Determinism: Difference between revisions
→Definitions
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==== Free Will (Indeterminism) ==== | ==== Free Will (Indeterminism) ==== | ||
Again referring to the [[Free will|article about free will]], free will (also called indeterminism) refers to having the full control to independently decide, which actions to carry out. In other words, free will can be described as ''"a significant kind of control over one’s actions”'' (O’Connor & Franklin, 2022)<ref>O’Connor, T., & Franklin, C. (2022). Free Will. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/freewill</ref> | Again referring to the [[Free will|article about free will]], free will (also called indeterminism) refers to having the full control to independently decide, which actions to carry out. In other words, free will can be described as ''"a significant kind of control over one’s actions”'' (O’Connor & Franklin, 2022), as cited in the article.<ref>O’Connor, T., & Franklin, C. (2022). Free Will. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/freewill</ref> | ||
==== Causal Determinism ==== | ==== Causal Determinism ==== | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
== '''Philosophers and Scientists on Determinism''' == | == '''Philosophers and Scientists on Determinism''' == | ||
=== Isaac Newton === | === Isaac Newton === | ||
Newton's fundamental laws, formulated back in 1687<ref>Scheck, F. (2018). ''Mechanics: From Newton's laws to deterministic chaos''. Springer.</ref> | Newton's fundamental laws, formulated back in 1687, imply that the behaviour of all matter in the world is governed by universal patterns, making him a supporter of the idea of determinism:<ref>Scheck, F. (2018). ''Mechanics: From Newton's laws to deterministic chaos''. Springer.</ref><blockquote>“I. Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform rectilinear motion, except if it is compelled by forces acting on it to change that state. | ||
II. The change of motion is proportional to the applied force and takes place in the direction of the straight line along which that force acts. | II. The change of motion is proportional to the applied force and takes place in the direction of the straight line along which that force acts. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
==== R. W. Sperry: Foundations ==== | ==== R. W. Sperry: Foundations ==== | ||
In his paper "Hemispheric Deconnection and Unity in Conscious Awareness" | In his paper "Hemispheric Deconnection and Unity in Conscious Awareness", Sperry described his split-brain experiments, in which the the corpus callosum, which connects the brain's left and right hemispheres, was severed as a treatment for epilepsy, making both hemispheres function independently from one another (split brain).<ref>Sperry, R. W. (1968, October). ''Hemisphere Deconnection and Unity in Conscious Awareness. American Psychology'', Vol. 23, No. 10. California Institute of Technology</ref> | ||
With the knowledge that the left hemisphere controlls the right side of the body, and the right hemisphere controlls the left side, including visual processing, he conducted the following experiment: | With the knowledge that the left hemisphere controlls the right side of the body, and the right hemisphere controlls the left side, including visual processing, he conducted the following experiment: | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
=== The Liar Paradox and Logical Determinism === | === The Liar Paradox and Logical Determinism === | ||
The Liar Paradox | The Liar Paradox, 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.<ref>Dowden, B. (n.d.). Liar Paradox. ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' https://iep.utm.edu/liar-paradox/#H1</ref> | ||
To demonstrate this, we can use the following self-referential sentence:<blockquote>This sentence is false.</blockquote>If we try to define this sentence as true, it automatically makes the sentence false, and if we thus assume the sentence is false, the falsity of the sentence must be false, making the sentence, again, true. | To demonstrate this, we can use the following self-referential sentence:<blockquote>This sentence is false.</blockquote>If we try to define this sentence as true, it automatically makes the sentence false, and if we thus assume the sentence is false, the falsity of the sentence must be false, making the sentence, again, true. | ||
| Line 134: | Line 136: | ||
As mentioned earlier, David Hume shows that determinism poses the question of [[Draft:Moral|moral]] responsibility in humans, if God exists as the creator of the [[world]], knowingly having predetermined all processes and actions in said world. | As mentioned earlier, David Hume shows that determinism poses the question of [[Draft:Moral|moral]] responsibility in humans, if God exists as the creator of the [[world]], knowingly having predetermined all processes and actions in said world. | ||
Following the idea of determinism, this would lead to two possible outcomes, according to Hume (Russell, 2020, under “6. Free Will and the Problem of Religion”)<ref name=":1" /> | Following the idea of determinism, this would lead to two possible outcomes, according to Hume (Russell, 2020, under “6. Free Will and the Problem of Religion”):<ref name=":1" /> | ||
