Do you believe in determinism? if so why?

15 comments

1. I’m guessing you are predetermined to fail on this one.

   Prove me wrong.

2. I can’t begin to consider whether I do believe in it or not, because it’s that unimportant. To even begin to matter, this concept requires some point of reference, such as God or alternate realities. Unless I have that, I don’t care.

   Pragmatist speaking.

3. I think that, even if some randomness might exist at a very basic atomic level, that determinism is a necessity for personal identification and justice.

   If actions are not guaranteed to follow from clear prior states then personal accountability (for both good and ill acts) is put in a precarious position.

   So, while there currently appears to be evidence at the atomic level against determinism I’m hoping that it’s just our imperfect understanding and that forces too subtle for us to currently comprehend are the source… but, even if there is atomic randomness as long as the macro level is pretty reliably predictable I’m content with our accountability.

   Free Will being a sourceless producer of arbitrary actions, to me at least, presents a world where we all have far less agency.

4. I do, in the sense that all of our actions are the result of our genetics and the external stimuli we’ve experienced from the moment we were conceived. I haven’t heard any good argument to the contrary. We’re just biological computers, no more in control of our actions than a computer program can control its actions when given specific input. By this logical reasoning, free will likely does not exist, which is also why I’m not religious, as most religions fall apart if there is no free will (how can we be judged by our actions if they are predetermined). It’s a very interesting topic actually, I love talking about it, even though most people find it uncomfortable and choose to reject the idea.

5. Spin & direction.

6. The recent work being done in metaphysics suggests that time is a spatial position that can be accessed at a higher dimension

   So, if that supposition is indeed accurate, then it lends credence to determinism. I think ultimately that doesn’t matter for our intents and purposes for now and in the short term because our prediction methods are myopic and prone to biases.

   The concept of free will is more relevant to us and it’s how we operate in our day-to-day. The mental gymnastics to justify determinism is a Sisyphean effort because we simply didn’t evolve to see the world through those higher dimensions.

7. No. Because it’s an absurd concept that assumes the mind is capable of understanding factors that the people making such claims don’t even know exist. Which even one unknown variable changes the end point killing the concept; there’s always a hell of alot more than one unknown. Determinism is the manifestation of megalomaniacal narcissists on an ego trip.

   Read The Poverty of Historicism by Karl Popper. He shreds both Communist and Fascist determinism. How these have survived Popper is a mystery to me, other than the obvious, universities have shifted from teaching philosophy to sophistry.

8. Well as it stands, determinism is the default state of physics. You’d need an extra effect or force to disrupt that. We’ve found evidence for quantum randomness, but no evidence for an anti-deterministic force on a macro level. There also isn’t any evidence that the quantum randomness affects things on a macro level, or serves as anything other than balancing the math. If you hit a cue ball in the exact same way a million time, a billion times, a septillion times, it’s going to do the same thing. That is determinism, and there is no evidence (yet) to the contrary. There is no known macro force who’s output is independent of its input. In fact, discovering such a force would require a ground-up rewrite of physics entirely. It would change everything we knew about the universe, and would present a paradigm shift equal to or greater than Einstein theory of relativity. If it was existed, or was discovered, you wouldn’t be “on the fence”. You’d know about it.

9. maybe someone who has a lot of interest in philosophy would agree with the doctrine mentioned. My background is a mental health and something that a lot of us in that field truly believe in is something called “nature versus nurture”, (or genetics vs environment)

   One can argue that the entire field of psychology is looking at the *individual person* and trying to get them to gain insight on who they are, who they were, and who they will be based on a very specific ratio of environment and genetics. The specific ratio is contingent on many variables and it’s not some kind of number that is presented in counseling or anything like that.

   because I don’t want 1 billion notifications, I don’t wanna go into detail but if you’re interested in some thing like this or even anyone is interested from a perspective in psychology and not philosophy, BF Skinner has a few papers in book written on it.

   The dude is a bit controversial but pretty popular so his stuff is accessible.

   i’m sorry I could not be more direct. sometimes I struggle to understand how to articulate my ideas because I do have foundational knowledge but I don’t know what information is relevant and what is deemed unnecessary as this platform is a bit limiting

10. Yes, but not to the extent that there is no free will. To take religion out of the equation, I kind of define this topic by math. Basically we could quantify the events in our life. There are certain formulas in place and that’s what determinism is, but the variables can always be changed and that’s what free will is. After a formula is executed, the results could be really close to each other or you might even get the same answer as with the original variables, but the formula can never be changed. I believe statistics and probabilities are very important thing to consider when making decisions. Basically you have to consider how likely the outcome that you are seeking will occur, because the universe has only so much room for that outcome. The best thing we can do is to learn the formula, but then we are left with having to guess the best variables. In this context, believing in complete determinism without free will is basically arguing that no matter how much you change the variables, you will always get the same answer, but the fact that we rely on probabilities so much is basically my counterargument to that. If determinism would be 100% real, then there would be smart enough people to predetermine the rest of world events and there would be no stats (I think there is a movie like that?). Eventually, everything has to also be zeroed out, so those are the times when it feels like you took a different path, but was still left with the same outcome. There are also events that are complete luck, but those are basically outliers in the statistics.

    Tldr: I believe the formulas in our lives that can’t be changed is what determinism is, but there is still free will that can change the variables and decide the final outcomes based on probabilities.

11. i think its really against the human spirit. cause an effect happens because thats real. like if i punch you in the face its possible to hurt you but every thing i did that day didnt push me to punch you in the face or anything you did that day didnt push you to get punched in the face.

12. I believe in determinism.

    But we still are able to make choices and decisions that affect ourselves, those around us, and the world we live in.

    We are still responsible for the choices we make, albeit in a very different sense than some past philosophers thought, or the way some religious people believe.

    It’s also possible to believe in determinism without falling for fatalism. Your choices and actions still matter and are still important.

    Accepting determinism also makes me more compassionate, patient, and understanding.

    I believe that seeing the world for what it is is always better than not.

13. No. This is fucking stupid. You always have a choice. Put down the Himalayan crystals and come join the rest of us in reality.

14. Yes. It just makes the most sense to me. The world works on physics, which is entirely deterministic. And when we make choices we take everything we perceive and make the best choice in the moment. I have no reason to believe that I would come to a different conclusion if you face me with the exact same scenario again. Clone me a million times in a specific situation and I firmly believe all million version of me will do the same thing.

15. If you had a sufficiently advanced enough computer you could predict just about everything given enough data to work from. So yes, things will happen the way they are going to. Nothing you do can change that. However you have choice in the moment, and those choices are impacted by the sum of your experience so far in this reality we are going through.

    Its a bit of a paradox.

    If someone kills someone and tries to say it was determined, that may be true, but they are still a cruel and broken person. Something made them that way. Some sum of their experiences turned them into an evil person.

    Making the choice to not do wrong is also a choice and at the same time has been determined by simply happening.

    Which choices are you determined to make?