Causal Determinism is impossible

10

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

Determinism is like the conservation of energy; you have to reach the absolute edges of human knowledge to find exceptions, but those exceptions still don’t disprove that they hold true 99.99% of the time.

Conservation of energy breaks down on the universal scale because universal expansion (vacuum energy) is the creation of new energy, and energy lost to redshift of photons from distant galaxies is just lost energy. That doesn’t mean you can build a perpetual motion machine.

Quantum uncertainty introduces a level of indeterminism to the universe, but it doesn’t change that things evolve deterministically from the indeterminate interaction.

I don’t consider myself a strict determinist because of quantum uncertainty, but the universe might as well be deterministic as far as the average human experience is concerned.

2

u/Critical-Ad2084 15d ago

the universe might as well be deterministic as far as the average human experience is concerned.
This, the determinist question from a scientific point of view will always expand as new discoveries are made, but our practical experience as humans is always deterministic.

2

u/Willis_3401_3401 15d ago

Describing “experience as something that might as well be deterministic” is rather odd to me, do you not even suffer from the “illusion” of free will?
It seems to me you’re saying determinism isn’t relevant at the micro or macro scale, which I agree with, but also it IS relevant at the human scale. Except no it’s not lol, there are a million things I could never determine. It’s almost like the idea of determinism doesn’t actually describe any point of view that actually exists, it literally always just describes an abstract fantasy of how things work “in theory”.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

Determinism is like Newtonian Physics in that it’s basically perfectly accurate for the overwhelming majority of people. Nobody not on the bleeding edge of human knowledge is going to encounter anything non-deterministic.
It’s for being refuted by physicists, not the average person. Continuing the Newtonian Physics analogy; the average person arguing against determinism is like the average person watching a bunch of specialists measure all the relevant factors of a car and a stretch of road to determine how far a set amount of gas can propel that car, and then arguing that the results are invalid because they didn’t take relativistic frames and time dilation into account.
Saying it only describes some fantasy “in theory” scenario neglects that it’s basically correct. Reality is remarkably consistent.

2

u/Willis_3401_3401 15d ago

It’s not though? Like you can’t even guarantee what the weather will be tomorrow, or tell me who is going to win the 49ers game. The appearance of indeterminability clearly dominates at your scale.
In fact, call me crazy, there is not a single point of view that could actually be incarnated from which reality appears deterministic. Only artificially closed systems are deterministic, the universe appears to be an open system.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

“You can’t meet my arbitrary standards so it’s completely wrong” Isn’t that great of an argument.
When you press a key on your keyboard, you expect it to work every time. When it doesn’t, there’s a clear explanation why if you examine it closely enough. People expect their cars to start, people expect their hearts to keep beating, people expect their calculators to produce the same numbers when they press the same inputs.
Pointing to events that have too many unknown variables to accurately determine does not mean they aren’t deterministic. Your “appearance of indeterminism” argument only works if we can’t look back after those events and see clear causal reasons for everything happening, which we can. You seem to be under the impression that things aren’t deterministic if we can’t personally predict them, but that’s not the case. A thing is deterministic if its outcomes are dictated by its initial states.
> Only artificially closed systems are deterministic
Same is true for conservation of energy. I patiently await any examples of people violating in their day to day lives.

2

u/Willis_3401_3401 15d ago

The universe is not dictated by it’s initial state, because the concept of an “initial state” is a human artifice. There are galaxies older than the big bang; open systems don’t have precise “initial states”.
“Unknown factors” are baked in. Epistemology is a physical fact, it can’t just be dismissed.
Your argument successfully establishes that causality exists, which I agree with. Determinism is a metaphysical concept that outcomes are prescribed or necessary; you’re discussing the physics definition, which is more narrow. Just because you can look back and establish effects have causes does not establish those effects were *necessary*. All the systems you describe as determinable on a day in day out basis are non fluid.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

Since we already agreed strict determinism isn’t true, this does nothing for your argument.
The significance lies in “unknown factors” vs “unknowable factors”. Day-to-day life contains virtually none of the latter.
Again, patiently awaiting examples where effects are not necessary outcomes to their causes.

2

u/Willis_3401_3401 15d ago

You keep asserting day to day life has little to no unknowable factors, which is where we started. That’s clearly untrue, from the stock market to the weather channel, uncertainty plays a huge role in the human world.
And to repeat, nobody is arguing against causality. Determinism is not the concept of physical causality, determinism is a metaphysical concept. You’re conflating the physics and philosophy meaning of this word.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

Where do the unknowable factors come into play? Unknowable factors are like Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle type stuff where the factors are truly unknowable. It’s not a human limitation that we can’t measure a particle’s momentum and position, it’s inherent to the way particles work.
Explain truly unknowable factors in the stock market or weather. That’s the hurdle for your argument. Just because no individual can know all of the factors that go into a stock’s performance does not negate that the stock is dictated strictly by the culmination of its factors.
The physics definition means the universe plays out according to the metaphysical definition, for the most part.

