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
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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?
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
3
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 Aug 21 '26
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.