Do we live in a deterministic universe?

[MadArchitect]

I'm presently reading Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves", which deals at length with issues of determinancy and free will. So I thought I'd ask you guys your opinions.

Below are three explanations of determinism. Let me know which, if either, corresponds to your beliefs about the universe. If neither, try to explain what you do believe, and why.

An intellect which knew at any given moment all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

The second is Dennett's adaptation of a statement made by Pater van Inwagen:

Determinism is the thesis that "there is at any instant only one physically possible future.

The third is from Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow:

But you had taken on a greater, and more harmful, illusion. The illusion of control. That A could do B. But that was false. Completely. No one can do[/]. Things only happen.

[venusunderfire]

Let me know which, if either, corresponds to your beliefs about the universe. If neither, try to explain what you do believe, and why.

The third is from Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow:

But you had taken on a greater, and more harmful, illusion. The illusion of control. That A could do B. But that was false. Completely. No one can do. Things only happen.

That quote comes very close to describing what I believe about the deterministic universe I live in. Things happen, it's natural and constant. The events of the past dictate, ultimately, what is possible and what will unfold here and later.

The "illusion" of control is that we often feel like we are making choices, that we have free will. But I suspect, instead, that we are only a clever, meaty, walking coalition of circumstances (interior and exterior). If human agency is real, it is vastly underused or misunderstood.

-- venus.

[MadArchitect]

Thanks for answering, Venus. I was beginning to think that this thread was going to get passed over altogether.

So would you take that description a step further and say that we're not agents at all, in the sense that an agent is a thing that controls some circumstance, whereas we're completely at the mercy of forces outside ourselves? Do we have even a modicum of freedom? Or is everything about ourselves determined by the physical world?

[riverc0il]

Meh, I don't like any of those quotes. Determinism is essentially cause and effect. A causes B which causes C etc. and suggests that once the ball is rolling there is only one possible outcome from all situations. I boil it down to things are going to happen the way they are going to happen. Not supposed to happen such as that if an ultimate agent knew every detail such an agent could predict the future. I see determinism from the present looking towards the past not the other way around. It is like seeing a math problem with all the signs but without the numbers until something happens and immediately after the answer appears the numbers in the equation appear as well. Quantum Theory in Physics creates some problems for Determinism on the micro level, but on the macro level, it is hard to argue against it on the theoretical level.

Regarding the implications to free will, The Illusion of Conscious Will by Wegner is the best book I have read on the subject from which I will quote my favorite passage:

On the surface, this idea seems not to offer much in the way of a solution to the classic dichotomy between free will and determinism. How does explaining the feeling of will in terms of deterministic principles help us to decide which one is true? Most philosophers and people on the street see this as a conflict between two big ideas, and they call for a decision on which one is the winner. As it turns out, however, a decision is not really called for. The usual choice we are offered between these extremes is a false dichotomy. It is like asking, Shall we dance, or shall we move about the room in time to the music? The dichotomy melts when we explain one pole of the dimension in terms of the other.

Any time the nature of a philosophical question is called out, I am listening and I appreciate the example Wegner uses to suggest that the question of free will as it relates to determinism is a false dichotomy as he puts it.

[George Ricker]

There's an essay on my website that sums up my approach to this issue. It's called "Chance, Karma and the roll of the dice" and is one I've included in the new book.

Essentially, it states "stuff happens." Sometimes we can exert a bit of control over the stuff that happens, but, as often as not, the idea that we have control over much of anything is an illusion.

George

[MadArchitect]

Any time the nature of a philosophical question is called out, I am listening and I appreciate the example Wegner uses to suggest that the question of free will as it relates to determinism is a false dichotomy as he puts it.

Dennett talks about determinism and free will as a false dichotomy as well, but so far I'm not convinced by his explanation. It looks to me as though he resolves the dilemma mostly by changing the terminology to suit his real interest, which is explaining biological phenomenon by reference to Darwinian evolution. Maybe I'll look into Wegner next, although, if you'd like to present a summary of his thesis, I'd be eager to read it.

[riverc0il]

Wegner cites Dennett often and I have been meaning to pick up Dennett's title on the subject as well. Garicker also cites the word "illusion" in his response below as well which is interesting. Wegner is a Psychologist approaching the problem from the perspective of a researching specifically looking at "conscious will" as opposed to "free will." So much of the book details the discrepancy between how humans consciously feel we are making a decision or the process of doing something consciously and the disconnect from a physio-psychological perspective (I.E. even though we consciously think we are making a decision, the disconnect is that research proves in many cases that the decision was made before we consciously experienced it). Here are my thoughts immediately following my reading of Wegner:
http://www.thesnowway.com/steve/?p=20

Most of Wegner's book is research based and he only draws upon philosophical implications towards the end of the book in the final chapter. You will find research that could be utilized to benefit the deterministic argument that there is no "free will." Personally, I appreciate the distinction between free versus conscious will and I think Wegner makes a convincing argument about a false dichotomy that the essential basis of the question only having two choices is not sound.

[Chris OConnor]

I've enjoyed reading the opinions of each person in this thread, from Mad to Venus to George, but the persons opinion that most closely parallels my own belongs to Rivercoil. I completely concur with everything he is saying with regards to this topic. I'll have to read his essay. And George's too.

Rivercoil makes the point that random quantum events seem to throw a monkey wrench into the idea that this universe is deterministic, but if we differentiate between the micro and macro the theory holds water. Aren't there other laws of physics that break down at the extremes of the minuscule or astronomically large?

What always worries me, in discussions like this, is that we're discussing the validity of the principle of "cause and effect," more or less. Not that any of our members would do it, but I have seen these discussions spiral into the argument that none of us really has complete control of our own lives and destinies. And while this statement is made true, for all practical purposes, or at the macro level, we do indeed have quite a bit of control over our lives and the decisions we make.

[Chris OConnor]

Rivercoil, I enjoyed the book review on your Blog. why not take advantage of the signature feature and create a signature that is attached to the bottom of all your posts here on BookTalk? You can include your Blog title and a link.

[George Ricker]

Chris: What always worries me, in discussions like this, is that we're discussing the validity of the principle of "cause and effect," more or less. Not that any of our members would do it, but I have seen these discussions spiral into the argument that none of us really has complete control of our own lives and destinies. And while this statement is made true, for all practical purposes, or at the macro level, we do indeed have quite a bit of control over our lives and the decisions we make.

But there is a difference between saying we have complete control over our lives and saying we have no control over our lives.

It really doesn't have to be one way or the other. Each of us exerts a certain amount of control in our lives. Each of us also feels the effects of events that are totally outside our control but have a great impact on our lives nonetheless.

There's a somewhat whimsical example I have used in the past. Think of the man or woman who suddenly decides to eat all the right things, exercise, get plenty of rest, and spend his or her days in pursuits that are productive and rewarding but then walks out the door one day and is run down by a fellow who lost control of his car while juggling a cell phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the other.

The random factor in existence applies to individual lives as well as to cosmic events. That doesn't mean we should live our lives in despair because we have no control over anything. It does mean we need to understand that our idea of being in complete control is an illusion.

George