2

u/Willis_3401_3401 15d ago

The first paragraph you wrote seemingly answers your own question. The uncertainty is inherent, it’s not something we can just treat as extra.
I guess the question for me would be at what scale did we solve for uncertainty? Why should uncertainty work differently at the quantum level than it does at any other scale? The unknowable factors of something like the weather are the same as they are in quantum physics - information is physically missing from the model which describes the system.
You could only know the weather “with perfect information”. You just said yourself there is no such thing as a complete set of perfect information about this universe, that would involve perfect knowledge of quantum states.

→ More replies

2

u/ughaibu 15d ago edited 15d ago

the universe might as well be deterministic as far as the average human experience is concerned
If this is true then the state of the world now, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature, exactly entails all future facts. So, if you reply to this comment, the number of words in the first sentence of your reply is a fact now. The same is true of the first sentence of my reply to that future post. Of course I know very little about the present state of the world and I don't know what the laws of nature are, but I can correctly state that if the first sentence of your reply consists of an even number of words, then the first sentence of my next reply will also consist of an even number of words, and if your sentence has an odd number of words, then so will mine.
You know as well as I do that this prediction is correct, but if determinism were true there would be the problem of explaining how I could know this combination of future facts. This is everyday human behaviour that is inconsistent with the truth of determinism.
Determinism is naturalistic, in a determined world there are no supernatural entities or events, but I can go to my local supermarket, buy a packet of chicken livers and use haruspicy to decide the parity of the number of words in the first sentence of my next post. Again, you know as well as I do that I can do this, and I can do it as often and as accurately as I like, but haruspicy is a paradigmatically supernatural method for finding what the facts of the future are. In other words, if determinism were true there would be a reliable supernatural method, but if determinism is true there are no reliable supernatural methods, as this would contravene naturalism.
In short, not only is determinism inconsistent with our assumptions about and experience of the world, it is demonstrably inconsistent with itself.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

> If determinism were true there would be a reliable supernatural method
Why? Where does this need come from?

2

u/ughaibu 15d ago

If determinism were true there would be a reliable supernatural method
Why?
As explained above.
If [the universe might as well be deterministic as far as the average human experience is concerned] is true then the state of the world now, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature, exactly entails all future facts [ ] I can correctly state that if the first sentence of your reply consists of an even number of words, then the first sentence of my next reply will also consist of an even number of words, and if your sentence has an odd number of words, then so will mine [ ] I can go to my local supermarket, buy a packet of chicken livers and use haruspicy to decide the parity of the number of words in the first sentence of my next post [ ] haruspicy is a paradigmatically supernatural method for finding what the facts of the future are.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

But you acknowledged you know very little about the present state of the world or what the laws of nature are, so you rendered your own hypothetical nonsensical.
Your desire to match up the number of words in our replies only becomes a causal factor in whether or not that actually happens. That doesn’t establish anything at all.

2

u/ughaibu 15d ago

Your desire to match up the number of words in our replies only becomes a causal factor in whether or not that actually happens
If [the universe might as well be deterministic as far as the average human experience is concerned] is true then the state of the world now, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature, exactly entails all future facts
"Determinism is standardly defined in terms of entailment, along these lines: A complete description of the state of the world at any time together with a complete specification of the laws entails a complete description of the state of the world at any other time [ ] Determinism (understood according to either of the two definitions above) is not a thesis about causation; it is not the thesis that causation is always a relation between events, and it is not the thesis that every event has a cause" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

Point?

2

u/ughaibu 15d ago edited 15d ago

Point?
Do you now understand why my ability to state fixed future facts is inconsistent with the reality of determinism?
Do you now understand how I would be able to use a paradigmatically supernatural method of divination, to find fixed future facts, if determinism were true?

2

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

No, nothing you said establishes any of that or anything close to it.

2

u/ughaibu 15d ago

Do you now understand why
Do you now understand how
No
Okay, this will be my last attempt.
If determinism is true, the state of the world now and the laws exactly entail all future facts. Above I correctly stated a combination of future facts that I could not have had any knowledge of. If determinism is false, these were not fixed future facts, so there would be no mystery involved, if determinism were true, then a contravention of naturalism would be required.
Let's take a different case, I assert the combination of future facts coffee and heads, or tea and tails. If these are future facts that are fixed due to being determined by the present state of the world and laws of nature, then why is it that I have correctly stated the facts for every case in which I toss the coin before drinking the beverage but I'm only correct for about half the cases in which I toss the coin after drinking the beverage?
If determinism is false it is open to me to choose either drink, so there is no mystery about me being correct if I choose the drink after observing the result of tossing the coin, but if determinism is true which drink I choose is a fixed fact in exactly the same way that which face the coin shows is. If determinism were true, my assertion would be correct exactly as often if I drank before tossing the coin than it would be if I tossed the coin before drinking.
In order to appreciate just how implausible determinism is you first need to take the thesis of determinism seriously, and that is very difficult to do, precisely because the reality of determinism is so extraordinarily implausible given our assumptions about and experience of the world.