# Since all human will and action is predetermined by the Creator, all their actions are inevitable and not in their control, leading to the absence of any moral responsibility in humans, and thus making the idea of good and evil meaningless. | # Since all human will and action is predetermined by the Creator, all their actions are inevitable and not in their control, leading to the absence of any moral responsibility in humans, and thus making the idea of good and evil meaningless. | ||
# If despite that, we decide to assign moral responsibility for their actions, it would directly imply that the Creator is just as morally responsible for causing all human actions, including the evil ones, by predetermining them, which then would make him the root of all evil, contradicting the image of a good-willing God pictured in most known religions (Russell, 2020, under “6. Free Will and the Problem of Religion”)<ref name=":1" /> | # If despite that, we decide to assign moral responsibility for their actions, it would directly imply that the Creator is just as morally responsible for causing all human actions, including the evil ones, by predetermining them, which then would make him the root of all evil, contradicting the image of a good-willing God pictured in most known religions (Russell, 2020, under “6. Free Will and the Problem of Religion”).<ref name=":1" /> | ||
To reach a conclusion about whether the Creator could be blamed for the evil in the world he created it is important to consider that if God was just omniscient and not omnipotent, and if there was theoretically no way to create humankind while also not creating evil, the answer of guilt lies in whether creating humans, allowing the evil to exist, or to refrain from creating humans and evil altogether is the most ethical choice. | To reach a conclusion about whether the Creator could be blamed for the evil in the world he created it is important to consider that if God was just omniscient and not omnipotent, and if there was theoretically no way to create humankind while also not creating evil, the answer of guilt lies in whether creating humans, allowing the evil to exist, or to refrain from creating humans and evil altogether is the most ethical choice. | ||
| Line 152: | Line 154: | ||
One of the surprising insights of this experiment is that observation alone alters the result of the experiment, and also that it directly questions the idea of classical determinism since events at the quantum level are not determined by previous states and hence cannot be predicted or calculated, which introduces indeterminsm. | One of the surprising insights of this experiment is that observation alone alters the result of the experiment, and also that it directly questions the idea of classical determinism since events at the quantum level are not determined by previous states and hence cannot be predicted or calculated, which introduces indeterminsm. | ||
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.'' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#TwoSlitExpe</ref> | 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), which emphasizes that the classical deterministic viewpoint cannot explain these results, suggesting indeterminism.<ref>Goldstein, S. (2021, 14 June). Bohmian Mechanics. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#TwoSlitExpe</ref> | ||
== '''Information and Determinism''' == | == '''Information and Determinism''' == | ||
| Line 193: | Line 195: | ||
If we define "[[knowledge]]" not just as an awareness and understanding of something, as described in the [[Knowledge|article about knowledge]], but also something that is actually true, unlike a belief, which can be false, then the consequences of determinism depend on whether there is only one single objective truth, as stated by the theory of Realism, or, instead Relativism applies, which would mean that there can be multiple subjective truths about one subject: | If we define "[[knowledge]]" not just as an awareness and understanding of something, as described in the [[Knowledge|article about knowledge]], but also something that is actually true, unlike a belief, which can be false, then the consequences of determinism depend on whether there is only one single objective truth, as stated by the theory of Realism, or, instead Relativism applies, which would mean that there can be multiple subjective truths about one subject: | ||
In the case of Realism, stating that there is an objective reality and the truth or falsity of a statment cannot be influenced by subjective frameworks (culture, beliefs, etc.)<ref>Miller, A. (2019, December 13). Realsim. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/</ref> | In the case of Realism, stating that there is an objective reality and the truth or falsity of a statment cannot be influenced by subjective frameworks (culture, beliefs, etc.), determinism would not impact the contents of our knowledge, but rather the selection of it, because only one truth would exist for each proposition, and any real knowledge achieved would be true, as we defined. <ref>Miller, A. (2019, December 13). Realsim. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/</ref> Whether determinism would exist or not would have no result on the contents of our knowledge. | ||
If instead Relativism were true, meaning that the truth or falsity of all statements depends on a subjective framework applied in order to assess that statment<ref>Baghramian, M. (2020, September 15). Relativism. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/</ref> | If instead Relativism were true, meaning that the truth or falsity of all statements depends on a subjective framework applied in order to assess that statment, determinism would not allow any freedoms or alternatives in the contents of our (subjective) knowledge, questioning the autonomy in shaping what we know:<ref>Baghramian, M. (2020, September 15). Relativism. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/</ref> | ||
Even in a relativistic view, which might initially seem to offer freedom in knowledge, a deterministic nature of the universe could eliminate our ability to independently obtain or question given knowledge, as all decisions regarding what we consider true would be influenced by deterministic processes governing our brains and external factors. | Even in a relativistic view, which might initially seem to offer freedom in knowledge, a deterministic nature of the universe could eliminate our ability to independently obtain or question given knowledge, as all decisions regarding what we consider true would be influenced by deterministic processes governing our brains and external factors. | ||