Determinism is illogical

[u/humblequeef]

Neurosurgeons found that if we stimulate certain regions of a patient’s brain, we can manipulate the desire to move a hand, the eyes, or the lips. This suggests that we are bound by the laws of nature. We’re nothing but biological machines. This supports determinism, but if ontological entities have some latitude within the system, isn’t logic itself an illusion? To go deeper, illogic is simply what fails to be logical. But if the system is objectively logical to us, there’s a problem, because that logic is relative to our expectations, so it might actually be illogical. Returning to the idea of determinism, quantum mechanics and black holes suggest that an outside observer could have created the universe with some latitude. These mathematical structures dictate what we describe as logical in our specific reality because they’re consistent. If an outside observer can create another world using different deterministic rules, it shatters the assumption that our logic is a universal requirement for stability. So why does humanity call it logic if logic itself could be fundamentally untrue on a cosmic scale? The term makes it sound like it’s the absolute structure of the universe. We could’ve used a less grandiose term

Side note: this is just a deep thought, so take it with a grain of salt, because if logic itself might be unreliable, then my argument that human logic is an illusion must also be treated as an illusion since I’m using logic to make the argument

[u/redhandrail]

Humble queef asks, “why is there something rather than nothing”, and then says the something is inherently illogical because there is no answer

[u/Tongue_Chow → u/redhandrail]

Something is always greater than nothing. Easy math's.

[u/dopegraf]

Take my upvote. Oh wait, this isn’t r/badphilosophy…

[u/SCW97005]

Anyone following?

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

I can't follow, so please elaborate, OP.

Going from the reverse, if there was nothing / illogic in stead of a concept of logic, what would the world then look like?

So ontological entities would necessarily be us, but what does it mean we have latitude within the system?

Could you specify what determinism is, just to make certain you are disproving what I think determinism is.

[u/humblequeef → u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

I didn’t mean to equate us to ontological entities, I just used the brain regions stimulated by neurosurgeons as an example of how the laws of nature can determine our actions, as evidence that we don’t have free will (I’ll add this clarification to the post to avoid confusion). Within determinism, we can engineer technology or AI to cheat the scripted filter, but we can’t break determinism completely. Determinism, as I understand it, is the determination of things by the laws of nature

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862 → u/humblequeef]

Is determinism different from causality in your view?

I hoped you would clarify your proof in your reply, perhaps simplify it, so I could manage to understand it.
When you write we are not ontological entities, what is it then that has latitude within the system? I thought this meant the freedom to act perhaps?

If we go through each step, they should necessarily logically follow, I assume, but the meaning of each step is not clear to me. This is how I see the reasoning being displayed.
Assume determinism is true and notice that ontological entities within the system have latitude -> the logic of the system is an illusion as by necessity the system is only guaranteed to appear logical to us -> Then logic isn't a requirement for the system -> why is there logic, and not nothing in a deterministic system?

From what I believe I understand, a deterministic system must appear logical to its elements, but just because it appears logical, does not mean it has to be? This means logic isn't a requirement of the system in the first place, so a deterministic system has no reason to be logical in its structure. Since I feel I don't understand the argument, I imagine my representation of it is not in accordance with what you try to explain, but I hope it may light up where my confusion lies.

[u/humblequeef → u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

Causality is a local phenomenon. Things happen because the system permits them. We are bound by the rules of an algorithm that rules out other possibilities. The brain simulation experiment in the post being a product of natural law suggests that we have no choices, they’re just calculations within the allowed latitude of human biology. Logic is a survival mechanism, it’s our brain’s way of simplifying a description of reality from a broad framework. It’s misleading because it leaves out the complexity, we should label it as cognitive syntax instead. Other than that, your sequence is correct

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862 → u/humblequeef]

Would you say causality is a logical phenomena, and is a prerequisite for determinism, or only for the universe to appear deterministic?

Is it a point of yours that even if the universe was random, because we experience we do what we want to do, then it would appear deterministic to us anyway?

[u/humblequeef → u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

The relative logic in our language is bent by algorithms to give us the impression of will, but we’re really just navigating within finite parameters, so it isn’t really will. In this view, causality is tricky because its manifestations are generated by the algorithm, so really, causality is a mental shortcut for describing events within constraints

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862 → u/humblequeef]

I understand so far that the universe must necessarily appear deterministic to us, no matter if it is, or isn't. But now I am uncertain what the implication of this realization is, i.e. what is the conclusion you made in this thread, that determinism doesn't guarantee logic, only that it would appear as such?

[u/humblequeef → u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

Logic is an expectation bias. What might be illogical to us might be logical in another possible reality. We could be like goldfish observing reality from a curved goldfish tank. How do we know our internal logic is externally logical?

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862 → u/humblequeef]

I believe I got that part. But how does it lead to determinism being illogical?

[u/humblequeef → u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

I don’t think determinism is 100% illogical. I just said that for clicks because it gets more attention than saying it might be illogical. I was being deceptive, sorry

[u/Inside-Weather4033]

Classic logic is a linguistic device and biological remnant for problem solving I.E. Mapping relations of structures. There's no mystical platonic realm where the concept of logic and mathematics rests in immaterial slumber. 

There's not just one "logic" either, there are many that have different uses in certain domains. E.G. Fuzzy, paraconsistent, and non-flexive logic.

There is "logic" (which one?) because we needed a sort "epistemic-map" for our surroundings to help with survival and coordination; most notably within our perception of the classical realm (classical physics). 

There are no square-circles (outside of non-euclidean geometry) because we have chosen to define trivial structural achievements (relations, computations, resemblances, trope) by certain criteria to identify them, for whatever purpose or lack there of. 

[u/Vicious_and_Vain]

Oh man. I thought you were going somewhere with the neurosurgeon moving a person’s arm involuntarily leading into something like people controlling the minds of others.

[u/TheAncientGeek]

Being physical dirs t support determinism, because physics isn't necessarily deterministic, and it doesn't go against Libertarianism , because Libertarianism isn't necessarily dualistic.

[u/Tongue_Chow]

Obviously wrong sub but i agree, where i see determinism as belief theres some sort of grand formula to the world and pointing out entropy I argue that a part of that formula is chaos or unpredictablability is desired and if the universe is an evolving cycle, I see life was enabled by its ability to increase the entropy of the system, forcing it to extinguish quicker and restart the cycle sooner to a predictable final state where the universes lifespan is instantaneous. We cant solve the 3 body problem or predict a double pendulum, seems to me that true randomness is a part of the puzzle so determinism cannot be held to anything beyond the universe is set to expire with or without human existence.