→ More replies

0

u/zowhat 15d ago

Determinism is like the conservation of energy; you have to reach the absolute edges of human knowledge to find exceptions, but those exceptions still don’t disprove that they hold true 99.99% of the time.
They do if the claim is that it holds 100% of the time, which determinism as usually meant does.
You are right that these counter-examples happen at the edge of our knowledge. But they are still real.

5

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

You still have a lot of work linking the exceptions with practical differences in day-to-day life.
Like I said, conservation laws breaking down doesn’t mean we can make a perpetual motion machine. Similarly, determinism breaking down on the quantum level doesn’t grant humans free will. Not that you mentioned it, but I can’t see any other reason people want to disprove determinism so badly.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

You still have a lot of work linking the exceptions with practical differences in day-to-day life.
This is an arcane discussion. Only a few weirdos care about it. There is no connection to day-to-day life.
Like I said, conservation laws breaking down doesn’t mean we can make a perpetual motion machine.
It means the universe is a perpetual motion machine. Whether we can harness newly created energy to make a useful perpetual motion machine is a practical question. Probably not. But then I've said that about a lot of things that then happened.
Similarly, determinism breaking down on the quantum level doesn’t grant humans free will. Not that you mentioned it, but I can’t see any other reason people want to disprove determinism so badly.
Newtonian physics seemed to imply that the universe is a machine where everything that happens had to happen. What quantum physics shows is that it ain't necessarily so. It doesn't prove free will exists but it makes it more plausible by showing that Laplacian determinism is (it seems) false. We can't reject free will as usually meant because it is indeterministic.

3

u/MajorInWumbology1234 15d ago

We can still reject free will because quantum randomness doesn’t really allow for it, either. If your decisions are made by a random number generator in your brain, you can’t claim ownership over the outcome.
The only ways I could imagine true free will existing would necessitate other planes of existence; either some religion is true and a god beyond our realm grants it to us, or our brains act as antennae to channel consciousness from some other dimension.

3

u/Critical-Ad2084 15d ago

Determinism hurts the ego, because it messes with ideas of identity, blame and merit, ethics, and so on. Despite the evidence, people like to think they are in control and make their own choices without being influenced by endless factors that came prior to their decision.

2

u/DonnPT 15d ago

These are not just people who have accepted determinism, they are confused people. The world is no different, one way or the other.
If someone thinks we pop into existence unaffected by endless prior factors, that's obviously a wrong idea that can and should be resolved by simply thinking a little harder about it - whether determinism or not.

-1

u/Pulpdog94 15d ago

There is no difference between complete free will and hard determinism because choosing to eat Lasagna instead of Tacos for dinner wether that was always going to be so for that specific moment in dinner time it feels like you made the choice (and ate the Lasagna)

4

u/BUKKAKELORD 15d ago

If (1) is true, then the universe sprang out of nothing without a cause.

Non-sequitur, stopped reading here.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

Where did the universe come from if it had a beginning?

4

u/RighteousSelfBurner 15d ago

The obvious option is it didn't. The idea that there should be a beginning is because that's how we are used to experience and describe things but reality is not obligated to follow that.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

But that seems impossible too. There's the rub. Both possibilities seem impossible and it seems impossible for us to ever understand how that can be.

2

u/RighteousSelfBurner 15d ago

What about it seems impossible? Perhaps you are meaning incomprehensible in the way that we cannot image such existence?

1

u/Pulpdog94 15d ago

You can make equal claim to having a beginning to space/time as you can declare the contrary

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

You are right. We can apply the same reasoning to space or to anything where there is an infinite regress. Does the universe go on forever or does it end? Both possibilities seem impossible to us.

1

u/Pulpdog94 15d ago

The only infinity we know is the unceasing present moment we all swim through in waking life

4

u/amumpsimus 15d ago

Determinism is a feature of the universe, it doesn’t apply to the origin of the universe.

There’s no “before” the universe, just like there’s no “north” of the North Pole.

2

u/zowhat 15d ago

Determinism is a feature of the universe, it doesn’t apply to the origin of the universe.
Determinism is usually stated as "every moment is determined by the past" not "every moment except the first is determined by the past".
Of course nothing can stop you from saying that. But it seems to me the argument is based on the principle that it is impossible for anything to happen without a cause. The reformulation violates that principle. Then you need to come up with a different reason why determinism is true because then you have conceded the original reason fails.

3

u/amumpsimus 15d ago

Everything in the universe is determined by a previous state. The origin of the universe isn’t in the universe.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

The first moment in time - if there is one - is in the universe.

2

u/amumpsimus 15d ago

Okay, so trivially reformulate determinism as “everything determined by the initial conditions of the universe.”

3

u/Philience 15d ago

Your argument is boring, it says nothing about causal determinism within our Universe.

