that the classical deterministic viewpoint cannot explain these results.