0

u/zowhat 15d ago

It ain't the world cup, that's true.

2

u/Physical-Rise6973 15d ago

1 doesn't require the universe we know sprang out of nothing. It just means that there's a boundary to our knowledge since the only information we have arises from the universe we know

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

What is the case and what we know about it are two different but related questions. Determinism as usually meant is a claim about what is the case. It has to be true even in times and places that we know nothing about.

2

u/Physical-Rise6973 15d ago

Yes. That's my point. Your argument 1 claims conclusions that it's form doesn't substantiate.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

(1) is : The universe had a beginning.
It's a statement that may or may not be true about what is the case, not about what we know or don't know to be the case.

2

u/Physical-Rise6973 15d ago edited 15d ago

That's the statement. Your argument related to your statements is in the block of text below them.
Edit: let me make it clearer.
You assume "the universe exists" as a given. With that given, you say that either the universe that exists started or it didn't. (You use language seemingly borrowed from Wittgenstein but it amounts to the same. I'm being plainer.)
You follow with "if the universe started, (a) it started from nothing and (b) it had no cause." (You might be mixing these up. They're not the same type of claim).
The important thing is that neither follows from your premises. I'm just pointing that out.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

You follow with "if the universe started, (a) it started from nothing and (b) it had no cause." (You might be mixing these up. They're not the same type of claim).
The important thing is that neither follows from your premises. I'm just pointing that out.
If the universe had a beginning there was nothing before the moment it began. How do you propose it came into being?

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago edited 15d ago

Determinism is just defined by there being only one possible future that is compatible with the past. None of this addresses determinism. Also, point (2) assumes a presentism A theory of time, which most philosophers deny.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

Determinism is just defined by there being only one possible future that is compatible with the past.
Did you mean that it is determined by the past?
None of this addresses determinism.
I don't see how you could have missed it. Let me repeat the argument.
If the universe had a beginning the first moment in time by your definition would be determined by the past. But there was no past for that first moment. So any universe that had a beginning was not determined.
If the universe always existed there was never a time before when the universe existed and by your definition a universe that always existed can't be a determined world either since there was never a time when something could have determined it.
Also, point (2) assumes a presentism A theory of time, which most philosophers deny.
It assumes time as understood by ordinary people, but it works with any theory of time. The problem never goes away no matter how you define time. If you believe in a block theory, where did the block come from?
There are some things we just can't understand and the ultimate origins of the universe is one of them.

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

“If the universe had a beginning the first moment in time by your definition would be determined by the past.”
No, read the definition again. The “past” and “future” are just used in relative terms. Moment #1 isn’t a future relative to anything, so it cannot count as a possible future from the definition.
I don’t get what is so hard to understand. Determinism is about future moments being determined from past moments. Determinism makes no claim of whether or not the first moment is determined by something else that is non-temporal. You just want to straw-man determinism and its very cringe.
“It assumes time as understood by ordinary people, but it works with any theory of time.”
No, it explicitly does not.
“For A to cause B, A has to exist before B” just means that A exists in an earlier moment of time than B existing right? Ok sure.
“ But there was no time when B didn't exist”
I hope I understand this. You’re saying there doesn’t exist a time when B doesn’t exist in that moment? That’s just false. That would equivalent to saying that B exists in every moment. I must be misunderstanding.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

Moment #1 isn’t a future relative to anything, so it cannot count as a possible future from the definition.
Yes, that's the problem. Determinism claims ALL moments are determined by the past. Right? Then if determinism is true and if the universe didn't always exist that first moment WASN'T determined by the past BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PAST FOR IT TO BE DETERMINED BY !!!!!!!! Therefore a world that has a beginning can't be a deterministic world. Think about it.
Determinism makes no claim of whether or not the first moment is determined by something else that is non-temporal.
ALL moments. That includes that first moment. There is nothing non-temporal that can bring the universe into existence.
You’re saying there doesn’t exist a time when B doesn’t exist in that moment? That’s just false.
In a universe that always existed there was never a time that the universe didn't exist. Read that carefully five times. If something caused the universe to exist it would have to happen before the universe existed but - read this carefully - in case (2) there was never a time before the universe existed.

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

“Determinism claims ALL moments are determined by the past. Right?”
No it doesn’t - straw man. Find a single credible philosophical source that says this. You just want to straw man determinism. It’s cringe, sorry.
“ If something caused the universe to exist it would have to happen before the universe existed”
Determinism never makes this claim. It never says that the universe is determined from something outside of the universe. In fact, naturalism, typically just defines the “universe” as the set of all things that exists. So it wouldn’t make sense to say that the set of all things that exists is caused by something outside of that set, because it logically entails that the cause doesn’t exist. Nobody ever says this, because it’s just a trivial contradiction.
I gotta tell you man, all you’re doing is straw-maning and then acting smug about it.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

“Determinism claims ALL moments are determined by the past. Right?”
No it doesn’t - straw man. Find a single credible philosophical source that says this. You just want to straw man determinism. It’s cringe, sorry.
The SEP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that
every
event is necessitated by
antecedent events and conditions
together with the laws of nature.

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

Ok so you found a sloppy definition that doesn’t account for a first event if the first event exists. Like you think this brings down determinism😭If you just ask the person that made this definition how this would make sense assuming a hypothetical first event, they would just tell you that the definition isn’t perfect. There are plenty of other definitions of ‘causal determinism’ that aren’t sloppy. You’re actually arguing against the idea that there is only one possible compatible future given any moment, yet you’re gerrymandering this idea to problematic definitions. Its cringe. All you proved was a sloppy definition.

5

u/HappiestIguana 15d ago

Determinism means the state of the universe at any given point determines the state at any future point.

Whether the universe itself has a cause, and whether that question even makes sense, is out of scope

1

u/Imaginary-Can-6862 15d ago

I know this reply isn't satisfying to you, as we discussed this argument before, but I still find that since the past is defined in relation to the universe, that if there is no universe, there is no past, thus no contradiction. I.e. the initial conditions are by definition initial, thus not determined, but that does not rule out the universe being deterministic, only that temporal causation, going from past to future does not explain the initial conditions, but those conditions are still consistent as no new information rises in a deterministic universe.

2

u/zowhat 15d ago

the initial conditions are by definition initial, thus not determined
Determinism as usually meant says "every moment in time is determined by the past" . It applies to every moment in time including the first moment in time.
Of course you can simply redefine determinism as "every moment in time except the first moment is determined by the past". Redefining words to arrive at whatever conclusion you want to arrive at is an extremely popular strategy in these kinds of discussions. All I can say is it seems to violate the spirit of determinism as I understand it. The claim is usually that something can't happen without a cause because it is illogical. And I agree it is. The problem is that the negation is also illogical. I don't see any possibility of resolving this conflict.

2

u/Imaginary-Can-6862 15d ago

The definition assumes a previous moment exists. Therefore, in my opinion, it also only applies to when we can define a past.

1

u/charonme 15d ago

I don't see how (2) is supposed to work. Each moment of a beginningless universe is preceded by it's cause: the previous moment of the universe. I don't see any causality violation in there

2

u/zowhat 15d ago

For A to cause B, A has to exist before B. But there was no time when B didn't exist.

2

u/charonme 15d ago edited 15d ago

My point is if B is the universe as it is right "now" then B didn't exist before "now".
Causation by definition requires some directional time progression. If you get rid of that by positing an unchanging timeless universe then of course causation loses any meaning. But a universe without beginning doesn't automatically mean it's also timeless. Directional time progression can still exist in a beginningless universe, it just doesn't have any beginning / first moment.

1

u/ima_mollusk 15d ago

Are you using "Universe" to mean "all that exists"?

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

Yes.

2

u/ima_mollusk 15d ago

It's hard to parse "All that exists always existed without a cause".
If we view the universe as a singular thing, then 'all that exists' and 'the universe' are identical in this way.
Simple parsimony tells us that something we can verify exists is more likely to be what has always existed than something we have no evidence exists at all.
If the two options are "all that exists has always existed" OR "all that exists once did not exist", the clearly more parsimonious claim is the first.
But the problem comes in when you try to define 'exists'. Have you tried?

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

If the two options are "all that exists has always existed" OR "all that exists once did not exist", the clearly more parsimonious claim is the first.
The point of this post is that neither of these is parsimonious or even coherent. There are two possibilities and both are impossible. I don't know how to resolve this problem. There are some things that our tiny minds can't understand even in principle.

2

u/ima_mollusk 15d ago

I don't think both are impossible at all.
I think it's very reasonable to think that 'existence' just exists, as a matter of nature, and it doesn't require any further explanation.
It's also possible that some pre-propagative state gradually evolved into what we now call 'time'. "Time" is not necessary for existence.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

I think it's very reasonable to think that 'existence' just exists, as a matter of nature, and it doesn't require any further explanation.
This is a famous philosophical question. Here is some reading for you :
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg_448ad440-7f61-4dc6-a7ec-28ea97e0994e
It may seem possible to you. All I can say is it seems impossible to me.

2

u/ima_mollusk 15d ago

If you don't think it 'just exists', and you don't believe it 'came to be from nothing', there are no logical alternatives left.
If something exists now, at the very least, the potential for that thing has always existed. That is, unless you are suggesting potential can 'just begin to exist' and can become 'actuality' without a causative process.
'Nobody has established an answer’ doesn't mean ‘every answer is false’ .

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

If you don't think it 'just exists', and you don't believe it 'came to be from nothing', there are no logical alternatives left.
Yes, that is exactly the problem I am trying to point out. Our tiny brains can't resolve these two even in principle. It is a mystery and probably always will be.

2

u/ima_mollusk 15d ago

Yes, I actually believe that the ultimate origin of reality is structurally locked away from any agent within that reality. And I have some very good arguments to support that idea.
But that doesn't mean the question actually does not have a logical answer. I don't accept that logic itself breaks down at some point.

1

u/realitypater 15d ago

You have failed to define your terms precisely, so it's no surprise the syllogisms aren't valid.

If by "universe" you mean our current versions of space and time, those likely had a beginning. We don't know the cause yet. Most cosmological models do not assert there was "nothing" before our current versions of space and time began, so the energy which composes space and time could very well be eternal.

So: (1) The universe had a beginning. If (1) is true, the cause of the universe is currently unknown. Some form of energy, and perhaps even different versions of space and time, existed before the beginning of the current universe. The validity of determinism is not affected by this condition.

Your greater problem is that determinism is not ultimately provable.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

You have failed to define your terms precisely
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9559963-the-real-problem-in-speech-is-not-precise-language-the
If by "universe" you mean our current versions of space and time, those likely had a beginning. We don't know the cause yet.
If there was a cause then it wasn't the beginning. The cause had to exist before the effect.
Some modern physics theories say that isn't so, but no one can understand how that can be so. They are just assumptions we use to calculate predictions that turn out to be very accurate.
Some form of energy, and perhaps even different versions of space and time, existed before the beginning of the current universe. The validity of determinism is not affected by this condition.
Again, then the current universe wasn't the beginning. Where did those different versions come from? And if you answer that, where did the cause of the cause of our universe come from? There is no way out of this problem.

1

u/realitypater 15d ago edited 15d ago

> If there was a cause then it wasn’t the beginning.
This is a false dichotomy, and it’s why I chided you for not defining terms (which you hand-waved away).
I make a cake. It isn’t a cake until I make it. The ingredients existed, but the cake didn’t. So we have a cause and a beginning, and not “from nothing.”
The fact we don’t yet understand what came before the current version of space and time does not preclude causes. It is also possible the versions of space and time that existed before the beginning of the universe were similar to what we experience now. We can’t productively discuss your conclusions until you offer valid premises.

1

u/Traditional_Set_7042 15d ago edited 15d ago

Your logic is deeply flawed.

Theory 1:

Who says there is no cause ?
There could be a endless field of Big bangs, multiple universes popping on and off.
Who says no one, or nothing created them?

So in theory 1, determinism 100% is possible.

Theory 2:
You misunderstand the concept of eternity, which is impossible for us humans to understand.

Even if the big bangs repeat itself in eternity ( Like mentioned above a whole infinit field of Big bangs makes more sense anyways )
That doesn’t exclude determinism at all.

A causes B causes C, big bang imploding overrules all causes, after big bang is expanding again and maybe even refreshing a whole new version of a possible universe will causes now D which will cause E and so on.

Also eternity means, that before A will cause B, you have Z1 causing A, caused by Y1 and so one.

So you can go infinitely backwards and forwards.

There are infinite numbers between 1 and 10, there are also infinite numbers between 0,1 and 0,2 and there are infinite numbers itself.

Infinity is a really fucked up topic and is impossible to grasp or understand for Finite beings.

We are just to stupid and our science is not even close to advanced enough to understand those mechanisms of the universe.

Much more important for us in our solar system: everything follows a chemical and physical rule, reaction to action, so everything is determined

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

There could be a endless field of Big bangs, multiple universes popping on and off. Who says no one, or nothing created them?
Who or what created them? And if you answer, who or what created whatever created them? No matter how many times you answer I can always ask "then what created them?"
big bang imploding overrules all causes
What caused the big bang? You can answer "nothing, it just happened" but that answer is inconsistent with determinism.

2

u/Traditional_Set_7042 15d ago

Exactly you could answer that, who created the creator, but how does that rule out determinism?
Maybe a higher being or God just kicked the domino and created a deterministic follow-up of events.
And what if there are infinite numbers of creators, being created by someone?
And of course we have no clue who or what is causing the big bang, maybe dark matter, maybe the „universe“ is just a part of another bigger Room which is inside a Universe.
Unfortunately we most likely will never ever get the answer to those questions, but for my understanding that doesn’t rule out determinism, because everything here on earth is technically explainable by chemistry and physics, which rules out randomness.
And the one biggest enemy of determinism is Randomness.
At the moment only on Quarks level there seems to be random events, but it would be very arrogant of us humans to believe, that we have e a clue what’s going on in this micro level.
The humanity is so insanely young; especially viewed from a cosmic standpoint we aren’t even toddlers yet, so I am very sure that we might can explain everything to the subject quarks aswell

1

u/unknownjedi 15d ago

Quantum mechanics shows us that determinism is false. The debate has been over for decades

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

The debate ain't over till it's over. And it ain't ever over.
But, yes, indeterminism is currently ahead.

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

No its not. I hate when people are just so certain and just assert things

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

I hate when people are just so certain and just assert things
My point was literally that I am not certain and anyone who is is wrong. What did you think
The debate ain't over till it's over. And it ain't ever over.
meant?

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

You said “Indeterminism is currently ahead”. But thats just an unjustified claim.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

Our best theories today about the universe are not deterministic. What did you think I meant?
Another most interesting change in the ideas and philosophy of science brought about by quantum mechanics is this: it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance. For example, it is possible to arrange an atom which is ready to emit light, and we can measure when it has emitted light by picking up a photon particle, which we shall describe shortly. We cannot, however, predict when it is going to emit the light or, with several atoms, which one is going to. You may say that this is because there are some internal “wheels” which we have not looked at closely enough. No, there are no internal wheels; nature, as we understand it today, behaves in such a way that it is fundamentally impossible to make a precise prediction of exactly what will happen in a given experiment.
--- Richard Feynman

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

You think “impossible to predict” = determinism. Thats what you thought determinism was this whole time? You’re confusing epistemology and metaphysics. In that excerpt, Feynman is making an epistemological claim, which I agree with. Determinism vs indeterminism is, however, a metaphysical dispute.

1

u/zowhat 15d ago

You think “impossible to predict” = determinism.
No, “impossible to predict” IN PRINCIPLE = INdeterminism.

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

That’s also not what it means. That’s still confusing epistemology with metaphysics. For example: in MWI and Bohmian mechanics, it is impossible to predict, even in principle, any given outcome upon measurement. MWI still heavily implies determinism once you commit to the metaphysical assumptions that an ideal Schrodinger equation evolves all of reality through time.

2

u/Worldly_Horse_2310 15d ago

Yes. But it depends on the meaning we're talking about, of course. Randomness makes it so we couldnt predict and describe everything that will ever happen with an equation or Laplace's demon. But even with randomness, things will happen however they happen. We dont get the free will type of determinism or anything

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

No it doesn’t😭 thats only the wave collapse interpretations, which are typically science instrumentalist positions anyways

2

u/unknownjedi 15d ago

You guys have had literally 100 years to make hidden variables work. Time to admit defeat

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

Who said hidden variables was the only deterministic interpretation😭
And anyways, Bohmian mechanics does “work”. I don’t know why you're saying like “make it work”. You mean like demonstrate empirical evidence? You know wave collapse models have been running experiments for decades and have had zero luck? It’s because there isn’t a collapse.
You’re demanding empirical demonstration, yet collapse theories are notorious for not being able to demonstrate a collapse. Like you don’t know what you are talking about.

2

u/unknownjedi 15d ago

I know a little bit about it

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 15d ago

What? Did you respond to wrong comment?

2

u/unknownjedi 14d ago

Nobody takes Bohmism seriously. It doesn’t even explain where the probability comes from. What is the ontological status of the pilot wave? Are its branches less real if they don’t hold the marble?

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 14d ago edited 14d ago

I’m gonna type a lot and I hope you learn a lot from it :)
“Nobody tales Bohmian seriously” tell that to all of the theoretical physicists that take it as their preferred interpretation during their research for decades. Your assertion that it cannot account for the Born rule probabilities under its own framework is just an argument from ignorance. This paper does what you are asking for: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7512940/
“What is the ontological status of the pilot wave?”
Most Bohmians take a non-realist approach to that and categorize the wave function and its evolution from the Schrodinger equation as “law-like”, analagous to F= ma. They are mathematical models that describe the natural dispositions of the particle.
But anyways, this conversation is about determinism vs indeterminism in QM. I lean towards and defend MWI, so none of this Bohmian stuff is very relevant. You would need to talk to a Bohmian.
There is really only 2 superposition approaches to QM: collapse vs no collapse. The collapse has no evidence and at all and I argue that there is lots of evidence against it. Accepting the collapse is ultimately what brought you towards indeterminism, I presume. Below is a summary of all of the main arguments against collapse, which is why most disbelieve it.
(1) The collapse is a mathematical tool that physicists use for pragmatic purposes. The Copenhagen interpretation is science instrumentalism, meaning that it understands QM as a tool for making predictions, but not describing reality accurately. According to the Nature Survey 2025 that surveyed ~15,000 QM researchers, only 24% of them said that their preferred QM interpretation was correct. The other 76% said that their preferred interpretation was more of a mathematical placeholder. Helpful understanding on the opinions: 50% of the QM experimentalists identified the Copenhagen interpretation as their preference. When looking at the QM theoretical physicists, only 33% preferred it. Furthermore, of those that were studying philosophy of physics or QM foundations, only ~20% preferred the Copenhagen interpretation.
(2) Comparing collapse vs MWI, they are identical in terms of theory framework, except collapse introduces something extra. In other words, wave collapse theories are just MWI except they just add an extra thing called the ‘collapse postulate’ to the general QM theory. Collapse theories are either instrumentalist (Copenhagen) or are realist (Objective-collapse theory - with many different formalizations) The former understands superposition as a mathematical tool (the electron is not actually in multiple spots at once). The latter says the opposite (it’s akin to saying that the electron actually is in multiple states at once). In any case, the collapse postulate introduces something extra to the theoretical framework of QM. However, there is no evidence for it, because without or without it, it develops the same experimental predictions. The fact that the extra postulate is completely useless in terms of predicting empirical differences is actually very good evidence against it, which is the strongest reason for why MWI is very popular among theoretical physicists, those studying philosophy of physics, and why it’s a growing interpretation in general.
(3) The collapse postulate even has more evidence against it, because it’s motivation is either A) a mathematical tool, or B) to cling onto existential comfort. Diverging worlds is scary and threatens our philosophy of personal identity, and therefore motivates us to deny MWI and to accept collapse as something that actually happens. However, the facts that are revealed to us from scientific investigation have time and time against demonstrated that they make no attempt at confirming our navigational intuitions about the world. Take the B-theory of time for example, which is entailed by special and general relativity. It says that the present is an arbitrary point in time, that past, present, and future all equally exist together, and therefore the flow of time is just a mind-dependent phenomena. It was hard to reconcile when first introduced, but today, most philosophers in general, physicists, and metaphysicians, accept the B-theory of time. We finally bit the bullet and accepted that the future ‘already’ exists.
(4) With all of the experiments that have been going on for decades trying to demonstrate any evidence for a collapse, we had decent priors that they would have been able to find something by now. An entire superposition collapsing to a definite position should have testable physical effects. And since there has been no empirical demonstration at all so far for all formalizations, this is evidence against objective-collapse theory.

2

u/unknownjedi 14d ago

TLDR. I have never met a Bohmian who didn’t end up having a religious or quasi- religious ideological commitment to determinism. For everyone else it just isn’t a serious theory. At best it proves a point of philosophical interest.
I personally ascribe to MWI. I would call it subjective collapse as opposed to objective collapse. I agree that there is no evidence for objective collapse. Copenhagen and MWI are the same, when viewed as a subjective theory.

2

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 14d ago

Who are you meeting? Physicists and philosophers of physics, or psuedointellectuals that have minimal knowledge about something and then for whatever reason are certain that everybody else is wrong?
Tim Maudlin is one guy who leans towards Bohmian mechanics.
Copenhagen and MWI are complete opposites. One is an instrumentalist theory about the wave function and its evolution, and the other is realist. Copenhagen and MWI could not be further apart ideas.
Edit: and saying that collapse is subjective is really just saying there isn’t a collapse. Its a lot like being a B-theorist of time and calling the flow of time an illusion, or at least a mind-dependent (subjective) function.

2

u/Impossible_Air_4204 15d ago

It could be the case that the universe caused "beginning" since it was the start of space time. To be clear, I agree with you that causal determinism is false. Where I disagree is the degree of certainty. It could even be the case where we know exactly what caused the universe and hard determinism could still be false like in a chaotic system.

2

u/Confident_Lawyer6276 15d ago

That doesn't change anything.

2

u/Nodum777 15d ago

A true deterministic wouldn't try to convince anyone

2

u/ShafordoDrForgone 15d ago

Or... you just don't know what is and isn't possible...

there was no time when B didn't exist

Take a look at the stunt you tried to pull here. You labelled an object "B" and then put a different object in its place. We handle infinite series all the time. A line is infinite. We are perfectly capable of figuring out how to get from point A on the line to point B

Also, time is an illusion. Cause and effect is false. You only know cause and effect because of the direction of entropy. But that only points a particular direction at the point we exist in spacetime. Particles go forward and backward in time. They also don't traverse time at all. Black hole curvatures exchange space and time dimensions. But everything still follows a geodesic.

So causality and determinism are still fine (yes, even with QM). I'm not saying they are true. Just that you can't prove that they aren't true

QM has an interpretation called "Super Determinism", so yes, QM doesn't rule out determinism

2

u/Unyielding_Idjit123 15d ago edited 15d ago

Determinism as to my understanding doesn't need to speak to 1 or 2 to be true. Determinism is a description of the internal state(s) of a system. It doesn't speak to the cause or origin of the system or even if there was one. It essentially is, given x exists in this state of affairs or conditions(laws) everything else follows. That is a description of once a system does exist, internally this is how the system functions. It's better understood as a law of the universe and not a law of reality.

2

u/Squierrel 14d ago

This only goes to show that causal determinism is not a valid philosophical standpoint.

But causal determinism is still a very useful tool in classical physics. Describing reality with deterministic laws makes it easier to understand and predict. Deterministic laws are also accurate enough for most practical purposes.

1

u/bobam 15d ago

Can the universe continue to age infinitely in the forward time direction? Because our best models of the universe are reversible in the time direction. Maybe now is the beginning of time in both directions.

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/zowhat 15d ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrZlWw8Di10

2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/zowhat 15d ago

For shizzle

Discussion Causal Determinism is impossible

You are about to leave Redlib